Search This Blog

Thursday, January 16, 2020



NEWS HIGHLIGHTS FROM JANUARY 12 TO 15, 2020

NEWS AND VIEWS


DONNA BRAZILE’S GOTTA SAY WHAT SHE’S GOTTA SAY, ESPECIALLY AFTER SHE STOOD UP FOR BERNIE IN THE MATTER OF CLINTON’S EGREGIOUSLY UNFAIR 2016 CAMPAIGN. IT’S REALLY INTERESTING. TO READ THE STORY, GO TO: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774 .

WHAT SHE SAYS ABOUT THIS POLL OR THAT POLL OR ANOTHER ONE IS TRUE, THOUGH. A POLL IS A SNAPSHOT OF A MOMENT IN TIME IN A SEA OF EVENTS AND PEOPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED IN AN HONEST MANNER. IT’S ALL GOING TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR AFTER THE PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES. THANK HEAVEN THE TIME FOR THAT IS LOOMING AHEAD NOW. THIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN GRUELING, AND I’M READY TO SEE IT END.

Donna Brazile: Bernie Sanders Is The Democratic Frontrunner "At This Hour"
Posted By Tim Hains
On Date January 12, 2020

Former DNC chair Donna Brazile said this week on the "FOX News Sunday" roundtable that

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: A new "Des Moines Register" poll is out this weekend that shows Bernie Sanders back in the lead at 20%, that is up five points from November with Warren and Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden all closely bunched as you can see, with Pete Buttigieg who was the leader in the previous November poll, down nine points.

Donna, given his lead and that poll, given how well he is doing in New Hampshire and the fact he is the strong leader in fundraising, is Bernie Sanders now the front runner in the democratic race?

DONNA BRAZILE: Two weeks ago, someone said: "Is Mayor Pete the front runner?" Four weeks ago--

Chris: I understand that but we have to cover the news.

DONNA BRAZILE: And you know what, he is the front runner, he is the front runner at this hour. I suspect over the next couple of days, especially as we prepare for the next debate, he is going to come under a lot of scrutiny, maybe one of the second-tier candidates will take aim, a shot at him, not literally but in terms of politically.

At the end of the day, we are nowhere close to deciding who the nominee is. I see pluses and minuses in the polls for Bernie but I also see Joe Biden is still the front runner overall in the race.



HOLLYWOOD PITCHES IN FOR BERNIE AGAIN. SOME PEOPLE KNOCK THAT, AS THOUGH ACTORS SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT POLITICS. HOW RIDICULOUS.

Back to Videos
Danny DeVito Endorses Bernie Sanders: "He Is The Man To Beat Trump"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date January 13, 2020

Actor Danny DeVito endorses Bernie Sanders for president in a video released by the campaign:

DANNY DEVITO: It means the world to me to be on Bernie’s side because I know that’s the right side of history. He’s the guy to do it. He is the man to beat Trump. He is the man to change our whole system...

"The skies are becoming clear. And when the skies clear up, what’s standing there is the person who is, the one who’s been there forever saying the same thing, fighting for the people.



“I DID MAKE A BAD JUDGMENT, TRUSTING THE PRESIDENT ....” SAID BIDEN. THEN, TO NPR, HE SAID THAT HE CAME OUT AGAINST THE WAR IMMEDIATELY, A STATEMENT THAT HIS CAMPAIGN HAS SINCE RECANTED. JOHN KERRY’S COMMENT ON WHY BIDEN VOTED FOR THE WAR SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING OF A MISREADING, AND THEN HOW HE (AND UNNAMED OTHERS) WERE MORE OR LESS TRAPPED BY THE “EITHER/OR” NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT TENDS TO MAKE HIM SOUND WEAKER RATHER THAN STRONGER. I IMAGINE THEY ALL JUST GAVE IN TO PRESSURE, “RALLY ROUND THE FLAG” AND ALL THAT. IT DOES DISCOURAGE ME THAT ONLY OUR SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS HAD THE FORTITUDE AND THE FORESIGHT TO VOTE AN UNQUALIFIED “NO.”

Sanders campaign assails Biden over Iraq war vote
“It is appalling that after 18 years Joe Biden still refuses to admit he was dead wrong on the Iraq War,” a senior Sanders campaign aide said.
By EVAN SEMONES
01/11/2020 11:27 PM EST
Updated: 01/12/2020 12:14 PM EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- From left, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Bernie Sanders' campaign on Saturday unleashed a full-throated attack on Joe Biden over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, accusing the former vice president of “rewriting history” over his vote for the war.

The campaigns began trading barbs on Friday after former Secretary of State John Kerry, a surrogate for Biden, pushed back during an Iowa stop against Sanders, who has frequently attacked Biden's foreign policy record, saying Biden wasn’t “in favor” of going to war.

“I think he knows full well, as a lot of other people do, that there was a difference in people who felt they needed to give a president the leverage to be able to get Saddam Hussein back to the table, without having to go to war, and that that vote was unfortunately structured in a way that it was sort of either-or,” Kerry said, according to an NBC report.

Sanders’ speechwriter, David Sirota, lambasted Biden in a series of tweets, telling supporters that he “isn’t getting away with rewriting history about how he helped lead America into the Iraq War.”

Sanders’ senior campaign adviser Jeff Weaver later released a statement saying Biden “made explicitly clear that he was voting for war.”

“It is appalling that after 18 years Joe Biden still refuses to admit he was dead wrong on the Iraq War, the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history,” Weaver said.

Biden has struggled to explain his vote for the Iraq war, which has become a key issue in the Democratic primary heightened by recent conflict in the Gulf.

“I did make a bad judgment, trusting the president saying he was only doing this to get inspectors in and get the U.N. to agree to put inspectors in,” Biden said during the second Democratic debate in July.

In September, Biden stated he was opposed to Bush’s invasion from the get-go. “He got them in, and before we know it, we had a ‘shock and awe.’ Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war,” Biden said in an NPR interview, though his campaign later acknowledged he misspoke.

Biden and his surrogates have also contended that it was never Biden‘s intention to grant permission for the United States to conduct a war indefinitely.

The Iraq war vote has come to the forefront of the 2020 election as relations with Iraq have deteriorated in recent weeks following the U.S. killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike near Baghdad.

Both Biden and Sanders have repeatedly criticized the Trump administration's move to kill Soleimani.

Iraq’s parliament responded to Soleimani's killing by voting to demand all U.S. forces leave the country, a move Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the U.S. is unwilling to adhere to.

MOST READ
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite
Trudeau vows justice, compensation after Iran admits role in downed plane
Sanders campaign assails Biden over Iraq war vote
The Middle Eastern Problem Soleimani Figured Out
Pelosi defends impeachment delay, warns of ’cover-up’ by Senate

FILED UNDER: IRAQ, IRAN, JOE BIDEN, JOE BIDEN 2020, BERNIE SANDERS, BERNIE SANDERS 2020



I HAVE ONLY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WHY HASN’T THE HOUSE ALREADY OFFICIALLY SUBPOENAED BOLTON AND ALL OTHER IMPORTANT WITNESSES BEFORE THEY FINISHED THEIR PART OF THE JOB, AND HOW CAN TRUMP USE “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE” TO COMMAND WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIM, SINCE I HEARD ONE OF THE MANY LAWYERS IN THIS CASE SAY THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN ONLY BE ASSERTED FOR ONE’S OWN TESTIMONY. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS A LAW OR A TRADITION, HOWEVER. MAYBE IN THE SENATE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THAT MITCH MCCONNELL SAYS THEY’LL DO.

Pelosi warns McConnell, Senate Republicans they will 'pay a price' if they engage in 'cover-up'
William Cummings
USA TODAY
PUBLISHED 12:26 PM, JANUARY 12, 2020; UPDATED 2:08 PM, JANUARY 12, 2020

VIDEO  -- Pelosi warns McConnell, Senate Republicans they will 'pay a price' if they engage in 'cover-up'

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares to consult with fellow Democrats about sending the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate, she warned Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that an attempt to dismiss the case without a trial or to bar witnesses would be perceived as a "cover-up."

