rawstory--2020-01-13--Defense secretary sparks doubts about alleged threat to embassies — meanwhile Americans disapprove o

Defense secretary sparks doubts about alleged threat to embassies — meanwhile Americans disapprove of Trump’s attacks

As a televised interview with Defense Secretary Mark Esper raised fresh doubts about President Donald Trump ’ s claim that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies , polling released Sunday showed the majority of American adults don ’ t approve of Trump ’ s handling of the crisis with Iran and feel less safe because of it .
The ABC News/Ipsos poll , conducted on Friday and Saturday , found that 73 % of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the possibility of getting into a full-scale war with Iran .
Additionally , “ 56 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handing the situation with Iran and 52 % believe the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soliemani made the United States less safe.
” Those results aligned with a Reuters/Ipsos poll and a USA Today/Ipsos , both which were conducted on Monday and Tuesday .
Those surveys respectively found that 53 % of Americans disapprove of Trump ’ s handing of Iran and 55 % believe that assassinating Soliemani made the United States less safe .
Since taking credit for the airstrike that killed the Iranian commander in Baghdad earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have stuck to the script that the assassination came in response to an “ imminent threat ” faced by Americans .
As Common Dreams reported , Trump claimed during a televised press conference on Thursday—without providing any evidence—that he ordered the strike because Soliemani was plotting to “ blow up ” the U.S. Embassy in Iraq .
The president expanded on that claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Friday , alleging that Iran was planning multiple attacks .
As Trump put it , “ I can reveal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been four embassies.
” However , Esper complicated the Trump administration ’ s narrative Sunday when he said on CBS ‘ s “ Face the Nation ” that he “ didn ’ t see ” any specific evidence about four embassies .
“ The president… didn ’ t cite a specific piece of evidence , ” Esper said of Trump ’ s Fox appearance .
“ I didn ’ t see one , with regard to four embassies .
What I ’ m saying is that I shared the president ’ s view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go after our embassies .
The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country.
” Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , a Democratic presidential primary candidate , responded to Esper ’ s interview on Twitter .
He suggested that Trump is lying the United States into a war with Iran and vowed to do everything he can to prevent that : Referencing previous remarks from Esper and National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien—who both have said the administration had “ exquisite intelligence ” about the supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , said Sunday that “ there was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets.
” Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) said on CNN ‘ s “ State of the Union ” Sunday that the Trump administration did not share the president ’ s claim about four embassies being under threat from Soleimani ’ s forces during a classified briefing he attended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything about that and several of my colleagues have said the same , ” Lee told CNN , “ so that was news to me .
It certainly wasn ’ t something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing.
” Lee revealed on Saturday that he was signing on as a co-sponsor to Sanders ’ bill that would freeze funding for any U.S. military action against Iran without the approval of Congress .
The announcement came in a joint statement from Lee and Sanders .
“ As United States senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship , ” Lee and Sanders said .
“ The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear .
They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy.
” “ Our bill—the No War Against Iran Act—utilizes Congress ’ s power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran , ” they added .
“ As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trillions of dollars , the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay .
”

As a televised interview with Defense Secretary Mark Esper raised fresh doubts about President Donald Trump's claim that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies, polling released Sunday showed the majority of American adults don't approve of Trump's handling of the crisis with Iran and feel less safe because of it.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll, conducted on Friday and Saturday, found that 73% of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the possibility of getting into a full-scale war with Iran. Additionally, "56% of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handing the situation with Iran and 52% believe the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soliemani made the United States less safe."
Those results aligned with a Reuters/Ipsos poll and a USA Today/Ipsos, both which were conducted on Monday and Tuesday. Those surveys respectively found that 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handing of Iran and 55% believe that assassinating Soliemani made the United States less safe.
Since taking credit for the airstrike that killed the Iranian commander in Baghdad earlier this month, Trump and members of his administration have stuck to the script that the assassination came in response to an "imminent threat" faced by Americans.
As Common Dreams reported, Trump claimed during a televised press conference on Thursday—without providing any evidence—that he ordered the strike because Soliemani was plotting to "blow up" the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
The president expanded on that claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Friday, alleging that Iran was planning multiple attacks. As Trump put it, "I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
However, Esper complicated the Trump administration's narrative Sunday when he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he "didn't see" any specific evidence about four embassies.
"The president... didn't cite a specific piece of evidence," Esper said of Trump's Fox appearance. "I didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is that I shared the president's view that probably—my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential primary candidate, responded to Esper's interview on Twitter. He suggested that Trump is lying the United States into a war with Iran and vowed to do everything he can to prevent that:
Referencing previous remarks from Esper and National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien—who both have said the administration had "exquisite intelligence" about the supposedly imminent threat—Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that "there was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the Trump administration did not share the president's claim about four embassies being under threat from Soleimani's forces during a classified briefing he attended.
"I didn't hear anything about that and several of my colleagues have said the same," Lee told CNN, "so that was news to me. It certainly wasn't something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing."
Lee revealed on Saturday that he was signing on as a co-sponsor to Sanders' bill that would freeze funding for any U.S. military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The announcement came in a joint statement from Lee and Sanders.
"As United States senators, we often disagree on many issues. But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship," Lee and Sanders said. "The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear. They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy."
"Our bill—the No War Against Iran Act—utilizes Congress's power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran," they added. "As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of dollars, the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay."


rawstory--2020-01-13--Congressman explains how Trump messed up the Middle East

Rep. Anthony Brown ( D-MD ) explained during an MSNBC panel discussion that President Donald Trump made things so much worse in the Middle East by killing Gen. Qasem Suleimani .
But it ’ s just one of several strategic missteps Trump has made throughout his three years as president .
Then the president attacked Democrats , calling them terrorists for questioning his strikes in Iran .
“ The fact he ’ s now dead , off the battlefield , that ’ s a good thing , ” said Brown .
“ The concern is just like under the [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the concern , [ Barack ] Obama administration had the concern when you assassinate someone like Suleimani , what are the repercussions ?
What are the consequences ?
And that ’ s why this was a strategic blunder to actually assassinate him because we ’ re now no longer fighting ISIS because we ’ re focusing on force protection .
Our relationship with Iraq , which was already tenuous , is worse today , and we further isolated our allies because we didn ’ t consult with them before we did this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main reason that so many people are focusing on the claim by the Trump administration that there was an “ imminent threat .
“ Without an imminent threat , then why now ?
” he asked .

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD) explained during an MSNBC panel discussion that President Donald Trump made things so much worse in the Middle East by killing Gen. Qasem Suleimani. But it's just one of several strategic missteps Trump has made throughout his three years as president. Then the president attacked Democrats, calling them terrorists for questioning his strikes in Iran.
"The fact he's now dead, off the battlefield, that's a good thing," said Brown. "The concern is just like under the [George W.] Bush administration, they had the concern, [Barack] Obama administration had the concern when you assassinate someone like Suleimani, what are the repercussions? What are the consequences? And that's why this was a strategic blunder to actually assassinate him because we're now no longer fighting ISIS because we're focusing on force protection. Our relationship with Iraq, which was already tenuous, is worse today, and we further isolated our allies because we didn't consult with them before we did this.
He explained that it was the main reason that so many people are focusing on the claim by the Trump administration that there was an "imminent threat.
"Without an imminent threat, then why now?" he asked.
Watch his comments below:


rawstory--2020-01-14--After days of claiming Suleimani posed ‘imminent’ threat to US, Trump finally declares ‘it doesn’t r

After days of claiming Suleimani posed ‘imminent’ threat to US, Trump finally declares ‘it doesn’t really matter’

“ If this is the case , then nothing matters.
” After NBC News reported that President Donald Trump approved the assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Suleimani last June—undercutting administration claims that Soleimani was targeted for a drone strike because of an immediate threat—the president claimed his rationale for unilaterally killing a foreign leader was irrelevant if he deemed the assassination necessary .
Trump concluded several tweets about his impeachment , the 2020 presidential campaign , and other topics by reiterating his administration ’ s claim that Suleimani posed an “ imminent ” threat to the U.S. , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really matter because of his horrible past.
” In one tweet , Trump is blowing apart his administration ’ s rationale for killing Suleimani , ” tweeted Washington Post national intelligence reporter Shane Harris .
Administration officials have spent more than a week making various claims about the danger Soleimani posed , including that he was plotting to bomb U.S. embassies—a claim with Defense Secretary Mark Esper wouldn ’ t confirm on record Sunday .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo openly mocked reports from Iraq ’ s prime minister that Suleimani was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss easing tensions with Saudi Arabia .
But a White House briefing last week in which officials shared intelligence about so-called “ imminent ” threats posed by Suleimani was condemned as “ insulting ” and “ utterly unconvincing ” by members of Trump ’ s own party .
On social media , some observers wrote that Trump ’ s phrasing of his tweet on Monday could be applied to many of his decisions and his treatment of the truth .
“ It doesn ’ t really matter , ” tweeted MSNBC political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not saying that just about Soleimani , but about the truth .
Those who lie for Trump are then undercut by him.
” “ If this is the case , then nothing matters , ” added anti-Trump activist Andrew Wortman .
“ He can assassinate anyone anywhere and bring us to the brink of war for no reason and face no accountability.
” The unraveling of the White House narrative about Suleimani ’ s assassination was reminiscent of Trump ’ s treatment of the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had nothing to do with the killing , the president finally told reporters , “ Maybe he did and maybe he didn ’ t… In any case , our relationship is with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
” A recent USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 52 % of respondents view the killing of Suleimani as “ reckless .
”

