rawstory--2020-01-18--BUSTED: National Archives caught doctoring exhibit to remove criticism of President Trump from women

The National Archives were caught editing an artifact from the Trump administration to remove criticism of the president , according to a bombshell new report in The Washington Post .
The newspaper reported on a “ large color photograph ” at the National Archives exhibit marking the centennial of women ’ s suffrage .
“ The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display .
Viewed from one perspective , it shows the 2017 march .
Viewed from another angle , it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women ’ s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement .
But a closer look reveals a different story , ” the newspaper noted .
“ The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women ’ s March showcased at the museum , blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump .
Words on signs that referenced women ’ s anatomy were also blurred , ” the paper explained .
The original 2017 photo was taken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A placard that proclaims ‘ God Hates Trump ’ has ‘ Trump ’ blotted out so that it reads ‘ God Hates.
’ A sign that reads ‘ Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women ’ has the word Trump blurred out , ” The Post explained .
The word “ vagina ” was also blurred out .
National Archives spokesperson Miriam Kleiman said that doctoring the photo to mislead visitors was necessary to avoid political controversy .
“ As a non-partisan , non-political federal agency , we blurred references to the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so as not to engage in current political controversy , ” Kleiman argued .
Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley blasted the National Archives for the decision to photoshop the image .
“ There ’ s no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a historic photograph , ” Brinkley explained .
“ If they don ’ t want to use a specific image , then don ’ t use it .
But to confuse the public is reprehensible .
The head of the Archives has to very quickly fix this damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there ’ s zero reason why the Archives can ’ t be upfront about a photo from a women ’ s march.
” Purdue University Professor Wendy Kline also blasted the National Archives for doctoring the photo .
“ Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it ’ s okay to silence women ’ s voice and actions , ” Kline told the newspaper .
“ It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera .
That ’ s an attempt to erase a powerful message @ @

The National Archives were caught editing an artifact from the Trump administration to remove criticism of the president, according to a bombshell new report in The Washington Post.
The newspaper reported on a "large color photograph" at the National Archives exhibit marking the centennial of women's suffrage.
"The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement. But a closer look reveals a different story," the newspaper noted.
"The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred," the paper explained.
The original 2017 photo was taken by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama.
"A placard that proclaims 'God Hates Trump' has 'Trump' blotted out so that it reads 'God Hates.' A sign that reads 'Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women' has the word Trump blurred out," The Post explained.
The word "vagina" was also blurred out.
National Archives spokesperson Miriam Kleiman said that doctoring the photo to mislead visitors was necessary to avoid political controversy.
“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Kleiman argued.
Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley blasted the National Archives for the decision to photoshop the image.
"There's no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a historic photograph," Brinkley explained. "If they don't want to use a specific image, then don't use it. But to confuse the public is reprehensible. The head of the Archives has to very quickly fix this damage. A lot of history is messy, and there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march."
Purdue University Professor Wendy Kline also blasted the National Archives for doctoring the photo.
"Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it's okay to silence women's voice and actions," Kline told the newspaper. "It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera. That's an attempt to erase a powerful message."


rawstory--2020-01-18--Dershowitz is running a ‘bizarro defense’ of Trump: Harvard Law colleague says ‘Alan is just complet

Dershowitz is running a ‘bizarro defense’ of Trump: Harvard Law colleague says ‘Alan is just completely wacko’

Two of the most famous names associated with Harvard Law School had competing appearances on MSNBC on Friday .
It began when Alan Dershowitz , a professor emeritus , was interviewed MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber about his new role officially representing President Donald Trump during the Senate impeachment trial .
Dershowitz claimed that neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress count as “ high crimes ” under the constitution .
Professor Alan Dershowitz , who has also been associated with Harvard Law for five decades , was asked about Dershowitz ’ s argument during an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think about this idea that abuse of power is not impeachable , even if you establish on the facts that he abused his power ?
” Hayes asked .
“ Well , I almost don ’ t know where to start .
I mean , my colleague has it upside down , ” Tribe replied .
“ I knew that the Trump defense was going to rely in large part on alternative facts , but I didn ’ t know they were also going to use alternative law .
There is no — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something has to violate a federal criminal statute in order to be impeachable , ” he explained .
“ When the impeachment power was put in the constitution , there were no federal criminal statutes , ” Tribe added .
“ Allen is just completely wacko on this .
I don ’ t understand why the president thinks it will help him to have this kind of bizarro defense , ” he charged .

Maui County officials updated that toll to 106 on Tuesday, with Green saying earlier that just over a quarter of the disaster zone had been searched by dogs trained to sniff for bodies.
Refrigerated containers were being pressed into use as makeshift morgues at the Maui police department's forensic facility, an AFP journalist observed, as the largely rural island struggled to cope with the sheer number of dead.
Biden and First Lady Jill Biden on Monday will "meet with first responders, survivors, as well as federal, state, and local officials" on Maui, the White House said in a statement.
The president then tweeted: "I remain committed to delivering everything the people of Hawaii need as they recover from this disaster."
Biden had quickly declared a "major disaster" in Hawaii after last week's inferno, allowing the deployment of emergency assistance from the federal government, and has talked several times with Green.
But he has been criticized by the Republican opposition for what they characterized as a timid response to the fires.
Though he has addressed the disaster in speeches, he did not speak publicly when the death toll soared over the weekend.
The White House said Biden had been in close contact with leaders in the Pacific archipelago and federal emergency officials, who had advised that "search and recovery efforts are expected to be at a stage early next week to allow for a presidential visit."
The announcement came as the difficult process of identifying the dead inched forwards, with officials saying Tuesday that they had collected DNA samples from 41 people whose relatives were missing.
Only five of the dead have been identified so far.
The island's police chief has said that many of the bodies are so badly charred that they are unrecognizable.
- 'Shocking to see' -
Stories of horrifying escapes continued to emerge, as did more testimony about the lack of official warning of the fast-moving blaze.
Annelise Cochran told AFP she had been reassured when officials said a small blaze in the hills had been contained last Tuesday morning.
But then it suddenly, and dramatically, flared.
"It was very, very fast; shocking to see," the 30-year-old said, adding no evacuation order had been issued.
After trying to flee by car only to find her way blocked by vehicles abandoned by their terrified drivers, some of which had begun exploding in the heat, she realized the ocean was her only escape option.
It was hours before she was plucked from the water.
- Toxic chemicals -
Green has warned against any attempt at a land grab in the devastated remains of Lahaina, as locals fret that deep-pocketed developers might take advantage of people's desperation and try to buy up plots that can be turned into luxury housing or more lucrative short-term rentals.
"Our goal is to have a local commitment -- forever -- to this community, as we rebuild," he said.
"So we will be making sure that we do all that we can to prevent that land from falling into the hands of people from the outside."
Meanwhile, residents desperate to get back to check on the homes they fled have expressed frustration at bans that have prevented people from getting into Lahaina.
Officials warned of the dangers of unstable buildings and potential airborne toxic chemicals in the area.
Questions are being asked about authorities' preparedness and response to the catastrophe.
Some fire hydrants ran dry in the early stages of the wildfire, and multiple warning systems either failed or were not activated.
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaiian Electric, the state's biggest power firm, claiming the company should have shut off its power lines to lower the risk of fire.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Why was Lev Parnas wearing a ‘Presidential Service Badge’ awarded to troops who serve in the White H

Why was Lev Parnas wearing a ‘Presidential Service Badge’ awarded to troops who serve in the White House?

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman posted a fascinating update about a photo of impeachment figure Lev Parnas .
The photo shows Igor Fruman — who , like Parnas , is under federal indictment — sitting closely next to Rudy Giuliani and Parnas .
Haber said a source informed her that in the picture , Parnas can be seen wearing a “ Presidential Service Badge , ” linking to the Wikipedia entry on the pin .
“ The Presidential Service Badge ( PSB ) is an identification badge of the United States Armed Forces which is awarded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navy , U.S. Air Force , U.S. Marine Corps , and U.S. Coast Guard as well as other members of the Uniformed Services , such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps , who serve as full-time military staff to the President of the United States , ” Wikipedia explained .
Haberman also noted a picture showing former White House advisor Seb Gorka apparently wearing the same pin .
Gorka is not known to have ever served in the U.S. military , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Territorial Army and worked for the Hungarian Ministry of Defense .