Last month, the House impeached Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and Republicans in the House have called the impeachment effort a partisan hit job.

Pelosi has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate in an attempt to get McConnell – who has said he is not impartial and wants Trump to be acquitted as quickly as possible – to agree to what she considers a "fair" format for the trial.

McConnell has rejected Pelosi's efforts to negotiate with him, declaring on the Senate floor last week that there "will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure." On Thursday, McConnell signed on to a resolution introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to dismiss the articles for "failure to prosecute" if they were not sent to the Senate within 25 days of their adoption by the House, which took place Dec. 18.

"Dismissing is a cover-up," Pelosi warned McConnell on ABC News' "This Week."

The biggest concession Pelosi wanted from McConnell was to allow witnesses to testify in the trial and for additional documents to be allowed to be submitted for evidence. McConnell has refused to commit to allowing witnesses, saying the Senate "will not cede our authority to try this impeachment."

Citing polls that showed about 70% of Americans favor additional witness testimony, Pelosi said McConnell and Senate Republicans will "pay a price" and "will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial." 

Among the witnesses Pelosi would like to see testify is former national security adviser John Bolton. He refused to cooperate with Trump's alleged effort to leverage military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening a pair of investigations, which he called a "drug deal," according to witnesses. Bolton said he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate after previously saying he would do so only if ordered to by a court. 

Impeachment: Trump says he may invoke executive privilege if John Bolton is subpoenaed by Senate

More: Here's how partisan wrath over Trump's impeachment changed the future of 2 lawmakers

Critics of House Democrats' handling of the impeachment inquiry have questioned Pelosi's decision not to subpoena Bolton. Pelosi has said that the process was too urgent to wait for the courts to review the case and that there already was enough evidence to warrant Trump's removal from office.

But on Sunday, Pelosi said it was still possible that the House would subpoena Bolton if the Senate does not.

Despite McConnell's refusal to budge on a commitment to allow witnesses, Pelosi defended the strategy of holding onto the articles of impeachment. She said it led to a "positive result" because, in the interval, reporting uncovered emails that appeared to directly tie Trump to the order to delay military aid and Bolton agreed to testify.

"And more importantly, raising the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation, and if we don't that is a cover-up," Pelosi said.

"We wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened, documentation which the president has prevented from coming to the Congress," she said.

She said the House Democratic Caucus will vote on whether to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate during its weekly meeting Tuesday morning.

In the interview, host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi about a tweet Trump posted Sunday morning telling him to ask "Crazy Nancy" why she allowed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to paraphrase the readout from his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
George @GStephanopoulos, ask Crazy Nancy why she allowed Adam “Shifty” Schiff to totally make up my conversation with the Ukrainian President & read his false words to Congress and the world, as though I said it? He got caught! Ask why hearing was most unfair & biased in history?

57.6K
8:58 AM - Jan 12, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
19.8K people are talking about this


"It's Sunday morning. I'd like to talk about some more pleasant subjects than the erratic nature of this president," Pelosi said. She added that "every knock from him is a boost" and that "everything he says about somebody else is a projection of his own weakness."

"When he calls someone crazy, he knows that he is. Everything he says you can just translate it back to who he is," Pelosi said.

She said she had resisted impeaching Trump before because "Donald Trump is not worth impeachment."

"But when he crossed that line on Ukraine, he violated the Constitution in such a way that could not be ignored," she said.

Pelosi did not rule out the possibility that the House might file new articles of impeachment against Trump if behavior she thought unconstitutional continued.

"Let's just see what the Senate does," she said. "The ball will be in their court soon."



EVEN THOUGH THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER IS A RIGHT-LEANING SOURCE, THIS IS A FAIR AND INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE ON A SUBJECT THAT WE NEED TO HEAR ABOUT. I HOPE CONGRESS IS READING IT, TOO. DEMOCRATS TEND TO RUN TO THE CAUTIOUS SIDE, AND THIS IS A SITUATION IN WHICH THEY NEED TO PUT UP A FIGHT.

Trump vs. Bolton? The president can’t really block testimony
by Quin Hillyer
 | January 10, 2020 05:13 PM

Even though President Trump now says he will invoke executive privilege to forbid former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in Trump’s Senate trial, it should be seen as a fruitless gesture. The president has no real way to punish a former aide who chooses to testify, and courts would be unlikely to uphold any penalty he attempts to impose.

Courts repeatedly have done more to limit than to uphold claims of privilege from testimony, especially in the impeachment context. Impeachment and a Senate trial are both constitutionally prescribed actions, the latter being in many ways the rough equivalent of a criminal trial. The caveat is that because the president otherwise enjoys so much power, along with various immunities, an impeachment trial is an action of last resort that amounts to the people’s ultimate check on any presidential abuse of power.

Except regarding something as nearly sacrosanct as attorney-client privilege, the president’s prerogatives in a Senate trial are rather weak and must bow to the people’s right to know.

Indeed, those aides or former aides caught in the crossfire are far more likely to face legal sanction if they defy a congressional subpoena than if they defy a presidential claim of privilege. The main enforcement mechanism in the president’s hands is the ability to fire an aide, but, of course, that power is immaterial in cases of people who already have left the administration’s employ.

Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY
Inside the Magazine: December 17

The president’s inability to penalize those who choose to testify was shown during the House impeachment proceedings, when even people who remained a part of the Trump administration, such as Ambassadors Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, testified despite the administration’s desire to the contrary.

Senate rules, meanwhile, say that the Senate can “compel” testimony. That means that, unless a court actively intervenes—a most unlikely circumstance—those who are subpoenaed risk criminal contempt of Congress convictions if they refuse to cooperate.

All of which means that if Bolton, upon the advice of his lawyer, decides he should testify, there is almost nothing Trump can do to stop him.

This is as it should be. No trial should occur without hearing from the key first-hand witnesses to the actions in question.

If Trump is innocent of wrongdoing, he should have nothing to fear from Bolton’s testimony, anyway. It’s time to stop all the maneuvering and let the public know the full truth.

Opinion Beltway Confidential Donald Trump John Bolton Senate Impeachment



What you need to know about executive privilege
By Louis Jacobson on Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 at 5:40 p.m.

PHOTOGRAPH -- House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress on May 8, 2019. (AP)

Inaugurating yet another phase in the battle over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, the Trump White House on May 8 officially asserted executive privilege over the report’s unreleased and underlying materials.

Let’s use this opportunity to take a closer look at what executive privilege is.

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege has been asserted frequently by presidents, even though it’s not written into the Constitution.

The National Constitution Center points to this definition by George Mason University professor Mark Rozell: Executive privilege is "the right of the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public."

Rozell wrote that the privilege can be asserted for two reasons: for national security needs, and for "protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when it is in the public interest to do so."

How often has it been used?

In one form or another, executive privilege dates back to George Washington, though the first president to call it by that name was President Dwight Eisenhower, according to the National Constitution Center.

Executive privilege was most famously asserted by President Richard Nixon during Watergate, when he sought to keep secret the tapes that had been made of conversations in the Oval Office.

Nixon’s assertion of the privilege was widely seen as self-serving and against the public interest, and the next few presidents didn’t assert it often. "Invoking privilege makes it look like the president is trying to hide something," said Josh Chafetz, a Cornell University law professor.

Even when he was facing the Iran-Contra investigation during his second term, President Ronald Reagan decided against asserting executive privilege, said Malcolm Byrne, deputy director and director of research with the National Security Archive. Reagan ended up providing extracts to congressional committees instead, Byrne said.

Eventually, presidents did begin to assert executive privilege again.

President Bill Clinton, during the investigation into his affair with Monica Lewinsky. President Barack Obama also asserted the privilege during the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" program, in which federal agents allowed guns to be sold and brought into Mexico so they could trace the weapons.

Did it work?

Such legal arguments didn’t work, except when the asserted privilege involved national security matters.