"If this is the case, then nothing matters."
After NBC News reported that President Donald Trump approved the assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Suleimani last June—undercutting administration claims that Soleimani was targeted for a drone strike because of an immediate threat—the president claimed his rationale for unilaterally killing a foreign leader was irrelevant if he deemed the assassination necessary.
Trump concluded several tweets about his impeachment, the 2020 presidential campaign, and other topics by reiterating his administration's claim that Suleimani posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S., but added that "it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past."
In one tweet, Trump is blowing apart his administration's rationale for killing Suleimani," tweetedWashington Post national intelligence reporter Shane Harris.
Administration officials have spent more than a week making various claims about the danger Soleimani posed, including that he was plotting to bomb U.S. embassies—a claim with Defense Secretary Mark Esper wouldn't confirm on record Sunday. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo openly mocked reports from Iraq's prime minister that Suleimani was in Baghdad at the time of his killing to discuss easing tensions with Saudi Arabia.
But a White House briefing last week in which officials shared intelligence about so-called "imminent" threats posed by Suleimani was condemned as "insulting" and "utterly unconvincing" by members of Trump's own party.
On social media, some observers wrote that Trump's phrasing of his tweet on Monday could be applied to many of his decisions and his treatment of the truth.
"It doesn't really matter," tweetedMSNBC political analyst Richard Stengel. "He's not saying that just about Soleimani, but about the truth. Those who lie for Trump are then undercut by him."
"If this is the case, then nothing matters," added anti-Trump activist Andrew Wortman. "He can assassinate anyone anywhere and bring us to the brink of war for no reason and face no accountability."
The unraveling of the White House narrative about Suleimani's assassination was reminiscent of Trump's treatment of the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. After spending weeks assuring the public that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had nothing to do with the killing, the president finally told reporters, "Maybe he did and maybe he didn't... In any case, our relationship is with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
A recent USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 52% of respondents view the killing of Suleimani as "reckless."


rawstory--2020-01-14--The View’s Abby Huntsman really leaving show over ‘toxic work environment’ and tension with Meghan M

The View’s Abby Huntsman really leaving show over ‘toxic work environment’ and tension with Meghan McCain: report

Monday on ABC ’ s “ The View , ” co-host Abby Huntsman made a major announcement : she is leaving the show , and this Friday , January 17 will be her last day .
The conservative pundit will be working on the 2020 campaign of her father , former Utah Gov .
Jon Huntsman — who is running for that position again .
But Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy of CNN Business are reporting that according to their sources , Abby Huntsman likely has another reason for leaving “ The View ” : a “ toxic work environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with co-host Meghan McCain .
Stelter and Darcy report that “ half a dozen ” sources who spoke to CNN Business said that there has been tension between McCain and Huntsman , who joined “ The View ” in 2018 .
It ’ s no secret that McCain ( a Never Trump conservative and daughter of the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain ) has had a testy relationship with co-host Joy Behar , but while Behar is an outspoken liberal , Huntsman shares many of McCain ’ s right-wing views .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCain “ were allies behind the scenes until recently , ” but their relationship “ soured ” over a “ recent dispute ” involving “ child-centric chats ” on the show .
McCain , who suffered a miscarriage , “ confronted Huntsman for bringing up her kids on the show , ” Stelter and Darcy report .
“ Abby was sick of being berated by Meghan for perceived slights , ” a source told CNN Business .
“ She ultimately decided she didn ’ t need this job , and it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN Business , “ Meghan has been miserable there for quite some time , and not because of Abby .
She wishes her nothing but the best.
” McCain expressed no animosity toward Huntsman on Monday ’ s broadcast , telling her co-host , “ I think leading a gubernatorial campaign is a really good reason to leave the show .
We all love you so much .
”

“Your personal decision to treat the local newspaper as a drug cartel or a street gang offends the constitutional protections the founding fathers gave the free press,” Rhodes said in the document. “I can assure you that the Record will take every step to obtain relief for the damages your heavy-handed actions have already caused my client.”
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Rhodes said publisher Eric Meyer’s 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, compared actions of Marion law enforcement officers to “Hitler tactics” less than 24 hours before she died Saturday. Eric Meyer, who has indicated the newspaper could file a federal lawsuit, said trauma of the police search of her home may have contributed to her death.
In the letter to the police chief, Rhodes said the journalist shield law in Kansas provided for a court hearing before law enforcement could review seized information. He said federal law enabled access to an individual’s driving license status for unpublished research purposes. In this instance, information about a local business owner was examined by newspaper staff on a website maintained by the Kansas Department of Revenue. The Marion County Record didn’t publish information gleaned from the site.
In an interview Monday, Gov. Laura Kelly said she was eager to learn more details of the raid and assess whether rights were infringed.
“I think there is a lot more to know,” she told State Affairs Kansas. “I’m very anxious because I’m a strong advocate for freedom of press, freedom of speech. We will continue to support the questions that are being asked all over.”
Unlocking web of intrigue
The decision of local law enforcement to execute search warrants on the Marion County Record’s office, the publisher’s home and the residence of Marion City Council member Ruth Herbel exposed a web of intrigue tied to a local restaurant owner’s 2008 drunken driving conviction and her pending application for a liquor license.
Restaurateur Kari Newell had previously alleged during a Marion City Council meeting that Herbel “negligently and maliciously” engaged in theft of information about Newell’s driving record. Newell also accused the Marion County Record of violating her privacy by examining government records revealing her driving record.
The Marion Police Department said in a statement Saturday the agency was justified in investigating suspected criminal activity and was responding to the restaurant owner’s demand that “justice is served.”
The Kansas Bureau of Investigation, which is under authority of Attorney General Kris Kobach, assigned an agent to the case prior to the raid at the request of Marion police. KBI Director Tony Mattivi said he supported press freedom but defended use of search warrants to examine allegations of wrongdoing. Mattivi said “no one is above the law,” including representatives of the media.
There are pending requests from news organizations for release by Marion County District Court of the probable cause affidavit relied upon by Magistrate Judge Laura Viar to grant the search warrant.
Max Kautsch, a Lawrence attorney with the Kansas Coalition for Open Government, said the organization condemned the searches and seizure of property from offices of the Marion County Record and the home of its publisher. He said law enforcement authorities trampled First Amendment rights while carrying out their assignments. The local police department apparently didn’t first seek a subpoena for the newspaper’s materials, which would have given both sides the opportunity to argue legal propriety of the request.
Kautsch said the affidavit should be promptly released so the public could better evaluate whether actions of authorities were justified.
“Law enforcement has refused to explain the facts that led to the issuance of the warrant,” Kautsch said. “Given the publicity surrounding this matter, and that details of the incident have been heavily publicized as a result of the reporting by the Record and others, there is no longer any reason to withhold the affidavit supporting the request to issue the search warrant.”
$20,000 for legal effort
Meanwhile, the Society of Professional Journalists’ board unanimously offered $20,000 to the family-owned Marion County Record for legal costs in wake of the seizure of newspaper and personal property based on allegations of identity theft and illegal use of a computer.
The raid undermining operation of the weekly newspaper alarmed First Amendment champions, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 33 other news media and press organizations that sent a protest letter to the police chief.
“By all accounts, the raid was an egregious attack on freedom of the press, the First Amendment and all the liberties we hold dear as journalists in this great country,” said Claire Regan, national president of the Society of Professional Journalists. “From the moment they learned about the raid, SPJ members have been speaking up and stepping forward to demand justice, hold the responsible accountable and support the Record staff in their recovery.”
The letter sent by the national organization to the police chief by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the search warrant directed at the Marion County Record was “significantly overbroad, improperly intrusive and possibly in violation of federal law.”
That letter recommended return of confiscated computers, servers, telephones and records to the newspaper, the purging of newspaper records retained by the police department and initiation of a transparent inquiry into the department’s conduct.
“The newsroom is sacrosanct,” said the SPJ’s Regan. “Interrupting its operation is a threat to democracy. SPJ offers its full support to the staff of the Marion County Record following this outrageous attack on freedom of the press.”
The University of Kansas’ journalism school issued a statement noting Joan Meyer’s death and saying it stood by graduates of the university, including Eric Meyer, and “all journalists who work tirelessly, and often at great personal cost, to ensure that the public is well informed.” The journalism school and the William Allen White Foundation’s board said “any threat to journalism is a threat to democracy itself.”
Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Nancy Pelosi could get the ‘last laugh’ during Trump’s impeachment trial: conservative columnist

