#New York State Senate

[alltheinterweb]

New York State Senator who past a law used against President Trump suddenly takes a dislike to the law after somebody uses it against him too.

[destielmemenews]

"The House voted on Friday to expel Republican Rep. George Santos of New York after a critical ethics report on his conduct that accused him of converting campaign donations for his own use. He was just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues."

source 1

source 2

source 3

[phoenixyfriend]

Okay! Today brought some some more varied and nuanced analyses of the recent big Schumer speech, which I have previously posted about, and touched on the Trump response.

There are two that stood out with me:

One was really critical in a "this is not enough, it's just pretty words that functionally mean nothing" sense. This came from Democracy Now. Caveat: they focused way more on the UN resolution.

The other was, in my opinion, much more nuanced, and came from NYT's "The Daily" podcast, which featured an interview with Schumer himself. Caveat: the NYT has come under fire for being too biased towards Israel, though the podcast team is separate from the papers' team, and were previously responsible for getting a major story to undergo heavy revisions due to anti-Palestinian biases.

Going into this, I want to be clear that I am going to be viewing these through a lens of how much they may or may not help Palestine, and how much I think a given argument or form of rhetoric may have impacted the actions that Schumer and those around him have taken.

Democracy Now (March 22, 2024 episode)

Available in video/audio form, and as a transcript here. This section of the episode is titled "U.S. Said It Was Calling for a Gaza Ceasefire, But Its U.N. Resolution Didn’t Say That: Phyllis Bennis."

One of the things I just want to point out in the last moments, this issue of Chuck Schumer coming out against Netanyahu, there’s a move to isolate Prime Minister Netanyahu right now. And it’s certainly appropriate. Part of the reason he’s still in power is to stay out of jail. It’s a very personal crusade on his part. But we have to be very clear that the people who are likely to replace him, if he were to either resign or be recalled in an election, they all support this war. So we should not have the illusion, that I’m afraid people like Chuck Schumer and others might have, that anybody who’s not Netanyahu should be and would be welcomed with open arms in Washington with more weapons, more hundreds of smaller weapons shipments that wouldn’t necessarily have to be approved by Congress. This is a very dangerous reality. We have to be very clear that this is a systemic decision by the Israeli leadership. This is not a one-man show in this horrific genocidal war that is being waged in Gaza. And we have to be careful not to fall into that trap of putting it all on one person and thinking that if one person is replaced, somehow that’s an answer.

The Daily, from The New York Times

You can listen to it on Spotify or Youtube. Transcripts are not yet available for this one; the site says they're usually available by the next day. That said, I went through the YouTube auto-generated transcript because I thought some of it was important enough for that effort.

However, I think it's worth it to listen through to the whole thing if you've got the time. Things it touches on includes:

The relationship that Schumer and other older Jews have with the idea of Israel, as it developed during his childhood in the fifties and sixties, due to the very recent memory of the Holocaust.

Schumer's statement that he believes that Israel is seeding more problems for itself with the current conflict, due to how it is destabilizing the region and provoking escalations with Iran and its proxies, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The connection of Netanyahu's radicalization in general and his growing unpopularity with the American left with his friendship with Trump.

Schumer couches an incredible amount of his argument in what he believes will convince American Jews and people with conflicted feelings on Israel, and an insistence that he believes in what Israel stands for.

An implied threat of aid withdrawal from Israel if Netanyahu remains in power.

A recurring cynicism and criticism of Schumer by the podcast hosts. They explicitly ask "what is your red line" in regards to the number of dead civilians in Palestine.

This podcast included more of the actual speech, and the logic that underpins it, than any other coverage I've read or listened to yet.

Schumer is very careful to not threaten to withdraw aid, so it's only implied. He is very careful to not explicitly dictate who leads Israel.

What he does say is that, should Netanyahu remain in power...

The United States' bond with Israel is unbreakable, but if extremists continue to unduly influence Israeli policy, then the administration should use the tools at its disposal to make sure our support for Israel is aligned with our broader goal of achieving long-term peace and stability in the region.

and

BB, I agree with you, [that] the greatest short-term threat to Israel is the rockets Iran gives Hezbollah, and they put them in Lebanon, and shoot them at Israel, but the greatest middle and long-term danger is you lose America, particularly the half of America that's more Progressive and/or the half of America that's young, and by your embracing Trump, you are making that happen.

