|
FOCUS: Democrats Can't Kill the Filibuster. But They Can Gut It. |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58538"><span class="small">Norman Ornstein, The Washington Post</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 05 March 2021 12:18 |
|
Ornstein writes: "Three reforms Manchin and Sinema might consider."
Sen. Joe Manchin. (photo: Jim Watson/AP)
Democrats Can't Kill the Filibuster. But They Can Gut It.
By Norman Ornstein, The Washington Post
05 March 21
Three reforms Manchin and Sinema might consider
 emocrats won both Georgia Senate seats in January’s runoffs, giving them control of both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time in a decade. But their ability to advance legislation — from raising the federal minimum wage to democracy reforms in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — can be thwarted by the Senate’s 60-vote supermajority filibuster rule.
Progressives’ anger at Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his caucus, who use the filibuster to block every initiative they can, is nearly matched by their frustration with Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin III (W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), whose opposition to getting rid of the filibuster means Democrats are stuck with it, since they’d need all 50 votes in their caucus, plus Vice President Harris as a tiebreaker, to do it. Last month, the progressive No Excuses PAC, whose leaders helped elect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) in 2018, said Manchin and Sinema “stand in the way of progress” by abetting Republican efforts “to shrink their own party’s pandemic relief, climate, and economic investment plans.” The political action committee has talked up primary challenges to both of them to show “‘how angry Democratic primary voters are going to be’ if they continue to support the filibuster.”
Manchin hasn’t budged, though. Monday, when asked if he’d reconsider his stance on eliminating the filibuster, he shot back: “Jesus Christ, what don’t you understand about ‘never’?”
Democrats are right to see the urgency: Republican state lawmakers around the country are moving to enact voter suppression measures that will, if passed, put the slender Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives in jeopardy in 2022 and beyond. Without democracy reform, and with the Supreme Court’s recent assaults on the Voting Rights Act, sticking with the filibuster could make it nearly impossible for the Biden administration to pursue its agenda.
But Democrats should proceed with caution: In 2001, I warned that if Republicans harangued Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) over his apostasy on their party’s policy priorities, they would regret it. He would switch parties and, in a 50-50 Senate, shift the Senate majority. The next month, it happened. The same concern now applies to Democrats with Manchin. Push too far, and the result could be Majority Leader McConnell, foreclosing Democrats’ avenue to pursue infrastructure, tax reform and health reform legislation.
So, what can Democrats do?
For a West Virginia Democrat, heavy criticism from key members of his own party, up to and including President Biden, might wind up working to Manchin’s advantage. That was true of an earlier apostate, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who’s been reelected several times after switching from Democrat to Republican in 1994, after butting heads with President Bill Clinton.
Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Last year, Manchin said, “The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.”
If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision. Here are some options:
Make the minority do the work. Currently, it takes 60 senators to reach cloture — to end debate and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. The burden is on the majority, a consequence of filibuster reform in 1975, which moved the standard from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. Before that change, if the Senate went around-the-clock, filibustering senators would have to be present in force. If, for example, only 75 senators showed up for a cloture vote, 50 of them could invoke cloture and move to a final vote. After the reform, only a few senators in the minority needed to be present to a request for unanimous consent and to keep the majority from closing debate by forcing a quorum call. The around-the-clock approach riveted the public, putting a genuine spotlight on the issues. Without it, the minority’s delaying tactics go largely unnoticed, with little or no penalty for obstruction, and no requirement actually to debate the issue.
If Republicans won’t risk defeat to tell the truth, Trump will own their party
One way to restore the filibuster’s original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, who’d have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldn’t muster 40 — the equivalent of cloture — debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.
