HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 196 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 31,952

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

Why I love Mehdi Hasan: Why DeSantis' threat to 'destroy leftism' is so dangerous

After reading his Win Every Argument, I'm convinced that Hasan's show (Sundays, 8PM ET on MSNBC) is a must watch.

The main point to Democrats: NAME THE THREAT. It is FASCISM VS FREEDOM.

DeSantis Thanks Heckler Who Called Him a Fascist -- He owns it & media need to use that word now.

Americans must know fascism when its tools campaign.

A South Carolina heckler called Ron DeSantis a “fucking fascist” on Friday. In response, the Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate said: “Yeah, well, thank you, thank you.”...

...When the heckler struck, the governor was discussing policies including restrictions on the teaching of race, gender and LGBTQ+ issues.

“Parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children,” he said. “The school systems are important, but they’re there to support that community.”

Saying he had enacted “protections for parents such as curriculum transparency, so that they have a right to know what books are being used”, DeSantis claimed: “And unfortunately, there’s bad stuff that’s getting into the schools. There’s the pornography that’s getting in schools, the parents had to blow the whistle in Florida.”

The heckler, a woman, shouted: “What about the parents’ rights to healthcare, to their kids’ healthcare? You’re a fucking fascist.”


Model Prosecution Memo for Trump Classified Documents

by Andrew Weissmann, Ryan Goodman, Joyce Vance, Norman L. Eisen, Fred Wertheimer, Siven Watt, E. Danya Perry, Joshua Stanton and Joshua Kolb

This model prosecution memorandum assesses potential charges federal prosecutors may bring against former President Donald Trump. It focuses on those emanating from his handling of classified documents and other government records since leaving office on January 20, 2021. It includes crimes related to the removal and retention of national security information and obstruction of the investigation into his handling of these documents. The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors and defense lawyers, as well as other legal expertise. Based upon this experience and the analysis that follows, we conclude that Trump should–and likely will–be charged.

Before indicting a case, prosecutors prepare a prosecution memo (or “pros memo”) that lays out admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues. This document provides a basis for prosecutors and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Federal Principles of Prosecution, which permit prosecution only when there is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. Before a decision is made about bringing charges against Trump (and co-conspirators, if any), prosecutors will prepare such a memo.

There is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction here, if the information gleaned from government filings and statements and voluminous public reporting is accurate. Indeed, the DOJ is likely now, or shortly will be, internally circulating a pros memo of its own saying so. That DOJ memo will, however, be highly confidential, in part because it will contain information derived through the grand jury and attorney work product. Since it will not be publicly available, we offer this analysis. Ours is likely more detailed than what DOJ will prepare internally for explanatory purposes. But, given the gravity of the issues here, our memo provides a sense of how prosecutors will assemble and evaluate the considerations that they must assess before making a prosecution decision.

Our memo analyzes six federal crimes in depth:

Mishandling of Government Documents
1. Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
2. Concealing Government Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
3. Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Obstruction, Contempt, False Information

1. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)
2. Criminal Contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)
3. False Statements to Federal Investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

In the course of discussing these statutes, we also touch upon others that may have been violated but where the factual predicate for applicability is less clear. For instance, additional charges could be appropriate–under 18 U.S.C. §§ 798 and 793(e) (dissemination)–if the public reporting regarding Trump’s having intentionally disseminated classified material to aides and others is accurate. Additional charges could also potentially be brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1924 if there is sufficient evidence that Trump unlawfully removed classified documents from the White House (see our discussion of DOJ precedents for past prosecutions under § 1924 in Part IV and in the Appendix). Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump under several federal criminal statutes, which we discuss in detail.

Just Security has much more about the authors and other sources:


Brass Ceiling -- The Journey of General Ann Dunwoody -- By the US Army Field Band & Soldiers Chorus

Happy Memorial Day. God save our troops.

Ann Elizabeth Dunwoody (born January 14, 1953)[2][3] is a retired general of the United States Army. She was the first woman in United States military and uniformed service history to achieve a four-star officer rank, receiving her fourth star on November 14, 2008.

Funky Cookout Playlist That'll Have Everyone Dancing On Memorial Day


Here's a taste from The Roots' playlist.


More Dave Nihill on America



The Case Against Student Debt Relief Barely Even Pretends to Make Sense

The case before the Supreme Court has already attracted criticism — even from conservative legal experts who have no love for the Biden administration’s policy. Through tortured logic, the State of Missouri has declared itself the injured party even though it’s the loan servicing company, a separate entity, that would lose revenue. Missouri claimed it would be a secondary victim, since the loan authority owes the state $105 million.

But think about that. If Amazon lays off my friend, and my friend owes me $20, can I sue Amazon for making it harder for me to get my money back?
Of course not. In this case, however, the point should be moot, because recent financial statements revealed MOHELA had not made those payments for the past 15 years, and does not appear to have plans to resume them.

Consider the plaintiffs’ reaction to a question that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about the extent to which MOHELA might be harmed under the debt relief policy, given that it will receive fees for discharging accounts. “It’s very hard to believe,” said Mr. Campbell, the Nebraska solicitor general, “and the government doesn’t offer any details in its reply brief, that a one-time payment of fees for discharging loans will offset the ongoing fee that MOHELA earns from servicing those loans.”

Justice Jackson responded with apparent incredulity. “But isn’t that your burden?” she asked. “You are bringing this lawsuit and you have to establish standing. And so to the extent we’re trying to assess whether or not MOHELA is actually going to be injured, I don’t think you can answer ‘but the government hasn’t said something.’”...

But whether MOHELA has standing is irrelevant; the loan agency is not a party to the suit.

Compare that with the lengths that normal people must go to in order to prove they are eligible for debt relief. They have to submit mountains of documentation. Their claims are often denied for the most trivial of technicalities — a form filled out with green ink instead of black or blue, an electronic signature instead of inked one.


Tina? Moves like Jagger? Nah he moves like Tina!

Delightful dancing. h h

(start 00:30)

"If anyone is a rock god, it's Tina Turner."

...Ike never denied Tina’s highly publicized claims that he’d abused her, only how much and how badly. But in the great 2021 documentary Tina, Turner made clear that the media’s interest in portraying her as a victim exasperated her. This perhaps explains why, in the ’80s and ’90s, she found solo success with songs that had a kind of hard-won chillness to them. “What’s Love Got to Do With It” and “The Best” are, of course, enormously passionate songs, but they steamroll you gently, dignifiedly, making them apt for all sorts of commercial environments. Around this time, Turner’s lion-mane hair and imperious stage presence lent her the air of a superhero, a perception she embraced with her memorable turn in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

She could have kept going, running victory-lap tours and lending her voice to big-tent projects like she did with her 1995 James Bond theme. But she announced her retirement in 2000 and mostly stuck to it—save one last tour in 2008 and 2009. Her legacy only continued to grow while she watched from her château in Switzerland, where she lived with her husband, Erwin Bach, a former music executive. In pop music, her spirit—a combination of exertion, excellence, vulnerability, and spectacle—has been carried forward by apostles such as Beyoncé. In culture more broadly, her story has become a kind of folktale, told and retold in books and TV shows and on Broadway. By the end of her life, that queen title she dreamed about may have become an understatement.
If anyone is a rock god, it’s Tina Turner.


President Biden's Press Conference In Hiroshima on His Third Trip to the Indo-Pacific

"It's time for Republicans to face that there is no bipartisan deal to be made solely on their partisan terms." "I can't guarantee that Republicans wouldn't force a default...they said 'we will not default...' "

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 196 Next »