RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Rick Perry May Be Out of Luck Print
Tuesday, 19 August 2014 13:23

Toobin writes: "Governor Rick Perry of Texas and President Barack Obama, strangest of bedfellows, are making similar discoveries about the scope of prosecutorial discretion. In short, it's very broad."

Governor Rick Perry. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
Governor Rick Perry. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


Rick Perry May Be Out of Luck

By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker

19 August 14

 

overnor Rick Perry of Texas and President Barack Obama, strangest of bedfellows, are making similar discoveries about the scope of prosecutorial discretion. In short, it’s very broad.

Perry’s education on the subject is an unhappy one. Late Friday, the Texas Governor, who has about five months left in his term, was indicted on two counts: abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. What those charges mean, though, is hard to say. The indictment itself is just two pages and, to put it charitably, unelaborated.

The case has its origins in Perry’s long-running feud with Rosemary Lehmberg, a district attorney in Travis County, which includes Austin and represents an island of blue in the deep-red sea of Texas. Last year, Lehmberg was charged with drunken driving. She promptly pleaded guilty, which, in light of the YouTube videos of her sobriety test and her booking at the police station, was no surprise.

Lehmberg served several days in jail but declined to resign, so Perry decided to make the most of her difficulties. He said that, unless she resigned, he would use his power as Governor to veto $7.5 million in state money for her Public Integrity Unit, which had been hard at work prosecuting Texas pols, many of them Republicans. He could not, he said, support “continued state funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence.”

What Perry did was obvious. The Governor was using his leverage to jam a political adversary—not exactly novel behavior in Texas, or most other states. But Democrats succeeded in winning the appointment of a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate Perry’s behavior, and on Friday McCrum brought the hammer down. The threat to veto the money for the D.A. amounted to, according to the prosecutor, two different kinds of felonies: a “misuse” of government property, and a corrupt attempt to influence a public official in “a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty” or “to violate the public servants known legal duty.” (In the charmingly archaic view of Texas statutes, every public official is a “him.”)

Perry’s indictment has been widely panned, including by many liberals, as an attempt to criminalize hardball politics. (Vetoing things is, generally, part of a governor’s job.) Perry himself is all wounded innocence. “I intend to fight against those who would erode our state’s constitution and laws purely for political purposes, and I intend to win,” he said at a news conference. (It would be easier to feel sorry for Perry if he expressed similar concern about, say, the constitutional rights of those who were executed on his watch and with his support.)

So Perry may have a point, but he also has a problem. Prosecutors have wide, almost unlimited, latitude to decide which cases to bring. The reason is obvious: there is simply no way that the government could prosecute every violation of law it sees. Think about tax evasion, marijuana use, speeding, jay-walking—we’d live in a police state if the government went after every one of these cases. (Indeed, virtually all plea bargaining, which is an ubiquitous practice, amounts to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.) As a result, courts give prosecutors virtual carte blanche to bring some cases and ignore others. But, once they do bring them, courts respond to the argument that “everyone does it” more or less the same way that your mother did. It’s no excuse. So if Perry’s behavior fits within the technical definition of the two statutes under which he’s charged, which it well might, he’s probably out of luck.

The President is relying on the same concept of discretion to push immigration reform, even though Congress has refused to pass a law to do so. The legislative branch writes the laws, which define the classes of people who are subject to deportation. But it is the executive branch that decides which actual individuals it will pursue and deport. Over the past several years, the Obama Administration has used its discretion to allow more immigrants to stay. During the 2012 campaign, the President announced his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which amounted to a kind of administrative DREAM Act. It limited the number of deportations of people who had been children when they were brought illegally to this country, provided they meet certain other conditions. The legality of DACA has not been successfully challenged.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited. The executive branch can refrain from prosecuting certain individuals, but it cannot, in theory, offer immunity to entire classes of law-breakers. Nor can a prosecutor only charge people of a certain race, or, for that matter, political party. But it’s hard to know who would have standing to challenge a failure to bring a criminal case or a deportation. The rules of standing are usually limited to individuals who have suffered a specific harm, and there’s no harm in not being prosecuted. (The New Republic has a useful primer on the subject. )

That sort of limitation on prosecutorial discretion is unlikely to help Rick Perry. His complaint is that the prosecutor is bringing one case too many, not too few. That claim, almost invariably, is a loser. So, it turns out, may be the soon-to-be-former governor.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Disease of American Democracy Print
Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:35

Reich writes: "Americans are sick of politics. Only 13 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, a near record low. The President's approval ratings are also in the basement."