I agree with the hosts' interpretation that 'tools' refers to the US financial backing of Israel, particularly the military funding. Schumer denies a lot of the interpretations, but generally he denies it with 'that is not what I said,' rather than 'that is not what I meant.'

Italics indicate something was said during the interview; the podcast switches between the interview and commentary a few times.

Interviewer: You don't want a ceasefire, but, like, what is--there like 30,000 more Palestinians dead-- Schumer: Well I wouldn't, I-- I'd say look Isra-- Interviewer, commentary: I said, you know, what's your red line, what is the civilian death toll that would have to be reached for you to say 'we're pulling this funding.' Interviewer: You said in your speech, if something doesn't change then there's the threat of American rich-- Schumer: I didn't--I didn't say conditions and I didn't say, um, leverage, I just said 'America's going to look at it as a thing that's' and-- Interviewer: You didn't say exactly what-- Schumer: No because I didn't want to Interviewer: You didn't want to, but what would the scenario be where that would-- Schumer: Well, I--you'd have to see it, I don't, I couldn't speculate on the future. Interviewer, commentary: ...and he didn't want to say. Second host: Well then why even give the speech? If Schumer is not willing to talk about the real consequences for Israel if there are no elections, and if Israelis don't end up removing Netanyahu from office, if he can't explain that, why give this speech?

I think that overall, this podcast and the interview it contains is... encouraging. Much of what drove Schumer's rhetoric is something I spoke about a month ago, namely the ways that Israeli propaganda rests on real fears based in history, and the ways that convincing people who believe that propaganda is to stress how the current situation is increasing danger to Israel in the middle and long term.

It's a little gratifying, at least, to know that my own understanding of the political science of it all is relatively accurate, and that at least a few of the arguments I presented in my How To Call Your Reps post are things that have worked their way into higher levels of political discourse.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents' house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post.

[dadsinsuits]

Herbert H. Lehman

[william-r-melich]

Trump Gagged? No Way! - 04/03/2024

The New York supreme court judge Juan Merchan in Trump's "hush money" case has expanded on his earlier gag order which tried to restrict what Trump could publicly say about the case. The order came late yesterday which gags the former president from speaking in public about Manhattan D.A. Alvin Brag's family members and all others named including jurors, potential jurors, counsel, court staff, witnesses, and their families. The judge wrote, “This pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose, it merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings that not only they, but their family members as well, are ‘fair game,’ for Defendant’s vitriol.” He further wrote that courts are "understandably concerned" on restricting defendants' free speech, especially for those who are publicly notable. He further wrote, “The circumstances of the instant matter, however, are different. The conventional ‘David vs. Goliath’ roles are no longer in play as demonstrated by the singular power defendant’s words have on countless others.” In his ruling arguments he cited from the prosecution, “multiple potential witnesses have already raised grave concerns [...] about their own safety and that of their family members should they appear as witnesses against the defendant.” On those fears he wrote that they would "undoubtedly interfere" with the proceedings, and he continued. “The average observer, must now, after hearing defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well.” State prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote, “Defendant’s dangerous, violent, and reprehensible rhetoric fundamentally threatens the integrity of these proceedings and is intended to intimidate witnesses and trial participants alike—including this Court.” The state attorney's office was referencing Trump's remarks about the judge's daughter.

This judge, Juan Merchan, is compromised with a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and Trump's lawyers think he should recuse himself from the case because his daughter, Loren Merchan who owns a Democrat political consulting firm, heavily profited from her fundraisers dedicated to hurt and remove Trump from the political scene. The judge's wife, Lara Merchan, used to work for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who prosecuted Trump for a victimless crime of "over valuating" his property to get a more favorable loan, and to which he paid back fully with interest that made Duetsche Bank (no complaints) a lot of money. Another ridiculous, unconstitutionally brought case, which, like all the others, is nothing more than political persecution. Judge Juan Merchan's profile picture on X was of Donald Trump behind bars. I think it's fair to say that this judge is compromised, or as Trump would say, "by a lot!"