Go back to the “present and voting” standard. A shift to three-fifths of the Senate “present and voting” would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session. If, for example, the issue in question were voting rights, a Senate deliberating on the floor, 24 hours a day for several days, would put a sharp spotlight on the issue, forcing Republicans to publicly justify opposition to legislation aimed at protecting the voting rights of minorities. Weekend Senate sessions would cause Republicans up for reelection in 2022 to remain in Washington instead of freeing them to go home to campaign. In a three-fifths present and voting scenario, if only 80 senators showed up, only 48 votes would be needed to get to cloture. Add to that a requirement that at all times, a member of the minority party would have to be on the floor, actually debating, and the burden would be even greater, while delivering what Manchin and Sinema say they want — more debate.
Narrow the supermajority requirement. Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators — still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one. Democrats might have some ability to get five Republicans to support their desired outcomes on issues such as voting rights, universal background checks for gun purchases or a path to citizenship for Dreamers. A reduction to 55, if coupled with a present-and-voting standard would establish even more balance between majority and minority.
In a 50-50 Senate, and with the GOP strategy clearly being united opposition to almost all Democratic priorities, Biden and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) need the support of Manchin and Sinema on a daily basis. They won’t be persuaded by pressure campaigns from progressive groups or from members of Congress. But they might consider reforms that weaken the power of filibusters and give Democrats more leverage to enact their policies, without pursuing the dead end of abolishing the rule altogether.
 |
|
Mike Pence's Blueprint for Permanent Authoritarian Rule |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 05 March 2021 09:14 |
|
Chait writes: "After a long period of silence on the subject of the 2020 election, some of which he spent hiding from an insurrectionist mob that was attempting to lynch him, Mike Pence has reemerged."
Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty Images)
Mike Pence's Blueprint for Permanent Authoritarian Rule
By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
05 March 21
 fter a long period of silence on the subject of the 2020 election, some of which he spent hiding from an insurrectionist mob that was attempting to lynch him, Mike Pence has reemerged. The former vice-president has written an op-ed for the Heritage Foundation laying out the next steps in the Republican Party’s campaign to curtail democracy.
Pence’s analysis is worth considering in some detail. As both a faithful servant to Donald Trump and a respected member of the Republican Party’s most ideologically orthodox wing, Pence holds a position that represents a synthesis of Trump’s idiosyncratic personal authoritarianism and his party’s longstanding anti-democratic trend.
Pence doesn’t acknowledge any error made by Trump or even concede that he legitimately lost the election. Instead, he hints that wrongdoing by state officials allowed Joe Biden to steal it:
After an election marked by significant voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of the 2020 election.
No officials “set aside” state laws. They acted to expand mail voting in compliance with state laws. Sometimes these orders were litigated through the courts, but that is how state laws work. Pence does not have any evidence of “significant voting irregularities.” Millions of Americans have “concerns” about the election’s “integrity” simply because Trump and Pence spent months before and after the election circulating false claims.
The only credible allegation of illegal behavior in the election involves Trump himself, who was caught on tape threatening action against officials unless they produced enough votes to flip the state into his column.
Pence does concede that the insurrection was regrettable, but his language is painstakingly crafted to avoid attributing any responsibility:
The tragic events of Jan. 6 — the most significant being the loss of life and violence at our nation’s Capitol — also deprived the American people of a substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity in America.
The structure of this sentence is fascinating. Its action verb is deprived. Who committed the depriving? Events. And what was deprived? A “substantive discussion in Congress about election integrity” — i.e., another forum to repeat Trump’s lie about the election being stolen. So nobody was responsible for the mob of Trump supporters attempting to cancel the election, but the victims were the people feeding the mob’s delusions.
Pence then turns toward the twin purposes of his column: opposing Democratic efforts in Congress to guarantee ballot access and end gerrymandering, while endorsing Republican efforts to restrict the franchise with strict photo-ID requirements, limits on early and mail voting, and so on.
In typical fashion, he superimposes his own calculation onto the Democrats:
Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.
It is true, at least in the short run, that democratic reforms would benefit the Democratic Party. It is not true, however, that this is their only goal. Allowing people to participate in elections and enhancing the small-d democratic character of the system is also a goal, albeit not one many Republicans seem able to comprehend.