Economist, professor, author and political commentator Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
Economist, professor, author and political commentator Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)


The Disease of American Democracy

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

19 August 14

 

mericans are sick of politics. Only 13 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, a near record low. The President’s approval ratings are also in the basement.

A large portion of the public doesn’t even bother voting. Only 57.5 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in the 2012 presidential election.

Put simply, most Americans feel powerless, and assume the political game is fixed. So why bother?

A new study scheduled to be published in this fall by Princeton’s Martin Gilens and Northwestern University’s Benjamin Page confirms our worst suspicions.

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence on them of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups, and average citizens.

Their conclusion: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, lawmakers respond to the policy demands of wealthy individuals and monied business interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

Before you’re tempted to say “duh,” wait a moment. Gilens’ and Page’s data come from the period 1981 to 2002. This was before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in “Citizens United,” prior to SuperPACs, and before the Wall Street bailout.

So it’s likely to be even worse now.

But did the average citizen ever have much power? The eminent journalist and commentator Walter Lippman argued in his 1922 book “Public Opinion” that the broad public didn’t know or care about public policy. Its consent was “manufactured” by an elite that manipulated it. “It is no longer possible … to believe in the original dogma of democracy,” Lippman concluded.

Yet American democracy seemed robust compared to other nations that in the first half of the twentieth century succumbed to communism or totalitarianism.

Political scientists after World War II hypothesized that even though the voices of individual Americans counted for little, most people belonged to a variety of interest groups and membership organizations – clubs, associations, political parties, unions – to which politicians were responsive.

“Interest-group pluralism,” as it was called, thereby channeled the views of individual citizens, and made American democracy function.

What’s more, the political power of big corporations and Wall Street was offset by the power of labor unions, farm cooperatives, retailers, and smaller banks.

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith approvingly dubbed it “countervailing power.” These alternative power centers ensured that America’s vast middle and working classes received a significant share of the gains from economic growth.

Starting in 1980, something profoundly changed. It wasn’t just that big corporations and wealthy individuals became more politically potent, as Gilens and Page document. It was also that other interest groups began to wither.

Grass-roots membership organizations shrank because Americans had less time for them. As wages stagnated, most people had to devote more time to work in order to makes ends meet. That included the time of wives and mothers who began streaming into the paid workforce to prop up family incomes.

At the same time, union membership plunged because corporations began sending jobs abroad and fighting attempts to unionize. (Ronald Reagan helped legitimized these moves when he fired striking air traffic controllers.)

Other centers of countervailing power – retailers, farm cooperatives, and local and regional banks – also lost ground to national discount chains, big agribusiness, and Wall Street. Deregulation sealed their fates.

Meanwhile, political parties stopped representing the views of most constituents. As the costs of campaigns escalated, parties morphing from state and local membership organizations into national fund-raising machines.

We entered a vicious cycle in which political power became more concentrated in monied interests that used the power to their advantage – getting tax cuts, expanding tax loopholes, benefiting from corporate welfare and free-trade agreements, slicing safety nets, enacting anti-union legislation, and reducing public investments.

These moves further concentrated economic gains at the top, while leaving out most of the rest of America.

No wonder Americans feel powerless. No surprise we’re sick of politics, and many of us aren’t even voting.

But if we give up on politics, we’re done for. Powerlessness is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The only way back toward a democracy and economy that work for the majority is for most of us to get politically active once again, becoming organized and mobilized.

