RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Uncharted Territory Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 22 March 2017 08:46

Ash writes: "Don't make the mistake of believing that yesterday was just another day in Washington. It was anything but. You may think you know who James Comey is or Mike Rogers is, or what the Democrats or Republicans will ultimately do, but it cannot be known at this stage. Normal is off the rails, big time."

FBI Director James Comey testifying before congress on interactions between the Trump administration and Russia. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
FBI Director James Comey testifying before congress on interactions between the Trump administration and Russia. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Uncharted Territory

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

22 March 17

 

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”
– FBI Director James Comey, before Congress, March 20, 2017

on’t make the mistake of believing that yesterday was just another day in Washington. It was anything but. You may think you know who James Comey is or Mike Rogers is, or what the Democrats or Republicans will ultimately do, but it cannot be known at this stage. Normal is off the rails, big time.

For context, go back and listen to Comey’s testimony, and every time the Democrats ask him if he has evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Putin government, he says, “I can’t answer that.” That most likely means “yes.” In fact there is little doubt that substantial evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives in the run-up to the election does exist, in abundance. So much so that analysts are wondering why the Russians did not do more to conceal their incursions.

Democratic House members Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Jackie Speier were brutal. Each asked detailed, precise questions citing specific communications and events involving Donald Trump his closest supporters and Russian functionaries in the lead-up to the November 8th, 2016, U.S. presidential elections. Each time they asked, Comey was forced to say, “I can’t answer that.” A full list of questions Director Comey declined to answer appears below.

Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, looked the part and pressed his case relentlessly. There were no witnesses and no responses, but he left no doubt that if there had been, he had the goods.

Try not to lose sight of the big picture: The FBI is investigating the president of the United States and his closest advisors for ties to to the Russian government. Specifically, to determine if the president won the election with the aid of Russian actors. That is, in political terms, a nuclear bombshell and foreshadows the very real likelihood of a constitutional crisis.

Cautionary Takeaways

Anti-Russian demagoguery ran rampant during yesterday’s proceeding. Russia was defined as an adversary, an armed invader of Crimea, and a suppressor of democratic institutions worldwide, among other things. For such accusations to be leveled by American members of Congress invites well deserved counter-accusations from nations around the world. Beware the new red scare. It appears to be coming.

The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch could factor into this equation. If confirmed, Gorsuch could potentially participate in any cases related to the Trump administration or its Russian entanglements that might come before the court. If it comes to that. So yes, the Gorsuch hearings matter.

Fasten your seat belts, folks. This has the potential to get very wild and crazy. We live in interesting times.

List of questions Comey declined to answer via CNBC:

[Be aware that this list of questions does not by any means encompass the entire scope of alleged (often documented) contacts between Trump, Trump associates, Trump officials, Trump family members, and Putin government players. It merely recaps the questions that were asked at yesterday’s hearing. – ma]

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: “Was there any request made by the FBI or Justice Department to wiretap Donald Trump, turned down by a court?”

Schiff: “Are you aware that [Roger Stone] was a partner of Paul Manafort?” (Stone has been an advisor to Trump. Manafort was the Trump’s campaign chairman until he resigned in August.)

Schiff: “Do you know how Mr. Stone would have known that Mr. Podesta’s emails were going to be released?” (John Podesta was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.)

Schiff: “Do you know that Mr. Podesta has said that at the time he was not even aware of whether his emails that had been stolen would be published?”

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala.: “Can you say with any specificity what kind of coordination or contacts you’re looking at in your investigation generally when confronted with something like this?”

Sewell: “Can you discuss whether or not there was any knowledge by any Trump-related person and the Russians?”

Sewell: “Can you characterize what the nature of your investigation generally — when you do an investigation of this sort — can you talk a little bit about the process, generally?”

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.: “Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post?”

Gowdy: “Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?”

