crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Republican Organization Trolls Trump Administration, Posts Videos Of Ken Starr's 1998 Testimony

The group Republicans for the Rule of Law , a group you may remember produced a video of former conservative prosecutors explaining how and why Donald Trump needed to be impeached for breaking the law , has released another video .
This time , in the wake of the news that former President Clinton investigator Ken Starr is joining Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , Republicans for the Rule of Law seems to want to remind Ken Starr of his own legal positions on obstruction of justice .
They have been releasing excerpts of video from Starr ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he outlined his belief that then President Bill Clinton had obstructed justice as Starr investigated Clinton ’ s extramarital affair .
In one of the clips , Starr explains that the “ invocation of privileges ” by the Clinton White House was indicative of its unwillingness to comply with the legal investigation being conducted .
In the clip , with a younger , beer-loving future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sitting behind him , independent counsel Starr tells members of Congress that he considers unmeritorious , frivolous uses of presidential privilege to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office .
But seemingly the only job of the Trump White House the past couple of years is stopping people from testifying or talking with investigators .
The second clip is even more on the nose .
In it Starr tells Congress that the Clinton White House has misused its powers of privilege to impede his investigation , and in so doing had “ delayed and impeded the investigation.
” These are Republican lawyers pointing out Republican hypocrisy .

The group Republicans for the Rule of Law, a group you may remember produced a video of former conservative prosecutors explaining how and why Donald Trump needed to be impeached for breaking the law, has released another video. This time, in the wake of the news that former President Clinton investigator Ken Starr is joining Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team, Republicans for the Rule of Law seems to want to remind Ken Starr of his own legal positions on obstruction of justice.
They have been releasing excerpts of video from Starr’s 1998 testimony to Congress, where he outlined his belief that then President Bill Clinton had obstructed justice as Starr investigated Clinton’s extramarital affair.
In one of the clips, Starr explains that the “invocation of privileges” by the Clinton White House was indicative of its unwillingness to comply with the legal investigation being conducted. In the clip, with a younger, beer-loving future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sitting behind him, independent counsel Starr tells members of Congress that he considers unmeritorious, frivolous uses of presidential privilege to be “abuses” of the power of the office. But seemingly the only job of the Trump White House the past couple of years is stopping people from testifying or talking with investigators.
Which president is he talking about? pic.twitter.com/jMRRyrNhGs — Republicans for the Rule of Law (@ForTheRuleOfLaw) January 17, 2020
The second clip is even more on the nose. In it Starr tells Congress that the Clinton White House has misused its powers of privilege to impede his investigation, and in so doing had “delayed and impeded the investigation.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the counsel for the president: pic.twitter.com/RuwHRPnQtY — Republicans for the Rule of Law (@ForTheRuleOfLaw) January 17, 2020
These are Republican lawyers pointing out Republican hypocrisy.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--David Gura Pegs National Archives Photo Alterations — 'A Startling Erasure'

Are those echos of Stalin we hear ?
As David Gura reported , based on The Washington Post , The National Archives altered photos from the Women 's March that were critical of Donald Trump .
To be clear , these photos were altered to remove the criticism .
Why would what is essentially one of our most treasured libraries , entrusted to hold documents reflective of our nations history and growth , engage in such an act of censorship ?
GURA : A startling erasure , or a blurring , at least .
The National Archives admits to making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 Women 's March , blurring out signs that were critical of president Trump .
A large color photo of the 2017 march now greets visitors at a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women 's suffrage , but according to The Washington Post , if you take a closer look at that photo , you can see that it was , in fact , edited .
Here 's a side by side look at one of those signs critical of president Trump that was altered , posters referencing women 's anatomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blurred .
The National Archives responded to that article saying in part , `` As a non-partisan , non-political federal agency , we blurred references to the president 's name on some posters so as not to engage in current political controversy . ''
That statement continuing , `` 0ur mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation 's most important federal records , and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records .
Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The Archives later apologized - by the end of Gura 's show , as a matter of fact , and he read their apology on the show .
Most are not assuaged , though , nor should they be .
The initial action itself raises a number of troubling questions that demand answers in places that are n't the Weimar Republic .
Who ordered this erasure , as Gura rightfully called it ?
Why was it ordered and carried out ?
Everyone and their uncle on Twitter is calling bullsh*t on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Are those echos of Stalin we hear?
As David Gura reported, based on The Washington Post, The National Archives altered photos from the Women's March that were critical of Donald Trump. To be clear, these photos were altered to remove the criticism. Why would what is essentially one of our most treasured libraries, entrusted to hold documents reflective of our nations history and growth, engage in such an act of censorship?
GURA: A startling erasure, or a blurring, at least. The National Archives admits to making multiple alterations of a photograph of the 2017 Women's March, blurring out signs that were critical of president Trump. A large color photo of the 2017 march now greets visitors at a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women's suffrage, but according to The Washington Post , if you take a closer look at that photo, you can see that it was, in fact, edited. Here's a side by side look at one of those signs critical of president Trump that was altered, posters referencing women's anatomy also prevalent during that first march also blurred. The National Archives responded to that article saying in part, "As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the president's name on some posters so as not to engage in current political controversy." That statement continuing, "0ur mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation's most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records."
The Archives later apologized - by the end of Gura's show, as a matter of fact, and he read their apology on the show.
We have removed the current display and will replace it as soon as possible with one that uses the unaltered image.
We apologize, and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again. — US National Archives (@USNatArchives) January 18, 2020
Most are not assuaged, though, nor should they be. The initial action itself raises a number of troubling questions that demand answers in places that aren't the Weimar Republic. Who ordered this erasure, as Gura rightfully called it? Why was it ordered and carried out? Everyone and their uncle on Twitter is calling bullsh*t on the National Archives' actions and apology.
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling responds to National Archives:
“Apologizing is not enough. The National Archives must explain to the public why it even took the Orwellian step of trying to rewrite history and erasing women’s bodies from it, as well as who ordered it." — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 18, 2020
National Archives takes down display after blurring anti-Trump images
We made a mistake
Not sure I’m buying that. Mistakes are usually unintentional. This was a blatant attempt to change history https://t.co/e0X3nT3Lpj — Patty-Rice (@patpol31) January 18, 2020
The National Archives is supposed to capture history, not erase it. Any one who was a part of this should see their job become history. https://t.co/b8NIjsLHVn — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) January 18, 2020
Changing records of history at the National Archives to conceal criticism of Trump is terrifying. https://t.co/YL3esZKUKq — Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) January 18, 2020
Thanks for this acknowledgment but you didn’t answer two pivotal questions: WHY did you alter the photo and WHO told you to do it? https://t.co/qXZpybu7dI — Lisa Guerrero 💃🏽 (@4lisaguerrero) January 18, 2020
This was intentional and it won’t be the last time... — Nicholas Ferroni (@NicholasFerroni) January 18, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Elie Mystal: Trade Hunter Biden's Testimony For John Bolton's? DEAL

There is a lot of anxiety in the Democratic ranks regarding Republican ploys to prevent a full and fair impeachment trial for Trump in the Senate .
We 've already climbed the initial roadblock we feared : an outright immediate dismissal in the Senate of any trial at all .
We have Speaker Nancy Pelosi to thank for that , and her ability to not only lead , but listen to the brilliant team surrounding her .
Holding the articles for a few weeks has turned outright dismissal of a trial from a real possibility to certain political suicide for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assurances that the trial will indeed , proceed .
The next obstacle , however , involves whether or not Republicans in the Senate will allow witnesses to be heard .
Any trial without witnesses will be rightly recorded by hindsight and history as a complete sham .
A complicit cover-up for the most openly corrupt , mercenary , and cruel American president in its history .
Yet , the GOP has dispensed with any attempt to feign distaste for malfeasance , racism , and destruction of any semblance of democracy , here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bite down hard and bring the guns to the gun fight .
Elie Mystal made exactly this argument on Joy Reid 's show this morning , and in particular , spoke about witness reciprocity .
GOP Trump sycophants like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are threatening to call Hunter Biden to the stand if Democrats insist on calling witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify .
And that was before Rachel Maddow 's explosive interview with Lev Parnas practically doubled the number of names on the witness list that now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
REID : Elie , can you imagine Republicans being able to get away with doing a trial without these witnesses that are obvious that Rachel Maddow 's brought forward , just in that interview ?
MYSTAL : I mean , what you 're seeing , though , is that the Republicans are getting so desperate they realize they might have to call witnesses .
They 're trying to find ways to scare the Democrats in other ways .
I think to Kurt 's point about how this is really a knife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scared .
So when Ted Cruz and Rand Paul threaten witness reciprocity , `` If you call John Bolton then we 're gon na call Hunter Biden , '' man , if that 's what it 's gon na take to get Bolton , then Hunter Biden can just be played by Jeff Daniels in Speed , alright ?
Hunter Biden can take one for the team .
They can call Hunter Biden , they can call Joe Biden , call Ray Ray Biden , call T. Joe Biden , cause you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day I want Bolton .
I want Mulvaney .
And the Bidens can take one for the team because the truth will out .
The Bidens did nothing wrong , other than some low-grade nepotism , the Bidens did nothing wrong .
That truth will out .
We 're trying to diffuse a bomb at the top of our country and John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have part of the answers .
I 'm willing to sacrifice what I have to sacrifice to get them in the chair .
The Dems need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is right .
We 're talking low-level nepotism vs. destruction of every democratic norm , burning of the Constitution , Hitler-without-the-bunker situation if Trump is not removed , either via a guilty verdict or decisive electoral loss in November .
And neither is possible without the calling of witnesses in this trial .
Step up , Bidens .
Not that the Bidens have n't already sacrificed and lost a lot — more than any Trump family member could hold in their tiny brains and tinier hearts .
Still , though , it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a democratic republic .