Executive privilege took a body blow in the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Nixon. The court ruled that Nixon had to turn over the White House tapes, rejecting any national security concerns and concluding that the tapes should be released due to the "fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice." The ruling hastened Nixon’s resignation.

Presidents’ records in the courts haven’t improved since then. Clinton lost his court battle over executive privilege, as did Obama. Both rulings built on the jurisprudence in the Nixon case.

This doesn’t appear to be bothering Trump.

"Nixon used executive privilege to conceal his guilt," Tulane University law professor Stephen Griffin said. Trump seems to be "willing to cross that line."

Might the courts change their mind about executive privilege this time?

Legal experts said Trump may think that the courts, bolstered by recent Republican appointees, might rule differently today.

"I think this president wants to challenge U.S. vs. Nixon," said James D. Robenalt, an attorney with the firm Thompson Hine LLP and creator of a continuing legal education class on Watergate. "My perception is that he believes the Supreme Court as now constituted may be willing to take a more expansive view of presidential powers, including executive privilege."

Robenalt added that Attorney General William Barr -- who urged Trump to take this action -- is a supporter of an expansive view of presidential powers, so Trump’s Justice Department wouldn’t be an obstacle to this course of action.

How long could it take to sort out this issue?

The duration of the legal process may be the biggest advantage for the Trump White House.

Even if history suggests that Trump holds a weak legal argument, it would take months for various levels of courts to hear the case and issue their rulings -- perhaps approaching Election Day 2020. During this period, the administration would be able to keep secret the information that Congress wants.

Ultimately, the Trump White House’s executive privilege strategy "is probably a stall," said Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas.

About this article
Researchers: Louis Jacobson

Names in this article: Donald Trump

Sources:
William Barr, letter to Donald Trump, May 8, 2019

National Constitution Center, "When Presidents use executive privilege," March 24, 2017

Oyez.org, U.S. vs. Nixon, accessed May 8, 2019

New York Times, "Trump Asserts Executive Privilege Over Full Mueller Report," May 8, 2019

Washington Post, "House panel votes to hold Barr in contempt; Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report," May 8, 2019

Roll Call, "House Judiciary votes to hold Barr in contempt over Mueller report release," May 8, 2019

PolitiFact, "A guide to possible paths to impeachment (or not) in the House," April 26, 2019

Email interview with Steve Griffin, Tulane University law professor, April 25, 2019

Email interviews with Mark Osler, University of St. Thomas law professor, April 25 and May 8, 2019

Email interview with Josh Chafetz, Cornell University law professor, April 25, 2019

Email interview with Malcolm Byrne, deputy director and director of research with the National Security Archive, April 25, 2019

Interviews with James D. Robenalt, attorney with the firm Thompson Hine LLP and creator of a continuing legal education class on Watergate, April 25 and May 8, 2019

How to contact us
Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to truthometer@politifact.com or find us on Facebook,and Twitter. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)



RECENT SANDERS RALLIES AND OTHER EVENTS

THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BEST OF THE SANDERS EVENTS SO FAR. BOTH RO KHANNA AND RASHIDA TLAIB GAVE SPECTACULAR SPEECHES. GO TO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDaggSiTNrY&list=UUH1dpzjCEiGAt8CXkryhkZg



THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS I’VE SEEN IN RELATION TO SANDERS. IT IS ANOTHER OF THE HEAR THE BERN PODCASTS.

Hear the Bern Episode 39 | To Heal the World: Bernie's Jewish Roots (w/ Joel Rubin & Katie Halper)
10,891 views • Jan 10, 2020
THUMBS UP   1.1K    THUMBS DOWN   22
55:22 DURATION

Bernie Sanders
272K subscribers

Briahna explores how Bernie's Jewish roots shaped his politics with Joel Rubin, the campaign's new director of Jewish outreach, and reporter, podcaster, and comedian Katie Halper. Briahna and Katie also dig into some of the anti-Semitic attacks that unscrupulous media types throw at Bernie.
Joel on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JoelMartinRubin
Katie on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kthalps
Category
News & Politics


THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTCLE IS ABOUT THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE MENTIONED BY BOTH OF BRIAHNA’S GUESTS, TIKKUN OLAM. I’VE NEVER HEARD IT DESCRIBED IN A CHRISTIAN SETTING, THOUGH GROUPS LIKE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS, THE FRIENDS, AND OF COURSE, DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING HAVE VISIBLY AND COURAGEOUSLY LIVED IT. I BELIEVE BERNIE IS DOING THAT AS WELL, THOUGH HE IS NOT “RELIGIOUS,” TO USE HIS WORD. MY APPROACH TO RELIGION AS A UU IS THE SAME. TO ME IT MEANS CARING ABOUT SOCIETY AND THE EARTH AS A CIVIC DUTY.

Tikkun olam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the concept in Judaism. For the blog, see Tikun Olam (blog). For the medical marijuana firm, see Tikun Olam (cannabis).

Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם‎, lit. 'repair of the world') is a concept in Judaism, interpreted in Orthodox Judaism as the prospect of overcoming all forms of idolatry,[1] and by other Jewish denominations as an aspiration to behave and act constructively and beneficially.[2]

Documented use of the term dates back to the Mishnaic period. Since medieval times, kabbalistic literature has broadened use of the term. In the modern era, among the post-Haskalah Ashkenazi movements, tikkun olam is the idea that Jews bear responsibility not only for their own moral, spiritual, and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.[3] For many contemporary pluralistic Rabbis, the term refers to "Jewish social justice"[4] or "the establishment of Godly qualities throughout the world".[2]

History
The earliest use of the term tikkun olam comes in the phrase mip'nei tikkun ha-olam, "for the sake of repairing the world", which appears in the Mishnah with the meaning of amending the law in order to keep society well-functioning. More generally, tikkun can mean improvement, establishment, repair, prepare, and more. In the Mishnaic context it refers to practical legal measures taken in the present to ameliorate social conditions.



NATIVE AMERICAN BELIEF IS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN EARTH AND NATURE, SO FOCUSING ON THEM AS STEWARDS IS APPROPRIATE. THEY ARE ALSO, OF COURSE, UNDER DIRECT THREAT FROM SOME ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE HAPPENING INCREASINGLY ON THEIR LANDS. I DON’T KNOW HOW THE LEGALITY OF THAT WORKS, BECAUSE SOME TRIBES AT LEAST ARE CONSIDERED “NATIONS,” AND THEIR TRIBAL LANDS SHOULD BE UNDER THEIR CONTROL. SEE THIS FROM COMMON DREAMS.

Published on
Friday, January 03, 2020
byCommon Dreams
Praising Indigenous 'Understanding About Sustainability,' Bernie Sanders Tells Native Community in Iowa 'They Will be Part of Discussion'
"Young people all over the world are looking to the Native American community for leadership."

byEoin Higgins, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attends a news conference to introduce legislation to transform public housing as part of the Green New Deal outside the U.S. Capitol November 14, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa Thursday told members of the Meskwaki Nation that Native Americans are being looked to for influence in addressing the climate crisis by activists around the world and pledged to work with Indigenous communities to deal with the threats and concerns they face.

"Young people all over the world are looking to the Native American community for leadership," Sanders said of the climate movement. "Once again, we're going to need your leadership on how we go forward on respecting the environment."


The Hill
@thehill
Sen. Bernie Sanders on climate change: "Young people all over the world are looking to the Native American community for leadership."

Embedded video
74
9:15 AM - Jan 3, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
59 people are talking about this


Sanders made the stop in Meskwaki Settlement, which is just outside of Tama, Iowa, on Thursday as part of the launch of his "Not Me, Us" Iowa bus tour in support of his bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The senator emphasized to the crowd that a Sanders administration would prioritize Native American concerns and would seek their counsel.

"For much too long, Native American people have been lied to, treaties have been broken, land has been taken," said Sanders. "As president of the United States, we will not be informing the Native American population what is going on—they will be part of the discussion."

After his remarks, Sanders heard question from the crowd.

According to the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier:

During the question-and-answer period, Krista Snow of Tama asked a question about pipelines running through tribal land. Sanders said he opposed all new pipelines that carry fossil fuels.