On Tuesday , Never Trump conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote for the Washington Post that while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) may not have gotten a hard guarantee of witnesses at the impeachment trial by withholding the articles , she managed to put Republicans on the defensive — and that could ultimately get her the “ last laugh ” in opening the Senate trial to new evidence .
“ Some voices in the punditocracy have insisted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) ‘ lost ’ in finally agreeing to send the articles of impeachment against President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubin .
“ Pelosi has responded that the delay resulted in a bunch of information coming to light , former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s announcement that he would testify if subpoenaed and the shoring up of public support for witnesses .
With polling showing that the public overwhelming wants to hear from Bolton ( two-thirds support it , including more than 70 percent of independents , according to a Quinnipiac poll released Monday ) and a new report suggesting major defections on the Republican side , Pelosi may get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) has said he will vote for witnesses , the White House and Senate GOP are more fractured than ever on their strategy for the impeachment trial , and the group Republicans for the Rule of Law is now running ads that put vulnerable GOP senators in the hot seat .
“ Now , it is possible that potential Republican defectors have searched their souls , decided in good conscience that they need to conduct a fair trial and have grown spines to stand up to Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Ky. ) ” wrote Rubin .
“ On the other hand , Republicans with rotten poll numbers may have spent the last few weeks testing public sentiment , only to discover it is politically untenable for them to aid in the Trump coverup .
If that is the case , Pelosi should take a victory lap.
” “ We have yet to see whether a sufficient number of Republicans do demand a real trial rather than a sham .
If so , it would be a major step in reestablishing checks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate , ” concluded Rubin .
“ Let ’ s hope those Republican senators come through.
” You can read more here .

On Tuesday, Never Trump conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote for the Washington Post that while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may not have gotten a hard guarantee of witnesses at the impeachment trial by withholding the articles, she managed to put Republicans on the defensive — and that could ultimately get her the "last laugh" in opening the Senate trial to new evidence.
"Some voices in the punditocracy have insisted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) 'lost' in finally agreeing to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate," wrote Rubin. "Pelosi has responded that the delay resulted in a bunch of information coming to light, former national security adviser John Bolton’s announcement that he would testify if subpoenaed and the shoring up of public support for witnesses. With polling showing that the public overwhelming wants to hear from Bolton (two-thirds support it, including more than 70 percent of independents, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Monday) and a new report suggesting major defections on the Republican side, Pelosi may get the last laugh."
Rubin noted that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has said he will vote for witnesses, the White House and Senate GOP are more fractured than ever on their strategy for the impeachment trial, and the group Republicans for the Rule of Law is now running ads that put vulnerable GOP senators in the hot seat.
"Now, it is possible that potential Republican defectors have searched their souls, decided in good conscience that they need to conduct a fair trial and have grown spines to stand up to Trump and his cohort, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)" wrote Rubin. "On the other hand, Republicans with rotten poll numbers may have spent the last few weeks testing public sentiment, only to discover it is politically untenable for them to aid in the Trump coverup. If that is the case, Pelosi should take a victory lap."
"We have yet to see whether a sufficient number of Republicans do demand a real trial rather than a sham. If so, it would be a major step in reestablishing checks and balances, as well as the stature of the Senate," concluded Rubin. "Let’s hope those Republican senators come through."
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner met with Giuliani henchman Lev Parnas — according to newly unearthed

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner met with Giuliani henchman Lev Parnas — according to newly unearthed photo

Rudy Giuliani ’ s indicted associate Lev Parnas met Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner at least once — based on @ @ @ @ @ Parnas ’ attorney Joseph Bondy shared a photo of the Ukraine-born businessman with President Donald @ @ @ @ @ and son-in-law — who both serve as White House advisers — with Daily Beast reporter @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani associate has met many other figures in Trump ’ s orbit , including the @ @ @ @ @ was indicted last year on a variety of Federal Election Campaign Act violations in the @ @ @ @ @ .
Parnas and his attorney have pushed for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee @ @ @ @ @ into Trump ’ s pressure campaign against Ukraine .

Introducing the segment, Melber compared it to "The George Costanza Defense," after the Seinfeld character who claimed, "Remember Jerry, if you believe it was true, it wasn't a lie." As Melber explained, that doesn't necessarily work unless you can claim the insanity defense. That might not help a campaign for the U.S. presidency.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"All criminal charges — almost all, require them to have some knowledge — really issues liability," McCord explained. "But that's very different than saying he had a firm belief that the election was stolen as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. There are lots of things in this indictment that he engaged in, conduct that he engaged in, that went well beyond what you are legally allowed to do when you firmly believe you did not lose the election."
Melber used another example, that if someone truly believes that a bank is evil, it doesn't entitle them to then rob the bank.
"And [it] might be a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defense, but not intent for what you've done," McCord said. "You don't have the right to go take it just because you think the bank is evil. It could even have a more simple example. Let's say you think the bank miscalculated the interest on your savings account. And so it's not even at the bank is, evil it's just wrong. And you've asked them for it, and they disagreed with you, but you firmly believe your math is right, and their math is wrong. You just don't get to go hold up the bank. That's exactly what we're talking about here."
What the indictment walked through, she continued, is that Trump could not have reasonably believed that there was enough fraud to change the outcome of the 2020 election.
"But even if he did," she speculated, "that doesn't mean you can orchestrate a scheme of fake electors, send their ballots to the vice president to have then be counted. It doesn't mean that you can put really unlawful pressure on state officials, including either threatening criminal prosecution, as he did with respect to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger."
Weissmann said it's perhaps the worst defense he's ever heard because "no jury will go down that road with him."
Another defense of Trump's is that he was "just joking" about his attempts to overthrow the government or that he wasn't really going to do something like that. While Trump might claim that it didn't actually happen, McCord disagrees.
"It pretty much did come to fruition," she said. "This notion of a conspiracy is — oftentimes when people say we weren't really going to do it. So, it doesn't work here. It doesn't work factually, and it's something the laws that the law has had to deal with in many of the situations."
The next Trump defense is that his First Amendment rights are being violated and his attacks on the 2020 election were protected speech.
"This is something that Jack Smith dealt with right at the beginning of the indictment, and he makes clear Mr. Trump has the right First Amendment right to speak. He even has the First Amendment right to lie about what he thinks about the election results show. But what he doesn't have the right to do is conduct that is based on a fraud. And fraud always involves some type of expression. That's the very heart of fraud. You have engaged in conduct, here a conspiracy, multiple conspiracies based on a fraud, based on lies. So, there is a distinction between speech, which he is entitled to do, and conduct, which is something clear in the indictment, for the talking points for Trump and his supporters, it makes for a quick clip and makes like what the judge is done is unlawful."
Finally, another excuse Trump gives is that his lawyers told him that the 2020 election was fraudulent, and he believed those lawyers.
"When your co-conspirator is a lawyer, you don't get to rely on the co-conspirators' voice as a defense," McCord laughed. "Here we know from the unindicted co-conspirators who have been identified that most of those, in fact, all but possibly one, were acting as lawyers. That's the 'thing one,' and 'thing two' is you can't just go cherry-pick around when all of your lawyers are telling you there's no significant fraud and this fraudulent elector scheme won't work. You can't just keep trying out new lawyers, hunting lawyers until you find one to agree with you."
Weissmann explained that the perfect dispute for Trump's claim that he trusted his lawyers is Mar-a-Lago. In that case, his lawyers advised him on what to do with the FBI, and he consistently ignored them. In fact, The Nation's legal analyst, Elie Mystal, argued this week that Trump is currently ignoring any legitimate legal defenses.
See the conversation in the clip below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe: Mitch McConnell has no right to ‘dismiss’ articles of impeachm

Constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe: Mitch McConnell has no right to ‘dismiss’ articles of impeachment

