RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
One of Trump's Impeachment Lawyers Is a Personal Injury Attorney Who Sued Trump Last Year Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Friday, 12 February 2021 13:40

Levin writes: "Michael T. van der Veen specializes in dog bites, among other things."

Trump's impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor Jr. (photo: AP)
Trump's impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor Jr. (photo: AP)


One of Trump's Impeachment Lawyers Is a Personal Injury Attorney Who Sued Trump Last Year

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

12 February 21


Michael T. van der Veen specializes in dog bites, among other things.

onald Trump went into the first day of his second impeachment trial reportedly feeling about as good as someone who’s set a record for presidential impeachments can feel. Not only was he not worried about the stain of inciting a violent insurrection, but he and his lawyers reportedly viewed the proceedings as a positive because they would “cement” his “influence over the Republican party.” Fast-forward a day and Trump is apparently feeling a lot less hot, thanks to the opening statement delivered by his defense team, which could best be described as, “What the f--k was that?”

Unlike his first impeachment trial, the ex-president is unable to tweet his way through it, but he nevertheless made his feelings known. According to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Trump was “basically screaming” as Bruce Castor Jr. gave his meandering, incomprehensible argument over the course of nearly 50 interminable minutes, each one worse than the last. Attempting to quantify his rage, people familiar with the matter told The New York Times that on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the angriest, Trump “was an eight,” which we assume is similar to his anger level when, after being frisked on the way out of the White House on January 20, he was told that no, he couldn’t take the flatware with him.

Of course, it’s not entirely surprising that Trump’s defense gave a less than inspiring opening statement—one that was so bad that it got Republican senator Bill Cassidy to make a last-minute change and vote with Democrats. After being charged with inciting an insurrection, Trump found that not one of the lawyers originally expected to represent him would. Days before his trial kicked off, the legal team Lindsey Graham helped set Trump up with quit, reportedly over the ex-president’s insistence that they argue the 2020 election was stolen from him, which obviously would have been a lie. That left Trump basically scraping the bottom of the barrel of the legal profession, which explains how he ended up with Castor—who, earlier in his career, fought to keep Bill Cosby out of prison—and David Schoen, who said he had considered defending Jeffrey Epstein before the notorious pedophile died in prison. (Schoen has also worked with “accused rapists, capital murderers, and international narcotics dealers,” per the Atlanta Jewish Times. He told the outlet that he had “represented all sorts of reputed mobster figures: alleged head of Russian mafia in this country, Israeli mafia, and two Italian bosses, as well a guy the government claimed was the biggest mafioso in the world.”) Oh, and this guy! Per The Washington Post:

Last year, Philadelphia lawyer Michael T. van der Veen filed a lawsuit against then president Donald Trump accusing him of making repeated claims that mail voting is “ripe with fraud” despite having “no evidence in support of these claims.” This week, van der Veen is adopting a different posture as part of the team of attorneys defending Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result in his Senate impeachment trial.… Van der Veen’s route to Trump’s legal team began when the firm he founded—van der Veen, O’Neill, Hartshorn, and Levin—hired Bruce Castor in December. Castor, a former prosecutor from suburban Philadelphia, in turn was recommended to Trump aides and hired last month.

Now, van der Veen’s name and signature appear in Trump’s impeachment filings alongside Castor’s, as well as those of David Schoen, an Atlanta-based lawyer Trump brought on last week. In a 78-page defense brief filed Monday, the lawyers argued that Trump was entitled to express his belief that “voting irregularities” he attributed to illegal changes to election laws had tainted the election.

