alternet--2020-09-25--Read it: Memo details how Democrats can stall or stop GOP rush to confirm Trump SCOTUS pick

Warning against `` mere capitulation '' to the unpopular effort by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to rush through another right-wing Supreme Court justice right before the November election , a memo circulating on Capitol Hill outlines a number of ways in which Democrats in both chambers of Congress can gum up the works and delay the advance of Trump 's nominee .
First reported by The Daily Poster on Thursday and later published in full by The Intercept , the document was compiled by people familiar with the nuances of congressional procedure , which Senate Majority Leader Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to further his party 's aims while stifling those of his Democratic counterparts .
The memo details a number of procedural maneuvers available to congressional Democrats , including the introduction of privileged War Powers Resolutions—an idea floated this week by Kate Kizer of Win Without War—and House passage of impeachment resolutions against Trump or other administration officials , which the Senate would be required to consider before moving to other business .
Acknowledging that their list of possible delay tactics is `` far from exhaustive '' and not guaranteed to succeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored '' by Democratic leaders , who are facing pressure from advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers to pull out all the stops against Trump 's pick to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Thus far , as Bloomberg 's Steven Dennis reported Thursday , Senate Democrats not been doing all they can to slow activity in the chamber .
`` As a threshold matter , '' the document recommends , `` congressional Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate ( and House ) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas . ''
The memo authors note that on top of the potentially disastrous confirmation of another right-wing justice—who the president has vowed to name Saturday—failure by Democrats to do everything in their power to slow Trump 's Supreme Court pick could `` be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm . ''
`` Much of the broad electorate will want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court and their constitutional rights , '' the document says .
Democrats must act to delay action by Leader McConnell to fill Justice Ginsburg ’ s Supreme Court seat .
Denying action before the election could markedly increase the probability that the results of the election would change the vote in the Senate and thereby allow for the seating of a more progressive Justice .
Failing that , moving forward with confirmation during a lame duck session , if consent of the governed had been denied , would buttress the case for structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the broad electorate will want to see Congressional Democrats fighting to protect the Court and their Constitutional rights .
Mere capitulation to what Washington insiders see as the inevitable will be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm .
At least two contextual considerations make the current circumstance more favorable to the use of dilatory tactics than were the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations , both of which took place during the 115th Congress : 1 ) The electorate might vote to change control of the Senate and/or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks and 2 ) Democrats control the House of Representatives , which can play a part in compelling certain action in the Senate .
Engaging in such dilatory tactics would also likely force McConnell to keep the entire Republican Conference in the vicinity of the Senate , in order to maintain a quorum and to win various votes .
This might become increasingly untenable because up to a dozen sitting Republicans are defending their seats in close races and will want to return home to campaign — including to participate in debates and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss .
As a threshold matter , the Congressional Democrats must enter a war-room posture and convene a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate ( and House ) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas .
Suggestions contained herein , even if all acted upon in good faith , might not be dispositive of the outcome of the confirmation process — but we have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored .
Actions Congressional Democrats should consider include the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhaustive .
We do not purport to have considered every possibility , and this document intentionally omits discussion of certain creative tactics that rely upon the element of surprise .
Speaking at Length — In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement governing time to debate or cloture , a Senator who gets recognized to speak can speak at length .
Objecting to Routine Consent Agreements — Any Senator may object to routine unanimous consent agreements , such as those to adjourn , to recess , to approve the Journal , or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roll-call votes on routine motions to adjourn or recess would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time that it would take for Senators to come to vote .
New Legislative Day — If the Senate adjourns without a unanimous consent agreement providing for the handling of routine business at the beginning of a new legislative day , a new legislative day starts with the morning hour , a 2-hour period with a number of required procedures .
As part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-debatable motion to proceed to an item on the Senate calendar .
Objecting to Lifting Quorum Calls — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent to lifting a quorum call , forcing a recorded vote that would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time it takes for Senators to come to vote .
Motions to Adjourn and Recess — Any Senator can move to adjourn , to adjourn to a day certain , or to take a recess .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion to proceed to the consideration of a nomination .
Senators could make a series of motions of this sort to force roll-call votes .
Layover Requirements — Senators can raise points of order if measures have not lain over sufficiently under Rule XIV or XVII .
Raising Points of Order — Any Senator who gets recognized by the Presiding Officer can raise a point of order making a procedural objection .
Once the Presiding Officer rules , a Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair , and Senators can demand a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely large number of procedural questions on which to vote .
Filing Cloture — If the Senate is not governed by a unanimous consent agreement or post cloture , a Senator who got recognized could move to proceed to a measure or series of measures and file cloture on the motion ( s ) to proceed .
Two days later , the Senate would be required to vote on the cloture motion ( s ) .
The number of these motions is limited only by the number of items on the calendar .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the Congressional Budget Act , the Congressional Review Act , the War Powers Act , and the Arms Export Control Act , give any Senator the right to move to proceed to a vehicle and force a roll-call vote and sometimes a period of debate .
For example , any Senator could submit a concurrent resolution on the budget , and by precedent , if action has not yet been taken on a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year , then the resolution would be immediately placed on the calendar .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could move to proceed to the resolution , forcing a roll-call vote on the motion to proceed .
Meanwhile , resolutions of disapproval under the CRA can be petitioned out of committee with 30 signatures after 20 calendar days .
Such measures could be filed en masse now .
Utilizing Rule XIV — Any Senator can have any legislative measure placed on the calendar in two legislative days under Rule XIV .
Leader Schumer could ask every Democratic Senator to introduce bills on their favorite subjects en masse and seek to put them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once they were on the calendar two legislative days later , if Schumer could get the floor , he could move to proceed to each in turn , file cloture , withdraw his motion to proceed , move to another , file cloture , withdraw his motion to proceed , and continue to repeat , stacking up an almost endless series of votes on motions to invoke cloture on motions to proceed to Democratic priorities , until the Majority Leader shut the Senate down .
To prevent this strategy , the Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down post cloture at all times and prevent the Democratic Leader from getting recognition , or continue to recess the Senate to prevent there ever being another legislative day .
If the Majority Leader did the latter , the Democratic leader could still file serial motions to proceed to bills already on the calendar , so long as he could gain recognition to make the motions .
This strategy requires there being an opportunity for motions to be made .
Impeachment — If the House of Representatives exercised its impeachment power , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate to immediately address that matter .
Amendments Between Houses — If the House of Representatives passed amendments to Senate-passed bills now pending in the House and sent those over to the Senate , those messages between Houses would be privileged in the Senate .
Thus , in the absence of cloture or a unanimous consent agreement governing the Senate floor , a Senator could ask that such a message be laid before the Senate and make motions in connection with the message that would require immediate roll-call votes or offer a motion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment ) and file cloture , once again forcing a roll-call vote after two days .
Short-Term Funding — The House of Representatives could insist on very short-term funding measures until the Leadership of both Houses came to agreement on proceedings for the balance of the year .
Short-term funding measures would then require more-frequent roll-call votes .
War Powers Resolutions — Generally , within a certain number of days , the Senate has to take up WPRs or any Senator can move to proceed .
There are likely additional measures available that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would demand action in the Senate .
Time for Review and Hearing — The Judiciary Committee customarily takes time to review the record of Supreme Court nominees .
Democrats should demand that the Committee take this time before a hearing commences .
Objecting to Committees Meeting — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent for committees to meet more than two hours after the Senate convenes on a day in which the Senate is in session .
Full Hearings — Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee could try to continue the proceedings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hold Over Committee Action — Under Judiciary Committee rule I , paragraph 3 , “ At the request of any member .
.
.
a .
.
.
nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week , whichever occurs later.
” A Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee should demand that the nomination be held over for the week .
Denying a Quorum — Republicans need to produce the presence of a quorum of Judiciary Committee Senators to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to help produce the necessary Senators .