In recent days , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has floated the idea that the Senate might vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump without ever holding a trial .
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe , who helped House Democrats draft the articles of impeachment in the first place , told Salon this week McConnell has no right to do that .
This article was originally published at Salon Senate rules dating to 1886 , Tribe said , give the upper chamber of Congress “ no jurisdiction to begin its impeachment trial until the articles have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Until that happens , he continued , the Senate “ can not purport to dismiss the articles that would trigger the trial .
The House retains jurisdiction , under the rules it has duly enacted , until it selects impeachment managers and transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
” Tribe noted that a rules change proposed last week by Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo.
, and endorsed by McConnell “ would purport to alter that situation , but such a change would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate who sees any chance of such supermajority support for the change.
” In supporting such a rules change , Tribe said , “ McConnell was essentially telling Speaker [ Nancy ] Pelosi , the House and the nation that he intends to do all he can , rules or no rules , to cover up the obviously grave charges against President Trump embodied in the two articles of impeachment voted by the House in December.
” Tribe said he agreed with Pelosi ’ s characterization of any attempt to dismiss the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding : Given the way McConnell and Trump have moved in lockstep on everything in which [ Vladimir ] Putin has had a hand or has taken an interest , including our presidential elections , that posture is less surprising than it is lawless — lawless in light of the oath to “ do impartial justice ” that McConnell will be bound to take under the impeachment rules in place since the late 19th century .
McConnell ’ s refusal to negotiate on the rules of a Senate trial , Tribe said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nakedly “ partisan ” attempt to protect the president and ensure his rapid acquittal .
McConnell refused to accede to any of the House Democrats ’ prerequisites for transmittal of the articles simply because , given the Senate ’ s sole power to try impeachments , he could do so — and because it served both his and President Trump ’ s partisan political interests not to budge in response to Speaker Pelosi ’ s entirely reasonable request that , before naming the impeachment managers that would prosecute the articles of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least be informed of the ground rules that would set the parameters of the trial in which those managers would serve as prosecutors .
Without knowing “ when and how the Senate would decide matters relating to the calling of witnesses and the subpoenaing of relevant testimony and essential documentary evidence , ” Tribe said , Pelosi could hardly be expected to select her team of impeachment managers .
McConnell … simply refused to negotiate or compromise , insisting that some variant of the rules that governed the [ Bill ] Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crucial ambiguities in that position , the obvious differences in the Clinton and Trump situations , and other such factors .
The delay in submitting the articles thus resulted in no change in McConnell ’ s stance , but it did , as Speaker Pelosi explained in her Jan. 10 letter to colleagues , considerably alter the situation in which the trial will proceed .
Tribe was an early advocate of having House Democrats refuse to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless Pelosi could extract a guarantee that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with Salon last month , he compared Pelosi ’ s predicament to that of a criminal prosecutor who learns that a jury foreman “ has threatened to let the accused decide how the trial will be conducted — and has intimated that it will be a ‘ trial ’ in name only , one orchestrated in close coordination with defense counsel , ” while other jurors “ also announce that they don ’ t intend to listen to any evidence but have already made up their minds to acquit .
”

In recent days, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has floated the idea that the Senate might vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump without ever holding a trial. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who helped House Democrats draft the articles of impeachment in the first place, told Salon this week McConnell has no right to do that.
This article was originally published at Salon
Senate rules dating to 1886, Tribe said, give the upper chamber of Congress “no jurisdiction to begin its impeachment trial until the articles have been submitted by the House to the Senate.” Until that happens, he continued, the Senate “cannot purport to dismiss the articles that would trigger the trial. The House retains jurisdiction, under the rules it has duly enacted, until it selects impeachment managers and transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate.”
Tribe noted that a rules change proposed last week by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and endorsed by McConnell “would purport to alter that situation, but such a change would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and I know of nobody familiar with the Senate who sees any chance of such supermajority support for the change.” In supporting such a rules change, Tribe said, “McConnell was essentially telling Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, the House and the nation that he intends to do all he can, rules or no rules, to cover up the obviously grave charges against President Trump embodied in the two articles of impeachment voted by the House in December.”
Tribe said he agreed with Pelosi’s characterization of any attempt to dismiss the articles as a “cover-up,” adding:
Given the way McConnell and Trump have moved in lockstep on everything in which [Vladimir] Putin has had a hand or has taken an interest, including our presidential elections, that posture is less surprising than it is lawless — lawless in light of the oath to “do impartial justice” that McConnell will be bound to take under the impeachment rules in place since the late 19th century.
McConnell’s refusal to negotiate on the rules of a Senate trial, Tribe said, was a major break with precedent and a nakedly “partisan” attempt to protect the president and ensure his rapid acquittal.
McConnell refused to accede to any of the House Democrats’ prerequisites for transmittal of the articles simply because, given the Senate’s sole power to try impeachments, he could do so — and because it served both his and President Trump’s partisan political interests not to budge in response to Speaker Pelosi’s entirely reasonable request that, before naming the impeachment managers that would prosecute the articles of impeachment in the Senate, the House should at least be informed of the ground rules that would set the parameters of the trial in which those managers would serve as prosecutors.
Without knowing “when and how the Senate would decide matters relating to the calling of witnesses and the subpoenaing of relevant testimony and essential documentary evidence,” Tribe said, Pelosi could hardly be expected to select her team of impeachment managers.
McConnell … simply refused to negotiate or compromise, insisting that some variant of the rules that governed the [Bill] Clinton impeachment trial would be followed — notwithstanding the crucial ambiguities in that position, the obvious differences in the Clinton and Trump situations, and other such factors. The delay in submitting the articles thus resulted in no change in McConnell’s stance, but it did, as Speaker Pelosi explained in her Jan. 10 letter to colleagues, considerably alter the situation in which the trial will proceed.
Tribe was an early advocate of having House Democrats refuse to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless Pelosi could extract a guarantee that the trial would be conducted impartially. In an interview with Salon last month, he compared Pelosi’s predicament to that of a criminal prosecutor who learns that a jury foreman “has threatened to let the accused decide how the trial will be conducted — and has intimated that it will be a ‘trial’ in name only, one orchestrated in close coordination with defense counsel,” while other jurors “also announce that they don’t intend to listen to any evidence but have already made up their minds to acquit.”


rawstory--2020-01-14--Bill Barr: No future counter-intel investigations into presidential campaigns without my approval

Attorney General Bill Barr is changing the rules on how the Dept .
of Justice and the FBI can open investigations into possible foreign interference in presidential campaigns or counterintelligence investigations of presidential candidates .
The FBI opened the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign , including Russia ’ s interference , with the approval of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein .
But Attorney General Barr wants to make any future investigations harder to open .
On Monday he told reporters that any counterintelligence investigations into presidential campaigns will require his approval , and that of the FBI Director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the things that we agreed on is that the opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on and the attorney general , ” Barr said .
CNN reports Barr ’ s decision “ is also certain to renew criticism that Barr has undermined the Justice Department ’ s independence and is injecting politics into a significant and sensitive decision-making process.
” Barr ’ s announcement came on the same day The New York Times reported Russia hacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the center of the Trump impeachment , meaning Russia is already interfering in the 2020 election .

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement

Vance explained that "some of the most interesting and powerful evidence comes from" Coffee County.
Those charges will come from "this notion that [Donald] Trump forces were trying to access voting machines and were trying to engage in election obstruction there," she continued. "And that's why this RICO charge we've heard about so much makes sense. It allows her to bring in a lot of different participants in this scheme. It allows her to bring in wide-ranging conduct, particularly Georgia conduct. And that's likely what we will see a RICO indictment later this week."
Earlier this week, it was reported that Willis is likely to indict a number of Trump’s associates, in addition to the former president, in the coming days.
“It really seems like they’re coming for everyone,” one lawyer, who has spoken with prosecutors, told Rolling Stone. "Based on what I know, Willis and her team do not seem to be stopping at Donald Trump. The scope for this [likely coming indictment] is probably going to be a hell of a lot wider than that… and round up a significant number of people."
POLL: Should Trump be convicted?
Doing it as a RICO charge, however, they will likely look different from special counsel Jack Smith's indictments.
"This is a very different prosecution," Vance explained, "with very different motivations than the one that Jack Smith is doing. His is a prosecution designed for speed. I suspect what we'll see here is the prosecution designed for completeness. The Georgia RICO statute is complicated. The longest trial that ever took place in Georgia took a couple of months; a trial that took place under this particular statute. There are a lot of moving parts. Add in additional defendants, and you've got more complexity. We've all seen in the Mar-a-Lago prosecution that it's taken time just to get lawyers just to arrange the defendants. [Georgia] is a state that's usually so routine that it happens days following arraignment. But in Florida, that's still ongoing. Now, multiply that out. You've got a dozen or so defendants, and you can understand the complexities that come into play."
She noted that the "dance" being seen now is whether Trump allies will be defendants or witnesses.
"This weekend is the time to make that choice," Vance said.
Trump disputed reports that prosecutors have text messages linking his campaign's legal team to a voting system breach in Coffee County, posting the comments on his social media site Sunday.
See the full interview with Vance in the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Wisconsin lost 10% of dairy farms last year amid Trump’s trade war with China

According to data from the Wisconsin ’ s Department of Agriculture , Trade , and Consumer Protection , the state @ @ @ @ @ dairy farmers in 2019 , Business Insider reports .
It ’ s the biggest one-year @ @ @ @ @ highlights the impact of Trump ’ s trade wars .
In response to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ , the country slashed its purchases of American dairy products in half , throwing many @ @ @ @ @ a result , making the already shaky economic environment for small dairy farms even worse @ @ @ @ @ a razor-thin margin in 2016 , making it a likely battleground state in 2020 .