"We've gotta stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell them their short-term profits are not worth the future of our planet," Sanders said.

Snow told the Courier that Sanders was a candidate she believes in.

"He's been my top candidate for a minute," [sic] said Snow.

PHOTOGRAPH – Sanders speaking at Meskwaki Settlement

Sanders is no stranger to Meskwaki Settlement. The senator visited in 2015, drawing praise at the time from local leaders.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.



THE BERNIE CAMPAIGN HAS FAILED ME. THIS RALLY IS NOT DATED, OR IF IT IS, I DON’T SEE IT. HOWEVER, IT DOES SAY IT IS “23 DAYS UNTIL THE IOWA CAUCUS,” WHICH I THINK IS FEBRUARY 3. USING MY HANDY COMPUTER CALENDAR, THAT SEEMS TO SHOW THE DATE TO BE JANUARY 11.

A COUNTRY FOR ALL OF US: TOWN HALL IN NEWTON, IOWA
30,327 views • Streamed live on Jan 11, 2020
THUMBS UP    2.9K    THUMBS DOWN   110

Bernie Sanders
272K subscribers

A COUNTRY FOR ALL OF US: Are you ready to transform this country into one that works for all of us, end the greed of the billionaire class and make corporations pay their fair share in taxes? Join Bernie live in Newton, Iowa:
FIND AN EVENT NOW: berniesanders.com/iowa
COMMIT TO CAUCUS ON FEBRUARY 3: TEXT 'COMMIT' OR 'CAUCUS' TO 67760
WANT TO GET INVOLVED? NOT SURE HOW? DOWNLOAD BERN: APP.BERNIESANDERS.COM
WE HAVE OVER 1 MILLION GRASSROOTS VOLUNTEERS. JOIN US: berniesanders.com/volunteer 



HERE ARE CLIPS FROM THE JANUARY DEMOCRATIC DEBATE AS DESCRIBED BY THE LA TIMES, ONE OF THE BERNIE FRIENDLY AND SOLIDLY DEMOCRATIC NEWS SITES, IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IS THIS A GOOD WRITE-UP.

PAY A LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT ANDREW YANG DID, ALSO, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN’T MAKE THE DEBATE, HE SET UP AN AD HOC SPEECH OF HIS OWN. HE REALLY IS VERY INTERESTING. OF COURSE, HE’S A BILLIONAIRE ALSO, BUT NOT ONE OF THOSE WHO HAS NO HEART. HE DISCUSSED THE JOB LOSS THAT IS ACCELERATING RATHER THAN DIMINISHING, DUE TO AUTOMATION. HIS ONE AND ONLY PLAN IS THE $1000 A MONTH GUARANTEED INCOME. IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO LIVE ON, OF COURSE, SO IT ISN’T A GOOD ENOUGH SOLUTION.

BERNIE SAID THAT PEOPLE NEED JOBS TO FEEL HAPPY ABOUT THEMSELVES, AND THAT IS REALLY THE TRUTH. IT’S ALSO BORING AS HECK TO HAVE NO PLACE TO GO, AND MAYBE NO MONEY TO GET THERE EITHER. IT’S INSTANT DEPRESSION. JOBLESSNESS IS A GREAT DEAL MORE THAN FINANCIAL PRIVATION. MY PLAN, WHICH I HAVEN’T FORMALLY ANNOUNCED YET TO THE PRESS, WOULD BE FOR YANG’S $1000 A MONTH TO BE INSTITUTED, BUT IN COMBINATION WITH BERNIES MILLIONS OF GUARANTEED JOBS IMPROVING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOLAR / WIND / GEOTHERMAL INSTALLATIONS IN PLACE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

IT’S ALL GOOD! LET’S DO IT ALL! THE FACT IS THAT YANG IS RIGHT ABOUT AUTOMATION, UNLESS WE AS A NATION IN OUR WISDOM WERE TO PUT, PERHAPS, A STIFF FINE OF SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS ON ALL BUSINESSES WHO PUT IN OR INCREASE THEIR USE OF AUTOMATION. THAT MIGHT HELP SLOW DOWN THE JOB LOSS.

January Democratic debate: Live updates
By LOS ANGELES TIMES STAFF
JAN. 14, 2020 6:10 PM

PHOTOGRAPH -- Bernie Sanders recalled the push for war in Iraq from the George W. Bush administration. “I thought they were lying,” he said. “Joe [Biden] saw it differently.”(Associated Press)

Less than three weeks before Iowa begins the presidential balloting, six Democratic hopefuls are sharing a stage for the first debate of the new year and the last before voters begin having their say.

The debate on the campus of Drake University features four of the six candidates leading the large presidential pack: former Vice President Joe Biden; former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

The two others onstage, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and billionaire political activist Tom Steyer, met the polling and fundraising requirements that shut out half a dozen other hopefuls.

The nationally televised debate runs from 6 to 8 p.m. Pacific and is being broadcast on CNN and livestreamed on the websites and apps of the Des Moines Register and CNN.

9:15 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Commander in chief question opens Sanders attack on Biden over Iraq war
By Chris Megerian
Election 2020 Debate

Bernie Sanders recalled the push for war in Iraq from the George W. Bush administration. “I thought they were lying,” he said. “Joe [Biden] saw it differently.”(Associated Press)

WASHINGTON — With the Iran crisis refocusing attention on the Middle East, the Democratic debate started off with a question about foreign policy. Not surprisingly, the Iraq war remains a fault line between Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sanders said he was best qualified to be commander in chief because he voted against the war in 2003. “I am able to bring people together to try to create a world where we solve conflicts over the negotiating table,” he said.

meme (2).png

Biden said his vote for the war was a mistake and shifted his focus to his service under President Obama, where he worked toward winding down the U.S. deployment in Iraq.

Obama, who had voted against the invasion, “turned to me and asked me to end that war,” Biden said.

Sanders wasn’t impressed. He recalled the push for war from George W. Bush and other members of his administration.

“I thought they were lying,” he said. “Joe saw it differently.”

Biden’s late son, Beau, was a captain in the Delaware Army National Guard and spent a year in Iraq.

9:15 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Biden touts experience as Democratic debate starts with a question about foreign policy
“I know what it’s like to send a son or daughter (to war) ... and that’s why I do it very, very reluctnatly.”
9:04 PM JANUARY 14

And they’re off. The first Democratic debate of the new year has started
Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In Presidential Primary Debate In Des Moines
Sen. Elizabeth Warren greets Sen. Bernie Sanders as former Vice President Joe Biden looks on ahead of the Democratic presidential primary debate at Drake University on Tuesday night.(Getty Images)

DES MOINES — The six debate participants have taken the stage: Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; former Vice President Joe Biden; former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer.

Many eyes will be on Warren and Sanders tonight and whether they will bury the hatchet on their campaigns’ recent feuding. The pair of progressives greeted each other with a handshake.

— Matt Pearce

8:37 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
Signs of a pre-debate deescalation between Sanders and Warren?
By Matt Pearce

Bernie Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver
Jeff Weaver, a senior advisor to Bernie Sanders, hopes for deescalation with Elizabeth Warren.(Shawn Thew / European Pressphoto Agency)

A top advisor to Bernie Sanders said he expects that the Vermont senator and his Democratic rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will largely set aside their campaigns’ recent squabbling for Tuesday night’s debate in Des Moines.

“From what I’ve heard from their campaign, and certainly from our campaign, I think we’re all mostly done talking about it, frankly,” Weaver said on MSNBC.

Tensions between the two progressive presidential hopefuls, who largely have avoided criticizing each other, have been rising since reports circulated that Sanders organizers were planning to attack Warren in their conversations with Democratic voters.

Matters escalated further with initially anonymously sourced reports Monday that Sanders had told Warren during a private 2018 meeting that he thought a woman couldn’t win the presidency.

Sanders vehemently denied the report and accused Warren’s staffers of lying.

Warren put out a statement saying that while Sanders had made the remark, she did not wish to discuss the matter further. “Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” she said.