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman posted a fascinating update about a photo of impeachment figure Lev Parnas.
The photo shows Igor Fruman -- who, like Parnas, is under federal indictment -- sitting closely next to Rudy Giuliani and Parnas.
Haber said a source informed her that in the picture, Parnas can be seen wearing a "Presidential Service Badge," linking to the Wikipedia entry on the pin.
"The Presidential Service Badge (PSB) is an identification badge of the United States Armed Forces which is awarded to members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard as well as other members of the Uniformed Services, such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who serve as full-time military staff to the President of the United States," Wikipedia explained.
Haberman also noted a picture showing former White House advisor Seb Gorka apparently wearing the same pin. Gorka is not known to have ever served in the U.S. military, but reportedly did volunteer for the British Territorial Army and worked for the Hungarian Ministry of Defense.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Trump’s big-money Florida fundraiser expected to bring in $10 million — from only 100 people

President Donald Trump flew to Mar-a-Lago on Friday after receiving a formal summons from the U.S. Senate informing him of @ @ @ @ @ president will be attending a Friday evening campaign fundraiser .
The recipient of the money @ @ @ @ @ is a joint fundraising committee set up by Donald J. Trump for President , Inc. @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Tonight ’ s Trump Victory fundraiser is expected to raise $ 10 million @ @ @ @ @ attendance , ” the campaign told the White House pool reporter .

President Donald Trump flew to Mar-a-Lago on Friday after receiving a formal summons from the U.S. Senate informing him of his impeachment trial.
The president will be attending a Friday evening campaign fundraiser.
The recipient of the money is Trump Victory, which is a joint fundraising committee set up by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee.
“Tonight’s Trump Victory fundraiser is expected to raise $10 million with approximately 100 people in attendance," the campaign told the White House pool reporter.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Trump urges ‘mops and buckets’ as his superior response to rising sea levels from climate change

President Donald Trump ’ s Saturday at Trump International Golf Club did not seem to relax the commander-in-chief .
Upon @ @ @ @ @ lashed out the highly-anticipated upcoming book , A Very Stable Genius : Donald J. Trump @ @ @ @ @ by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalists Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig for being “ demeaning @ @ @ @ @ attacked a plan to build a sea wall to protect New York City from climate @ @ @ @ @ , environmental and aesthetic reasons .
“ A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall , @ @ @ @ @ protect it from rare storms , is a costly , foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea @ @ @ @ @ probably won ’ t work anyway .
It will also look terrible , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ his counter-proposal .
“ Sorry , you ’ ll just have to get your mops @ @ @ @ @ the commander-in-chief suggested .

Hunter Biden had a plea deal in place with prosecutors, but the arrangement fell apart late last month after a federal judge raised concerns about terms of the agreement.
“We didn't know that was going to happen,” Lowell said, adding that “given what's been happening in the case, it wasn't a surprise that there would be some announcement to see where this case and the investigation would go from here.”
But Lowell insisted that the appointment shouldn’t change anything about his client’s legal jeopardy.
“Here's what people should focus on, Kaitlan, that what happened today, as a practical matter, is not much different than what was the case yesterday, or three weeks from before,” Lowell said.
“The attorney general and Mr. Weiss have both has said for weeks, months, that he had all the authority he needed to bring any charge that was merited, at any time that was appropriate, in any place that made sense, and so the power that a special counsel has, is the power that he has had.”
Lowell said the only change in the case is Weiss’ new title.
“His powers were the same yesterday. So what's different?” Lowell said. “It doesn't make any difference to us, given what we understood to be the case. Once again, people need to understand that the attorney general and he that he, Mr. Weiss, has said for a long time, that he had all the authority that he needed to bring any charge that was appropriate in any place.
“So what does the special counsel do that he couldn't do? The answer should be nothing different as to why now or why he wanted this as of last Tuesday. That's a question you're gonna have to ask him. But from our point of view, it should not change the outcome."
OTHER NEWS: Trump's lawyer in damage control to walk back his client's comments: legal analyst
He added:
“Who could say that they have been the subject of such a painstaking investigation, looking at every nook and cranny in which a conclusion was two tax misdemeanors and a diverted gun case to turn into anything else. There's been no evidence or fact that wasn't uncovered a week ago, that will be uncovered tomorrow.”
Watch the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Trump whines about ‘demeaning and belittling’ new book titled ‘A Very Stable Genius’

President Donald Trump lashed out at two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists on Saturday after returning to Mar-a-Lago from Trump International Golf @ @ @ @ @ at Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig for their highly-anticipated new book , A Very Stable @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Testing of America , which will be released on Tuesday .
The two @ @ @ @ @ team that won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Trump administration .
“ @ @ @ @ @ third rate Washington Post reporters , has already proven to be inaccurately reported , to @ @ @ @ @ for the purpose of demeaning and belittling a President who is getting great things done @ @ @ @ @ a record clip , ” Trump claimed , without offering any evidence .
Former acting @ @ @ @ @ also thinking about the book on Saturday .
“ Omg .
The excerpts thus far @ @ @ @ @ the iceberg .
Everyone should read , ” he counseled .

And the alleged perpetrators in both counties are facing felony charges.
The similarity of events in Mesa County and Coffee County were of particular interest to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who has been vocal about the need for vigilance against “insider threats” to election systems. In response to the Georgia indictment, Griswold said such threats, as the nation heads into a new election year in which Trump is the leading GOP candidate for president, remain active.
“I strongly believe Coloradans and Americans deserve and need to know ongoing attempts to steal elections,” Griswold told Colorado Newsline.
The Georgia indictment, which came from a Fulton County grand jury, charged Trump and 18 members of his inner circle on 41 counts. Two defendants with Colorado ties are named in the indictment — Trump attorneys John Eastman, who at the time of the alleged criminal activity was a visiting scholar at the University of Colorado Boulder and currently represents the Colorado Republican Party in a lawsuit against Griswold, and Jenna Ellis, who until recently lived in Colorado and, though she was censured this year over election falsehoods, remains licensed to practice law in the state.
The indictment, which charges each of the defendants with racketeering, among other counts, says that after Trump lost the election the defendants “refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
Part of that alleged conspiracy involved Misty Hampton, who in 2020 was the Coffee County elections supervisor. Starting on Jan. 7, 2021 — the day after the Jan. 6 insurrection — Hampton, Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and other co-conspirators broke into the county’s Dominion machines and improperly accessed voter data, according to the indictment. Hampton “allowed” co-conspirators into private areas of the elections office.
About four months later, then-Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters committed an almost identical criminal act, according to prosecutors. The Republican clerk allegedly allowed digital copies of the Mesa County election system server’s software and other sensitive information to be made and disseminated. The case against Peters began with an investigation by Griswold’s office.
Though different people are thought to have been involved in the Colorado and Georgia security breaches, the sweeping indictment out of Fulton County speaks of a wide-ranging conspiracy that involved alleged criminal acts “in other states” and 30 unindicted unnamed co-conspirators. Griswold noted that the breaches occurred as part of national election-denial efforts by figures such as MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, both of whom have ties to Peters. Byrne in a video appeared to acknowledge his own involvement in the Mesa County case.
“Make no mistake, there was a national conspiracy to breach Mesa County’s voting equipment. That has always been very clear. Patrick Byrne admitted his complicity on a video and posted it to Twitter,” Griswold said.
Asked if the Fulton County indictment had any bearing on the Peters case, which does not involve the kind of far-ranging racketeering charges brought in Georgia, Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, whose office is prosecuting the case against Peters, wrote in a text, “We will not be amending our charges, as we want to avoid any further delays and are eager to get our case before a jury.”
Peters did not respond to a text seeking comment.
The parties are due in early September to establish a trial date.
Elbert County was also the site of an election system security breach facilitated by the county’s own top election official. In that case, Colorado election denier Shawn Smith, who was part of the Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and works on “election integrity” efforts for the Lindell-funded Cause of America, helped then-Clerk Dalls Schroeder, a Republican, copy sensitive voter information.
Similar security breaches also occurred in three Michigan counties.
Griswold, a Democrat, said such breaches don’t alter election outcomes. But they serve other purposes, such as spreading disinformation.
“I’m absolutely concerned,” Griswold said. “The purpose of the ‘big lie’ is to create chaos, and chaos is definitely part of local election administrators trying to undermine the election process from within. I am increasingly concerned all across the nation about insider threats.”
Colorado has taken steps, such as passage of Griswold-backed protections against “insider threats,” that put the state in a better position to maintain election security, she said.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Impeachment managers release trial memorandum detailing why Trump must be removed from office

House impeachment managers released an in-depth trial memorandum laying out the case for convicting President Donald Trump during his Senate @ @ @ @ @ was released by representatives Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) @ @ @ @ @ ) , Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) , Val Demings ( D-FL ) , Jason @ @ @ @ @ Sylvia Garcia ( D-FL ) .
The document divides the argument by the House of @ @ @ @ @ “ The Senate should convict President Trump of abuse of power , ” is the @ @ @ @ @ Senate should convict President Trump of obstruction of Congress , ” is the second section @ @ @ @ @ immediately remove President Trump from office to prevent further abuses , ” is the third @ @

"If you look at the sheer number of people charged in the Georgia case, you're talking about 18 Trump allies, including Trump himself," said anchor Abby Phillip. "They're accused of racketeering, at least one, and at least one related crime. There's a lot of conduct alleged here, including trying to tamper with voting machines, and actual voting information. What is your take on the actual information contained in this document?"
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"So, a couple things," said Sununu. "I'm not a lawyer. I will say, this is incredibly similar to the federal indictment that Jack Smith is doing out of DOJ. Other than, as you brought up, now 18 people involved. That's a much bigger swath of individuals. Something that I think republicans need to take note of, this is a grand jury in a very conservative state. That said, this guy needs to be indicted. This isn't just the Department of Justice and the idea that it's all politicized. This is a grand jury in Georgia of all states."
All of this, said Sununu, underscores the fact that "this guy can't win in November."
"You might give him the nomination — I hope we don't — but this guy cannot win a state like New Hampshire, or Arizona, where these two states they absolutely have to have," said Sununu. "Last time I checked, you can't govern if you don't win. It's just gonna be another sob story for Donald Trump. And he's gonna crush the Republican ticket going down. I still am very hopeful the Republicans as a whole make a smart choice and find that one or two candidates to go against him by the time Iowa in New Hampshire hit."
Watch the video below or at the link.


rawstory--2020-01-18--He ‘can’t understand why he is being impeached’: CNN reports Trump is asking ’why are they doing thi

He ‘can’t understand why he is being impeached’: CNN reports Trump is asking ’why are they doing this to me?’