According to data from the Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the state lost 10 percent of its dairy farmers in 2019, Business Insider reports.
It's the biggest one-year loss on record, and highlights the impact of Trump's trade wars.
In response to Trump's trade wars against China, the country slashed its purchases of American dairy products in half, throwing many farmers out of business as a result, making the already shaky economic environment for small dairy farms even worse.
Trump won Wisconsin by a razor-thin margin in 2016, making it a likely battleground state in 2020.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Pelosi will hold vote to release impeachment articles to the Senate on Wednesday: report

On Tuesday , NBC News reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) plans to hold a vote on @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for trial .
Pelosi is also @ @ @ @ @ the House “ managers , ” who will argue the case for conviction and removal @ @ @ @ @ The articles , for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , have been delayed @ @ @ @ @ Senate Democrats wrangled to get a guarantee that witnesses blocked from testifying in the House @ @ @ @ @ Adviser John Bolton and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , would be brought @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) has thwarted this push , but a small @ @ @ @ @ suggested they may vote to call witnesses after the evidence has been presented .

"Yes. I think it benefits him. He very watch wants to play the victim here, and there is some polling that suggests that maybe it does help him with the numbers. Look, he has not yet sat down in front of Judge Chutkan and be admonished that you will only talk about X, you will not talk about Y, we are going to preserve the evidence that you are going to receive in discovery."
He continued:
"Listen, this is all about literally potential physical harm to witnesses, to prosecutors, to jurors, in that discovery, he gets everything that the prosecution has, meaning that witness statements, who's testifying against you, who are they? What are they going to say? Here's their statement under oath. All of that is usually under the grand jury secrecy. They don't want him to spell that out for, say, many months before the trial starts, where he's intimidating witnesses, et cetera. This is all in an attempt by the Trump legal team to turn what is routine into something ridiculous."
READ MORE: ‘They blew up my life’: Fox News, a hidden camera and threats to an Indiana school administrator.
He added that the protective order is "not a gag order."
"Let's let the trial play out. That is all it is. The routine part of this is becoming ridiculous because you're going to see, like anybody who's raised a teenager, Stephanie knows, every single thing gets challenged. You give them an inch, they try to get an inch and a half. The judge wants this to happen on Friday, they suggested next week. This is going to go on and on and on."
Watch below or click the link right here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--‘Unconscionable’: As Puerto Rico suffers earthquake aftermath, AOC, Sanders, and Velazquez demand Tr

‘Unconscionable’: As Puerto Rico suffers earthquake aftermath, AOC, Sanders, and Velazquez demand Trump end illegal hold on relief funds

“ Postponing the disbursement of this vital assistance any longer—in the face of the humanitarian needs of Puerto Rico—is simply shameful , ” the lawmakers said in a joint letter .
In an effort to put a stop to what they argue is the “ illegal ” and “ unconscionable ” withholding of necessary and vital aid to the people of Puerto Rico , New York Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nydia Velázquez joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday in demanding President Donald Trump immediately transfer already approved federal disaster assistance to address the island territory ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aftershocks .
In a letter ( pdf ) sent to the Trump administration , the lawmakers cited a nation still reeling from the destruction left by Hurricane Maria over two years ago and said there was no excuse to deny Puerto Ricans the help they so desperately need .
The letter called on Trump to immediately approve a major disaster declaration submitted by the Puerto Rican government on January 12 ; to release aid money previously approved by Congress for humanitarian relief ; and to direct FEMA to undertake an urgent response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us be clear : Postponing the disbursement of this vital assistance any longer—in the face of the humanitarian needs of Puerto Rico—is simply shameful , ” the letter states .
The new letter follows a similar effort last week by House Democrats who urged Trump to release more than $ 18 billion in aid that was approved for the island following the 2017 devastation caused by Maria .
“ We call upon the White House to stop its unlawful withholding of funds from Puerto Rico , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are needs that need to be met , there has been a disaster designated , but the ongoing withholding of funds appropriated by Congress to Puerto Rico is illegal.
” “ The hurricane devastated the island and today , tens of thousands of people are still living under tarp roofs , ” Velázquez , Ocasio-Cortez , and Sanders wrote in their new letter to Trump .
“ In recent days , the quakes have cost millions in damages , destroyed hundreds of homes , caused widespread electricity blackouts , and forced residents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fear of being buried in their own homes by another earthquake.
” Highlighting the effort of the lawmakers on social media , Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz of Puerto Rico ’ s capital city San Juan—who serves as national co-chair for Sanders ’ 2020 presidential campaign—said , “ Sanders has been consistent in making sure the people of Puerto Rico are treated with dignity .
In fact , Bernie Sanders has been consistent in making sure ALL people are treated with dignity .

"Postponing the disbursement of this vital assistance any longer—in the face of the humanitarian needs of Puerto Rico—is simply shameful," the lawmakers said in a joint letter.
In an effort to put a stop to what they argue is the "illegal" and "unconscionable" withholding of necessary and vital aid to the people of Puerto Rico, New York Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nydia Velázquez joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday in demanding President Donald Trump immediately transfer already approved federal disaster assistance to address the island territory's "urgent humanitarian needs" following recent earthquakes and aftershocks.
In a letter (pdf) sent to the Trump administration, the lawmakers cited a nation still reeling from the destruction left by Hurricane Maria over two years ago and said there was no excuse to deny Puerto Ricans the help they so desperately need. The letter called on Trump to immediately approve a major disaster declaration submitted by the Puerto Rican government on January 12; to release aid money previously approved by Congress for humanitarian relief; and to direct FEMA to undertake an urgent response to the ongoing disaster.
"Let us be clear: Postponing the disbursement of this vital assistance any longer—in the face of the humanitarian needs of Puerto Rico—is simply shameful," the letter states.
The new letter follows a similar effort last week by House Democrats who urged Trump to release more than $18 billion in aid that was approved for the island following the 2017 devastation caused by Maria.
"We call upon the White House to stop its unlawful withholding of funds from Puerto Rico," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference Thursday. "There are needs that need to be met, there has been a disaster designated, but the ongoing withholding of funds appropriated by Congress to Puerto Rico is illegal."
"The hurricane devastated the island and today, tens of thousands of people are still living under tarp roofs," Velázquez, Ocasio-Cortez, and Sanders wrote in their new letter to Trump. "In recent days, the quakes have cost millions in damages, destroyed hundreds of homes, caused widespread electricity blackouts, and forced residents to resort to sleeping in roofless shelters due to the fear of being buried in their own homes by another earthquake."
Highlighting the effort of the lawmakers on social media, Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz of Puerto Rico's capital city San Juan—who serves as national co-chair for Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign—said, "Sanders has been consistent in making sure the people of Puerto Rico are treated with dignity. In fact, Bernie Sanders has been consistent in making sure ALL people are treated with dignity.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Conservative columnist goes scorched earth on Bolton: Either spill what you know about Trump or ‘shu

Conservative columnist goes scorched earth on Bolton: Either spill what you know about Trump or ‘shut up’

In an open letter doubling as a column for the Daily Beast , conservative columnist Matt Lewis tossed down the gauntlet to former White House national security adviser John Bolton , telling him that he either needs to come clean with what he knows about Donald Trump or “ shut up ” and go away .
While Bolton has suggested that he would appear before the U.S. Senate to testify in the impeachment trial of Trump — knowing full well that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is dead set against allowing any witnesses — Lewis accused Bolton of using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he knows .
“ We don ’ t know what you have to say regarding your time as Donald J. Trump ’ s national security adviser .
What we do know is that your lawyers teased that you know about ‘ many relevant meetings and conversations ’ connected to the Ukraine shakedown story , ” Lewis wrote .
“ Additionally , we know that Fiona Hill , former Russia expert at the National Security Council , testified that you referred to Rudy Giuliani as a ‘ hand grenade ’ who was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that you declared , ‘ I am not part of whatever drug deal [ Gordon ] Sondland and [ Mick ] Mulvaney are cooking up . '
” As Lewis sees it , “ This seems to suggest that you were aware of some nefarious things going on in the administration—things that could potentially incriminate Trump and/or some of his associates .
Or maybe what you know would look bad , but it would actually exculpate some of them .
Regardless , the point is that you seem to know something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has loomed over our politics for five months , and has culminated with the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.
” According to the conservative who has decried what Trump has done to the Republican Party — as well as the rest of the country — Bolton ’ s “ coy ” act is getting old .
‘ Your evolving standard suggests that you are attempting to move the goal posts so that they will remain close enough to entice us , but not so close as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where statesmen have preferred the spoils of showmen , your behavior is one more depressing sign that everyone is in this for themselves , rather than for the nation , ” Lewis wrote .
” Let ’ s be honest , you know full well that a Senate that is controlled by Republicans ( who don ’ t want to call any witnesses , much less a bombshell witness ) will never call your bluff .
“ According to the columnist , Bolton is teasing out comments and details because he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royalties than the impeachment trial that is tearing the country apart .
“ While turning star witness could only boost your profile in the mainstream media , your smart bet—financially—is probably to play this cat and mouse game with us .
It ’ s hard to sell a tell-all book when you ’ ve already spilled your guts on the stand .
Or maybe you know you can land on that No .
1 bestseller spot by churning out a hagiographic Trumpy tome , solely on the back of Hannity appearances ?
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this as noble or admirable .
Is this why you got involved in public life ?
Is this what you have dedicated your career to… book sales ?
” he accused .
“ You are uniquely positioned as someone who ( a ) has firsthand knowledge of the situation , and ( b ) as someone who—because of your status as a conservative Republican whose political philosophy long predates the rise of Trumpism—has credibility with Republican senators ( and their constituents ) , ” he wrote .
“ Ultimately , it boils down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really important to tell the American people , then just say it .
Say it this week—before the Senate votes .
The time to hesitate is through.
” “ Otherwise , shut up about it , ” he bluntly concluded .
You can read more here ( subscription required ) .

