192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 09:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
pot, Id like to introduce you to kettle. I rally think Trump is on the cusp of Alzheimer's.I dont think he's purposely contradicting himself, I think he nither knows nor remembers. Its already evident that hes suffering from some moderate form of aphasia.
revelette3
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 09:32 am
Quote:
Tense Exchange, Trump and Macron Put Forth Dueling Visions for NATO

President Trump said a warning from President Emmanuel Macron of France that Europe could no longer assume American support was “a very dangerous statement.” Mr. Macron said he stood by it.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/politics/trump-nato-summit.html

The French President is right.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 09:33 am
@farmerman,
I don't think he cares, he knows his supporter don't care if he makes sense or tells lies or commit crimes.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 09:47 am
Dissecting Brett Kavanaugh’s ‘Supreme Ambition’

SUPREME AMBITION
Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover

By Ruth Marcus

Quote:
Brett Kavanaugh had a confirmation hearing like none other, because of the extraordinary testimony of one woman. Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her at a high school party decades earlier. “Brett got on top of me,” she said, and “began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me.” He groped her, she said, and tried to take her clothes off. When she yelled, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. “It was hard for me to breathe,” she said, “and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.”

Blasey Ford’s testimony was precise and measured — and credible. Even many of Kavanaugh’s supporters thought it sounded the death knell for his nomination. On Fox News, the anchor Chris Wallace called her account “a disaster for the Republicans.” When Republican senators caucused, the mood was gloomy. “Almost all of us were saying, ‘It’s over,’” recalled Jeff Flake, then a senator from Arizona.

It was not over, of course, and today Kavanaugh sits on the highest court in the land. How he overcame Blasey Ford’s testimony — and allegations of sexual misconduct from other witnesses — is the subject of “Supreme Ambition,” by Ruth Marcus, a deputy editor of The Washington Post’s editorial page. Marcus’s book is impressively reported, highly insightful and a rollicking good read. It also adds another dispiriting data point — as if one more were needed — that the American Republic is seriously ailing.

Kavanaugh was in many ways a perfect Republican nominee for the court. An only child from a Catholic family in suburban Maryland, he was the son of a lobbyist father and a prosecutor mother. Kavanaugh attended Yale College and Law School, and then began a conservative Pilgrim’s Progress. He clerked for two Republican appeals court judges and then for Justice Anthony Kennedy. He worked for Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton; helped out in the Florida recount that brought George W. Bush to power in 2000; served in the Bush White House; and finally became a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Along the way, Kavanaugh married Ashley Estes, a young Texan who was President Bush’s personal secretary — which helped place him in the Bushes’ inner circle. The New York senator Charles Schumer called Kavanaugh “the Zelig of young Republican lawyers,” an apt moniker given his knack for putting himself at the center of elite conservative action.

There was, however, a dark strand running through Kavanaugh’s life of calculated achievement: heavy drinking. In his high school yearbook, he made a reference to “100 Kegs or Bust,” and in college, his interests included the annual Tang competition, an elaborate intramural beer-drinking relay race. Law school classmates have said little about his intellectual pursuits, but one recalled, “If you had asked me who was the biggest drinker in our class I would have said Brett.”

As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, a traditional farm team for Supreme Court justices, Kavanaugh became a leading candidate for the court — and he pursued the prize aggressively. He courted conservative judge-pickers with his speeches and, arguably, his judicial opinions, which seemed to signal, among other things, a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh’s years in conservative legal circles provided him with battalions of lawyers to join the fight. At a critical moment, a group of his law clerks visited Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the influential conservative legal group, to argue that he belonged on the court. One conservative journalist declared, “I have never seen the amount of support expressed for any potential nominee as I saw for Kavanaugh in terms of people reaching out to make the case for him.”

There was one advocate whose opinion counted most of all — Justice Kennedy, whose seat Kavanaugh ended up filling. “Supreme Ambition” has made news with its report that, when he presided over Justice Neil Gorsuch’s swearing in at the White House in 2017, Justice Kennedy requested a private meeting with President Trump to promote Kavanaugh for the court. If Kennedy did argue for his former law clerk, it was a disturbing intervention across the lines separating the judicial and executive branches — but also a successful one.

After Blasey Ford, other witnesses emerged. Deborah Ramirez, a college classmate, told reporters that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a party, although she had significant memory lapses. Another late-arriving witness, the Washington lawyer Max Stier, remembered seeing Kavanaugh in college exposing himself to a different woman, lending possible further credence to Ramirez’s account.