Of course, the mainstream media's talking point's echoe-chamber put out that Trump made threatening remarks about the judge's daughter, when in fact he did no such thing. One of his Truth Social posts reads, “Judge Juan Merchan, a very distinguished looking man, is nevertheless a true and certified Trump Hater who suffers from a very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In other words, he hates me! His daughter is a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democrat firm that works for Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, the Democrat National Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and even Crooked Joe Biden.”

As I have said before, I think all of these cases against Trump should be dismissed and thrown out, as they are obviously political witch hunts directed by Biden's crooked administration and their weaponized justice department. So, Trump appropriately calls them the "Biden trials." The left thinks they can stop him from coming back to DC, and this judge thinks he can silence him, to keep him from pointing out all of the obvious corruption in that's clearly in plain sight for anyone with a functioning brain to see; --No Way! No Way! - will they ever silence or stop him, and No Way! - will they ever silence or stop us, we the people. Trump is right when he declares these trials as being "election interference," and that they should never, ever take place in the United States of America: abso-futting-lutely; -- No Way!

[aiiaiiiyo]

[xtruss]

Behind Maui Wildfires: US is Never a Positive Agent in Climate Change Fight

— Anthony Moretti | August 16, 2023

Illustration: Xia Qing/Global Times

Maui, one of the most awe-inspiring places on Earth, has been devastated. Horrible fires - exacerbated by increasing temperatures and drought associated with climate change - have turned this paradise into something resembling a war zone. The pictures do not lie.

Fair or not, because climate change showed up in such a brutal way on Maui, a place the rich (and perhaps not so rich) consider one of their playgrounds, the challenge to re-create paradise will be carefully watched. Much like the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, damaged by fire more than four years ago, it has to be repaired perfectly - because global audiences are demanding it - Maui will have to be made perfect, or as close to it, because global eyes are watching.

This is the short-term problem: Make Maui great again. And compared to the long-term problem, it will be the easier one to handle. The more vexing, time-consuming and difficult challenge is combating climate change, and there is legitimate worry across the globe that the US is not committed to addressing it.

Unfortunately, President Joe Biden and his administration are not doing enough to be a force for good as burning wildfires and intense heat continue to define the summer of 2023. Yes, his administration has committed $370 billion to clean energy and other climate-supporting projects, which have also spurred job growth. On top of that, one of the more symbolic, but important, steps the White House recently took was sending climate envoy John Kerry to China. There, he examined with Chinese officials a variety of ways the two countries can ensure a safer climate for decades to come.

Yet, Biden has not used his so-called Bully Pulpit, the power that comes with being president and therefore framing the narrative on specific issues, to spur oil companies to do the right thing. A recent New York Times editorial called out big oil for "prioritizing dividends, share buybacks and continued fossil fuel production over increasing their clean energy investments" as this fact "suggests they are unable or unwilling to power the transition forward." Audiences must ask if those words "unable or unwilling" also apply to the president: Why is he not saying forcefully and often that oil companies must champion newer and cleaner energies? If he will not demand more, then who will? And if he will not do it now, then what will the ramifications be in the years to come?

And remember that there are darker clouds on the horizon. On the one hand, results from a recent Pew Research Center poll indicate Americans are aware of the problems associated with climate change and the opportunities the US could take to address it. However, almost one-in-three respondents still wanted the US to continue investing in what can be described in 20th century energy sources such as oil and coal.

Let's take these somewhat sanitary data and summarize them this way: Should Republicans are given the majority in the House of Representatives and Senate in 2024, the US will not be at the epicenter in the fight for a healthier, greener and sustainable planet.

With Republicans running Washington, the aforementioned climate envoy John Kerry will be sent into retirement. The global community, including organizations such as the United Nations, will be laughed at when it calls on the US to engage in meaningful conversations about the climate.

Not possible? It is definitely possible. Forget for a moment whether Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee in 2024. Keep in mind that he maintains a vise-like hold on the party; even if someone else is chosen to challenge President Biden in the general election, no Republican who hopes to maintain his or her political power can stray from Trump's beliefs. And one of those beliefs is that climate change is nonsense.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and is causing havoc across the globe and despite America clinging to an outdated idea that it is a place of "exceptionalism," there is no promise that political elites will lead on the issue. Closely related to this, there is no certainty that the public will rally to the cause. If the world's current No.1 economy draws a conclusion that it can remain in that spot by ignoring climate change, then the world can forget about the US being a positive agent in the fight against climate change.