In an open letter doubling as a column for the Daily Beast, conservative columnist Matt Lewis tossed down the gauntlet to former White House national security adviser John Bolton, telling him that he either needs to come clean with what he knows about Donald Trump or "shut up" and go away.
While Bolton has suggested that he would appear before the U.S. Senate to testify in the impeachment trial of Trump -- knowing full well that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is dead set against allowing any witnesses -- Lewis accused Bolton of using the impeachment to enrich himself by teasing out what he knows.
"We don’t know what you have to say regarding your time as Donald J. Trump’s national security adviser. What we do know is that your lawyers teased that you know about 'many relevant meetings and conversations' connected to the Ukraine shakedown story," Lewis wrote. "Additionally, we know that Fiona Hill, former Russia expert at the National Security Council, testified that you referred to Rudy Giuliani as a 'hand grenade' who was “going to blow up everyone,” and that you declared, 'I am not part of whatever drug deal [Gordon] Sondland and [Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up.'"
As Lewis sees it, "This seems to suggest that you were aware of some nefarious things going on in the administration—things that could potentially incriminate Trump and/or some of his associates. Or maybe what you know would look bad, but it would actually exculpate some of them. Regardless, the point is that you seem to know something that would help shed light on a scandal that has loomed over our politics for five months, and has culminated with the impeachment of the President of the United States of America."
According to the conservative who has decried what Trump has done to the Republican Party -- as well as the rest of the country -- Bolton's "coy" act is getting old.
'Your evolving standard suggests that you are attempting to move the goal posts so that they will remain close enough to entice us, but not so close as to actually be attainable. In an era where statesmen have preferred the spoils of showmen, your behavior is one more depressing sign that everyone is in this for themselves, rather than for the nation," Lewis wrote. " Let’s be honest, you know full well that a Senate that is controlled by Republicans (who don’t want to call any witnesses, much less a bombshell witness) will never call your bluff. "
According to the columnist, Bolton is teasing out comments and details because he has a book deal and is more interested in royalties than the impeachment trial that is tearing the country apart.
"While turning star witness could only boost your profile in the mainstream media, your smart bet—financially—is probably to play this cat and mouse game with us. It’s hard to sell a tell-all book when you’ve already spilled your guts on the stand. Or maybe you know you can land on that No. 1 bestseller spot by churning out a hagiographic Trumpy tome, solely on the back of Hannity appearances? Either way, it is hard to see this as noble or admirable. Is this why you got involved in public life? Is this what you have dedicated your career to… book sales?" he accused.
Then Lewis lowered the boom.
"You are uniquely positioned as someone who (a) has firsthand knowledge of the situation, and (b) as someone who—because of your status as a conservative Republican whose political philosophy long predates the rise of Trumpism—has credibility with Republican senators (and their constituents)," he wrote. "Ultimately, it boils down to this: If you have something really important to tell the American people, then just say it. Say it this week—before the Senate votes. The time to hesitate is through."
"Otherwise, shut up about it," he bluntly concluded.
You can read more here (subscription required).


rawstory--2020-01-14--WATCH: Putin and Assad caught on video laughing as they mock Trump during Damascus meeting

Video has emerged of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad having a laugh at President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ s visit to Damascus last week .
“ If Trump arrives along this road [ @ @ @ @ @ will become normal with him too , ” Assad said , according to a translation @ @ @ @ @ then quipped that Trump would jump at the offer and if not , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s capital .
“ It will be repaired… invite him .
He @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s ready to invite Trump .
Putin then smiles and says , @ @ @ @ @ ” The inspiration for the joke was the biblical story of the Apostle Paul , @ @ @ @ @ God while on a road to Damascus , only later to be transformed into a @ @ @ @

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Still, Ron DeSantis refuses to expand Medicaid, even though 93 percent of the cost is covered with money from Washington, DC. It’s the principle of the thing, apparently: he’s one of 11 red state governors who believes that working poor people simply shouldn’t get health coverage. After all, they didn’t have the good sense to be born into a wealthy family!
Michael, 30, lives in Orlando and has asthma, but running his little business buying and selling used furniture hasn’t earned him enough to cover his medical bills and to pay rent. He recently got an eviction notice, telling the Florida Health Justice Project:
“I was given a list of homeless shelters to choose from but I hope it doesn’t come to that.”
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Violence, hate, bigotry, and cruelty are the four cardinal points of fascism. Compassion and concern for the greater good, for the poor and weak, for the victims of fate and accident have no place in the fascist world.
Historians and political observers have been predicting that America would get our very own Mussolini ever since the days of Barry Goldwater. And there’s been no shortage of candidates: bribe-taking Nixon; Central American fascist-loving Reagan; Gitmo torturing and war-lying Bush; and, of course, Trump.
But with Ron DeSantis, we may finally be facing an all-American politician who has Mussolini’s guile, ruthlessness, and willingness to see people die to advance his political career, all while being smart and educated enough to avoid the easily satirized buffoonishness of Trump.
Mussolini was a famously short man who strutted with his muscular chest pushed out and his chin jutted forward, just like DeSantis, who Trump says is musclebound, likes to do.
Both men were socially awkward, craved power, lacked empathy, displayed casual cruelty, sucked up to the wealthiest men in the nation, and demonized opposition politicians — literally calling or implying their fellow citizens are “the enemy” (a favorite trick of Hitler and Orbán, as well) — to encourage their followers to support them or entertain the rhetoric of violence and threats of violence to achieve political ends.
Miriam, a single parent of two young children, discovered a lump in her breast but postponed visiting the doctor for months because she had no health insurance with her job as a housekeeper.
Finally, she realized the potential gravity of her situation.
“I needed to live to be there for my children,” she said.
She got treatment through the charity ward of a hospital, but even that treatment came with a cost of $2,183. She slipped behind in the $200 monthly payments when her job vanished with the pandemic and now she’s struggling to pay the $1783 she still owes in co-payments from her treatments. She’s been sent to collection and is living in fear of what’s next when the court finally comes after her.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of the possible rise of politicians like DeSantis who would suggest other Americans are enemies of the nation’s values, who would exaggerate policy differences in war-like terms, and who would ascribe the most evil of motives and intentions to simple political opponents.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
But it wasn’t just that calling other politicians enemies or attributing evil motivations to them produced dissension and could tear a society apart, although those concerns were at the top of Washington’s mind.
He also knew that such rhetoric was the platform from which a literal strongman could arise in America, destroying the democracy he’d fought the Revolutionary War to create:
“But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” he told the nation. “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Such a warlike approach to politics, Washington said, could only lead in one direction:
“It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
Such rhetoric, Washington argued, produces:
“A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
It’s been 225 years since George Washington uttered those words. And now we’re here.
Hipolito, the father of four, is worried about his life’s partner, the mother of their children.
“My wife has been in pain for weeks now but we can’t afford to find out why,” Hipolito told the Florida Health Justice Project. “I swear, I’m very afraid. She is pale and suffering every day.”
He notes that his wife hasn’t visited the doctor because their family can’t afford the expense when they must also house, feed, and clothe their kids on his job as a cook.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Arresting black men for voting, terrifying them and ruining their lives while making sure they all get paraded in chains before the cameras.
Threatening public school teachers with prison for simply teaching history.
Lying about medical science regarding vaccines to suck up to the Trump base, resulting in fewer Floridians being protected from a disease that is killing literally hundreds of Americans every day.
Using rhetoric that feeds bigotry and hate against gay, lesbian, and trans people.
Intimidating the college board so they strip the Black Lives Matter movement out of their advanced placement African-American Studies curriculum.
Lying to asylum-seekers to get them on a plane to Martha’s Vineyard as a stunt to elevate his own political fortunes.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with all of this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Ignoring the health and safety of his state’s citizens, DeSantis led Florida into a veritable Covid Armageddon, letting (as of January 16th) 84,176 of his citizens die from the disease. As former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CBS’ Face The Nation:
“They let the virus spread largely unchecked in terms of personal mitigation. People weren't wearing masks. They weren't encouraged to wear masks. Vaccination was encouraged for the elderly population, but not widely… So they made policy choices, and the consequence was an infection that largely engulfed most parts of the state.”
After this orgy of death and disease, at the end of 2021 about 12 percent of Florida’s population — almost 2.6 million — still lacked any form of medical insurance because of DeSantis’ refusal to expand Medicaid for low-income people.
And now as many as 2 million more Floridians will join the ranks of the uninsured in the coming months.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Mike Bloomberg’s plan is to bait Trump into self-destruction — even if he isn’t the nominee: report

