Their web lead was by the Associated Press, while my printed byline was New York Times (not that you would be missing much. The piece tells us nothing about the whistleblower, what they have seen or heard, what's in the complaint, nothing.
‘The president must be held accountable’: Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry against Trump" by Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick and Michael Balsamo Associated Press, September 24, 2019
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, yielding to mounting pressure from fellow Democrats and plunging a deeply divided nation into an election-year clash between Congress and the commander in chief.
The probe focuses partly on whether Trump abused his presidential powers and sought help from a foreign government to undermine Democratic foe Joe Biden and help his own reelection. Pelosi said such actions would mark a ‘‘betrayal of his oath of office’’ and declared, ‘‘No one is above the law.’’
Except the Clintons, Obamas, and their corporate masters.
The impeachment inquiry, after months of investigations by House Democrats of the Trump administration, sets up the party’s most direct and consequential confrontation with the president, injects deep uncertainty into the 2020 election campaign and tests anew the nation’s constitutional system of checks and balances.
Trump, who thrives on combat, has all but dared Democrats to take this step, confident that the specter of impeachment led by the opposition party will bolster rather than diminish his political support.
Meeting with world leaders at the United Nations, he previewed his defense in an all-caps tweet: ‘‘PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!’’
Pelosi’s brief statement, delivered without dramatic flourish but in the framework of a constitutional crisis, capped a frenetic weeklong stretch on Capitol Hill as details of a classified whistleblower complaint about Trump burst into the open and momentum shifted toward an impeachment probe.
Get your popcorn now!
For months, the Democratic leader has tried calming the push for impeachment, saying the House must investigate the facts and let the public decide. The new drive was led by a group of moderate Democratic lawmakers from political swing districts, many of them with national security backgrounds and serving in Congress for the first time. The freshmen, who largely represent districts previously held by Republicans where Trump is popular, risk their own reelections but say they could no longer stand idle. Amplifying their call were longtime leaders, including Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights icon often considered the conscience of House Democrats.
Ah, the Deep State Democrats resurfacing!
The rookies back impeachment because it was a ‘‘red line’’ rooted in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election and ‘‘if this isn’t impeachable, what is?’’
How about using the IRS to audit your political enemies like Nixon and Obama did, at least before Lois Lerner emails were lost?
Or spying on an opposing political campaign using a false FISA warrant paid for by the Clinton campaign (don't wanna go there)?
Remember Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congre$$?
Bush administration authorization of torture?
Obama's CIA spying on Senate as they compiled a report about it?
I'm sure I could go on if I had more time.
‘‘Now is the time to act,’’ said Lewis, in an address to the House. ‘‘To delay or to do otherwise would betray the foundation of our democracy.’’
I'm sick of the hyperbole regarding the charade of "democracy" in this republic that is under corporate governance. Sorry. When they tell me it is time to act I wanna hit the brakes.
At issue are Trump’s actions with Ukraine. In a summer phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, he is said to have asked for help investigating former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. In the days before the call, Trump ordered advisers to freeze $400 million in military aid for Ukraine — prompting speculation that he was holding out the money as leverage for information on the Bidens. Trump has denied that charge, but acknowledged he blocked the funds, later released.
He blocked it because Putin told him, right?
Forget about trying to reset relations with Russia in the cause of non-confrontation because they are no longer a threat (oh, how they mocked Romney).
Gee, I'm getting tripped up over what narrative I'm supposed to follow in all these cases.
Biden said Tuesday, before Pelosi’s announcement, that if Trump doesn’t cooperate with lawmakers’ demands for documents and testimony in its investigations the president ‘‘will leave Congress ... with no choice but to initiate impeachment.’’ He said that would be a tragedy of Trump’s ‘‘own making.’’
The Trump-Ukraine phone call is part of the whistleblower’s complaint, though the administration has blocked Congress from getting other details of the report, citing presidential privilege. Trump has authorized the release of a transcript of the call, which is to be made public Wednesday.
‘‘You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call,’’ Trump said.
The whistleblower’s complaint was being reviewed for classified material and could go to Congress by Thursday, according to a person familiar with the issue who was not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.
No, Biden bragging about getting the investigating prosecutor fired at the CFR means nothing and has been dispatched down the pre$$ memory hole, ostensibly because Biden wanted another prosecutor getting tough on the investigation.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
While the possibility of impeachment has hung over Trump for many months, the likelihood of a probe had faded after special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation ended without a clear directive for lawmakers.
They began flirting with it after that debacle, remember?
Since then, the House committees have revisited aspects of the Mueller probe while also launching new inquiries into Trump’s businesses and various administration scandals that all seemed likely to drag on for months, but details of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine prompted Democrats to quickly shift course. By the time Pelosi addressed the nation Tuesday, about two-thirds of House Democrats had announced moving toward impeachment probes.
Yeah, something else is going on behind-the-scenes for there to have been this quick pivot.
The burden will likely now shift to Democrats to make the case to a scandal-weary public. In a highly polarized Congress, an impeachment inquiry could simply showcase how clearly two sides can disagree when shown the same evidence rather than approach consensus.
Building toward this moment, the president has repeatedly been stonewalling requests for documents and witness interviews in the variety of ongoing investigations.
That's charged terminology, and not even true.
After Pelosi’s Tuesday announcement, the president and his campaign team quickly released a series of tweets attacking Democrats, including a video of presidential critics like the speaker and Rep. Ilhan Omar discussing impeachment. It concluded: ‘‘While Democrats ‘Sole Focus’ is fighting Trump, President Trump is fighting for you.’’
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Pelosi’s well-known ‘‘efforts to restrain her far-left conference have finally crumbled.’’
Pelosi has for months resisted calls for impeachment from her restive caucus, warning that it would backfire against the party unless there was a groundswell of public support. That groundswell hasn’t occurred, but some of the more centrist lawmakers are facing new pressure back home for not having acted on impeachment.
The backlash has begun already. The Democrats and pre$$ basically force me into his corner.
Looks like another general election where I don't vote (it's Sanders again in the primary). Not that matters here in Ma$$achu$etts.
While Pelosi’s announcement adds weight to the work being done on the oversight committees, the next steps are likely to resemble the past several months of hearings and legal battles — except with the possibility of actual impeachment votes.
On Wednesday, the House is expected to consider a symbolic but still notable resolution insisting the Trump administration turn over to Congress the whistleblower’s complaint. The Senate, in a rare bipartisan moment, approved a similar resolution Tuesday.
The lawyer for the whistleblower, who is still anonymous, released a statement saying he had asked Trump’s director of national intelligence to turn over the complaint to House committees and asking guidance to permit the whistleblower to meet with lawmakers.
Who are these people like Strzok, Page, Ohr, McCabe, etc, that are buried in the bureacracy and are deserving of protection?
Pelosi suggested that this new episode — examining whether a president abused his power for personal political gain — would be easier to explain to Americans than some of the issues that arose during the Mueller investigation and other congressional probes.
So when is she going to investigate Dick Cheney's energy company meeting soon after the inauguration? You know, the ones that carved up Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources amongst American companies?
The speaker put the matter in stark terms: ‘‘The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of his national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.’’