Gowdy: “Director Comey, there’s been some speculation this morning on motive. I’m not all that interested in motive. First of all, it’s really hard to prove. Secondarily, you never have to prove it. But I get that people want to know. I get the jury always wants to know why. I think you and I can agree there are a couple of reasons that you would not have to unlawfully, feloniously disseminate classified material. It certainly wasn’t done to help an ongoing criminal investigation, because you already had the information, didn’t you?”

Schiff: “Director Comey, are you aware that Roger Stone played a role on the Trump campaign?”

Schiff: “Have you read press reports where Mr. Stone proudly boasts of engaging in political dirty tricks?”

Schiff: “I mentioned before that Mr. Stone was in direct communication with a creature of Russian G.R.U. — ‘Guccifer 2.0’ — and that’s something the intelligence assessment talked about, the role of ‘Guccifer 2.0.’ Mr. Stone, on August 17— are you aware — received communication from ‘Guccifer 2.0’ that said, ‘I’m pleased to say that you are great. Please let me know if I can help you anyhow. It would be a great pleasure to me.’ Are you aware of that communication from, essentially from Russian G.R.U. through ‘Guccifer 2.0’ to Mr. Stone?”

Schiff: “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with Julian Assange and Wikileaks?”

Schiff: “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also claimed that he was in touch with an intermediary of Mr. Assange”

Schiff: “In early October, are you aware that Mr. Stone tweeted, “I have total confidence that my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon”? Are you aware of that tweet?

Schiff: “And are you aware that it was only days later that Wikileaks released the Podesta emails?”

Rep. Himes, D.-Conn.: “Paul Manafort, as reported in The New York Times and other outlets, and his deputy, Rick Gates, ran a campaign in Washington to lobby government officials and push positive press coverage of pro-Russian Ukrainian officials. Paul Manafort began officially working for former Ukrainian President Yanukovych at least as far back as 2007, according to The Washington Post. It was only discovered by Ukraine’s new national anti-corruption bureau, which found secret ledgers in Kiev indicating almost $13 million in undisclosed cash payments from Ukrainian government coffers to Paul Manafort for lobbying done between 2007 and 2012 for Mr. Yanukovych. Director Comey, did Paul Manafort ever register as a foreign agent under FARA [Foreign Agent Registration Act]?”

Himes: “Paul Manafort was, however, Donald Trump’s campaign manager in July of 2016, correct?”

Himes: “Have you been asked to provide assistance to the current Ukrainian government with respect to Paul Manafort, and how do you intend to respond to that request?

Himes: “The story says that the DOJ confirmed that there have been requests for assistance on this matter. You can’t go as far as confirming that, in fact, there have been these requests made?”

Sewell: “Does the FBI generally assume that Russian ambassadors to the United States, like Ambassador Kislyak, are at least overtly collecting intelligence on influential Americans, especially political leaders?”

Sewell: “Would someone like Ambassador Kislyak play [the role of a spy acting as a diplomat] for Russia?”

Rep. Devin Nunes, R.-Calif.: “Do you think that [inaudible] Russians would not be trained to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s campaign, get information on Hillary Clinton and try to get to people that are around that campaign or The Clinton Foundation?”

Rep. Peter King, R.-N.Y.: “Do either you or Adm. Rogers have any reason to disagree with the conclusion of Gen. Clapper that there’s no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?”

Schiff: “I’m not going to put you in the spot of answering whether this is an accurate characterization of Mr. Trump’s views, but it would be logical for the Kremlin to want someone [elected president] who had a dim view of NATO?”

Schiff: “Would [the Russians] have a preference for a candidate that expressed an openness repealing the sanctions over Ukraine?”

Sewell: “I’m sure you can understand my concern that Mr. Flynn not only failed to disclose the contacts with the Russian ambassador, but he said he did not remember whether he discussed sanctions against Russia with that ambassador. I find that really hard to believe. Wouldn’t you think that at the height of our concern about Russian hacking that Mr. Flynn would have remembered meeting with the Russian ambassador and would have told him to stop meddling in our affairs, but that didn’t happen, did it?”