Mike Bloomberg , the billionaire former mayor of New York City who has at various times identified as both a Republican and a Democrat , did not launch his presidential campaign in a conventional way .
He jumped into the race months after the other candidates , is not even targeting the early states , and is blanketing the national airwaves with a scorched-earth advertising campaign with no seeming strategy to actually lock down delegates .
But there may be a reason behind all of this .
According to Bess Levin in Vanity Fair , Bloomberg doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rather , his goal is to bait President Donald Trump into meltdown after meltdown — and boost whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being , even if it isn ’ t him .
“ Speaking at a Texas barbecue restaurant on Saturday , Bloomberg said that if he ’ s knocked out of the race , he ’ ll direct future funds toward attacking Trump , supporting whoever wins the nomination—even if that person happens to be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren , whom he basically regards as Communists , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t agree with them , ’ he said , of the progressive candidates , ‘ but I ’ d still support them , yes , because compared to Donald Trump that ’ s easy.
’ He said that he has no plans to run any negative ads against any Democratic candidates , focusing all of his energy on trolling 45 .
In addition to funneling cash to whoever goes head-to-head with the president , Bloomberg would seemingly donate much of the gigantic , more-than-800-person team he ’ s assembled to the nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategy of getting under Trump ’ s skin to strengthen Democrats was on full display this week , as he rolled out a massive ad buy attacking Trump for threatening protections for pre-existing conditions — a wedge issue that drove many conservative voters to support Democrats in 2018 .
Trump replied with enraged tweets lying about his health care record and attacking “ Mini Mike Bloomberg.
” Bloomberg , who was evidently hoping for that response , had a retort ready : Bloomberg , it seems , is running not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to do so by tricking Trump into dragging himself as far into the gutter as possible .

Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City who has at various times identified as both a Republican and a Democrat, did not launch his presidential campaign in a conventional way. He jumped into the race months after the other candidates, is not even targeting the early states, and is blanketing the national airwaves with a scorched-earth advertising campaign with no seeming strategy to actually lock down delegates.
But there may be a reason behind all of this. According to Bess Levin in Vanity Fair, Bloomberg doesn't have the singular goal of winning the nomination. Rather, his goal is to bait President Donald Trump into meltdown after meltdown — and boost whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, even if it isn't him.
"Speaking at a Texas barbecue restaurant on Saturday, Bloomberg said that if he’s knocked out of the race, he’ll direct future funds toward attacking Trump, supporting whoever wins the nomination—even if that person happens to be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, whom he basically regards as Communists," wrote Levin. "'I really don’t agree with them,' he said, of the progressive candidates, 'but I’d still support them, yes, because compared to Donald Trump that’s easy.' He said that he has no plans to run any negative ads against any Democratic candidates, focusing all of his energy on trolling 45. In addition to funneling cash to whoever goes head-to-head with the president, Bloomberg would seemingly donate much of the gigantic, more-than-800-person team he’s assembled to the nominee, along with other resources."
Bloomberg's strategy of getting under Trump's skin to strengthen Democrats was on full display this week, as he rolled out a massive ad buy attacking Trump for threatening protections for pre-existing conditions — a wedge issue that drove many conservative voters to support Democrats in 2018. Trump replied with enraged tweets lying about his health care record and attacking "Mini Mike Bloomberg."
Bloomberg, who was evidently hoping for that response, had a retort ready:
Bloomberg, it seems, is running not just for president but for kingmaker. And he wants to do so by tricking Trump into dragging himself as far into the gutter as possible.


rawstory--2020-01-14--MSNBC’s Morning Joe warns Trump won’t be president forever: ‘Everyone who shamed themselves for him

MSNBC’s Morning Joe warns Trump won’t be president forever: ‘Everyone who shamed themselves for him will live to regret it’

MSNBC ’ s Joe Scarborough warned Republicans that President Donald Trump won ’ t stay in the White House forever .
The “ Morning Joe ” host cautioned conservatives putting their reputations on the line to defend each of Trump ’ s abuses , saying that one day he wouldn ’ t be president and their reputation would be shot .
“ People do forget that there is an after-Trump era coming , ” Scarborough said .
“ I always tell the story of my friend in the Bush administration in 2005 , somebody I knew very well , called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I stopped , because I was critical of Bush .
( I said ) hold on a second , you do know that George Bush is going to leave the White House , and I ’ m still going to be here .
Now , are you my friend or not ?
I didn ’ t mean it as a threat but I did let him know this , too , shall pass , choose your friends wisely.
” “ These Trump people that work for him , they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see what the world looks like , ” he added .
“ They can just look in the rearview mirror and see everybody that shamed themselves in the name of that Donald Trump has been fired and then lived to regret it .
”

TikTok parent company ByteDance spent a record $2.4 million on federal lobbying during the second second quarter of this year — more than any other quarter since it started lobbying in 2019. Spending in the last quarter puts the company on track for another record-breaking year a new OpenSecrets analysis of Lobbying Disclosure Act filings found.
After ByteDance spent a record $5.3 million on federal lobbying in 2022 — more than all but three internet companies last year — the TikTok parent company poured another $4.28 million into federal lobbying during the first half of 2023, outpacing the roughly $3.25 million it spent at the same point last year.
RELATED ARTICLE: Former NFL player Derrick Dockery quietly becomes a guardian for TikTok on Capitol Hill
In total, ByteDance poured more than $17.7 million into lobbying since the Chinese-owned social media company first reported payments to federal lobbyists in 2019.
ByteDance’s lobbying team has several “revolving door” lobbyists who previously held federal government positions working for prominent members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, as well as several powerhouse lobbying firms with government connections in their arsenal.
Former members of Congress on the team of revolving door lobbyists working for TikTok’s interests include former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) as well as former Reps. Jeff Denham(R-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.).
Despite ByteDance’s robust lobbying efforts and TikTok’s massive U.S. user base, the app has faced increased scrutiny from lawmakers looking to address potential national security and data privacy risks related to Chinese ownership.
On July 10, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) announced that Congress is considering changes to the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act — also known as the RESTRICT Act — a bill the Senate Intelligence Committee chair sponsored in March as part of efforts to crack down on TikTok and other companies that are deemed to pose a national security risk.
As written, the RESTRICT Act would grant the president and U.S. Commerce Department sweeping authority to address threats originating in countries deemed to be “foreign adversaries.”
The legislation is endorsed by President Joe Biden’s White House and has attracted bipartisan support in the Senate but Warner claims lobbying spending “slowed a bit of our momentum.”
Warner also told Reuters that Congress is working on changes to address concerns that his legislation would usher in a broad expansion of government power.
“The RESTRICT Act is using TikTok as a smokescreen for the largest expansion of executive power” in decades, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee lamented when expressing opposition to the bill in March.
A wide range of advocacy groups and corporations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union have spent on lobbying around the legislation, scrutinizing it due to First Amendment concerns and the risk of executive overreach.
While the bill has received support from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, even some groups and lawmakers pushing to ban TikTok have criticized the bill’s approach as overly broad.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been especially critical of the bill, going as far as claiming “As it is written right now, it will not ban TikTok and it will probably make it impossible to ever ban TikTok.”
In December, Rubio joined Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) in introducing another bill to ban TikTok from operating in the U.S.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) introduced legislation in January that would bar TikTok from being downloaded on any U.S. devices and ban any transactions with its parent company, ByteDance, as well.
While the proposals to ban TikTok across the U.S. are still under consideration, Congress passedlegislation to ban TikTok from federal government-owned devices as part of an annual appropriations bill in December 2022 and efforts to block the app have continued to gain momentum across the country.
In May, Montana became the first U.S. state to prohibit app stores from offering TikTok for download.
TikTok is currently fighting the ban, which is set to take effect in Montana on Jan. 1, 2024. As part of that effort, the company is covering legal fees for influencers in the state who are challenging the legislation in an ongoing lawsuit. The next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 12.
At least 33 states have also taken action to restrict TikTok on state-issued devices and several more have proposed similar bans.
Last week, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research – which works to study the impact of technology on society — claiming a ban on TikTok at Texas state institutions violates the First Amendment. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) signed the law banning TikTok on state-owned or issued devices for employees in state agencies, including state university systems in December, though the law is not slated to go into effect until next year.
As lawmakers grapple with how to balance the perceived national security threats posed by TikTok with constitutional issues raised by prohibitions, the growing push to restrict TikTok across the U.S. has put pressure on President Joe Biden’s administration to address concerns around the video-sharing app due to suspicions that it could be used as a tool of foreign influence.
U.S. officials have long speculated Chinese government actors may be able to view the personal information of TikTok users and more information has continued to emerge.
In June 2022, BuzzFeed News reported that ByteDance employees based in China have repeatedly accessed private data about American TikTok users, prompting senators on both sides of the aisle to call on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the company.
TikTok has emphatically rejected spying allegations. To distance the video-sharing app’s U.S. operations’ backend functions and code from its Chinese arm, TikTok is currently in the process of working with Austin-based software giant Oracle to store all American user data in the U.S. As a part of the collaboration dubbed “Project Texas,” TikTok is also reportedly giving Oracle access to audit its algorithms and content moderation policies.
At a House hearing in March, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified that “American data has always been stored in Virginia and Singapore” and that “American data is stored on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel.”
According to Chew’s testimony, all new U.S. user data is being stored inside the country and that TikTok started deleting historic U.S. user data from non-Oracle servers in March, a process expected to be completed this year.
Also in March, the Biden administration demanded TikTok’s Chinese owners divest their stakes or face a U.S. ban. Biden ordered the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review TikTok in June 2021, after withdrawing former President Donald Trump’s executive orders banning new downloads of the app in the U.S.
The battle over TikTok’s operations in the U.S. continues, with ongoing legislative debates and regulatory actions shaping the future of the popular social media app. As lawmakers and the Biden administration grapple with data security and national security concerns, ByteDance’s lobbying efforts remain a significant factor in determining the outcome of this high-stakes clash.
OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.