There is a lot of anxiety in the Democratic ranks regarding Republican ploys to prevent a full and fair impeachment trial for Trump in the Senate. We've already climbed the initial roadblock we feared: an outright immediate dismissal in the Senate of any trial at all. We have Speaker Nancy Pelosi to thank for that, and her ability to not only lead, but listen to the brilliant team surrounding her. Holding the articles for a few weeks has turned outright dismissal of a trial from a real possibility to certain political suicide for the GOP, and we now have assurances that the trial will indeed, proceed.
The next obstacle, however, involves whether or not Republicans in the Senate will allow witnesses to be heard. Any trial without witnesses will be rightly recorded by hindsight and history as a complete sham. A complicit cover-up for the most openly corrupt, mercenary, and cruel American president in its history. Yet, the GOP has dispensed with any attempt to feign distaste for malfeasance, racism, and destruction of any semblance of democracy, here, so Democrats are just going to have to bite down hard and bring the guns to the gun fight.
Elie Mystal made exactly this argument on Joy Reid's show this morning, and in particular, spoke about witness reciprocity. GOP Trump sycophants like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are threatening to call Hunter Biden to the stand if Democrats insist on calling witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify. And that was before Rachel Maddow's explosive interview with Lev Parnas practically doubled the number of names on the witness list that now seem pivotal and crucial to Trump's crimes.
Mystal's position? Bring on the Bidens.
REID: Elie, can you imagine Republicans being able to get away with doing a trial without these witnesses that are obvious that Rachel Maddow's brought forward, just in that interview? MYSTAL: I mean, what you're seeing, though, is that the Republicans are getting so desperate they realize they might have to call witnesses. They're trying to find ways to scare the Democrats in other ways. I think to Kurt's point about how this is really a knife fight. The Democrats cannot be scared. So when Ted Cruz and Rand Paul threaten witness reciprocity, "If you call John Bolton then we're gonna call Hunter Biden," man, if that's what it's gonna take to get Bolton, then Hunter Biden can just be played by Jeff Daniels in Speed, alright? Hunter Biden can take one for the team. They can call Hunter Biden, they can call Joe Biden, call Ray Ray Biden, call T. Joe Biden, cause you know what? At the end of the day I want Bolton. I want Mulvaney. And the Bidens can take one for the team because the truth will out. The Bidens did nothing wrong, other than some low-grade nepotism, the Bidens did nothing wrong. That truth will out. We're trying to diffuse a bomb at the top of our country and John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have part of the answers. I'm willing to sacrifice what I have to sacrifice to get them in the chair.
The Dems need to keep their perspective, here. Mystal is right. We're talking low-level nepotism vs. destruction of every democratic norm, burning of the Constitution, Hitler-without-the-bunker situation if Trump is not removed, either via a guilty verdict or decisive electoral loss in November. And neither is possible without the calling of witnesses in this trial. Step up, Bidens. Not that the Bidens haven't already sacrificed and lost a lot — more than any Trump family member could hold in their tiny brains and tinier hearts. Still, though, it a small price to pay to keep America a democratic republic.


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Maya Wiley Shreds Dershowitz's Assertion That Abuse Of Power Isn't Impeachable

Alan Dershowitz appeared on Ari Melber 's show , The Beat , last night , to outline his strategy for defending Donald Jenius Trump against impeachment charges in the Senate trial .
Immediately after Dersh 's appearance , Melber turned to former federal prosecutor , Maya Wiley for her impressions .
They were ... unfavorable .
MELBER : Maya , what did you think of the professor 's remarks ?
WILEY : I thought they were incredible .
And what I mean by that is that there are a large number of Constitutional scholars .
We heard three of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said , abuse of power is absolutely something that a president can be impeached for .
And by the way , the fourth Constitutional scholar , who was called by the Republicans , John Turley , also conceded that had a president could be impeached for abuse of power .
His argument was that there was insufficient evidence , which is a different argument from Alan Dershowitz 's .
MELBER : And yet , Professor Dershowitz is surfacing something that we know for a fact that it will come up at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a debate over whether to include bribery , viewers of this show know we discussed that , reported on it , and they went with abuse of power .
He says that there is absolutely no way to support abuse of power .
As you mentioned , there is , and there is a text on that .
But , is it interesting to you , given his real experience in court rooms , that he is seizing on that and he wants to make this a high sort of constitutional , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong thing .
Maybe it 's not even a high crime .
WILEY : As a strategy I think it can help serve the argument that these are n't impeachable offenses that 's the it turns to being an evidentiary standard .
Which I would find ironic because we have an obstruction .
I found that argument implausible .
That a president can assert executive privilege over every single shred of everything in government .
And then somehow not be obstructing Congress , when that 's not even the way the privilege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before I turn to drew , I 'm curious , because we 've been through so many stories together , Maya , what did you think Professor Dershowitz who I know does things for a reason and has a strategy .
What is his interest and emphasis on trying distinguish his role ?
We got into , finally concede , he 'll be going out on that floor as Trump lawyer .
There are no people allowed , there 's no guests , no plus ones at the Senate trial .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to say he 's different than other lawyers , somehow .
WILEY : I think it is two things .
One , there is some liability to having an Alan Dershowitz as your defense attorney .
because he 's been implicated , not in the sense of being charged .
just want to be clear I 'm not saying there 's sufficient facts .
But Alan Dershowitz is implicated in some relationship with Jeffrey Epstein .
MELBER : Which is a big controversy for the administration .
WILEY : Not a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one last point quickly , it is also that it enables him to be seen as an independent analyzer of the Constitution .
MELBER : Which is an argument he will be making , when in fact he 'll be a zealous advocate .

Alan Dershowitz appeared on Ari Melber's show, The Beat, last night, to outline his strategy for defending Donald Jenius Trump against impeachment charges in the Senate trial. Immediately after Dersh's appearance, Melber turned to former federal prosecutor, Maya Wiley for her impressions. They were...unfavorable.
MELBER: Maya, what did you think of the professor's remarks?
WILEY: I thought they were incredible. And what I mean by that is that there are a large number of Constitutional scholars. We heard three of them testify before the House Judiciary Committee, who said, abuse of power is absolutely something that a president can be impeached for. And by the way, the fourth Constitutional scholar, who was called by the Republicans, John Turley, also conceded that had a president could be impeached for abuse of power. His argument was that there was insufficient evidence, which is a different argument from Alan Dershowitz's.
MELBER: And yet, Professor Dershowitz is surfacing something that we know for a fact that it will come up at this high stakes trial, which is there was a debate over whether to include bribery, viewers of this show know we discussed that, reported on it, and they went with abuse of power. He says that there is absolutely no way to support abuse of power. As you mentioned, there is, and there is a text on that. But, is it interesting to you, given his real experience in court rooms, that he is seizing on that and he wants to make this a high sort of constitutional, textual debate about, maybe you picked the wrong thing. Maybe it's not even a high crime.
WILEY: As a strategy I think it can help serve the argument that these aren't impeachable offenses that's the it turns to being an evidentiary standard. Which I would find ironic because we have an obstruction. I found that argument implausible. That a president can assert executive privilege over every single shred of everything in government. And then somehow not be obstructing Congress, when that's not even the way the privilege functions.
MELBER: And then briefly, before I turn to drew, I'm curious, because we've been through so many stories together, Maya, what did you think Professor Dershowitz who I know does things for a reason and has a strategy. What is his interest and emphasis on trying distinguish his role? We got into, finally concede, he'll be going out on that floor as Trump lawyer. There are no people allowed, there's no guests, no plus ones at the Senate trial. What is he getting out there, and trying to say he's different than other lawyers, somehow.
WILEY: I think it is two things. One, there is some liability to having an Alan Dershowitz as your defense attorney. because he's been implicated, not in the sense of being charged. just want to be clear I'm not saying there's sufficient facts. But Alan Dershowitz is implicated in some relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
MELBER: Which is a big controversy for the administration.
WILEY: Not a good look of but it's also, one last point quickly, it is also that it enables him to be seen as an independent analyzer of the Constitution.
MELBER: Which is an argument he will be making, when in fact he'll be a zealous advocate.


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Internet Mocks New 'Space Force' Uniform

So , this tweet from the official Space Force twitter account ( yeah , there is such a thing ) @ @ @ @ @ .
Which led to a follow-up tweet a few hours later , explaining why camouflage @ @ @ @ @ .
All of which led to an outpouring of mockery and tweets derisive in nature @ @ @ @ @ Friday released the first images of the utility uniforms for the newly announced division of @ @ @ @ @ Force — and the online reaction has not been good .
Specifically , the Twitterverse @ @ @ @ @ camouflage in the design — since space is not exactly known for an abundance of @ @ @ @ @ in with .
“ Are they fighting on the forest moon of Endor ?
” @ @ @ @ @ , referencing the wooded “ Star Wars ” locale that is home to adorable Ewoks @ @ @ @ @ Vader himself .
Endor soon became a trending topic on Twitter as other fans weighed @ @ @ @ @ new designs .

