#presidential u.s. congress

[deadpresidents]

"I regard [the President] as a foolish and stubborn man, doing even right things in a wrong way, and in a position where the evil that he does is immensely increased by the manner of his doing it."

-- Senator John Sherman of Ohio, on President Andrew Johnson, March 1, 1868.

#Quotes About Presidents #I can think of another President that this quote describes #History #Presidents #Presidential History #Andrew Johnson #President Johnson #Johnson Administration #John Sherman #Senator John Sherman #Congress #U.S. Senate #Politics #Political History #Political Quotes

[thenewdemocratus]

Roger Sharp Archive: President Jimmy Carter on 1980 Campaign (3/21/1980)

Source:The New Democrat  As much trouble as President Jimmy Carter was in politically in 1979-80, having an approval rating somewhere in the thirties and looking very vulnerable to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election with all the economic problems and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Carter whipped Senator Ted Kennedy in most of the Democratic presidential primaries. Senator…

View On WordPress

#1980 #1980 Democratic Presidential Primaries #1980 Presidential Election #96th Congress #America #Georgia #Jimmy Carter #Jimmy Carter For President #Massachusetts #President Jimmy Carter #Roger Sharp #Senate Democrats #Senator Ted Kennedy #Ted Kennedy #Ted Kennedy For President #The 1980s #The White House #U.S. Congress #U.S. Government #U.S. Senate #United States #Washington #Washington DC

[tf2heritageposts]

it’s time to start emailing and calling!

find your

senate representative: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

house representative:

use this script if your representative is a republican

[description: text that reads “My name is (blank where you’d say your name)

and I'm one of your constituents.

I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful, but who decides what's harmful and what's free speech?

The power to decide has been ceded to the FTC. FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan, a Biden appointee, will have one agenda, but what happens when the someone even farther left than Joe Biden is in the Oval Office?

Imagine a President Gavin Newsom or Letitia James: Do you trust their appointee not to abuse this enforcement power tol› scrub information about your children's second amendment rights from the internet.

KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and will absolutely, without question, harm children, adults, and anyone who values free speech online. Vote NO on KOSA. end description]

use this if your representative is democrat

[description: text that reads “My name is (blank where you’d say your name)

and I'm one of your constituents.

I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful.

The power to decide what's harmful has been ceded to the FTC.

FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan may proceed fairly, but what happens when the next Donald Trump is in the Oval Office? What if it's Trump himself? Do you trust a Trump appointee not to abuse this enforcement power?

KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and, given time, it will absolutely and without question, harm LGBTQ children, adults, and anyone who needs information on reproductive health or abortion.

KOSA author, Senator Marsha Blackburn, said she introduced KOSA in part - and I quote - "to protect minor children from the transgender in our society." The Heritage Foundation proudly said they'll apply pressure through KOSA to block information about abortion, reproductive health, & LGBTQ issues.

Vote NO on KOSA.” end description]

only call/email once! be honest and accurate with your information!

[reportwire]

Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Trump, shows startling new video

Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Trump, shows startling new video

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Jan. 6 committee voted unanimously Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video and described his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss, which led to his supporters’ fierce assault on the U.S. Capitol. With alarming messages from the U.S. Secret Service warning of violence and vivid…

View On WordPress

#AP Top News #Capitol siege #Congress #Donald Trump #Election 2020 #Elections #Government and politics #Nancy Pelosi #Politics #Presidential elections #Subpoenas #U.S. Secret Service

[zvaigzdelasas]

In a letter to President Joe Biden on Friday, a coalition of nearly 30 House members expressed their strong opposition to what they described as “unauthorized” American strikes that have further escalated the biggest confrontation at sea the U.S. Navy has seen in the Middle East in a decade.

“As representatives of the American people, Congress must engage in robust debate before American servicemembers are put in harm’s way and before more U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another war in the Middle East,” the letter, led by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, stated. “No President, regardless of political party, has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”

The White House, for their part, has defended the multiple rounds of airstrikes it has taken in partnership with the United Kingdom since early January in response to what has been a persistent campaign of Houthi drone and missile attacks on commercial ships since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in October.