--more--"
The Globe did include the front-page NYT version down below!
"House Democrats to Begin Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump" by Nicholas Fandos New York Times, September 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, accusing him of betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.
“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”
Except the Clintons and Obamas, as noted above, and I happened to scribble in the margin that this is the same House Speaker that refused to bring impeachment charges against Bush for war criminal actions. Kind of a case closed for me with her.
The oddity of it all is that it was the Clinton campaign that enlisted the Ukrainians in commissioning the Steele dossier that was then funneled up channels so that a false FISA warrant could be granted and the Obama administration could begin infiltrating, spying on, and attempting to entrap the Trump campaign.
Of course, I have long since given up on the pre$$ investigating or informing us of such things. After all, the advocacy journali$ts have an agenda to push.
Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms. She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”
The New York Times will explain the impeachment process after Pelosi finally reached her tipping point that will change history.
Pelosi’s decision to plow forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats.
It also raised the possibility that Trump could become only the fourth president in US history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.
It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Pelosi and Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.
Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts.
Other than that paragraph, my whole printed version has either been rearranged or rewritten, and I'm simply not going to take the time to chase rabbits, and speaking of fuming.....
For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice.
At issue are allegations that Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former vice president Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress, and it occurred just a few days after Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
Trump said Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to preempt Democrats’ impeachment push, but Democrats were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine.
It's never enough, is it?
As long as he isn't waging a preemptive war promoted by lies blared from the front pages of newspapers like the New York Times, fine.
Pelosi told fellow Democrats that in a private call initiated by Trump on Tuesday morning, the president said that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress, Democrats said.
House Democrats plan to bring up a resolution Wednesday condemning Trump’s reported behavior toward Ukraine and demanding he release the whistle-blower complaint — daring Republicans to vote against it.
I dare ya'! I double dare ya'!
That's how they respond to a "grave constitutional crisis."
Pelosi said she had directed the chairmen of the six committees that have been investigating Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.” In a closed-door meeting earlier in the day, she said the panels should put together their best cases on potentially impeachable offenses by the president and send them to the Judiciary Committee, according to two officials familiar with the conversation, but whether Democrats would hold another House vote in the coming days to authorize their inquiry — as has been done in past presidential impeachments — remains to be seen. Republicans argue that without one, the House is not truly in an impeachment inquiry, no matter what Democrats say. Nor did the speaker lay out a timeline for the committees to do their work.
The decision to begin a formal impeachment inquiry does not necessarily mean that the House will ultimately vote to charge Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors — much less that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove him, but Pelosi and her leadership would not initiate the process unless they were prepared to reach that outcome.
If not now, his second term, and those two paragraphs were pretty close to the print version.
Well, good things never last:
Meanwhile, in Wilmington, Del., on Tuesday, Biden called the president’s actions an “abuse of power’’ that undermined national security, and said he would support impeachment if Trump did not provide information related to congressional investigations.
The House Judiciary Committee has been conducting its own impeachment investigation focused on Mueller’s findings, as well as allegations that Trump may be illegally profiting from spending by state and foreign governments and other matters, but that inquiry had not gotten the imprimatur of a full House vote or the full rhetorical backing of the speaker.
Ah, memories of verbatim in the above paragraph.
The developments that have turned the tide began less than two weeks ago, when Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, first revealed the existence of a secret whistle-blower complaint that the intelligence community’s internal watchdog had deemed “urgent” and credible but that the Trump administration had refused to share with Congress.
There is your leak.
No wonder the administration is reluctant to give Congre$$ anything. It's instantly distorted and leaked to the pre$$.
Democrats have given Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, until Thursday to turn over the whistle-blower complaint or risk reprisal, and they have threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for a copy of the transcript of the president’s call with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine and other relevant documents after Thursday if they are not shared voluntarily.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, declined to say Tuesday what he would do if the House voted for impeachment. However, he did issue a statement, saying Pelosi’s ‘‘efforts to restrain her far-left conference have finally crumbled.’’
Oh, the last three paragraphs was also the way my printed article ended so you got a three-fer; however there was some print that was cut and left on the floor regarding Maguire being on Capitol Hill in the next few days.
--more--"
This article didn't make print:
"Unbowed, Trump sees fight as ‘a positive for me’" by Peter Baker New York Times, September 24, 2019
He knew it was coming. It almost felt inevitable. No other president in American history has been seriously threatened with impeachment since before his inauguration. So when the announcement came Tuesday that the House would consider charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors, President Trump made clear he was ready for a fight.
Remember, this is a guy who makes threats but then backs down.
I predict he will be gone by Friday, so I hope you are happy with what you wished for!
He lashed out at the opposition Democrats, denouncing them for “crazy” partisanship. He denounced the allegations against him as “more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” and he proclaimed that even if the impeachment battle to come will be bad for the country, it will be “a positive for me” by bolstering his chances to win a second term in next year’s election.
He will be the choice of consensus.
The beginning of the long-anticipated showdown arrived when Trump was in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, creating a surreal split-screen spectacle as the president sought to play global statesman while fending off his enemies back in Washington. One moment, he talked of war and peace and trade with premiers and potentates. The next, he engaged in a rear-guard struggle to save his presidency.
Trump gave a desultory speech and shuffled between meetings with leaders from Britain, India and Iraq while privately consulting with aides about his next move against the House. Shortly before heading into a lunch with the U.N. secretary-general, he decided to release a transcript of his July telephone call with the president of Ukraine that is central to the allegations against him. In effect, he was pushing his chips into the middle of the table, gambling that the document would prove ambiguous enough to undercut the Democratic case against him.
By afternoon, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to announce the impeachment inquiry, the president retreated to Trump Tower, his longtime home and base of operations, to contemplate his path forward. A telephone call between the president and speaker failed to head off the clash, and now the two are poised for an epic struggle that will test the limits of the Constitution and the balance of power in the U.S. system.
“We have been headed here inexorably,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, an impeachment scholar at the University of North Carolina. “The president has pushed and pushed his powers up to and beyond the normal boundaries. He’s been going too far for some time, but even for him this most recent misconduct is beyond what most of us, or most scholars, thought was possible for a president to do.”
How quickly they forget our war criminal's pasts.
Is it at the level of Iran-Contra yet?
Long reluctant, Pelosi finally moved after reports that Trump pressed Ukraine’s president to investigate unsubstantiated corruption allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic candidate for president, while holding up $391 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine. Democrats said leaning on a foreign power for dirt on an opponent crossed the line. Trump said he was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
This is after the Clinton campaign did it in 2016.
Trump now joins only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton in facing a serious threat of impeachment, the constitutional equivalent of an indictment.
Nixon resigned when fellow Republicans abandoned him over Watergate, but Johnson and Clinton were each acquitted in a Senate trial, the result that seems most likely at the moment given that conviction requires a two-thirds vote, meaning at least 20 Republican senators would have to break with Trump.
They are going to need more than this unknown whistleblower with a second-hand report operating out of the bowels of the bureaucracy.
Heck, if you want impeachable offense contact the NSA or Israel (those Stingrays sure vanished fast, huh?). They are collecting all communications, so if anyone would know, they would.