So, this tweet from the official Space Force twitter account (yeah, there is such a thing) had people chuckling last night.
Which led to a follow-up tweet a few hours later, explaining why camouflage was used. In space.
USSF is utilizing current Army/Air Force uniforms, saving costs of designing/producing a new one.
Members will look like their joint counterparts they’ll be working with, on the ground. — United States Space Force (@SpaceForceDoD) January 18, 2020
All of which led to an outpouring of mockery and tweets derisive in nature.
Source: The Wrap
Department of Defense on Friday released the first images of the utility uniforms for the newly announced division of the U.S. military, Space Force — and the online reaction has not been good. Specifically, the Twitterverse has mocked the use of camouflage in the design — since space is not exactly known for an abundance of trees for soldiers to blend in with. “Are they fighting on the forest moon of Endor?” sci-fi author Chuck Wendig asked, referencing the wooded “Star Wars” locale that is home to adorable Ewoks and the gravesite of Darth Vader himself. Endor soon became a trending topic on Twitter as other fans weighed in with puzzlement about the new designs.
are they fighting on the Forest Moon of Endor https://t.co/LSqJy0vtgz — Chuck Wendig (@ChuckWendig) January 18, 2020
You gonna be hiding behind a fucking space bush or something? https://t.co/XLJZWzhyhI — Post-Culture Review (@PostCultRev) January 18, 2020
Trump’s Space Force troops wearing camo in space is perhaps the strongest evidence yet that Idiocracy is a documentary https://t.co/WG1Yo7fAIb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 18, 2020
How many trees are you expecting to find in space — James Felton (@JimMFelton) January 18, 2020
gonna sell my cool space camo design to the space force for a billion dollars pic.twitter.com/gi0gRpakyQ — Emperor Ovaltine (@KyleMaurer) January 18, 2020
I know this is hard to understand, but on the left there is a picture of camouflage and on the right there is a picture of space. Study these carefully until you can see the difference. pic.twitter.com/7HhAeHRyrm — JRehling (@JRehling) January 18, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Florida's Supreme Court Just Passed A Poll Tax

Florida 's state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of denying convicted felons the right to vote if they do not pay fines and fees associated with their incarceration , a decision that was immediately assailed by rights activists as an unconstitutional and immoral poll tax .
In a statement condemning the ruling ( pdf ) , the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) , ACLU of Florida , Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the ruling `` does not—indeed , can not —alter what the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has already held that the state can not deny people the right to vote because of their inability to pay financial obligations , '' the groups said in their statement .
The court ruled that `` all terms of sentence '' in the law included fines and fees because they are included in `` any portion of a sentence that is contained in the four corners of the sentencing document . ''
Felons in Florida had their right to vote once restored by public ballot `` upon completion of all terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , but the state 's GOP-led government has worked to undermine the right .
As Common Dreams reported , the state GOP in 2019 passed legislation implementing the modern-day poll tax—drawing criticism from progressive groups and rights advocates .
The court 's affirmation of the legality of the law is the latest step in the process of reversing the initiative .
`` The Florida Supreme Court 's decision is disappointing and cuts the 1.4 million people who voters expressly intended to re-enfranchise almost in half , '' said the Southern Poverty Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abudu .
`` By holding Floridians ' right to vote hostage , the Florida Supreme Court is permitting the unconstitutional modern-day poll tax . ''
Kira Lerner , a journalist with The Appeal—referring to her reporting with Daniel Nichanian in July 2019 on earlier attempts to re-disenfranchise Florida felons—noted that financial obligations from the sentencing documents make up a small amount of the owed fines .
`` Carlos Martinez , the elected public defender in Miami-Dade , told us he estimates that financial obligations are not listed on the sentencing documents for 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees in the county , '' said Lerner .
However , as Nichanian and Lerner pointed out , that is open to the discretion of the counties .
`` This interpretation is up to the individual counties and we 're likely to see a broader interpretation and more disenfranchisement in more conservative counties , '' Lerner said .
The bottom line , said the ACLU and affiliated groups , is that the policy represents an unconstitutional poll tax .
`` Florida can not violate the U.S. Constitution 's protections , '' the groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to vote can not be contingent on the ability to pay . ''

Florida's state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of denying convicted felons the right to vote if they do not pay fines and fees associated with their incarceration, a decision that was immediately assailed by rights activists as an unconstitutional and immoral poll tax.
In a statement condemning the ruling (pdf), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Florida, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the ruling "does not—indeed, cannot—alter what the U.S. Constitution requires."
"A federal court has already held that the state cannot deny people the right to vote because of their inability to pay financial obligations," the groups said in their statement.
The court ruled that "all terms of sentence" in the law included fines and fees because they are included in "any portion of a sentence that is contained in the four corners of the sentencing document."
Felons in Florida had their right to vote once restored by public ballot "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation" in 2018, but the state's GOP-led government has worked to undermine the right.
As Common Dreams reported, the state GOP in 2019 passed legislation implementing the modern-day poll tax—drawing criticism from progressive groups and rights advocates. The court's affirmation of the legality of the law is the latest step in the process of reversing the initiative.
"The Florida Supreme Court's decision is disappointing and cuts the 1.4 million people who voters expressly intended to re-enfranchise almost in half," said the Southern Poverty Law Center's deputy legal director, Nancy Abudu. "By holding Floridians' right to vote hostage, the Florida Supreme Court is permitting the unconstitutional modern-day poll tax."
Kira Lerner, a journalist with The Appeal—referring to her reporting with Daniel Nichanian in July 2019 on earlier attempts to re-disenfranchise Florida felons—noted that financial obligations from the sentencing documents make up a small amount of the owed fines.
"Carlos Martinez, the elected public defender in Miami-Dade, told us he estimates that financial obligations are not listed on the sentencing documents for 90 percent of people with outstanding fines and fees in the county," said Lerner.
However, as Nichanian and Lerner pointed out, that is open to the discretion of the counties.
"This interpretation is up to the individual counties and we're likely to see a broader interpretation and more disenfranchisement in more conservative counties," Lerner said.
The bottom line, said the ACLU and affiliated groups, is that the policy represents an unconstitutional poll tax.
"Florida cannot violate the U.S. Constitution's protections," the groups said in their letter. "The right to vote cannot be contingent on the ability to pay."
Republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--Disgraced GOP NY Congressman Chris Collins Sentenced To 26 Months In Prison For Insider Trading

Yet another Donald Trump fanboy is going to be spending time in the slammer , this time it is the @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , Chris Collins .
The former New York Republican Congressman was arrested for @ @ @ @ @ illegal stock tip he gave his son *while standing on the lawn of the White @ @ @ @ @ company .
Collins pleaded guilty in October to securities fraud and lying to the FBI @ @ @ @ @ probation ( snort ) , while the prosecutors recommended the maximum sentence of 46 to @ @ @ @ @ decided to cut that in half and sentenced the disgraced Congressman to 26 months in @ @ @ @ @ he told the Court : “ My life has been shattered .
My reputation has @ @ @ @ @ my family has been shattered.
” Collins resigned from his seat the day before he @ @ @ @ @ solid year before he denied that he did anything wrong .
At this point they @ @ @ @ @ entire prison to hold all of Donald Trump 's supporters .

Yet another Donald Trump fanboy is going to be spending time in the slammer, this time it is the first GOP Congressman to endorse Donald Trump, Chris Collins. The former New York Republican Congressman was arrested for insider trading related to an illegal stock tip he gave his son *while standing on the lawn of the White House* related to a biopharmaceutical company.
Collins pleaded guilty in October to securities fraud and lying to the FBI. His attorneys begged for probation (snort), while the prosecutors recommended the maximum sentence of 46 to 57 months. The judge decided to cut that in half and sentenced the disgraced Congressman to 26 months in prison.
Collins sobbed as he told the Court:
“My life has been shattered. My reputation has been shattered. But mostly my family has been shattered.”
Collins resigned from his seat the day before he pleaded guilty. For a solid year before he denied that he did anything wrong.
At this point they will need to build an entire prison to hold all of Donald Trump's supporters.


crooksandliars--2020-01-18--McConnell Readies Nuclear Option For Shielding Senate Trial From Public View

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking extraordinary steps to keep what 's sure to be a sticky impeachment trial for GOP senators out of the public eye .
He 's already roped off certain areas to pen up reporters so they ca n't wander the halls and ask the very questions GOP senators are loath to answer .
Journalists will also pass through a newly added metal detector before taking their media seats in the chamber in case they try to `` bug the chamber with surveillance equipment , '' reports the Washington Post .
It 's all under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposedly intended to protect senators , but credentialed reporters have effectively been designated a security threat .
Naturally , no digital devices such as cell phones or computers or cameras will be allowed in the Senate chamber to record the historical spectacle in real-time .
That 's standard practice in both the upper and lower chambers , but the House suspended the rule during the impeachment proceedings so journalists could better capture the moment .
But McConnell and his caucus could also simply kill the only camera allowed in the chamber during some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
As the New York Times writes , `` Lawmakers could pull the C-Span plug and go into closed session at critical moments of debate over the conduct of the trial and the fate of the president . ''
It 's a procedure that was sometimes employed during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , but the circumstances of that trial were quite different .
While Senate Republicans controlled the chamber , they were n't in any position to abuse their power or further anger the public as Clinton 's approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking a political beating .
In addition , Republicans didn ’ t gain anything by shielding Clinton from the negative publicity that would naturally arise from a trial they were constitutionally required to hold in the view of many legal scholars .
This time around , Republicans have every incentive to use the mechanism to limit public view of a trial that could easily become a stain on the GOP caucus heading into November .