The most interesting part of Marcus’s narrative is her discussion of why, in the end, the evidence mattered so little. Much of the credit goes to Kavanaugh, whose own Senate testimony was as effective, in its way, as Blasey Ford’s was. Kavanaugh’s proclamations about liking beer were widely mocked — including, memorably, in a “Saturday Night Live” skit, with Matt Damon as a semi-deranged Kavanaugh. But his angry insistence that he was the true victim — which took a page from Clarence Thomas’s response to Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges decades earlier — shifted the momentum in his direction. His railing against “left-wing opposition groups,” and his charges that the attacks on him were “revenge on behalf of the Clintons,” skillfully rallied the Republican base.

Kavanaugh also had strong allies in his corner. The White House counsel Don McGahn kept the F.B.I. on a short leash, and its decision not to interview Stier — an “inexcusable lapse,” as Marcus notes — helped prevent a stronger case from being built against Kavanaugh. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, never wavered in his support, boasting, “I’m stronger than mule piss.”

The main reason the case against Kavanaugh failed, however, was that there simply was no audience for it in the Senate. Even if Republican senators could not bring themselves to believe the sexual misconduct charges, they witnessed with their own eyes Kavanaugh’s angry partisan rant against “left-wing opposition groups” and supporters of the Clintons. Given the ethical obligation of judges to act at all times in ways that promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, his outbursts should have been disqualifying. As Marcus shows, however, there were scarcely any Republican senators who would even consider breaking with their party on the vote.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation has profound implications for the court. If he turns out to be significantly more conservative than Kennedy, he could provide the fifth vote to end abortion rights or affirmative action. His arrival also means that two of the nine justices joined the court despite credible charges of serious misconduct toward women — something that has done incalculable damage to the court’s reputation.

As important as the Kavanaugh battle was for the court, however, there was something even more profound at stake: whether, on the most important questions, our nation is capable of putting the public interest ahead of partisanship, and whether the truth matters. The forces aligned for partisanship and against truth are stronger than ever. The week before this book’s publication date, President Trump told his 67 million Twitter followers that “the Ruth Marcus book is a badly written & researched disaster. So many incorrect facts. Fake News, just like the @washington post!” It would be hard to imagine a more persuasive endorsement.

nyt/cohen
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 09:59 am
@hightor,
BREAKING NEWS
Deutsche Bank must turn over detailed documents about President Trump’s finances to two congressional committees, a federal appeals court ruled.
Quote:
A federal appeals court said Tuesday that Deutsche Bank must turn over detailed documents about President Trump’s finances to two congressional committees, a ruling that is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The decision was a victory for House Democrats as they investigate Mr. Trump and his businesses. It means that extensive information about Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances — which the president has spent years fighting to keep secret — has moved a step closer to becoming public.
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 10:24 am
@tsarstepan,
I really wonder how many of these rulings detrimental to Trump will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
revelette3
 
  1  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 10:29 am
@hightor,
Ain't it the truth.

Well, I've been fighting the control of computer mouse long enough, it seems to be acting up today and I am lost without it, I better see what I can do about it.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 10:32 am
@revelette3,
I know someone who can keep mice in order.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/Crumbs__Penfold__Danger_Mouse_is_coming_back____complete_with_i_Patch.jpg
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 10:36 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I really wonder how many of these rulings detrimental to Trump will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

That depends on which ones do not conform to the Constitution. Those will be overturned.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 11:59 am
@izzythepush,
Well, I am no expert by any shape or form, but I tried a few things, didn't work. I hope Danger Mouse comes to my rescue. I'll try buying a new one. I had to delete a post about Barr disputing Key Inspector General report findings. If anyone is interested it's at the WP or MSN news.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 04:06 pm
Here is the scenario. Republicans keep playing their game re thug tRump, pushing Senate trial to June. Then enough vote guilty to uphold impeachment . They then gather round Romney for 2020 (a known moderate) while Pence Pence finishes out the Greatest Rump of all times read as ass) term.

That, IMHO, would make it very difficult for the Dems. Then again, the Reps are not very smart; so the likelihood is slim to none......
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 04:24 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
They then gather round Romney for 2020
Laughing Laughing Laughing
You do not know one thing, do you?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -4  
Tue 3 Dec, 2019 11:13 pm
A fair assessment of Biden's path to millionaire status.