According to The Washington Post, van der Veen is best known as a personal injury lawyer whose local radio ads “are reminiscent of East Coast electronics chain Crazy Eddie’s high-octane TV pitches” that aired in the 1980s. “Whether you’re walking down Chestnut or Market, Frankurt or Aramingo, be careful and watch your step,” an announcer shots in one representative ad spot. “But if the walkway isn’t clear, and you fall and get hurt due to snow and ice, call 215-546-1000 for van der Veen, O’Neill, Hartshorn, and Levin—trial lawyers excelling in the area of the law most critical to your family. The ‘V’ is for ‘Victory.’” In copy that, to be fair, sounds exactly like how Trump would describe himself if he were a lawyer, van der Veen’s website boasts of the “relentless, savvy defense” it provides not just for people who slip and fall and want to sue the city but for those accused of “corporate embezzlement, internet-based offenses, or violent crime,” the Post writes. (The firm also has a detailed page regarding its work on behalf of dog-bite victims, writing: “With decades of experience navigating Pennsylvania’s dog bite laws, our team of Philadelphia dog bite attorneys are driven to enforce clients’ rights to facilitate comprehensive recovery.”) And while Trump was probably hoping for a lawyer who was not the Philadelphia equivalent of Cellino and Barnes, and whose speciality brings to mind lawyers who make their clients show up to court wearing fake neck braces, others believe van der Veen and Trump are perfect for one another:

Van der Veen drew local media attention in 2018 for the elaborate renovation of his small firm’s offices in Philadelphia’s Center City neighborhood. The 25-employee firm occupies a 19th-century rowhouse featuring a Delftware fireplace and ornate mantel carvings of Zeus and Apollo.

For some in Pennsylvania, van der Veen’s representation of Trump is a natural fit, given his career path as a personal injury lawyer who broadcasts ads on local talk radio and touts glowing magazine cover stories on his law firm’s website.

“It probably speaks more to the gadfly culture of Philadelphia trial attorneys than anything else,” a Pennsylvania strategist told the Post. “It’s a showman’s culture.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Antiwar Activists Have Scored an Apparent Victory on Yemen. It's Time to Keep Pushing. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58330"><span class="small">Shireen Al-Adeimi and Sarah Lazare, Jacobin</span></a>   
Friday, 12 February 2021 13:40

Excerpt: "Joe Biden is sounding the right notes about halting US participation in the Saudis' catastrophic war in Yemen. But now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what ending support for the war means: an end to all US assistance, no exceptions, before one more Yemeni dies."

Joe Biden on February 26, 2020. (photo: Logan Cyrus/Getty)
Joe Biden on February 26, 2020. (photo: Logan Cyrus/Getty)


Antiwar Activists Have Scored an Apparent Victory on Yemen. It's Time to Keep Pushing.

By Shireen Al-Adeimi and Sarah Lazare, Jacobin

12 February 21


Joe Biden is sounding the right notes about halting US participation in the Saudis’ catastrophic war in Yemen. But now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what ending support for the war means: an end to all US assistance, no exceptions, before one more Yemeni dies.

he February 4 announcement by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that President Biden would end US support for “offensive operations” in Yemen was understandably met with celebration by those opposed to the war. Almost six years of the US-Saudi?UAE war on Yemen have left the country devastated by humanitarian disaster and famine. Anti-war activists have spent these years?—?first during the Obama-Biden administration, then the Trump-Pence administration, and now the Biden-Harris administration?—?agitating to end US participation in the onslaught. It has been an organizing effort that often seemed like shouting into the wind, as the bombings of hospitals, factories, and weddings piled up. The countless people who have been toiling in obscurity to end this war, and those in Yemen who have joined in this effort while surrounded by hardship and death, certainly deserve praise and gratitude for the fact we’ve gotten this far.

But Biden’s foreign policy speech, delivered just hours after Sullivan’s teaser, unfortunately underscored that we must not celebrate the end of the war until we verify that it has actually, materially ended. That is because Biden’s remarks leave just enough room for the president to gesture toward ending the war without actually halting all US participation in it.

Biden first noted that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will reach Yemeni civilians who have suffered “unendurable devastation” (the Trump administration suspended aid to much of Yemen in 2020) and declared “this war has to end.” He then added, “We are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen including relevant arms sales.” Biden said he is appointing career-long diplomat Timothy Lenderking as a special envoy to Yemen. But the president continued, “At the same time, Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks and UAV strikes and other threats from Iranian supplied forces in multiple countries. We are going to continue to help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.”