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking extraordinary steps to keep what's sure to be a sticky impeachment trial for GOP senators out of the public eye. He's already roped off certain areas to pen up reporters so they can't wander the halls and ask the very questions GOP senators are loath to answer. Journalists will also pass through a newly added metal detector before taking their media seats in the chamber in case they try to "bug the chamber with surveillance equipment," reports the Washington Post. It's all under the guise of "security" that's supposedly intended to protect senators, but credentialed reporters have effectively been designated a security threat.
Naturally, no digital devices such as cell phones or computers or cameras will be allowed in the Senate chamber to record the historical spectacle in real-time. That's standard practice in both the upper and lower chambers, but the House suspended the rule during the impeachment proceedings so journalists could better capture the moment.
But McConnell and his caucus could also simply kill the only camera allowed in the chamber during some of the most important parts of the trial. As the New York Times writes, "Lawmakers could pull the C-Span plug and go into closed session at critical moments of debate over the conduct of the trial and the fate of the president."
It's a procedure that was sometimes employed during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, but the circumstances of that trial were quite different. While Senate Republicans controlled the chamber, they weren't in any position to abuse their power or further anger the public as Clinton's approval had already soared and the GOP was taking a political beating. In addition, Republicans didn’t gain anything by shielding Clinton from the negative publicity that would naturally arise from a trial they were constitutionally required to hold in the view of many legal scholars.
This time around, Republicans have every incentive to use the mechanism to limit public view of a trial that could easily become a stain on the GOP caucus heading into November.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Ex-Bush Aide Matthew Dowd: GOP Would Have Removed Obama If He Did 'One-tenth Of What Trump Has Done'

A former strategist for former President George W. Bush accused Republican lawmakers of hypocrisy on Sunday for for failing to @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump .
Matthew Dowd , a campaign strategist-turned-media-analyst , made the remarks in @ @ @ @ @ `` Deep in their hearts the Republicans in Congress know that if Obama had done @ @ @ @ @ Trump has done they would have voted to impeach and convict him , '' Dowd @ @ @ @ @ News would have been cheering them on .
And Trump would have been pushing for @ @ @ @ @ ''

A former strategist for former President George W. Bush accused Republican lawmakers of hypocrisy on Sunday for for failing to honestly consider the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Matthew Dowd, a campaign strategist-turned-media-analyst, made the remarks in a tweet on Sunday.
"Deep in their hearts the Republicans in Congress know that if Obama had done one tenth of what President Trump has done they would have voted to impeach and convict him," Dowd wrote. "And Fox News would have been cheering them on. And Trump would have been pushing for it from the sidelines."


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Schiff Warns Intel Agencies Bullied Into Silence: 'Their Job Is To Speak Truth To Power'

Late last week , Politico reported that intelligence agencies were balking at testifying in an open setting as they generally do each year on global security threats because they are afraid of making President Cheato Trump angry .
According to their report , officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence don ’ t want agency chiefs to be seen on-camera as disagreeing with the president on big issues such as Iran , Russia or North Korea .
Yeah , why would we want to disagree with an irrational thug who shakes down allies for personal political gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Adam Schiff whether or not it is true and whether he will decide not to hold an open hearing .
`` The intelligence community is reluctant to have an open hearing , something that we had done every year prior to the Trump administration , because they 're worried about angering the president , '' Schiff confirmed .
`` Part of their job is to speak truth to power , '' he continued .
`` And I worry that they 're succumbing to the pressure of the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more .
`` And I 'll say something even more concerning to me , and that is the intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine .
They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration , '' Schiff said .
`` The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine , but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial . ''
He went on to note that the CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` We are counting on the intelligence community not only to speak truth to power , but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress because the administration fears that they incriminate them , '' he cautioned .
This is truly disturbing , and just one more reason Trump needs to be removed from office sooner rather than later .

Late last week, Politico reported that intelligence agencies were balking at testifying in an open setting as they generally do each year on global security threats because they are afraid of making President Cheato Trump angry.
According to their report, officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence don’t want agency chiefs to be seen on-camera as disagreeing with the president on big issues such as Iran, Russia or North Korea. Yeah, why would we want to disagree with an irrational thug who shakes down allies for personal political gain, after all?
On This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Adam Schiff whether or not it is true and whether he will decide not to hold an open hearing.
"The intelligence community is reluctant to have an open hearing, something that we had done every year prior to the Trump administration, because they're worried about angering the president," Schiff confirmed.
"Part of their job is to speak truth to power," he continued. "And I worry that they're succumbing to the pressure of the administration."
But wait, there's more. "And I'll say something even more concerning to me, and that is the intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration," Schiff said. "The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial."
He went on to note that the CIA appears to be on the same trajectory.
"We are counting on the intelligence community not only to speak truth to power, but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress because the administration fears that they incriminate them," he cautioned.
This is truly disturbing, and just one more reason Trump needs to be removed from office sooner rather than later.


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Sen. Richard Shelby Excuses Trump's Criminal Acts As 'Political Statements'

I guess it 's asking too much of ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos to remind Republican Alabama Senator Richard Shelby that it is actually illegal to solicit foreign interference in our elections here in the United States , as Trump has done time and time again .
Here 's Shelby this Sunday pretending that Trump is n't involved up to his neck in the Ukrainian scandal , and excusing what Trump has done in public , asking everyone from Russia to China , to whoever to get involved in U.S. elections as just `` political statements '' and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be saying that this stuff just `` happens all the time '' if it was a Democrat flagrantly breaking the law as we 've seen the Trump administration do since taking power ?
Here 's Shelby 's blatant hypocrisy in the clip above via ABC : STEPHANOPOULOS : Setting aside whether it 's an impeachable offense , do you think it was proper for the president to solicit foreign interference in our election ?
SHELBY : Well , I do n't know that has been actually proven .
You know , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened , whether the Russians were involved in it , whether Ukrainians involved in it , who was involved in it , and to what extent .
But I 've never seen anything that -- where Trump actually was involved in .
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well , no , I asked if it was OK to solicit .
We 've seen the president in public ask the Ukrainians to get involved , ask the Chinese to get involved .
SHELBY : Well , those are just statements , political .
They make them all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's OK ?
SHELBY : I did n't say it was OK .
I said people make them -- people do things .
Things happen .
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well , this is the president of the United States .
SHELBY : Well , still the president of the United States is human .
And he 's going to make mistakes of judgment and everything else .
They have historically , both parties , both from the beginning of our republic .
STEPHANOPOULOS : So you say it was a mistake , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'd say -- I do n't believe -- like Professor Dershowitz at this point -- that it rises to the standard of an impeachable offense .
But I still think we should wait and see what comes out in the trial itself .

I guess it's asking too much of ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos to remind Republican Alabama Senator Richard Shelby that it is actually illegal to solicit foreign interference in our elections here in the United States, as Trump has done time and time again.
Here's Shelby this Sunday pretending that Trump isn't involved up to his neck in the Ukrainian scandal, and excusing what Trump has done in public, asking everyone from Russia to China, to whoever to get involved in U.S. elections as just "political statements" and a "mistake."
Anyone think Shelby would be saying that this stuff just "happens all the time" if it was a Democrat flagrantly breaking the law as we've seen the Trump administration do since taking power?
Here's Shelby's blatant hypocrisy in the clip above via ABC:


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Hugh Hewitt Gets Online Beatdown Over 'Chaos Vote' Threat: 'He Should Have His Ass Whipped'

Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt found himself trending on Sunday after people reacted harshly to his analysis of impeachment .
During @ @ @ @ @ Press , Hewitt argued that President Donald Trump 's action in Ukraine did not rise @ @ @ @ @ impeachable offense .
Hewitt also revealed that he planned to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ primary as a way to foment chaos among Democrats .
Even though Hewitt said that @ @ @ @ @ in the general election , he explained that he was casting a primary vote for @ @ @ @ @ see what a real socialist looks like .
Conservative trolls like Rush Limbaugh have often @ @ @ @ @ chaos '' by voting in the Democratic primaries .
Read some of the tweets below @

Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt found himself trending on Sunday after people reacted harshly to his analysis of impeachment.
During an appearance on Meet the Press, Hewitt argued that President Donald Trump's action in Ukraine did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Hewitt also revealed that he planned to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Virginia Democratic presidential primary as a way to foment chaos among Democrats.
Even though Hewitt said that he would vote for Trump in the general election, he explained that he was casting a primary vote for Sanders so that Americans could see what a real socialist looks like.
Conservative trolls like Rush Limbaugh have often encouraged Republicans to spread "chaos" by voting in the Democratic primaries.
Read some of the tweets below.
As you stated on MTP - trump plays to the white worker who is feeling sorry for themselves. They want Leave it to Beaver and it seems you do too Hugh. Playing the victim card. Life has passed then by As for your Bernie vote - you just don’t want Biden. — Bob L (@BobbyL_AZ) January 19, 2020
Hugh Hewitt is an asshole.. his calculation is this. Trump will beat Sanders not Biden. Hewitt is a hack. Will always be a hack.chuck Todd is always kissing up to #HackHewitt who was a never trumper until he hired his son, and was able to political get favors suddenly. — TIMΩTHΨ (@tfan_826) January 19, 2020
Never underestimate the power of an older, semi-distinguished white man with glasses and a nice voice to continually assert that they know more than you.
Hugh Hewitt and the powers that be are petrified of Bernie Sanders. — Enigmatic Polyglot 🇩🇿🇺🇸🇨🇦🇪🇺🇦🇷🇧🇷🇨🇴 (@ahistoryfanatic) January 19, 2020
So that's what the Republicans are going to do, to boost the Sanders vote bc they know if he's our nominee, he'll lose to Trump!! Bastards! — Sfnativekelly (@SFnativekelly) January 19, 2020
@hughhewitt just said on #MTP he is crossing over to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary to set up an election where he will vote for Trump (of course) and watch Dems get crushed. This is the GOP playbook. Let’s not be fooled. — Pat Eden (@pat_eden) January 19, 2020
WHY does @MeetThePress invite @hughhewitt on? But also great idea to have @DonnaFEdwards to refute him in real time. — Louder for the people in the back (@judihayes) January 19, 2020
Sitting here fuming as the lies pile up. I am switching between Meet The Press and State of the Union and screaming at the TV for the talking heads to fact check and call out the lies and false equivalencies from Dershowitz and Republicans. And here comes Hugh Hewitt... grrrr... — Juree James (@JureeJames) January 19, 2020
Hugh Hewitt is dancing around the facts. He ignores that there are TWO different aspects, the fake dirt on Biden AND trying to blame Ukraine for Russia’s hacking in 2016.
Chuckles Todd is the worst. — Doral the BedBug (@DeetSupreme) January 19, 2020
Why is the ridiculous Hugh Hewitt on MTP? Get rid of Chuck Todd. Change the channel, turn it off. — joyful girl (@blairgirl41) January 19, 2020
Who on @MeetThePress booked @hughhewitt? The man is clearly brain dead. No one listens to him. — leefeed (@leefeed) January 19, 2020
Why is @chucktodd legitimizing a hack, conspiracy theorist like @hughhewitt? — Ross (@RlorD2020) January 19, 2020
Why doesn’t Hugh Hewitt care about the precedence of allowing future Presidents to obstruct Congress from holding Presidents accountable? #MTP #Dictatorship — Mike K (@mikelkaz) January 19, 2020
Why on earth does @hughhewitt continue to be treated as if he has any credibility whatsoever? The man is basically Sean Hannity. #MTP — Taylor Desloge (@TaylorDesloge) January 19, 2020
Watching Meet the Press and I want to puke everytime a Trump apologist (Hugh Hewitt) makes inaccurate references to the Constitution. Historians have studied the Impeachment clause for over 200 years and it doesn't come close to how Trump apologists describe it. — Richard Floto (@FlotoRichard) January 19, 2020
Hugh Hewitt is spearing his GOP BS on MTP today. I’d rather pull down my pants and sit on a hot waffle iron than listen to this CREEP! — PEOPLE FIRST (@DAUM4Congress) January 19, 2020
In this presidency, "executive privilege" = "The Man".
When @hughhewitt makes his points (to just believe him & Republican politicians because they are smart, they know), you are listening to white men in power scrambling to keep their throne.@MeetThePress — anne lamb (@LambLeaping) January 19, 2020
dear @NBCNews, wtf? @MeetThePress is a joke. you invite people who lie. Chuck doesn’t challenge them. a regular, Hugh Hewitt, does not tell the truth. he knows it. Chuck knows it. anyone who follows the news knows it... and you know it, but you allow it to go unchallenged anyway. — saturdave (@davelavack) January 19, 2020
America is sick and tired of the bloviating, suckup ludicrous BS by lying @hughhewitt! Hewitt’s sick attitude thinks he is always right! The Audacity of this motormouth challenging writings of two prominent authors, at same table on @MTP, shows his Ignorant Unstable attitude! — Southeastern Lubricants (@SoutheasternLu2) January 19, 2020
OK, @chucktodd laughing at 45 lackey @hughhewitt's asinine comment at the end of the roundtable discussion was classic. @MeetThePress — Raul Alvarez (@chiefsynergist) January 19, 2020
Hugh Hewitt is a fucking buffoon and @MSNBC needs to stop putting him on their air. — Hugh Jass (@GucciferI) January 19, 2020
If @hughhewitt is voting for @BernieSanders as stated on @MeetThePress, then be sure GOP wants Bernie because they know they can beat him in general election.
THIS IS A HUGE TELL! — SPHdvm (@RadShanDVM) January 19, 2020
Oh man @MeetThePress has asswipe @hughhewitt on. He tries to present as non partisan, but he’s as partisan as they come. He’s so intellectually dishonest, he makes me sick. — Stephen Dicht (@64PhilliesFan) January 19, 2020
Hugh Hewitt—Trump couldn’t pass a seventh grade cibics exam — gbarry (@gbarry18) January 19, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Rep. Adam Schiff Shreds McConnell's 'Mockery' Of An Impeachment Trial With No Witnesses

House Intelligence Chair Rep. Adam Schiff laid out very plainly to ABC 's George Stephanopoulos why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will make a complete mockery of the impeachment trial if he does Trump 's bidding and does n't even allow for witnesses .
Stephanopoulos asked Schiff whether they may ask for Lev Parnas to testify , and whether or not they 're concerned about Parnas being seen as credible or not given the fact that he 's under indictment .
`` Well , look , you know , it is the fact with many of the people surrounding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are the people that the president has chosen to work with , people like , you know , Michael Cohen , like Lev Parnas , like so many others , Paul Manafort , '' Schiff explained .
`` And these are people that do have information about the president 's misconduct .
But right now , George , we do n't know what witnesses will be allowed and even if we 'll be allowed witnesses . ''
Exactly .
Trump 's the one who chose to surround himself with criminals .
Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be if there was a courtroom trial that was allowed to be conducted in the manner these Republicans and McConnell are proposing .
SCHIFF : The threshold issue here , George , is will there be a fair trial ?
Will the senators allow the House to call witnesses to introduce documents ?
That is the foundational issue on which everything else rests .
And one thing that the public is overwhelmingly in support of , and that is a fair trial .
Imagine that you 're a juror , people watching your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they 're a juror and the judge comes into the courtroom and says , look , I 've been in consultation with the defendant .
I 'm working hand in hand with the defendant and we 've agreed that I 'm not going to allow the prosecution to call any witnesses and I 'm not going to allow the prosecution to show you any documents .
I will only allow the prosecution to read the cold transcripts from the grand jury .
No juror has ever heard that kind of a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurd .
It would be a mockery of a trial , not a trial .
But that is what Senator McConnell to date is proposing , but that 's not what the American people want and I do n't think it 's true to the oath senators have taken to be impartial administers of justice .

House Intelligence Chair Rep. Adam Schiff laid out very plainly to ABC's George Stephanopoulos why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will make a complete mockery of the impeachment trial if he does Trump's bidding and doesn't even allow for witnesses.
Stephanopoulos asked Schiff whether they may ask for Lev Parnas to testify, and whether or not they're concerned about Parnas being seen as credible or not given the fact that he's under indictment.
"Well, look, you know, it is the fact with many of the people surrounding the president that they end up indicted. These are the people that the president has chosen to work with, people like, you know, Michael Cohen, like Lev Parnas, like so many others, Paul Manafort," Schiff explained. "And these are people that do have information about the president's misconduct. But right now, George, we don't know what witnesses will be allowed and even if we'll be allowed witnesses."
Exactly. Trump's the one who chose to surround himself with criminals. Schiff went onto explain what public reaction would be if there was a courtroom trial that was allowed to be conducted in the manner these Republicans and McConnell are proposing.


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Trump Scoffs At NY Seawall Idea: 'Get Your Mops And Buckets Ready'

Out of nowhere Saturday night , Donald Trump spewed out a tweet ripping on a proposal to build a seawall to protect New York City from rising oceans due to global warming .
“ A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall , built around New York to protect it from rare storms , is a costly , foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea that , when needed , probably won ’ t work anyway , ” Trump wrote .
“ It will also look terrible .
Sorry , you ’ ll just have to get your mops & buckets ready !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ options being studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , as the New York Times reports : The giant barrier is the largest of five options the Army Corps of Engineers is studying to protect the New York area as storms become more frequent , and destructive , on a warming Earth .
The proposals have sparked fierce debate as New York , like other coastal cities , grapples with the broader question of how and to what degree it must transform its landscape and lifestyle to survive rising seas .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coast — one in the outer New York Harbor , out of sight from many residents and tourists — say it would be the best solution for protecting the most people , properties and landmarks , including the Statue of Liberty , from a storm surge swelling the East and Hudson Rivers , without cutting off the city from its waterfront .
Given that Trump is the Climate Denier-In-Chief , it 's not surprising that he would criticize the project , but he got plenty of criticism in return : Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public trough somewhere for protection for his stupid golf courses .
How could it be otherwise ?

