https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/whistleblower-complaint-impeachment-inquiry/h_0fe0f9fee33454acf9ae62543b7c53ff

The title, when I copied it was "Spy chief says he couldn't share complaint earlier because of executive privilege."

Someone who know better correct me if I'm wrong here. There is no "privilege" to protect illegal acts. Didn't that get established back during Nixon's impeachment?

I'm thinking NO. Because he doesn't have to fear the Senate convicting him. In my opinion, that would be the best scenario though. Impeachment hearings that bring out the evidence that is so embarrassing and personally damaging that he resigns.

The reason I don't see that happening is I believe he's a sociopath like Trump. I don't think there is anything that would cause him to reflect and resign. I doubt even pleas from his wife and kids could do it.

I certainly think he and Trump should both be impeached though. Regardless of the chances the Senate will convict. It is important that the Democrats take a stand and do the right thing. Some day, the pendulum will swing back and having done so will be important.

Source: NPR

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.

Read more: https://n.pr/2L7VFdk

---

This is a really, really bad ruling.

If I were the lawyers for people like The Liberty Council or The Heritage Foundation I'd be filing briefs citing this ruling so I could take my bakers' and florists' cases right to the federal courts. This ruling will lead to that next. Just take this sentence from the ruling:

"We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs"

and replace the "takings" with the term for the plaintiff who is a baker or florist in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and they can rule the burden is unjustifiable for the small business owner. There's no end to how that sentence can be used.

Now that they've packed the federal courts with white, men who are homophobic and think women belong in the kitchen this is really bad. People are going to go straight there to seek the rulings from these men.

For people who are supposed to be for States Rights, they just struck a huge blow against them.

This is a really, really bad ruling.

If I were the lawyers for people like The Liberty Council or The Heritage Foundation I'd be filing briefs citing this ruling so I could take my bakers' and florists' cases right to the federal courts. This ruling will lead to that next. Just take this sentence from the ruling:

"We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs"

and replace the "takings" with the term for the plaintiff who is a baker or florist in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and they can rule the burden is unjustifiable for the small business owner. There's no end to how that sentence can be used.

Now that they've packed the federal courts with white, men who are homophobic and think women belong in the kitchen this is really bad. People are going to go straight there to seek the rulings from these men.

For people who are supposed to be for States Rights, they just struck a huge blow against them.


Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case — A Sign Of Things To Come?

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/22/734919303/supreme-court-overturns-precedent-in-property-rights-case-a-sign-of-things-to-co?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3dfED6p-72rVH24v0AyXzJY9v3Kpyzk9DDUWPHcRUKg7N3IRJsaDjCB7Q

So, this opinion may be because I watched the Ken Burns series on the Roosevelts this weekend.

One of the things FDR did, brilliantly, was always made it appear to the nation he was PULL-ed into a decision by overwhelming circumstances. That he had little other choice. Rather than it being him PUSH-ing the nation into a decision/situation because of his politics.

He KNEW that if he were perceived as PUSHing then it made it so much easier for the position to be attacked and minimized as political.

This didn't happen with just the Pearl Harbor attack. It happened over several key issues. Before Pearl Harbor there was the law for the draft. Although he was very much for it, he let the GOP take the heat on proposing it and then agreed it was a matter of defense that was clearly common sense.

Some may say this was cowardly behavior. That he should have stood up for everything from the start. To those who believe this - you have no idea how the world and politics work.

I think Pelosi is doing the same sort of thing. She's not jumping up and down for impeachment because as soon as she states a preference for impeachment it will be Pelosi's Crusade Against Trump. Facts will be discussed even less than they are now. It will become a matter of personalities and politics.

I think she's doing the right thing by making sure all appearances are she is being PULL-ed into a conclusion and decision for which she really has no other choice.

There will be more GOP Reps and Senators who join the call. There will come a time where the damn will break. When it does, it will be best if it is seen as her HAVING to respond to the flood rather than having caused it.

Happy mother's day to all mothers who are not narcissistic alcoholics. Who have the ability to see their offspring as something more important than themselves. Who are not void of love, empathy and compassion. Who actually give a fuck.

In case you missed the thought mom, in hell, this isn't you.

ON EDIT: My mother actually passed away a few years ago. She got wasted and dropped a lit cigarette on herself in bed. Burned down half the house my dad and I built for our family. Yep, we built a house from the concrete block foundation up.