President Donald Trump is reportedly “ distracted ” by impeachment while vacationing at Mar-a-Lago as the United States Senate trial begins .
“ A source close to the White House who speaks to Donald Trump regularly said the President has appeared ‘ distracted ’ by the impeachment trial that begins on Tuesday , telling people around him Friday night at Mar-a-Lago that he ‘ can ’ t understand why he is impeached , ' ” CNN ’ s Jim Acosta reported Saturday .
“ ‘ Why are they doing this to me , ’ the source quoted Trump as saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how impeachment is playing out on cable news .
“ Trump has been telling associates and allies around him that he wanted a ‘ high profile ’ legal team that can perform on television , the source said .
It ’ s simply who Trump is , the source continued , adding Trump loves having people who are on television working for him , ” Acosta reported .
“ This in part may explain why Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz were added to the legal team representing the President.
” Other members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel Pat Cipollone , outside attorney Jay Sekulow , former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , Jane Raskin and Eric Herschmann .
Trump spent the day at Trump International Golf Club .
According to Trump Golf Count , it was his 243rd day at a golf course while in office .

President Donald Trump is reportedly "distracted" by impeachment while vacationing at Mar-a-Lago as the United States Senate trial begins.
"A source close to the White House who speaks to Donald Trump regularly said the President has appeared 'distracted' by the impeachment trial that begins on Tuesday, telling people around him Friday night at Mar-a-Lago that he 'can't understand why he is impeached,'" CNN's Jim Acosta reported Saturday. "'Why are they doing this to me,' the source quoted Trump as saying repeatedly."
The president is reportedly fixated on how impeachment is playing out on cable news.
"Trump has been telling associates and allies around him that he wanted a 'high profile' legal team that can perform on television, the source said. It's simply who Trump is, the source continued, adding Trump loves having people who are on television working for him," Acosta reported. "This in part may explain why Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz were added to the legal team representing the President."
Other members of the legal team include White House counsel Pat Cipollone, outside attorney Jay Sekulow, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Jane Raskin and Eric Herschmann.
Trump spent the day at Trump International Golf Club. According to Trump Golf Count, it was his 243rd day at a golf course while in office.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Rod Rosenstein’s legal defense in lawsuits from Strzok and Page won’t hold up under oath: legal expe

Rod Rosenstein’s legal defense in lawsuits from Strzok and Page won’t hold up under oath: legal experts

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein claimed responsibility for the release of text messages between then-FBI attorney Lisa Page and then-FBI official Peter Strzok .
Emails released in a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) lawsuit by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) revealed the highly unusual release by Sarah Isgur Flores , who at the time was the spokesperson for Trump ’ s Department of Justice ( she is now overseeing CNN ’ s 2020 election coverage ) .
Flores instructed reporters to not cite the release of the documents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Page have filed separate lawsuits against DOJ for the release of the text messages .
In a legal brief filed late Friday , Rosenstein filed an affidavit claiming responsibility for the release .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed the text messages are proof of a deep state conspiracy against his 2016 campaign — even though he won .
At a campaign rally , Trump made up a fictionalized transcript of the messages , which he acted out on stage while simulating a sex act .
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t think Rosenstein ’ s defense would hold up .
“ Rosenstein claims that he made the decision to release the Strzok-Page texts in part because it would be helpful to Strzok and Page for him to do so .
This rationale doesn ’ t seem like it will hold up when he ’ s questioned under oath , ” Mariotti said .
He wasn ’ t the only person focused on Rosenstein ’ s anticipated testimony under oath .
“ All I can say is this : I very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lisa Page herself wrote .
Walter Shaub , the former head of the office of government ethics , said the admission was proof “ Rosenstein was complicit in the Trump administration ’ s abuses of power.
” “ It ’ s a disturbing illustration of the ways Rosenstein and , later , Barr have politicized the Justice Department—an agency whose very name promises impartiality .
The dangers of politicizing the agency administering the criminal apparatus of the state can not be overstated , ” he warned .
“ Rosenstein suffered from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey , only Rosenstein was a weak man controlled by the fear he displayed when he publicly groveled not to be fired by tweet , ” Shaub added .