Now Sanders’ camp appears to have accepted the olive branch.

“What they said was not correct, and what we said is correct, but I think based on what I know from their campaign, that’s where folks want to leave it,” Weaver said Tuesday.

8:26 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
Andrew Yang isn’t at the debate, but he’s in Iowa, and he’s got PowerPoint
By Seema Mehta

AMES, Iowa — Andrew Yang didn’t make the cut to appear on the debate stage, so the Democratic presidential candidate employed another method Tuesday that he said would help explain to voters his fears about automation’s impact on the American economy.

“I’ve been told over and over again, when you’re on the debate stage people don’t see the actual substance of the argument because you’re kind of compressed in a 60-second time crunch,” Yang told a few hundred people in an art gallery, standing in front of a PowerPoint presentation projected on a wall. “You’re all here for Andrew Yang’s version of a Netflix special.”

Andrew Yang
Andrew Yang in Ames, Iowa.(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)

He rolled through job-loss statistics that he argued led to the election of President Trump, and warned of automation causing the loss of 2.5 million jobs annually in retail, driving and other job sectors.

“The reason Donald Trump is president today is because we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs in the last few years. And where were those jobs? Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and 40,000 right here in Iowa,” Yang said. “I have been to a town that lost their manufacturing jobs here in Iowa. After the plant closed, the shopping center closed, and then people left and then the school shrank. The town has never recovered.”

Yang touted his universal basic income of $1,000 per month for every adult American citizen as the solution.

It was a message that resonated with Lisa Kuehl, 60. The retired airline pilot had been planning on caucusing for former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But after seeing Yang speak in Ames, she was leaning toward supporting him instead.

“I really liked what I heard,” she said. “I liked the slideshow, the facts, the data. You can talk all you want about these issues, but sometimes the presentation format needs to be different for it to resonate. And I saw that, especially the explanation of why Donald Trump won so many of the industrial states.”

Kuehl was worried that Yang’s absence from the debate stage could harm his prospects.

“I think at this point if you’re not out there, people might forget about you,” she said. “It’s like in the laws of learning: The last thing you hear is what you remember.”

7:56 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
Facing criticism over all-white debate, DNC chief defends qualification criteria
By Seema Mehta

DES MOINES — Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Tuesday defended the debate qualification criteria that resulted in an all-white stage for this evening’s candidate face-off.

“From the outset, we anticipated that we were going to have a historically large field. We [initially] set a low bar and were very transparent in our requirements,” Perez said. “At the same time, we were very clear that every month, we would raise the bar slowly and gradually and fairly.”

The DNC has faced criticism from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and entrepreneur Andrew Yang over the rules for qualifying for the January debate. To make the stage, candidates needed to register at least 5% in four national or early-state polls or 7% in two early-state polls, and have at least 225,000 individual donors.

Tom Perez
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez.(Getty Images)

Six candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden; Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar; former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and billionaire Tom Steyer — made the cut.

Booker had led an effort urging the DNC to lower the debate requirements before dropping out of the race on Monday.

Perez noted that California Sen. Kamala Harris, who dropped out last year, would have qualified for the debate and said seeking this level of polling support is appropriate with less than three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses.

“To give you a historic perspective, at this point in the primary phase, Barack Obama was in the low 20th percentile. Rev. [Al] Sharpton would have easily made it under this threshold, Jesse Jackson was in the high teens, low 20s,” he said. “ I bring that up because the candidates who poll at the top in the Democratic primary are the candidates who are most effectively connecting with the broad quilt of the Democratic Party.”

Perez said that he respected Booker, “but at the same time, I can’t make a separate set of rules for people that I like. And there are many people that are incredibly qualified that didn’t make the debate stage. … You have to demonstrate traction.”

7:00 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
Tight polls, impeachment, billionaire wild cards: Uncertainty reigns in the 2020 Democratic race
By Janet Hook
Bernie Sanders
(Charlie Neibergall / Associated Press)

WASHINGTON — As Democrats’ top presidential candidates prepare to meet for the last debate before voters start weighing in, the primary contest remains one of the most unpredictable in decades — a contest not likely to end anytime soon.

In the absence of a commanding front-runner, and with a plethora of well-funded candidates in the top tier, party activists say they have less certainty about the outcome than at any time since 1992, when Bill Clinton ultimately won in a crowded field.

“I can’t remember a time when I had this many questions before the first votes,” said Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign. “Things could play out 100 different ways.”


6:56 PM JANUARY 14
Facebook
Twitter
Show more sharing options
What time is the January Democratic debate, and what’s at stake for candidates onstage?
By Matt Pearce

Elizabeth Warren; Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will face off Tuesday night on a debate stage in Des Moines. The senators’ presidential campaigns have clashed this week.(Associated Press)

The Democratic presidential field is set to have its smallest and potentially most influential debate yet. It could also become among the most contentious if candidates bring their campaigns’ offstage issues onstage.

On Tuesday at 6 p.m. PST, six candidates are slated to gather at Drake University in Des Moines to slug it out less than three weeks before the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa.

Gone are the two-night, 10-candidates-at-a-time spectacles that marked the earliest debate rounds of the Democratic contest last year. This two-hour debate will feature former Vice President Joe Biden; former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.; Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; and billionaire activist Tom Steyer.

With fewer candidates onstage, there will be more time for each to spar, and this week Sanders and Warren were already clashing well before the debate. Warren blasted Sanders for sending volunteers out to “trash” her after his campaign reportedly circulated talking points aimed at Warren supporters, alleging she does not bring new voters into the process. And Sanders, accused of telling Warren in a 2018 closed-door meeting that a woman couldn’t win the presidency, responded to the anonymously sourced report by saying Warren’s staffers were lying. Then Warren issued her own statement, contradicting Sanders.

This will be the first debate round in which all the participants are white. A dozen Democrats are still campaigning, and notable names missing from the stage include Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and billionaire former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey dropped out of the contest on Monday.


****    ****    ****    ****   


JANUARY 15, 2020

NEWS AND VIEWS


CNN’S GOSSIP COLUMN FOCUSED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON A “STRAINED” MOMENT BETWEEN SANDERS AND WARREN AFTER LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE. IT MAKES A GOOD STORY, AND SHOWS HIM IN A BAD LIGHT. HOW JUICY!

HOWEVER, WE SHOULDN’T LOOK ONLY AT THE “SNUBBED HANDSHAKE.” THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE WHEN I HAVE SAID “DON’T TOUCH ME!” WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT. LOOK ALSO AT THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN THEM DURING THE DEBATE ITSELF. THEIR FACIAL EXPRESSIONS SHOWED SOMETHING VERY MUCH LIKE CLOSENESS TEMPERED BY EXASPERATION. I THINK MAYBE THEY REALLY ARE FRIENDS IN THE WAY I USE THE WORD. THEY CARE.

SO, DID HE REALLY SAY THAT? HE COULD HAVE. HE CAN BE TOO FRANK, AND MEN CAN BE SELF-PROTECTIVE. SHOULD HE ADMIT IT AND APOLOGIZE, SAY HE SPOKE IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT? PROBABLY. POLITICAL COMPETITORS ARE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT, AND THEY ARE NOT PASSIVE OR WEAK PEOPLE. IF THEY ARE, THEY HAVE TO GET OUT OF POLITICS. SO, LET’S MOVE ON FROM THIS. READ THE ARTICLE FOR YOURSELF.


The Warren-Sanders feud just got way uglier
Chris Cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 9:05 AM ET, Wed January 15, 2020

(CNN)Someone is lying. Or, at the very least, badly misremembering.

That's the only possible takeaway from the ongoing back and forth between Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts over whether the former told the latter that he did not believe a woman could be elected president in 2020. And the feud got worse, not better, during -- and after -- Tuesday night's Iowa debate.

Asked directly about Warren's statement that Sanders had told her in a December 2018 meeting that he didn't believe a woman could win, the Vermont senator said this:

"Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it. And I don't want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody who knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be President of the United States."