Unfortunately, qualifiers like “offensive” and “relevant” do not signal a clear commitment to ending all forms of support for the US war in Yemen, which includes targeting assistance, weapons sales (the United States is the largest supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia), logistics, training, and intelligence sharing with the Saudi-led coalition. Labeling Yemen’s Houthis as “Iranian supplied forces,” and making a commitment to defending Saudi Arabia’s “sovereignty,” echoes President Obama’s initial pretense for entering the war on Yemen in 2015. The White House statement that signaled Obama’s illegal entry declared, “In response to the deteriorating security situation, Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others will undertake military action to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government.” In other words, from the outset, this onslaught was framed by the United States as defensive.

Importantly, Sullivan noted that ending the war in Yemen “does not extend to actions against AQAP,” or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. While sanctioned by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), it’s important to oppose this parallel US-led war in Yemen that has also led to the killing of civilians.

One day after these February 4 declarations, Biden announced that he is removing the Houthis from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, a positive move, given that this designation is being used to cut off critical aid to northern Yemen and significantly escalate the crisis of mass starvation. Also, on February 5, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said at a press conference, “As a result of the President’s order yesterday, DOD had been providing some limited non-combat assistance for coalition operations, and that would include intelligence and — and some advice and best practices, and that all has been terminated. But Saudi Arabia remains a — a partner in terms of combating terror in the region.” Kirby’s statement vastly understates the role of the United States, which has played an important part in the war effort, and it’s not immediately clear what “noncombat” intelligence sharing and “advice” he is referring to. We must ensure these steps culminate in a full and permanent withdrawal from complicity in the war on Yemen.

Now, more than ever, it is vital to hold a firm line about what a real end to US participation in the Yemen war means: an end to all US assistance, including all forms of intelligence sharing, logistical help, training, providing spare parts transfers for warplanes, bomb targeting, weapons sales, and support for the naval blockade (we still don’t know the full extent of US support for the latter). It is critical to keep up the pressure until we verify, perhaps through a congressional hearing or other means, the war has really ended. As much as we might welcome positive messaging?—?no doubt a result of the pressure exerted by dogged organizers?—?we must not rest until we have won actual material relief.

Ending the incredible harm being unleashed on Yemen should only be the beginning. Real justice demands accountability for the US role in the mass killing and starvation in Yemen through — at the very least — reparations to the people of Yemen.

This is not to sow nihilism: it is significant that President Biden, whose own Obama-Biden administration first initiated US involvement in the war, feels that he has to answer to anti-war activists. A global day of action to end the war on January 25 saw people mobilize from streets to online forums demanding an immediate halt to the war, reflecting the growing power of an international movement to end the onslaught.

And the Biden administration has taken some steps before the February 4 announcements. In the twenty-four hours before leaving office, Trump’s final act of war on Yemeni civilians involved signing a $23 billion arms sale to the UAE, in addition to the designation of the Houthis as an FTO. Two days after taking office, Biden’s State Department launched a review of the FTO designation, citing “deep concern about the designation that was made is that at least on its surface it seems to achieve nothing particularly practical in advancing the efforts against the Houthis and to bring them back to the negotiating table, while making it even more difficult than it already is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who desperately need it.” And one week after taking office, Biden temporarily froze the sale of F-35s included in the Trump deal, as well as precision-guided munitions destined for Saudi Arabia.

But arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE. have not been canceled. Indeed, a celebrated Wall Street Journal report from January 27 about the Biden administration “pausing” arms sales to Saudi Arabia subtly noted in paragraph three that the pause “isn’t unusual for a new administration” and “many of the [arms] transactions are likely to ultimately go forward.” Still, these steps could indicate a willingness by the Biden administration to end US involvement in the war on Yemen.

But rhetoric and positive signals are not enough. We need a material end to all US assistance now, before one more Yemeni dies, and we need to verify that this assistance has ended before we declare victory. The Trump administration claimed, at various points, that it was working toward the end of the war via a “political solution.” Of course, the Trump administration horrifically escalated the war?—?rhetoric to the contrary did not shield Yemenis from US-manufactured bombs, or the assault on the port city of Hodeidah.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D?CA), in his January 25 address at the World Says No to War on Yemen global online rally, noted his commitment to ending the war in Yemen by reintroducing the War Powers Resolution that Trump previously vetoed. “Senator Sanders and I will be advocating and introducing again a War Powers Resolution to stop any logistical support .?.?. any intelligence support, any military support to the Saudis in their campaign in Yemen,” he said. Congressional oversight through another War Powers Resolution with these provisions would provide additional and significant pressure on the Biden administration.