Nixon and Clinton both were privately distraught over facing impeachment even as they waged vigorous public battles to defend themselves. Undaunted, Trump appeared energized by the confrontation, eager for battle. Confident of his position in the Republican-controlled Senate, he seemed almost to assume that the Democrat-controlled House would probably vote to impeach and that he would take his case to the public in next year’s election.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president’s, said Trump could afford to feel secure. He predicted the same thing would happen to Pelosi that happened to him in 1998, when he led a party-line impeachment inquiry of Clinton and paid the price in midterm elections, costing him the speakership.
Just as the public recoiled at the Republican impeachment then, Gingrich said, it will reject a Democratic impeachment now. Instead, he said, it will give Trump and the Republicans a chance to focus attention on Biden.
“This is the fight that traps the Democrats into an increasingly unpopular position — I lived through this in 1998 — while elevating the Biden case, which involves big money,” Gingrich said. “It is a win-win for Trump.”
Not for Trump, but for the Jewi$h string-pullers behind the curtain. This whole thing has the side benefit of leading to the removal of the baggage-ridden Biden from the nomination process.
His point on the popularity of impeachment was a critical one. Until now, at least, polls have shown that most Americans do not support impeaching Trump, just as they never embraced impeaching Clinton, and although how the latest allegations might ultimately change public opinion remained unclear, a new survey by Reuters and Ipsos released Tuesday night suggested that support for impeachment had actually fallen since the Ukraine revelations, with just 37% in favor, down from 41% earlier this month.
It's called shooting yourselves in the foot.
Trump, though, has never been as popular as Clinton. During the 13-month battle that stretched from 1998 into 1999 over whether Clinton committed high crimes by lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s approval rating was generally in the mid-60s and even surged to 73% in the days after he was impeached.
Trump does not have the same reservoir of goodwill, never having had the support of a majority of Americans in Gallup polling for even a single day of his presidency. His approval rating currently stands at 43%, but he has the support of 91% of Republicans, giving him reason to assume the party’s senators will stick with him.
And the support of this independent voter, for now, when it comes to this.
Brenda Wineapple, author of “The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation,” said there were times when a stand on principle was worth it even with a short-term cost. “Some defeats can ultimately be victories — but often only in the long or historical view,” she said. “The Johnson impeachment ultimately failed,” she said, but in the end, she added, the system worked.
As stunning as the day’s developments were, the only real surprise was how long it took to get here. Trump’s critics began discussing impeachment within days of his election because of various ethical issues and Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. By last year’s midterm election, Trump repeatedly raised impeachment on the campaign trail, warning that Democrats would come after him if they won the House.
They did win, but the drive to impeachment stalled when special counsel Robert Mueller produced a report that established no criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia while refusing to take a position on whether the president obstructed justice during the investigation.
As it turned out, Ukraine, not Russia, proved to be rocket fuel for the semi-dormant effort. Now, more than 2 1/2 years later, the battle is on.
As long as the missiles aren't flying.
--more--"
The Globe also tells me how Trump is reacting to news of the impeachment inquiry. They say he is acting like Nixon and that is how history will remember him.
As for Biden's reaction, the New York Times article by Maggie Astor was a total rewrite of the print version that completely ignores undisputed facts and completely inverts known events. Protecting Joe while trying to move Joe out.
Now meet the Democratic nominee and next President of the United States.
Not so fast:
"White House may reach a deal to let whistle-blower speak to Congress" by Michael S. Schmidt, Julian E. Barnes and Maggie Haberman New York Times, September 25, 2019
White House and intelligence officials were working out a plan Tuesday to release a redacted version of the whistleblower complaint that helped ignite the impeachment drive against President Donald Trump and to allow the whistleblower to speak with congressional investigators, people briefed on the matter said.
I noticed right from the get-go that it is a rewritten, 'er, updated article.
The move toward disclosing more information demanded by Democrats was part of a broader effort by the administration to quell the growing calls for Trump’s impeachment, and became public after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of a formal impeachment inquiry.
Pelosi told fellow Democrats that in a private call that she had with the president on Tuesday, he said he was not responsible for the whistleblower complaint being withheld from Congress, according to Democrats.
The precise content of the whistleblower’s complaint has not been made public. It was found to be urgent and credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community, and is said to involve Trump and Ukraine. People familiar with the situation said the administration was putting the complaint through a declassification process and planned to release a redacted version within days.
It was filed Aug. 12, several weeks after Trump spoke by phone with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The whistleblower’s identity has not been publicly disclosed.
Trump has acknowledged that during the call with Zelenskiy, he brought up his long-standing demand for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his younger son, Hunter Biden, who did business in Ukraine while his father was in office and playing a leading role in diplomacy with Ukraine.
The president and his aides had initially rejected congressional requests to examine the complaint, igniting intense criticism from House Democrats, but as pressure built in the House to begin impeachment proceedings, administration officials concluded that holding out would put them in a politically untenable position.
The appearance that they were stonewalling Congress, in their view, could prove more damaging than the whistleblower’s account. Trump also believes that the allegations about him are not nearly as damning as they have been portrayed and that disclosing them will undercut the impeachment drive, people close to the president said.
Inside the White House, recriminations have begun over how the situation devolved to a point where a formal impeachment inquiry has been announced, people briefed on the situation said.
Some of his longtime critics blamed Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, for not acting more forcefully, but most blamed Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, for aggressively digging for dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine and inserting himself into official dealings with a Ukrainian official through the State Department — as well as his public statements about his efforts.
So Rudy is again going to be the fall guy. That makes sense after the former prosecutor allowed the 9/11 crime scene to be cleaned upon and destroyed rather than being preserved as evidence.
The recently departed national security adviser, John Bolton, was deeply concerned about Giuliani’s involvement in national security matters, according to a person familiar with his thinking. It was unclear whether he raised it with either Trump or Giuliani.
Oooooooh!
Another leak to the New York Times from Bolton.
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so!
Yeah, John Bolton was the ethical influence within the administration, okay.
What I'm wondering is why the name Kushner never makes the discussion.
The administration’s decision to seek ways to defuse some of the tension over the whistleblower was a striking turnabout. Intelligence community lawyers sent a letter to the whistleblower’s lawyers on Tuesday, indicating that the office was trying to work out the issues that would allow the whistleblower to speak with Congress.
Is it?
The claim is Trump always threatens and reverses course.
Why would this instance be any different?
Andrew P. Bakaj, a lawyer for the whistleblower, had sent a letter to the director of national intelligence earlier on Tuesday, saying that his client wanted to meet with members of Congress but needed the office’s approval.
“We applaud the decision to release the whistleblower complaint as it establishes that, ultimately, the lawful whistleblower disclosure process can work,” said Bakaj and I. Charles McCullough III, another lawyer for the whistleblower.
The unknown whistleblower has already lawyered up?
Hmmmmmm!
You know what is lost on all this?
The "transparent" Obama administration prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other presidents in the entire history of this country at a time when the country faced nowhere near the threats that it had in the past!
I guess there are good whistleblowers (Deep State Obama and Clinton operatives)and bad whistleblowers (Snowden, Assange, Manning) when it comes to my pre$$.