Since the beginning of the year, Biden has written several times to Congress stating that the strikes have complied with the 1973 War Powers Act. That law, passed during the Vietnam War, serves as a constitutional check on presidential power to declare war without congressional consent. It requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits the use of military forces to no more than 60 days unless Congress authorizes force or declares war.

But lawmakers, including a bipartisan group of senators, have said that decades-old statute does not give the president the “blanket authority” to take military action simply by notifying Congress within 48 hours.

The letter from Khanna and Davidson asserts that the notification only stands if the commander-in-chief “must act due to an attack or imminent attack against the United States.” They said the escalating tensions in the Middle East do not rise to that level.

26 Jan 24

[robertreich]

Does the Constitution Ban Trump from Running Again? 

Donald Trump should not be allowed on the ballot.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who has held public office and taken an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office again if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States.

This key provision was enacted after the Civil War to prevent those who rose up against our democracy from ever being allowed to hold office again.

This applies to Donald Trump. He cannot again be entrusted with public office. He led an insurrection!

He refused to concede the results of the 2020 election, claiming it was stolen, even when many in his inner circle, including his own attorney general, told him it was not.

Trump then pushed state officials to change vote counts, hatched a plot to name fake electors, tried to pressure his vice president into refusing to certify the Electoral College votes, had his allies seek access to voting-machine data, and summoned his supporters to attack the capitol on January 6th to disrupt the formal recognition of the presidential election results.

And then he waited HOURS, reportedly watching the violence on TV, before telling his supporters to go home — despite pleas from his staff, Republican lawmakers, and even Fox News.

If this isn’t the behavior of an insurrectionist, I don’t know what is.

Can there be any doubt that Trump will again try to do whatever it takes to regain power, even if it’s illegal and unconstitutional?

If anything, given all the MAGA election deniers in Congress and in the states, Trump is less constrained than he was in 2020. And more power hungry.

Trump could face criminal charges for inciting an insurrection, but that’s not necessary to bar him from the ballot.

Secretaries of State and other chief election officers across the country have the power to determine whether candidates meet the qualifications for office. They have a constitutional duty to keep Trump off the ballot — based on the clear text of the U.S. Constitution.

Some might argue that voters should be able to decide whether candidates are fit for office, even if they’re dangerous. But the Constitution sets the bar for what disqualifies someone from being president. Candidates must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born U.S. citizen. And they must also not have engaged in insurrection after they previously took an oath of office to defend the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has already been used to disqualify an insurrectionist from continuing to hold public office in New Mexico, with the state’s Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

This is not about partisanship. If a Democrat attempts to overthrow the government, they should not be allowed on ballots either.

Election officials must keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. 

Democracy cannot survive if insurrectionists hold power in our government.

#youtube #video #videos #Donald Trump #politics #election

[contemplatingoutlander]

These politicians denied democracy on Jan. 6. Now, they want your vote.

This is a brilliant editorial by Washington Post cartoonist Steve Brodner. This is a gift🎁link, so anyone who uses it can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to the Post. Below are a few highlights, focused on the chief congressional players in the failed coup.

While the violent mob swarmed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, aiming to subvert democracy and keep President Donald Trump in power, another group was already working on the same project inside. In an unsuccessful bid to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, 147 Republicans formally supported objection to counting Joe Biden’s electoral votes. Some have already left office. But as many as 117 members of Congress are running for reelection in 2024. Here they are, drawn together; a collection of American politicians engaged in using democracy in order to attain the power to subvert it. [color emphasis added]

I encourage people to use the gift link above to see the minor GOP Congress members who aided and abetted Trump's attempted coup and now will likely be campaigning for reelection.

________________ NOTE: The order and arrangement of the congressional players above has been modified from the original editorial.

