HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 208 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: 33,583

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

Sheldon Whitehouse: Economic Inequality Constricts Economic Growth & Undermines Economic Stability

Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered the following opening statement at yesterday's Budget Comte. hearing entitled, “Reducing Inequality, Fueling Growth: How Public Investment Promotes Prosperity for All.”

Nicolle Wallace with Prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord: Prosecuting Donald Trump

In review. What Weissman and McCord knew that went on before and during the 2016 transition of power, why Obama had expelled 35 Russians, frozen their real estate assets; what Weissman and McCord saw about the new people transitioning into positions with the FBI and Dept of Justice. As is proper and professional across administrations, how McCord and Yates let the new White House (called the Magic Kingdom at that time) know what they knew about James Comey (head of the FBI) Michael Flynn (Nat'l Sec. Advisor) and Sergey Kislyak (senior ambassador to Russia) to Don McGahn (WH Counsel) and Sally Yates (Deputy AG).

Weissmann was one of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputies who oversaw the team handling Trump’s corrupt former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and McCord was the Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at DOJ. The two join Wallace as they break down the cases, offering a clear-eyed analysis on the scope of potential criminality, what its means for American democracy, and much more.

Over the last several months, Americans have witnessed a dizzying series of historic court cases — a former US president indicted twice — ongoing investigations suggesting more indictments are possible. How are we to make sense of the details and the scope of these cases? What happens when the Republican presidential front runner has been indicted for obstruction of justice? And how do prosecutors build a legal case when the defendant is a former president?

Panel questions going forward:
Will Jack Smith win? Yes. What will happen if there's a hung jury? Will Judge Chutkan send Trump to jail?
Who would be the new AG under Trump? Most likely, Mike Flynn, Jeff Clark, and all who get pardoned would run a second Trump administration, including Proud Boys, with the absolute institution of Executive Privilege and Unitary Executive Power.

MSNBC’s "Prosecuting Donald Trump" is a weekly podcast that dissects the cases against former President Donald Trump with in-depth analysis, special guests and listener questions.

Badass Eric Swalwell: Mr Attorney General, you are serious, they are not,

you are decent, they are not, you are fair, they are not. So I welcome you to the law firm, Insurrection, LLP, where they work every single day on behalf of one client, Donald Trump. And they do that at the expense of millions of Americans who are in need for the government to stay open, their kids safe in their schools, and would like to see Ukraine stay in the fight so we don't help Russia... It's the difference between the one side that believes in governing, and one side that believes in ruling...."

Garland to testify before Congress, with his record in the spotlight

Source: Washington Post

On Wednesday, Garland, 70, will testify before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time since the Trump and Hunter Biden indictments. Republicans who have spent 2½ years questioning those investigations, as well as Garland’s efforts to fight crime and address threats to school board members and elections officials, are expected to again eviscerate his leadership — portraying him as an attorney general who is misusing the Justice Department to attack the president’s political rival and accusing him of going too easy on Biden’s son.

“At the heart of all this is the disparate treatment, the unequal standard of the law, the double standard,” the committee’s chair, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), said on Fox News on Tuesday, comparing the 44 federal charges against Trump with the three-count indictment of Hunter Biden.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), a Democrat on the committee, said Garland is doing what he should be doing, consistent with the rule of law. “Republicans are never going to be satisfied because they are not looking at the facts,” Schiff said in an interview. “They are looking to try to get a political advantage.”

“The attorney general looks at these cases as a nonpolitical, rule-of-law situation. And he can be criticized for that and praised for that, both at the same time,” said former senator Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who was also in the running to be Biden’s attorney general and thinks Garland is effectively leading the department. “He is exactly the person who they should have thought they would be getting. He is doing exactly what those who know Merrick Garland well had expected.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/19/merrick-garland-justice-trump-biden/

Hoping CSPAN covers the meeting, so that Americans can see how rule of law speaks to the Jordan gang who can't shoot straight.