Intelligence community lawyers have had discussions with the White House and the Justice Department officials about how the whistleblower can share his complaint without infringing on issues like executive privilege.
Allowing the whistleblower to meet with congressional investigators would provide the whistleblower an opportunity to share at least some details of the complaint he filed, even if the full document is not handed over to Congress.
So we now know it's a he!
Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, said Tuesday that he would work with Congress and the administration to find a resolution in the standoff over congressional access to the complaint.
In a sharply worded statement, Maguire pushed back on an assertion by Pelosi that he had acted illegally by withholding the whistleblower complaint from Congress.
“In light of recent reporting on the whistleblower complaint, I want to make clear that I have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way,” Maguire said.
Maguire also appeared to defend the whistleblower, saying that all members of the country’s intelligence agencies “have a solemn responsibility to do what is right, which includes reporting wrongdoing.”
Uh-huh.
Where's the salt shaker?
The administration had originally barred the whistleblower’s complaint from being shared with Congress on the grounds that it did not meet the legal definitions of a matter under the purview of office of the director of national intelligence, but by Tuesday, the administration was working on several fronts to disclose key elements of the material sought by congressional Democrats. Trump said as he attended meetings at the United Nations on Tuesday that he would release a transcript of his call on July 25 with Zelenskiy.
The decision to release a transcript of the call made seeking a compromise on the whistleblower easier, a person familiar with the matter said, but the information in the complaint goes beyond the material in the transcript, meaning there are still potential issues of White House executive privilege that need to be resolved, the person said. A spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence declined to comment.
Good thing he has got Barr over at the DoJ.
Since before the confrontation over the whistleblower complaint became public, Maguire has been trying to broker a compromise that would allow some or all of the information to go to Congress to resolve the crisis.
Too late. The impeachment train has left the station. Democrats would look foolish were they to backtrack now.
Friends of Maguire have said he has felt caught between his duty to inform Congress on the one hand and his legal advisers and the Justice Department on the other. They had said he was not legally permitted to share the information.
The White House deliberations came as Democrats announced that they were moving forward with a formal impeachment investigation of Trump.
Trump, according to people close to him, believes Democrats will overplay their hand and that once the transcript is released, it will not prove to be a problem for him, but the whistleblower’s complaint is said to extend beyond the one phone call, and Trump has had at least one other phone call with Zelenskiy, on April 21.
They always do.
--more--"
Back to the Globe's front page:
"A surreal day in Washington and beyond: Democrats take a big step toward impeachment" by Jazmine Ulloa and Laura Krantz Globe Staff, September 24, 2019
Already a surreal morning given the old switcheroos from print.
WASHINGTON — In one hectic day in the nation’s capital, Donald Trump’s presidency — which has already survived a special counsel investigation and countless political scandals — shifted back into the danger zone.
Trump began the workday declaring that the increasing calls for impeachment over his alleged pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival were “nonsense.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended the day by announcing the start of a formal impeachment inquiry after she strenuously resisted one for months.
It would be the fourth such impeachment inquiry of a president in US history, but like so much of this presidency, the developments were delivered in a surreal atmosphere.
Republican lawmakers mostly brushed away questions about the latest scandal. Trump reversed course while at the United Nations and said he’d release a transcript of what he described as his “perfect” July phone call to the Ukrainian leader, which is at the center of the dispute, even after his top adviser, Rudy Giuliani, had ruled out that possibility hours earlier. Former vice president Joe Biden stood against a backdrop of American flags in Delaware and accused Trump of “shredding the Constitution” as he called for impeachment if the president doesn’t comply with a congressional investigation, and in a Twitter tirade, Trump dismissed the whole thing as “Witch Hunt garbage.”
Meanwhile, marking the time like a metronome all day were public statements by once-hesitant House Democrats, as lawmaker after lawmaker came out in favor of going down the impeachment path. Among the nearly three dozen to back an inquiry in a 24-hour period was Representative Richard Neal of Springfield, bringing the total in favor of impeachment to more than 170 and the political temperature in Washington close to 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
“Today I come with a heavy heart deeply concerned about the future of our democracy. And I’m not alone,” Representative John Lewis, a civil rights icon and one of the most respected congressional Democrats, said in a speech on the House floor declaring he was now on board for impeachment. “We cannot delay. We must not wait. Now is the time to act.”
Less than a week ago, the impeachment effort appeared stalled after a messy and contentious House hearing with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who stonewalled his way through five hours of questions. Some Democrats were left wondering if the push to continue highlighting the Mueller report’s findings on Russian election interference was a winning political strategy.
It's not, and he really took it to the Democrats so they came up with this.
Trump appeared on the verge of skating away from the Mueller investigation despite ample evidence of potential obstruction of justice because Democrats feared a political backlash, but then Trump poked the bear again.
Skating away despite ample evidence?
The reporter must have dementia, and just contemplate for a minute how disingenuous is that journali$m. There is "ample evidence" of "potential obstruction."
I'm used to the mixed messages and contradictions on a day-to-day basis, and even the ones in articles; however, in this case it's in the very same sentence.
A whistle-blower complaint about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and reports that Trump withheld US aid in an effort to force an investigation into Biden’s son turbocharged the impeachment drive. Trump then conceded he discussed Biden on the call. Although Trump said Tuesday that he would release a transcript of the conversation, his administration has denied Congress’s request to see the full whistle-blower complaint.
So far there has been no mention at all that the complaint is all second-hand hearsay. It's being treated as fact by the pre$$.
Massachusetts Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III, who has supported an impeachment inquiry since June, said House Democrats and even some Republicans were deeply disturbed by the latest revelations.
“It is the president, for the second time in as many elections, asking for foreign interference into our election, again,” he said, pausing as he hustled down the stairs to a closed-door meeting of House Democrats in the basement of the Capitol. “It’s — I wish I could say it’s stunning. It’s not. But it is inexcusable. And he needs to be held accountable.”
Democrats said anger at the president and a desire to act ran high at the crowded meeting, which lasted more than an hour. Some House members pulled out pens and pads to take notes. “We have crossed the Rubicon,” Pelosi told them, participants said. When she said she intended to move forward with an impeachment inquiry, the lawmakers broke out in applause, according to a senior Democratic aide.
“It is now full steam ahead,” Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington said after the meeting. “This is a national security issue.”
Something is steaming all right, and it sure does stink.
For some moderates like first-term Representative Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, it was a tough decision Tuesday to come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, which she did if Trump continued to withhold the whistle-blower complaint.
“This is not a politically expedient decision for me to make in a real swing district in a real swing state,” said Wild, who won a seat that Republicans had held for 20 years. “These are difficult decisions, but I think we just have the obligation at this point.”
Trump’s allies projected calm as Pelosi triggered the impeachment inquiry, arguing that the partisan clash will fire up the president, fuel his base, and help him win reelection.
His base is the working class that just got a raise.
“Expecting Donald Trump to go along and get along is like wanting Man o’ War to never run again,” Trump’s former campaign adviser Michael Caputo said, referencing the famous racehorse. “He’s a fighter — we hired him because he’s a brawler,” but the focus on what Democrats are calling Trump’s abuse of power will likely put some Senate Republicans running for reelection in purple states in 2020 — including Susan Collins of Maine — in a tough spot.