Out of nowhere Saturday night, Donald Trump spewed out a tweet ripping on a proposal to build a seawall to protect New York City from rising oceans due to global warming.
“A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall, built around New York to protect it from rare storms, is a costly, foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea that, when needed, probably won’t work anyway,” Trump wrote. “It will also look terrible. Sorry, you’ll just have to get your mops & buckets ready!”
The seawall is one of several options being studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the New York Times reports:
The giant barrier is the largest of five options the Army Corps of Engineers is studying to protect the New York area as storms become more frequent, and destructive, on a warming Earth. The proposals have sparked fierce debate as New York, like other coastal cities, grapples with the broader question of how and to what degree it must transform its landscape and lifestyle to survive rising seas. Those who support a barrier miles from Manhattan’s coast — one in the outer New York Harbor, out of sight from many residents and tourists — say it would be the best solution for protecting the most people, properties and landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty, from a storm surge swelling the East and Hudson Rivers, without cutting off the city from its waterfront.
Given that Trump is the Climate Denier-In-Chief, it's not surprising that he would criticize the project, but he got plenty of criticism in return:
Considering Staten Island is a #TurdReich stronghold, YOU may want to get your mops and buckets ready to help them. Oh, and bring some paper towels too, you trashtastic travesty. — Lesley Abravanel🆘 (@lesleyabravanel) January 18, 2020
Trump asking New Yorkers to get their mops and buckets ready is just like how he asked Californians to rake their forests in the wake of devastating wildfires. It’s a modern version of Marie Antoinette asking starving peasants to eat cake. Trump is golfing while the world burns. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) January 18, 2020
Feels like a good time to again thank all those who thought it a solid idea to make the painfully crackbrained ignoramus at the end of the bar President of the United States — Cliff Schecter (@cliffschecter) January 19, 2020
Were mops & buckets not enough for your golf resort in Doonbeg? https://t.co/tgjSPis52A — D Villella ❄ (@dvillella) January 19, 2020
Yeah, you knew he was snuffling at the public trough somewhere for protection for his stupid golf courses. How could it be otherwise?


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Chris Wallace Shames Lindsey Graham Over Rigged Senate Trial: 'This Is Just A Rush To Get This Over'

Fox News host Chris Wallace called out Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) for complaining that the House of Representatives had rushed the impeachment of President Donald Trump .
Graham argued that the president 's executive privilege claim would prevent former National Security Adviser John Bolton and others from testifying .
`` If we call one witness , we 're going to call all the witnesses , '' Graham insisted .
`` There 's not going to be a process where the Democrats get their witnesses and the president gets shut out . ''
`` I want this trial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he continued .
`` I want the people of the United States to pick the next president , not a court of impeachment . ''
Wallace noted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to announce a new rule next week that would put the Senate in session 12 hours a day .
So basically the House prosecutors would get two 12-hour days and the defense would get two 12-hour days to make their opening arguments .
`` How do you respond to the Democratic impeachment managers who say this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over with ? ''
Wallace asked .
`` You know , I like Nancy Pelosi , '' Graham replied .
`` I think she is a very religious person .
But when it comes to Donald Trump , Nancy Pelosi may pray for him privately but she 's orchestrated the church of holy hell from the time Trump has been sworn in until now it 's been one thing after another . ''
According to Graham , House Democrats did not allow Trump `` to call any witnesses . ''
`` This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're asking for fairness in the Senate ! ''
Graham exclaimed .
`` The sooner this is over , the better for the country .
We can get back to the business of the American people . ''

Fox News host Chris Wallace called out Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for complaining that the House of Representatives had rushed the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Graham argued that the president's executive privilege claim would prevent former National Security Adviser John Bolton and others from testifying.
"If we call one witness, we're going to call all the witnesses," Graham insisted. "There's not going to be a process where the Democrats get their witnesses and the president gets shut out."
"I want this trial to get over with as quick as possible," he continued. "I want the people of the United States to pick the next president, not a court of impeachment."
Wallace noted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to announce a new rule next week that would put the Senate in session 12 hours a day. So basically the House prosecutors would get two 12-hour days and the defense would get two 12-hour days to make their opening arguments.
"How do you respond to the Democratic impeachment managers who say this is just a rush to get this over with?" Wallace asked.
"You know, I like Nancy Pelosi," Graham replied. "I think she is a very religious person. But when it comes to Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi may pray for him privately but she's orchestrated the church of holy hell from the time Trump has been sworn in until now it's been one thing after another."
According to Graham, House Democrats did not allow Trump "to call any witnesses."
"This has been a partisan railroad job and you're asking for fairness in the Senate!" Graham exclaimed. "The sooner this is over, the better for the country. We can get back to the business of the American people."


crooksandliars--2020-01-19--Eric Trump Lies That His Family Got 'Out Of Business' When His 'Father Became President'

During a segment on this Friday 's The Ingraham Angle on Fox , Ingraham and Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization , Eric Trump , had the gall to go after the Bidens for nepotism , including some new attacks on Biden 's brother Frank for a failed charter school venture in Florida .
Trump also repeated the lie that he 's continually been allowed to tell on Fox -- that his family `` got out of business '' when his father became president , when in fact the opposite is true , as GQ described in detail in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Eric Trump Have Profited Off Their Dad 's Presidency .
Here 's a portion of the transcript from the segment above via Media Matters : LAURA INGRAHAM ( HOST ) : Eric , you 've made all of the money , and then your family went into politics , not you , but these folks are doing it the other way around .
They had no money , they went into politics , and then their family members cashed in .
ERIC TRUMP : It 's kind of interesting how that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when their father becomes vice president , or their brother becomes vice president .
We get out of business when our father becomes -- it 's kind of interesting , but for the Bidens , this is a business .
As the post at Media Matters noted , Fox even identified Trump as “ Executive Vice President , Trump Org ” in the chyron .
I assume they were hoping no one would notice after Trump lied about them `` getting out of business . ''

During a segment on this Friday's The Ingraham Angle on Fox, Ingraham and Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, Eric Trump, had the gall to go after the Bidens for nepotism, including some new attacks on Biden's brother Frank for a failed charter school venture in Florida.
Trump also repeated the lie that he's continually been allowed to tell on Fox -- that his family "got out of business" when his father became president, when in fact the opposite is true, as GQ described in detail in October: How Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump Have Profited Off Their Dad's Presidency.
Here's a portion of the transcript from the segment above via Media Matters:
LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Eric, you've made all of the money, and then your family went into politics, not you, but these folks are doing it the other way around. They had no money, they went into politics, and then their family members cashed in. ERIC TRUMP: It's kind of interesting how that works. They all get into business when their father becomes vice president, or their brother becomes vice president. We get out of business when our father becomes -- it's kind of interesting, but for the Bidens, this is a business.
As the post at Media Matters noted, Fox even identified Trump as “Executive Vice President, Trump Org” in the chyron. I assume they were hoping no one would notice after Trump lied about them "getting out of business."


crooksandliars--2020-01-20--Susan Collins Caught Telling Flat-out Lies About Donations From Opioid Manufacturers

Maine Sen. Susan Collins is not having a good week .
All eyes are on her over impeachment , where she 's alternately trying to pretend she 's all responsible for getting witnesses for the Senate trial ( the presence of which has not been confirmed ) while at the same time blowing off the new evidence provided by Rudolph Giuliani associate Lev Parnas .
That 's all D.C. stuff , though , so what are people talking about in Maine , where Collins has had such an easy political life ?
Well , they 're talking about how she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Sackler family , and has refused to return her campaign donations from Eli Lilly .
Back in 2007 , she got $ 2,300 from Jonathan Sackler , former vice president and son of the former head of Purdue Pharmaceuticals .
That was just a few months before Purdue had to pay $ 600 million in fines for misleading regulators , doctors , and patients about the addictive nature of OxyContin .
The Maine Beacon , a project of the Maine People 's Alliance , reports `` Eli Lilly ’ s PAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their lobbyist , Leigh Ann Pusey , gave the maximum donation of $ 2,700 to Collins in 2018 .
She also gave at least $ 2,000 to Collins ’ political action committee , 'Dirigo PAC . '
'' Back in Here ’ s what she told a constituent , Maine 's People Alliance co-director Amy Halsted , about the Sackler donation : `` That 's not true .
That 's not true .
So where did you hear that ?
From the Sacklers ?
No , I have not .
[ … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , I think you should check your sources . ''
Never in this election cycle , perhaps ?
Seems like it would be smart of Collins to be doing some opposition research on herself this time around , so she can be prepared next time she has to answer a tricky question .
Which , frankly , is n't very often since she refuses to have town hall meetings with constituents .
Collins also told Halsted that she would not be returning any money from the pharmaceutical companies that have made Maine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opioid overdose deaths .
She wo n't return the money , nor will she donate it to charity .
She 's above all that .
`` I 'm not influenced by the contributions that my campaign receives , '' she said .
Not at all .
She 's already in their pocket—because she is just another extremist Republican .