Warning against "mere capitulation" to the unpopular effort by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to rush through another right-wing Supreme Court justice right before the November election, a memo circulating on Capitol Hill outlines a number of ways in which Democrats in both chambers of Congress can gum up the works and delay the advance of Trump's nominee.
First reported by The Daily Poster on Thursday and later published in full by The Intercept, the document was compiled by people familiar with the nuances of congressional procedure, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has frequently used to further his party's aims while stifling those of his Democratic counterparts.
The memo details a number of procedural maneuvers available to congressional Democrats, including the introduction of privileged War Powers Resolutions—an idea floated this week by Kate Kizer of Win Without War—and House passage of impeachment resolutions against Trump or other administration officials, which the Senate would be required to consider before moving to other business.
Acknowledging that their list of possible delay tactics is "far from exhaustive" and not guaranteed to succeed, the authors of the memo maintain that they "have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored" by Democratic leaders, who are facing pressure from advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers to pull out all the stops against Trump's pick to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thus far, as Bloomberg's Steven Dennis reported Thursday, Senate Democrats not been doing all they can to slow activity in the chamber.
"As a threshold matter," the document recommends, "congressional Democrats must enter a war-room posture and convene a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate (and House) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas."
The memo authors note that on top of the potentially disastrous confirmation of another right-wing justice—who the president has vowed to name Saturday—failure by Democrats to do everything in their power to slow Trump's Supreme Court pick could "be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm."
"Much of the broad electorate will want to see congressional Democrats fighting to protect the court and their constitutional rights," the document says.
Read the full memo:
Democrats must act to delay action by Leader McConnell to fill Justice Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat. Denying action before the election could markedly increase the probability that the results of the election would change the vote in the Senate and thereby allow for the seating of a more progressive Justice. Failing that, moving forward with confirmation during a lame duck session, if consent of the governed had been denied, would buttress the case for structural Court reform.
Moreover, much of the broad electorate will want to see Congressional Democrats fighting to protect the Court and their Constitutional rights. Mere capitulation to what Washington insiders see as the inevitable will be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm.
At least two contextual considerations make the current circumstance more favorable to the use of dilatory tactics than were the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations, both of which took place during the 115th Congress: 1) The electorate might vote to change control of the Senate and/or the White House in a matter of weeks and 2) Democrats control the House of Representatives, which can play a part in compelling certain action in the Senate.
Engaging in such dilatory tactics would also likely force McConnell to keep the entire Republican Conference in the vicinity of the Senate, in order to maintain a quorum and to win various votes. This might become increasingly untenable because up to a dozen sitting Republicans are defending their seats in close races and will want to return home to campaign — including to participate in debates and other events they will be loath to miss.
As a threshold matter, the Congressional Democrats must enter a war-room posture and convene a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate (and House) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas.
Suggestions contained herein, even if all acted upon in good faith, might not be dispositive of the outcome of the confirmation process — but we have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored.
Actions Congressional Democrats should consider include the following — but what follows is far from exhaustive. We do not purport to have considered every possibility, and this document intentionally omits discussion of certain creative tactics that rely upon the element of surprise.
Exercising Rights To Delay Senate Action Generally
Speaking at Length — In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement governing time to debate or cloture, a Senator who gets recognized to speak can speak at length.
Objecting to Routine Consent Agreements — Any Senator may object to routine unanimous consent agreements, such as those to adjourn, to recess, to approve the Journal, or to dispense with the Morning Hour. Forcing roll-call votes on routine motions to adjourn or recess would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time that it would take for Senators to come to vote.
New Legislative Day — If the Senate adjourns without a unanimous consent agreement providing for the handling of routine business at the beginning of a new legislative day, a new legislative day starts with the morning hour, a 2-hour period with a number of required procedures. As part of the morning hour, any Senator could make a non-debatable motion to proceed to an item on the Senate calendar.
Objecting to Lifting Quorum Calls — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent to lifting a quorum call, forcing a recorded vote that would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time it takes for Senators to come to vote.
Motions to Adjourn and Recess — Any Senator can move to adjourn, to adjourn to a day certain, or to take a recess. All of these motions take precedence over a motion to proceed to the consideration of a nomination. Senators could make a series of motions of this sort to force roll-call votes.
Layover Requirements — Senators can raise points of order if measures have not lain over sufficiently under Rule XIV or XVII.
Raising Points of Order — Any Senator who gets recognized by the Presiding Officer can raise a point of order making a procedural objection. Once the Presiding Officer rules, a Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair, and Senators can demand a roll-call vote. One could imagine an extremely large number of procedural questions on which to vote.
Filing Cloture — If the Senate is not governed by a unanimous consent agreement or post cloture, a Senator who got recognized could move to proceed to a measure or series of measures and file cloture on the motion(s) to proceed. Two days later, the Senate would be required to vote on the cloture motion(s). The number of these motions is limited only by the number of items on the calendar.
Fast-Track Vehicles — Several fast-track statutes, including the Congressional Budget Act, the Congressional Review Act, the War Powers Act, and the Arms Export Control Act, give any Senator the right to move to proceed to a vehicle and force a roll-call vote and sometimes a period of debate. For example, any Senator could submit a concurrent resolution on the budget, and by precedent, if action has not yet been taken on a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, then the resolution would be immediately placed on the calendar. Once on the calendar, any Senator could move to proceed to the resolution, forcing a roll-call vote on the motion to proceed. Meanwhile, resolutions of disapproval under the CRA can be petitioned out of committee with 30 signatures after 20 calendar days. Such measures could be filed en masse now.
Utilizing Rule XIV — Any Senator can have any legislative measure placed on the calendar in two legislative days under Rule XIV. Leader Schumer could ask every Democratic Senator to introduce bills on their favorite subjects en masse and seek to put them on the calendar via rule XIV. Once they were on the calendar two legislative days later, if Schumer could get the floor, he could move to proceed to each in turn, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, move to another, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, and continue to repeat, stacking up an almost endless series of votes on motions to invoke cloture on motions to proceed to Democratic priorities, until the Majority Leader shut the Senate down.
To prevent this strategy, the Majority Leader would have to keep the Senate locked down post cloture at all times and prevent the Democratic Leader from getting recognition, or continue to recess the Senate to prevent there ever being another legislative day. If the Majority Leader did the latter, the Democratic leader could still file serial motions to proceed to bills already on the calendar, so long as he could gain recognition to make the motions. This strategy requires there being an opportunity for motions to be made.
House Measures Requiring Senate Action
Impeachment — If the House of Representatives exercised its impeachment power, then the rules of the Senate require the Senate to immediately address that matter.
Amendments Between Houses — If the House of Representatives passed amendments to Senate-passed bills now pending in the House and sent those over to the Senate, those messages between Houses would be privileged in the Senate. Thus, in the absence of cloture or a unanimous consent agreement governing the Senate floor, a Senator could ask that such a message be laid before the Senate and make motions in connection with the message that would require immediate roll-call votes or offer a motion to concur (or concur with an amendment) and file cloture, once again forcing a roll-call vote after two days.
Short-Term Funding — The House of Representatives could insist on very short-term funding measures until the Leadership of both Houses came to agreement on proceedings for the balance of the year. Short-term funding measures would then require more-frequent roll-call votes.
War Powers Resolutions — Generally, within a certain number of days, the Senate has to take up WPRs or any Senator can move to proceed.
There are likely additional measures available that, if passed by the House, would demand action in the Senate.
Exercising Rights in the Judiciary Committee
Time for Review and Hearing — The Judiciary Committee customarily takes time to review the record of Supreme Court nominees. Democrats should demand that the Committee take this time before a hearing commences.
Objecting to Committees Meeting — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent for committees to meet more than two hours after the Senate convenes on a day in which the Senate is in session.
Full Hearings — Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee could try to continue the proceedings of any hearing that the Chairman calls.
Hold Over Committee Action — Under Judiciary Committee rule I, paragraph 3, “At the request of any member . . . a . . . nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.” A Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee should demand that the nomination be held over for the week.
Denying a Quorum — Republicans need to produce the presence of a quorum of Judiciary Committee Senators to report out the nomination. Democrats might choose not to help produce the necessary Senators.


alternet--2020-09-25--Wall Street Journal manages to find a way to blame Democrats for Trump’s election threats