I'll get to the wars below.
“If you’re a Senate Republican this may not be the flaming pile of manure that you want to find on your doorstep one morning,” said Democratic consultant Ian Russell, the former head of the House Democrats’ campaign arm.
That's what is causing the steaming stench!
An impeachment inquiry could turn up more damaging information on Trump than regular committee investigations.
They sure are hoping!
Senate Republicans defended the president Tuesday, insisting Democrats were jumping to conclusions without having all of the facts and even defending Trump’s request for an investigation into Biden.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said he would not be surprised to learn that Trump asked the Ukrainians for a corruption investigation of Biden’s son, something that should be investigated as much as the president’s actions, he said.
“He asks for investigations all the time. That’s the way this president rolls,” Kennedy said. “To me the issue, the real issue, is whether there was a quid pro quo. And the president says there wasn’t. And I think that eventually he will release sufficient information to ascertain the veracity of his denial.”
Talk of impeachment dominated the frantic day. The throngs of reporters and rapid-fire questions provided a glimpse into how Capitol Hill will be consumed by the topic for the foreseeable future heading into an election year in which Democratic leaders wanted to focus on health care and other kitchen table issues.
Not me.
“If there is anyone who can tell you that they know how this is going to play out, they’re mistaken or they’re guessing,” said Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois. “They’re telling you who is going to win the World Series in the start of the exhibition season.”
Yeah, it's all a GAME!
--more--"
I post this unadulterated reaction for your sake because it mirrors mine:
"Saker rant: reaction to the Dems attempt to impeach Trump"
September 24, 2019
I think that most readers know that I am not a fan of Trump or the Republican Party. But I have to say that compared to the Democrats, the folks at the GOP are quasi decent; not very bright and only decent in comparison with the Dems, but still.
I have always maintained that the Neocons will try to impeach Trump and that he was what I called a “disposable” President the Neocons will use for dumb shit like moving the US embassy to al-Quds before jettisoning him, but I never thought that the Dems would have the chutzpah to pull of exactly the same trick TWICE!
What do I mean by that?
Look at that sequence:
Hillary does something dumb and insiders at the DNC leak documents. What do the Dems do? Invent the entire Russiagate charade.
This time around:
The Bidens do something dumb and somebody finds out. What do the Dems do? Invent a brand new “Ukrainegate“!
Exact same trick. Twice!
And since chances are that the Senate will never impeach Trump, the real reason they are now talking about impeachment is just to help Biden and his campaign. In other words, the Dems are doing exactly what they are accusing Trump of doing: they are trying to use a foreign power to interfere in US elections.
Then there is this: at least some Republicans are true patriots. But the Dems? They don’t care that forcing the President to release his conversations with foreign officials will make it hard in the future for foreign officials to be candid when they speak to the US President (even if he/she is a Dem!).
Besides, ALL the intelligence services on the planets have all kinds of agreements and understandings with others and requesting data on illegal activities of US citizens abroad is something which all 17 (!) US intelligence agencies ought to be doing. And when dealing with a very public or powerful figure, it is normal for heads of state to be the top person to decide if such a confidential exchange of sensitive materials will or will not take place. Finally, last time I checked, the VP does not keep his immunity of office once gone.
Sorry, but for the life of me I don’t see what Trump did wrong.
But then, neither did General Flynn do anything wrong either, and Trump immediately and totally betrayed him, so there is some karma at work here.
Then there is this famous “whistle-blower”. First, for all we know, this might be a “Peter Strzok v2”, so let’s wait before assuming that another Snowden is coming forth.
Then, what NERVE the Dems have whining about Trump not allowing this alleged whistle-blower to come forward. Okay, maybe The Donald got it wrong and said something stupid. But he sure did not persecute whistle-blowers as viciously as Obama did! Do these Dems have no shame! (no need to answer, that was rhetorical).
And, to fully complete my sense of nausea, I just read John Podhoretz’ editorial “Trump Did This to Himself” in Commentary (yes, I read the enemy’s propaganda, always). Technically, Podhoretz’ is right, of course, but not at all in the sense he means it.
I am saddened by all this. In my 56th year I lived 20 years in the USA and I love both its beautiful nature and many of its kind and good people. This country deserves so much better! And please don’t accuse me of being pollyannish about the USA’s past. I wrote about the evils of US imperialism, racism and multiple genocides (including the biggest one in history, the one of Native Americans) many times. But I am also aware of all the beautiful and noble things this young country also had in its short history. Besides, those who live in the USA today cannot be blamed for the past (unless they whitewash it, of course).
Just 30 years ago the USA was a totally different country. The Bill of Rights still mattered. M*A*S*H was shown on TV without having hordes of offended minorities protesting. US Americans did not fear the police (at least if you were not Black). There was no ICE and US colleges had a TRUE political diversity. Okay, the US media was mostly crap, but some “dissident” journos could still get published” (nowadays, a US journalist is, to use Alain Soral’s very apt words about the French journos, either a prostitute or unemployed).
This, and much more, is all gone now.
If the human race does not destroy itself and if we still have a future, historians will study this last phase of the US Empire and they will argue who was most to blame. And while blame can be apportioned pretty much everywhere, I think that it is fair to say that the Democrats did much more damage to this country than the Republicans. Of course, the real culprit hiding in shades are the Neocons who first took control of the Democratic Party (under Carter and maybe even before) and who then proceeded to infiltrate the GOP (under Reagan) (In the case of the GOP I was an eyewitness to how this was done in several think tanks in DC between 1988 and 1991).
With the sole possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard, I consider the Democratic Party to be profoundly anti-American (sorry, I cannot use the words “anti-US”, which would be more accurate but also clumsy). In fact, the evidence of the past several decades shows that Dems only care about themselves, their power, their money, their fame. They don’t give a hoot about the people of the United States, all their catering to loony minorities is just a scam. They are the worst supremacists in this country for sure!
I think that anybody who for whatever reason supported this party in the past ought to now resign from it, publicly if possible.
Alas, I am not holding my breath for that either.
This is a sad day.
The Saker
Agreed.
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
Time to head over to the U.N.
"Trump celebrates nationalism in UN speech and plays down Iran crisis" By Michael Crowley and David E. Sanger New York Times, September 24, 2019
President Trump delivered a sharp nationalist message and assailed “globalists” in remarks to the world’s leading international body on Tuesday, while taking a notably moderate line on Iranian aggression in the Middle East.
Oh, yeah?!!
“If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation,” Trump said, as he called for stronger borders and new controls on migration. “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations.”
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to foster international cooperation and understanding after the nationalist fervor that had plunged the globe into World War II, but Trump, who spoke in a flat monotone, stressed the value of national identity and argued governments must defend their “history, culture, and heritage.”
“The free world must embrace its national foundations,” Trump said. “It must not attempt to erase them or replace them.”
Just as notable as his challenge to many of the world body’s principles was what Trump did not say.
Before an audience that had been primed for him to focus on attacks on Saudi oil facilities that the United States has said Iran was behind, Trump said relatively little about the Sept. 14 strikes.