Maine Sen. Susan Collins is not having a good week. All eyes are on her over impeachment, where she's alternately trying to pretend she's all responsible for getting witnesses for the Senate trial (the presence of which has not been confirmed) while at the same time blowing off the new evidence provided by Rudolph Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.
That's all D.C. stuff, though, so what are people talking about in Maine, where Collins has had such an easy political life? Well, they're talking about how she lied to a constituent about taking money from the Sackler family, and has refused to return her campaign donations from Eli Lilly. Back in 2007, she got $2,300 from Jonathan Sackler, former vice president and son of the former head of Purdue Pharmaceuticals. That was just a few months before Purdue had to pay $600 million in fines for misleading regulators, doctors, and patients about the addictive nature of OxyContin. The Maine Beacon, a project of the Maine People's Alliance, reports "Eli Lilly’s PAC has given Collins at least $5,000 and their lobbyist, Leigh Ann Pusey, gave the maximum donation of $2,700 to Collins in 2018. She also gave at least $2,000 to Collins’ political action committee, 'Dirigo PAC.'" Back in
Here’s what she told a constituent, Maine's People Alliance co-director Amy Halsted, about the Sackler donation: "That's not true. That's not true. So where did you hear that? From the Sacklers? No, I have not. […] Never. No, no. So, I think you should check your sources." Never in this election cycle, perhaps? Seems like it would be smart of Collins to be doing some opposition research on herself this time around, so she can be prepared next time she has to answer a tricky question. Which, frankly, isn't very often since she refuses to have town hall meetings with constituents.
Collins also told Halsted that she would not be returning any money from the pharmaceutical companies that have made Maine one of the top 10 states for opioid overdose deaths. She won't return the money, nor will she donate it to charity. She's above all that. "I'm not influenced by the contributions that my campaign receives," she said.
Not at all. She's already in their pocket—because she is just another extremist Republican.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-01-20--'Fat Leonard' Scandal: Bribery And Corruption In The U.S. Navy

It seems like everyone ’ s talking about bribery these days – but I , and anyone else who works for the federal government , have to limit what we can say about what does or does not constitute an ethical or illegal lapse .
I am an ethicist who teaches leadership , ethics and law , and I believe a recent bribery case in the U.S. military offers an interesting and distinctive perspective through which to consider these issues .
Unfortunately , due to current restrictions on what federal employees can and can ’ t say about political matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ways that case might apply to a broader debate .
Nonetheless , there is one thing I can say without caveat or equivocation .
Bribery laws for government officials have a powerful ethical principle at their core : If you work for the government , your actions in office are meant to serve the public interest – not your own .
The so-called “ Fat Leonard scandal ” is the largest bribery and corruption case in U.S. Navy history .
The key player is Leonard Glenn Francis , a Malaysian-born businessman based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ Fat Leonard ” because of his 350-pound weight .
He ran a company called Glenn Defense Marine Asia that had U.S. government contracts to provide various services to Navy ships in Asian ports – docking , refueling , sewage removal and shore transportation for both cargo and personnel .
In 2015 , Francis pleaded guilty to plying Navy officers with cash and favors in exchange for their efforts to steer the Navy ’ s Pacific fleet to ports where his company could provide services .
Then , the company would fabricate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own charges look competitive , overbill the Navy for services and even draw up fake invoices to collect money for goods and services it never provided to the ships and crews .
The case is perhaps best known for the fact that one of the most common favors Francis provided were paid sexual partners : He even kept meticulous notes about the peccadilloes of different officers .
More significant for U.S. taxpayers is the fact that the decade-long scam ultimately bilked the Navy out of more than US $ 35 million .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a textbook bribery scheme , with clandestine meetings , envelopes full of cash , and explicit arrangements to perform clearly illegal acts .
In fact , one of the biggest questions raised when Leonard was finally arrested in 2013 was how his company had been able to get away with the scheme for almost a decade .
There were , in fact , several whistleblowers along the way , but as is often the case when corruption is widespread , those in on the scheme were notified of the complaints before word got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So rather than being lauded , whistleblowers were instead widely vilified .
Nonetheless , the truth was eventually brought to light .
To date , more than 20 people have pleaded guilty to federal crimes , including the first-ever conviction of an admiral for a felony .
Significantly , however , the scope of the scandal is even more far-reaching .
Dozens of officers , including several admirals , have been reprimanded and removed from office for more minor related violations , without going to jail .
These last cases are particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the high standards of military , but also the ways that bribery schemes often don ’ t conform to common , stereotypical , preconceived notions .
Many of the officers charged didn ’ t accept cash payments , but rather the kind of favors that they couldn ’ t or wouldn ’ t be able to obtain for themselves : travel , champagne , scotch , luxury hotel rooms , ornamental swords , handmade ship models , spa treatments , Cuban cigars , Kobe beef , Spanish suckling pigs , concert tickets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it shouldn ’ t be surprising that bribery often begins with small favors rather than thick envelopes of cash .
Human beings are social creatures ; favors strengthen people ’ s social bonds and make them more likely to reciprocate in turn .
That ’ s why federal ethics rules regarding favors are generally so strict , prohibiting government employees from accepting all but the most minimal gifts ( even modest meals ) from contractors and foreign agents .
Those prohibitions have obvious exceptions , but the principle behind the general rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions : Official actions are meant to serve public , rather than private , interests .
In the Fat Leonard cases , the evidence is clear : Even in the cases in which leaders have been merely reprimanded and removed from office , the kinds of favors the officers accepted demonstrate they were acting for their own benefits – not those of the nation .
Why I can ’ t say more There may well be lessons the Fat Leonard saga has for other cases in which the alleged exchange of official acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key element of the crime .
Those considerations might seem even more relevant given that in 1998 , Mississippi Republican lawmaker Roger Wicker took to the House floor and declared “ the rule of law means that the commander-in-chief of our armed forces could not be held to a lower standard than are his subordinates.
” More than two decades later Wicker , now a senator , has recently reaffirmed that standard .
However , I am a federal employee , and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has issued unusually broad guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on federal workers ’ partisan political activities .
The law generally bars federal employees from advocating in favor of or against the election of a particular candidate , as well from participating in other partisan political activities in an election .
Yet the current guidance – which itself has been criticized for taking sides on a political divide – has been taken by some to apply to any analysis of any aspects of the president ’ s impeachment and trial .
This is a free-speech problem , but it ’ s more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire experts and researchers as , in effect , public servants , I believe that expertise should be welcome in the public sphere , helping to inform the people we work for .
I work at a federally run university , which is why I come under these particular government rules .
There are relatively few institutions like mine , so it might seem a minor issue .
However , numerous states have laws similar to the Hatch Act , at least some of which apply to employees of those states ’ public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand , public state university employees may well find themselves facing similar , or even more problematic , limits in the future , especially if analysis is taken to be a form of advocacy .
Regardless of those concerns , the Office of Special Counsel ’ s current guidance remains , for better or worse , the rule for federal employees .
Given that fact , there very may well be another reason to follow it : Doing so can help further differentiate those who attempt to respect the significant distinction between campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimize , or even eliminate altogether , the difference between the two .
As a result , I leave any lessons of how the Fat Leonard scandal might apply to any other case as an exercise for the reader .
[ Get the best of The Conversation , every weekend .
Sign up for our weekly newsletter . ]
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Numerous officers who served in the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet are caught up in a massive bribery scandal. Information Systems Technician 3rd Class Nicholas A. Galladora/U.S. Navy
Marcus Hedahl, United States Naval Academy
It seems like everyone’s talking about bribery these days – but I, and anyone else who works for the federal government, have to limit what we can say about what does or does not constitute an ethical or illegal lapse.
I am an ethicist who teaches leadership, ethics and law, and I believe a recent bribery case in the U.S. military offers an interesting and distinctive perspective through which to consider these issues. Unfortunately, due to current restrictions on what federal employees can and can’t say about political matters, I can’t discuss all the ways that case might apply to a broader debate.
Nonetheless, there is one thing I can say without caveat or equivocation. Bribery laws for government officials have a powerful ethical principle at their core: If you work for the government, your actions in office are meant to serve the public interest – not your own.
Trouble in the 7th Fleet
The so-called “Fat Leonard scandal” is the largest bribery and corruption case in U.S. Navy history.
The key player is Leonard Glenn Francis, a Malaysian-born businessman based in Singapore who was commonly referred to as “Fat Leonard” because of his 350-pound weight. He ran a company called Glenn Defense Marine Asia that had U.S. government contracts to provide various services to Navy ships in Asian ports – docking, refueling, sewage removal and shore transportation for both cargo and personnel.
In 2015, Francis pleaded guilty to plying Navy officers with cash and favors in exchange for their efforts to steer the Navy’s Pacific fleet to ports where his company could provide services. Then, the company would fabricate bids by nonexistent companies to make its own charges look competitive, overbill the Navy for services and even draw up fake invoices to collect money for goods and services it never provided to the ships and crews.
The case is perhaps best known for the fact that one of the most common favors Francis provided were paid sexual partners: He even kept meticulous notes about the peccadilloes of different officers.
More significant for U.S. taxpayers is the fact that the decade-long scam ultimately bilked the Navy out of more than US$35 million.
Whistleblowers and corruption
In some ways the Fat Leonard scandal is a textbook bribery scheme, with clandestine meetings, envelopes full of cash, and explicit arrangements to perform clearly illegal acts. In fact, one of the biggest questions raised when Leonard was finally arrested in 2013 was how his company had been able to get away with the scheme for almost a decade.
There were, in fact, several whistleblowers along the way, but as is often the case when corruption is widespread, those in on the scheme were notified of the complaints before word got to those who would hold them responsible. So rather than being lauded, whistleblowers were instead widely vilified.
Nonetheless, the truth was eventually brought to light. To date, more than 20 people have pleaded guilty to federal crimes, including the first-ever conviction of an admiral for a felony.
Significantly, however, the scope of the scandal is even more far-reaching. Dozens of officers, including several admirals, have been reprimanded and removed from office for more minor related violations, without going to jail.
Reciprocity and bribery
These last cases are particularly interesting, because they help demonstrate not only the high standards of military, but also the ways that bribery schemes often don’t conform to common, stereotypical, preconceived notions.
Many of the officers charged didn’t accept cash payments, but rather the kind of favors that they couldn’t or wouldn’t be able to obtain for themselves: travel, champagne, scotch, luxury hotel rooms, ornamental swords, handmade ship models, spa treatments, Cuban cigars, Kobe beef, Spanish suckling pigs, concert tickets and even a culinary internship.
Ultimately, it shouldn’t be surprising that bribery often begins with small favors rather than thick envelopes of cash. Human beings are social creatures; favors strengthen people’s social bonds and make them more likely to reciprocate in turn.
That’s why federal ethics rules regarding favors are generally so strict, prohibiting government employees from accepting all but the most minimal gifts (even modest meals) from contractors and foreign agents.
Those prohibitions have obvious exceptions, but the principle behind the general rules is all the more important in their exceptions: Official actions are meant to serve public, rather than private, interests. In the Fat Leonard cases, the evidence is clear: Even in the cases in which leaders have been merely reprimanded and removed from office, the kinds of favors the officers accepted demonstrate they were acting for their own benefits – not those of the nation.
Why I can’t say more
There may well be lessons the Fat Leonard saga has for other cases in which the alleged exchange of official acts for something of personal value is a key element of the crime. Those considerations might seem even more relevant given that in 1998, Mississippi Republican lawmaker Roger Wicker took to the House floor and declared “the rule of law means that the commander-in-chief of our armed forces could not be held to a lower standard than are his subordinates.” More than two decades later Wicker, now a senator, has recently reaffirmed that standard.
However, I am a federal employee, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has issued unusually broad guidance about the Hatch Act’s limits on federal workers’ partisan political activities. The law generally bars federal employees from advocating in favor of or against the election of a particular candidate, as well from participating in other partisan political activities in an election. Yet the current guidance – which itself has been criticized for taking sides on a political divide – has been taken by some to apply to any analysis of any aspects of the president’s impeachment and trial.
Limiting public discourse
This is a free-speech problem, but it’s more than that. When federal and state governments hire experts and researchers as, in effect, public servants, I believe that expertise should be welcome in the public sphere, helping to inform the people we work for.
I work at a federally run university, which is why I come under these particular government rules. There are relatively few institutions like mine, so it might seem a minor issue. However, numerous states have laws similar to the Hatch Act, at least some of which apply to employees of those states’ public universities. If the current federal rules stand, public state university employees may well find themselves facing similar, or even more problematic, limits in the future, especially if analysis is taken to be a form of advocacy.
Regardless of those concerns, the Office of Special Counsel’s current guidance remains, for better or worse, the rule for federal employees. Given that fact, there very may well be another reason to follow it: Doing so can help further differentiate those who attempt to respect the significant distinction between campaigning and governing from those who seek to minimize, or even eliminate altogether, the difference between the two.
As a result, I leave any lessons of how the Fat Leonard scandal might apply to any other case as an exercise for the reader.
[ Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter. ]
Marcus Hedahl, Associate Professor of Philosophy, United States Naval Academy
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