“ GOP House and Senate leaders have already repudiated Mr. Trump ’ s remarks , ” the board wrote .
“ If he tried to remain after Joe Biden was certified as the winner , his political support would collapse.
” The editorial board also questioned how the president could carry out that unlawful maneuver without the support of his own security agencies or some top military leaders , and the Journal argued that Trump was actually right — if rash — to refuse to concede defeat before the election is even held .
“ The rule of law is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mr. Trump is right not to forswear his legal options , ” the board wrote .
“ Yet his reckless comments give credence to Democratic hysteria , and he should clarify his views if he doesn ’ t want to lose more voters who think he lacks the temperament or self-control for the office.
” The board then accuses Trump ’ s opponents of making the same threats , by selectively quoting Hillary Clinton ’ s recommendation that Biden hold off on concession until all the votes are counted , and accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the president .
“ The sad reality is that Democratic opinion leaders have been waiting for a Reichstag fire moment from the minute Mr. Trump took office , ” the board wrote .
“ Their thirst to be vindicated has grown more intense as his term draws to a close .
Perhaps they want to save face after misunderstanding their country and its citizens so fundamentally for four years .
Mr. Trump should stop fueling their destructive ideas , because the legitimacy of election results is the bedrock of American democracy .
@

“GOP House and Senate leaders have already repudiated Mr. Trump’s remarks,” the board wrote. “If he tried to remain after Joe Biden was certified as the winner, his political support would collapse.”
The editorial board also questioned how the president could carry out that unlawful maneuver without the support of his own security agencies or some top military leaders, and the Journal argued that Trump was actually right — if rash — to refuse to concede defeat before the election is even held.
“The rule of law is vital to free and fair elections, and Mr. Trump is right not to forswear his legal options,” the board wrote. “Yet his reckless comments give credence to Democratic hysteria, and he should clarify his views if he doesn’t want to lose more voters who think he lacks the temperament or self-control for the office.”
The board then accuses Trump’s opponents of making the same threats, by selectively quoting Hillary Clinton’s recommendation that Biden hold off on concession until all the votes are counted, and accused Democrats of trying to inflame public opinion against the president.
“The sad reality is that Democratic opinion leaders have been waiting for a Reichstag fire moment from the minute Mr. Trump took office,” the board wrote. “Their thirst to be vindicated has grown more intense as his term draws to a close. Perhaps they want to save face after misunderstanding their country and its citizens so fundamentally for four years. Mr. Trump should stop fueling their destructive ideas, because the legitimacy of election results is the bedrock of American democracy.”


alternet--2020-09-25--Republicans cynically use Ginsburg's 2016 words — but they're hoping voters will miss one key detail

Republicans are using the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s 2016 words to try to undermine her dying wish , in apparent hopes that people don ’ t know the difference between February and September .
Ginsburg ’ s family has shared her final public statement , “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” But wait !
In 2016 , as Republicans , led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , held a Supreme Court seat open for the final 10 months of President Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee should get a hearing .
“ The president is elected for four years , not three years , ” she said , adding “ So the power he has in year three continues into year four.
” That quote will feature heavily in advertising from the 45Committee , introduced in a blast of chutzpah with the question “ How do you respect Ruth Bader Ginsburg ?
” The difference is this : In 2016 , Justice Antonin Scalia died in February .
There was enough time for a leisurely vetting process followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by several more months before the elections .
Now , Republicans are trying to get through the confirmation process more quickly than it ’ s happened since 1981 , when Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor was confirmed unanimously , and if they succeed , it will be with just days to go until the elections .
Also , of course , Ginsburg ’ s final wish was informed by Republican behavior in 2016 .
She didn ’ t ask them to repeat 2016 .
She just said don ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the reverse of the precedents broken in 2016 .
But breaking precedent to build partisan power is what the Republican Party is all about .
Republicans are planning to spend up to $ 35 million boosting Trump ’ s nominee .

Republicans are using the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2016 words to try to undermine her dying wish, in apparent hopes that people don’t know the difference between February and September. Ginsburg’s family has shared her final public statement, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
But wait! In 2016, as Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, held a Supreme Court seat open for the final 10 months of President Obama’s term, Ginsburg said Obama’s nominee should get a hearing. “The president is elected for four years, not three years,” she said, adding “So the power he has in year three continues into year four.” That quote will feature heavily in advertising from the 45Committee, introduced in a blast of chutzpah with the question “How do you respect Ruth Bader Ginsburg?”
The difference is this: In 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died in February. There was enough time for a leisurely vetting process followed by full confirmation hearings and vote, followed by several more months before the elections. Now, Republicans are trying to get through the confirmation process more quickly than it’s happened since 1981, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed unanimously, and if they succeed, it will be with just days to go until the elections.
Small difference.
Also, of course, Ginsburg’s final wish was informed by Republican behavior in 2016. She didn’t ask them to repeat 2016. She just said don’t do a full turn-about and break all precedent in the reverse of the precedents broken in 2016. But breaking precedent to build partisan power is what the Republican Party is all about.
Republicans are planning to spend up to $35 million boosting Trump’s nominee.


alternet--2020-09-25--Alaska mining exec steps down after being caught on Zoom boasting about his ties to Republican polit

Alaska mining exec steps down after being caught on Zoom boasting about his ties to Republican politicians: report

Tom Collier , a mining executive in Alaska , has been boasting about his relationship with Republican politicians — and some Democratic politicians as well .
That boasting , according to the Washington Post , has led to his resignation .
Collier , the Post ’ s Juliet Eilperin reports , stepped down as CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership on September 23 , which was the day after the Environmental Investigation Agency released recordings of Zoom conversations in which Collier “ talked of currying favor with the White House and Alaska lawmakers to win federal approval for a massive gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a red state , there has been a lot of debate about the environmental impact of a mining project that Collier was pushing for .
Eilperin explains , “ Collier and Ronald Thiessen , CEO of the Canadian parent company , Northern Dynasty Minerals , were recorded separately suggesting that GOP politicians would not block Pebble Mine even though some had raised concerns about its environmental impact .
Collier… .
stood to receive $ 12.4 million in bonuses if the federal government approved a key permit for the mine and it could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators , who were posing as possible investors in the project , he touted his effort to funnel money to Republican politicians in Alaska and defeat those who sided with Democrats against the mine.
” Collier , according to Eilperin , told the EIA investigators , “ I ’ ve supported all the Republican candidates in the state .
I meet with the two senators , the congressman , the governor on a regular basis — and they welcome me as someone they know supports the Republican Party .
Now , having said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we may have ( former Vice President Joe ) Biden as a president , and if we do , I ’ m gon na brush off my Democratic credentials and start using them a little more actively than I do.
” During the 1990s , Collier — who is registered as an independent — served as chief of staff to Bruce Babbitt , secretary of the interior under President Bill Clinton .
Babbitt , a centrist Democrat , was elected governor of Arizona in 1977 and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northern Dynasty Minerals said that Collier “ has submitted his resignation in light of comments made about elected and regulatory officials in Alaska in private conversations covertly videotaped by an environmental activist group .
”

Tom Collier, a mining executive in Alaska, has been boasting about his relationship with Republican politicians — and some Democratic politicians as well. That boasting, according to the Washington Post, has led to his resignation.
Collier, the Post’s Juliet Eilperin reports, stepped down as CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership on September 23, which was the day after the Environmental Investigation Agency released recordings of Zoom conversations in which Collier “talked of currying favor with the White House and Alaska lawmakers to win federal approval for a massive gold and copper mine.”
In Alaska, a red state, there has been a lot of debate about the environmental impact of a mining project that Collier was pushing for.
Eilperin explains, “Collier and Ronald Thiessen, CEO of the Canadian parent company, Northern Dynasty Minerals, were recorded separately suggesting that GOP politicians would not block Pebble Mine even though some had raised concerns about its environmental impact. Collier…. stood to receive $12.4 million in bonuses if the federal government approved a key permit for the mine and it could be upheld in court. Speaking to EIA investigators, who were posing as possible investors in the project, he touted his effort to funnel money to Republican politicians in Alaska and defeat those who sided with Democrats against the mine.”
Collier, according to Eilperin, told the EIA investigators, “I’ve supported all the Republican candidates in the state. I meet with the two senators, the congressman, the governor on a regular basis — and they welcome me as someone they know supports the Republican Party. Now, having said that, it’s entirely possible that we may have (former Vice President Joe) Biden as a president, and if we do, I’m gonna brush off my Democratic credentials and start using them a little more actively than I do.”
During the 1990s, Collier — who is registered as an independent — served as chief of staff to Bruce Babbitt, secretary of the interior under President Bill Clinton. Babbitt, a centrist Democrat, was elected governor of Arizona in 1977 and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.
In an official statement, Northern Dynasty Minerals said that Collier “has submitted his resignation in light of comments made about elected and regulatory officials in Alaska in private conversations covertly videotaped by an environmental activist group.”


