WATCH: The crowd at Trump's Tampa rally lets Jim Acosta know just how much they love him. 😂 pic.twitter.com/Xisl4EgtTW— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) July 31, 2018
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Sunday, July 29, 2018
by Prof. Jed Shugerman (Fordham Law School)
On Thursday, CNN reported a seemingly bombshell claim that Michael Cohen was in the room with several others when Donald Trump was told in advance of his son’s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. CNN, citing sources with knowledge, further reported that Trump approved of the meeting and that Cohen was willing to testify to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to that effect. As stunning as this news might seem, if Cohen were to offer such testimony, it does not prove a crime on its own, and its impact depends heavily on other evidence, other witnesses, and later events. The case of obstruction against Trump is already strong without Cohen’s allegation, but Cohen could strengthen a growing case against Trump of conspiracy against the United States under 18 U.S.C Section 371.
Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times. Spent much time talking about the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media & how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, “Enemy of the People.” Sad!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in Response to President Trump’s Tweet About Their Meeting
July 29, 2018
Yes, Russian Election Sabotage Helped Trump Win Republicans want you to think that meddling didn’t figure in the 2016 election result. Don’t.
By Albert Hunt (former Washington editor, WSJ)
Saturday, July 28, 2018
The suffragist heroes Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony seized control of the feminist narrative of the 19th century. Their influential history of the movement stillgoverns popular understanding of the struggle for women’s rights and will no doubt serve as a touchstone for commemorations that will unfold across the United States around the centennial of the 19th Amendment in 2020.
That narrative, in the six-volume “History of Women’s Suffrage,” betrays more than a hint of vanity when it credits the Stanton-Anthony cohort with starting a movement that actually had diverse origins and many mothers. Its worst offenses may be that it rendered nearly invisible the black women who labored in the suffragist vineyard and that it looked away from the racism that tightened its grip on the fight for the women’s vote in the years after the Civil War.
Historians who are not inclined to hero worship — including Elsa Barkley Brown, Lori Ginzberg and Rosalyn Terborg-Penn — have recently provided an unsparing portrait of this once-neglected period. Stripped of her halo, Stanton, the campaign’s principal philosopher, is exposed as a classic liberal racist who embraced fairness in the abstract while publicly enunciating bigoted views of African-American men, whom she characterized as “Sambos” and incipient rapists in the period just after the war. The suffrage struggle itself took on a similar flavor, acquiescing to white supremacy — and selling out the interests of African-American women — when it became politically expedient to do so. This betrayal of trust opened a rift between black and white feminists that persists to this day.KEEP READING
Today marks the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment's certification. The amendment’s promise of equal protection laid down the groundwork for the landmark #BrownvBoard decision and the brave student-trailblazers who led the way in integrating our nation's schools. #OTD pic.twitter.com/2Xr6N0dt6E— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) July 28, 2018
Friday, July 27, 2018
Thursday, July 26, 2018
It's embarrassing to have to explain this but when you buy groceries you didn't "lose" to the grocer. They got your money, but you got the groceries.— Clifford Asness (@CliffordAsness) July 25, 2018
As a much smaller point, he also refers to the purchase price as the "gain" to the foreign entity. No, that's revenue not profit.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
It is a cultic ritual now to chant "lock her up" about the former United States Senator, Secretary of State, wife of a two term President, and candidate who out polled the sitting President who in his campaign and as President has welcomed such calls for vengeance against his adversary. No longer do we hear civic virtue extolled. Instead the Attorney General refers to "snowflakes" and denounces public educators. “Rather than molding a generation of mature and well-informed adults, some schools are doing everything they can to create a generation of sanctimonious, sensitive, supercilious snowflakes. We’re not gonna have it,” he said to the Trump-jugen.
Appalling. - gwc
Sunday, July 22, 2018
But she appointed good judges - particularly Chief Justice Deborah Poritz - and the often unfairly maligned Peter Verniero. And he cared about environmental protection.
To today's Republicans that made her a RINO. But they, not she, are the frauds. - gwc
Calling my fellow Republicans: Trump is clearly unfit to remain in office
by Christine Todd Whitman (former Governor of New Jersey)
President Trump’s disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Finland, and in the days since is an indication that he is not fit to remain in office. Trump’s 2016 “America First” platform might be more aptly named “Russia First” after the disaster that occurred last week.
Trump’s turn toward Russia is indefensible. I am a lifelong Republican. I have campaigned and won as a member of the party, and I have served more than one Republican president. My Republican colleagues — once rightfully critical of President Obama’s engagement strategy with Russian leader Vladimir Putin — have to end their willful ignorance of the damage Trump is doing both domestically and internationally. We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be, and demonstrate the leadership our country needs by calling on the president to step down.KEEP READING
Nonetheless Obama, understandably saw it as impossible to just walk away from the debacle of our Iraw war of aggression, or from our initially plausible, ultimately hopeless intervention in Afghanistan.