#jan 6th #117 seditious congress members up for reelection #insurrection #cartoon editorial #14th amendment section 3 #steve brodner #the washington post

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What Americans want

Tomorrow (Oct 19), I'm in Charleston, WV to give the 41st annual McCreight Lecture in the Humanities. And on Friday (Oct 20), I'm at Charleston's Taylor Books from 12h-14h.

If you aspire to be a Very Serious Person (and whomst amongst us doesn't?) then you know why we can't have nice things. The American people won't stand for court packing, Congressional term limits, the abolition of the Electoral College, or campaign finance limits. Politics is the art of the possible, and these just aren't possible.

Friends, you've been lied to.

The latest Pew Research mega-report investigates Americans' attitudes towards politics, and honestly, the title says it all: "Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics":

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/

The American people hate Congress. They hate the parties. They hate the president. They hate the 2024 presidential candidates. They loathe the Supreme Court. Approval for America's bedrock institutions are at historic lows. Disapprovals are at historic highs.

The report's subtitle speaks volumes: "65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics." Who can blame them? After all: "63% express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system."

"Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well": that is to say, there are more Americans who think Elvis is alive than who think US politics are working well.

There are differences, of course. Young people have less hope than older people. Republicans are more reactionary than Democrats. Racialized people trust institutions less than white people.

But there are also broad, bipartisan, cross-demographic, intergenerational agreements, and these may surprise you:

Take Congressional term-limits. 87% of US adults support these. Only 12% oppose them.

Everyone knows American gerontocracy is a problem. I mean, for one thing, it's destabilizing. There's a significant chance that neither of the presumptive US presidential candidates will be alive on inauguration day:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/01/designated-survivors/

But beyond the inexorable logic of actuarial science, there's the problem that our Congress of septuagenarians have served for decades, and are palpably out-of-touch with their constituents' lives. And those constituents know it, which is why 79% of Americans favor age limits for elected officials and Supreme Court justices:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-proposals-to-change-the-political-system/

Not all of this bipartisan agreement is positive. 76% of Americans have been duped into favoring a voter ID requirement to solve the nonexistent problem of voter fraud by imposing a racialized, wealth-based poll-tax. But even here, there's a silver lining: 62% of American support automatically registering every eligible voter.

Threats to pack the Supreme Court have a long and honorable tradition in this country. It's how Lincoln got his antislavery agenda, and how FDR got the New Deal:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The majority of Americans don't want to pack the court…yet. The race is currently neck-and-neck – 51% opposed, 46% in favor, and with approval for the Supreme Court at lows not seen since the 2400 baud era, court-packing is an idea with serious momentum:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-fall-to-historic-low/

66% of Democrats want the court packed. 58% of under 30s – of every affiliation – favor the proposal.

And two thirds (65%) of Americans want to abolish the Electoral College and award the presidency to the candidate with the most votes. That includes nearly half (47%) of Republicans, and two thirds of independents.

Americans believe – correctly – that their elected representatives are more beholden to monied interests than to a sense of duty towards their constituents. Or, as a pair of political scientists put it in their widely cited 2014 paper:

Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

So yeah, no surprise that 70% of Americans believe that voters have too little influence over their elected lawmakers. 83% of Republicans say big campaign donors call the shots. 80% of Democrats agree.

Which is why 72% of Americans want to limit political spending (76% for Democrats, 71% for Republicans). The majority of Americans – 58% – believe that it is possible to get money out of politics with well-crafted laws.

Americans truly do have a "dismal view of the nation's politics," and who can blame them? But if you "feel exhausted thinking about the nation's politics," consider this – the majority of Americans, including Republicans, want to:

abolish the electoral college;

impose campaign spending limits;

put term limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices;

put age limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices; and

automatically register every eligible American to vote.

What's more, packing the Supreme Court is a coin-toss, and it's growing more popular day by day.

Which is all to say, yes, things are really screwed up, but everyone knows it and everyone agrees on the commonsense measures that would fix it.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

#pluralistic #gerontocracy #corruption #politics #polling #usa usa usa #pew #term limits #scotus #pack the court #citizens united

[soberscientistlife]

Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer who rose to prominence for his defense of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and for his emotional public testimony describing the attack, announced on Friday that he was running for Congress in Maryland’s third district.