alternet--2020-09-25--'Remarkable': Top Republicans McConnell and McCarthy snub ceremony honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsb

'Remarkable': Top Republicans McConnell and McCarthy snub ceremony honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

One week after her passing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being honored Friday morning with a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda .
Justice Ginsburg becomes the first woman and the first person of Jewish faith to lie in state in Statuary Hall .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi honored the beloved jurist , and welcomed attendees come to pay their respects .
Conspicuous in their absence are the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate , Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky , and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , Republican of California .
“ Normally , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affair where the so-called Big Four ( w Pelosi & Schumer ) present a united front , ” NBC News ’ Peter Alexander observed .
MSNBC ’ s Chris Jansing called it “ remarkable for a ceremony of this magnitude to be missing two top congressional leaders.
” Today ’ s ceremony comes just one day before President Donald Trump will announce his nominee to sit in the chair Ginsburg held for 27 years .
By most accounts he will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett , a far right wing religious extremist who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn Roe v. Wade and void the Affordable Care Act .
One Capitol Hill staffer notes McConnell ’ s office “ is on the same floor , just a few hundred feet from the rotunda where this ceremony is occurring.
” On social media some called the Republicans ’ snub of Justice Ginsburg anti-Semitic .
Others called it political and lamented the end of bipartisanship .

One week after her passing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being honored Friday morning with a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. Justice Ginsburg becomes the first woman and the first person of Jewish faith to lie in state in Statuary Hall.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi honored the beloved jurist, and welcomed attendees come to pay their respects.
Conspicuous in their absence are the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California.
“Normally, a ceremony of this magnitude is a bipartisan affair where the so-called Big Four (w Pelosi & Schumer) present a united front,” NBC News’ Peter Alexander observed.
MSNBC’s Chris Jansing called it “remarkable for a ceremony of this magnitude to be missing two top congressional leaders.”
Today’s ceremony comes just one day before President Donald Trump will announce his nominee to sit in the chair Ginsburg held for 27 years. By most accounts he will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a far right wing religious extremist who has made clear she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and void the Affordable Care Act.
One Capitol Hill staffer notes McConnell’s office “is on the same floor, just a few hundred feet from the rotunda where this ceremony is occurring.”
NBC News’ David Gura notes:
On social media some called the Republicans’ snub of Justice Ginsburg anti-Semitic. Others called it political and lamented the end of bipartisanship.


alternet--2020-09-25--Catholic and evangelical voters fleeing Trump due to his lack of ‘basic kindness’: report

Now that Christian voters have watched him in action for nearly four years , Pagitt claims his “ organization has found in an extensive survey of religious voters in five swing states that Trump ’ s unkindness is correlated with significant defections from the president.
” “ Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have seen an 11 percentage point aggregated shift in support among evangelical and Catholic voters toward Joe Biden and away from Trump compared to 2016 , according to our online poll , ” he wrote , saying his numbers are mirrored by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his poll , “ surveyed a representative sample of evangelicals and Catholics across gender , race and age within each state , ” Pagitt explained how his poll was conducted by comparing perceptions of both candidates when it comes to the seven virtues : kindness , generosity , humility , chastity , modesty , diligence and patience .
“ Across all the virtues measured — on average , 50 percent of respondents rated Biden as more virtuous than Trump , and 39 percent rated Trump as more virtuous than Biden , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humility and modesty ( 28 points and 22 points in Biden ’ s favor , respectively ) , ” ex explained .
“ Across the seven sins — lust , sloth , greed , wrath , gluttony , envy and pride — on average , 51 percent of respondents rated Trump as more sinful than Biden , and 37 percent rated Biden as more sinful than Trump , with the largest gaps emerging around the sins of pride and anger ( 29 points and 26 points in Biden ’ s favor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , he noted , was a 5 percent drop is support among Catholic and evangelical voters since 2020 , with Catholic ’ s biggest shift to Biden happening in North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , and unhappiness among evangelicals in Florida , North Carolina and Michigan .
“ Among 2016 Trump voters , perceiving Trump as unkind was the single strongest predictor of swinging away from him , with 2016 Trump voters who viewed the president as ‘ not at all ’ kind having about an 80 percent chance of saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him again in 2020.
” he wrote before adding a warning to the president ’ s re-election campaign and writing , “ Many religious voters have woken up to the fact that Trump simply lacks basic Christian kindness , and they are looking for an off-ramp.
” You can read more here .

Now that Christian voters have watched him in action for nearly four years, Pagitt claims his “organization has found in an extensive survey of religious voters in five swing states that Trump’s unkindness is correlated with significant defections from the president.”
“Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have seen an 11 percentage point aggregated shift in support among evangelical and Catholic voters toward Joe Biden and away from Trump compared to 2016, according to our online poll,” he wrote, saying his numbers are mirrored by a recent Fox News Poll. Pointing out that his poll, “surveyed a representative sample of evangelicals and Catholics across gender, race and age within each state,” Pagitt explained how his poll was conducted by comparing perceptions of both candidates when it comes to the seven virtues: kindness, generosity, humility, chastity, modesty, diligence and patience.
“Across all the virtues measured — on average, 50 percent of respondents rated Biden as more virtuous than Trump, and 39 percent rated Trump as more virtuous than Biden, with the largest gaps emerging around the virtues of humility and modesty (28 points and 22 points in Biden’s favor, respectively),” ex explained. “Across the seven sins — lust, sloth, greed, wrath, gluttony, envy and pride — on average, 51 percent of respondents rated Trump as more sinful than Biden, and 37 percent rated Biden as more sinful than Trump, with the largest gaps emerging around the sins of pride and anger (29 points and 26 points in Biden’s favor, respectively).”
What should trouble Trump, he noted, was a 5 percent drop is support among Catholic and evangelical voters since 2020, with Catholic’s biggest shift to Biden happening in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and unhappiness among evangelicals in Florida, North Carolina and Michigan.
“Among 2016 Trump voters, perceiving Trump as unkind was the single strongest predictor of swinging away from him, with 2016 Trump voters who viewed the president as ‘not at all’ kind having about an 80 percent chance of saying they didn’t intend to vote for him again in 2020.” he wrote before adding a warning to the president’s re-election campaign and writing, “Many religious voters have woken up to the fact that Trump simply lacks basic Christian kindness, and they are looking for an off-ramp.”
You can read more here.


alternet--2020-09-25--Five former Trump officials explain why they are endorsing Joe Biden for president: 'The buck stops

Five former Trump officials explain why they are endorsing Joe Biden for president: 'The buck stops here'

Five former officials for President Donald Trump 's administration announced their intent to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as they laid out the alarming reasons why they have chosen to do so .
According to Newsweek , retired Air Force General Paul Selva , retired Admiral Paul Zukunft , former State Department official Virginia Bennett , Patrick Carrick , and former Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) Deputy Associate Administrator Mario Caraballo all appeared on the endorsement .
As the former officials expressed concern for the direction of America , they noted how the pandemic has shed light on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership .
`` The next president will inherit a nation—and a world—in turmoil , '' the endorsement said .
`` The current president has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office ; he can not rise to meet challenges large or small . ''
They also highlighted the characteristics they believe the next president should possess as they placed an emphasis on `` principled , wise , and responsible leadership . ''
`` We love our country .
Unfortunately , we also fear for it .
The COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wise , and responsible leadership .
America needs a President who understands , as President Harry S. Truman said , that 'the buck stops here , ' '' the endorsement said .
The latest from Trump administration officials to endorse Biden have joined a long list of others who have also embraced the Democratic nominee .
Most recently , Olivia Troye , a former White House Coronavirus Task Force member and aide for Vice President Mike Pence , was featured in an anti-Trump ad where she confirmed details about the Trump administration 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning of the pandemic .
Troye issued a warning to the American public as she insisted the president is only focused on his own `` fanfare .
`` He 's not actually looking out for you , '' Troye said .
`` He 's not looking out for these people .
He 's not looking out for them .
He just wants you in that audience so he can have the camera shot of , you know , his fanfare and the people around him .
But the truth is , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' During an NBC News interview , Troye explained how difficult it is to rely on facts and scientific data with a president who disregards both .
`` It ’ s very hard when you 're trying to actually base things on facts and science and on the data to have a president that was n't focused on that , '' she said .
`` He was really focused on public image , messaging and it was really more about , you know , his personal agenda than really the agenda that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was how are we going to save and protect Americans . ''

