Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Kid Berwyn
Kid Berwyn's Journal
Kid Berwyn's Journal
January 23, 2024
Rightwing justice accepted private plane trip to Alaska for luxury fishing trip hosted by Paul Singer in latest gifts scandal
by Martin Pengelly
The Guardian, 21 June 2023 13.19 EDT
The US supreme court justice Samuel Alito accepted a seat on a private plane owned by the conservative billionaire Paul Singer, flying to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip hosted by another rightwing businessman, then did not declare such gifts or recuse himself when Singer had business before the court.
The latest blockbuster report on the tangled subject of supreme court ethics came, again, from ProPublica. The non-profit newsroom has already detailed the close relationship between another hardline justice, Clarence Thomas, and the conservative billionaire Harlan Crow.
Supreme court justices are subject to the same ethics rules as other federal judges but effectively govern themselves. The chief justice, John Roberts, has resisted calls to testify in Congress about the Thomas-Crow affair.
Snip…
On Tuesday, Alito published a controversial “prebuttal” to the new ProPublica report, using a Wall Street Journal column to say the piece was coming and to deny wrongdoing.
Continues…
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-undisclosed-gifts-billionaire-paul-singer-supreme-court
Sammy the Grifter
Samuel Alito did not declare gifts from billionaire with case before US supreme courtRightwing justice accepted private plane trip to Alaska for luxury fishing trip hosted by Paul Singer in latest gifts scandal
by Martin Pengelly
The Guardian, 21 June 2023 13.19 EDT
The US supreme court justice Samuel Alito accepted a seat on a private plane owned by the conservative billionaire Paul Singer, flying to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip hosted by another rightwing businessman, then did not declare such gifts or recuse himself when Singer had business before the court.
The latest blockbuster report on the tangled subject of supreme court ethics came, again, from ProPublica. The non-profit newsroom has already detailed the close relationship between another hardline justice, Clarence Thomas, and the conservative billionaire Harlan Crow.
Supreme court justices are subject to the same ethics rules as other federal judges but effectively govern themselves. The chief justice, John Roberts, has resisted calls to testify in Congress about the Thomas-Crow affair.
Snip…
On Tuesday, Alito published a controversial “prebuttal” to the new ProPublica report, using a Wall Street Journal column to say the piece was coming and to deny wrongdoing.
Continues…
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-undisclosed-gifts-billionaire-paul-singer-supreme-court
January 22, 2024
MAGA Loomer is criminally insane.
Hope she gets some professional psychiatric support. She also deserves a visit from DoJ. All these NAZIs do is projection.
January 19, 2024
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2002
CBS News
Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, “This is serious business.”
CONTINUED...
(Original link now busted): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/attack/main502530.shtml
Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20020602173230/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/attack/main502530.shtml
Remember, Democrats were not evacuated for COG after 9-11.
‘Shadow Government’ News To CongressWASHINGTON, March 2, 2002
CBS News
Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, “This is serious business.”
CONTINUED...
(Original link now busted): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/attack/main502530.shtml
Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20020602173230/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/attack/main502530.shtml
January 19, 2024
By Jeannie Suk Gersen
The New Yorker, January 26, 2018
A performative contradiction is a statement whose effect goes against its intended meaning. A canonical example is Donald Trump’s January 6th tweet in which he insisted that he is a “very stable genius.”
Snip..
Questioning Trump’s mental capacity nourishes fantasies of ousting him from office via the Twenty-fifth Amendment. At the moment, it may seem the more likely route of removal, since the other path—impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”—seems like a foreclosed possibility so long as Republicans control Congress. The meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for impeachment purposes is famously underspecified, and is not synonymous with “crimes” for purposes of ordinary criminal liability. (It is unlikely that a sitting President can be criminally indicted in court.) But many people hold out hope that, if the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation discloses a federal crime, that revelation may spur Congress to impeach Trump (though Congress need not wait for Mueller’s findings to do so).
There is a tension between these two paths. In the hypothetical scenario in which Trump’s mental impairment warranted invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment, that same impairment might also render him incapable of having criminal intent.
Continues...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-brain-is-a-catch-22
One can see where all 91 counts of performative jurisprudence are heading.
By Jove, I think he's got it!
Donald Trump’s Brain Is a Catch-22By Jeannie Suk Gersen
The New Yorker, January 26, 2018
A performative contradiction is a statement whose effect goes against its intended meaning. A canonical example is Donald Trump’s January 6th tweet in which he insisted that he is a “very stable genius.”
Snip..
Questioning Trump’s mental capacity nourishes fantasies of ousting him from office via the Twenty-fifth Amendment. At the moment, it may seem the more likely route of removal, since the other path—impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”—seems like a foreclosed possibility so long as Republicans control Congress. The meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for impeachment purposes is famously underspecified, and is not synonymous with “crimes” for purposes of ordinary criminal liability. (It is unlikely that a sitting President can be criminally indicted in court.) But many people hold out hope that, if the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation discloses a federal crime, that revelation may spur Congress to impeach Trump (though Congress need not wait for Mueller’s findings to do so).