And it is simply false to suggest the bill gives Democrats an “advantage.” The Republican Party currently enjoys significant advantages in the House, Senate, and Electoral College, all of which have a midpoint several points more Republican than the country as a whole. Even if Democrats enacted their proposals to expand voting and eliminate gerrymandering — and went even further by granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico — this would merely reduce, not eliminate, the GOP advantage.
Pence proceeds to argue that all changes to election law must be carried out at the state level. This conveniently means the changes will be designed by Republican officials rather than by Democrats, who control Congress. Pence presents this as a matter of constitutional principle:
Our Founders limited Congress’ role in conducting our elections for good reason: They wanted elections to be administered closest to the people, free from undue influence of the national government.
In fact, the Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate federal elections, and it has used this authority many times.
Pence further insists that, if Congress were to eliminate gerrymandering, “congressional districts would be redrawn by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.” Can voters hold Congress accountable for drawing maps that make it impossible to dislodge the majority party? Not really! That’s kind of the point of drawing those maps in the first place.
Pence’s most remarkable rhetorical maneuver is to argue that we must “heal” the country, which means not passing any election-law changes in Congress, and then proceeds to argue in the very next paragraph for restoring “confidence” by imposing voter-suppression measures in the states:
After a year in which our nation has endured a global pandemic, economic hardship, and a contentious election, now is not the time to further inflame passion and division. It is time for our nation’s leaders to help America heal.
To restore public confidence in our elections, our leaders should uphold the Constitution, reject congressional Democrats’ plan to nationalize our elections, and get about the serious work of state-based reform that will protect the integrity of the vote for every American.
Healing the country means preventing Democrats from passing election laws, but Republicans must.
Republicans were turning against democracy before Trump came along. Then most of them decided to use him to advance their goals, and in the process, he refused to accept democracy as a core element of the base’s belief system. And now Pence seeks to lead them into a future in which minority rule can be locked in forever.
|
|
|
Underreported and Unpunished, Femicides in El Salvador Continue |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58536"><span class="small">Kristina Zanzinger, SJ Fernandez and Yanxi Liu, NACLA</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 05 March 2021 09:14 |
|
Excerpt: "In one of the most dangerous Latin American countries to be a woman, lockdown measures exposed longstanding challenges in combating gender violence."
Women bearing a photograph of murdered Karla Turcios participate in a protest against femicides in San Salvador, El Salvador. (photo: José Cabezas/Reuters)
Underreported and Unpunished, Femicides in El Salvador Continue
By Kristina Zanzinger, SJ Fernandez and Yanxi Liu, NACLA
05 March 21
In one of the most dangerous Latin American countries to be a woman, lockdown measures exposed longstanding challenges in combatting gender violence.
 he same day President Nayib Bukele announced a strict lockdown for El Salvador at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, a collective of local women’s organizations launched a hotline to support women confined indoors with their abusers. The country was not prepared for the public health emergency nor for protecting women against violence. “Emergency situations,” the groups noted, always exacerbate “acts of violence against women stemming from existing inequalities.” By early June, the feminist organization Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local had documented 26 femicides during the lockdown.
In recent years, El Salvador has reported high rates of domestic violence and epidemic rates of femicide, the intentional killing of a woman or girl based on her gender identity. A 2017 survey found that 67 percent of Salvadoran women had experienced some form of violence in their lives, and in 2019, the country had one of the highest femicide rates in Latin America, second only to Honduras. Although El Salvador passed a gender violence law in 2011, establishing sentences of 20 to 50 years for femicide, acknowledging and prosecuting these cases remains arduous. The pandemic has further exposed these challenges, including by exacerbating structural barriers to reporting gender-based violence. Local human rights lawyers and feminist activists have been fighting to address these limitations by expanding support systems for victims of domestic violence.