Five former officials for President Donald Trump's administration announced their intent to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as they laid out the alarming reasons why they have chosen to do so.
According to Newsweek, retired Air Force General Paul Selva, retired Admiral Paul Zukunft, former State Department official Virginia Bennett, Patrick Carrick, and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy Associate Administrator Mario Caraballo all appeared on the endorsement.
As the former officials expressed concern for the direction of America, they noted how the pandemic has shed light on a number of the president's inadequate leadership.
"The next president will inherit a nation—and a world—in turmoil," the endorsement said. "The current president has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small."
They also highlighted the characteristics they believe the next president should possess as they placed an emphasis on "principled, wise, and responsible leadership."
"We love our country. Unfortunately, we also fear for it. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven America needs principled, wise, and responsible leadership. America needs a President who understands, as President Harry S. Truman said, that 'the buck stops here,'" the endorsement said.
The latest from Trump administration officials to endorse Biden have joined a long list of others who have also embraced the Democratic nominee. Most recently, Olivia Troye, a former White House Coronavirus Task Force member and aide for Vice President Mike Pence, was featured in an anti-Trump ad where she confirmed details about the Trump administration's leadership, or lack thereof, at the beginning of the pandemic.
Troye issued a warning to the American public as she insisted the president is only focused on his own "fanfare.
"He's not actually looking out for you," Troye said. "He's not looking out for these people. He's not looking out for them. He just wants you in that audience so he can have the camera shot of, you know, his fanfare and the people around him. But the truth is, he's putting those lives at risk."
During an NBC News interview, Troye explained how difficult it is to rely on facts and scientific data with a president who disregards both.
"It’s very hard when you're trying to actually base things on facts and science and on the data to have a president that wasn't focused on that," she said. "He was really focused on public image, messaging and it was really more about, you know, his personal agenda than really the agenda that the task force had at hand, which was how are we going to save and protect Americans."


alternet--2020-09-25--Federal judge delivers blow to AG Barr in battle against former FBI deputy director

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has insisted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , now a CNN contributor , was not fired for political reasons , but McCabe has maintained that the firing was , in fact , politically motivated .
And a federal judge has ruled that McCabe ’ s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice can continue .
McCabe , in the lawsuit , has argued that his constitutional rights were violated when , in 2018 , he was fired as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation .
Barr filed a motion to dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss denied Barr ’ s request — allowing McCabe ’ s lawsuit to proceed .
And Moss , a Barack Obama appointee , set a schedule for discovery .
In civil and criminal cases , “ discovery ” is the process in which opposing sides must share evidence .
So , under discovery rules , Barr has a right to know what evidence McCabe is presenting , and McCabe and his attorneys have a right to know what evidence Barr is presenting .
Reporter Matt Naham , in Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the judge noted , argued he was demoted as deputy director of the FBI in January 2018 and then ‘ fired from his career civil service position in March 2018 — on the night of his planned retirement.
’ McCabe maintained that this decision was ‘ based on his perceived political affiliation , decision not to vote for then-candidate ( Donald ) Trump in the 2016 presidential election , and unwillingness to pledge his personal loyalty to President Trump ’ — a violation of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that Trump was out of line when he railed against him on Twitter .
And Moss , in his ruling , said that discovery was needed in order to determine whether or not former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was under political pressure from Trump to act against McCabe in 2018 .
According to Naham , the DOJ has “ argued , among other things , that McCabe was not fired for political reasons , but because he lied under oath when he said he didn ’ t authorize and didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton Foundation investigation to the press .
”

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has insisted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN contributor, was not fired for political reasons, but McCabe has maintained that the firing was, in fact, politically motivated. And a federal judge has ruled that McCabe’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice can continue.
McCabe, in the lawsuit, has argued that his constitutional rights were violated when, in 2018, he was fired as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Barr filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but this week, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss denied Barr’s request — allowing McCabe’s lawsuit to proceed. And Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, set a schedule for discovery.
In civil and criminal cases, “discovery” is the process in which opposing sides must share evidence. So, under discovery rules, Barr has a right to know what evidence McCabe is presenting, and McCabe and his attorneys have a right to know what evidence Barr is presenting.
Reporter Matt Naham, in Law & Crime, explains, “McCabe, the judge noted, argued he was demoted as deputy director of the FBI in January 2018 and then ‘fired from his career civil service position in March 2018 — on the night of his planned retirement.’ McCabe maintained that this decision was ‘based on his perceived political affiliation, decision not to vote for then-candidate (Donald) Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and unwillingness to pledge his personal loyalty to President Trump’ — a violation of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.”
In his lawsuit, McCabe has also argued that Trump was out of line when he railed against him on Twitter. And Moss, in his ruling, said that discovery was needed in order to determine whether or not former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was under political pressure from Trump to act against McCabe in 2018.
According to Naham, the DOJ has “argued, among other things, that McCabe was not fired for political reasons, but because he lied under oath when he said he didn’t authorize and didn’t know who authorized the disclosure of the Clinton Foundation investigation to the press.”


alternet--2020-09-25--'They're breaking democracy': Lindsey Graham slammed for declaring Supreme Court ‘will decide’ who w

'They're breaking democracy': Lindsey Graham slammed for declaring Supreme Court ‘will decide’ who wins election

U.S .
Senator Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) is facing new outrage from voters across the country for yet another comment he made that ’ s causing concern .
Fresh off the heels of him promising – repeatedly – to not take up the nomination of any Supreme Court justice in an election year , and then reneging on that promise , remarks the embattled South Carolina Senator made on Fox News are being seen as a threat to the American democracy .
“ I promise you as a Republican , if the Supreme Court decides that Joe Biden wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Graham said on Fox News .
His remarks were also published by The New York Times .
“ The court will decide , and if Republicans lose , we ’ ll accept the result.
” It ’ s that part , claiming that the election will be decided by the court and not by the voters , that is causing concern and anger .
Graham , according to a Fox News producer , repeated his claim that the Supreme Court – not the voters – will decide who wins the presidency : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will contest the results of the November election if he loses .
He also this week repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power , effectively threatening a violent coup .
By doing so some of his supporters now believe the Supreme Court is supposed to decide the outcome of the presidential election .
It is not .
Graham , who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , and Trump are working to normalize the nation ’ s top court deciding who wins the presidency , a move extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how some are reacting to Graham ’ s remarks .

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is facing new outrage from voters across the country for yet another comment he made that’s causing concern.
Fresh off the heels of him promising – repeatedly – to not take up the nomination of any Supreme Court justice in an election year, and then reneging on that promise, remarks the embattled South Carolina Senator made on Fox News are being seen as a threat to the American democracy.
“I promise you as a Republican, if the Supreme Court decides that Joe Biden wins, I will accept the result,” Graham said on Fox News. His remarks were also published by The New York Times.
“The court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we’ll accept the result.”
It’s that part, claiming that the election will be decided by the court and not by the voters, that is causing concern and anger.
Graham, according to a Fox News producer, repeated his claim that the Supreme Court – not the voters – will decide who wins the presidency:
President Donald Trump has made clear he will contest the results of the November election if he loses.
He also this week repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, effectively threatening a violent coup.
By doing so some of his supporters now believe the Supreme Court is supposed to decide the outcome of the presidential election. It is not.
Graham, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Trump are working to normalize the nation’s top court deciding who wins the presidency, a move extremely dangerous to democracy.
Here’s how some are reacting to Graham’s remarks.


alternet--2020-09-27--Here's the truth about the White House and DOJ's 9 discarded ballots in Pennsylvania

