RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: Senator Warren Calls for End of US Support of War Crimes in Yemen Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 10 February 2019 15:07

Boardman writes: "There has never been any justification for the US to unleash this carnage on Yemen."

A woman hugs a child in Yemen. (photo: Abdul Jabbar Zeyad/Reuters)
A woman hugs a child in Yemen. (photo: Abdul Jabbar Zeyad/Reuters)


Senator Warren Calls for End of US Support of War Crimes in Yemen

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

10 February 19


Yemen is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. In 2018, an estimated 22.2 million people – 75 percent of the population were in need of humanitarian assistance. A total of 17.8 million people were food insecure and 8.4 million people did not know how to obtain their next meal. Conflict, protracted displacement, disease and deprivation continued to inflict suffering on the country’s population. Disruption to commercial imports, inflation, lack of salary payments to civil servants and rising prices of basic commodities exacerbated people’s vulnerability. Despite a difficult operating environment, throughout the year, 254 international and national partners actively coordinated to assist people with the most acute needs in priority districts across Yemen’s 22 governorates. Together they assisted over 7.9 million people monthly with some form of humanitarian assistance.


hat sanitized United Nations assessment above, horrific as it is in its abstract body-counting way, only begins to describe the terrible reality that foreign countries have inflicted on the poorest country in the region.

A starker reality is that the US has aided and abetted a criminal, genocidal war against Yemen, mostly carried out by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and several allies. From the beginning, this war has been a nexus of war crimes that included using cluster bombs on civilian targets, such as weddings, funerals, hospitals, and schools. The US was involved from the start in selecting those and other targets. The US provided intelligence, maintenance, mid-air refueling, and support for a naval blockade (an act of war) that helped starve a country that has always needed to import food to survive.

There has never been any justification for the US to unleash this carnage on Yemen. In 2014-2015, the native Houthis won a civil war and regained control of that part of Yemen they had previously controlled for hundreds of years. The internationally-imposed “legitimate” government fled to Saudi Arabia. Further Houthi expansion was limited by a variety of forces that included government loyalists, al Qaeda and ISIS enclaves, independent militias, and tribal resistance. Yemen might have been left to sort itself out (the Houthis did eliminate al Qaeda and ISIS from their area of control). In 2015, Yemen posed no serious threat to anyone other than itself.

But the Saudis were sulking, not only because they lost their puppet government in Yemen, but more so because the US was actually treating Iran as a sovereign nation capable of behaving responsibly under the proper circumstances. The US was joining in the multilateral agreement that has so far halted Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

So when Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) floated the idea of low-risk bombing of helpless people, the Obama administration collectively shrugged and said in effect: sure, why not, and we’ll even help you commit the international crime of waging aggressive war against a neighboring country in the midst of a civil war. And that’s what the US did. And that’s what the US is still doing. And the US thinks so little of its criminal bloodletting that the president doesn’t even mention it in his state of the union address, and most of Congress and the media and the public have no strong objection to a permanent state of war criminality. Well, 30 former Obama officials last fall said Trump should end all US support for the Saudi war on Yemen, without seriously taking responsibility for their own actions that could put them in a war crimes dock (if such a thing is still imaginable):

The statement by the former senior officials attempts to acknowledge that America’s participation in the war — providing intelligence, refueling, and logistical assistance to the Saudi-led coalition — was now clearly a mistake, given the coalition’s failure to limit its myriad violations and end the war. But they justify the Obama administration’s initial decision to support the war as based on “a legitimate threat posed by missiles on the Saudi border and the Houthi overthrow of the Yemeni government, with support from Iran.”

Iran’s involvement in Yemen has always been largely imaginary, and still is. But the Trump administration sees Iranian ghosties and ghoulies everywhere, without ever managing to demonstrate that they actually exist. Unfortunately for the Houthis, they are Shiite Muslims of their own sect – Zaydi – who have been targeted by Saudi Wahhabism for the past 40 years. Imagining Iran was just an excuse for the Saudis to continue their religious war by other means. In 2015, Iran “supported” the Houthis minimally, mostly diplomatically and politically. There has been no evidence that Iranian involvement has exceeded the scale described by Robert Worth, longtime reporter on Yemen, in the current New York Review:

