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