Major news is coming in over the `` case '' of the nine `` discarded '' ballots from Luzerne County , Pennsylvania that President Donald Trump revealed to Fox News Radio on Thursday .
Here 's what appears to have happened , and we 're going to bullet point this so it 's easy to follow .
• The ballots were discarded by a temporary , or `` contract '' worker assigned to sort the mail who appears to have been following direction .
• The ballots were military ballots , not absentee or other by-mail ballots .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , who appear to have immediately politicized the issue .
• `` Because these ballots were returned in envelopes similar to absentee ballot requests , elections officials opened them , '' The Washington Post reports .
`` If the ballots were n't then enclosed in another envelope which shielded the actual vote being cast , they may have been considered 'naked ballots , ' a term used to describe mail ballots returned without the voter 's intent being protected .
• The Trump campaign and the Pennsylvania GOP in a lawsuit argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be counted .
They won that lawsuit .
These nine ballots appear to be `` naked ballots , '' and that appears to be the reason they were thrown out .
Here 's how MSNBC 's Chris Hayes sums it up : It 's the GOP 's fault .
• The contract worker has been told to not return .
• Buzzfeed adds it appears the DOJ violated its own policy by issuing a press release about the `` discarded '' ballots , and even worse , suggesting this is a case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , suggesting one candidate over another was favored .
• MSNBC adds that county officials were not aware of who the ballots were for until the DOJ 's press release was issued .
• Attorney General Bill Barr personally briefed President Trump about the discarded ballots .
Trump and his White House press secretary then politicized the event .
• The county elections supervisor was exceedingly thorough .
`` Garbage from the Elections Bureau from September 14 through September 16 , the time the independent contractor was on County property , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County staff , '' a local Pennsylvania news report states .
`` The trash was then searched by the FBI , the Luzerne County District Attorney 's Office , the Pennsylvania State Police and county staff .
All contents relating to the matter were taken by the FBI . ''

Major news is coming in over the "case" of the nine "discarded" ballots from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania that President Donald Trump revealed to Fox News Radio on Thursday.
Here's what appears to have happened, and we're going to bullet point this so it's easy to follow.
The ballots were discarded by a temporary, or "contract" worker assigned to sort the mail who appears to have been following direction.
The ballots were military ballots, not absentee or other by-mail ballots.
The county immediately reported what happened to federal officials, who appear to have immediately politicized the issue.
"Because these ballots were returned in envelopes similar to absentee ballot requests, elections officials opened them," The Washington Post reports. "If the ballots weren't then enclosed in another envelope which shielded the actual vote being cast, they may have been considered 'naked ballots,' a term used to describe mail ballots returned without the voter's intent being protected.
The Trump campaign and the Pennsylvania GOP in a lawsuit argued that "naked ballots" should not be counted. They won that lawsuit. These nine ballots appear to be "naked ballots," and that appears to be the reason they were thrown out.
Here's how MSNBC's Chris Hayes sums it up: It's the GOP's fault.


alternet--2020-09-27--Why Trump's Supreme Court nominee believes all Civil Rights legislation is 'illegitimate'

Amy Coney Barrett regards herself as an `` originalist , '' that is , someone who believes that all legal decisions must be based on the `` original understanding '' of the Constitution .
This is often put forward as a straightforward , consistent lens through which law can be viewed , rather than trying to put into context little things like shifting views on race and gender equality .
However , originalism is further complicated by a split between groups focused on `` intent '' and those focused on `` meaning . ''
And if you think those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're just wrong .
Intentionalists believe the law is determined by what the original authors of the Constitution intended when they took quill to parchment .
Those focused on meaning insist that they support the `` public meaning '' of the words at the time they were written .
People who , like Barrett , belong to the later group , insist that their interpretation is more consistent .
In fact , both approaches require jurists to peer into the minds of 18th-century Americans , interpreting words , attitudes , and relationships that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half centuries .
In short , any claim that the nation can be properly governed by divining the inner monologue of wig-wearing slaveholders not only makes about as much sense as using the plans for a Conestoga wagon as the repair manual on the Space Shuttle , it 's also just plain bullshit .
But there 's something even more odd about how conservatives like Barrett apply originalism .
Because they seem to believe that the `` original meaning '' of every word and phrase just happens to be a conservative meaning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning that they want , these dedicated preservationists have a second approach … throw it out .
Throw it all out .
Like the entire 14th Amendment .
The 13th Amendment may have abolished slavery when it was ratified in 1865 , but it took the14th and 15th Amendments to define what the end of slavery really meant in terms of law .
After all , slavery is more than just forced labor .
If slavery `` ended '' but some people still were denied equal protection , equal rights , and equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It took until 1868 for the 14th Amendment , upholding citizenship rights and equal protection , to be ratified .
It was n't until 1870 that the 15th Amendment extended this to voting rights .
As far as the 14th Amendment goes , it includes what are now referred to as the Citizenship Clause , the Privileges Clause , the Due Process Clause , and the Equal Protection Clause .
In short , it says that everyone born in the United States is a full citizen , with the full rights due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deprived of those rights unless they 're given due process of law .
All of this makes the 14th Amendment integral to questions of citizenship , and foundational for Civil Rights legislation .
It 's such an important amendment , that legal scholars have called it `` the second Constitution '' for its attempts to tear out the elements of slavery built into the original document .
Among other things , the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests entirely on the authority granted to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here 's Section 1 of the 14th Amendment .
That 's not just pretty straightforward , it 's a pretty undeniable good .
So how did it come to be that when Barrett writes about this text , she mentions it in this way .
`` Congress has to decide whether to … rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment . ''
Or … `` The originalist legislator might have to face questions … such as the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment . ''
How did originalists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the text as written , come to doubt the legitimacy of a whole chunk of that text ?
Specifically , how did they come to X-out the part of the Constitution that ensures rights are extended to people of color and children of immigrants ?
Back in 2011 , The Atlantic took a look at this question and how conservative Republicans became `` 14th Amendment deniers . ''
For some Republicans , the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become common in right-wing media , and sorry as that sounds , it 's not even the most radical view .
The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War .
Because of this , say the deniers , the Congress itself was illegitimate , and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate .
This is not even worthy of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the least bit of justification under law to support this position .
There never has been .
However , this claim has become deeply embedded in the whole Lost Cause , South Shall Rise Again , Back to the Cotton Fields culture of conservatives—especially Southern conservatives .
And just like Confederate statues , this mythology has found admirers in the modern Republican Party .
How far has it gone in the past ?
Far enough that in 1957 , Georgia 's state legislature passed a resolution titled `` A memorial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging them to enact such legislation as they may deem fit to declare that the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were never validly adopted and that they are null and void and of no effect . ''
The reason that Georgia did this in 1957 was simple—it wanted to uphold segregation , and it rightfully understood that the 14th Amendment made that position impossible .
To be absolutely clear , there is nothing in textual originalism that requires adherents to view the 14th or 15th Amendments as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the original document .
The idea of the `` illegitimate 14th Amendment '' is simply not a serious legal argument .
It is white supremacist mythology that has gained supporters within the Republican Party specifically because it presents the basis by which all Civil Rights legislation can be undone .
That Barrett brings up questions of the 14th Amendment being legitimate in her writings with considerable frequency and apparent support should be an absolute bullhorn to the nation that she believes all Civil Rights legislation to rest on thin air .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education among those Court decisions she regards as `` super-precedents , '' she voted in 2017 to refuse a re-hear a case in which a company segregated employees by race to different locations .
She has clearly stated her opposition to marriage equality , denied that rights extend to transgender Americans , and all that is on top of her direct threat to Roe .
Amy Coney Barrett stands as a threat to not just everything Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg achieved in her career , but to work that has been upheld by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last half-century and more .
She 's not an originalist , she 's an `` eraserist . ''