The Obama-Biden administration made numerous announcements in 2012 and 2013 that it would end the US war in Afghanistan by 2014. But we saw that declarations do not, in themselves, end US aggression. This principle especially applies when declarations are loaded with red-flag-raising qualifiers like “offensive operations” and “relevant weapons systems.” We should know in a matter of weeks what the details of Biden’s plans for Yemen are. The job in the meantime is to maintain pressure, to ensure the Biden administration brings about a real end to the war that the president helped start?—?and says he wants to bring to a close.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How to Turn Your Red State Blue Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58327"><span class="small">Stacey Abrams and Lauren Groh-Wargo, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 12 February 2021 13:10

Excerpt: "We met and became political partners a decade ago, uniting in a bid to stave off Democratic obsolescence and rebuild a party that would increase the clout of regular, struggling Georgians."

Sen. Raphael Warnock, Stacey Abrams and Sen. Jon Ossoff. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Sen. Raphael Warnock, Stacey Abrams and Sen. Jon Ossoff. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)


How to Turn Your Red State Blue

By Stacey Abrams and Lauren Groh-Wargo, The New York Times

12 February 21


It may take 10 years. Do it anyway.

e met and became political partners a decade ago, uniting in a bid to stave off Democratic obsolescence and rebuild a party that would increase the clout of regular, struggling Georgians. Our mission was clear: organize people, help realize gains in their lives, win local races to build statewide competitiveness and hold power accountable.

But the challenge was how to do that in a state where many allies had retreated into glum predictions of defeat, where our opponents reveled in shellacking Democrats at the polls and in the Statehouse.

That’s not all we had to contend with. There was also a 2010 census undercount of people of color, a looming Republican gerrymander of legislative maps and a new Democratic president midway into his first term confronting a holdover crisis from the previous Republican administration. Though little in modern American history compares with the malice and ineptitude of the botched pandemic response or the attempted insurrection at the Capitol, the dynamic of a potentially inaccurate census and imminent partisan redistricting is the same story facing Democrats in 2021 as it was in 2011. State leaders and activists we know across the country who face total or partial Republican control are wondering which path they should take in their own states now — and deep into the next decade.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Disappointed in Some Democrats Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 12 February 2021 12:14

Sanders writes: "Democrats promised the American people that if we won both races in Georgia and took control of the Senate, we were going to pass a very popular COVID relief bill, including its most popular provision: ,000 checks for the working people of this country."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)


Disappointed in Some Democrats

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

12 February 21

 

emocrats promised the American people that if we won both races in Georgia and took control of the Senate, we were going to pass a very popular COVID relief bill, including its most popular provision: $2,000 checks for the working people of this country.

Democrats won, and now it’s time to deliver.

But, unfortunately, we have some Democrats in Congress who believe that we should first lower the annual income threshold for those eligible to receive the full benefit from $75,000 per individual and $150,000 per couple to $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per couple.

A lot of people have said they don’t want rich people to get the full $2,000 benefit, and I agree. But to say to a worker from Vermont or California, or a single parent working 40 or 50 hours a week and making $60,000 a year in West Virginia that they are too rich to receive the full benefit during this time of economic crisis...it is absurd.

It is not just terrible policy, it is even worse politics.

Because if we water down this relief, we are telling working class people in this country that when Donald Trump was president they could get a full benefit if they made $75,000 per year, but now that Democrats are in power if they make $52,000 a year they are too rich for that benefit.

If Joe Biden and a Democratic-controlled Congress do not provide the full benefits that Donald Trump and the Republicans did, it would be a political and policy disaster. We have got to do what we promised to the American people and help working families who are struggling right now.

This is not just a question about helping the working people of this country during a time of crisis, this is a question about the future of the Democratic Party and whether we will show the middle class of this country that we are on their side.