She no longer lives rent-free in my brain. All the posts everywhere today about mothers just triggered me a bit. All the damned marketing e-mails in my inbox about what mom wants are very annoying too.

I applaud every, single person who wants to donate to the restoration of Notre Dame.

From what I've read, there are wealthy, European Entrepreneurs who have already pledged HUNDREDS of millions to that cause. I doubt Notre Dame is going to be lacking funds.

If you want to donate, please donate. But think of the three churches in LA and other local causes first please.

I don't say this because of any ill will toward France, Catholics, etc. Just saying it with the thought charity begins at home.

I believe, with respect to Assange, we should consider the situation from a different standpoint. I bet if he had released the Mueller Report or Trump's taxes there would be a lot of people here defending him.

Sure, he may be a despicable human personally. That is not what the free press is about though. It's not about the character of the publisher or the journalist. It's about their actions in reporting information to the public.

ON EDIT AND IMPORTANT: The charges stem from him assisting Manning. From exposing Bush-Cheney/GOP lies. When they come for people like Maddow it may be too late to stop them.

Some philosopher in the past said:
"
life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think"

I suspect I'm cursed because I feel and I think.

It's the feeling that gets me into the most trouble. Because I have empathy for others. I feel so strongly about it when I believe others have been wronged or mistreated.

The world, alas, is not built upon fair and equitable though.

I'm predicting, with great confidence, the GOP opposition research machine is hard at work right now. They're scrutinizing the writings and pictures of every Democrat. All of their school newspapers and yearbooks. They're looking at every appearance and photo they can find.

If I were them, I'd find the most controversial stuff and hold on to it for the last few months of the general election. Maybe some stuff can be released during the primaries to manipulate who becomes the nominee. The Flores/Biden allegations may be just that.

Who can blame them for this strategy? It works beautifully. If you think Roger Stone is idle right now you're not thinking. I'd guess there's a "Leeann Tweeden" sort of kindling out there to start a fire for just about any candidate. Someone or something Stone or his one of his type, working with the GOP, can throw out there to get a good scandal under way. FOX will feature it 24x7 and then the rest of the "media" will have to cover it.

The real question is: Are we going to let them get away with it? Are we going to allow a "But her e-mails" October Surprise again this time to swing the election? It's clear that no amount of dirt and abhorrent behavior will ever bring down Trump.

We have to stop jumping on the GOP assassination squad every time they start a scandal. We have to start standing behind our people until there is more than a bunch of accusations. No, I'm not saying we have to support a sexual assault predator like a Trump, a Kavanaugh or a Roy Moore. I'm saying there is a huge difference between the validity of the allegations we accept as true, then dispose of a candidate and the reality of the candidate's behavior. I think everyone here on DU is familiar with the fact eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony. Ten people in the same situation will see the same event in ten different ways. None of them are lying or intentionally misrepresenting the event. We allow the GOP to use this with the accusations of people like Franken. Then, when there is a Kavanaugh, they use this to foster the "he-said/she-said" arguments and get away with it. Even though, when it comes to the GOP, there is usually a huge amount of corroborating evidence against the accused.

For a non-sexual assault example, think about VA Gov. Ralph Northam. Everyone wanted him to resign over 35-year-old pictures. Yes, they were racist photos. But they were from 35 years ago. No one wanted to stand up and say "Hey, wait a minute. Let's look at his record." Which, by the way, is clearly the opposite of a racist, white supremacist. We supported that GOP scandal and ratfuck.

Then there are the policy disagreements. The GOP knows we like to have purity in our candidates. Well, that's not going to happen. Do I love the "hard on crime" stuff Harris did while she was a prosecutor? Hell no, I don't. That's not going to stop me from supporting her if she's the nominee. I realize at the time and place she did that it was probably the best way to continue being prosecutor. Does that make her an opportunist - hell yes. But, FFS, ALL politicians are opportunists at some point.

We have to stop reacting to every piece of meat they throw out the way Lindsey Graham acts to affection from Trump. We can't get all spun up about every. single. thing.


-- Now, go ahead and pile on me and tell me how we have to be better than them. Note, I never said we didn't need to be better. I just said we need to be fair and confirm accusations, confirm racism and bigotry before we throw people away.