Houthis have also benefitted – militarily at least – from their alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, which have provided training on infantry tactics, anti-tank fighting, mine-laying, and anti-ship attacks in the Red Sea. Iran has provided ballistic missiles that the Houthis have fired across the border into Saudi Arabia

That’s the whole load of Iranian “support” as iterated by Worth, who is no Houthi apologist. He gives no timeframe nor any measure of the extent of this support. Everything he lists is arguably defensive, including the missiles if they followed the Saudi bombing. But the Iranian strawman is rigidly fixed in the minds of US officials and media reporters, even Worth, who ignores his own later evidence and reflexively writes: “Huge obstacles to peace remain, above all the Houthis’ military alliance with Iran, which is what led the Saudis to launch the war in the first place.” So at least he acknowledges the Saudis waging aggressive war and even uses an apt Nazi reference to describe the Saudi mindset: “They consider the Houthis an Iranian dagger aimed at their heart.”

Southern Yemen is subject to something much more like a real Nazi occupation. Some uncertain amount of southern Yemen, including Aden, is titularly under the control of the “official” Yemeni government. The same area and beyond is more effectively under the control of the UAE military, whose shock troops include thousands of child soldiers from Somalia. The UAE works closely with US advisors on the ground. The UAE is reliably reported to run black sites, a network of secret prisons where they torture and kill prisoners at will. The US military officially testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 5 that the US has not observed such activities. The official US see-no-evil written statement on Yemen and the rest of the region is predictably optimistic and opaque.

Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned the US regional commander, Gen. Joseph L. Votel about UAE prisoner abuses reported by the United Nations, the Associated Press, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The general’s response was one of official ignorance or deniability: “I think what I’m saying to you is that we have no observations of our own – our people that have actually seen this.... I have not reached any kind of conclusion that they are conducting these activities….” By omission, the general made clear that the US has made no effort to determine the truth. This is the first rule of any cover-up: “I don’t want to know and you don’t want to know.” (Votel was equally oblivious to reports that Saudi and UAE military were illegally transferring US arms to militias and other third parties in Yemen.)

“Turning a blind eye is not acceptable,” was Warren’s response. Earlier in the hearing, following up on the US support for Saudi bombing missions, Warren said:

I'm asking you questions about the details of the help we give the Saudis because they continue to conduct bombing runs. They continue to perpetuate one of the worst man-made humanitarian disasters of the modern era. During this civil war, more than 85,000 children under the age of 5 have starved to death, and tens of thousands of civilians have been killed.
This military engagement is not authorized. We need to end U.S. support for this war now.

If this is the first time you’re learning about a US senator and presidential candidate publicly calling for the end of US involvement in the illegal war on Yemen, what does that tell you about American media and politics?

Meanwhile, the December ceasefire brokered by the UN continues to hold shakily, without significant US support, and the civilian death toll from hunger and disease mounts.

Email This Page


William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: My Last Words for America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50132"><span class="small">John D. Dingell, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 10 February 2019 12:40

Dingell writes: "One of the advantages to knowing that your demise is imminent, and that reports of it will not be greatly exaggerated, is that you have a few moments to compose some parting thoughts."

John D. Dingell in 2014. (photo: Jeff Kowalsky/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
John D. Dingell in 2014. (photo: Jeff Kowalsky/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)


My Last Words for America

By John D. Dingell, The Washington Post

10 February 19


John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who served in the U.S. House from 1955 to 2015, was the longest-serving member of Congress in American history. He dictated these reflections to his wife, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), at their home in Dearborn, on Feb. 7, the day he died.

ne of the advantages to knowing that your demise is imminent, and that reports of it will not be greatly exaggerated, is that you have a few moments to compose some parting thoughts.

In our modern political age, the presidential bully pulpit seems dedicated to sowing division and denigrating, often in the most irrelevant and infantile personal terms, the political opposition.

And much as I have found Twitter to be a useful means of expression, some occasions merit more than 280 characters.

My personal and political character was formed in a different era that was kinder, if not necessarily gentler. We observed modicums of respect even as we fought, often bitterly and savagely, over issues that were literally life and death to a degree that — fortunately – we see much less of today.

Think about it:

Impoverishment of the elderly because of medical expenses was a common and often accepted occurrence. Opponents of the Medicare program that saved the elderly from that cruel fate called it “socialized medicine.” Remember that slander if there’s a sustained revival of silly red-baiting today.