Senate MVP Sheldon Whitehouse Explains Corporate Gaming of Bankruptcy Law -- The Texas Two-Step

Today, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, delivered opening remarks in a hearing of the full Judiciary Committee entitled, “Evading Accountability: Corporate Manipulation of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.”

The hearing examined the growing trend of corporations on firm financial footing using a maneuver known as the “Texas Two-Step” to bog down consumers in bankruptcy proceedings and delay justice.

Because corporations have always known they can evade justice by outliving humans, who continue to suffer unequal protection under the law, and die as the collateral damage of corporate policy and practices.

Sheldon Whitehouse -- The Scheme #23 -- "Let's Say"

Brookings: What is a government shutdown? And why are we likely to have another one?

Congress appears to be on track to trigger a government shutdown on October 1, 2023, because it is not expected to pass the 12 appropriations bills that fund government operations before the start of the new fiscal year.

Why do government shutdowns happen?

Under the Antideficiency Act (initially passed in 1884 and amended in 1950), federal agencies cannot spend or obligate any money without an appropriation (or other approval) from Congress. When Congress fails to enact the 12 annual appropriation bills, federal agencies must cease all non-essential functions until Congress acts. This is known as a government shutdown. If Congress enacts some but not all of the 12 appropriations bills, only agencies without appropriations have to shut down; this is known as a partial shutdown.

What happens when that occurs?

During shutdowns, many federal employees are told not to report for work, though under a 2019 law they get paid retroactively when the shutdown ends. Government employees who provide what are deemed essential services, such as air traffic control and law enforcement, continue to work, but don’t get paid until Congress takes action to end the shutdown. All this applies only to the roughly 25% of federal spending subject to annual appropriation by Congress.
Benefits such as Social Security and Medicare continue to flow because they are authorized by Congress in laws that do not need annual approval (although the services offered by Social Security benefit offices may be limited during a shutdown). In addition, the Treasury can continue to pay interest on U.S. Treasury debt on time.

Shutdowns can be disruptive, leading to delays in processing applications for passports, small business loans, or government benefits; shuttered visitor centers and bathrooms at national parks; fewer food-safety inspections; and various inconveniences. Shutdowns are sufficiently likely that the White House Office of Management & Budget posts detailed contingency plans that government agencies maintain for shutdowns, as well as a 51-page Q&A on shutdown procedures.

The plans are often quite specific. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s contingency plan, for instance, cautions: “During the shutdown, employees who have not been designated as excepted may not volunteer to work without pay. Such voluntary services are a violation of the Antideficiency Act and will not be permitted under any circumstances.” The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation says, “A staff person will be instructed to ensure that, at the end of the last day of work with appropriated funds, lights and electronic devices not needed during the shutdown are turned off.” Some agencies say operations will continue if they haven’t spent previously appropriated sums or if they have income from fees that they can tap. The National Gallery of Art, for instance, says it will remain open as long as it can tap such reserves, but will have to close if the shutdown lingers. And the Centers for Disease Control says that 46% of its employees (or 6,448 individuals) will remain on the job, including 2,518 who are “exempt” because their activities or positions are funded outside of the usual annual appropriation process, and 3,930 who are “excepted” because their activities are deemed necessary by implication, or for the safely of human life or protection of property.

What about the courts and Congress?

In a 1981 opinion, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti said that the president could continue to exercise his constitutional responsibilities during a shutdown. With that logic, lawyers for the federal courts and Congress have said that judges and members of Congress – and those who support them in their essential duties – can stay on the job even if the appropriations bills that fund them lapse. But some judicial and congressional employees are furloughed.

In a shutdown, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, federal courts continue to operate for a while by drawing on fees they have collected (as distinguished from appropriations) and by delaying new hires, non-case related travel, etc. If the shutdown is prolonged and those funds are spent, then the courts say they can continue work that supports their constitutional powers.