Amy Coney Barrett regards herself as an "originalist," that is, someone who believes that all legal decisions must be based on the "original understanding" of the Constitution. This is often put forward as a straightforward, consistent lens through which law can be viewed, rather than trying to put into context little things like shifting views on race and gender equality. However, originalism is further complicated by a split between groups focused on "intent" and those focused on "meaning." And if you think those are the same things … well, you're just wrong. Intentionalists believe the law is determined by what the original authors of the Constitution intended when they took quill to parchment. Those focused on meaning insist that they support the "public meaning" of the words at the time they were written. People who, like Barrett, belong to the later group, insist that their interpretation is more consistent.
In fact, both approaches require jurists to peer into the minds of 18th-century Americans, interpreting words, attitudes, and relationships that have shifted enormously over two and a half centuries. In short, any claim that the nation can be properly governed by divining the inner monologue of wig-wearing slaveholders not only makes about as much sense as using the plans for a Conestoga wagon as the repair manual on the Space Shuttle, it's also just plain bullshit.
But there's something even more odd about how conservatives like Barrett apply originalism. Because they seem to believe that the "original meaning" of every word and phrase just happens to be a conservative meaning. And where they can't find the meaning that they want, these dedicated preservationists have a second approach … throw it out. Throw it all out. Like the entire 14th Amendment.
The 13th Amendment may have abolished slavery when it was ratified in 1865, but it took the14th and 15th Amendments to define what the end of slavery really meant in terms of law. After all, slavery is more than just forced labor. If slavery "ended" but some people still were denied equal protection, equal rights, and equal representation, was slavery really over? It took until 1868 for the 14th Amendment, upholding citizenship rights and equal protection, to be ratified. It wasn't until 1870 that the 15th Amendment extended this to voting rights.
As far as the 14th Amendment goes, it includes what are now referred to as the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. In short, it says that everyone born in the United States is a full citizen, with the full rights due to a citizen, and can't be deprived of those rights unless they're given due process of law. All of this makes the 14th Amendment integral to questions of citizenship, and foundational for Civil Rights legislation. It's such an important amendment, that legal scholars have called it "the second Constitution" for its attempts to tear out the elements of slavery built into the original document. Among other things, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests entirely on the authority granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment.
For clarity, here's Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That's not just pretty straightforward, it's a pretty undeniable good. So how did it come to be that when Barrett writes about this text, she mentions it in this way.
"Congress has to decide whether to … rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment." Or … "The originalist legislator might have to face questions … such as the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment."
How did originalists, the people who are supposed to be following the text as written, come to doubt the legitimacy of a whole chunk of that text? Specifically, how did they come to X-out the part of the Constitution that ensures rights are extended to people of color and children of immigrants?
Back in 2011, The Atlantic took a look at this question and how conservative Republicans became "14th Amendment deniers." For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it's not even the most radical view.
The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate.
This is not even worthy of being called a "myth." There is not the least bit of justification under law to support this position. There never has been. However, this claim has become deeply embedded in the whole Lost Cause, South Shall Rise Again, Back to the Cotton Fields culture of conservatives—especially Southern conservatives. And just like Confederate statues, this mythology has found admirers in the modern Republican Party.
How far has it gone in the past? Far enough that in 1957, Georgia's state legislature passed a resolution titled "A memorial to Congress of the United States of America urging them to enact such legislation as they may deem fit to declare that the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were never validly adopted and that they are null and void and of no effect." The reason that Georgia did this in 1957 was simple—it wanted to uphold segregation, and it rightfully understood that the 14th Amendment made that position impossible.
To be absolutely clear, there is nothing in textual originalism that requires adherents to view the 14th or 15th Amendments as any less legitimate than any other additions to the original document. The idea of the "illegitimate 14th Amendment" is simply not a serious legal argument. It is white supremacist mythology that has gained supporters within the Republican Party specifically because it presents the basis by which all Civil Rights legislation can be undone.
That Barrett brings up questions of the 14th Amendment being legitimate in her writings with considerable frequency and apparent support should be an absolute bullhorn to the nation that she believes all Civil Rights legislation to rest on thin air. While Barrett has listed Brown vs. Board of Education among those Court decisions she regards as "super-precedents," she voted in 2017 to refuse a re-hear a case in which a company segregated employees by race to different locations. She has clearly stated her opposition to marriage equality, denied that rights extend to transgender Americans, and all that is on top of her direct threat to Roe.
Amy Coney Barrett stands as a threat to not just everything Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg achieved in her career, but to work that has been upheld by many members of the court—Democrats and Republicans—over the last half-century and more. She's not an originalist, she's an "eraserist."


alternet--2020-09-27--'Which side will our military be on?' Trump and GOP openly hatch election theft plot

Amid President Donald Trump 's transparent efforts to sow doubt and discord around this year 's election , his desire to confirm a right-wing Supreme Court justice ahead of November 's contest , and his repeated refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power regardless of the outcome , the specter of Trump ordering active-duty troops to quash protests during a possibly chaotic interregnum has reportedly provoked anxiety at the Pentagon .
According to Friday reporting by the New York Times , high-ranking military leaders have vowed to keep the armed forces out of the electoral process and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials saying top generals could resign if the commander in chief tries to deploy them to U.S. streets .
The Insurrection Act gives the president the power to deploy active-duty military personnel to neutralize civil unrest even if governors are opposed to it .
General Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , and Defense Secretary Mark Esper both objected to taking that route this summer , and Trump yielded , though not before nearly firing Esper .
But the Times noted that Trump , `` who refers to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'my generals , ' has lumped them with other supporters like Bikers for Trump , who could offer backup in the face of opposition '' this fall and winter .
`` Which side will our military be on when this happens ? ''
tweeted Charles Idelson of National Nurses United earlier this week after Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he is defeated at the polls .
In other countries , a head of state 's threat to `` get rid of the ballots '' to ensure a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfer '' of power would be called a coup d'état , Idelson remarked.Many have been wondering for weeks what will happen if Trump , who has declined more than once to abide by the results of the election and has repeatedly and baselessly attacked mail-in ballots in an attempt to undermine the validity of the vote—which is already underway in some states—loses and refuses to voluntarily leave office .
On August 11 , retired Army officers John Nagl and Paul Yingling argued in an open letter to Milley that `` you may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or betraying your constitutional oath ...
If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term , the U.S. military must remove him by force , and you must give that order . ''
As CNN reported last month , Nagl and Yingling 's `` advocacy for having the armed forces get involved in settling a disputed election prompted backlash from both the Pentagon and other experts in the field of civilian-military relations . ''
When answering questions posed by Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-Mich. ) and Rep. Mikie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House Armed Services Committee , Milley in late August was emphatic that the military would play no role in resolving a disputed election .
`` I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military , '' Milley told lawmakers .
`` In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections , by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes , not the U.S. military .
I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process . ''
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milley `` anchored many of his responses '' in the U.S. Constitution .
`` Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security , Milley said , ' I will not follow an unlawful order . '
'' Milley was sharply criticized in June by current and former lawmakers and members of the armed forces for participating in Trump 's militarized stunt in which protesters in Lafayette Square near the White House were violently dispersed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be photographed holding a bible in front of St. John 's Church .
Milley publicly apologized for escorting Trump through the park , much to the chagrin of the president .
According to the Times , in private discussions at the Defense Department about `` the possibility of Mr. Trump trying to use any civil unrest around the elections to put his thumb on the scales ... several Pentagon officials said that such a move could prompt resignations among many of Mr. Trump 's senior generals , starting at the top with General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown , the Air Force chief of staff .
Earlier this year , Rosa Brooks , a Georgetown University law professor and past Defense Department official under former President Barack Obama , was the head of a bipartisan team of more than 100 former national security officials and election experts who simulated the most significant risks to a peaceful transfer of power .
The Transition Integrity Project stressed that there is `` a high degree of likelihood that November 's elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means , in an attempt to hold onto power . ''
But the analysis highlighted that `` these risks can be mitigated , '' and the report ( pdf ) states : In a letter released Thursday , nearly 500 retired military leaders and national security officials from both major political parties said Trump is unfit for office and endorsed Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden .
The Times reported that Milley on Thursday during a virtual question-and-answer session with U.S. service members around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution close to your heart . ''