“You’re just trying to get me to vote Democratic because you support that party’s corruption. I won’t be intimidated: I’m going to vote for the best person to run the country!”
Often these types of statements are followed by:
“People in France and Israel can vote for any one of a dozen parties and nobody complains that they’re ‘throwing away their vote.’ This is America: we’re even better! So, I should be able to vote for anybody I want!”
Some people pushing this line simply don’t understand the difference between the political systems of France/Israel and the US.
Others are cynical hustlers (this is true mostly of the talk-show and YouTube hosts trying to differentiate themselves by pushing this), trying to grab and hold an audience by being “edgy,” “iconoclastic,” or “a rebel with a cause.”
So, let’s review some political basics.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Whatever its genesis, this opinion — that ignoring our two-party system and “voting for the best candidate is a good thing” — is widespread. After all, intuitively it seems to make perfect sense.
In a rational world, who would want to vote for anyone less than the best candidate? Unfortunately, though, America’s political system is not as rational as that of countries with proportional representation or ranked choice voting.
A 2022 Pew poll found people’s unfavorable view of both parties has gone from 6 percent in 1994 to 27 percent today. Similarly, 38 percent of Americans “wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country” and may be persuaded to vote for a third-party candidate.
So why is it that third parties don’t work in America, but they do in France?
The United States, in 1789, became the first modern democratic republic founded on the notion of the leaders of a government, through elections, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The Framers of the Constitution had never heard of proportional representation or the modern parliamentary system (more on that in a minute), so they went with a simple strategy that’s today referred to by political scientists as “first-past-the-post winner-take-all” (FPTP) or, sometimes, as “majoritarian” or “plurality” election systems.
Whoever gets the most votes becomes the elected politician, and everybody else gets nothing. If you voted with the majority, you’re represented; if not, you’re not at all represented by a person or party that shares your view.
America was an English-speaking country and, as a result, this system spread mostly throughout the English-speaking world and in former British or American colonies. Majoritarian FPTP systems like ours are used in Canada, the UK, India, Jamaica, Liberia, Singapore, Philippines, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Bangladesh.
As a result, most all of these countries are dominated by two parties who tend to pass control of the nation back-and-forth over time. (Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland use Ranked Choice Voting, an even more recent innovation which allows for more political parties; more on that in a moment.)
In such a system, third parties almost always act as spoilers, drawing votes away from the major party to which they’re most closely aligned. People who vote Green, for example, generally would have voted Democratic, thus reducing that party’s vote; people who vote Libertarian would have voted Republican with the same effect.
For example, in Florida in 2000, Ralph Nader on the Green Party’s ticket got 97,488 votes, while George W. Bush “won” Florida by 537 votes.
It strains credulity to assert that the majority of Nader’s voters would have either voted for Bush or not voted at all, which is why when David Cobb ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2004, he explicitly told people in swing states not to vote for him but to cast their ballots for John Kerry instead.
Jill Stein had no such moral compunction with her Green Party candidacy in 2016. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin provided Trump’s margin of victory in the Electoral College over Hillary Clinton, and, in each of those states, Stein pulled more votes than Trump’s margin.
(In Michigan she got 51,463 votes and Trump won by 10,704; in Pennsylvania she won 49,678 versus Trump’s margin of 46,765; and in Wisconsin Stein carried 31,006 votes but Trump only won by 22,177.)
In other words, had liberals not voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have become president and we never would have been lied into a war; had people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin not voted for Jill Stein in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have become president and America would have been spared the trauma of 500,000 unnecessary Covid deaths and the ongoing assault to our democracy.
This is apparently not lost on sour-grapes Jill Stein, by the way; she’s reportedly helping run Cornel West’s 2024 Green Party candidacy. It’s also not lost on the Democrat-hating folks at No Labels, who have pledged to put up a candidate for president (presumably Joe Manchin) in 2024.
In the 1950s, French sociologist Maurice Duverger published several papers on this odd quirk of FPTP systems and the way they turn aligned third-party candidacies into agents for the opposition party.
This simple reality — apparently unknown to those who advocate third party candidates — has since come to be known as Duverger’s Law.
It’s why when I lived in Vermont in 2000 and voted for Ralph Nader, knowing there was no chance Vermont would go for George W. Bush, I was making a safe “protest” vote, but if I’d been living in Florida it would have been political suicide.
With our FPTP system, voters in swing states operate under an entirely different set of electoral facts and circumstances as do those in solidly Red or Blue states: a fact that third-party candidacy advocates would really rather you don’t know.
So, why can France have so many political parties without damaging their political system but here in America third parties harm those they’re most closely aligned with?
This goes to the invention of what’s called “proportional representation.”
It wasn’t until the year the Civil War started, 1861, that British philosopher John Stuart Mill published a how-to manual for multi-party parliamentary democracies in his book Considerations On Representative Government.
It was so widely distributed and read that nearly all of the world’s democracies today — all of them countries that became democracies after the late 1860s — use variations on Mill’s proportional representation parliamentary system.
In Mill’s system, if a political party gets, say, 12 percent of the vote then they also get 12 percent of the seats in that country’s congress or parliament. A party that pulls 34 percent of the vote gets 34 percent of the seats, and so on.
The result is a plethora of parties representing a broad range of perspectives and priorities, all able to participate in the daily governance of their nation. Nobody gets shut out.
Governing becomes an exercise in coalition building, and nobody is excluded. If you want to get something done politically, you have to pull together a coalition of parties to agree with your policy.
Most European countries, for example, have political parties represented in their parliaments that range from the far left to the extreme right, with many across the spectrum of the middle. There’s even room for single issue parties; for example, several in Europe focus almost exclusively on the environment or immigration.
The result is typically an honest and wide-ranging discussion across society about the topics of the day, rather than a stilted debate among only two parties.
It’s how the Greens became part of today’s governing coalition in Germany, for example, and are able to influence the energy future of that nation. And because of that political diversity in the debates, the decisions made tend to be reasonably progressive: look at the politics and lifestyles in most European nations.
In our system, though, if a party gets 12 percent of the vote — or anything short of 50 percent plus one — they get nothing. Whoever gets 50-percent-plus-one wins everything and everybody else gets nothing, which is why we always end up with two parties battling for the higher end of that 50/50 teeter-totter.
Pretty much every democracy in the world not listed above under the FPTP label are using Mill’s proportional representation. But we don’t, which is why we’re stuck with a two-party system.
Australia and New Zealand have diminished the damage third parties can do to the main, established parties, by using a voting system called ranked choice voting. In a system like that I could have voted for Ralph Nader as my first choice in 2000, with Al Gore as my second choice. When it becomes apparent that Nader isn’t going to make it, my first choice is discarded by the system and my vote for Gore becomes the one that gets counted.
Over 300 communities in America are now using ranked choice voting (including Portland, Oregon) and it works great. Moving from FPTP to proportional representation would require amending the Constitution, though, so that’s not going to happen any day soon: ranked choice voting is a nearly-as-good alternative.
At the national level, though, the best way to solve the problem of some Democratic politicians not being as progressive as we’d like is to get active by joining the Democratic Party and becoming a force for positive change within it. To stand up for public office and elect more progressives, something that can only be done within the Democratic Party.
To not “throw away your vote,” but to help rebuild the institution that brought America Social Security, the minimum wage, the right to unionize, Medicare, Medicaid, free college, regulatory agencies that defend and protect the environment and working class people, support for people in poverty, and that built America’s first real middle class.
Yes, there are corrupt and bought-off politicians within the Democratic Party. Ever since the Supreme Court fully legalized political bribery with their Citizens United decision and its predecessors, there have been more than a few Democrats who have enthusiastically put their hands out. The most obvious and cynical ones call themselves corporate “Problem Solvers.”
But voting for a third-party candidate and thus handing elections to Republicans won’t solve that problem: if anything it will make it worse, because the entire GOP has committed itself to being on the take and, as we saw with Nader and Stein, third-party candidacies often simply hand more power to the GOP.
Try to find, for example, even one Republican who isn’t benefiting from the billions in oil dollars that have flowed through the Koch network over the years and is thus willing to do something about climate change. Republican governance and their fealty to the fossil fuel industry is literally destroying America.
This is why real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Pramila Jayapal stay and work within the Democratic Party. For progressives to take over the country, we must first take over the DNC.
In other words, get inside the Party and take it over! It’s what hard-core conservatives did with the GOP over the past 20 years, starting with the Tea Party movement, and it’s what progressives must do with the Democratic Party.
Cornel West is a great guy, but with our FPTP election system a vote for him for president in a swing state is effectively a vote for the Republican nominee. No third-party candidate has ever won the White House, and none ever will until we have nationwide ranked choice voting.
So, the next time somebody tells you how they’re going to only vote for “the best candidate,” you may want to give them this little Civics 101 lesson, along with the phone number, website, or email address for their local Democratic Party. And get behind the movement to bring ranked choice voting to national elections.
We can’t afford any more George W. Bush’s or Donald Trump’s, who were both brought to us, in part, by Democratic-leaning voters thinking they were doing the right thing by voting for third party candidates.


rawstory--2020-01-18--Neo-Nazi arrested by FBI in terror plot before his comrades tried to kill him for being ‘stupid’ and

Neo-Nazi arrested by FBI in terror plot before his comrades tried to kill him for being ‘stupid’ and ‘incompetent’: report

On Saturday , CBC News reported that several members of a white supremacist group called The Base have been arrested in Georgia and Wisconsin .
This comes one day after another set of raids in Maryland and Delaware that caught Patrik Mathews , a former reservist from Manitoba who crossed into the United States illegally and has been missing for five months after being accused of recruiting for the extremist group .
One new key detail came out about Mathews in an affidavit used to secure the arrest warrants for Mathews ’ alleged compatriots , according to the CBC : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member believed to be Mathews stayed with a Georgia cell member for months , he is later reportedly characterized as ‘ incompetent ’ and ‘ stupid ’ and is seen as a liability to the local group .
In fact , he eventually becomes a new potential murder target.
” The Base is believed to have used a makeshift paramilitary training camp in Sandy Spring , Georgia .
The affidavit describes their activity in detail , alleging that they were plotting the murders of people they believed to be “ Antifa ” activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. government .
“ Based upon previous discussions with members of The Base online , the UCE ( undercover employee ) believed the intended purpose of those drills were to prepare for the ‘ boogaloo , ’ a term used by members of The Base to describe the collapse of the United States and subsequent race war , ” said the affidavit .
You can read more here .

On Saturday, CBC News reported that several members of a white supremacist group called The Base have been arrested in Georgia and Wisconsin. This comes one day after another set of raids in Maryland and Delaware that caught Patrik Mathews, a former reservist from Manitoba who crossed into the United States illegally and has been missing for five months after being accused of recruiting for the extremist group.
One new key detail came out about Mathews in an affidavit used to secure the arrest warrants for Mathews' alleged compatriots, according to the CBC: "Although the document suggests the group member believed to be Mathews stayed with a Georgia cell member for months, he is later reportedly characterized as 'incompetent' and 'stupid' and is seen as a liability to the local group. In fact, he eventually becomes a new potential murder target."
The Base is believed to have used a makeshift paramilitary training camp in Sandy Spring, Georgia. The affidavit describes their activity in detail, alleging that they were plotting the murders of people they believed to be "Antifa" activists, as well as the eventual overthrow of the U.S. government.
"Based upon previous discussions with members of The Base online, the UCE (undercover employee) believed the intended purpose of those drills were to prepare for the 'boogaloo,' a term used by members of The Base to describe the collapse of the United States and subsequent race war," said the affidavit.
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-18--WATCH: Trump lawyer Pam Bondi brushes off her meeting with Lev Parnas during NBC grilling

During an interview with NBC News ’ “ Today ” on Saturday , Pam Bondi , the former attorney general of Florida and one of the lawyers representing President Donald Trump in impeachment matters , dismissed the photograph released by House Democrats that shows her with indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas .
“ Clearly , Lev Parnas liked to take pictures with a lot of people , ” said Bondi unconcernedly .
“ He showed up at events pretty much everywhere where Republicans were.
” Asked about Trump ’ s relationship with Parnas , she added , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what they ’ re planning on doing with it .
We ’ re going to stick to the facts and stick to the law in this case.
” Bondi and Trump ’ s association goes back years .
She attracted national attention in 2016 after she dropped her state ’ s investigation into the fraudulent Trump University , right after soliciting a $ 25,000 campaign donation from the then-presidential candidate .
Parnas is facing charges of campaign finance fraud .
He and his business partner Igor Fruman were instrumental in helping Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president of Ukraine into announcing an “ investigation ” into former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s family .