Sewell: “Now, Mr. Comey, do you think that Mr. Flynn’s failure to disclose the communication and contact he had with the Russian ambassador and their topic of conversation, along with the blatant lie to Vice President Pence meet the standard for an investigation by the FBI?”

Sewell: “Given Russia’s long-standing desire to cultivate relations with influential U.S. persons, isn’t the American public right to be concerned about Mr. Flynn’s conduct? His failure to disclose that contact with the Russian ambassador, his attempts to cover it up and what looks like the White House’s attempts to sweep this under the rug — don’t we, as American people, have a right to know and shouldn’t our FBI investigate such claims?”


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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
 
The Government Is Trying to Name and Shame Local and State Police Departments That Won't Do Their Bidding Print
Wednesday, 22 March 2017 08:38

Powell writes: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement yesterday released its first report attempting to name and shame police departments that require more than ICE's say-so in order to hold someone in jail."

ICE agent. (photo: ACLU/Wikimedia Commons)
ICE agent. (photo: ACLU/Wikimedia Commons)


The Government Is Trying to Name and Shame Local and State Police Departments That Won't Do Their Bidding

By Domenic Powell, ACLU

22 March 17

 

mmigration and Customs Enforcement yesterday released its first report attempting to name and shame police departments that require more than ICE’s say-so in order to hold someone in jail. This is just the Trump administration’s latest attempt to smear sanctuary cities, but it’s also a trap for local law enforcement—ICE could be shaming them into violating your rights.

In the FAQ for the report, ICE goes out of its way to suggest that a detainer is something that it isn’t—a simple request to know when someone is being let out of jail. But that simply isn’t true. A detainer is a request to hold someone in jail, often longer than the local law enforcement agency is legally allowed. Doing so can lead to illegal arrests and the violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

ICE claims in the FAQ that detainers are backed by probable cause. Often, they are not. Within a four-year period under the Secure Communities program, which allowed ICE to receive information from nearly every jail in the United States, ICE placed detainers on 834 U.S. citizens across the country, according to the government’s own data. As ICE hires 10,000 more agents, reintroduce Secure Communities, and issues more and more detainers, local police are simply gambling away the constitutional rights of their community.

Multiple federal courts have reaffirmed what detainers are: New arrests that, absent any individual determination of probable cause, violate an individual’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The ACLU has regularly represented people who have had their rights violated after being held on detainers, including U.S. citizens.

Like Trump himself, ICE seems to pay little deference to the judicial branch. In fact, it explicitly singles out Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office for turning down detention requests, even though New Orleans is legally bound to its policy under court order. It is deeply troubling that ICE would attempt to shame a sheriff for obeying the federal courts.

ICE knows perfectly well what the problems with detainers are — law enforcement officers are telling them too, not just the ACLU and immigrants’ rights activists. “You can’t just pick up the phone and say, ‘Please hold an individual,’” said Jonathan F. Thompson, executive director of National Sheriffs’ Association. Yet, that’s exactly what ICE wants to shame local police into doing.

Local governments have paid a heavy price for mistakenly placing their trust in ICE. Because detainers are requests, local police departments are liable for choosing to honor them. Some cities have paid thousands of dollars in damages after holding someone on a detainer request from ICE. More importantly, many law enforcement officers across the country have decided that stopping ICE from interfering with their work is vital to their public safety mission, and allowing that interference to continue harms it.

We should all be disturbed by ICE’s use of propaganda to try and coerce communities into doing something that they believe makes them less safe. In fact, contrary to what ICE wants you to believe, sanctuary cities generally are safer than other localities. Under President Trump, we are already seeing an ICE unleashed, willing to disrespect the rule of law in its mission to deport every immigrant it can. Local police should do right by their residents and not give in to ICE’s petty scare tactics.

In the immigrants’ rights movement, we say that “the only ‘secure community’ is an organized one.” If you want to keep your community whole, fight for your town to protect the rights of immigrants — and all residents. One way to start now is working to enact some of the policies in our Freedom Cities initiative, which are designed to stop ICE’s harmful practices. You can also help by distributing our Know Your Rights materials and finding others who want to fight together locally.