We have to establish a new countervailing power.

The monied interests are doing what they do best – making money. The rest of us need to do what we can do best – use our voices, our vigor, and our votes.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Ferguson Police Have a Card up Their Sleeve Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26125"><span class="small">Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 19 August 2014 09:33

Simpich writes: "The Ferguson Police Department has a plan for how to improve their image to a world stunned by the unfolding story of the shooting of Michael Brown: Make their new boss from the state highway patrol look bad. Make Michael Brown look bad. Make the protesters look bad. Make the entire Ferguson community look bad."

Police attacks in the media and on the streets continue to enflame the Ferguson community. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Police attacks in the media and on the streets continue to enflame the Ferguson community. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


The Ferguson Police Have a Card up Their Sleeve

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

19 August 14

 

he Ferguson Police Department has a plan for how to improve their image to a world stunned by the unfolding story of the shooting of Michael Brown: Make their new boss from the state highway patrol look bad. Make Michael Brown look bad. Make the protesters look bad. Make the entire Ferguson community look bad.

This Schadenfreude strategy was rolled out after the Ferguson police were ordered to step down as the lead agency in the field. Schadenfreude is what Germans say when they see someone taking pleasure in the sorrow of others.

Replacing a government actor when there is a “conflict of interest” is routinely done in the courts. When the district attorney’s office has a conflict of interest, they are “recused” and replaced by the state attorney general. When the Department of Justice has a conflict of interest, a special prosecutor is appointed. It’s unrealistic to expect the police to conduct themselves properly when civil unrest is caused by the actions of their own officer and their own possible cover-up.

Governor Jay Nixon’s appointment of Captain Ronald Johnson of the Missouri State Troopers as the new chief of operations set a mighty precedent, particularly when the community and the new chief had a love-in on Thursday night at their first encounter.

Holding up a photo of Brown, Johnson said, “This is why we are here.”

One headline read, “In a Stunning Reversal, Police Join Protest.” Captain Johnson, an African American, ordered his forces to put away the camo uniforms, tear gas masks, and armored vehicles. The result was the calming down of a righteously furious community.

This was a moment that could have created a sea change in the national dialogue on police brutality and the call for the de-militarization of law enforcement.

However, the Ferguson Police Department was not willing to be the goat in this drama – at least, not without a fight.

Other allies of the Ferguson police were also hating this moment. The county prosecutor, Bob McCullough, described the governor’s decision to put the state troopers in charge as “disgraceful” and “shameful.” This is the man who will conduct the prosecution if Officer Darren Wilson is indicted by the grand jury.

The Ferguson cops had a card up their sleeve, as Governor Nixon assured their department that they would maintain control over the Brown investigation.

The Brown family attorney and others say that the Ferguson police blindsided the family and Captain Johnson with their Friday morning strategem of releasing a video apparently revealing Michael Brown stealing cigars inside the Ferguson Market minutes before his death. Content of the video had been withheld from the family for six days following Brown’s death on Saturday.

The U.S. Justice Department strongly advised the Ferguson police not to release the video. Captain Johnson confined himself to saying that the information “could have been put out in a different way.” Congressman William Clay was blunt: “They have attempted to taint the investigation ... they are trying to influence a jury pool by the stunt they pulled today.”

Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson then proceeded to change his story throughout Friday afternoon, going back and forth on whether or not Officer Wilson knew that Brown was a robbery suspect before he shot him. Meanwhile, Jackson refused to release the crucial incident report of Brown’s killing.

Governor Nixon said he had no knowledge that the video was going to be released. He told CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday that the video “had an incendiary effect.” “When you see your son gunned down in the street and then you see a police chief begin an attempt to attack his character, that’s just not the way to operate, and we’ve made that clear to everyone,” he said.

Captain Johnson defended the right of protesters to be boisterous on Friday night in exercising their First Amendment rights, while indicating that he disagreed with the release of the video. He commented that a lot of people in the crowd may have committed crimes in the past, but “they’re still standing here.”