Salvadoran law defines femicide as the killing of a woman with “motives of hatred or contempt for her condition as a woman.” Some scholars have proposed the term feminicide, rather than femicide, to underline the role of state negligence in these crimes and the intersection of power dynamics and cultural and socioeconomic factors.
In El Salvador and elsewhere, most femicides happen within the context of domestic violence, and structural machismo and the societal normalization of gender-based violence perpetuate both abuses and impunity. Campaigns and events organized by groups like Colectiva Feminista aim to educate women on their human rights, improve their sense of agency and self-worth, and dismantle the normalization of violence. However, underreporting of domestic violence is still an issue.
“Domestic violence is the beginning [of feminicide] since women suffer domestic violence in silence,” explains human rights attorney Arnau Baulenas of the Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Centroamericana (IDHUCA) in San Salvador. And according to Marshall University Latin America history professor Chris White, in El Salvador, a geographically small country with a high-density population, the normalization of violence is also shaped by a strong historical memory of civil war-era violence.
“Impunity Means More Violence”
Calling attention to the growing irregularity of resources available for women facing violence in 2020, Colectiva Feminista partnered with the abortion decriminalization organization Agrupación Ciudadana para la Despenalización del Aborto as well as the women’s human rights group Red Salvadoreña de Mujeres Defensoras de Derechos Humanos to create a hotline to provide psychological and legal support. The support line responds to an increased need since the start of the pandemic for remote resources for victims, their families, and others hoping to report instances of gender-based violence or gain information about preventative actions. Many callers are from family members and partners seeking legal assistance to press charges against their abusive counterparts, explains activist and lawyer Laura Moran.
According to Moran, the Colectiva Feminista received more gender-based violence cases in the first six months of the pandemic than it did during all of 2019. Reports to the police also increased during lockdown. However, uneven awareness among public officials about the problem, combined with normalization, has created significant barriers to building substantial legal services to protect victims of abuse.
Potential for revictimization by police who uphold patriarchal norms, such as the idea that domestic violence is a family matter, is one possible deterrent to reporting abuse. Such barriers to reporting, a lack of political will to dedicate resources to combatting feminicide, and structural problems in the judicial system also translate into a lack of justice for victims. Activists have often pointed out the hypocrisy of El Salvador's justice system criminalizing women for having abortions—or stillbirths or miscarriages in many cases—while failing to pursue prosecutions for femicides.
According to Baulenas, prosecutions are often overshadowed by personal and cultural biases against victims that color cases with patriarchal and machista assumptions. These biases contribute to impunity for gender-based crimes, and it can also retraumatize survivors who choose to report their abuse. “Impunity means more violence,” Baulenas explains, underlining a cycle of inaction that fuels further underreporting. “The system needs to be fixed and authority figures need reeducation,” he adds.
For Moran, raising awareness is an important first step in the broader ideological and cultural transformation required to meaningfully combat femicide and gender-based violence at the root. In the immediate term, on-the-ground responses like the Colectiva Feminista’s monitoring and the domestic violence hotline aim to create visibility for victims and provide support. They hope that breaking down the normalization of violence will in turn allow women to speak up about their abuse and seek help.
When Abuse Goes Unnoticed
President Nayib Bukele has smugly said that feminist groups should be “happy” with how rates of killings of women have fallen under his government. Although official data indicate that feminicide rates have declined since 2016, human rights groups highlight that other forms of violence against women, such as disappearances, have increased.
This dynamic recalls another period with a similar trend. In 2012, the Salvadoran government struck a deal with gangs to establish a ceasefire between the Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18 in hopes of lowering homicides. As a result of the truce, the numbers of killings and feminicides did go down. According to a 2013 report by the international organization Interpeace, “immediately after the truce was agreed upon, homicide rates ostensibly decreased: 14 to 17 homicides a day dropped to an average of 5.5 deaths a day…In parallel, there was also a decrease in femicides.”