At present, Trump stands accused of 91 charges in four felony cases, testing his political death-defying ability.
“He is a tank. He is a boulder. I don't think there is literally anything that can happen to this man that would make him lose because he has such a chokehold on the Republican Party,” said Amani Wells-Onyioha, operations director at Democratic political firm Sole Strategies.
Others consider him vulnerable.
RELATED ARTICLE: Prison playbook: How Trump could run his campaign – and the nation – from behind bars
“There's a very real possibility that he gets convicted of one of these and is looking at prison time,” said Nicholas Creel, assistant professor of business law at Georgia College and State University. “When we get to the hypothetical point of him needing to take office, we've got to figure out now, is he actually above the law. The Supreme Court will have to step in.
“There is a very, very real possibility that a Supreme Court majority — probably a five-four ruling — could say you still have to face the music, Mr. President, and if we enter political paralysis, that's because we have chosen that you would be the president in prison,” Creel continued.
Here are 11 other scenarios where Trump fails for a second straight time to get back to the White House — without losing the 2024 general election.
Trump loses the Republican primary on votes
Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution, author of “Primary Politics: Everything you need to know about how America nominates its presidential candidates,” says Trump does not have an insurmountable lead in the primaries — even if he’s enjoying a massive lead today over the likes of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott and about a dozen other contenders.
“The polls right now are just sort of bologna,” she said. “If there are any polls you should pay attention to, pay attention to the early-state polls, which show a closer race. The national polls are totally meaningless.”
That, she said, is because the primaries are different than any other kind election in the United States.
“It is a sequence, not one election,” she said. “So, yeah, if the election were held today and we had a national primary, Trump would win. But what happens is something very different.”
Kamarck said the essential question is who comes in second in Iowa and what happens to Trump after that.
“If he shows some weakness and if there is another candidate who people decide to coalesce around, that’s the game,” she said. “[Trump] could very well lose.”
One big reason why Tim Scott poses a credible threat to Donald Trump Presidential candidate and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). Getty Images
John Geer, dean of the college of arts and science and professor of political science and public policy and education at Vanderbilt University, said it's hard to imagine Trump not getting the nomination, especially if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. But the indictments could start to take a toll on him.
“If he gets 30, 40 percent of the vote, he'll probably finish first in most primaries, and the way the Republicans allocate delegates means that he'll get the lion's share of delegates, so he'll lock things up pretty early,” Geer said. “He's going to be in pretty good standing, but we’re way ways away from that, and it'll be interesting to watch because this is beginning to pile on in a way that's just not good for him.”
Trump loses the GOP nomination in a floor fight
Kamarck noted that in 2016, “Never Trump” Republicans angled for a Republican National Convention floor fight.
But, she said, the second-place candidate, Ted Cruz, wasn’t strong enough to make that a viable effort and force multiple ballots
It could be different in 2024, she said.
If Trump goes into the convention with fewer than 50 percent of delegates, Kamarck said, “There’s nothing that keeps that second-place person from taking the third-, fourth- and fifth-place delegates and saying, ’Come with me and let’s win this nomination.’”
James Long, professor of political science at the University of Washington, said Trump supporters might have to ask themselves some tough questions amid the various indictments.
“Everyone saying they’re going to support Trump is going to have to face the reality that this is going to get worse and worse for him, and they’re going to have to think about whether or not he’s a credible winner in the election,” Long said. “And they’re going to have to decide if they care more about him as a person, or they care more about winning. At some point, you have to cut and run and go with somebody you think can win.”
While some of Trump’s rivals have started breaking with the imperled president, other Republican challengers for the GOP nomination have shied away from speaking out against Trump.
“They're hoping if Trump does get convicted of one or more crimes, that even if he's nominated, he could be removed by the Republican National Committee,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “I'm not saying that will happen, but they could be thinking about that, and then any one of them could become the nominee.”
Geer imagined Trump’s revenge.
“A scenario is that if he doesn't get the nomination, he would withhold the support for the nominee and ensure the Democrats win,” Geer said.
Trump flees the country
As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote, Trump “is one of the most recognized figures in the world. He would have to go to Mars to live incognito. It is facially absurd.”
As outlandish as it may sound, Trump could theoretically find refuge from legal threats in a country that’s not so friendly to the United States — but potentially friendly to Trump.
ALSO READ: Trump maintains trademarks with Russia, China and numerous other U.S. enemies and frenemies
Think Russia. China. Saudi Arabia. Even — dare one say it — North Korea. Unlike most people in legal peril, Trump has massive amounts of money and the physical means — specifically, his own “Trump Force One” Boeing 757 — to get to a place beyond the reach of special counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or the U.S. justice system, writ large.
And in addition to the Russias and Chinas of the world, there are dozens of other nations that don’t have extradition treaties with the United States, which makes it extremely difficult for the U.S. law enforcement officials to spirit a wanted man into custody and back to American soil.
Of course, such a drastic move by Trump would all but guarantee that he could never again return to the United States as a free man.
But Trump has well-established business ties in numerous foreign countries and could ostensibly live like a fugitive king in a welcoming nation.
President Donald Trump at his plane (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
And in October 2020, days before the election he wouldn’t win, Trump himself floated the idea of becoming an ex-pat: “Could you imagine if I lose? I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country, I don’t know.”
Said Wells-Onyioha: “If he doesn't want to face charges, I can see him attempting to flee. Trump genuinely feels like the rules don't apply to him, so I think that there's nothing that he won't do. I don't think he wants to face any accountability or any repercussions for any of the things that he's done thus far, so I can see him trying to flee.”
In actuality, it’s much more likely that Trump’s legal team will just try to delay the court proceedings as long as possible, Geer said.
“I doubt that, but he can tie the legal system up for a long time, so that’s what I suspect he'll end up doing,” Geer said.
Trump falls gravely ill or dies of natural causes
When we discuss age and the presidency, it’s usually about President Joe Biden, the nation’s first octogenarian commander-in-chief.
But Trump, 77, is not a young man, either.
The average age of death for a man who’s served as president of the United States is about 72 years old, according to Statista, and only 12 out of the 45 have lived to celebrate their 80th birthday.
So while the topic itself is grim, even uncouth, the odds of Trump falling gravely ill or dying before Election Day 2024 are not insignificant.
What would happen next upon either scenario would largely be a function of the point in time Trump stopped running.
If Trump was unable to continue running for president in 2023 or early 2024 — prior to the Republican presidential primaries beginning or shortly thereafter — the longroster of other candidates would simply continue competing for the nomination without him.
If Trump couldn’t continue after winning enough primary votes to become the presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, the nation would almost certainly have to gird for a brokered Republican National Convention, which is scheduled for mid-July in Milwaukee, Wis.
And if Trump officially secured the GOP nomination, but couldn’t stand for election in November 2024, a select group of Republican Party bigwigs would likely convene to choose a replacement — whether that was Trump’s vice presidential running mate, or someone else.
Then-President Donald Trump in the State Dining Room on January 14, 2019, where the 2018 NCAA Football National Champions, the Clemson Tigers, were welcomed with food from Domino’s, McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Little is known about the current status of Trump’s health beyond what can be casually observed — that the 6’ 3” teetotaling former president is either clinically overweight or obese, has a taste for foods that aren’t the healthiest and isn’t exactly an exercisejunkie.
A summary of results of Trump’s final presidential physicals, released in June 2020, indicated the then-president weighed 244 pounds, had a normal blood pressure reading and a resting heart rate of 63 beats per minute.
But the summary did not include full details of Trump’s check-up, and Trump has not released any such information since leaving the White House more than two-and-a-half years ago.
Trump dies from assassination
Even more grim is the specter of assassination, an ever-present specter for presidents and presidential candidates alike.
Four presidents — John F. Kennedy, William McKinley, James Garfield and Abraham Lincoln — died after being shot.
Ronald Reagan, in 1981, could have been the fifth assassinated president but for the quick reactions of law enforcement and medical personnel.
This month, while attempting to serve a warrant, FBI agents shot and killed a Utah man who had allegedly made “credible” threats against Biden.
High-profile presidential candidates also come under threat. The most notable modern example is that of Robert F. Kennedy, who died in 1968 after being shot at a campaign event. (Kennedy’s son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is now running against Biden in the Democratic primary, and has publicly stated that he believes his father’s convicted killer isn’t the man who committed the crime.)
Trump, like every past president and many presidential candidates, receives U.S. Secret Service protection and will ostensibly be entitled to such protection even if he’s convicted of a crime and sent to prison or home detention.
Trump takes a plea and agrees to quits the race before Election Day
Scott Galloway made this prediction recently on the popular podcast Pivot, which he hosts with journalist Kara Swisher:
Trump, Galloway said, "has a very nice life, and his life can be going back to golf and sycophants and having sex with porn stars. … Or he can live under the threat of prison. The [political] momentum he has is real leverage and power. And I think he’s going to cash that leverage and power in for a plea deal that includes no jail time.”
Now that Trump is facing state charges in Georgia and New York, he wouldn’t be able to escape by pardoning himself as president — something he could attempt to do for the federal-level charges he faces. Therefore, Trump’s calculus may change.
Creel noted Spiro Agnew’s resignation from the vice presidency in 1973 after facing the threat of jail for his corruption while governor of Maryland.
ALSO READ: Why does Trump continue to surprise some liberals?
“One of the parts of the agreement was [to] resign, get out of politics forever, and we will not pursue this,” he said. “So with a more rational defendant, that would absolutely be something that's on the table. That's something Jack Smith would be bringing to Trump, but for one, we're not dealing with a particularly rational individual. Two, this scenario is significantly different in that we have state-level charges also facing him. And so because they can't really immunize him against that at the state level, the incentive to take that sort of a deal is greatly diminished.”
Wells-Onyioha said Trump maybe – maybe – would come to the realization that prison, and the potential life-long loss of his freedom, is a real and unpalatable possibility.
“I can see them coming up with some sort of like plea agreement, where in exchange for dropping out of the race, they will let him be on probation or something like that,” she said. “I can see that happening. But even so, I'm not even sure if he would take that deal.”
Trump is removed via the 25th Amendment
The Constitution’s 25th Amendment spells out the succession plan if a president dies or is removed from office, which means the vice president takes over.
If the vice president and his cabinet determine that the president is unable to discharge his duties as president — say, being in prison — Congress will have 48 hours to convene and 21 days to decide if the president is fit to hold office. It can remove him by a two-thirds vote.
“You can even see his cabinet exercising the 25th Amendment, saying, look, you're incapacitated. You're not capable because you're needing to go to prison or are in prison. You're not capable of fulfilling the oath of office, therefore, we're invoking [the] 25th Amendment and removing you from office that way, and so you would see whoever his vice president elect is [at] that point stepping up,” Creel said.
If Trump wins the 2024 election, the Supreme Court will ultimately need to decide if a sitting president is immune from state-level prosecution in Georgia and New York, and the Court might rule against his ability to serve as president.
US Supreme Court (supreme.justia.com) US Supreme Court (supreme.justia.com)
“Functionally this would mean Trump is the legitimate president but would still be forced to carry out a sentence in a state prison,” Creel said. “In that scenario, it’s difficult to see how he wouldn’t be either impeached and convicted or otherwise removed via the 25th Amendment due to his ‘incapacity.’”
But with a third of the Supreme Court being Trump appointees, Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way and former mayor of Ithaca, N.Y., said he could see the Court ruling in Trump’s favor and allowing him to serve any legal consequences at a later time.
“Uncharted legal territory with stakes this high means questions like that usually get kicked up to the Supreme Court. Given that, Donald Trump appointed three members of the Supreme Court on a six-person ultra conservative majority, I think the most likely scenario is that he's allowed to stand for office, and if he wins, he could avoid or at least delay paying his debt to society,” Myrick said.
Trump is impeached for a third time, then convicted and disqualified from serving as president
If the Supreme Court does say “nobody's above the law, and that includes the president” and lets the criminal justice system do its work, Creel said, Trump could still be disqualified from the presidency via the political system.
“We have a blueprint for how to do that. Impeachment. Conviction. Removal. That's how you could do it, and so you can see him taking office and having that avenue, where he's president for a day and then they just kind of have this perfunctory removal,” Creel said.
Trump was twice impeached while in office, but was acquitted on all counts by the Senate in both cases.
Congress could technically impeach Trump now with the goal of simply disqualifying him from running for elected office. Recall that Trump’s second impeachment trial took place several weeks after he left the White House.
But with Republicans currently controlling the House, where any impeachment proceeding would begin, such a scenario is exceedingly remote.
Trump has the 14th Amendment applied to him
The Constitution's 14th Amendment also poses a potential roadblock to Trump’s ability to serve out a presidency, some conservative Constitutional scholars say, as quoted by the New York Times.
The amendment, in part, bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.
Trump’s second federal indictment involves four felony counts in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and Trump’s alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
“Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6,” William Baude, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, told the Times.
The 14th Amendment originally intended to prevent Confederate officials from gaining power after the Civil War, but how the disqualification clause would be applied is unclear to legal experts, especially since it’s never been used in the case of a president before, FindLaw, a Reuters company, reported.
Certain states could disqualify Trump from the ballot, making an Electoral College victory impossible
If Trump isn’t disqualified from running for president at the federal level, states could still disqualify him on the same grounds, Creel said.
Two advocacy groups, The Free Speech For People and Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, have written letters to election officials in California, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania pushing for the states to bar Trump from appearing on their ballots, citing the 14th Amendment, Newsweek reported.
ALSO READ: Fresh off Trump performance, silenced children’s choir to sing at U.S. Capitol
“Individual states do have through their own electoral mechanisms, individuals with the authority to remove him from the ballot,” Creel said. “That could potentially happen, which would ultimately, it would still go to the Supreme Court, but it would very potentially deny him the ability to get on those ballots, and therefore disqualify him.”
But with most trial dates to be determined, Geer says Trump likely won’t get disqualified from the state ballot while the cases are still pending.
“Innocent `til proven guilty is the mantra of the country and that applies to the former president, and that'll keep him from facing those kinds of things unless suddenly he was to be convicted, which he'll be drawing that process out as long as he can,” Geer said.
Biden pardons Trump with the understanding that he’ll quit the race
James Long, professor of political science at the University of Washington, said it could be another Republican who makes a deal to pardon Trump.
“Chris Christie probably wouldn’t do this, but maybe some of the others would,” Long said. “If they’re all on a debate stage, a journalist should say, ‘Are you willing, now, to say whether you would pardon Donald Trump on federal charges?’
“I could see him doing a back-room deal with somebody like DeSantis where he says, ‘Look, I’ll drop out of the race and support you and if you win, you have to promise to pardon me, and he’ll throw the full weight of MAGA behind that agreement.”
An even more exotic and unlikely scenario is Biden pardoning Trump with the understanding that Trump will quit the presidential race.
Biden, whose comments about Trump’s legal troubles have been minimal of late, has never spoken of such an idea.
A most imperfect historical parallel would be President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of President Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal. But there’s no evidence Ford’s pardon involved either an overt or secret quid pro quo, according to the National Constitution Center, and came only after Nixon had officially stepped down.
Also: Could Trump serve as president while set to serve time?
In short: yes.
There’s precedent that presidents don’t have full legal immunity — look at the 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Clinton v. Jones, Creel says — but Trump could be still allowed to serve any prison time post-presidency if convicted and sentenced for any of the 91 charges.
That would require the Supreme Court ruling that Trump couldn’t have his presidential duties interfered with by state level charges.
“We have to just set them aside to the point where he could realistically, in that scenario if that's what the Supreme Court says, be told January 20, at 12:01 p.m., 2028, report for incarceration in the state of Georgia,” Creel said. “That's an actual realistic possibility that could go his way.”