Not five decades ago, much of the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth — our own Great Lakes — were closed to swimming and fishing and other recreational pursuits because of chemical and bacteriological contamination from untreated industrial and wastewater disposal. Today, the Great Lakes are so hospitable to marine life that one of our biggest challenges is controlling the invasive species that have made them their new home.

We regularly used and consumed foods, drugs, chemicals and other things (cigarettes) that were legal, promoted and actively harmful. Hazardous wastes were dumped on empty plots in the dead of night. There were few if any restrictions on industrial emissions. We had only the barest scientific knowledge of the long-term consequences of any of this.

And there was a great stain on America, in the form of our legacy of racial discrimination. There were good people of all colors who banded together, risking and even losing their lives to erase the legal and other barriers that held Americans down. In their time, they were often demonized and targeted, much like other vulnerable men and women today.

Please note: All of these challenges were addressed by Congress. Maybe not as fast as we wanted, or as perfectly as hoped. The work is certainly not finished. But we’ve made progress — and in every case, from the passage of Medicare through the passage of civil rights, we did it with the support of Democrats and Republicans who considered themselves first and foremost to be Americans.

I’m immensely proud, and eternally grateful, for having had the opportunity to play a part in all of these efforts during my service in Congress. And it’s simply not possible for me to adequately repay the love that my friends, neighbors and family have given me and shown me during my public service and retirement.

But I would be remiss in not acknowledging the forgiveness and sweetness of the woman who has essentially supported me for almost 40 years: my wife, Deborah. And it is a source of great satisfaction to know that she is among the largest group of women to have ever served in the Congress (as she busily recruits more).

In my life and career, I have often heard it said that so-and-so has real power — as in, “the powerful Wile E. Coyote, chairman of the Capture the Road Runner Committee.”

It’s an expression that has always grated on me. In democratic government, elected officials do not have power. They hold power — in trust for the people who elected them. If they misuse or abuse that public trust, it is quite properly revoked (the quicker the better).

I never forgot the people who gave me the privilege of representing them. It was a lesson learned at home from my father and mother, and one I have tried to impart to the people I’ve served with and employed over the years.

As I prepare to leave this all behind, I now leave you in control of the greatest nation of mankind and pray God gives you the wisdom to understand the responsibility you hold in your hands.

May God bless you all, and may God bless America.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Mueller Is Laying Siege to the Trump Presidency Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50130"><span class="small">Mikhaila Fogel and Bejamin Wittes, The Atlantic</span></a>   
Sunday, 10 February 2019 09:36

Excerpt: "It happens this way every time: A big news event in the Trump-Russia investigation takes place, and commentators talk about it as though a house of cards were collapsing or a row of dominoes were falling."

Special Council and former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III. (photo: AP)
Special Council and former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III. (photo: AP)


Mueller Is Laying Siege to the Trump Presidency

By Mikhaila Fogel and Bejamin Wittes, The Atlantic

10 February 19


It won’t be a single news event that takes down the president.

oday is the first day I actually thought Donald Trump might not finish his term in office,” said the legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin on CNN last Thursday.

“This is the beginning of the end for Trump,” declared Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, on MSNBC.

“The deal may be among the biggest news in the nearly 18-month investigation,” wrote Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder, and Norman Eisen in The New York Times.

It happens this way every time: A big news event in the Trump-Russia investigation takes place, and commentators talk about it as though a house of cards were collapsing or a row of dominoes were falling. Each time, it’s the beginning of the end. Each indictment or plea is the “big one.” And then those expectations are disappointed. The sun rises the next day—in the east, as expected—and it sets in the west, as it did the day before. The Trump presidency endures.

This time it was the new plea deal from Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. On Thursday, Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of lying to Congress, related to how long into the 2016 campaign he pursued building Trump Tower Moscow—and who exactly was aware of his efforts. In the surprise criminal information that formed the basis of his plea, Cohen admitted that, although he had told Congress the project had ended in January 2016, in advance of the Iowa caucus, planning for the project continued well into June 2016. What’s more, a person named in the criminal information as “Individual 1” but identifiable as Trump, along with his family members and his campaign officials, were briefed on Cohen’s efforts along the way. Additionally, Cohen was in contact with senior Russian officials about the matter.