Warren was then asked what her reaction was to what Sanders had said back in 2018. "I disagreed," she said. "Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it's time for us to attack it head-on."

And that was it -- until the end of the debate. Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders' campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: "I'm not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant."

Uh, yeah. Watch it for yourself.

Play Video -- Warren appears to snub Sanders' handshake after Iowa debate 01:21

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag "#neverWarren" was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake. (Not kidding; snake emojis were everywhere in the anti-Warren tweets.) "Lie or mischaracterize your 'friend's' comments, double down, refuse to shake his hand," tweeted Kyle Kulinski, a prominent liberal and YouTube host. "Are you watching America?" tweeted liberal activist and Sanders supporter Shaun King: "When @BernieSanders beat a Republican to win his congressional seat 29 years ago, Elizabeth Warren was still a Republican. One reason she never lost to a Republican is that she was a Republican for the first 47 years of her life."

On the other side of the argument, Third Way senior vice president Lanae Erickson tweeted this of the Sanders-Warren handshake-that-wasn't: "That moment when the dude who called himself a "feminist" on his profile shows his true colors on date 5...You hate to see it."

There are real consequences to all of these raw feelings. Sanders and Warren are the two most prominent liberals in the race, and for either one of them to beat former Vice President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination this year, they will need the near-united support of the left. Up until a few days ago, that seemed like a very real possibility, with Warren and Sanders refusing to attack one another and their supporters -- online and off -- largely aiming their rhetorical fire at the likes of Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

After Tuesday night, however, the idea of the Sanders people rallying around Warren if, after the first few primaries and caucuses, she looks like the most viable liberal candidate, now seems fanciful. And, vice versa for the Warren people being cool with the idea of Sanders as the liberal choice for 2020.

And that is true no matter what the two principals say (or don't say) about that now-famous December 2018 meeting and/or the no-handshake moment in Tuesday night's debate. What happened Tuesday night seems likely to reverberate not just through the Iowa caucuses in 19 days' time but the broader fight over who emerges as the liberal choice and whether -- or not -- the left is willing to rally around that person.



THREE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLES ON THE IMPEACHMENT BACK STORY, WHICH JUST KEEPS ON GROWING. LAWDY MERCY!

PostEverything
Perspective
Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani have demolished Trump’s claims of innocence
New documents show why the president has been trying to hide evidence from Congress.
By
Neal Katyal and
Joshua A. Geltzer
January 15, 2020 at 7:41 AM EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, arrives at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on New Year’s Eve. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

Americans who have been wondering why President Trump has taken the extraordinary step of trying to block every document from being released to Congress in his impeachment inquiry need wonder no longer. The new documents released Tuesday evening by the House Intelligence Committee were devastating to Trump’s continuing — if shifting — defense of his Ukraine extortion scandal, just days before his impeachment trial is likely to begin in the Senate. These new documents demolish at least three key defenses to which Trump and his allies have been clinging: that he was really fighting corruption when he pressured Ukraine on matters related to the Biden family; that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness at the Senate impeachment trial; and that there’s no need for a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate.

The most basic principles of constitutional law require relevant information, including documents and executive branch witnesses, to be turned over to Congress in an impeachment proceeding. Particularly because sitting presidents cannot be indicted, impeachment is the only immediate remedy we the people have against a lawless president. For that remedy to have any teeth, relevant information has to be provided. That’s why President James Polk said that, during impeachment, Congress could “penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments … command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial.” No president, not even Richard Nixon, thought he could just say “no” to impeachment. That’s why the House added Article II to Trump’s impeachment: “Obstruction of Congress.” It was a response to an unprecedented attempt by a president to hide the truth.

New evidence for impeachment keeps turning up. That's why we need a real trial.

The documents released Tuesday show what Trump has been so afraid of. For starters, they prove that his already-eyebrow-raising claim to have been fighting corruption in Ukraine was bogus. Notes taken by Lev Parnas — who is an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and is now facing federal criminal charges — show what his and Giuliani’s mission was when they got in touch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “get Zalensky to Announce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” Look hard at the real goal here: not to prompt an investigation of Hunter Biden, but to score an announcement of a Biden investigation. Pursuing an announcement, rather than an investigation, makes sense only if Trump’s objective was to dirty the reputation of Joe Biden, a leading political rival.

Both of us served in high-ranking Justice Department positions; we’ve never heard of an investigation that is kept from the Justice Department, given to a private lawyer and then publicly announced — investigations work best when done in secret. If Trump, as he has long claimed, was truly interested in pursuing anti-corruption efforts in the bizarrely specific form of a single investigation of a single American citizen, then he would have wanted an actual investigation. Instead, he was fixated on the public announcement of one — which, if anything, would have harmed the investigation by tipping off its subject. The public announcement would have helped only one thing: Trump’s personal political prospects.

And if Trump wasn’t really pursuing corruption in Ukraine, then his demand that Hunter Biden be called as a witness at the upcoming Senate impeachment trial also crumbles. This effort by Trump and his allies to shift attention away from Trump and toward the Bidens makes no sense on its own terms — after all, the president is the one being accused of impeachable offenses, not Joe or Hunter Biden. But the effort defies logic entirely, because Parnas’s notes make clear that his and Giuliani’s marching orders from Trump were to provoke a Ukrainian announcement of a Biden investigation, rather than an investigation itself. What could Hunter Biden possibly tell the Senate about that?

Trump’s push had nothing to do with what Hunter Biden did or didn’t do, and everything to do with whether Trump could extort and bully the Ukrainian leadership into casting aspersions on Biden regardless of what he did or didn’t do. That leaves Biden with nothing of relevance to say at a Senate impeachment trial — the final word on Trump’s preposterous effort to refocus scrutiny on the Biden family. That was, of course, the very push that got Trump into this mess in the first place, so to allow him to succeed now through the mechanism of impeachment would be irony bordering on tragedy.

But that’s not to say there’s nothing to learn at a genuine Senate impeachment trial — which, as the word “trial” suggests, features actual evidence and witnesses. That’s the third point emerging from the documents released Tuesday night. One of those documents shows how important it might be to have such witnesses testify before the Senate. The document is a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky when he was Ukraine’s president-elect. It begins: “I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States.” The letter then requested a meeting with Zelensky. This letter is a devastating indication of what has been clear to many all along: that Trump’s pursuit of an announcement that Ukraine was looking into Biden was an abuse of his public office for personal gain. That’s what this letter sure seems to be saying. And it makes clear that what was afoot had nothing to do with law enforcement or Biden’s possible corruption — it wasn’t a request from the official “President of the United States” but from a “private citizen.”

The Senate has conducted 15 impeachment trials. It heard witnesses in every one.

The letter is so damning to Trump that we can foresee the president claiming during an impeachment trial that Giuliani was lying — back then, and even still today. That’s where Senate testimony can prove crucial. There’s a reason the Supreme Court has called live testimony, including cross-examination, “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” Put Giuliani on the witness stand — and Trump, too, if he has the guts. And let the truth come out.

All told, the documents help explain Trump’s consistent push to bury the evidence against him. Every week, it becomes clearer why Trump has withheld documents from Congress, blocked executive branch officials and even private citizens from testifying before Congress, and overall, well, obstructed Congress, as the second article of impeachment rightly describes it. It’s because Trump is a man with something to hide. Let’s see what else he’s hiding — in front of the Senate next week, in a good, old-fashioned American trial for all to see.

Read more:
The Founders put presidential impeachment trials in the Senate. They were wrong.
I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
Impeachment is the law. Saying ‘political process’ only helps Trump’s narrative.



EVEN THOUGH THIS ARTICLE IS SOME 20 DAYS OLD NOW, THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT, SO I HAVE PLACED IT HERE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHO A FEW OF THE “INFLUENTIAL EVANGELICALS AND CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS ARE WHO ARE NOW LEANING TOWARD ASKING FOR THE SENATE TO DO THE DECENT THING AND ALLOW ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES BOTH FOR AND AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PostEverything
Perspective
New evidence for impeachment keeps turning up. That’s why we need witnesses.
The Senate can’t judge the president without all the facts.