After a peaceful Thursday, Friday was initially more positive, even with the rekindled anger in the community. Some cops in riot gear and armored vehicles decided to enflame things again at 11 pm by firing mace and smoke bombs at people who refused to “clear the street.” Tweets at the scene illustrate that the fight was now between the protesters who wanted to keep the peace and those who wanted to loot. Police who had guarded Ferguson’s Market earlier in the night disappeared from the scene, and looting began. When the governor declared a state of emergency on Saturday and imposed a curfew, that increased the tension in the streets even further. The protests in Ferguson and elsewhere are not going to stop at a given hour – or anytime soon.

On Sunday, Governor Nixon blamed the Ferguson police for the renewed violence, telling “Face the Nation” that the release of the Brown video “had an incendiary effect.” He also told prosecutor Bob McCullough to “step up” and “do his job.” The grand jury will finally be empaneled to hear evidence against the officer this week.

Meanwhile, there was a standing ovation for Captain Johnson at the Michael Brown memorial at the Greater Grace Church in Ferguson. During his remarks, Johnson said, “I will protect your right to protest,” and then turned to Brown’s family: “My heart goes out to you. I’m sorry.” This story has just begun.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Widespread Support for Sending Politicians to Prison for Ninety-Nine Years Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 18 August 2014 14:10

Borowitz writes: "Last week's indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry has sparked widespread bipartisan support for the concept of sending politicians to prison for ninety-nine years."

Texas governor Rick Perry. (photo: AP)
Texas governor Rick Perry. (photo: AP)


Widespread Support for Sending Politicians to Prison for Ninety-Nine Years

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

18 August 14

 

ast week’s indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry has sparked widespread bipartisan support for the concept of sending politicians to prison for ninety-nine years.

While Americans are divided about the merits of the specific charges levelled against Perry, there is near-unanimous agreement that imprisoning politicians for ninety-nine years is an idea worth exploring further, a poll released on Monday indicates.

According to the poll, eighty-seven per cent of voters from both parties agreed that sending politicians to prison for such a lengthy period would “solve a lot of problems” and “make the country safer.”

Additionally, when asked to name one politician they would like to see incarcerated for ninety-nine years, voters easily rattled off a dozen or more such candidates, with some voters naming as many as fifty.

Finally, when informed that imprisoning politicians for ninety-nine years might lead to overcrowding that would require the construction of costly new prisons, eighty-three per cent agreed with the statement, “Money is no object.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Powerful 'Group Think' on Ukraine Print
Monday, 18 August 2014 14:08

Parry writes: "When even smart people like economist Paul Krugman buy into the false narrative about the Ukraine crisis, it's hard to decide whether to despair over the impossibility of America ever understanding the world's problems or to marvel at the power of the U.S. political/media propaganda machine to manufacture its own reality."

Vladimir Putin. (photo: unknown)
Vladimir Putin. (photo: unknown)


The Powerful 'Group Think' on Ukraine

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

18 August 14

 

hen even smart people like economist Paul Krugman buy into the false narrative about the Ukraine crisis, it’s hard to decide whether to despair over the impossibility of America ever understanding the world’s problems or to marvel at the power of the U.S. political/media propaganda machine to manufacture its own reality.

On Monday, Krugman’s New York Times column accepts the storyline that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin instigated the Ukraine crisis and extrapolates from that “fact” the conclusion that perhaps the nefarious Putin did so to engineer a cheap land grab or to distract Russians from their economic problems.

“Delusions of easy winnings still happen,” Krugman wrote. “It’s only a guess, but it seems likely that Vladimir Putin thought that he could overthrow Ukraine’s government, or at least seize a large chunk of its territory, on the cheap — a bit of deniable aid to the rebels, and it would fall into his lap. …

“Recently Justin Fox of the Harvard Business Review suggested that the roots of the Ukraine crisis may lie in the faltering performance of the Russian economy. As he noted, Mr. Putin’s hold on power partly reflects a long run of rapid economic growth. But Russian growth has been sputtering — and you could argue that the Putin regime needed a distraction.”