Amid President Donald Trump's transparent efforts to sow doubt and discord around this year's election, his desire to confirm a right-wing Supreme Court justice ahead of November's contest, and his repeated refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power regardless of the outcome, the specter of Trump ordering active-duty troops to quash protests during a possibly chaotic interregnum has reportedly provoked anxiety at the Pentagon.
According to Friday reporting by the New York Times, high-ranking military leaders have vowed to keep the armed forces out of the electoral process and its potentially chaotic aftermath, with Defense Department officials saying top generals could resign if the commander in chief tries to deploy them to U.S. streets.
As the Times reports:
Senior leaders at the Pentagon, speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that they were talking among themselves about what to do if Mr. Trump, who will still be president from Election Day to Inauguration Day, invokes the Insurrection Act and tries to send troops into the streets, as he repeatedly threatened to do during the protests against police brutality and systemic racism.
The Insurrection Act gives the president the power to deploy active-duty military personnel to neutralize civil unrest even if governors are opposed to it. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper both objected to taking that route this summer, and Trump yielded, though not before nearly firing Esper.
But the Times noted that Trump, "who refers to the armed forces as 'my military' and 'my generals,' has lumped them with other supporters like Bikers for Trump, who could offer backup in the face of opposition" this fall and winter.
"Which side will our military be on when this happens?" tweeted Charles Idelson of National Nurses United earlier this week after Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he is defeated at the polls. In other countries, a head of state's threat to "get rid of the ballots" to ensure a "continuation" rather than a "transfer" of power would be called a coup d'état, Idelson remarked.Many have been wondering for weeks what will happen if Trump, who has declined more than once to abide by the results of the election and has repeatedly and baselessly attacked mail-in ballots in an attempt to undermine the validity of the vote—which is already underway in some states—loses and refuses to voluntarily leave office.
On August 11, retired Army officers John Nagl and Paul Yingling argued in an open letter to Milley that "you may have to choose between defying a lawless president or betraying your constitutional oath... If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the U.S. military must remove him by force, and you must give that order."
As CNNreported last month, Nagl and Yingling's "advocacy for having the armed forces get involved in settling a disputed election prompted backlash from both the Pentagon and other experts in the field of civilian-military relations."
When answering questions posed by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Mikie Sherril (D-N.J.), both members of the House Armed Services Committee, Milley in late August was emphatic that the military would play no role in resolving a disputed election.
"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," Milley told lawmakers. "In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process."
As the Associated Press reported last month, Milley "anchored many of his responses" in the U.S. Constitution. "Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security, Milley said, 'I will not follow an unlawful order.'"
Milley was sharply criticized in June by current and former lawmakers and members of the armed forces for participating in Trump's militarized stunt in which protesters in Lafayette Square near the White House were violently dispersed by the National Guard so that Trump could be photographed holding a bible in front of St. John's Church.
Milley publicly apologized for escorting Trump through the park, much to the chagrin of the president.
According to the Times, in private discussions at the Defense Department about "the possibility of Mr. Trump trying to use any civil unrest around the elections to put his thumb on the scales... several Pentagon officials said that such a move could prompt resignations among many of Mr. Trump's senior generals, starting at the top with General Milley" and likely including General Charles Brown, the Air Force chief of staff.
Earlier this year, Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor and past Defense Department official under former President Barack Obama, was the head of a bipartisan team of more than 100 former national security officials and election experts who simulated the most significant risks to a peaceful transfer of power.
The Transition Integrity Project stressed that there is "a high degree of likelihood that November's elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape," and it is likely that Trump will "contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power."
But the analysis highlighted that "these risks can be mitigated," and the report (pdf) states:
The worst outcomes of the exercises are far from a certainty. The purpose of this report is not to frighten, but to spur all stakeholders to action. Our legal rules and political norms don't work unless people are prepared to defend them and to speak out when others violate them. It is incumbent upon elected officials, civil society leaders, and the press to challenge authoritarian actions in the courts, in the media, and in the streets through peaceful protest.
In a letter released Thursday, nearly 500 retired military leaders and national security officials from both major political parties said Trump is unfit for office and endorsed Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden.
The Times reported that Milley on Thursday during a virtual question-and-answer session with U.S. service members around the world urged them to "keep the Constitution close to your heart."


alternet--2020-09-27--Republicans go to war with Trump over one of his biggest campaign promises: report

According to a report from the Daily Beast , a `` dark money '' group affiliated with the Republican State Leadership Committee is preparing a campaign blitz opposing one of Donald Trump 's key proposals that he is highlighting as a major plank in his re-election campaign .
At issue is Trump 's new drug-price proposal that the president is using to woo senior voters back into the fold as his re-election campaign continues to trail Democratic challenger Joe Biden .
According to the Beast 's Lachlan Markay , the opposition to Trump 's proposal began with `` a top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given their network millions of dollars in support—in its dispute with Trump over the measure . ''
According to the report , the ad campaign takes aim at Trump 's executive order `` that would require Medicare to pay for certain drugs only if they are priced comparably to prices paid in other developed nations . ''
The ad states , `` America is leading the world in medical research and innovation , working around the clock for groundbreaking cures and vaccines .
But now a foreign price-setting executive order threatens all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and which drugs , Americans get access to , delaying critical treatments right when we need them most . ''
The ad , coming from a Republican-affiliated group , is a rare challenge to the president who normally does n't take well to be second-guessed — particularly when he is in dire need of every vote he can get .
and the White House is already pushing back with White House spokesman Judd stating Trump `` is not going to be intimidated out of also delivering lower prices to seniors by this embarrassing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephen Ubl , the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ( PhRMA ) , behind the ad fired back , `` The White House has doubled down on a reckless attack on the very companies working around the clock to beat COVID-19 . ''
You can read more here .

According to a report from the Daily Beast, a "dark money" group affiliated with the Republican State Leadership Committee is preparing a campaign blitz opposing one of Donald Trump's key proposals that he is highlighting as a major plank in his re-election campaign.
At issue is Trump's new drug-price proposal that the president is using to woo senior voters back into the fold as his re-election campaign continues to trail Democratic challenger Joe Biden.
According to the Beast's Lachlan Markay, the opposition to Trump's proposal began with "a top pharmaceutical trade group—one that happens to have given their network millions of dollars in support—in its dispute with Trump over the measure."
According to the report, the ad campaign takes aim at Trump's executive order "that would require Medicare to pay for certain drugs only if they are priced comparably to prices paid in other developed nations."
The ad states, "America is leading the world in medical research and innovation, working around the clock for groundbreaking cures and vaccines. But now a foreign price-setting executive order threatens all that, letting foreign governments decide when, and which drugs, Americans get access to, delaying critical treatments right when we need them most."
The ad, coming from a Republican-affiliated group, is a rare challenge to the president who normally doesn't take well to be second-guessed — particularly when he is in dire need of every vote he can get. and the White House is already pushing back with White House spokesman Judd stating Trump "is not going to be intimidated out of also delivering lower prices to seniors by this embarrassing attempt to confuse the public."
Stephen Ubl, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), behind the ad fired back, "The White House has doubled down on a reckless attack on the very companies working around the clock to beat COVID-19."
You can read more here.


alternet--2020-09-27--Sitting federal prosecutor says AG Barr has ‘brought shame’ and ‘unprecedented politicization’ to DO

Sitting federal prosecutor says AG Barr has ‘brought shame’ and ‘unprecedented politicization’ to DOJ

Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts James D. Herbert on Thursday slammed Attorney General William Barr for his `` unprecedented politicization '' of the Department of Justice , marking the first time a sitting U.S. attorney has publicly rebuked the head of the DOJ .
Herbert made the remarks in a letter published by the Boston Globe , arguing the attorney general 's efforts to serve President Donald Trump are `` a dangerous abuse of power . ''
`` While I am a federal prosecutor , I am writing to express my own views , clearly not those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should concern all citizens : the unprecedented politicization of the office of the attorney general , '' Herbert wrote .
`` The attorney general acts as though his job is to serve only the political interests of Donald J. Trump .
This is a dangerous abuse of power . ''
Herbert cited Barr 's `` misleading summary of the Mueller Report '' as one example of the attorney general 's apparent willingness to protect the president at the expense of truth .
Barr offered his abridged summary of the report in 4-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Senate Judiciary Committee , and also commented on the report during an April 18 press conference .
Mueller himself said Barr 's letter `` did not fully capture the context , nature , and substance '' of his report .
`` William Barr has done the president 's bidding at every turn , '' Herbert argued in his letter to the Boston Globe .
`` For 30 years I have been proud to say I work for the Department of Justice , but the current attorney general has brought shame on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts James D. Herbert on Thursday slammed Attorney General William Barr for his "unprecedented politicization" of the Department of Justice, marking the first time a sitting U.S. attorney has publicly rebuked the head of the DOJ.
Herbert made the remarks in a letter published by the Boston Globe, arguing the attorney general's efforts to serve President Donald Trump are "a dangerous abuse of power."
"While I am a federal prosecutor, I am writing to express my own views, clearly not those of the department, on a matter that should concern all citizens: the unprecedented politicization of the office of the attorney general," Herbert wrote. "The attorney general acts as though his job is to serve only the political interests of Donald J. Trump. This is a dangerous abuse of power."
Herbert cited Barr's "misleading summary of the Mueller Report" as one example of the attorney general's apparent willingness to protect the president at the expense of truth. Barr offered his abridged summary of the report in 4-page letter to the members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, and also commented on the report during an April 18 press conference. Mueller himself said Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of his report.
"William Barr has done the president's bidding at every turn," Herbert argued in his letter to the Boston Globe. "For 30 years I have been proud to say I work for the Department of Justice, but the current attorney general has brought shame on the department he purports to lead."