Despite the controversy surrounding the truce—namely the government’s lack of transparency in secretive negotiations—this reduction in killings was “one of the positive results,” a report by the Red Feminista Frente a la Violencia contra las Mujeres notes. “However,” the report adds, “it is necessary to deepen the analysis of the causes behind this decrease in violent deaths coupled with an increase in the number of acts of other forms of violence against women…because femicides are a culmination in a continuum of violence.” The report also highlights that among the killings of women reported, most were carried out with “extreme cruelty,” and raises alarm that the generalized nature of this phenomenon has not received adequate attention. “The viciousness, hate, [and] torture go unnoticed,” it states.
Research has shown that it is not simply gang members inflicting violence against women; intimate partner violence generally is an important factor in and potential precursor to feminicide. Yet the country still centers tackling gang violence within its discourse as a tactic to counter high rates of feminicide. Focusing narrowly on so-called iron fist policies—heavy handed crackdowns resulting in mass arrests and incarceration of alleged gang members—not only fails to remedy root problems but also may pull resources away from developing sustainable policies to protect women from domestic violence. Similarly, hate crimes against trans people and other members of the LGBTQI+ community is also a pressing issue that demands a targeted response beyond strategies that claim to address generalized violence.
Citing statistics from the attorney general’s office, Ormusa, a local nonprofit organization promoting women's rights, reports that 130 women were murdered in 2020; this is a decrease from 238 in 2019. However, Baulenas warns people to be wary of government data because it could be motivated by electoral interests, such as the recent midterm elections, in which Bukele’s party won a majority. The decrease in femicide could reflect the fact that the state has not put enough resources into adequately investigating feminicide, especially considering that statistics show that other forms of violence against women have increased. According to Ormusa’s monitoring, cases of domestic violence in 2020 totaled 1,245, an increase from 1,172 cases in 2019. Moreover, feminicide statistics fail to account for the enforced disappearances of women and girls, and missing persons cases also raise questions about the possible underreporting of feminicide.
The “Other Underreported Pandemic”
Achieving a femicide conviction is difficult for two reasons, Baulenas says. First, there must be proof of an intimate relationship between the victim and perpetrator, which is difficult to prove. Second, many judges base their verdicts on personal biases, not an adherence to international law and treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women, also known as the Belém do Pará Convention. There is no guarantee that the appropriate laws will be applied every time. As a result, sometimes cases brought to trial as femicides are not tried as such, leading to impunity for this particular crime, Baulenas explains.
According to an investigation by Salvadoran media outlet El Faro, out of 3,000 women killed between 2012 and 2019, only 8.6 percent of cases resulted in a femicide prosecution. “If they weren’t killed for being women, why were they killed?” asked journalists Valeria Guzmán and Gabriela Cáceres. But their investigation found that “it’s almost impossible to give an answer in a country where more than half of cases go unpunished.” Their piece dubbed femicide the “other underreported pandemic.”
At a minimum, collaboration between various sectors is required to confront this complex problem. The economic and daily disturbances of Covid-19 have exacerbated issues of gender-based violence, which is a risk factor for femicide. Femicide’s place in these cycles of violence must be acknowledged to create better potential for intervention and prevention. Awareness is important, but only a first step.
|
|
White House Doc Who Said Trump Could Live to 200 Reportedly Sexually Harassed Staff, Got Wasted on the Job |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 04 March 2021 13:17 |
|
Levin writes: "Remember Ronny Jackson? Former White House doctor nicknamed the Candyman because of the way he allegedly doled out prescription drugs?"
U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson. (photo: AP)
White House Doc Who Said Trump Could Live to 200 Reportedly Sexually Harassed Staff, Got Wasted on the Job
By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
04 March 21
Ronny Jackson allegedly got drunk while accompanying the president on work trips and demanded a female subordinate join him in his hotel room.
 emember Ronny Jackson? Former White House doctor nicknamed the Candyman because of the way he allegedly doled out prescription drugs? Claimed that Donald Trump had “incredibly good genes” and that if he’d eaten a little healthier, he could have lived to be “200 years old”? Earned a nomination to run the Department of Veterans Affairs, which he later withdrew over accusations that he created a toxic work environment and was drunk on an overseas work trip? Now serves Texas’s 13th Congressional District, after claiming on the campaign trail that Barack Obama had spied on the 2016 Trump campaign and writing that “Every Deep State traitor deserves to be brought to justice for their heinous actions”? There’s a new Pentagon report out concerning his behavior, and it’s not a great look!