Because when we fight together, we win.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Lethal Threat Print
Wednesday, 22 March 2017 08:34

O'Brien writes: "Tyler Prescott grew up in San Diego. He was an avid piano player, an animal lover, and a talented writer. According to his mother, Katharine Prescott, he was, most of all, a deeply compassionate young man."

A rally for transgender youth in Washington, DC on February 22, 2017. (photo: Ted Eytan/Flickr)
A rally for transgender youth in Washington, DC on February 22, 2017. (photo: Ted Eytan/Flickr)


Trump's Lethal Threat

By Keegan O'Brien, Jacobin

22 March 17

 

Donald Trump’s administration has already proven deadly for trans youth. It’s up to the Left to fight the new attacks.

yler Prescott grew up in San Diego. He was an avid piano player, an animal lover, and a talented writer. According to his mother, Katharine Prescott, he was, most of all, a deeply compassionate young man.

Kyler was also transgender and dealt with bullying in school, online harassment, and constant misgendering. Like many transgender teens, he struggled with depression and suicide. When he was thirteen, he wrote a poem about the heartache of a boy forced into a gender he never identified with:

I’ve been looking for him for years,
But I seem to grow farther away from him
With each passing day.
He’s trapped inside this body,
Wrapped in society’s chains
That keep him from escaping.

But one day I will break from those chains.
One day I will set him free.
And I’ll finally like in the mirror.
And see me —
The boy I was always meant to be.

Less than a year later, on May 18, 2015, Kyler locked himself inside his family’s bathroom and committed suicide. He was fourteen years old. He was the third transgender teenager in San Diego to commit suicide in 2015.

Fast forward to February 27, 2017: twenty-six-year-old Ciara McElveen was in New Orleans celebrating Mardi Gras with friends when she was ripped out of her car, stabbed multiple times, run over by the vehicle, and left to die.

Two days earlier, thirty-one-year-old Chyna Gibson was shot to death outside a shopping center in the same city. Both were black and transgender. As of the writing of this article, seven transgender women, all women of color, have been murdered in 2017.

Doing Harm

This is the social context for transgender people in the United States as the Trump administration’s rescinded guidelines put in place under Obama directing schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.

In his statement to the media, White House press secretary Sean Spicer had the audacity to claim that “the president has maintained for a long time that this is a states’ rights issue and not one for the federal government.”

Bullshit. This is a direct attack on transgender people and an effort to scapegoat society’s most vulnerable and marginalized.

While transgender students remain protected from discrimination under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding, the Trump administration’s attack on transgender students will be felt in schools across the country.

Also as a result of Trump’s executive order, the case of Gavin Grimm, a seventeen-year-old transgender boy who is suing for access to the boys’ bathroom at his school in Virginia, has been delayed. Grimm’s case had been scheduled to go before the Supreme Court later this month, but it will now be kicked back down to a lower court. It may take years for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Trump’s order will make it more challenging for transgender students and their families to advocate for their legal rights, embolden right-wing students, parents, teachers, and administrators, and create more hardship for transgender kids on a day-to-day basis in the classroom.

What Trump has done is illegal. All schools have an obligation to provide students with a safe environment to learn, foster positive emotional development and social relationships, and develop to their fullest potential. This includes having the freedom to express your gender identity without fear of harassment or violence.

For transgender students who experience rejection from families, schools have the potential to be affirming and supportive institutions that can provide mental health services, educational resources and important medical needs. Unfortunately, for too many, they are the opposite.

In a 2011 study, 82 percent of transgender youth reported feeling unsafe at school, 44 percent experienced physical abuse, and 67 percent were bullied online by peers. In a social climate like this, Trump’s executive order will have deadly consequences.

“The reality is that kids will be harmed by this,” Chase Strangio, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS Project, explained in an interview with Democracy Now! “I can’t say it more strongly, but the blood is on the hands of these lawmakers, who are making it a priority to make vulnerable kids feel less safe.”