There is a tension between these two paths. In the hypothetical scenario in which Trump’s mental impairment warranted invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment, that same impairment might also render him incapable of having criminal intent.
Continues...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-brain-is-a-catch-22
One can see where all 91 counts of performative jurisprudence are heading.
January 16, 2024
Is this what happened to Sen. Paul Wellstone?
The liberal Democrat was one of the leading opponent to Bush's illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous war on Iraq.
Then, he wasn't. And soooo many voted along with Bush, it hurts to type.
January 10, 2024
Thank you for posting this!
It explains what Dip argued in federal court yesterday and its hypocrisy.
January 9, 2024
Experts: Jack Smith’s “dramatic new proof” so “overwhelming” reluctant witnesses may decide to flip
Prof: Trump “demonstrated a criminal intent" to collaborate with insurrectionists at “expense of the Constitution"
by Areeba Shah
Salon.com, January 8, 2024
Former President Donald Trump refused to help stop the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol and instead watched TV from the White House, according to previously undisclosed details that special counsel Jack Smith's team uncovered as part of its Jan. 6 probe, ABC News reported.
SNIP...
“Trump was ‘very angry’ that day – not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were ‘angry on his behalf,’” ABC News reported. “Scavino described it all as ‘very unsettling,’” sources told the outlet.
SNIP...
Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying "So what?" Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump's part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.
“Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”
CONTINUES...
https://www.salon.com/2024/01/08/experts-jack-smiths-dramatic-new-proof-so-overwhelming-reluctant-witnesses-may-decide-to-flip/
Not only is Trump a traitor, he is willing to murder his Vice President.
"So what?"
Experts: Jack Smith’s “dramatic new proof” so “overwhelming” reluctant witnesses may decide to flip
Prof: Trump “demonstrated a criminal intent" to collaborate with insurrectionists at “expense of the Constitution"
by Areeba Shah
Salon.com, January 8, 2024
Former President Donald Trump refused to help stop the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol and instead watched TV from the White House, according to previously undisclosed details that special counsel Jack Smith's team uncovered as part of its Jan. 6 probe, ABC News reported.
SNIP...
“Trump was ‘very angry’ that day – not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were ‘angry on his behalf,’” ABC News reported. “Scavino described it all as ‘very unsettling,’” sources told the outlet.
SNIP...
Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying "So what?" Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump's part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.
“Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”
CONTINUES...
https://www.salon.com/2024/01/08/experts-jack-smiths-dramatic-new-proof-so-overwhelming-reluctant-witnesses-may-decide-to-flip/
Not only is Trump a traitor, he is willing to murder his Vice President.
January 7, 2024
The lynch mob coming for democracy.
"Violence is American as apple pie." -- Imam Jamil Al-Amin, formerly H. Rap Brown
January 6, 2024
Trump warns of ‘big trouble’ as Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado ballot case
by Nick Robertson
The Hill, January 6, 2024
Former President Trump warned Friday that there will be “big trouble” if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor on his eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot.
The Supreme Court is set to hear the Colorado case after the state’s Supreme Court determined last month that Trump should not be on the primary ballot due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
“Because if we don’t, our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying?”
SNIP...
“They’re saying, ‘Oh, Trump owns the Supreme Court, he owns it. He owns it. If they make a decision for him, it will be terrible. It’ll ruin their reputations,” he said. “‘He owns the Supreme Court. He put on three judges. He owns the Supreme Court. If they rule in his favor, it will be horrible for them. And we’ll protest at their houses.’”
Continues...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4392902-trump-warns-big-trouble-as-scotus-agrees-hear-colorado-case/
Traitor warns America there'll be "Big Trouble" if SCOTUS kicks him off ballot
Trump warns of ‘big trouble’ as Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado ballot case
by Nick Robertson
The Hill, January 6, 2024
Former President Trump warned Friday that there will be “big trouble” if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor on his eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot.
The Supreme Court is set to hear the Colorado case after the state’s Supreme Court determined last month that Trump should not be on the primary ballot due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
“Because if we don’t, our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying?”
SNIP...
“They’re saying, ‘Oh, Trump owns the Supreme Court, he owns it. He owns it. If they make a decision for him, it will be terrible. It’ll ruin their reputations,” he said. “‘He owns the Supreme Court. He put on three judges. He owns the Supreme Court. If they rule in his favor, it will be horrible for them. And we’ll protest at their houses.’”
Continues...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4392902-trump-warns-big-trouble-as-scotus-agrees-hear-colorado-case/
Profile Information
Member since: Mon May 6, 2019, 08:01 PMNumber of posts: 14,951