Likely to the relief of his audience, which included European leaders who have been scrambling to find a way to avert conflict with Iran over its nuclear program, Trump did not repeat that bellicose phrase. Instead, he reiterated the distaste for military conflict he has demonstrated since he first ran for president. “Many of our friends today were once our greatest foes,” Trump said. “The United States has never believed in permanent enemies. America knows that while anyone can make war, only the most courageous can choose peace.”
Umm, what nuclear program?
That's the NYT for you, leaving the impression that they have a nuclear weapons program.
I know the speech was written for him; however, that last statement is certainly intriguing.
I feel like I am clinging to this guy as he alone holds back the dike of war.
Trump offered the world leaders and diplomats gathered before him little in the way of a clear path forward on how to deal with Iran, and largely repeated prior broad-stroke complaints about Iran’s “menacing behavior.” He was rewarded with respectful applause when he finished, but none at all during the speech itself.
Remember when the room was silent after Bush one year?
Trump’s speech also restated his hope that diplomacy can denuclearize North Korea; he vowed to seek peace in Afghanistan even as America continues to fight the Taliban; and he again condemned the “socialist” dictatorship in Venezuela.
That's something Franco would have said.
Trump also took explicit aim at the power of the United Nations, noting with pride that he has refused to ratify an international arms trade treaty sponsored by the body.
--more--"
Maybe it is time to abort the U.N.:
"‘There is no international right to an abortion,’ US says at UN meeting" by Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post, September 24, 2019
The Trump administration declared that there’s no ‘‘international right to abortion’’ at a United Nations meeting in New York this week, calling on other countries to join a coalition pushing the elimination of what it calls ‘‘ambiguous’’ terms and expressions, such as sexual and reproductive health, from UN documents.
Earlier this year, HHS officials began meeting with representatives from other countries, urging them to join a new international coalition that would focus on the value of ‘‘the family,’’ and which would not condone harmful sexual risks for young people, or promote abortion as a means of family planning.
Other countries and women’s rights groups have expressed alarm at the efforts, and accused the United States of aligning with countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan with poor human rights records.
Oh, now the most odious regime on the planet finally comes in for criticism (what happened in the meetings between Kushner and MbS anyway?).
As for Sudan, they are on the correct path now after the regime change, and why haven't the women's rights groups complained about drone strikes and Epstein?
Numerous country representatives tweeted their objections to the US statement under the hashtag #SRHR — sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Sweden’s minister for international development cooperation tweeted that the action was ‘‘unbelievable news,’’ and that ‘‘women’s rights must be protected at all times.’’
The Netherlands’ Sigrid Kaag, minister of foreign trade, spoke out in a competing joint statement issued on behalf of 58 countries. While she did not use the word abortion, she repeatedly stressed the need to uphold the full range of sexual and reproductive rights.....
--more--"
It looks like they have won over Algeria but lost France.
Related:
"President Trump responded to an impassioned plea to global leaders at the United Nations by 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg with a sarcastic late-night tweet. ‘‘She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!’’ Trump said on Twitter shortly after 11:30 p.m. on Monday. He attached a news account of Thunberg’s remarks to the gathering in New York earlier in the day that highlighted a deeply pessimistic quote: ‘‘People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.’’ Appearing on a panel at the UN climate summit, Thunberg chastised leaders for praising young activists like herself while failing to deliver on drastic actions needed to avert the worst effects of climate change, and she warned that if the world continued with business as usual, her generation would face an insurmountable catastrophe. ‘‘This is all wrong,’’ said Thunberg who, with tears in her eyes and her face flushed, was visibly emotional as she spoke. Cameras caught Thunberg giving Trump an icy stare as he arrived at the UN gathering earlier in the day. Trump, who in the past has called climate change a ‘‘hoax,’’ gave scant attention to the issue that dominated the day on Monday. After scheduling one of his administration’s marquee events — a forum on religious freedom — during the UN climate summit on Monday, he dropped by the climate event for 14 minutes in a surprise visit. He did not speak and left after listening to remarks from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Angela Merkel, the outgoing German chancellor. Meanwhile, Fox News has apologized for a guest’s ‘‘disgraceful’’ description of Thunberg as mentally ill but was silent Tuesday on Laura Ingraham likening her to a murderous cult of children from a Stephen King story. The network responded swiftly to a news segment Monday where Michael Knowles of ‘‘The Daily Wire’’ said the 16-year-old environmentalist was a ‘‘mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.’’ Thunberg has been open about being diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, embracing it as her ‘‘superpower.’’ Knowles was immediately called out by a fellow guest, podcast host Chris Hahn, who said, ‘‘You’re a grown man and you’ve attacked a child. Shame on you.’’ Hahn called on Knowles to immediately apologize. He didn’t and won’t get a chance again on Fox. The network later apologized to Thunberg and viewers for the comment and said it had no plans to book Knowles, who has no tie to the network, again. A couple hours later Ingraham, one of the network’s prime-time stars, said she found some of Thunberg’s remarks before the United Nations that scolded officials for not acting on climate change to be chilling. She juxtaposed a portion of the speech with a clip from the 1984 horror film ‘‘Children of the Corn.’’ Based on a King story, the film is about children in a Nebraska town being persuaded to kill the adults. ‘‘I can’t wait for Stephen King’s sequel, ‘Children of the Climate,’ ” Ingraham said. Fox said it had no comment on Ingraham’s segment."
How callous of her, huh?
Maybe she can write them a letter as we all go vegan.
Related: The Greta and Malala Comparison
The little girl is not who you think she is at all!
Related:
Puerto Rico braces for flooding, landslides from Karen
It’s that time of year as the whales wash ashore too ill to survive after the seawalls collapsed.
Zimbabwe’s capital runs dry as taps cut off for 2 million people
They now look like Newark as they to speed to replace the pipes blamed for lead in water.
Pakistan battles dengue epidemic, with 20 deaths so far
It coincides with an earthquake in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir (what timing)!
State’s third EEE victim identified as Hampden County resident who battled virus for more than a month
Well, the chillier nights of the last week have taken care of them.
Trump administration threatens to withhold highway money from Calif. in fight over air quality
He won't win California anyway, and he's dead in Wisconsin, too. There is even talk he may not win South Carolina, but he has a chance in Illinois, though (the printed Globe carried the second photograph in the album).
If only our politics could be more like Israel.
Too bad our roots are in England:
"Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful, UK Supreme Court rules" by Mark Landler New York Times, September 24, 2019
Okay, but show me where. They have no constitution.
LONDON — The British Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament, dealing him another heavy blow and thrusting the nation’s politics into even deeper turmoil, barely a month before Britain could leave the European Union.
The court ruled unanimously that the suspension of Parliament until Oct. 14 was void and that lawmakers were therefore still in session and could continue the debate over Brexit that Johnson short-circuited when he asked the queen to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament for five weeks.
The decision delivered a legal and political jolt to Britain, where the courts have historically avoided politics and where, unlike in the United States, there is little precedent for judicial review of government decisions. That record had led political and legal analysts to speculate that the court might decide that it had no authority to rule on the prime minister’s actions, or might arrive at a mixed judgment.
They are becoming more like America, where judges make law from the bench (well, not always).