“On Jan. 6, 2021, I did my duty as a police officer and as an American and defended our nation’s Capitol from violent insurrectionists,” Dunn said in a statement. “Today, I’m running for Congress because the forces that spurred that violent attack are still at work, and as a patriotic American, it is my duty to defend our democracy.”

Dunn will enter a crowded Democratic primary field to replace Representative John Sarbanes, the retiring 17-year incumbent. Dunn, a member of the Capitol Police for 15 years, gained fame as one of four officers who testified at the first public hearing of the House committee that investigated the attack by the pro-Trump mob on the Capitol, where lawmakers had gathered to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. He described how fellow officers bloodied in the battle and how rioters used racist slurs against him.

[decolonize-the-left]

The legal offensive, led by Dana Remus, who until 2022 served as President Biden’s White House counsel, and Robert Lenhard, an outside lawyer for the party, will be aided by a communications team dedicated to countering candidates who Democrats fear could play spoiler to Mr. Biden. It amounts to a kind of legal Whac-a-Mole, a state-by-state counterinsurgency plan ahead of an election that could hinge on just a few thousand votes in swing states. The aim “is to ensure all the candidates are playing by the rules, and to seek to hold them accountable when they are not,” Mr. Lenhard said.

WHAT???

You're telling me that this guy

Suddenly gives a single shit about the rules???

The headlines about this are fucking insane also

"will giving voters access to vote for whatever candidate they want dooming democracy"

Normal headline for a country that definitely isn't being run by fascists.

Btw this is Dana Remus

"In August 2022, President Biden questioned in a 60 Minutes interview “how anyone can be that irresponsible” when asked about classified documents in the possession of former President Trump. But when President Biden said this, he knew he had stashed classified materials in several unsecure locations for years, dating back to his time as vice president and even as U.S. senator."

[...]President Biden’s attorneys claim to have first discovered classified material at Penn Biden Center on November 2, 2022. However, President Biden and his lawyers kept it secret from the American people before the midterm elections. CBS News broke the story in January 2023, leaving Americans to wonder if the White House had any intention of ever disclosing that President Biden hoarded classified documents for years.

You know what else they did together? Lied about codifying Roe v Wade if they won mid-terms. 6months AFTER dems won a narrow majority, Rie v Wade was overturned.

And like not to be a wacky conspiracy theorist who's right again but

"The case concerned the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi law was based on a model by a Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, with the specific intent to provoke a legal battle that would reach the Supreme Court and result in the overturning of Roe"

Guess what the Alliance Defending freedom works with and serves an agenda for?

Project 2025 yeah, the heritage foundation lists them as partners

Yeah remember how Dana Remus worked with Samuel Alito? Guess who's vote helped overrule abortion rights?

Samuel Alito, correct. Guess who else? Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.

All Trump appointments.

Odd company to find yourself in without having ANY ties to the ADF or heritage foundation or project2025.

I wonder who the lawyers involved were?

Scott G Stewart. Interesting. Well who appointed him, right?

In 2021, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch appointed Scott G. Stewart as Solicitor General for the State of Mississippi.

Oh so she was voted in.

Well im sure it was a normal election that Democrats didn't tamper with or anything. Like SURELY they didn't intentionally platform this woman using the Pied Piper method? SURELY NOT after platforming Trump and making the entire 2016 elections about anti-Trumpism. SURELY, they wouldn't have tried to make themselves look better by positioning themselves against extremists only to LOSE the bet they were making.

SURELY WE DIDNT LOSE ROE V WADE BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WONT STOP USING THE PIED PIPER STRATEGY TO WIN ELECTIONS? R I G H T???

Riley Collins, 53, is running against the state's treasurer, Lynn Fitch, who was the chair of the group Mississippi Women for Trump in 2016. Riley Collins is running an explicitly anti-Trump message, saying Monday that she doesn’t understand how Donald Trump's Christian supporters can reconcile their politics with their faith

Oh.