The admission that the Trump Organization was working secretly—colluding, one might say—with the Russian government on a business deal late into the campaign and that Trump knew about this activity led many observers, including those quoted above, to treat this latest plea as the turning point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

But the underlying metaphors are wrong. There is no sudden bend in the path of the investigation. There is no house of cards. The dominoes will not fall if gently tipped. The administration is not going to come crashing down in response to any single day’s events. The architecture of Trump’s power is more robust than that.

We need to stop thinking of it as a fragile structure waiting for the right poke to fall in on itself. Think instead of the myriad investigations and legal proceedings surrounding the president as a multi-front siege on a walled city that is, in fact, relatively well fortified.

Siege warfare is not a matter of striking precisely the correct blow at the correct moment at a particular stone in the wall. It is a campaign of degradation over a substantial period of time. While those inside the fortified city may rely only on the strength of their walls and their stored resources, the attackers can take their time. Volleys of projectiles—arrows or trebuchets—pepper the city walls and those atop them, while the strength of the defending army diminishes as soldiers slip away and food dwindles. Moreover, active conflict is an episodic, not a constant, feature of siege warfare; the enemy army can encamp outside the walled city and blockade it without firing a shot. Over time, the walls and defending forces become degraded to such a degree that the invaders are able to scale the walls and sack the city.

No, Mueller and his forces are not a Mongol horde, but the Trump White House is very much under siege.

Mueller’s army isn’t the only force encircling Trump’s fortress, but it is the largest and most active force, and it actually has several distinct encampments. One contingent of Mueller’s forces is charged with investigating efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election. In this capacity, the special counsel’s office has indicted individuals associated with the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm that has spread disinformation and propaganda on social media. His office also indicted 13 members of the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, in connection with deliberately hacking into the Democratic National Committee server and passing the fruits of that hack to WikiLeaks “to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

The immediate threat this particular force poses to the castle right now involves its evident interest in Roger Stone and the group of people around him. The GRU indictment does not name Stone, but he has publicly admitted that he is the person referred to in the indictment “who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump” and who corresponded with a fake hacktivist persona used by the Russians.

This front of the siege has become hot in recent months and will likely remain an area of intense activity over the coming weeks. Recently, Jerome Corsi publicly shared a draft statement of offense in connection with a plea agreement offered him by the special counsel’s office. The document details contact between Corsi and an individual reported to be Stone regarding WikiLeaks’ planned release of the hacked material. Moreover, in the coming weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to rule on whether Andrew Miller, another Stone associate, is obligated to testify before Mueller’s grand jury. Miller had appealed a contempt citation, contending that Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional. Stone and Corsi both seem to expect indictments.

This front is likely to remain active and to generate big news events. But note as well if and when either man or both face charges, that will not be the sky falling for Trump any more than last week’s Cohen plea was. It will be just another set of stones blasted out of the city walls.

Last week’s events revealed another force surrounding the castle, also under Mueller’s command: the investigation of Trump’s efforts to do financial business in Russia. The president, while insisting there was “NO Collusion with Russia,” admitted that he “lightly looked” into building a tower in Moscow months into the 2016 campaign. Trebuchets from the Cohen front sounded into Friday evening, when Cohen’s lawyers filed a sentencing memorandum as a follow-up to the guilty plea. In the memo, Cohen’s legal team said that Cohen “remained in close and regular contact with White House–based staff and legal counsel to Client-1,” another euphemism for Trump. It’s unclear to what extent this investigation is one and the same with the main Mueller collusion force, but it is evidently an active matter, too.

Mueller’s forces also include a major encampment focused on obstruction of justice. This force has so far not done anything the public can see, but it may be getting ready to launch some kind of report against the castle. And this report, whenever it materializes, may prove devastating. But note that the day such a report is completed will also not be the “big one”—the cataclysmic event that causes the house of cards to collapse. After all, any report would likely have to undergo a lengthy approval process, either from within the Justice Department or by the courts, or both. It might have to be approved by Matthew Whitaker, the acting attorney general, before being released. It may have significant classified components. Even if the findings in this report are of bombshell proportions, given that it is unlikely Mueller will reject Office of Legal Counsel guidelines against the indictment of a sitting president, the damage that bombshell will inflict will ultimately be determined by Congress, and its detonation would likely be substantially delayed.