By
Neal Katyal and
Joshua A. Geltzer
December 23, 2019 at 5:16 PM EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Trump speaks to a summit of conservative students in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Dec. 21, 2019. (Andrew Harnik/AP)

If you think the impeachment proceedings against President Trump haven’t changed any Republicans’ minds, look again. In the past week alone, influential evangelicals and conservative pundits have called for Trump’s removal. Only one notable group of Republicans is — at least for now — still united in indulging Trump: those serving in Congress.

But it’s the 53 sitting Republican senators who are poised to determine the president’s fate, as 20 of their votes will be needed to remove Trump from office. That makes it essential that they see in the Senate chamber a real impeachment trial, with real witnesses and other real evidence — something that four Republican senators can make happen by siding with Democrats and with the overwhelming public support for having witnesses testify. And there’s plenty of new material for senators to consider in a trial.

Start with the bombshell that exploded late Friday night.

An email the government had tried to hide but was forced to hand over in a lawsuit shows precisely why testimony from a crucial witness like the Office of Management and Budget’s Michael Duffey can still add critical details to our collective understanding of Trump’s Ukraine misdeeds. Duffey’s email reveals stunning illegality at the direct behest of the White House. It’s no surprise that he’s one of the four witnesses Senate Democrats have asked to testify, even before the email was released. The email underscores just how essential it is to have Trump’s impeachment trial work like any other trial does: with the presentation of evidence.

McConnell has less power to shape the impeachment trial than Democrats think

The email in question was sent 91 minutes after Trump’s infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. On that call, Trump asked Zelensky to “do us a favor” by opening investigations into alleged 2016 election interference by Ukraine — a baseless Trump theory — and political rival Joe Biden, in exchange for providing the weapons that Congress had ordered sent to Ukraine to defend against Russian aggression. The email shows that Duffey, on behalf of the White House, ordered the Pentagon to suspend all the military assistance Congress had allocated.

The timing adds to the considerable body of evidence showing the direct quid pro quo that Trump pushed for, and strongly supports the first of the two articles of impeachment approved by the House. The message reveals that Trump was abusing the power of his office by attempting to withhold congressionally allocated weapons, and the obvious reason he did so was for his personal political gain. But the email goes even further: By directly ordering the Defense Department not to notify Congress about the hold on weapons for Ukraine, the Trump White House was breaking the law.

The precise wording of Duffey’s email is crucial. He wrote to the Pentagon comptroller: “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.” Both of us have worked in national security positions, and we know what that bureaucratic language means: “Those who need to know to execute the direction” were Pentagon officials. After all, they were the ones who needed to know not to deliver the weapons. So whom did Duffey not want told?

We think his email is most fairly read as a reference to Congress, and perhaps some others in the executive branch. Basically, a White House official was telling the Pentagon comptroller: Don’t tell Congress about all this.

If there’s any doubt about what the email meant, Duffey could clear it up by testifying. But he has dodged all attempts to do so. And the email reveals even more problems for the White House. The law governing impoundment — the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds — requires the executive branch to notify Congress of any decision to withhold expenditures of funds appropriated by Congress. The law states that, whenever the executive branch “proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project, the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a special message specifying” details, including the amount of funding held back, the period intended for holding it back and the reasons, including any legal authority justifying the delay. The law also requires an analogous message containing similar details whenever the executive branch proposes not merely to delay an expenditure but to rescind it entirely. As one scholar summarized these two provisions of law, “The executive must transmit a special message to Congress whenever it proposes to rescind or defer funding.”

The Trump White House sent no such message to Congress — not on July 25, not thereafter. And Duffey’s email made sure that the Defense Department would send no such message, either. Duffey surely knew what the law required — after all, he’s a high-ranking official at the Office of Management and Budget. And Duffey surely knew that the Pentagon comptroller knew what the law required — this sort of stuff is a comptroller’s daily fare. So it wasn’t enough for Duffey to order Defense Department officials to withhold the weapons from Ukraine. He needed to order them to withhold the legally required alert to Congress. And that’s just what he did.

(Duffey did not respond to a request for comment for a Washington Post report about the email over the weekend. White House officials told the New York Times that the timing of the call with Zelensky and of Duffey’s email was a coincidence.)

Still undecided on impeachment? Here’s some help.

What the email didn’t do was provide any justification for hiding the hold from Congress. This, too, is crucial: It raises questions about the memo issued this month by the Office of Management and Budget’s general counsel attempting to justify withholding assistance to Ukraine and notification to Congress. That memo claimed no congressional notification was necessary because the hold was a “programmatic” one, meaning it was consistent with congressional intent in allocating aid to Ukraine. The memo already has been blasted as a shabby attempt at after-the-fact rationalization. The absence of any corresponding justification in Duffey’s email makes it look even more so.

So who told Duffey to send the email? How fully did they explain the link between the email he was to send and the call between Trump and Zelensky that had concluded 91 minutes earlier, as well as the link to Duffey’s own earlier email to the Pentagon — also revealed Friday — conveying that Trump himself had asked about the Ukraine military aid? What else did they say to Duffey? And what did Duffey tell others at the Office of Management and Budget? Remember, according to testimony before the House, an OMB lawyer quit at least in part over this.

Americans need to know. And senators need to know before they cast a vote that will determine Trump’s fate and their own historical legacies. Minds are changing — even Republican minds. Senators need witnesses who will be able to tell the truth. We inched closer to that on Friday, with Duffey’s email finally seeing the light of day. Now we need the rest — with Duffey and other witnesses testifying in a real impeachment trial, in the Senate chamber, for all to see.

In the House, Trump tried to gag every executive branch employee from testifying, no doubt because he was afraid of what they would say. The Senate should not put up with Trump’s ever-escalating coverup. Let the witnesses testify, and let the chips fall where they may.

Read more:
The transcript Trump released is still the only evidence needed to impeach him
No, Trump couldn’t shoot someone without being investigated for it
Impeachment is the law. Saying ‘political process’ only helps Trump’s narrative.


NOT A HOAX? NOT A “POLITICAL PROCESS?” MAYBE WE NEED SOME TIGHTLY WRITTEN LEGISLATION TO MAKE THE GROUNDS AND PROCESS CLEAR, AND MUCH STRONGER. FOR INSTANCE, WE NEED TO GET RID OF THAT IDEA THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED. I HOPE BERNIE WILL TACKLE THAT ONE, TOO.

PostEverything
Perspective
Impeachment is the law. Saying ‘political process’ only helps Trump’s narrative.
Downgrading a legal process to mere politics reinforces the idea that the Constitution’s presidential accountability mechanism is just a “hoax.”

By Michael J. Gerhardt
Michael J. Gerhardt is the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina School of Law and the author of “Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know.”
December 14, 2019 at 6:00 AM EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. (Evan Vucci/AP)

In October, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy argued that impeachment is “a political process, not a legal one.” Last month, MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki said “impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is a political one.”

We hear this all the time in debates about proceedings facing President Trump. Wednesday on “The View,” former governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), a former U.S. attorney, called impeachment “a political process” and “not a legal process.” I’ve inadvertently said things along those lines myself. On Monday, my colleague, Tulane Law School professor Ross Garber, said: “This is not a trial. An impeachment is a political process.”

He’s right that impeaching a president isn’t the same as a federal criminal trial. And it’s understandable why the perception that impeachment is merely political persists: The Constitution vests decision-making in the impeachment process with politicians — granting the “sole Power of Impeachment” to members of the House of Representatives and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to members of the Senate.

AD
Impeachment proceedings against Trump thus far have predictably played out along partisan lines, with Democrats and Republicans defending alternate realities. The past reluctance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to back impeachment — during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — reflected concerns about how it would affect some members’ chances for reelection. Although their party is mostly united on impeachment now, there’s reportedly a small cadre of House Democrats who want to pursue censure as an alternative to impeachment — a reprimand, essentially — in the hope that it will play better with their constituents. The persistent theme that impeachment is all political makes it easier for Trump to accuse congressional Democrats of “trivializing” the process, as he did immediately Friday after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment. It lends support to the narrative of Trump and congressional Republicans that the process is a “hoax” and a “sham,” cooked up to overturn the results of the last presidential election.