In a review of Jackson’s time as the top White House doctor, the Department of Defense’s inspector general concluded that he made “sexual and denigrating” comments about a female underling, violated the government’s policy concerning drinking on a presidential trip, and took prescription-strength sleeping drugs that caused concern from his coworkers about his ability to do his job. Per CNN:
Allegations about his explosive temper and creating a hostile work environment are consistent throughout his time in both the Obama and Trump administrations as an “overwhelming majority of witnesses (56)...who worked with RDML Jackson from 2012 through 2018 told us they personally experienced, saw, or heard about him yelling, screaming, cursing, or belittling subordinates,” the report says. “Many of these witnesses described RDML Jackson’s behavior with words and phrases such as ‘meltdowns,’ ‘yells for no reason,’ ‘rages,’ ‘tantrums,’ ‘lashes out,’ and ‘aggressive.’ These witnesses also described RDML Jackson’s leadership style with terms such as ‘tyrant,’ ‘dictator,’ ‘control freak,’ ‘hallmarks of fear and intimidation,’ ‘crappy manager,’ and ‘not a leader at all,’” it adds.
During an April 2014 presidential trip to Manila, a witness said Jackson started drinking in the hotel lobby shortly after arrival and then got in a car with a drink in his hand after declaring he was going “out on the town,” which is definitely the sort of behavior you want to see from the person charged with taking care of the president of the United States’ health. Another witness told investigators that he smelled alcohol on Jackson’s breath that evening and that back at the hotel, Jackson was seen “pounding” on the door of a female subordinate’s room. When she opened the door, he allegedly told her, “I need you,” and, “I need you to come to my room.” On a separate presidential trip to Asia that same month, witnesses said Jackson commented about a female medical subordinate’s breasts and butt, saying she had “great tits” and “what a nice ass,” adding that he wanted to “see more of her tattoos.”
Two years later, in Bariloche, Argentina, two witnesses told the I.G. they saw Jackson drinking a beer while he was serving as the physician to the president and in charge of providing medical care for a presidential trip, despite regulations prohibiting him from 24 hours before the president’s arrival until two hours after he left. Jackson, the witnesses said, dismissed the regulation as “ridiculous.” Another witness said Jackson later smelled of alcohol, though she was unsure if he was drunk.... These two allegations of alcohol use both occurred under the Obama administration, but the report details a series of incidents under both Obama and Trump in which Jackson lost his temper, cursing at subordinates.
At least six witnesses, all of whom were medical personnel, also told investigators that Jackson took Ambien, a prescription medicine used to treat insomnia, on long flights while on duty for providing medical care for government officials, including the president. The witnesses said they were concerned about the Ambien because it often leaves users drowsy and can impair someone’s mental alertness. But the I.G. report notes there is no specific restriction on the use of Ambien during long flights.
The report, the probe for which began before Jackson retired from the Navy in 2019, recommends that the secretary of the Navy take “appropriate action” regarding the findings, which could include a review of Jackson’s pension. In a statement issued to CNN on Tuesday, Jackson said that “Democrats are using this report to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on my integrity,” adding, “I take my professional responsibility with respect to prescription drug practices seriously; and I flat-out reject any allegation that I consumed alcohol while on duty.” He did not address the allegations re: commenting on a female subordinate’s “tits” and “ass,” or demanding that a staffer come to his hotel room.
|
|
ow, more than any moment in recent history, is the time to think big, not small. And that is why the U.S. Senate must, this week, pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — the most consequential piece of legislation in modern times.