crooksandliars--2020-01-20--Georgetown Law Professor: 'No Sound Basis' For Dershowitz Defense Of Trump

Georgetown law professor John Mikhail suggested on Sunday that the portion of President Donald Trump ’ s defense which is being covered by Alan Dershowitz is likely to fail because it has “ no sound basis ” in history and law .
“ There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense .
In addition to being at odds with common sense , this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence , ” Mikhail stated .
The law professor cited the impeachment of Warren Hastings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best evidence comes from the case of Warren Hastings , which informed the drafting Art .
II , Sec 4 , ” Mikhail wrote .
“ The fact that he was not guilty of treason , but still deserved to be impeached , was a major reason ‘ other high crimes and misdemeanors ’ was added to the Constitution.
” “ There are many other sources & precedents that undercut Dershowitz ’ s claim , ” he continued .
“ For example , abuse of power was one of the articles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Richard Nixon in 1974 and against Bill Clinton in 1998.
” “ All of these sources and others like them ( e.g.
, Hamilton ’ s remark on the ‘ abuse or violation of some public trust ’ in Federalist 65 ) suggest that Dershowitz – and Trump – will have a hard time making a persuasive case that ‘ abuse of power ’ is not an impeachable offense , ” Mikhail concluded .
Read all of the tweets below .

Georgetown law professor John Mikhail suggested on Sunday that the portion of President Donald Trump’s defense which is being covered by Alan Dershowitz is likely to fail because it has “no sound basis” in history and law.
“There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. In addition to being at odds with common sense, this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence,” Mikhail stated.
The law professor cited the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s.
“Some of the best evidence comes from the case of Warren Hastings, which informed the drafting Art. II, Sec 4,” Mikhail wrote. “The fact that he was not guilty of treason, but still deserved to be impeached, was a major reason ‘other high crimes and misdemeanors’ was added to the Constitution.”
“There are many other sources & precedents that undercut Dershowitz’s claim,” he continued. “For example, abuse of power was one of the articles of impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974 and against Bill Clinton in 1998.”
“All of these sources and others like them (e.g., Hamilton’s remark on the ‘abuse or violation of some public trust’ in Federalist 65) suggest that Dershowitz – and Trump – will have a hard time making a persuasive case that ‘abuse of power’ is not an impeachable offense,” Mikhail concluded.
Read all of the tweets below.
Sure, happy to weigh in. There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. In addition to being at odds with common sense, this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence. /1 https://t.co/mbAg1bxJ2S — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
Some of the best evidence comes from the case of Warren Hastings, which informed the drafting Art. II, Sec 4. The fact that he was not guilty of treason, but still deserved to be impeached, was a major reason “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was added to the Constitution. /2 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
Edmund Burke drew up impeachment charges against Hastings in 1786, and his trial began in the House of Lords in February 1788. Burke’s celebrated speeches and reports against Hastings—widely reprinted in US newspapers at the time—often accused him of abuse of power. /3 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
E.g., in a trial speech on 2/15/1788, Burke said: “It is by this tribunal, that statesmen, who abuse their power, are accused by statesmen, and tried by statesmen; not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of state morality…” /4 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
“...It is here that those who by the abuse of power have violated the spirit of law can never hope for protection from any of its forms; it is here that those who have refused to conform themselves to its perfections can never hope to escape through any of its defects…” /5 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
The next day (Feb. 16, 1788), Burke charged that Hastings “took advantage of the imperfections of the institution [i.e., the East India Company] to let in his abuse of the powers, with which he was intrusted.” /6 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
Finally, in an April 1794 report, Burke wrote that the House of Commons had chosen to impeach Hastings “because the inferior courts were habituated...to try men for the abuse only of their individual and natural powers, which can extend but a little way.” Burke then added… /7 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
“...But in the cause which your managers have in charge, the circumstances are the very reverse….The abuses, stated in our impeachment, are not those of mere individual, natural faculties, but the abuses of civil and political authority.” /8 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
There are many other sources & precedents that undercut Dershowitz’s claim. For example, abuse of power was one of the articles of impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974 and against Bill Clinton in 1998. /9 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
In the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, House Manager Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts defined “high crime or misdemeanor” to include “the abuse of discretionary power from improper motives or for any improper purpose.” /10 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
At the 1787 constitutional convention, Edmund Randolph explained that “The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him [because]… The Executive will have great opportunit[ie]s of abusing his power.” /11 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
Finally, there is the text of the Constitution itself, which imposes solemn obligations of “faithful execution” on the President in exercising all of his executive powers. Abusing delegated powers is the antithesis of faithfully executing them. /12 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020
All of these sources and others like them (e.g., Hamilton’s remark on the “abuse or violation of some public trust” in Federalist 65) suggest that Dershowitz - and Trump - will have a hard time making a persuasive case that “abuse of power” is not an impeachable offense. /13 — John Mikhail (@_John_Mikhail) January 19, 2020