— The author is an Associate Professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University.

[arthropooda]

X

[unforth]

Everything feels awful right now but it isn't really. We still don't officially have a winner, but regardless of how the presidential election ends up, I wanted to take a minute and find what lights I can in the 3 a.m. darkness. Here's what I know:

* Kentucky overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to undermine the public education system by offering private school vouchers:

* Delaware has elected a transgender woman to the House of Representatives, the first out trans person of any gender ever elected to congress:

* For the first time in history, two Black women will be serving in the senate at the same time, and they are only the fourth and fifth Black women ever elected to the senate:

* New York State has passed a constitutional amendment enshrining the rights of pregnant people (including the right to an abortion), LGBTQIA+ people, the disabled, immigrants regardless of legal status, and other at-risk groups:

* Democrat Josh Stein has beaten self-avowed Nazi Mark Robinson to become governor of North Carolina:

That's everything I know off the top of my head. It's not many bright spots, but it's not zero. I'm going to try to find more and I'll add them to the post. It's the only thing I can think of to do that isn't sobbing and throwing up or looking up Canadian immigration rules.

If you know more good news, I encourage you to add it in reblogs.

[locamotivednp]

.

[shegottosayit]

With my vote this year I have now voted for both of my senators. I moved back to Brooklyn in 2019 so while I would have voted for my New York senators I had not. In 2020 Chuck Schumer was up for reelection (along with my congressmen) and this year Kirsten Gillibrand is on the ballot. (While I of course voted in the mayoral Adams wasn’t on my five slot ballot)

[timaeuslover001]

Basically the bill will not only protect fashion industry supply chain workers in the states but across the globe as well.

no more wage slavery, no more over worked hours, no or exploitation of undocumented workers, no more low wages ect

[batboyblog]

But I don't live in a swing state?!

every 4 years I see people talking about how they live in a red state (or more rarely a blue state) so their vote doesn't matter and I just want to briefly point out that I think nearly every state is either a swing state for the Presidential election, having a key Senate Race that will decide control of the Senate, has one or more key House races that'll decide control of the House, or is having an important Governor's race that'll could flip control of the state

Presidential Swing states:

Arizona

Georgia

Michigan

Nevada

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Key Senate Races:

Arizona

Florida

Maryland

Michigan

Montana

Nevada

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

States With Key House Races:

Alabama

Alaska

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Swingable Governor Races:

New Hampshire

North Carolina

there are lots of local and state level races that are very important to, but my point was basically odds are very very good, you live somewhere where your vote will help decide what America looks like in 2025. Don't get tricked into thinking just because your state isn't one of the ones always mentioned in the news as a swing state that it doesn't matter what you do

[tieflingkisser]

don't let anyone tell you the tiktok ban is not directly related to Palestine because they're literally admitting it:

Blinken blames TikTok and social media for disrupting Israel’s narrative of war in Gaza

Social media sites like TikTok are partly to blame for widespread criticism of Israel’s war effort against Hamas in Gaza, according to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The comments came as part of a conversation at the McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum in Sedona, Arizona, between Secretary Blinken and US senator Mitt Romney. The Utah Republican asked the top diplomat why “the PR has been so awful” against Israel since the beginning of the 7 October conflict. “Why has Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception?” he continued. “An offer is on the table for a ceasefire and yet the world is screaming about Israel.” Mr Blinken said that part of the reason for that dynamic was a changing media environment, where people no longer all read from the same authoritative news sources and instead learn about current events on chaotic social media feeds.

[...]

The comments echoed a wider narrative that’s been put forth about critics of Israel in the US, particularly on college campuses: that their criticisms don’t stem from the facts of the conflict, and instead are the product of alarming outside influence. New York mayor Eric Adams recently accused students at universities of falling under the sway of “outside agitators,” though the NYPD has offered little compelling evidence to support that charge. Protesting students interviewed by The Independent said they had been moved to act by seeing images of destruction and suffering caused by Israel in Gaza, with the full backing of the US.

[muntzerism-diggerism]