But while it’s true that politics are bound up in how impeachment plays out, it’s a myth that impeachment is just political. Rather, it’s the principal legal remedy that the Constitution expressly specifies to hold presidents accountable. And our Constitution, which expressly provides for the power of impeachment and removal, is not just a set of suggestions or guidelines. It is the supreme law of the land.

As I’ve argued before, with the president essentially claiming he has immunity from any criminal proceeding (or even from investigation while in office), he’s entitled to keep confidential any information he wishes, and he’s empowered to shut down the impeachment inquiry and order the entire executive branch not to cooperate with Congress, the impeachment process is the only constitutional remedy available to keep the president in check. The only way to ensure that the president is not above the law is not, as the president and congressional Republicans say, to wait for the next election (in which Democrats say he has invited foreign interference) but instead for the impeachment process to be allowed to work.

AD
The legal character of the impeachment process is apparent when we distinguish its features from the more typical process of legislating. The principal standard for considering the validity of a federal law is determining whether it comports with existing laws and the Constitution. By contrast, with impeachment, the principal standard derives only from the Constitution, a determination whether the conduct of the president or another federal official has amounted to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” While there is wide latitude in assessing the constitutionality and propriety of a new law, with impeachment, the question has been narrowed to a small class of offenses.

Trump's offense is as impeachable as it comes. So no, it can't wait for an election.

Members of Congress get to determine for themselves what they consider to be high crimes and misdemeanors, but it is a constitutional standard, and the standard constrains what members of the House should be considering as possible grounds for impeachment. This standard has long been understood to include abuses of power, seriously injuring the country and breaching the public trust.

In a purely political proceeding, there is no concern with rules of evidence and burdens of proof. In impeachment proceedings, however, each member is expected to consider what evidentiary standard they intend to follow. At the end of Senate impeachment trials, it is customary, though not requisite, for senators to produce statements articulating the standard that they followed. As a senator voting on articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Joe Biden stated: “We have left it to the good judgment of each senator to decide whether or not they are convinced by the evidence presented to us.” At the end of Clinton’s trial, Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) concluded: “Absent the proof that I find necessary to justify the removal of a president, I will vote to acquit.” Another Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, referenced Scottish law, which allowed for “three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proved.” He chose the latter.

AD
The process doesn’t mirror that of a criminal trial, and senators choose for themselves whether the House managers, who prosecute the case on behalf of the House in the Senate, must prove their case based on the preponderance of the evidence (the standard in most civil proceedings), beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in most criminal trials) or clear and convincing evidence (a cross between these two other burdens of proof). In the 1986 impeachment trial of then-federal judge Harry Claiborne, the Senate rejected his motion to require that he be judged on the more stringent “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

In political proceedings, the only oath required from members of Congress is the one that they must take upon entering their office, namely, to support and defend the Constitution. In an impeachment trial, senators take a special oath or affirmation to render judgments on the merits, not on their political or personal preferences:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of … now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

AD
In a political proceeding, the House speaker presides in the House and the vice president in the Senate. In a presidential impeachment trial, the chief justice of the United States presides in the Senate, a reminder of the solemnity of the event.

Impeachment isn't optional. If facts point in that direction, Congress must act.

Finally, impeachment is distinguished from normal political proceedings by the requirement that at least two-thirds of the Senate agrees to convict on articles of impeachment to remove a president from office for misconduct. Normally, majority rule is the order of the day, notwithstanding Senate filibuster rules, which are not constitutionally required. That two-thirds threshold has yet to be met for any president. Two presidents (Andrew Johnson and Clinton) have been impeached, one more (Richard Nixon) nearly faced impeachment, but none have been convicted and removed.

The upshot of all this, as the late Charles L. Black Jr. explained in his landmark guide, “Impeachment: A Handbook,” is that impeachment is a hybrid process, not purely political or legal but a combination of both. The two impeachment articles against Trump that the Judiciary Committee approved on Wednesday underscore this. The charges — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — reflect exactly the kind of activity that motivated the Constitution’s framers to create the impeachment power, referring to abuses of power that a president or high-ranking official is uniquely capable of committing: “Shall the man who has practiced corruption,” George Mason asked at the Constitutional Convention, [and] by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment?” Members don’t just make up the offenses they regard as impeachable. They measure the alleged misconduct against the constitutional standard.

And that standard doesn’t limit high crimes and misdemeanors to violations of federal criminal law, another myth about the process. Thursday in the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) objected to the articles of impeachment against Trump by noting that “the biggest difference in the Clinton impeachment and this one is that President Clinton committed a crime, perjury. This president isn’t even accused of committing a crime.” But not all impeachable offenses are crimes, and not all crimes are impeachable. In assessing the context and gravity of any charge levied against the president, members of Congress must take a number of considerations into account. Politics is one, but the politics that the framers meant the impeachment process to account for was not one that turned on disagreements in a two-party system but politics writ large — consisting of judgments made about the limits of presidential power and ultimately the consequences for our body politic and system of government.

As the charges facing Trump progress — the full House is expected to impeach him next week — it bears remembering that this process has been with us since our founding for a reason. No, there has never been a federal statute that says it is illegal for the president of the United States to abuse his power. But there is a law that forbids it: our Constitution.



ABOUT DESTINY HARRIS, WHO SPOKE BEAUTIFULLY FOR BERNIE SANDERS’ 2020 RALLY IN CHICAGO ON MARCH 4, 2019. FIRST LISTEN TO HER TALK BELOW, THEN READ THE ARTICLE ON HER DEATH. SO VIBRANT AND REALLY LOVELY, AND NOW THIS. THE WORD TRAGEDY IS SOMETIMES MISUSED, BUT IN MY VIEW, THIS IS TRAGIC.


Slain Baltimore salon owner feared for her ‘life and business’
Destiny Harris, 21, filed the police report after her salon was robbed of hair bundles worth $3000, and just days before she was murdered.
By Ny Magee -December 25, 2019

A 21-year-old Baltimore, Md., business owner reportedly told police she feared for her life days after her salon was robbed of hair bundles worth $3000. Now, police are investigating here murder after she was shot in the head Saturday night, report says.

READ MORE: Baltimore on track to reach highest per-capita murder record as two women are slain

The incident occurred at Madam D Beauty Bar the 200 block of North Milton Avenue in southeast Baltimore. Police were called to the scene shortly after 6 p.m. for a report of a shooting. When officers arrived, they found Destiny Harrison suffering from gunshot wounds to the head, WMAR Baltimore reports. The victim was taken to an area hospital where she later died.

Earlier this month, Harrison filed charges against two individuals she caught stealing merchandise from her business. Upon confronting them, one of the suspects held her down while the other physically assaulted her. The couple then fled with $3,000 worth of hair extensions that Harrison sold at her salon.

In her written testimony, Harrison noted that one of the thieves had a violent background and she was “scared for my life and business.”

The suspects have been arrested and charged with assault, theft and burglary.

But police have not arrested anyone in Harrison’s murder. They, however, witnesses who were inside the salon at the time of the shooting will come forward with information.

“It’s unbelievable that some evil soul would do something like this,” said her uncle Dewine McQueen.

“Somebody gotta know something. Please come forward. We need to get these demonic souls here. They need to pay for their crime. There’s no doubt about that, in the name of Jesus, there’s no doubt,” he added.

READ MORE: Three Baltimore men have been exonerated after serving 36 years

In a GoFundMe page dedicated to the new mom, Harrison’s mother said: “We lost a angel due to tragedy that broke hearts all over Baltimore . We are asking that if anyone have any monetary donations we would greatly appreciate the help to lay my beautiful daughter in peace.”

Anyone with information about Harrison’s death should contact homicide detectives at 410-396-2100 or Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-7Lockup.


****    ****    ****    ****   

No comments:

Post a Comment