The forces in the castle have actually fought off one part of the besieging fighters. Paul Manafort has floated in and out of headlines throughout the siege. He was the first person, along with his longtime business associate Rick Gates, to be charged by the special counsel in October 2017 for various financial crimes. After his first conviction and subsequent guilty plea and cooperation agreement, his “flipping” appeared to pose a major threat to Trump. But that threat seems to have passed. The special counsel has declared that Manafort is still lying and has breached his plea agreement, and will file a memo this week detailing the extent of Manafort’s breach. This sucks for Manafort, but it’s great news for the folks in the castle. He’s almost certainly useless at this stage as a witness for Mueller. The part of the siege represented by Manafort has, at least for now, lifted.

Possibly more threatening, if less high profile, is Michael Flynn, the former national-security adviser, who is expected to appear for sentencing on December 17. Flynn’s sentencing hearing has been delayed for months, signaling active cooperation of some sort. Back in December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in relation to conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He’s been silent since. Nobody knows what his cooperation with Mueller has consisted of—and thus how worried the forces in the castle should be about the Flynn encampment.

Cohen’s sentencing memo highlighted the presence of some allied forces around the castle separate from Mueller. It described, for example, Cohen’s cooperation with prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, the prosecutors who reached Michael Cohen’s first plea agreement back in August. You remember this force: Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts of tax evasion, one count of bank fraud, and two counts of campaign-finance violations involving hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. This front is also active. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that David Pecker, CEO of American Media Inc., has been granted immunity in the criminal investigation related to the investigation into Cohen. Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, was also granted limited immunity in this case. This front could explode at any time, but again, if and when it does so, the sun will rise and set the next day then too.

Cohen’s Saturday sentencing memo also put the spotlight on a non-federal front in this siege: New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood’s civil suit against the Trump Foundation for “a pattern of persistent illegal conduct, occurring over more than a decade,” for which she seeks $2.8 million in restitution. As the Cohen sentencing memo notes, Cohen has cooperated extensively with this suit as well as with investigations run by New York tax authorities.

There is also an encampment made up of private litigants. Trump is facing civil litigation regarding possible violation of the Emoluments Clause pending in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are Democrat lawmakers. He also faces additional lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of his appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general following the forced resignation of Jeff Sessions.

Finally, there’s the big new army marching on the Trump fortress, with an expected arrival of January 3, 2019: The leadership of the new Congress has already promised to intensify oversight of this administration. Representative Adam Schiff, incoming head of the House Intelligence Committee, has hinted at a restart of that committee’s moribund investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Other committees will be aggressive as well.

Meanwhile, the castle’s defenders are slipping away at night: John Dowd, the president’s personal lawyer, has left matters in the dubious hands of Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow. The White House counsel’s office is a ghost town. Ty Cobb and White House Counsel Don McGahn are both gone. The office now appears to be manned by acting White House Counsel Emmet Flood and a skeleton staff of 25 lawyers (of the estimated 40 it would require to handle its workload).

So what will the big one look like, if not some Mueller-lobbed bombshell? When the walls are finally breached, how will we know that it really is the beginning of the end? Here’s a hint: The big one will not be a legal development, an indictment, or a plea. It will be a political development—that moment when the American political system decides not to tolerate the facts available to it any longer. What does that look like? It looks like impeachment. It looks like enough Republicans breaking with the president to seriously jeopardize his chances of renomination or reelection. The legal developments will degrade the walls. But only this sort of political battering ram can breach them.

Not all sieges succeed. Mont-Saint-Michel, a tiny fortified island off the coast of France, withstood English siege for the entirety of the Hundred Years’ War. If the political system does not come to care about what we are learning, it doesn’t matter how many boulders Mueller hurls against the walls of Castle Trump; the forces laying siege to it will, like the defeated Ottoman Empire after the siege of Vienna, eventually slink away into the snow.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Will Hawaii Ban Purposeful Killing and Abuse of Sharks and Rays? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34942"><span class="small">Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Sunday, 10 February 2019 09:26

Chow writes: "Hawaiian lawmakers and conservationists are pushing for a landmark law to protect the Aloha State's sharks and rays."

Grey reef sharks at Maui Ocean Center. (photo: Joe Boyd/Flickr)
Grey reef sharks at Maui Ocean Center. (photo: Joe Boyd/Flickr)


Will Hawaii Ban Purposeful Killing and Abuse of Sharks and Rays?

By Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch

10 February 19

 

awaiian lawmakers and conservationists are pushing for a landmark law to protect the Aloha State's sharks and rays.

House Bill 808, which outlaws the intentional killing, capture, abuse or entanglement of sharks and rays in state marine waters, passed its first committee meeting on Wednesday. The upper chamber version, Senate Bill 489, secured its first committee approval late last month and passed a second reading on Monday.

If the proposal becomes law, Hawaii could be the first state in the nation to have such sweeping protections for the marine creatures, according to the Guardian.

Penalties for a first offense would range from $500 and goes up to $10,000 for a third or subsequent offense, according to a press release. Exemptions are allowed for research, cultural practices and public safety.

The bills were re-introduced on Jan. 18 by state Sen. Mike Gabbard, who chairs the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee, and state Rep. Nicole Lowen, who chairs the House Environmental Protection and Energy Committee.

Last year, a similar measure unanimously passed in the Senate but stalled in the House.

"As apex predators, sharks and rays help to keep the ocean ecosystem in balance, and protecting them from unnecessary harm is essential to the health of our coral reefs," Lowen said in the release. "I'm hopeful that this year will be the year that we are able to take this important step."

The measure has received support from people around the country, the Guardian reported, including Ocean Ramsey, a Hawaii-based marine biologist whose jaw-dropping photos with a massive great white shark went viral last month.

"These animals have been around for 450 million years, and during my lifetime so many of them will go extinct," she told the Guardian. "I want it to stop. It's not fair to them and it's not fair to future generations."

Hawaii already has one of the strongest anti-finning laws in the country. That law, which passed in 2010, also prohibits the possession of fins.

But the latest measure explicitly prohibits the intentional killing, capture, abuse or entanglement of sharks and rays, and also expands an existing prohibition on knowingly capturing or killing a manta ray to include all rays.

"Sharks (mano) and Rays (hihimanu) are key marine species, important to the resiliency of our oceans," Gabbard said in the release. "They deserve full protection under law from unnecessary killing or exploitation."

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Chris Christie's Agonizing New Memoir Print
Saturday, 09 February 2019 09:36

Taibbi writes: "Three years ago this week, on February 9th, 2016, Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide."

Chris Christie. (photo: Julio Cortez/AP)
Chris Christie. (photo: Julio Cortez/AP)


Chris Christie's Agonizing New Memoir

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

09 February 19


The inside story of the man who welcomed Donald Trump into the political mainstream and got nothing in return

hree years ago this week, on February 9th, 2016, Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide.

There were immediate whispers about which “normal” GOP candidate would be craven enough to drop out and legitimize Trump’s candidacy with an endorsement.

The man who made that historic decision, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, wants to tell you all about it now. The resulting memoir, Let Me Finish, is an epic literary self-own.

In the hands of a skilled memoirist, or even one with a half-percent more self-awareness, this could have been brilliant career-reviving satire, a political Leslie Nielsen act: I Sold My Soul to Donald Trump, and All I Got Was This Lousy Book Deal.

But Christie — who releases his book amid “news” he “won’t rule out” a presidential run in 2024 — can’t give up the dream of being taken seriously. So Let Me Finish ends up being a furious allegory about the perils of not being as smart as you think you are.

Christie was once an insider favorite to succeed Barack Obama as president. He was the Beltway’s idea of a “crossover” political star, i.e. mean enough to parallel park over a homeless person, but maybe able to name three good movies.

Magazines like Time (whose “Elephant In the Room” cover was one of several Christie features) test-marketed “The Boss” as a national leading man. By 2012-2013, pundits were praising him as a “straight shooter” who would make “tough choices” (read: cut services to keep billionaire tax rates low).

He was probably headed to the White House — until his staff was caught intentionally causing traffic jams on the George Washington bridge. This was reported to be an effort to punish Fort Lee mayor Mark Sokolich for not supporting Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election. “Bridgegate” instantly changed Christie’s rep, from an asshole with a future to just an asshole.

The first half of Let Me Finish shows Christie boasting about what a mean, uncompromising, double-dealing negotiator he is. He spends the second part, about Trump, complaining about being the victim of such a person.