The right wing has tried to whip up a moral panic about transgender people using the bathroom to assault women and children to regain ideological ground lost since their decisive defeat in the battle for marriage equality.

But contrary to bigoted hysteria, there have been zero reported incidents of transgender students physically attacking or sexually assaulting anyone in restrooms or locker rooms.

There are, however, horrifying stories of trans people being harassed, brutally assaulted, and even killed for simply using the bathroom or even merely existing.

When class, race, and gender identity are viewed simultaneously the statistics are horrifying: trans women of color make up 67 percent of LGBT homicides and have a life expectancy of thirty-five years. When it comes to safety, it’s clear whose lives are in danger: transgender people, particularly transgender women of color.

Claiming that Trump, a misogynist and admitted sexual predator, cares about the well-being of women and children is disgusting. It’s right-wing politicians who lay off teachers, restrict women’s access to abortion, cut funding for food stamps, close rape crisis centers, tear apart immigrant families, and defend police brutality that are a threat to women and children, not transgender people.

Trump’s Scapegoats

Trump won support in the last election by tapping into widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo and promising to “Make America Great Again.” Instead, he’s offering massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations, lower wages, and deeps cuts to domestic social program, including public education.

As it becomes obvious that the Trump administration won’t make good on its promises, it will double down on scapegoating and attacks against the most vulnerable to maintain support and redirect anger away from them and toward other workers — immigrants, Arabs and Muslims, African Americans, and LGBTQ people.

Given the centrality of scapegoating to Trump’s economic nationalism and his brutal austerity agenda, winning this fight will take more than a talented team of lawyers in the courtroom or relying on halfhearted “allies” in the Democratic Party.

The inspiring wave of airport occupations across the country pressured federal judges to overturn Trump’s racist Muslim ban within days and demonstrated the collective social power that ordinary people have to resist and win.

Supporters of transgender equality will need to revive the same kind of mass militancy to reverse Trump’s attack and move toward winning the supportive schools that all students deserve and the funding and resources to make that possible.

That can begin with organizing for the National LGBT March in Washington, DC, on June 11 to send a clear message that millions stand with transgender students and are ready to take this fight all the way.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Russians Hit Democracy Already Damaged by Republicans Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 21 March 2017 14:08

Boardman writes: "FBI Director Comey let loose the mechanical rabbit of Russian interference and now all the political greyhounds are chasing it around a circular track is if it were a real quarry worth catching. That gives them all deniability for ignoring the bigger, fatter elephants in the room that actually need to be addressed."

FBI Director James Comey looks on during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Russian actions during the 2016 election campaign. (photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)
FBI Director James Comey looks on during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Russian actions during the 2016 election campaign. (photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)


Russians Hit Democracy Already Damaged by Republicans

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

21 March 17

 

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president [sic] election….”
– FBI Director James Comey, Congressional testimony, March 20, 2017

BI Director Comey let loose the mechanical rabbit of Russian interference and now all the political greyhounds are chasing it around a circular track is if it were a real quarry worth catching. That gives them all deniability for ignoring the bigger, fatter elephants in the room that actually need to be addressed.

The dominant narrative for the March 20 open hearing of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was set in the committee’s naming of “its investigation into Russian active measures during the 2016 election campaign.” Committee chairman Devin Nunes, a California Republican who has resisted any investigation into Russian ties with the Trump campaign or administration, set a sharp anti-Russian tone with his opening statement that blames the Obama administration for ignoring the committee’s warnings. Nunes framed the hearing with his limited exoneration of the Trump operation: “Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said publicly he’s seen no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and I can say that the Committee, too, has seen no evidence to date that officials from any campaign conspired with Russian agents.”

Ohio Republican Mike Turner had a darker view, saying, “There is now a cloud over our [election] system…. The goal of the Russians is to put a cloud on our system.” Mike Rogers, Director of the National Security Agency, agreed that 2016 campaign activities were “calling into question our democratic process.” And Comey said Russian efforts “introduced chaos and discord and sowed doubt” and have worked to undermine and threaten our “wonderful free and fair election system.”