Instead, the judges made a landmark decision to step into the middle of a fierce political clash, and delivered a resounding defeat for the prime minister and an unequivocal victory to his critics. Reporters and analysts on British news sites and broadcast channels resorted time and again to the word “unprecedented.”
Showing no sign of being chastened by the ruling, Johnson did not rule out suspending Parliament again, but did not specify when. “I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court,” he told reporters in New York City, where he is attending the UN General Assembly. “I think the most important thing is that we get on and deliver Brexit on Oct. 31, and clearly the claimants in this case are determined to try to frustrate that,” he added.
Oh, they did this while he was away?
What cowards!
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said the court had documented “a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power” by Johnson, adding that he would “demand that Parliament is recalled.” At the party’s annual conference, Corbyn was scheduled to give his big speech Wednesday, but it will take place Tuesday instead, party officials said. “This unelected prime minister should now resign,” he told party members, prompting chants of “Johnson out.”
They are going to run him out on an Uber and into exile in Germany after the recall.
The timing of Parliament’s return is doubly bad for Johnson because the Conservatives are scheduled to hold their annual conference early next week, to showcase the party’s policies before a possible general election. Unless the prime minister can assemble an unlikely majority to suspend Parliament again, that set-piece event may now clash with parliamentary proceedings. Johnson will cut short his New York trip and fly back to London on Tuesday night.
Politics is all a set-piece event if you are on the wrong side of the pre$$ as they make Johnson cut short his trip.
As a practical matter, it was not clear how much the decision would change the government’s immediate approach to Brexit. In the days before they were dispersed, members of the House of Commons pushed through a law — over the prime minister’s fierce opposition — that would prohibit Johnson from pursuing a “no-deal Brexit,” but in symbolic terms, the court ruling was a stinging rebuke for the prime minister. It raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II in asking her to prorogue the Parliament, and it added to the perception that his Conservative government was running roughshod over Britain’s most hallowed political conventions in its zeal to extract the country from Europe.
I'm tired of the slanted distortions of the NYT, and I guess it's worse than misleading the public into war using a dodge dossier as did Bliar.
--more--"
I thought that was Trump for a second!
Related:
"The New York Times said it turned to the Irish government to rescue a reporter threatened with arrest in Egypt two years ago out of concern that the Trump administration wouldn’t help. Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger revealed the incident during a speech at Brown University and in an op-ed published Tuesday. He criticized President Trump for seeding a ‘‘worldwide assault on journalists and journalism’’ and said it’s time for the United States to again champion the rights of a free press. There was no immediate response from the White House. In August 2017, the Times was contacted by a US government official who warned that Declan Walsh, a reporter based in Egypt, was going to be arrested, Sulzberger said. The Times magazine had just published Walsh’s story about Giulio Regini, an Italian student found dead in Cairo and the subject of a dispute between Italy and Egypt about whether the Egyptian government was involved. The US official who contacted the Times operated on the belief that the Trump administration would sit on the information and not help the reporter, Sulzberger said. The official feared being punished for alerting the Times. Walsh, who is an Irish citizen, tweeted that he called the US government press office in Cairo upon getting the warning and was directed to the Irish embassy. Within an hour, an Irish diplomat drove him to the airport and Walsh left for Europe. He has since returned to work in Egypt. ‘‘I owe a belated thanks to (an) Irish diplomat who rushed to help in a tight spot,’’ Walsh said. ‘‘He was cool, swift and fearless.’’ He said he was also grateful to the Washington tipster. Sulzberger said that 18 months later, Times reporter David Kirkpatrick was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for reporting information that embarrassed the Egyptian government. When the Times protested, an official at the US embassy said, ‘‘What did you expect would happen to him? His reporting made the government look bad.’’ For years, when sending reporters into dangerous situations, the Times always felt that the US government, ‘‘the world’s greatest champion of the free press,’’ would have its back, the publisher said. Now, the paper sees how Trump’s favorite descriptor of stories he doesn’t like, ‘‘fake news,’’ has spread to governments beyond the United States, he said."
Yeah, you self-promoting shit-shovelers are real fucking heroes in addition to being tone-deaf assholes.
Why would he want to help you?
Also see:
Indonesian students rally against changes to corruption law
The second day's worth of coverage confirms it as a regime change effort.
"Japan announced Tuesday that it is not inviting South Korea to a multinational naval review it is hosting next month because their ties are badly strained over history, trade, and defense....."
This is no time to be waging war against China.
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
BPS gets a ‘needs improvement’ from the state
The Globe says that "for a rich city, swimming in tax revenue from new development, that’s nothing short of a scandal."
City Council incumbents Wu, Essaibi-George, Flaherty, and Garrison advance to Nov. ballot with four newcomers
Despite the Globe's promotion and print, turnout was low — about 9 percent.
Kennedy calls for ‘People’s Pledge’ to limit outside money in Senate campaign
He can't keep up with Markey.
Cannabis commission approves marijuana deliveries
Just don't vape.
Americans are still eating too many low-quality carbs
See previous link above.
Survey finds 60 percent of Mass. biotech workers would change job to get a better commute
NTSB blames shoddy work at Columbia Gas for Lawrence-area disaster
The real-life ‘Animal House’ at Dartmouth is now home to startups
This is what they produced:
Boston Dynamics’ Spot robot hits the street, work sites
Kill it, then pray for it:
Nuns lose proxy fight with Springfield gunmaker
Acquia sells controlling interest to private equity firm
They make open-source tools for creating websites, apps, and other digital products.
WeWork cofounder steps down as CEO under pressure
He will be working from homes from now on.
UPDATES:
On Thursday I did myself the favor of skipping the trip to the convenience store to purchase a printed paper, and so what if I did? It will soon be time to Neal down in front of the Chinese, so you can either go Red or go Dead.
There are now concerns over the talking points that landed right in the wheelhouse of Pelosi. Trump has become an endangered species and could be deported to Honduras after the impeachment process. He's dead and buried as far as the Globe is concerned. Republicans are already distancing themselves from him, a sure sign that his presidency is in danger of collapsing. He is just not as lucky as others around the world. Maybe exile to Australia or South Africa then (I'm surprised he hasn't retired yet).
If not, some will be crying like babies. They can't see past the hate because there is no vaccine for such a thing. What it has done is opened the way for Warren and the embattled Joe Biden is going to need help putting out the fire. His campaign manager will be a genius if he can get him out of this firestorm. The ‘huge distraction’ that is impeachment is not what the stock market needs right now and it could ruin such a strong summer for Boston (could vanish in a puff of smoke even) if you are not cautious, so stop spreading conspiracy theories (John Kerry accepted, of course, as some of those connected to him got rich of the Ukrainian regime change that happened on his watch)!
If you do, you will see a rebound on the exhale as stocks will soar higher despite the tariffs and bias against Trump.
Unfortunately, my addiction got the better of me on Friday with the cover up being the old switcheroo and rewrite. Come to find out the "whistleblower" is CIA of all things.
The Globe makes their case for them:
"Ukraine hearing gives glimpse of Democrats’ impeachment strategy — and its hurdles" Analysis by Liz Goodwin and Laura Krantz Globe Staff, September 26, 2019
WASHINGTON — Bookended by dry discussions of the legal definition of the word “urgent,” the country’s top intelligence officer made an admission Thursday that Democrats can carry like a banner into battle as they launch an impeachment inquiry in the coming weeks.
“I think the whistle-blower did the right thing,” acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire said under questioning during an occasionally tense House Intelligence Committee hearing.
The three-hour session provided the first glimpse into House Democrats’ freshly opened inquiry, which centers around President Trump’s request that Ukraine’s president investigate Trump’s political rival Joe Biden while his administration held up hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to the country.
Maguire’s testimony provided fresh fodder for that investigation, while Republicans appeared to struggle to defend Trump’s behavior, with a few of them not even attempting to, but the often technical and process-focused hearing was a reminder that Democrats face an uphill climb in using their committees to paint a clear picture of wrongdoing for the American people as they fight a president who defends himself with an entertainer’s panache.
Since winning back the House majority last November, Democrats have at best a mixed record in their attempts to stage blockbuster hearings that uncover damaging new information about Trump. The notable exception was the questioning of Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen in February, but after months of build-up, this summer’s testimony from Special Counsel Robert Mueller fizzled when he appeared as an unfocused and lackluster witness in testifying about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s potential obstruction of justice, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski stonewalled and insulted lawmakers when they hauled him in for questioning last week in a hearing that was widely panned.
That's why he was hidden away for so long. I can just see him in his office playing with things and dottering around as he headed the investigation.
The Democrats’ fate — in congressional races, as well as in the fight for the White House — rests on continuing to move up the percentage of voters who support impeachment. The televised hearings in wood-paneled congressional committee rooms are where that battle will be waged. Democrats have appeared at times to lack a clear strategy or message around the myriad allegations of misconduct by the president, with the result that the committees’ work hasn’t broken through, he said. “It’s a very shotgun approach rather than rifle shots,” said Michael Steel, who was a spokesman for former GOP House speaker John Boehner.....
He better “be careful of what he says say because they’re going to use these words against him.”
--more--"
Related:
As the cheers go up from the women and the lobbying effort goes up in smoke (unlike the pharmaceuticals, and the vape crisis is looking more and more like an attempt to strangle legal marijuana businesses that they never wanted in the first place. Going to hurt local businesses and cost jobs, I can tell you that).
As the Democrats face the impeachment dilemma, Senator Mitt Romney is a lonely voice of concern (with Weld on track in the primary).
"Congress on Thursday gave final approval to a short-term spending bill that would punt the threat of a government shutdown to just before Thanksgiving, giving lawmakers an additional two months to resolve their differences over paying for President Trump’s policies. The measure ensures that all federal agencies and departments, as well as a number of health care and community programs, will maintain their funding through Nov. 21, just before Congress is scheduled to depart Washington for its Thanksgiving break. The Senate voted, 82-15, to pass the bill, clearing it for the White House just days before funding was set to expire on Oct. 1....."
The rest of the article focused on the haggling over $5 billion for the border wall.
"Income inequality in America the highest it’s been since Census started tracking it, data show" by Taylor Telford Washington Post, September 26, 2019
Last year, income inequality in the United States reached its highest level since the Census Bureau started tracking it in 1967, according to federal data released Thursday.
This i$$ue gets trotted out every four years to help the Democrat, and then it's back to bu$ine$$ as usual.
On Wednesday, President Trump declared just the opposite. “Wages are up and inequality is down, something people don’t like writing about,’’ he said during a news conference in New York.
In the midst of the longest economic expansion the United States has ever seen, with poverty and unemployment rates at historic lows, the separation between rich and poor from 2017 and 2018 was greater than it has ever been, federal data show.
Nine states saw spikes in that divide: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia.
The gulf is starkest in wealthy coastal areas such as Washington, D.C., New York, Connecticut, and California, as well as in areas with widespread poverty, such as Puerto Rico and Louisiana. Equality was highest in Utah, Alaska, and Iowa.
The Gini index measures wealth distribution across a population, with zero representing total equality and 1 representing total inequality, where all wealth is concentrated in a single household. The indicator has been rising steadily during the past several decades.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25, and it hasn’t been raised in more than a decade, in the early days of the expansion. That’s one of the biggest reasons the gap between the rich and poor is widening, said Brielle Bryan, an assistant professor of sociology at Rice University.
‘‘Inequality will go up as long as the people at the top of the tail are seeing their wealth increase,’’ Bryan said. ‘‘A booming economy means that people who have higher income and own capital are able to see continued higher returns on that.’’
Recent economic gains by lower-income workers who have found jobs and benefited from minimum-wage increases in many states hasn’t made up for the long-running trend of the wealthy seeing far larger income growth than middle- or lower-income earners.
Though the gap between the richest and poorest expanded, the nation’s median household income topped $63,000 for the first time — though after adjusting for inflation, it’s roughly the same as it was 20 years ago.
The persistent rise in inequality has become a central topic in the 2020 presidential race, with candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren calling for a wealth tax. This week, Sanders announced his plan for a wealth tax as high as 8 percent on the ultrawealthy, which would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade, according to analysis by economists who consulted with the Warren and Sanders campaigns.
‘‘There should be no billionaires,’’ Sanders tweeted to announce his plan. ‘‘We are going to tax their extreme wealth and invest in working people.’’
His campaign is imploding as I type.
Perversely, systemic inequality is actually at its starkest in the top tier. The upper reaches of the economic ladder are populated primarily by white men, Bryan said, and the private sector isn’t subject to the kind of policies and public accessibility that can often shape the lower end. Women in the 95th percentile for earners make around 68 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.
And among them, an inordinate number of them are Jewi$h relative to the overall population.
‘‘We don’t have as much sympathy for CEOs,’’ Bryan said, ‘‘but what’s happening at the top end is really symbolic of problems happening throughout the system.’’
--more--"
Oh, for a return of the Obama years, huh?
Related:
"The Senate on Thursday confirmed Eugene Scalia, a longtime lawyer representing corporations, to be labor secretary. Since Scalia’s nomination, Democrats and labor groups have questioned whether his background is consistent with the interests of US workers. Scalia, 56, has spent much of his career at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a prominent corporate law firm, where perhaps his best-known client was SeaWorld. He helped represent the company after a killer whale attacked and killed a trainer in 2010 and his team argued unsuccessfully in federal appeals court that the company had sufficient training and safety measures and that it was up to its trainers to manage the remaining risks they faced on the job....."
Looks like his reward for keeping quiet about dad's murder same way article kept quiet about Acosta-Epstein.
I couldn't care less about the agenda-pushing, self-promotion called HubWeek, and who knows, maybe I will get lucky and win the lottery (maybe not).
Thankfully, according to the New York Times, the United States and Israel are not one of them.
Of course, government can do pretty much what it wants here in the authoritarian fa$ci$t state that is Ma$$achu$etts.
It's not just the state cops, fellow citizen.
Just an accident, I know, but the crime would have carried prison time because of the gun in the car (take the bus next time).
Who cares about the condition of the planes when we have a security situation at the airports?
My best advice to you? Stay on the ground.
What more is there to talk about, really?