As class president at Livingston High School, Christie supposedly outfoxed principal Al Berlin into letting the seniors continue a tradition of vandalizing the school roof with spray paint, letting him know they’d keep painting even if Berlin put “armed guards” on the roof. Moral of story: Christie is a rebel who gets what he wants.

In another story, meant to communicate the humanizing information that Christie enjoys sports, he describes refusing new wife Mary Pat’s request that he not watch the Mets while eating dinner she’s cooked. Christie tells her Dwight Gooden is pitching and he’s going to watch the game.

The man who knows most of America has seen this picture explains: “Until we got married, Mary Pat didn’t fully grasp how mammoth a baseball fan I was.”

Chris Christie doesn’t give an inch, not even for his wife. Political donors, however, are another thing.

When he first meets Trump socially in 2002 at the Jean-Georges restaurant at Trump Tower, Trump hilariously orders a complex meal for Christie, then U.S. Attorney of New Jersey:

Seared scallops and cauliflower with caper-raisin sauce as my appetizer… and roasted lamb loin for my entrée…

Christie is allergic to scallops and has “always hated lamb.” (It would be interesting to find out if Trump knew this in advance. I’d guess yes.) Inwardly, the prosecutor seethed:

Who does he think I am, ordering for me like that? One of his chicks?

Outwardly, what does Christie say? Nothing, adding, “I was just grateful the Jean-Georges portions weren’t too large.”

So Christie will not turn off a baseball game to eat his wife’s cooking, but he will eat shellfish he’s allergic to when served by a billionaire.

This narrative repeats itself after the 2016 New Hampshire primary, where Christie pinned his electoral hopes:

Our plan was to spend enough time in Iowa so no one could say I had skipped it but to devote most of our resources to famously independent-minded New Hampshire.

I’m sure the other reporters who covered Christie in Iowa (I only did one of his events there, thank God) are pleased to learn they helped him pretend to campaign in that state that year. The strategy failed and Christie finished sixth in New Hampshire.

When Trump cruised to victory in South Carolina 11 days later, Christie’s onetime finance chair, Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman, was almost too upset to speak. Not Christie, who was planning his next negotiating ploy: the swift, proactive surrender of his credibility. Who would see it coming? He recounts:

“I don’t want to believe it’s over,” Meg said. “We’ve got to figure out who to get behind.”

 “Meg,” I repeated. “It’s a folly. The voters have spoken. No one else is going to beat this guy.”

Christie next starts rationalizing his coming decision to Mary Pat: “We can sit on the sidelines… Or we can be with the guy we know is going to win.”

The Trumps and Christies for years had frequent “couples’ dinners” at places like the 21 Club. This relationship dated back to when Christie was chief federal law enforcement officer for New Jersey, and Trump merely an infamously shady Atlantic City casino owner en route to being party to at least 3,500 litigations.

Christie gives the flavor of these dinners, explaining Melania used to touch Trump’s forearm whenever she wanted to signal it was time to “let others get in a word.” Mary Pat’s real feelings about Trump shine through in Let Me Finish, even though Christie just describes her as being “exhausted” by these often “overwhelming” two-hour Trump-a-thons.

But Mary Pat relented in the end, and Christie announced his endorsement of Trump, becoming the first “mainstream” politician to do so (unless Sarah Palin counts). As Christie notes, Trump’s biggest backers at the time “included Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Jesse Ventura, Jerry Falwell Jr. …”

He endorsed despite the fact that Christie was one of Trump’s favorite trail targets. Trump even did improv recreations of Christie’s alleged meetings with Bridgegate conspirators: “Hey, uh, boss, we’re closing the George Washington Bridge tonight?” he’d say, adding, “I think they had breakfast like, every day.”

Christie claimed to be furious at Trump’s rants because “you don’t do that to a friend.” But he endorsed Trump anyway.

Why? Let Me Finish suggests it was partly to piss off John Kasich. The Ohio governor was feeling swaggy after mustering 15 whole points in a second place showing in New Hampshire, calling Christie to rub it in.

“You know what happened to you, don’t you, Chris?” Kasich tells him. “God wanted you to play right field, and you insisted on playing shortstop… And [in New Hampshire], you went out to shortstop, and the ball went through your legs…”

This scene captures the dynamic of the 2016 GOP primary. The clown car passengers spent a year backbiting over who’d be the “real” candidate, splitting the shallow-end vote just long enough to make Trump’s 25%-35% plurality look like a juggernaut.