rawstory--2020-01-18--Trump will face uphill battle discrediting Parnas after so many other aides ended up in jail: column

Trump will face uphill battle discrediting Parnas after so many other aides ended up in jail: columnist

Writing for The New York Times , columnist Michelle Goldberg pointed out that President Donald Trump could have a difficult time trying to discredit indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas as untrustworthy in his allegations about the Ukraine scheme — because his sleaziness and disrepute is the whole reason that he was so useful to Trump ’ s team in the first place .
“ Now that Lev Parnas , a key conspirator in Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani ’ s plot to shake down Ukraine , is singing , Trump ’ s defenders are pointing out that he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trusted , ” wrote Goldberg .
“ ‘ This is a man who is under indictment and who ’ s actually out on bail .
This is a man who owns a company called Fraud Inc. , ’ the White House press secretary , Stephanie Grisham , said on Fox News , the only network on which she regularly appears .
( Parnas ’ s company was actually called Fraud Guarantee , though that ’ s not any better . )
” For the record , noted Goldberg , “ Trumpists similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s personal lawyer before Giuliani did .
The day Cohen testified to Congress that Trump is a ‘ racist , ’ a ‘ con man ’ and a ‘ cheat , ’ a Trump campaign spokeswoman blasted him as ‘ a felon , a disbarred lawyer and a convicted perjurer.
’ ( Some of his felonies , of course , were things he did for Trump . )
When Rick Gates , Trump ’ s former deputy campaign chairman , testified against his former boss Paul Manafort , Manafort ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all the lies you ’ ve told and fraud you ’ ve committed , you expect this jury to believe you ? '
” “ Nothing that Parnas said in the Maddow interview should be taken at face value .
Important questions remain unanswered , including who was paying all of the bills .
( Remember — he was paying Giuliani , not vice versa . )
Parnas ’ s decision to go public in the first place is hard to fathom , ” wrote Goldberg .
“ None of that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the eve of Trump ’ s impeachment trial shouldn ’ t be taken seriously .
That ’ s because much of what he says has been corroborated , and because the very fact that a person like Parnas was carrying out high-level international missions for the president shows how mob-like this administration is.
” “ Parnas was the vehicle through which a dirty Ukrainian politician pulled Trump ’ s strings to take revenge on an American official who ’ d tried to uphold the rule of law .
She was threatened , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is easily influenced by the goons and bottom feeders in his orbit , ” wrote Goldberg .
“ By going public , Parnas has probably done nothing to sway Republicans toward removing Trump from office , not because they don ’ t believe him , but because they know Trump did what he ’ s accused of and don ’ t care.
” “ But Parnas is worth paying attention to because he ’ s shown us , once again , what Trumpism looks like from the inside , ” concluded Goldberg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sopranos ’ and part , as he put it to Maddow , a ‘ cult.
’ The qualities that discredit Parnas are the same ones that let him fit right in.
” You can read more here .