So when Trump succeeded Obama our Afghan clients were still on the ropes, and the ISIS monster raged in the tinder dry cities of our catastrophic "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
Now we have the Flight 93 Presidency. Headed to crash and burn in yet undetermined fields or cities. - gwc
Tomgram: John Feffer, The Jaws Presidency | TomDispatch
***Although Trump’s approach to global affairs seems to have no particular rhyme or reason, it does have a certain rhythm. It has an insistent, urgent beat, something like the notorious two-note theme of the movie Jaws. The president not only wants you to believe that the world is a dangerous place, but that those dangers are approaching at a terrifying pace. Only Trump, he would have you believe, can save you from those sharp teeth inches from your throat.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Israel Mocks Its Founding Ideals - Bloomberg
by Hussein Ibish
Israel’s Knesset passed a Jewish “nation-state” law this week that diminishes the rights and status of Arab citizens, about 20 percent of the country’s population. It’s a venture into the kind of ethnic nationalism that’s been gaining strength in many parts of the world and will harm Israel’s efforts to forge alliances with Arab countries and recapture the allegiance of alienated American Jews.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
by Jed Shugerman (Fordham Law School)
Does Brett Kavanaugh defer to precedent? The answer to this question could well determine the future of Roe v. Wade and reproductive rights in this country. Kavanaugh’s speeches and judicial opinions suggest that he would not defer to Roe as precedent, and that he would overturn it entirely.
It is important to appreciate that Judge Kavanaugh has a remarkably robust record on Roe and other major controversies. He’s not a stealth nominee. But his candid opinions and speeches played a role in getting the nomination, so it’s also fair to scrutinize them. A close reading of some of his major cases in the area of executive power shows a regular willingness to ignore precedent because he favors an ahistorical and extreme theory of presidential power. At the Supreme Court, this view could threaten the special counsel’s office and the independence of federal agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission. Independent agencies have been an important feature of the federal government for almost a century and a half, but Judge Kavanaugh has shown a willingness to jettison precedents that protect these agencies from presidential interference.
Q: Can you think of a case that deserves to be overturned?Judge Kavanaugh: Yes. (Laughter).Q: Would you volunteer one?Judge Kavanaugh: No. (More laughter, long pause). Actually, I am going to say one: Morrison v. Olson. It has been effectively overruled, but I would put the final nail in.
Founding-era practices further undercut Scalia’s assumptions. Colonial prosecutors were often appointed by judges—not by executive officials—and many early state constitutions listed the prosecutors in the judiciary sections. Some of these constitutions gave legislatures or judges the power to appoint law enforcement officials. Virginia’s 1776 Constitution, drafted by James Madison, George Mason, and other founders, delegated to the legislature the power to appoint the attorney general and gave judges the power to appoint sheriffs, coroners, and constables. The Judiciary Act of 1789, meanwhile, gave federal judges the power to remove deputy marshals. Congress’ first draft of the Judiciary Act would have empowered the Supreme Court to appoint the attorney general, and district judges to appoint district attorneys. Congress deleted these provisions without explanation, but the draft showed that it wasn’t obvious to the founders that prosecution had to be an executive function.
Recall, moreover, that the independent counsel experiment ended with nearly universal consensus that the experiment had been a mistake and that Justice Scalia had been right back in 1988 to view the independent counsel system as an unwise and unconstitutional departure from historical practice and a serious threat to individual liberty.
Because of Humphrey’s Executor, the President to this day lacks day-to-day control over large swaths of regulatory policy and enforcement in the Executive Branch. … Those and many other independent agencies have huge policymaking and enforcement authority and greatly affect the lives and liberties of the American people. Yet those independent agencies are democratically unaccountable—neither elected by the people nor supervised in their day-to-day activities by the elected President.
All of that said, Humphrey’s Executor is an entrenched Supreme Court precedent, protected by stare decisis. The point of explaining its history and continuing repercussions here is not to suggest that the case should be overturned.
Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
by William Webster (former Director of the FBI and the CIA)
Monday, July 16, 2018
Sunday, July 15, 2018
by Bob Bauer and Ryan Goodman
Jones and the propriety of the court’s decision in that case involving civil litigation. In that regard, he is not alone. But one cannot accurately claim, as Rangappa wrote, that Kavanaugh has remained “agnostic” on these constitutional questions.
The Constitution of the United States contemplated, at least by implication, what modern practice has shown to be the inevitable result. The Framers thus appeared to anticipate that a President who commits serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate—and then prosecuted thereafter. The Constitution itself seems to dictate, in addition, that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office.
Further, in a judicial opinion in 2016, Judge Kavanaugh unequivocally embraced Scalia’s rejection of the independent counsel on a constitutional basis, writing, “the independent counsel experiment ended with nearly universal consensus that the experiment had been a mistake and that Justice Scalia had been right back in 1988 to view the independent counsel system as an unconstitutional departure from historical practice and a serious threat to individual liberty.”
Moreover, by court practice, he would not explain the reasons why he elected not to recuse, which would inevitably exacerbate suspicions. If, however, he did recuse, and the vote turns out to be 4–4, his absence would render the court powerless to decide a case of historic significance.