Or you could look at the actual facts of how the Ukraine crisis began and realize that it was the West, not Russia, that instigated this crisis. Putin’s response has been reactive to what he perceives as threats posed by the violent overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych and the imposition of a new Western-oriented regime hostile to Moscow and Ukraine’s ethnic Russians.

Last year, it was the European Union that was pushing an economic association agreement with Ukraine, which included the International Monetary Fund’s demands for imposing harsh austerity on Ukraine’s already suffering population. Political and propaganda support for the EU plan was financed, in part, by the U.S. government through such agencies as the National Endowment for Democracy.

When Yanukovych recoiled at the IMF’s terms and opted for a more generous $15 billion aid package from Putin, the U.S. government ratcheted up its support for mass demonstrations aimed at overthrowing Yanukovych and replacing him with a new regime that would sign the EU agreement and accept the IMF’s demands.

As the crisis deepened early this year, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics, particularly the threat of terrorist attacks on the games. No evidence has been presented that Putin was secretly trying to foment the Ukraine crisis. Indeed, all the evidence is that Putin was trying to protect the status quo, support the elected president and avert a worse crisis.

Moscow supported Yanukovych’s efforts to reach a political compromise, including a European-brokered agreement for early elections and reduced presidential powers. Yet, despite those concessions, neo-Nazi militias surged to the front of the protests on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their lives. The U.S. State Department quickly recognized the coup regime as “legitimate.”

Since the new regime also took provocative steps against the ethnic Russians (such as the parliament voting to ban Russian as an official language), resistance arose to the coup regime in the east and south. In Crimea, voters opted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a process supported by Russian troops stationed in Crimea under a prior agreement with Ukraine’s government.

There was no Russian “invasion,” as the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets claimed. The Russian troops were already in Crimea assigned to Russia’s historic naval base at Sebastopol. Putin agreed to Crimea’s annexation partly out of fear that the naval base would otherwise fall into NATO’s hands and pose a strategic threat to Russia.

But the key point regarding Krugman’s speculation about Putin provoking the crisis so he could seize territory or distract Russians from economic troubles is that Putin only annexed Crimea because of the ouster of Yanukovych. If Yanukovych had not been overthrown, there is no reason to think that Putin would have done anything regarding Crimea or Ukraine.

It’s also true that the Feb. 22 coup was partly engineered by the U.S. government led by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who had been an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and who is married to arch-neocon Robert Kagan, one of the intellectual authors of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Before the Ukraine coup, Nuland, was caught in a phone conversation plotting with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine about who should replace Yanukovych. After the coup, her choice “Yats” – or Arseniy Yatsenyuk – emerged as the new prime minister and then shepherded through the IMF austerity plan.

But resistance to Kiev’s new rulers soon emerged in eastern Ukraine, which had been Yanukovych’s political base and stood to lose the most from Ukraine’s economic orientation toward Europe and reduced economic ties to Russia. Yet, instead of recognizing these understandable concerns of the eastern Ukrainians, the Western media portrayed the ethnic Russians as simply Putin’s pawns with no minds of their own.

I’m told that Moscow has provided some covert support for the eastern Ukrainian rebels (mostly light weapons), but that Putin has favored a political settlement (similar to what has been proposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel). The deal would grant eastern Ukraine more autonomy and accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea in exchange for peace in the east and some financial support from Russia for the Kiev government.

Yet, whatever anyone thinks of Putin or the proposed peace deal, it is simply inaccurate to assert a narrative claiming that Putin provoked the current crisis in Ukraine. The opposite is much closer to the truth. It is thus misguided for Krugman or anyone else to extrapolate from this false premise to deduce Putin’s “motives.”

Krugman, who has been one of the few rational voices on issues of global economics in recent years, should know better than anyone how a mistaken “group think” can create assumptions that will lead inevitably to wrongheaded conclusions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 Next > End >>

Page 2749 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