Christie seems to have been the first in the race to realize Trump really could win. But he took until after New Hampshire to grasp this, and his first post-Eureka move was to jump in Trump’s lap.

Just a few sentences after telling us “my support wasn’t conditioned on anything,” Christie describes sitting across from Trump explaining the terms of his endorsement. “There are only two jobs I’m interested in,” he writes that he said. “Vice President or Attorney General. Other than that, I’m not really interested in anything.”

This was around the time Christie was enduring a joint appearance with Trump on Super Tuesday, when much of Twitter speculated the Jersey governor was being held hostage and blinking for help in Morse code.

In Let Me Finish, we learn Christie soldiered on, then expecting to be repaid with a high-level appointment. But the reader sees a mile away that Trump will screw Christie in the end. Christie not only didn’t get the Veep job (went to Mike Pence) or the Attorney General job (Jeff Sessions), he ended up with nothing. Worse, after each screwing, Trump kept making Christie beg for his next plate of scallops.

During the “veepstakes,” for instance, Trump calls Christie from Indiana on a night in which he had Pence introduce him at an event. To you and me, a big hint, but not to Christie, who is thrilled when Trump asks, “Are you ready?”

Christie asks: Ready for what?

“You know what,” Trump reportedly replies.

Christie here is reduced to asking Trump if he’s proposing. “Are you asking?” he says.

Trump says no and changes the subject. He then tells Christie he’s making his decision tomorrow. The reader sees Trump is pulling the old “How do you keep an idiot in suspense? I’ll tell you tomorrow” joke. But Christie recalls the scene with fondness:

As I got off the phone with Donald, the vice presidency didn’t feel like an exercise anymore or some theoretical possibility. It felt real. It felt likely…

Of course, it was neither real nor likely. There were a million reasons: Bridgegate was a repugnant political embarrassment even by Trumpian standards, Christie once prosecuted Jared Kushner’s Dad Charlie, and Trump was apparently peeved Christie was raising money to staff up a transition team (packing it with Christie pals like former chief of staff Rich Bagger and former law partner Bill Palatucci) early in the race.

Christie doesn’t bother to explain why he didn’t get the Attorney General job. He does go on to tell an even more humiliating story.

Trump, he writes, called after Election Day and said, “Are you willing to be chairman of the RNC?” This was after both Kushner and Bannon had told him conservative mega-patron Rebekah Mercer supposedly wanted him for the job. Christie, for the millionth time, jumps at a Trump offer, explaining that he’d love to run the RNC, so long as the Republican Party changes a restriction preventing him from collecting his gubernatorial salary.

“I love the idea,” he claims Trump said. “Let me get back to you.”

Trump schedules a meeting at Trump Tower for 3:45 p.m the following Wednesday to seal the deal. Christie shows up, but is told Trump is “running late” and asked to wait until 4:30. When 4:30 comes, he’s told Trump is “tied up,” and would he speak to Reince Priebus instead?

Mouth still firmly on the hook, Christie meets with Priebus, who of course tells him there’s no RNC job because Trump gave it to someone else (Mitt Romney’s niece Ronna McDaniel). While Christie throws a fit, Priebus in rapid succession tells him Trump has authorized him to offer him other positions.

Did Christie want to be Secretary of Labor? No? How about the head of Homeland Security? No? Would he take an ambassadorship to Italy? No? How about Vatican City?

It’s only at this point that Christie realizes he’s been had, and he trudges upstairs to “say goodbye” to Trump. The latter of course pretends not to know what the problem is and asks Christie to “come back here tomorrow.”

There’s suspense as we wait to see if Christie will take the bait one more time, but he doesn’t. This is the end of the inside account of Trumpland.

Legendary tough guy and breaker-of-balls Chris Christie sold his soul to get the Vice Presidency, and ended up being offered a one-way plane ticket to Vatican City — probably the only real offer he ever got. Despite where it comes from, it’s hard not to see the humor in this.

Christie sold us all out three years ago, and now, in print, he’s doing it to himself. That doesn’t make up for anything, but it is good for a laugh or two — which all too often is the most politics has to offer these days.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 Next > End >>

Page 980 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