0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 04:55 am
Interesting that Joe Biden's video is getting voted down.

Does that mean nobody has taken the time to watch it?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 05:21 am
Quote:
Democratic White House hopeful Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential race.

The California senator's campaign seemed full of promise when it launched in January, but she struggled to make headway in a crowded field.

In November her cash-strapped operation laid off staff at its Baltimore HQ, in New Hampshire and in her home state.

The 55-year-old, a fierce critic of President Donald Trump, was once seen as a rising star within the party.

But she could not cement her fleeting position in the top tier of candidates alongside Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50652290
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 06:39 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The 55-year-old, a fierce critic of President Donald Trump, was once seen as a rising star within the party.

She could still rise to a leadership position in the party; I don't think this finishes her career. The criticism from the left was unrelenting though — her successful career as a prosecutor was used against her. There are some progressives who automatically view convicted criminals as "victims" of the justice system.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 06:57 am
@hightor,
I don't know a great deal about her.

If the system is corrupt then those convicted are victims.


Quote:
A couple years ago, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) gave a powerful speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Scott talked about how he had been repeatedly pulled over by police officers who seemed to be suspicious of a black man driving a nice car. He added that a black senior-level staffer had experienced the same thing and had even downgraded his car in the hope of avoiding the problem. Given that Scott otherwise has pretty conservative politics, there was little objection or protest from the right. No one rose up to say that he was lying about getting pulled over.

The thing is, most people of color have a similar story or know someone who does. Yet, there’s a deep skepticism on the right of any assertion that the criminal-justice system is racially biased. In early August, National Review editor and syndicated columnist Rich Lowry wrote a column disputing the notion that our system is racist. Andrew Sullivan wrote something similar in New York magazine. (Interestingly, both Lowry and Sullivan cite criminologist John Pfaff to support their positions. Pfaff has since protested on Twitter that both misinterpreted what he wrote.) And attempting to refute the notion that the system is racist has become a pretty regular beat for conservative crime pundit Heather Mac Donald.

Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal-justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising.

In any case, after more than a decade covering these issues, it’s pretty clear to me that the evidence of racial bias in our criminal-justice system isn’t just convincing — it’s overwhelming. But because there still seems to be some skepticism, I’ve attempted below to catalog the evidence. The list below isn’t remotely comprehensive. And if you know of other studies, please send them to me. I would like to make this post a repository for this issue.

I, of course, can’t vouch for the robustness or statistical integrity of all of these studies. I’m only summarizing them. But for the most part, I’ve tried to include either peer-reviewed studies or reviews of data that tend to speak for themselves and don’t require much statistical analysis. I will note that most (but not all) of these studies do factor in variables that address common claims such as that the criminal-justice system discriminates more by class than by race, or that racial discrepancies in sentencing or incarceration can be explained by the fact that black people commit more crimes. And I’ve also included a section for studies that do not find bias in various aspects of the criminal-justice system. There are far fewer of these, though I’m open to the possibility that I missed some.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/<br />
snood
 
  2  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 07:00 am
@hightor,
Her time on the national political stage is definitely not over. Some progressives see a lot of people caught in the US justice system as “victims” of the system because for a lot of them (disproportionately poor and black or brown) that’s an appropriate description.
hightor
 
  3  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 07:26 am
@snood,
I understand that aspect of the situation. But I think too many liberals just automatically assume that every poor person is innocent and every single conviction is obtained through corrupt means. Something almost paternalistic there, as if no poor person could ever summon up the independence and courage to commit a crime. Since poor people are overwhelmingly the victims of these crimes I think the perpetrators should face justice. Now, some jurisdictions are known to exhibit more racial unfairness and some individuals — cops, lawyers, judges — are racially prejudiced; these cases and situations should be exposed. But just attacking anyone who's ever served as a prosecutor seems like a cheap shot to me.
McGentrix
 
  3  
Wed 4 Dec, 2019 08:07 am
@izzythepush,
I'm not a spokesman for the right, but I definitely lean that way and I couldn't agree more with the fact that the US has a GIANT race problem with law enforcement and being of color.

Driving while black is a definite issue and I seriously feel bad that happens. I also know that it is more pervasive in different parts of the country. It all revolves around money.

Minorities have enough **** to overcome that the justice system should not be a major hurdle. Those people are supposed to be there to help and to uphold the law. Instead they usually just end up making things worse.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.62 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 01:40:05