Welp.

Everyone thank democrats for Trump and the stacked supreme court and the loss of Roe V Wade. It Truly couldn't have happened without them blasting primetime tv with alt right candidates 24/7.

One day democrats will stop platforming right wing extremists and election tampering but I guess it won't be anytime soon.

Let me ask, what's the biggest argument for voting blue this year?

Right.

And how's that going? Y'all feel confident in that strategy right now?

And don't forget what they did to Bernie. Because Biden is very poetically doing the same fucking shit to sabotage 3rd parties right now.

Remember to act surprised when Trump wins.

Like voters and progressives and leftists haven't been saying for MONTHS that we won't vote Biden. Like swing states aren't voting uncommitted. Like labor unions aren't voting uncommitted. Like he isn't tanking the polls.

You know I will say that this election is a little different. Clinton didn't have nearly this much pushback so early in the race.

Biden's massive gap of votes compared to Trump is gonna look like the grand fucking canyon.

#vote #dont vote #biden #3rd parties #trump #roe v wade #2024 #2025 #project2025 #politics #news #current events #facsism #democrats #Republicans #RFK #usa elections

[deadpresidents]

"I am trying to do two things: dare to be a radical and not be a fool, which, if I may judge by the exhibitions around me, is a matter of no small difficulty."

-- James A. Garfield, future President and then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, in a letter to Burke Aaron Hinsdale, one of Garfield's former students at Ohio's Hiram College, January 1, 1867

#History #Quotes #James Garfield #James A. Garfield #President Garfield #Congress #U.S. House of Representatives #Quotes by Presidents #Politics #Political History #Political Leaders #Leaders #Burke Aaron Hinsdale #Hiram College #Ohio Presidents #Presidential History #Presidential Quotes #Presidential Friendships

[thenewdemocratus]

ABC News: Senator Ted Cruz Discusses Opposition to President Obama's Newtown Gun Agenda

. Source:FRS FreeState Anytime you are real popular in your party even if you’ve only been office for a short period of time, like in U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s case and you are a Governor or U.S. Senator, you have to at least consider running for President at that point. Because it might be the best shot that you get and you may never get another shot at it. And if you are a U.S. Senator or a…

View On WordPress

#113th Congress #2016 Presidential Election #ABC News #America #Barack Obama #Far Right #George Stephanopoulos #New Right #Populism #Populists #Senate Republicans #Tea Party #Ted Cruz #Ted Cruz For President #Texas #This Week #U.S. Congress #U.S. Senate #United States #Washington #Washington DC #Youtube

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.

#us politics #news #slate #false slate of electors #republicans #donald trump #conservatives #2023 #United States v. Donald Trump #trump administration #2020 election #Electoral Count Act #us constitution #14th amendment #ballot tampering #election subversion #Department of Justice #jack smith #ag merrick garland #biden administration #conspiracy to defraud the United States #conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote #conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding #obstruction of congress #2024 presidential race #2024 elections #Judge Tanya Chutkan

[reportwire]

Wallowing in Watergate 50 years later: A political quiz

Wallowing in Watergate 50 years later: A political quiz

WASHINGTON (AP) — For half a century, every major Washington scandal started with some form of this question: Is this another Watergate? Watergate spawned an all-purpose suffix. If “gate” were appended to misdeeds it was controversy of first rank. Watergate brought down a president. It reordered American politics, at least for a time. It begot far-reaching reforms, many now eroded. It seeded ever…

View On WordPress

#AP Top News #Burglary #Business #Congress #Election 2020 #Government and politics #Politics #Presidential elections #Trending News #U.S. Supreme Court

[zvaigzdelasas]

President Joe Biden is showing no signs of trying to restrict or withhold the billions the U.S. spends each year in military aid to Israel, despite growing concerns that some of those weapons are being used in bombings that kill civilians.

The U.S. has sent more military and foreign aid to Israel than any other country, including a 10-year, $38 billion program that supplies some $3.3 billion in foreign military sales to Israel each year.