As for Congress, the Congressional Research Service says, “Due to their constitutional responsibilities and a permanent appropriation for congressional pay, members of Congress are not subject to furlough.” Only those congressional staffers whose work is “required to support Congress with its constitutional responsibilities or those necessary to protect life and property” can remain on the job. But even those congressional staff don’t get paid during a shutdown, though they do get paid retroactively.

Why does a shutdown look likely in the fall of 2023?

In June 2023, with the backing of Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which lifted the ceiling on the federal debt and set limits on annual appropriated spending—one for defense, one for non-defense—for the fiscal years 2024 (which begins October 1, 2023) and 2025.

At the same, the expectations were that this settled the overall size of the appropriations bills, and Congress would pass 12 bills that added up to the agreed-upon levels. The Senate Appropriations Committee has followed that path and has passed all 12 appropriations bills with bipartisan support. But House Republicans, unhappy with the agreement Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck with the White House, want to spend less than the levels specified in the Fiscal Responsibility Act—much to the consternation of Democrats and the White House, which says President Biden would veto the appropriations bills that are pending in the House. The House bills also include provisions on abortion, contraception, regulation of tobacco, and healthcare for trans persons that aren’t likely to pass the Senate.

When the House and Senate pass different bills, the next step is a conference committee at which the two chambers are supposed to forge a compromise, which goes to a vote in each chamber before going to the president. That is likely to be very contentious this year—and there is not much time.

Catastrophe? Caused by oligarchic tools? Just stupid drama?
With the military's gutted leadership, and slowdown of much of government, the U.S. could be in a national security position of weakness.
We have a brilliant Executive team and Commander-in-Chief who I hope will take actions that make the Republicans themselves look like the shutdown, while the rest of government governs.


Ari Melber Interviews Bill Gates Sept 19 2023

Trump lawyers file a new 11-page argument to disprove the govt's objection to

their original motion for Chutkan to recuse herself; that therefore, the court should overrule the govt's motion and recuse herself.

As if they've proven that their motion is in "the American public's interest" as much as in the interest of their client, Trump. As if their arguments aren't rooted in the political interests of Trump.

The public interest is not in the perception of a rush to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights.

As if they'd never again file a motion claiming partiality by any other judge.
Or never again let their client dictate terms to this or any other judge.

As if Chutkan will impartially be swayed to accept their "proofs" of her partiality; as if she herself can show no proofs of her impartiality -- and therefore will be compelled by their argument to recuse herself

Jack Smith could tear this to shreds, but the decision is Chutkan's.
Hoping that DU lawyers might care to weigh in on Trump lawyers' "proofs."


Final three paragraphs, pages 10 and 11:

That is not an insignificant consideration, it is the consideration. No system of justice can

survive if its citizens lose faith in it: “because even the appearance of questionable impartiality

poses a significant threat to these fundamental values, Congress created a very broad § 455(a) net,

one that would ensnare not only those actually lacking impartiality, but also those whose

impartiality might appear questionable to a reasonable person.” Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 22

(emphasis in original) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 548). “Any question of a judge’s impartiality

threatens the purity of the judicial process and its institutions.” Potashnick, 609 F.2d at 1111 (5th

Cir. 1980).

These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush

to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a

fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights. Anything less will

rightly call into question the very legitimacy of these proceedings and cause irreparable damage

to our judicial system for generations to come. The public must have confidence that President

Trump’s constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a

king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed

by the U.S. Constitution.


The Court should overrule the government’s objections and grant the Motion. Additionally,

to ensure the Court is fully apprised on this crucial motion, President Trump respectfully requests

the Court schedule a hearing at the earliest opportunity.

Jen Psaki Interviews CA Governor Gavin Newsom

With this lineup of Democratic presidents -- Harris after Biden, and Newsom after Harris -- Democrats could govern this nation for the next 20 years. Hands down.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 208 Next »