rawstory--2020-01-14--‘A recipe for disaster’: Trump’s USDA faces a legal backlash for seeking to weaken pork industry hea

‘A recipe for disaster’: Trump’s USDA faces a legal backlash for seeking to weaken pork industry health inspections

A lawsuit filed Monday against President Donald Trump ’ s loosening of regulations in pork inspection plants aims to stop the rules from taking effect to protect consumers from illness and death .
The suit , which targets Trump ’ s New Swine Inspection System ( NSIS ) , was filed by Food & Water Watch , the Center for Food Safety , and two supporting members .
“ There is no gray area here , ” said Food & Water Watch senior staff attorney Zach Corrigan in a statement .
“ The new rules curtail the ability of federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose those who consume such pork products to serious health threats like salmonella.
” According to a press release from the two groups , the new Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) rules are “ a draconian reversal to the swine slaughter inspection system that has existed in the United States since 1906.
” “ We ’ re suing the crap out of USDA for… feeding us crap , ” tweeted Food & Water Watch communications manager Jackie Filson .
Under the new regulations put forth by the Trump administration , federal inspectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals before and after slaughter and will see a reduced role on the line .
“ Reducing the number of trained federal inspectors and increasing line speeds is a recipe for disaster , ” Center for Food Safety staff attorney Ryan Talbott said in a statement .
“ USDA has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of consumers , ” added Talbott .
“ USDA can not do that when it takes a back seat and lets the slaughter plants largely regulate themselves .
”

A lawsuit filed Monday against President Donald Trump's loosening of regulations in pork inspection plants aims to stop the rules from taking effect to protect consumers from illness and death.
The suit, which targets Trump's New Swine Inspection System (NSIS), was filed by Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, and two supporting members.
"There is no gray area here," said Food & Water Watch senior staff attorney Zach Corrigan in a statement. "The new rules curtail the ability of federal inspectors to detect serious food-safety problems and expose those who consume such pork products to serious health threats like salmonella."
According to a press release from the two groups, the new Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules are "a draconian reversal to the swine slaughter inspection system that has existed in the United States since 1906."
"We're suing the crap out of USDA for... feeding us crap," tweeted Food & Water Watch communications manager Jackie Filson.
Under the new regulations put forth by the Trump administration, federal inspectors are no longer responsible for examining the animals before and after slaughter and will see a reduced role on the line.
According to Food & Water Watch:
The new rules prevent such inspection and hand over these responsibilities to the slaughter companies themselves. They also surrender federal control over removing contamination from carcasses to slaughter companies without any minimum training requirements for slaughter-plant employees.
"Reducing the number of trained federal inspectors and increasing line speeds is a recipe for disaster," Center for Food Safety staff attorney Ryan Talbott said in a statement.
"USDA has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of consumers," added Talbott. "USDA cannot do that when it takes a back seat and lets the slaughter plants largely regulate themselves."


rawstory--2020-01-14--Trump put himself in new legal jeopardy with dubious claim Suleimani posed an ‘imminent threat’: law

Trump put himself in new legal jeopardy with dubious claim Suleimani posed an ‘imminent threat’: law experts

According to a compilation of legal opinions pulled together by Business Insider , President Donald Trump may have opened himself up to more legal problems — including another article of impeachment — as his claim that Iranian military leader Qassem Suleimani was an “ imminent threat ” to the US and its overseas properties have fallen apart .
Following a weekend where Defense Secretary Mark Esper appeared on the cable talk shows and attempted to defend the president ’ s claim that multiple embassies were threatened , the administration ’ s claims of threats have fallen apart .
With lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were briefed on the intelligence questioning the thinness of the information shared — and new reports noting that the supposed embassies were never warned — the president ’ s surprise drone-killing of the popular Iranian leader is facing new scrutiny .
“ Trump and key administration officials had for days argued that the president ’ s decision to assassinate Soleimani by drone strike earlier in January were justified because he posed an ‘ imminent threat ’ to US forces in the Middle East .
But when pressed on the details , they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports before asking , “ So why bother making the argument that Soleimani posed an imminent threat , if it never really mattered all along ?
” “ The answer , legal experts say , is that it puts the Trump administration on stronger legal ground as it faces scrutiny for bypassing Congress to order the killing , ” the report continues .
According to Oona Hathaway , a professor of international law at Yale law school , “ The only legal route Trump could take to get round the requirement for congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military action would be to show that it was taken in self defense.
” “ In both cases , the exception is narrow , ” she wrote for The Atlantic .
“ The threat must be so extreme and imminent that it would be unreasonable to seek the necessary approvals before taking action to defend the country.
” According to Gary Solis , a retired West Point professor of law , “ There are norms of international behavior that allow us to identify , apprehend , and try terrorists .
We can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t follow the law.
” “ He notes that the war on terror is a never-ending fight but not a technical war as defined by law .
To justify the killing under the AUMF then there would have had to be a specific ‘ imminent threat ’ rather than a general sense that Soleimani is a bad guy who doesn ’ t like Americans .
And , most notably , Soleimani was also a general in the Iranian army , which means he can ’ t necessarily be dealt with like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The Democrat-led House could move to hold Trump accountable for the decision if it is indeed found that no ‘ imminent ’ danger was posed , but in a Congress deeply divided along partisan lines it ’ s a move that would likely run aground , ” the report notes , with Solis adding , “ How would we feel if Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , was killed on a visit to Canada in a Canadian airport ?
” You can read more here @

According to a compilation of legal opinions pulled together by Business Insider, President Donald Trump may have opened himself up to more legal problems -- including another article of impeachment -- as his claim that Iranian military leader Qassem Suleimani was an "imminent threat" to the US and its overseas properties have fallen apart.
Following a weekend where Defense Secretary Mark Esper appeared on the cable talk shows and attempted to defend the president's claim that multiple embassies were threatened, the administration's claims of threats have fallen apart.
With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who were briefed on the intelligence questioning the thinness of the information shared -- and new reports noting that the supposed embassies were never warned -- the president's surprise drone-killing of the popular Iranian leader is facing new scrutiny.
"Trump and key administration officials had for days argued that the president's decision to assassinate Soleimani by drone strike earlier in January were justified because he posed an 'imminent threat' to US forces in the Middle East. But when pressed on the details, they were less than convincing," Business Insider reports before asking, "So why bother making the argument that Soleimani posed an imminent threat, if it never really mattered all along?"
"The answer, legal experts say, is that it puts the Trump administration on stronger legal ground as it faces scrutiny for bypassing Congress to order the killing," the report continues.
According to Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale law school, "The only legal route Trump could take to get round the requirement for congressional and UN Security Council approval for the military action would be to show that it was taken in self defense."
"In both cases, the exception is narrow," she wrote for The Atlantic. "The threat must be so extreme and imminent that it would be unreasonable to seek the necessary approvals before taking action to defend the country."
According to Gary Solis, a retired West Point professor of law, "There are norms of international behavior that allow us to identify, apprehend, and try terrorists. We can’t have a civilized world if we don’t follow the law.”
"He notes that the war on terror is a never-ending fight but not a technical war as defined by law. To justify the killing under the AUMF then there would have had to be a specific 'imminent threat' rather than a general sense that Soleimani is a bad guy who doesn’t like Americans. And, most notably, Soleimani was also a general in the Iranian army, which means he can’t necessarily be dealt with like non-state actors," he told Quartz.
"The Democrat-led House could move to hold Trump accountable for the decision if it is indeed found that no 'imminent' danger was posed, but in a Congress deeply divided along partisan lines it's a move that would likely run aground," the report notes, with Solis adding, "How would we feel if Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was killed on a visit to Canada in a Canadian airport?"
You can read more here.