These sentiments, echoed over and over like a conventional wisdom mantra, are really ridiculous. Yes, the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, and maybe even influenced it. Yes, Trump operatives had contact with Russian operatives, and they may even have colluded. Yes, these are real problems, but it’s a groupthink deception, and self-deception, to treat them as if they comprise the entire problem with the American election system.

American elections went off the rails more than two decades ago and they’re been getting worse ever since. Everyone knows this, the government knows this, Congress knows this – and they do nothing to make it better, they work only to make it seem better. The history is in plain sight for anyone who wants to see it, starting well before the 2000 election.

Money in Politics

Corrupt fundraising from corporations and individuals was one of the major elements in Nixon’s 1972 Watergate scandal, in spite of reform attempted through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Post-Watergate reforms that passed Congress were inadequate, leading to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (informally known as the McCain-Feingold Act), that also failed to control campaign spending in a rational, democratic way.

Voter Caging

Florida’s efforts to take Democratic voters off the rolls and to intimidate them at the polls were state policy under Governor Jeb Bush, carried out by his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, both beneficiaries of great inherited wealth. Without that corrupt preparation of the state, George Bush likely would have lost it outright. The closeness of the vote led to the chaotic recount, also abetted by Bush and Harris, setting up the opportunity to win the presidency in the courts.

Bush v. Gore

The 2000 Supreme Court’s 5-4 partisan decision awarded the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. Al Gore, another beneficiary of great inherited wealth, and the wealthy leadership of the Democratic Party chose not to contest this all-American effort to undermine the American electoral system. The Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that elections could be fairly decided without counting all the votes. That continues to be a cloud over the election system.

Citizens United

In January 2010, another partisan 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court upheld the notion that somehow money is speech, and those who have the most money are entitled to the most speech, allowing an already corrupted system to spin out of control. Despite their control of both houses of Congress, Democrats responded impotently and went on to lose the House in the fall.

Voter Suppression

What Jeb Bush oversaw in Florida in 2000 looks almost benign when compared to more recent Republican voter-suppression efforts, and they continue to expand almost unchecked. Even when courts rule them illegal, Republican state legislatures bring them back in modified form. Republican election success depends on reducing the number of voters.

Gerrymandering

Already out of control in places like Texas, where Rep. Tom DeLay stage-managed the Texas legislature’s efforts to re-draw districts that increased Republican election winners. As early as 1998, DeLay was the beneficiary of contributions from Russian oil oligarchs. In 2011, DeLay was convicted (and acquitted on appeal) of conspiracy to violate election law in 2002. Gerrymandering has historically been a bipartisan corrupt activity, but the ruthlessness of recent gerrymandering across the country is a largely Republican phenomenon to which Democrats have responded limply if at all.

Voting Machines

Partisan-controlled, privately-owned voting machines is a blatantly corrupt concept that we have lived with for a generation with little response. Why ANY government, from local to federal, ever tolerated election machines controlled by third parties is one of the abiding mysteries of American life. The impact of these machines cannot be good, although how bad they’ve been is disputed. They seem to be on the decline. At first Diebold and other voting machines were seen as righ-wing conspiracies. In 2016, George Soros was accused of owning voting machines in 16 states. Not that it mattered: Trump won eight of them, including Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Voter Registration Roles

Voter registration is another constant target of Republican voter suppression efforts, which aim at keeping minorities, poor people, and others off the rolls and ineligible to vote. Ruthless voter-roll purging is a common recent Republican technique. The vulnerability of voter rolls to cyber-attacks (by the Russians, for example) is uncertain and came up only briefly at the Intelligence Committee hearing.

Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark of democratic expansion of the franchise to previously suppressed voting groups, especially black voters. According to legend, when President Johnson signed the act into law, he said that would lose the south for Democrats for a generation. That was optimistic. In 2013, the Supreme Court, in another 5-4 partisan vote, effectively declared that racism was over and gutted the Voting Rights Act. As Chief Justice John Roberts myopically stated: “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

Roberts is not known to have commented publicly as to the current conditions of American bigotry as expressed by the Trump campaign and its followers, although his opinions in recent criminal cases are more sensitive to race than those of Justice Clarence Thomas. Once again, Democrats have taken the issue of voting rights and done little with it.

Given this history of the self-inflicted collapse of American democratic process, the Russians seem to be relatively minor players of recent vintage. The greater threats to American democracy by far have been the Republican Party and the Supreme Court, with little resistance from Democrats. Together our three branches of government have collaborated to create the corrupt conditions that spawned the Trump candidacy, an all-American target of opportunity the Russians were only too happy to work with.

The Supreme Court and the President seem unlikely to deal with any of this any time soon. That leaves Congress, a Republican-majority Congress, to figure out whether the country is worth saving at this point. The starting point should probably be keeping Americans from interfering with the American democratic process.



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: Neil Gorsuch Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court Print
Tuesday, 21 March 2017 11:18

Warren writes: "When justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme Court seat open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy."

Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)
Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)


Neil Gorsuch Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court

By Elizabeth Warren, The Boston Globe

21 March 17

 

hen Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme Court seat open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy. It was only the latest step in their campaign to tilt our courts in favor of big corporations and the wealthy. Now, the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is their reward. Anyone who believes in a neutral Supreme Court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this nomination.

Over the past three decades — as the rich have gotten richer and middle-class families have been left behind — the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. That tilt is not an accident. It’s the result of a deliberate strategy by powerful interests to turn our courts over to the highest bidder.

Its effects have been devastating. Recent court decisions have let giant corporations that cheated their consumers off the hook, unleashed a flood of secret money into the political process, and made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against their employees.

At the core of this strategy is an all-out attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. A prime example is the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court — a consensus nominee praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a thoughtful, intelligent, and fair judge. None of that mattered for powerful right-wing groups that decided that Garland’s record did not reflect a sufficient willingness to bow down to the interests of the wealthy few. So they poured millions into a public smear campaign to stop his confirmation and leave the seat open.

During his campaign, Trump promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice selected exclusively from a list drawn up by far-right groups with ties to these same wealthy interests. As president, Trump kept that promise when he nominated Gorsuch last month to fill the vacancy.

Even before his elevation to the bench, Gorsuch’s right-wing, pro-big business views were clear. For example, he wrote an article arguing that liberals are too addicted to the court system and should keep important social issues like gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide, and school vouchers out of the courts. Notably absent was a similar critique of conservatives who pursue their interests in the court system. And Gorsuch has advocated for making it harder for investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit securities fraud.

On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

Big companies and rich right-wing billionaires are spending top dollar to help a judge like Gorsuch get over the finish line. But that’s not how our court system is supposed to work. Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law — not the party with the most money or political power.

Gorsuch is charming and intelligent. He has an impressive legal pedigree. But this is not a Miss Congeniality pageant or a contest for the nominee with the fanciest degrees. This is a vote for a justice who will sit on the highest court in our nation for the next generation and decide cases that will touch every human being in this country. Cases about a woman’s right to choose, voting rights, LGBTQ rights, secret spending in our political system, and freedom of speech and religion. The next Supreme Court justice will help determine whether our courts will serve the interests of all of us or bend to the will of the powerful moneyed few who helped place them on the court.

There is only one question that should guide us in that decision: whether the nominee will defend equal justice for every single one of us — rich or poor, black or white, female or male, gay or straight, popular or unpopular. Gorsuch’s record shows that he is not that nominee.

At a moment when the awesome power of the presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, our independent judiciary, our free press, and the principles that make our nation a beacon of democracy, this decision is more consequential than at any time in recent history. We cannot stand down when the president of the United States attempts to hand our highest court over to the highest bidder. And that is why I believe Judge Gorsuch’s nomination should be blocked.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 Next > End >>

Page 1695 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