Writing for The New York Times, columnist Michelle Goldberg pointed out that President Donald Trump could have a difficult time trying to discredit indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas as untrustworthy in his allegations about the Ukraine scheme — because his sleaziness and disrepute is the whole reason that he was so useful to Trump's team in the first place.
"Now that Lev Parnas, a key conspirator in Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s plot to shake down Ukraine, is singing, Trump’s defenders are pointing out that he is a disreputable person who can’t be trusted," wrote Goldberg. "'This is a man who is under indictment and who’s actually out on bail. This is a man who owns a company called Fraud Inc.,' the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, said on Fox News, the only network on which she regularly appears. (Parnas's company was actually called Fraud Guarantee, though that’s not any better.)"
For the record, noted Goldberg, "Trumpists similarly dismissed Michael Cohen, who served as Trump’s personal lawyer before Giuliani did. The day Cohen testified to Congress that Trump is a 'racist,' a 'con man' and a 'cheat,' a Trump campaign spokeswoman blasted him as 'a felon, a disbarred lawyer and a convicted perjurer.' (Some of his felonies, of course, were things he did for Trump.) When Rick Gates, Trump's former deputy campaign chairman, testified against his former boss Paul Manafort, Manafort's lawyer grilled him, asking, 'After all the lies you've told and fraud you've committed, you expect this jury to believe you?'"
"Nothing that Parnas said in the Maddow interview should be taken at face value. Important questions remain unanswered, including who was paying all of the bills. (Remember — he was paying Giuliani, not vice versa.) Parnas’s decision to go public in the first place is hard to fathom," wrote Goldberg. "None of that, however, means that his dramatic interview on the eve of Trump’s impeachment trial shouldn’t be taken seriously. That’s because much of what he says has been corroborated, and because the very fact that a person like Parnas was carrying out high-level international missions for the president shows how mob-like this administration is."
"Parnas was the vehicle through which a dirty Ukrainian politician pulled Trump’s strings to take revenge on an American official who’d tried to uphold the rule of law. She was threatened, smeared and fired in part because Trump is easily influenced by the goons and bottom feeders in his orbit," wrote Goldberg. "By going public, Parnas has probably done nothing to sway Republicans toward removing Trump from office, not because they don’t believe him, but because they know Trump did what he’s accused of and don’t care."
"But Parnas is worth paying attention to because he's shown us, once again, what Trumpism looks like from the inside," concluded Goldberg. "It's part 'The Sopranos' and part, as he put it to Maddow, a 'cult.' The qualities that discredit Parnas are the same ones that let him fit right in."
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-18--‘One minute to live, sir’: Trump shared details of Suleimani assassination with wealthy donors at Ma

‘One minute to live, sir’: Trump shared details of Suleimani assassination with wealthy donors at Mar-a-Lago fundraiser

President Donald Trump shared moment-by-moment details of his assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani with top high-dollar donors at Friday night ’ s fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago .
The Commander-in-Chief also revealed he authorized the killing , not because of any supposed “ imminent threat , ” as he has previously asserted , but because intelligence reports , he said , found Solemiani was “ talking about bad stuff.
” Killing Solemani as an act of retribution instead of as a preventative measure against imminent attack could be a war crime , legal experts have said .
The Washington Post reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ the father of the road side bomb ’ responsible for ‘ every young , beautiful man or woman who see walking around with no legs , no arms.
’ ” Soleimani “ was saying bad things about our country , like we ’ re going to attack , we ’ re going to kill your people .
I said , ‘ listen , how much of this shit do we have to listen to , right ?
’ ” Trump said , to applause .
The president also gave a blow-by-blow account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Sir , they have two minutes and 11 seconds.
’ No emotion .
‘ two minutes and 11 seconds to live , sir .
They ’ re in the car , they ’ re in an armored vehicle .
Sir , they have approximately one minute to live , sir .
30 seconds .
10 , 9 , 8 … ’ Then all of a sudden , boom , ” Trump told the group of donors , according to audio recordings the Post received .
The Post also revealed that at Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard boasting about increasing the defense budget by $ 2.5 trillion .
To those who criticized his spending and the growing national debt , Trump said , ‘ Who the hell cares about the budget ?
We ’ re going to have a country .
’ ”

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement

President Donald Trump shared moment-by-moment details of his assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani with top high-dollar donors at Friday night’s fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. The Commander-in-Chief also revealed he authorized the killing, not because of any supposed “imminent threat,” as he has previously asserted, but because intelligence reports, he said, found Solemiani was “talking about bad stuff.”
Killing Solemani as an act of retribution instead of as a preventative measure against imminent attack could be a war crime, legal experts have said.
The Washington Post reports Trump “spoke broadly about Soleimani as ‘the father of the road side bomb’ responsible for ‘every young, beautiful man or woman who see walking around with no legs, no arms.'”
Soleimani “was saying bad things about our country, like we’re going to attack, we’re going to kill your people. I said, ‘listen, how much of this shit do we have to listen to, right?’” Trump said, to applause.
The president also gave a blow-by-blow account of Soleimani’s killing.
“‘Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds.’ No emotion. ‘two minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They’re in the car, they’re in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 …’ Then all of a sudden, boom,” Trump told the group of donors, according to audio recordings the Post received.
The Post also revealed that at Friday’s fundraiser, “Trump is heard boasting about increasing the defense budget by $2.5 trillion. To those who criticized his spending and the growing national debt, Trump said, ‘Who the hell cares about the budget? We’re going to have a country.'”


rawstory--2020-01-18--Lev Parnas ran to Maddow over fear Justice Department officials would bury Bill Barr allegations: ex

Lev Parnas ran to Maddow over fear Justice Department officials would bury Bill Barr allegations: ex-prosecutor

Appearing on MSNBC ’ s “ AM Joy , ” a former prosecutor speculated that indicted Lev Parnas — who has leveled a stunning amount of accusations against President Donald Trump and senior administration officials — likely agreed to speak candidly with MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow because he fears for his life and felt Attorney General Bill Barr couldn ’ t be trusted .
Addressing the interview that drew record viewership for Maddow ’ s evening show , former prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Parnas likely had good reason to worry about how his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m quite sure SDNY prosecutors have sat down and gotten all this information .
some of the information we now know they must have gotten was what Lev Parnas told Rachel , ” Kirschner explained .
“ Bill Barr is in on the dirty Ukranian deal.
” “ Now , if they sign him up as a cooperating witness and they use that evidence , who do they end up bringing down ?
Bill Barr .
Who ’ s overseeing the Lev Parnas prosecution ?
Bill Barr who oversees everything that goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S Attorney ’ s office and the 93 other U.S Attorney ’ s in the country , ” he continued before suggesting , “ Bill Barr needs to have his DOJ hall pass revoked because of this dramatic conflict .
Later in the segment he returned to the Maddow interview .
“ Here is the Catch 22 for Parnas , ” he elaborated .
“ If he is actively involved with discussions with the prosecutors in New York to see whether he wants to come on board as a cooperator , those will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to tell his story publicly.
” “ That must be part of the motivation for getting his story out because , think about it , if he had been dealing with the Southern District of New York prosecutors behind closed doors , giving up Bill Barr , Trump and others and all of a sudden something happened to him like happened to [ Jeffrey ] Epstein , well , all of that information would then be put under wraps by Bill Barr the same way we really haven ’ t gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein , ” he suggested .
“ And so I think this was a smart move and maybe for his own personal safety — this was Lev Parnas ’ only play to get the information out to the American people so he doesn ’ t get Epstein-ed .
”