U.S. officials insist that most weapons transfers since the Israeli-Hamas war began were approved long before it started and would be legally challenging to stop.

But some experts say the U.S. has the power to reverse course if it wanted to.

"There are all kinds of ways to speed up or slow down arms transfers," said retired Col. Steve Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former deputy assistant secretary at the State Department's Bureau for Military-Political Affairs, which oversees foreign weapons sales.

"You can slow the system down to a crawl," Ganyard added. "If the administration or the Congress wanted to shut things down, they could. But it's a matter of political will.".[...]

"The security relationship we have with Israel is not just about Gaza" and the Hamas attack in Israel on Oct. 7," said Secretary of State Antony Blinken. "It's also about the threats posed Israel, by Hezbollah, by Iran, by various other actors in the region -- each one of which has vowed one way or another, to try to destroy Israel."

The question of restricting military sales grew increasingly urgent this week after an Israeli airstrike killed seven aid workers delivering food to Gaza amid a worsening humanitarian crisis. Israel said it was investigating the incident and calling it a grave mistake.

The Pentagon said it couldn't say if the weapons in the strike were American-made, but noted that Israel was expected to honor its promise to use weapons in accordance with international law.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the administration was "outraged" by the strike and insists that Israel be more careful in its operations against Hamas. At the same time, Kirby made clear the U.S. wouldn't use military aid as leverage and "hang some sort of condition" around Israel's "neck."[...]

"We have a situation where the Netanyahu government continues to rebuff the president of the United States time and time again, ignores reasonable requests," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, in an interview Sunday with ABC's "This Week."

"And what do we do? We say we're going to send more bombs," Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen and other Democrats have been investigating legislation on the matter, although it's not clear such a measure would gather enough support to pass or overcome a presidential veto.

Josh Paul, a former senior State Department official and outspoken critic of Biden's policy toward Israel, told ABC News that there was consensus among an internal working group before he resigned from the State Department that found Israel violated legal requirements to receive U.S. aid.

Under the law, the U.S. can't supply military aid or training to countries that violate human rights. Biden has also specified that aid shouldn't go to countries that "more likely than not" are used to commit or facilitate genocide or break international law.[...]

"at the same time we are having [allegedly tough] conversations we are authorizing billions of dollars in military aid and I'm not sure the message is coming across," he said.[...]

last November [...] Biden called the idea of conditions a "worthwhile thought."

Since then, Biden approved two emergency transfers of military aid totaling some $254 million – bypassing Congress to rush tank munitions and related equipment to Israel.

3 Apr 24

[cartermagazine]

Today In History

Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to Congress representing Bedford-Stuyvesant 12th district, and the first African American woman to seek the nomination for president of the United States, was born in Brooklyn, NY, on this date November 30, 1924.

She graduated from Brooklyn Girls’ High in 1942 and from Brooklyn College cum laude in 1946, where she won prizes on the debate team. Although professors encouraged her to consider a political career, she replied that she faced a “double handicap” as both Black and female.

Her motto and title of her autobiography—Unbought and Unbossed—illustrates her outspoken advocacy for women and minorities during her seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Discrimination followed Chisholm’s quest for the 1972 Democratic Party presidential nomination. She was blocked from participating in televised primary debates, and after taking legal action, was permitted to make just one speech. Still, students, women, and minorities followed the “Chisholm Trail.” She entered 12 primaries and garnered 152 of the delegates’ votes (10% of the total)—despite an under-financed campaign and contentiousness from the predominantly male Congressional Black Caucus.

Of her legacy, Chisholm said, “I want to be remembered as a woman … who dared to be a catalyst of change.”

“Make you co-op-erate with the rhythm, that is what I give em, Reagan is the Pres but I voted for Shirley Chisholm.” - Biz Markie

CARTER™️ Magazine

#carter magazine #historyandhiphop365 #wherehistoryandhiphopmeet #carter #history #cartermagazine #today in history #staywoke #blackhistory #blackhistorymonth #shirley chisholm