Republicans pit people against each other. They try to divide us up based on race, gender and ethnicity in an attempt to appeal to working class voters.

The way Democrats become the party of the working class is by fighting for social justice, economic justice, and by bringing people together.

But you do not bring people together when you say someone making $52,000 a year is too rich.

A recent national poll shows that there is overwhelming support for President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan, and the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising direct payments to $2,000. It is by far the most popular of the provisions in the plan.

I would like to congratulate the House Leadership and the Progressive Caucus for keeping the existing income thresholds. It is absurd to create an income eligibility cap that would mean 40 million Americans who got support under Trump wouldn’t get checks under Biden.

We must act urgently to provide relief to working people. That is why today I am counting on you to make your voice heard on this important issue:

Sign my petition – tell Democratic leadership to stand tall for the working class of this country and have the courage to take on the powerful special interests. We must keep the income threshold for direct payments at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

Working people are struggling during the worst economic collapse in a century, and I intend to do everything I can to ensure they receive the $2,000 payments they were promised.

Thank you for adding your name today to join me in that effort.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Moment for Reckoning Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58324"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Steady</span></a>   
Friday, 12 February 2021 09:32

Rather writes: "I am shaken, and I like to think I don't shake easily."

Dan Rather. (photo: The New York Times)
Dan Rather. (photo: The New York Times)


A Moment for Reckoning

By Dan Rather, Steady

12 February 21

 

am shaken, and I like to think I don't shake easily.

I am moved to a deep and profound sadness, and I don't like to think I am prone to melancholy.

But I am also emboldened and determined that what we saw today, the overwhelming evidence presented by the House Managers in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, shall not, must not, be a portent for where this country goes. Rather it must be a wake-up call to centuries of injustice and false grievances that a would-be despot, bolstered by no shortage of confederates, weaponized and catapulted into an assault on American democracy. As I write these words I still cannot quite believe what really happened. Nevertheless, there can be no denying the reality.

I have tried to get into a rhythm for these Steady posts with a morning publishing schedule. But I feel strongly that the events of today warrant an evening edition.

January 6 was a coordinated attack. It was built atop a foundation of lies doled out with precision over days and weeks. From a different perspective, you might say this was months, years, and even generations in the making. Will it be the last gasps of a discredited white supremacy and the other forces of intolerance that weaken our nation? Will we be able to successfully fight off the lies and propaganda? Or will this be part another major strike of the sledgehammer that’s fracturing our democratic experiment?

I firmly believe that the vast majority of American citizens will see this clearly for what it is. But our voices are on the sidelines for now, other than the pressure of conscience we can bring to bear on the 100 senators who will stand in judgement. That these same women and men were also in the crosshairs of the murderous mob and that the trial is taking place at the scene of the crime, makes the events transpiring today on Capitol Hill even more surreal.

  • For the senators, there can be no hiding from this historic decision... silence or procedural excuses equal complicity.

  • For the rioters, there can be no leniency... terrorists are inspired by weakness.

  • For the instigators, there can be no immunity... to drum up a mob hellbent on violent injustice is to encourage insurrection.

  • For those in the right-wing media who aided and abetted the lies, there can be no normalizing... their role in setting the stage for the insurrection is cemented by hours of television and thousands of tweets.

  • For those who have dabbled in the false equivalence framework so prevalent in Washington, this must be the end of that... there can be no comparison between the actions of the previous president and his enablers, abetters, and cheerleaders, and any "other side." Thankfully, I think many in the press have long ago realized this and have reported accordingly.

Some might argue that this is a rush to judgement, that the president's counsel has a right to present their case. That is indeed true. But you would have to be willfully ignorant, or cynical to the point of malevolence, to not see and hear with clarity the evidence as it stands.

I have seen my country brought low before. I have reported on the injustices and inequalities that have weakened our national purpose since its inception. I witnessed cowardice and complicity. But never before have I seen all of these undercurrents so focused in a single event.

We have clarity. We have proof. We need accountability. And we need a justice that will ring forth for the generations that follow. We cannot speak of unifying this nation without reckoning with all that is tearing it apart.

—Dan

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Next > End >>

Page 203 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN