Friday, April 21, 2023

Selfish Dianne Feinstein needs to step down

The ridiculous NEW YORKER magazine offers "Leave Dianne Feinstein alone."  No, and stop being an apologist for those in power.  


As C.I. noted in the snapshot today, Dianne does not own this seat.  It is not her seat.  It is one of two Senate seats that California has.  She is not up to the job and she needs to resign.


Alexander Bolton (THE HILL) reports:

A coalition of more than 60 progressive grassroots groups claiming to represent more than 100,000 Californians sent a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asking her to resign.

The coalition, which includes progressive groups from around the state, argue Feinstein’s extended absence from the Senate has held up President Biden’s agenda in the chamber.

“Complications from your illness threaten [your] storied legacy. Your absences hobble the elected Democratic Senate majority from doing the work of the people of California and our nation,” the groups wrote.

“We ask that you resign from the Senate to focus on your health. Please allow Gov. [Gavin] Newsom to appoint an interim senator who can provide robust and constant representation for California though the election of 2024,” they wrote.

The signatories include Activate America, Berkeley Now, Change begins with ME, Democracy Action Marin, Feminists in Action Los Angeles, Generation Blue, and chapters of Indivisible from around the state.


Now I've noted how DiFi's inability to show up for work has resulted in Joe Biden's federal nominees being stuck in Committee when they should have been sent to the floor for a vote.  Turns out Selfish Dianne is holding up more than just that:


The lack of an effective majority also prevents Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) from subpoenaing witnesses to discuss the Supreme Court’s ethics rules and reports that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas accepted travel and other favors from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow without disclosing them on publicly available forms.



"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, April 21, 2023.  Matt Taibbi is being attacked by a pretend Congress member and it needs to be called out -- and she's actually harming election chances for the Democrats with her unhinged and rabid behavior.



These snapshots are dictated.  I'm usually working out -- if I'm away from home, they're dictated while I'm running, otherwise I'm on a treadmill or stepper.  Things are pulled all the time before something  gets published.  I dictate these primarily to three friends.  And one would tell you that if I'm bothered by ______, he tells me "stop, you know it's not going to make it into the published snapshot."  And he's actually right, it usually doesn't but _____ is so frustrating that it helps me get whatever out of my system.  Sometimes something's dropped because it overwhelms something else that I want to emphasize.  Sometimes it's dropped because I think I could do it better covering it the next day.  Sometimes it's dropped for space, I think the snapshot's going way too long.  Or maybe it's a humorous note in the wrong place.

Example:

Yesterday,  Glenneth Greenwald raged at Mark Hamill (fine with me, Mark's not my friend) and then Glenneth typed "From experience, no sub culture is dumber than Hollywood."  Oh, Glenneth, should you really talk about Jane Hamsher that way? 


Another dropped this week, longer, was on Matt Taibbi.  We're copying and pasting that in.  After I'll explain why.

I'm not a Medhi Hasan fan.  That predates this decade and goes back to Iraq and statements -- especially on THE DIANE REHM SHOW -- that were flat out lies.  Mehdi and Matt Taibbi got into it on Mehdi's show not long ago.  Ava and I covered it in "TV: The media's lack of accountability."


Matt Taibbi is back from Disney Land and his trip to meet family in Hawaii.  And he's back on Twitter.  Lee Fang is using Twitter to question Medhi's reporting.  Lee's charge -- use previous link -- is that Mehdi is guilty of plagiarism -- a serious charge.  There is no defense of, "I was only writing about ___ and that's not hard news."  You're a journalist and you chose to write about it, you were required to be accurate and, no, I'm not going into this in any greater length, it's not the 90s and NEWSWEEK hasn't just lied that Chandler was the one handcuffing a woman.  (An error NEWSWEEK refused to correct and claimed, it was only an entertainment story -- only.  Rachel's boss handcuffs Chandler, for those who didn't see the episode.)  It was revealing about the author -- that he was a liar and that clearly he had his own kink at play if he needed to see it a way other than how it actually happened.  The same is true of Medhi -- the spanking focus tells a great deal about him.


Matt seems to think this is where he (Matt) goes for the throat.  It's not.  


Don't know what to do here but speak slowly.  Ava and my piece resulted in hysterics insisting we had crucified Matt.  

The topic of our piece was accountability.  Confronted with errors, two or three, Matt took accountability.  When others lied after the interview aired -- there appears to be a gulf between honesty and YOUTUBERS -- Matt took accountability and noted he did not come off well.  We noted he was one of the few adults in the room, we noted too many others that week were not taking accountability.

That's not slamming him and it's definitely not crucifying him. 

There was an error in a Tweet.  Not the end of the world.  But when your 'report' is not a written report but a series of Tweets, yes, all Tweets have equal value.  He needs to write a report.  

While he went on vacation, a series of people have mocked him -- as he knew they would.  Not a slam for him going on vacation before someone e-mails a "How dare you!"  

My opinion, he should be working on a report.  Not Tweets.  







Post-segment, Hasan took the incredibly serious step of accusing me of lying to congress. Talk about “press as police”: that’s a felony charge, and Hasan has been insisting to everyone who’ll listen that I’m guilty of it. Hasan's claim is based on the idea that I was “suggesting a nonprofit was an intel agency to try & prove government collusion/censorship.”

This was a reference to my conflating the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in a #TwitterFiles tweet. One letter in an acronym may not sound like much, but it would have been a serious mistake indeed, if I’d implied an “intel agency” like CISA was partnered with Twitter and Stanford’s Election Integrity Project, if it was not.

But CISA absolutely was a partner to the EIP, as was the CIS. Hasan appeared not to have been aware of this, which may be why (apart from my bumbling demeanor) he seemed to think this was such a gotcha moment on air.

CISA, CIS, and EIP openly partnered through the 2020 election process, as TwitterFiles emails documents as well as publicly available information repeatedly demonstrate. I even tweeted months ago, in TwitterFiles #6, that the two agencies were easily confused, as both were partners to Stanford’s election initiative. Neither CISA, the CIS, Twitter, nor the EIP has ever claimed CISA wasn’t a partner to the EIP project. It would be an impossible thing to assert: there are too many public announcements describing the CISA-EIP partnership. From the EIP’s own website:



Hasan said claiming CISA involvement with the EIP was “key to my thesis,” and since this “thesis” wasn’t true, House Judiciary chief and Weaponization of Government Subcommittee chair Jim Jordan needed to correct the record. (He doesn’t). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose MO these days seems to involve loudly planting a flag in every online wedge controversy with any chance of trending, chimed in to claim the “entire Oversight hearing and investigation” was “based on these errors,” and therefore the GOP had wasted “tons of public time and dollars” on the Files material.

To say that all of this has been infuriating is a massive understatement. I have three little kids and these people are accusing me of a serious crime for which I could go to jail, yet they themselves are the ones making the mistake. The sheer viciousness of the ploy is mind-blowing.






I don't live in a world where no one makes mistakes -- I make mistakes all the time.  But I do expect to live in a world where people own their mistakes.  

If you're seeing me crucifying Matt or anything similar, that's your mistake. 

We've noted various reactions -- by reposting videos -- and people can have whatever reaction they want.  But speaking for me, the end of the world would have been Matt saying, "No, no, I don't make mistakes."  Instead, he owned the one that was explored and I think he said he'd have to check on the other but if he was wrong, he was wrong.  He also owned that it was a bad interview.  

A friend once had what she thought was a career-ender interview.  It didn't help that her (cheating) husband was against her doing the interview to begin with and slammed her for it to everyone they knew.  She didn't get any sleep in the 24 hour period ahead of the interview.  You could see it in her eyes which were glassy and watering.  "Repetitive but effective" is how a major periodical termed her part of the interview.  She's a major communicator who had much more experience with hostile interviewers.  And she felt she choked.  She could have been better (and maybe with support from the hideous husband she would have been).  But it happens to everyone.  I never forgave Barbara Walters for that interview and I was so happy that it ended her marriage -- she didn't just go after my friend, she harmed her husband's business interest with that interview.  

Most people don't remember the interview today -- not even the ones who watched it -- and it won the time slot.  

Matt handled himself like a grown up.  

I didn't appreciate the people who lied and said, "Matt showed him! Matt destroyed him!"  I don't appreciate lies.  By the same token, those insisting that Matt's work on The Twitter Files got destroyed are also lying.  Again, he'd be doing himself a favor to write a report but his work did not get destroyed.  

Nor did he lie to Congress.  We reported on that hearing.  I don't think most of the people saying Matt lied before Congress know what they're talking about.  They don't appear to have even read his opening statement, let alone know what he actually said at the hearing.


Lee Fang has reasons to continue his probing of Mehdi's work.  It would probably do Matt better to leave that alone.  Barbara Walters sold her soul (many times over) and when she did (every time) the bill was collected.  Medhi, like Barbara, will have to live in a hell of his own making.  Matt should take comfort in that and not bother giving Mehdi another thought.



People were high-fiving Barbara Walters for her stunts.  By not going after her publicly but instead focusing on their own work, those Barbara attacked came off looking better.  There's nothing Mehdi benefits from more than a back-and-forth on this issue.  It fuels publicity for his show and it fuels the people who do hate Matt.  So the best thing Matt can do is leave it alone, Lee Fang has it under control.

That was pulled for space and also because the piece Ava and I wrote was also slammed by some for 'rescuing' Matt so I wanted to read over it before I included it (which I haven't -- even now, I just said to paste the above in -- there's never enough time).

So the reason we're on Matt today, and we have to be, is a new attack on him which Glenn notes in this Tweet:


He also calls her a "fake" which she is.  Go back to the March 10, 2023 snapshot for when Stacey pops up on this site's radar (also to "TV: The Tired and The Disappointing").  We didn't cover her in the '00s or the '10s when she was a Republican.  Not because she was a Republican but because she was a failure -- she was an abject failure.  

Stacey's a Karen -- yes, there can be Karens of color.  They're women of color who steal roles that are not their roles to take, roles that belong to women of color.  So if, for example, Raza Unida was looking for a spokesperson in 1971 and a woman of color seized that role?  She may have been a woman of color but was she Chicano because that's was a Chicano political party?  Nope.  But she couldn't get a prominent role any other way so she stole the role from a deserving woman of color.  That's how she ended up a Karen.

Stacey was a failure.  She was born in the Brooklyn and she grew up there.  She was a Republican and,  until her 'strange' (you term as you'd like) 'relationship' with Bully Boy Bush, she was going nowhere.  Strange?  Kind of like MTG and Kevin McCarthy who touch and peer at each other on the House floor as though they're lovers and not colleagues.  That sort of relationship led Bush insiders to joke that Bully Boy was grooming Stacey as his "Condi-spare."  

For whatever reason, bowing and scraping didn't get her too far.  

So she ends up moving to the Virgin Islands where she remakes herself -- I don't just mean the cheap weave, I mean she switches to the Democratic Party and begins running for office. Running for office  requires her to switch to the Democratic Party because there is very little support for Republicans in the Virgin Islands.  If you win the Democratic Party primary, you pretty much win the general election.  (See her 2014 race, for an example).

So she got her fake weave, her fake political positions and she faked her way into office.

The Virgin Islands does not have real representation in Congress.

They have no voting rights.  So she is a fake member of Congress.  

She's also a fake member of Congress in that the office she holds is nothing but representational and, as such, should go to someone who grew up in the Virgin Islands.  

But Stacey couldn't win on the mainland of the US.  So she goes somewhere else to steal a seat.  She's a fake ass Karen.

The Democratic Party needs to curb her and keep her on a short leash because she's not acting like a Democrat.  That's why she seems like some strange object right now.  She's bringing the worst of the Republican Party with her and it's not a good look for Democrats.

Let's go into the worst for a second so that we're all clear.




The Republican-led House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday struck comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and ended her time to speak after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar.
[. . .]

But as Greene continued with her comments, she criticized Mayorkas for the spread of fentanyl in the United States  

“I want to know from you, how many more people do we have to watch die every single day in America? How many more young people do we have to see die? How many more teenagers?” the Georgia Republican asked.  

Mayorkas tried to respond to the lawmaker, saying, “let me assure you that we're not letting it go on,” before Greene said she was reclaiming her time in the committee and called Mayorkas “a liar.”  
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sought to have Greene’s words taken down, saying “We have a history of being a bipartisan committee that works on solutions. Now we can disagree, but we’ve gotten to the point of the language that we're using is not the kind of language that historically we as members of this committee have used.” 

Committee Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., approved the move, saying “identifying or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee.” The chair then noted that Greene was no longer recognized. 




No longer recognized?  She needs to be removed from the Committee.  Her applause for the leaker is disturbing.  Her applause for mishandling classified documents is appalling.

She should not be allowed to sit on the Homeland Security Committee.  


WDBJ notes that a closed door briefing on the leak was supposed to take place earlier this week but did not and they quote Senator Tim Kaine stating, "There's no way he should have been able to do this with the brazenness and without his chain of command being aware of it.  And so, there is a real dereliction of duty by the chain of command that allowed this to go on and I want to understand what consequences that are going to be there."


One consequence should be expelling MTG from the Committee for applauding a leaker -- not a whistle blower -- who took the documents online in order to impress his 'buddies.'  

MTG?  I just can't stand  the press coverage of her that tries to treat her as sane and rational.  Glenn Greenwald and Tara Reade love her so I guess they're admitting to loving racism.  

Her defense of the leaker?  She applauded him for his race, among other things.  I've noted here before being at hearings where that woman can't shut up about "White."  She'll supposedly be expressing concern for children, for example, but it will come out of her big mouth as "White children."  This happens over and over.  She's a racist and this needs to be noted.  In 2023, Georgia's 14th Congressional district has elected to be represented by a racist.  

If Georgia won't take their trash to the curb, Congress needs to.  She applauded the mishandling of classified information that makes her unfit to serve on a Homeland Security Committee.  For those who are too dumb or sheepish to join that call, Marjorie could be a poster girl for 2024.  "Today's Republican Party?  It's not your parents party.  Marjorie Taylor Green, dangerous to national security.  She Tweeted to praise a man who mishandled classified documents noting that he was 'white, male, christian and antiwar.'  Ron DeSantis, dangerous to business and to taxpayers.  He has left Floridians in debt as he has launched one lawsuit after another at DISNEY.  Lauren Boebert, dangerous to the rule of law.  If your son has a wreck and has drugs on him, he'd be in jail, not so for Boe-Boe. . . ."



Just go down the list.  Just show how out of touch they are.  That's your campaign commercial.  Especially in a bad economy.  "They treat a legislative session like encounter group therapy and that's why nothing gets done."

Or  "While Ron was flirting with his 2024 run for president and attacking DISNEY, Floridians were left having to beg the governor to do his job.  As NEWSWEEK reported:"


 

Ron DeSantis is being put under further pressure to resolve Florida's gas shortage issue as Twitter users rage at the governor.

Southern Florida has been affected by gas shortages after last week's extreme weather, most notably high levels of flooding, disrupted the regular distribution and delivery of fuel.

Heavy rain in eastern Broward County last week caused floods in Port Everglades roads, preventing truck drivers from making fuel deliveries.

Social media users have complained and shared clips of gas stations without any fuel and the long lines they would have to queue in to get any gas.


The ads write themselves but for them to be effective, those of you who consider yourself foot soldiers of the Democratic Party should be laying the groundwork now.   I don't consider myself a foot soldier.  People who are friends can pick up the phone and call and they'll offer an issue or something and ask me to game it out.  And I will and I'm good at it.  But writing like that here?  That's not the role here.  And I'm looking around wondering where are the Spencer Ackermans?  They obsess over elections long before the cycles start.  So why aren't they calling out Marjorie for her praise of someone who mishandled classified information?  You don't save that for two weeks before the election.  You build it and you talk about it and you chip away at her daily.  

Back to Stacey.  She really needs to be put in a corner and told to think about her actions.  She's not just lying about Matt, she's harming the face of the Democratic Party.

Supposedly, Joe Biden's about to declare he's running for relection.

If that's the case and he gets the nomination (Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are both declared in the race for that nomination), the party's not going to be able to handle fake ass Stacey and her anger issues.  Nor should we have to handle her, she's a bit player desperate for attention.  

But if we get stuck with Joe as the nominee?  The only card the party has to play is "We're responsible, look at those crazies."  

When you got crazy Stacey, it makes it harder to play, "Look at the other side."  

She is a non-voting member of Congress -- a woman who stole the seat from a person born in the Virgin Islands.  It does matter.  

Crazy Stacey needs to learn to shut up.  She's nothing and she's never going to be something.  Her tantrums in public get her press attention but it's not the sort of attention the Democratic Party needs going into a 2024 election -- especially if they end up saddled with Joe Biden as the nominee.

So that deals with Matt.  

Let's deal quickly with Glenneth on another issue.  Four people are accused of something by the government.

We've noted videos when others have defended them.  I'm not defending them.

That's not saying they're guilty, that's not saying they're not.

Why would I defend people I don't know?  I don't know the particulars other than they supposedly collaborated with a foreign government (Russia) -- on the face of it, the charge seems ludicrous and part of the re-starting of the Cold War.  As we hear what evidence is available, I'll be better able to make a determination of where I stand.  

But, as it stands, there are charges that have not been argued in court about four people I don't know.  I would assume they are innocent -- and that's the legal assumption in this country.  But that's about all I can say of the four of them.



Where to start?  "They're coming for you next!"


I don't play with scare tactics.  Yesterday, there was a woman who'd been hurt outside a building and after she had assistance and was fine, one of my friends said they always marvel over how calm I remain.  Enemies would say, "How cold you are."  I don't like drama.  The woman needed help, first aid and greater medical assistance.  When everyone was standing around her -- I didn't know these people, I was exiting the building -- building drama and nonsense, my loathing of drama kicked in and I began issuing orders because that's how you get a hysterical group to calm down and I began speaking with the woman that everyone wanted to help but no one was listening to.

That's because I don't respond to scare tactics.  That's why I called out THE NATION with their "torture election" nonsense.  They didn't know how the election was going to go but knew it could go one of two ways.  To scare up voters, they started pimping the lie that the election in question would determine the fate of the US and where it stood on torture.  No, for the American voters it was just another election.


So, if you're trying to get me to support the four, you're not going to win me over with, "They're coming for you next!"

No, crazy, they're not coming for me.  The US government didn't come for me with the MEK.  It's not coming for me with regards to Russia.  Because I'm not a devotee like Tara Reade.  I don't worship Russia.  I don't worship the MEK.  I've tried never to make this statement that I'm about to make but to make it really clear, I'm going to have to.


The MEK are, I'm sure, no different than you or me.  However, their leadership is creepy as can be.  I defended them with regards to the US' legal obligations to them.  They are Iranian dissidents who were in Iraq.  Under Saddam Hussein, they had his support.  When the US overthrew Saddam, they had no protection.  Some Iraqis felt the MEK was threatening and carried out or would carry out violence against Iraqis.  That did not happen.  The MEK felt they would be attacked by Iraqi militias and troops and that did happen.  


Prior to the attacks, the US government asked the MEK to disarm.  They would ensure the MEK was safe if they disarmed.

They did what was asked of them.

And then the US wanted to walk away.

No.  Under international law, they were required to provide protection.

I got attacked constantly for defending the MEK.  At one point, when I was visiting a friend at the Justice Dept (I regularly lobbied for a compassionate release for Lynne Stewart who was dying in prison), the friend said, "We need to talk."  He closed his office door and brought up the MEK.  To which I replied, "I'm not even offering, 'Look, you know me.'  Because that shouldn't matter.  I am offering that you know everything I've written online.  I rarely mention them in campus speeches but I'm sure you have notes on that.  And I know you have the only exchange that ever took place between the MEK and myself.  The leadership had e-mailed the public account to say that I should be emphasizing this and not that."  I replied back: Do not write me again.  I am not having contact with you.  I cover the issue from my perspective and I'm not coordinating any message with you.  They replied back in an angry manner."

They creeped me out.  I never said that then.  I would prefer not to say it now.  I got a lot of flack for defending them.  But every point I made was sound and backed up by the law.  

The fact that they (leadership) creeped me out has nothing to do with legal obligations. 

Two politicians with national profiles were investigated -- that is public.  I know both.  One I know and I like, the other I can't stand.  I didn't bring their names up when speaking with DOJ.  Because I didn't know what they were doing and wasn't part of their effort.  

What I did was done here.  Anything stated on campus was reflected in statements made here.

I never made the case that the MEK were saintly.  I made the case that the US government had a legal obligation.  And made that case to the US State Dept especially when a friend with the State Dept complained that they were doing all they could and the MEK was responding that, no, they wouldn't go there.  At which point, I said legally this is not a travel agency.  They need to arrange for a host country.  It can't be Iran because they're Iranian dissidents.  And it can't be a country cozy with Iran.  But other than that, if Sweden, for example, agrees to take 50 and this offer is made but the MEK says no, then the legal obligations are over.  Good faith efforts were made, a host country was found and the MEK just didn't like it.  Too bad.  They're now on their own.  

No one's ever accused me of writing fan fiction for governments in other countries.  I would not end up in the boat that is sinking for four Americans.

And I know that and, with regards to the MEK, the US Justice Dept understood that as well which is why I was not under investigation -- they had all I'd said and the one communication I'd had with the MEK -- so don't give me the nonsense of "This is how it starts!"  

 
Tara's crazy and Caitlin Johnstone is worse.  The one thing I've yet to call Tara is "coward."  Tara's not a coward.  Caitlin is.  I'm tired of you pathetic losers in other countries who won't call out your own country but continue to fixate on the United States. Caitlin, you live in Australia.  Police your own government.  It's far from perfect.  John Howard took your country to war -- the Iraq War -- and you had nothing to say about that.  You did make time to Tweet about Bully Boy Bush on the 20th anniversary.

How brave!!!!! I'm not impressed.  I call out Joe Biden here.  I called out Donald Trump.  I called out Barack Obama.  I called out Bully Boy Bush.   I'm not a scared bunny who can't call out her own government.  

 

Robert Pether has been held in an Iraqi prison for two years now.  He's an Australian citizen.  When exactly does Caitlin intend to call that imprisonment out?  When does she intend to hold her own government accountable?  After Robert's dead.

No, she'll probably still be a coward then.

Catilin Tweets,  "Look at the bizarre verbal gymnastics they're performing to justify outlawing political dissent."

Do they not speak English in Australia.

She's referring to these words in a WASHINGTON POST article: "conspiring to have US citizens act as illegal, unregistered agents of the Russian Government."

Again, is it English that's the problem.  She didn't highlight the full sentence.  Maybe grammar is her problem?

At any rate, I've looked at what's known publicly.

Not a lot is known publicly.

So you won't see my staking my reputation on four people I don't know when they are surrounded by unknowns.

I think a lot of people are stupid.

When I defended Tara, I didn't vouch for her character.  Within a few weeks of her going public, her character did not impress.  But even when it wasn't a known issue, I didn't vouch for her character.  I said she was credible (I still believe that and that she had more supportive documentation backing her up then in any other he-said/she-said).  

But I don't know her from Adam.

I'm not going to be an idiot.

Caitlin and Tara are idiots.  They're telling you that nothing happened.  They don't know that and they don't know the people involved.  I'm not an emotional person.  I'll cry for children and I'll cry for Iraq.  But I'm not someone who gets conned over and over.


Crazy people are the ones screaming, "They're innocent!"  

You don't know that.  I support them getting a strong defense, I support the press looking seriously into the charges.  I don't believe anything is true just because someone in the government or a government agency insists it is.

I'm not getting tripped up in this because I'm not pathetic. 

And I really do think a lot of people are pathetic because they have to butt in to topics they know nothing about and insist that this is true or that is true or I peered into his soul and saw . . .

I don't have time for the nutty talk, sorry.   "This is how it starts!  They're innocent!"  I don't indulge in nutty talk.

If I know you, I'll defend you or say I think you're guilty.   When I don't know you, I'm not playing a fool and stepping forward just because others are.

I went to the matt for Lynne Stewart because I knew Lynne.  I lobbied everyone who would listen in the Justice Dept, I begged the White House, and I'd do it again.  

But the reason that I can make a case like that, the reason people will sometimes listen, is because I'm not the drama queen.  I'm not running barking after every ambulance.  

The people -- I don't believe Glenn did this -- who were lying that Matt won in the exchange on MSNBC?  They just made it harder to defend Matt next time because he didn't win.  Your own eyes told you that.  And all you revealed was that you'll say anything so why should anyone believe you? 



While we're talking about Congress, and as we wind down, something needs to be clarified because there's a lot of confusion out there.

Dianne Feinstein does not own a Senate seat.  She occupies a Senate seat.

That seat is reserved for someone who represents California.  Dianne has overstayed her welcome by many years.  She no longer is present in DC.  That's her job.  I don't care that she's a she, I don't care that she's a Democrat.  I do care that she can't do her job.

As a California voter, I'm not paying for her to sit on her ass at home and derail the work of the Senate -- especially not the Senate Judiciary Committee.  If a Democrat does not win the White House in November 2024, it's very likely that we will see more court packing like we did from January 2017 to January 2021.  Judges need to be appointed now because there is a backlog of cases.  The Republicans are happy to let Dianne run out the clock on Joe's judicial nominees.  I'm not.  

This is bigger than her sorry ass.  She needs to do what's good for the collective and step aside.  

In two months, she'll be 90 years old.  She needs to step down.  She is owed nothing.  This is an elected position that has certain job requirements.  She is not fulfilling those job requirements, she needs to go.  I don't fire people very often but when I do it's because they are not meeting the job requirements.  Call me cold blooded but I never feel bad for firing someone who is not doing the job they were hired to do.  That's now the case with Dianne.



The following sites updated:








Posted by at

Thursday, April 20, 2023

Dianne Feinstein is an argument against Barbara Lee

Sorry, everybody, I was just wiped out last night.  C.I. even offered to fill in for me.  I asked her what she'd write about and she said, "I can cover Robert Pether."  If I'd known I'd end up just staring at the screen in exhaustion, I would've let her fill in.  Robert Pether, by the way, is the Australian who has been held in an Iraqi prison for two years on trumped up charges while his health deteriorates.  Why?  Because the Iraqi government wants a new contract -- with better benefits -- from the company that employs Pether.  Let's be honest, this has always been what it is about.

Okay, let me tackled Senator Dianne Feinstein's ongoing embarrassment as she refuses to step down from the US Senate.  Kevin Rollbillard (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:


In 2013, President Barack Obama invited Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lunch at the White House. The president did not directly ask Ginsburg, then 80 and already a survivor of bouts with both colon and pancreatic cancer, to resign from the court. He merely noted Democrats were unlikely to maintain control of the Senate after the 2014 elections.


Obama’s intervention was unsuccessful, and Ginsburg stayed in office. The consequences of her decision would become clear almost a decade later, when her Republican-appointed replacement provided the fifth and deciding vote to strike down Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of abortion rights.

The Democratic Party now faces an all-too-similar dilemma: A legendary woman with a crucial role in shaping the nation’s judiciary is 89 and ailing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), already set to retire in January 2025, is stricken with shingles, unable to travel to Washington, D.C., for the past two months and is unable to provide a timeline for returning to work. Without Feinstein, Democrats lack a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee and are unable to move President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees forward ― eliminating one of the few ways to deliver liberal victories in a divided Congress.

It would seem to call for a similar presidential-level intervention. The problem? Biden himself is 80 and is often asked to fend off similar concerns about his age and acuity, making it at best an awkward conversation and potentially an impossible one.

“It is her decision to make,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at Wednesday’s press briefing, when asked if there was a point at which Feinstein should resign: “When it relates to anything about her future, that is for her to make. The president has been very clear about that.”

This is the logical end point of the Democrats’ ongoing gerontocracy problem: an aged president unable to intervene as an even older senator hamstrings his agenda. The gerontocracy problem, for Democrats, has long been mostly political, feeding an alienation between the younger voters who back the party in large numbers and leaders who they feel don’t understand the technology, economics and crises shaping the world today.




And that's why we don't need Barbara Lee in the US Senate.  She's running in the 2024 election for Dianne's current seat.  She'll be 77 next year.  If elected, she'd be 85 when she finished her first term and she'd want to run for re-election and we'd be with the same problem all over again.  She is not the answer.  She has accomplished nothing in the House and she'll accomplish even leess in the Senate.  We need real candidates and not people with a foot already in the grave.

Nancy Pelosi betrayed the American people with regards to the Iraq War (never stopped it -- despite promising too -- she blamed that failure on Harry Reed) and with regards to abortion -- she could have gotten the House to codify ROE before DOBBS overturned it.  She could have.  She can get the Dems in line (she was Speaker when DOBBS was issued) and she could have chipped away at the GOP by offering pork to various members.  But she failed us again.  As always.

I bring her up because she's insisting this is sexism. 

No, it's reality.

"This has never happened to a man."  I don't know about ever and I don't care.  I do know that we live in a different landscape because of Nancy's failures.  Post-DOBBS we are at risk of losing more rights.  We can't change the make up of the Supreme Court.  But we can make sure Joe Biden's federal judge nominees get voted on.  

As long as Dianne's not showing up for the Senate, the Judiciary Committee -- that she sits on -- does not have the votes to send the nominations to the floor.

I think it would be happening to any Democrat -- male or female -- right now if they were on the Judiciary Committee.


How typical of Nancy, who used feminism to propel her rise but never gave back, to squawk, "Sexism!"



The issue is whether Dianne Feinstein can get herself to the Senate or not.  If it's not?  She needs to retire immediately so that Governor Gavin Newsom can appoint someone to fill her seat and the Senate Judiciary Committee can get to work sending Joe's judicial nominees to the Senate floor for a vote.  That needs to happen.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, April 20, 2023.  The US Congress hears about Iraq (kind of), while prisons are overcrowded in Iraq the Iraqi government shuts down . . . displacement camps, Crooked Clarence and his sugar daddy Harlan Crow have a special day of celebration, and much more.

Iraq was actually discussed in the US Senate yesterday.  It was a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand chairs the Subcommittee, Senator Joni Ernst is the Ranking Member.  Dr Sean Kirkpatrick was the witness appearing before the Subcommittee. Kirkpatrick is the Director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office.  The what?

From Kirkpatrick's opening statement:

We are grateful for sustained congressional engagement on this issue, which paved the way for DoD’s establishment of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office in July of last year. Though AARO is still a young office, the spotlight on UAP [Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena] in recent months underscores the importance of its work and the need for UAP to be taken seriously as a matter of national security. All leadership that I’ve had the pleasure of working with, whether DoD, IC, DOE, Civil, Scientific or Industrial, view Congress as a critical partner in this endeavor. AARO has accomplished much in the 9 months since it was established. The AARO team of more than three dozen experts is organized around four functional areas: operations, scientific research, integrated analysis, and strategic communications. In the nine months since AARO’s establishment, we have taken important steps to improve UAP data collection, standardize the Department’s UAP internal reporting requirements, and implement a framework for rigorous scientific and intelligence analysis, resolving cases in a systematic and prioritized manner. Meanwhile, consistent with legislative direction, AARO is also carefully reviewing and researching the U.S. Government’s UAP-related historical record. AARO is leading a focused effort to better characterize, understand, and attribute UAP, with priority given to UAP reports by DoD and IC personnel in or near areas of national security importance. DoD fully appreciates the eagerness from many quarters, including here in Congress and in the American public, to quickly resolve every UAP encountered across the globe, from the distant past through today. It is important to note, however, that AARO is the culmination of decades of DoD, Intelligence Community, and congressionally-directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by U.S. military personnel, specifically Navy and Air Force pilots. The law establishing AARO is ambitious, and it will take time to realize the full mission. We cannot answer decades of questions about UAP all at once, but we must begin somewhere.  


Here's a segment of the open section of the hearing.




In other news, AP notes, "The United Nations on Wednesday expressed concern over Iraqi authorities’ rapid closure this week of a displaced persons camp housing more than 300 families allegedly linked to the militant Islamic State group."  How rapid?  Those in the camp were told on Monday that they'd be evicted in two days.   The United Nations issued the following statement:

Baghdad, 19 April 2023 – The Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq calls on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safety and well-being of the 342 families who had to depart from the Jeddah 5 IDP camp in Ninewa Governorate following its closure.

The humanitarian community is concerned by the impact of the closure of the camp on 18 April by the Government of Iraq, without adequate notification and preparation for the IDPs and the receiving communities. The United Nations in Iraq will continue to work in close coordination with the Iraqi authorities, to ensure the sustainable reintegration of those 1,566 former camp residents, with almost two thirds are children.[i]

The United Nations reiterates its longstanding principles that call for the voluntary, informed, safe and dignified return of all IDPs. The UN also urges the relevant authorities to ensure IDPs are able to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, integrate locally or relocate voluntarily to another part of the country in a safe and dignified manner.

The UN stands ready to provide further assistance to those former camp residents and is working with the Government of Iraq to find durable solutions for all the remaining IDPs in and out of camps.

 

For further information, please contact:

Zainab Salih, Communications Officer, zainab.salih@un.org

 

While they can shut down camps that people need to survive, the Iraqi government is fine with overcrowding . . . in prisons.  IRAQI NEWS reports:

The Iraqi Ministry of Justice announced on Saturday that the overcrowding rate in government prisons reached 300 percent.

The spokesperson of the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, Kamel Amin, said that the number of prisoners reached 60,000, while the capacity of prisons does not exceed 25.000, Al-Rafidain TV reported.  

Amin also indicated that it is difficult to control this big number of prisoners.

Iraqi War Crimes Documentation Center (IWDC) revealed that Iraqi authorities detained tens of thousands of people in inhumane conditions, and placed them in overcrowded and unsanitary cells for several years, out of revenge and sectarian motives, according to a report issued by the center.


Moving over to the topic of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his sugar daddy Harlan Crow, today is a very special day for the pair, April 20th.  Do they celebrate the birth of Hitler with a dry hump?  


Democratic allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to properly disclose trips and gifts paid for by wealthy GOP donor Harlan Crow in violation of the law have been referred to a judicial committee that reviews financial disclosures.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the director of the Judicial Conference of the United States, said in a letter to a pair of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday that she had passed along their concerns and a recent report by ProPublica to the committee.

"I have forwarded your letter to the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure, which is responsible for implementing the disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act and addressing allegations of errors or omissions in the filing of financial disclosure reports," she wrote in the letter, obtained by NBC News.


There's a lot to cover when you try to examine Crooked Clarence's corruption.  At SLATE, Virginia Canter, Norman L. Eisen, and Richard W. Painter provide a walk through:

Controversy has exploded over Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial entanglements with Harlan Crow, a billionaire and major GOP donor, including his private plane and yacht travel and real estate transactions. Having administered the Ethics in Government Act in the White House as ethics counsels for presidents of both parties, we believe that Thomas was required to report his financial dealings with Crow. He failed to do so. That is why we have joined Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in asking the U.S. Department of Justice and the chief justice of the Supreme Court to open investigations into whether, as it appears, Thomas violated the law.

First we learned that Thomas did not disclose years of gifts of luxury travel that he received from Crow in his annual financial disclosure reports—despite apparently being required to do so by the act. It requires judges and justices to file an annual financial disclosure report. The law provides that disclosures must include the “identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts,” and the Judiciary Conference Filing Instructions say that all gifts over $415 must be disclosed. Similar information is required for gifts of travel reimbursement under the act.

Then it emerged that Thomas failed to make yet another required disclosure—the $133,363 sale by the justice and his family to Crow of three properties in Savannah, Georgia. The law requires justices to report “a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange which exceeds $1,000 … in real property.” This required Thomas to disclose the transaction in his report. He did not.

The law’s exemptions to reporting requirements do not apply here. Let’s start with the real estate transaction. A carve-out in the Ethics in Government Act exempts Thomas from having to report sale of “property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse.” While Thomas’ mother has lived in one of the properties sold to Crow, Thomas and his wife did not. Moreover, nobody lived in the other two properties that Crow bought; they were empty lots, not “a personal residence.”

As for the travel, the relevant exemptions do not apply either. The so-called “personal hospitality” exemption says “any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” The act defines “personal hospitality” as “hospitality extended for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or the individual’s family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or the individual’s family.”

But this does not include plane or yacht travel. It never did, and everyone knows that. In the White House, we told everyone that they had to report flights paid for by close personal friends.

Our reading of the exemption was recently confirmed on March 14 when the Judicial Conference clarified the contours of the “personal hospitality” exception in its filing instructions. These instructions explain the longstanding statutory language and state: “The personal hospitality gift reporting exemption applies only to food, lodging, or entertainment” and “the reporting exemption does not include … gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation.”

But that just reinforces what was already clear: As other ethics scholars and practitioners have also noted, there was never material ambiguity about Crow’s gifts to Thomas or the justice’s responsibility to report them. Yacht and air travel are not “food, lodging, or entertainment,” and disclosure has always been required by the act.

Thomas’ previous 1997 reporting of other private plane travel suggests that he understood this. That earlier travel was reported publicly in 2004, creating criticism. Then he stopped reporting. That pattern calls into question his defense of his failure to report; the notion that he was advised that he didn’t need to disclose the travel strains credulity.


Crooked Clarence gets exposed at a time when the public's trust in the Supreme Court is already at a historic low.  He's disgraced himself and the Court.  Atlanta's FOX 5 notes US House Rep Hank Johnson's response to Crooked Clarence's scandal:

In response to the reports, Rep. Hank Johnson said that he was "deeply disappointed and angered" by the allegations that "Justice Thomas has been using his position as a Supreme Court Justice, to live like an out of control billionaire baller, on a $263K per year salary, lining his pockets and traveling in luxury-Elon Musk style, all the while falsifying his disclosure forms to keep his opulent lifestyle a secret from the American public – a public that deserves his honest services."

Johnson called the justice "brazenly corrupted" at a press conference Wednesday.

"To protect what little is left of public trust and respect for the United States Supreme Court, Justice Thomas must resign immediately. It's not enough to amend and try to hide your corruption. It's too late for that," the Georgia congressman said.





AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! For more on the calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to step down or be impeached in light of the recent revelations, we’re going to look at a historical reference, when, “54 Years Ago, a Supreme Court Justice Was Forced to Quit for Behavior Arguably Less Egregious Than Thomas’s.” That’s the headline of an op-ed in The New York Times by Adam Cohen, lawyer, journalist, former member of The New York Times editorial board, author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.

Adam, you write that Justice Abe Fortas’s departure from the court in 1969 is both a blueprint for how lawmakers could respond today and a benchmark of how far we have fallen. Can you lay out this history?

ADAM COHEN: Sure. It is really the most on-point parallel we have historically. And one thing that’s important to note is that what Abe Fortas did is, in many ways, much less bad than what Clarence Thomas did. The amount of money was much smaller. He took $20,000. And as you mentioned, and as Justin mentioned, you know, Clarence Thomas, the amount of island hopping and free plane rides over a 20-year period is staggering, probably well into the millions. So the dollar amount was different, but also Fortas gave the money back, which is something that Clarence Thomas has not done. So, we have a much smaller scandal in many ways.

And what was striking is the bipartisan response that there was in 1969. Fortas ended up resigning from the court, not because Republicans were out to get him — and he was a liberal Democrat — but because Walter Mondale, who was in the Senate, demanded that he resign. One of his biggest supporters in the Senate, Senator Tydings from Maryland, demanded that he resign. He was afraid that he would be impeached by a Democratic Congress. And what’s really striking also is that this is in a time when there was a Republican president, Nixon. So, Democrats were doing this even though they knew that they might, quote, “lose the seat,” a liberal being replaced by a conservative. But these Democrats were so concerned about the integrity of the court, and they kept saying, “What matters is that the public have faith in the court.”

We’re not seeing that at all today. Where are Republicans who are coming out in favor of Thomas stepping down or Thomas doing anything, really, because of the integrity of the court? We don’t have that kind of bipartisanship anymore.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you also talk, Adam, about how the media have responded to this case? Fox News has filled the void by locating, quote, “an expert” to declare that the story about Justice Thomas is politics, plain and simple.

ADAM COHEN: That’s exactly right, yes. The media has — right. The conservative media have defended Clarence Thomas. As you said, they found an expert, who doesn’t seem like much of an expert, to say that it’s not a big deal.

But also, you know, just where are the voices of Chief Justice Roberts, for example? Right? I mean, we saw last year, when there were — when there were leaks of that abortion ruling a year ago, the chief justice immediately launched an investigation: “We have to get to the bottom of this, what’s going on in the court.” Why is he not saying that now? Why is it a much bigger deal that there were leaks of an abortion ruling, which conservatives were upset about, compared to Clarence Thomas apparently ignoring ethics rules for years? Where is the chief justice in this? We’re not hearing from him at all.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And why has the Supreme Court been able to get by for so long with essentially no ethics requirements?

ADAM COHEN: That’s exactly it. It’s the least accountable part of government we have. There is a judicial code of ethics that’s quite — I wouldn’t say strong, but it’s a reasonable code. But it doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. It applies to lower court judges. Why does it not apply to the Supreme Court? Why do we not have, as I said, investigations internally? Even the liberal justices could be talking out now. If they think that Clarence Thomas is breaking the law, I think they have a duty to say something. So, there’s really no one holding them accountable.






AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We look now at the growing calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to step down or be impeached. A second damning ProPublica report on his relationship with Republican megadonor Harlan Crow has revealed that in 2014 Thomas and his family sold a house and two vacant lots in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow for around $130,000 but never disclosed the sale, which appears to be a violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. CNN reports Thomas’s mother lives in the home owned by Crow rent-free, but she’s reportedly responsible for paying the property taxes and insurance.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported Thomas has for years claimed rental income from a Nebraska real estate firm that shut down in 2006. It’s also been reported previously that in 2009 Crow gave half a million dollars to a conservative lobbying group founded by Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas.

CNN reports Justice Clarence Thomas now intends to amend his financial disclosures in light of ProPublica’s other recent bombshell investigation detailing unreported luxury trips Harlan Crow lavished on Thomas over two decades, in apparent violation of a law requiring justices and other federal officials to disclose most gifts. Thomas frequently vacationed at Crow’s resort in the Adirondacks of New York, where a painting on the walls depicts Clarence Thomas sitting with four other men, including Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. Thomas never reported any of the free trips as gifts.

In addition to being a major benefactor for Thomas and the GOP, Crow is also an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. He’s got a signed copy of Mein Kampf — that’s right, signed by Hitler — paintings by Hitler, Nazi medallions, swastika-embossed linens, and a garden filled with statues of 20th century dictators.

For more, we’re joined by Justin Elliott once again, reporter for ProPublica, their new follow-up report headlined “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.”

Justin, welcome back to Democracy Now! I mean, your initial report has unleashed an avalanche of reporting and investigations and calls for Clarence Thomas to be impeached or to step down. He says he’s going to amend his disclosure forms. Can you talk about the latest findings?

JUSTIN ELLIOTT: Yeah. You know, for our first story, both Thomas and Harlan Crow put out statements about the luxury travel, saying, “We’re very close friends. These were family trips.” They both used the word “hospitality.”

We subsequently learned, then reported, that there was actually a direct business deal, a real estate deal, between the two men, so actual money flowing from Harlan Crow to Clarence Thomas. What we found is that around a decade ago, Crow bought a house and two vacant lots that were owned by Clarence Thomas and some of his relatives down in Savannah, Georgia. You know, as you mentioned, the house that Crow bought is actually the house where Thomas’s elderly mother was living, and apparently still lives, which puts Crow in the extremely unusual position of being the landlord to the mother of a sitting Supreme Court justice, although it’s actually not clear if “landlord” is the right term here, because CNN has reported that Crow is not charging her rent. So, there’s all kinds of exceedingly unusual financial entanglements between this billionaire political donor and the Supreme Court justice.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Justin, what about this claim that they’ve been longtime friends? What were you able to find out about how Thomas and Harlan Crow first met and how their friendship developed?

JUSTIN ELLIOTT: Yeah, you know, so I think they actually are friends, but it turns out that, at least according to Crow, they met back in the mid-1990s. This was after Thomas was on the court. They weren’t like college roommates or something like that. They actually, apparently, met at a conservative political conference, and Crow gave an interview to The Dallas Morning News a couple days ago in which he says that they actually first met when Crow offered Thomas, it turns out, a private jet ride on Crow’s jet from Washington, D.C., to Dallas, and apparently they hit it off on the jet. So that’s what we know about how it started.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, from the start, then, Thomas was accepting, in essence, undisclosed gifts from Crow.

JUSTIN ELLIOTT: Yeah. I mean, you know, I have personally never been on a private jet, but I’ve learned a lot about them and, you know, these things. I mean, Crow’s current jet, it’s a particularly nice private jet. It’s a Global 5000 Bombardier. If you were to charter one of these on the open market, you’d be paying $15,000 per hour, per flight hour. So, yes, these are extraordinarily expensive flights. And it’s obviously not exactly a normal situation to offer somebody you just met a private jet ride. But again, I mean, Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court justice at the time, so I think that probably goes a long way to explaining why this happened.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about Ginni Thomas, Clarence Thomas’s wife, the connection here and the financial connections with Harlan Crow — I mean, the getting more than a half a million dollars, her lobbying group?

JUSTIN ELLIOTT: That’s right. So, I think one of the other really intriguing financial connections here between Crow and the Thomas family is related to Ginni Thomas. So, it actually came out around a dozen years ago that Ginni Thomas was running a small tea party group, nonprofit political organization. And it came out that none other than Harlan Crow was pretty much the sole funder of that group, that was paying Ginni Thomas’s salary, which I believe was on the order of $200,000 a year. So, essentially, through this kind of pass-through organization, Crow’s money was ending up, you know, in the pocket of the Thomas household.

Following that reporting, around a dozen years ago, there was sort of another round of — a previous round of questions about this, but — and we don’t really know what has happened since then, partly, actually, thanks to the Supreme Court. As you know, the whole regime of disclosure of political spending and giving to groups has really fallen apart, and there’s anonymous dark money flowing all over the place, so it makes it very difficult as a reporter to figure out where money is flowing and from who. But, you know, we’re still reporting on all this.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Justice Thomas has claimed that Crow has no business before the Supreme Court. But for those who do not know — of our audience who do not know Crow, who is he, and what would be his interest in being able to have this friendship with Thomas?

JUSTIN ELLIOTT: So, Crow is a real estate billionaire who was born into a very successful Dallas real estate family. And it is true that Crow has not had — he’s not been a litigant in a case at the Supreme Court. It turns out the Supreme Court doesn’t actually take that many cases every year, so there’s very few people and companies that actually have a case at the court. But the court regularly takes up matters that affect the real estate industry, that the real estate trade groups that Harlan Crow helps fund is involved in some of those cases, filing briefs and that kind of thing.

But I think the larger issue is that Crow has a whole set of ideological interests related to the court. He’s a funder of a number of groups that specifically push conservative legal theories, groups like the Federalist Society. He’s on the board of a number of think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, that do a range of — work on a range of issues, but, among them, issues related to the Supreme Court advancing conservative legal theories. So, it raises the question — and we don’t really know the answer at this point — of whether Crow and sort of his other friends, who he’s bringing on some of these trips with Justice Thomas, are having any influence on the justice. And, you know, even shifting a Supreme Court justice’s thinking a little bit on an issue, if that ended up in an opinion, I mean, it could have just enormous consequences for basically all of us.



The issues is not going away. There is probably more scandal to come.  Crooked Clarence doesn't care.  He doesn't care about the Court and he doesn't care about the American people.  He's in it for him.  His greedy hands are going to grab all he can until he dies or gets removed from the Court.










The following sites updated:


 

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)