Appearing on MSNBC's "AM Joy," a former prosecutor speculated that indicted Lev Parnas -- who has leveled a stunning amount of accusations against President Donald Trump and senior administration officials --- likely agreed to speak candidly with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow because he fears for his life and felt Attorney General Bill Barr couldn't be trusted.
Addressing the interview that drew record viewership for Maddow's evening show, former prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Parnas likely had good reason to worry about how his own case is going.
"I'm quite sure SDNY prosecutors have sat down and gotten all this information. some of the information we now know they must have gotten was what Lev Parnas told Rachel," Kirschner explained. "Bill Barr is in on the dirty Ukranian deal."
"Now, if they sign him up as a cooperating witness and they use that evidence, who do they end up bringing down? Bill Barr. Who's overseeing the Lev Parnas prosecution? Bill Barr who oversees everything that goes on in the southern district of New York U.S Attorney's office and the 93 other U.S Attorney's in the country," he continued before suggesting, "Bill Barr needs to have his DOJ hall pass revoked because of this dramatic conflict.
Later in the segment he returned to the Maddow interview.
"Here is the Catch 22 for Parnas," he elaborated. "If he is actively involved with discussions with the prosecutors in New York to see whether he wants to come on board as a cooperator, those will remain secret so he wouldn't be able to tell his story publicly."
"That must be part of the motivation for getting his story out because, think about it, if he had been dealing with the Southern District of New York prosecutors behind closed doors, giving up Bill Barr, Trump and others and all of a sudden something happened to him like happened to [Jeffrey] Epstein, well, all of that information would then be put under wraps by Bill Barr the same way we really haven't gotten to the bottom of what happened to Epstein," he suggested. "And so I think this was a smart move and maybe for his own personal safety -- this was Lev Parnas' only play to get the information out to the American people so he doesn't get Epstein-ed."
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-18--MSNBC panel bursts out laughing after watching clip of Alan Dershowitz explaining his Trump defense

MSNBC panel bursts out laughing after watching clip of Alan Dershowitz explaining his Trump defense strategy

On MSNBC Saturday , a panel of legal experts tore into former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz ’ s argument that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense , which anchor Joy Reid played for them in a clip .
“ You can not make any sense out of it .
It is an absurd comment , ” said former federal prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks , to laughter around the table .
“ It is the standard by which we have impeached in the past .
If you listen to the witnesses at the House , three out of four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The articles against Richard Nixon included abuse of power .
It is clearly what was intended by our framers .
It ’ s what the Federalist Papers say , and it ’ s the thing that makes sense .
Other high crimes and misdemeanors are exactly that .
It isn ’ t under the federal statutes that they were talking about .
Bribery isn ’ t under the federal statute because there was no federal bribery crime when the Constitution was passed .
It was whatever people thought it was.
” “ Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power .
There was no criminal offense underlying his impeachment .
So that ’ s number one , ” said Wiley .
“ But the second is , I want to pull out an argument that Alan Dershowitz made during the Mueller probe , which was that even if Donald Trump went to Putin when he was a candidate and said , ‘ Hey , Putin , you know what , I ’ d be a great president for you , because I don ’ t agree with sanctions against Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magnitsky Act , so look , you help me , I help you , we ’ re good.
’ Alan Dershowitz wrote that that would not be impeachable.
” “ So when you hear him make this argument , he is literally saying that even if everything Mueller found he could prove in a court of law , Donald Trump would not be impeachable !
” said Wiley to another round of laughter .

In new allegations revealed Wednesday, Texas House investigators accused suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton of engaging in a complex cover-up to hide his relationship with real estate investor Nate Paul as senior aides grew increasingly concerned about Paxton’s willingness to use his office to benefit Paul.
The subterfuge allegedly included Paxton and Paul creating an Uber account under an alias so they could meet each other and so the attorney general could visit the woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
And once Paxton learned several high-ranking officials in his office reported his behavior to the FBI, the House impeachment managers alleged, he took immediate steps to cover up his relationship with Paul, including wiring a $122,000 payment to a Paul-affiliated company in an effort to hide home renovations that Paul had provided for free.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
The allegations, outlined in a series of filings with the Texas Senate’s court of impeachment, shed new light on the relationship between Paul and Paxton that is at the core of his impeachment proceedings.
Among the new claims: Top deputies in the attorney general’s office persistently warned Paxton that Paul was a “crook” and that there was no merit to his claims that he had been unfairly treated by law enforcement, and that the two met at least 20 times in spring and summer 2020, sometimes discussing the FBI investigation into Paul’s faltering real estate empire.
Paxton “blindly accepted Paul’s conspiracy,” impeachment managers alleged. “Senior Staff urged Paxton to stay away. But when it came to Paul, Paxton was immune to reason.”
Paul was arrested in June on federal felony charges of lying to financial institutions to secure business loans.
Responding to Paxton’s pretrial motions that seek to dismiss all 20 articles of impeachment, including four that will not be included in the Sept. 5 impeachment trial, House managers also detailed multiple actions in which Paxton allegedly sought to use his office to benefit Paul.
They alleged that Paxton conducted a “sham criminal investigation” into Paul’s “adversaries,” routinely overriding concerns from agency staff who told him that Paul was a “criminal” and that Paxton needed to “get away.”
Instead, House managers alleged, Paxton became increasingly “entangled in Paul’s web of deceit” and “went to great lengths” to hide his relationship with Paul — using a burner phone and secret email accounts, ditching his security detail and using the fake Uber name to be “ferried to his lover’s or Paul’s properties more than a dozen times.”
In response to Paul’s favors — including allegedly employing the woman and paying to remodel Paxton’s home — Paxton “continually abused the power of his office to advance Paul’s aims,” House managers alleged.
In one instance, Paxton allegedly told agency staff that he did not want the office to assist law enforcement “in any way” with an investigation into Paul, who Paxton claimed was being “railroaded” and needed “unprecedented” access to sensitive information about his case.
After meeting with “alarmed” senior staff, Paxton allegedly demanded files about Paul’s criminal case that included an unredacted FBI letter that identified individuals involved in a 2019 raid on Paul’s home and businesses.
“Paxton held onto the file for more than a week,” House managers wrote. “Ultimately, OAG did not disclose the information to Paul. But Paxton did.”
In another instance, Paxton was accused of issuing a legal opinion that staved off a pending foreclosure sale of Paul’s businesses at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. House investigators cited two agency employees who said they were forced to work through the night to produce the opinion while Paxton frequently called them.
Paxton “sounded like someone was holding him hostage,” one of the staffers told investigators.
The opinion, which Paxton allegedly edited himself, was published at 1 a.m. Aug. 2, 2020, and said foreclosure proceedings posed a public health threat — despite the state’s “open for business” mantra throughout the pandemic, managers said.
The next day, managers alleged, Paul cited the opinion to successfully delay the foreclosures.
“It is hard to imagine a more blatant abuse of Paxton’s office,” House managers wrote.
Paxton’s legal team had filed more than a dozen motions to dismiss all articles of impeachment, often arguing that the underlying allegations were baseless or fell under the legitimate duties of the attorney general’s office.
His attorneys also accused the Texas House of trying to “overturn the will of voters” who reelected Paxton to a third term last year despite various public scandals dating to 2015. One argument stressed that Paxton cannot be impeached for alleged misconduct that predated his most recent election under the so-called “prior-term doctrine.” And they downplayed some of the allegations he faces, saying that, even if true, they are not severe enough to warrant his removal from office.
Paxton’s lawyers also attacked two bribery-related impeachment articles, saying there was no evidence of a “quid pro quo” and that Paxton’s ties to Paul were nothing more than “a personal relationship with a constituent and that the constituent found something the Attorney General did to be agreeable in some way.”
Under rules adopted by the Senate, any pretrial motion to dismiss or quash an article of impeachment must be voted on by senators. A majority — 16 senators — can approve dismissal of an article, placing an early test on the determination of the chamber’s 19 Republicans to allow a trial on the allegations. Those votes are set to be taken shortly after the trial begins in September.
In a written response, filed with the Senate on Tuesday and made public Wednesday, the impeachment team challenged other pretrial assertions from Paxton’s lawyers, who claimed the articles of impeachment were deficient because they failed to list specific laws that Paxton allegedly broke.
“Impeachable offenses need not be indictable crimes,” the House team argued. “Impeachment in Texas seeks to protect against conduct that undermines the integrity of the office, disregards constitutional duties and oaths of office, abuses government process and power, and adversely impacts the system of government.”
What’s more, the team argued, many of the articles listed particular crimes, and several detailed “how Paxton abused his office for his own personal benefit or that of Nate Paul and business entities controlled by Paul.”
More broadly, the managers emphasized that the impeachment trial is not a criminal or civil proceeding, as Paxton’s side has implied. In one new filing, the managers wrote that an impeachment trial is “a unique, if not mostly Political, with a capital ‘P’, proceeding — i.e., an action by the representatives of the people challenging official actions that are contrary to the public interest.”
That view aligns with the view that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who leads the Senate and is acting as judge in the impeachment trial, offered in a TV interview Tuesday.
“It’s not a criminal trial. It’s not a civil trial. It’s a political trial,” Patrick told the Fox affiliate in Houston.
The House managers also asked the Senate to dismiss Paxton’s motion to quash the articles or return them to the House to add more detail to the allegations. The managers said the demand shows a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how impeachment works, arguing that the Texas Constitution does not require the level of detail common in a civil or criminal proceeding.
“A person can be impeached without an indictment, therefore Paxton does not have any right to demand more details,” the managers said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.