#Site Director Nancy James

[dzthenerd490]

File: Pikmin - Water Wraith

SCP#: AJT

Code Name: Second Piece of the [data expunged]

Object Class: Neutralized

Special Containment Procedures: SCP-AJT remains where contained at Site-AA within one of the Keter Storage Units in the lower levels. Only Site Director James, Administrative Staff, and AFA-3 units to the design of Site Director James command are allowed in this level.

The remains of SCP-AJT are stored in a frequency isolation box that is placed inside a safe with a Cavafy Reality Concealment Engine to prevent anyone who is not within the Foundation from comprehending its existence. Only Site Director James and anyone she has approved is capable of comprehending its existence with a specialized drug that only lasts for 5 hours. Anyone not on her personal list that has this drug in their system is to be executed, there will be no exceptions.

Description: SCP-AJT at the time of activation was a strange blob-like monster that took on the form of a short and bald humanoid. However, it originally did not stand like a humanoid but instead placed its arms and legs at the ends of two cylinder-like stones. It seemingly uses these stones specifically to crush tiny creatures. What makes SCP-AJT even more anomalous is that despite being physical, it seems to be connected to another reality. Anyone in our reality can see, hear, and interact with it but none of our scanning technology is able to detect its existence. Not even a Hume level scanner can detect its presence. How this is possible is not well understood. 

Though it is believed to be related to its connection to the [Data Expunged by Order of the O5 Council], which is an Entity of Interest recently labeled as a Level 5 Threat. SCP-AJT was confirmed to be related to this entity when it was discovered to have great hostility to SCP-AEK. A notable trait to all entities related to the [Data Expunged by Order of the O5 Council] is their small size and great hostility towards SPC-AEK. 

SCP-AEK was discovered in 2004 after Site Director James took the SCP-AEK instances out for training. She took them to an area where there was an abundance of SCP-AEW-Alpha and Omega instances reported. She went there with a personal MTF security guard that seemed unnecessary but was insisted on by the O5 Council. Her SCP-AEK instances successfully managed to kill all the SCP-AEK instances however suddenly from the water SCP-AJT appeared and nearly wiped out the SCP-AEK instances due to no one paying attention and their scanners not going off. Shockingly all Site Director James had to do was stomp a lot and SCP-AJT was quickly weakened long enough for her security to take the cylinder stones SCP-AJT rolled on. Afterwards her SCP-AEK instances were able to easily kill what remained.

“Okay I know that was anticlimactic but let me remind you we have evidence that the [Data Expunged by Order of the O5 Council] exists and destroyed the world at least once. It started off weak but because everyone ignored it, it became something too big to handle. So I don’t care what anyone says, I’m not underestimating this thing or any of the anomalies it creates and if you guys do then your all, fucking idiots! Sorry, got a little too into it there, but seriously, I don’t know what the [Data Expunged by Order of the O5 Council] is yet, but I WILL destroy it even if it turns out to be just an angry screaming water drop.” -Site Director James.

.

SCP: Horror Movie Files Hub

[weemsbotts]

Rolled into Cigars and Pipes: Saving the Burnt Ashes of Church Records

By: Lisa Timmerman, Executive Director

George Frideric Handel composed Dettingen Te Deum in 1743 commemorating the British and allies’ victory over French forces in the 1743 Battle of Dettingen, part of the War of Austrian Succession. If we sail a ship and fast forward to 1744, we will find this victory also commemorated in the creation of Dettingen Parish, a division of Hamilton Parish, which was taken from Overwharton Parish. A 1667 constructed church on Quantico Creek, aka the Quantico Church in Dumfries Cemetery, became the parish church of Dettingen, but records indicate officials also constructed other wooden chapels in the area although fallen to ruin by the early 1800s.

Virginia parishes pre-Revolutionary War served both in civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, levying taxes for support of the church while providing local government and social services, such as processioning land boundaries and caring for apprenticed children. Thanks to Historic Dumfries Virginia, Inc. staff such as Dr. William E.S. Flory, Barbara Kirby, and many others, we have the records of Dettingen including a vestry book, minutes of meetings of the Overseers of the Poor, and indentures (featured in our shop online here). While relying upon other compilations, the staff discovered that the vestry book of Hamilton Parish purportedly was “…torn up, page after page, by clerks or others, for the purpose of lighting cigars or pipes” after placement in the office of the Clerk of Fauquier County.

Surviving church records provide such tantalizing clues into the lives of the people living in and around Dumfries in the 18th century. Meeting in Dumfries on 07/01/1776, the elected vestrymen presented their list of services recording the amount brought forward in pounds of tobacco levied. On this day, the vestrymen listed “Mordica Kelley for keeping a poor man”. After compiling a short chart of names, descriptions of services, and amounts owed, the vestry ordered James Scott, Thomas Blackburn, William Carr, Jessee Ewell, Henry Lee, and others to “receive from every titable in the [said] parish Twenty four pounds of Tobo. and pay the Different Claimers herein Mentioned & that the Collector Sell the Tobo. Levied to pay the Cash Claimer for the most it will fetch…” Other meetings were more active such as 02/13/1777, when vestrymen noted a range of services identifying the “poor” and those in charge of “keeping” them in the case of children. “To Catherine Thayor for keep’g a poor Boy; To Margaret (illegible) for keeping and burying a poor Woman”, along with other obligations, “To the Revd. Jas. Scott for 16 Bottles of Wine”.

(06/1745 PWC Survey & Deed)

In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly adopted Thomas Jefferson’s The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom, which did three big things: gave Virginians the right to choose their religion without coercion, separated church and state, and acknowledged that any changes to this law would be considered a “an infringement of a natural right”. Before the Revolutionary War, the Church of England expected colonial Virginians to support the church both spiritually and financially, regardless of one’s practicing belief. No separation between church and state also favored Anglican officials as they discriminated, persecuted, and even assaulted Baptist and Presbyterian ministers. While James Madison inserted the “free exercise of religion” into George Mason’s powerful 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, it did not address or resolve certain issues, such as taxing the state for new churches. James Madison actively championed Thomas Jefferson’s writing and the duo’s efforts became crucial for later state and legislative constitutional debates and policies.

This severed link between the church and state with the state now in charge of overseeing the poor – the government then appointed Overseers of the Poor to collect taxes and create a centralized place to care for them (poor houses).

We see this shift locally as Dettingen Parish started recording these services at the meetings of the Overseers of the Poor, from 1788-1802. Meetings took place throughout the year in people’s homes, and recorded much the same information, with a few more labels including “idiots” and “blind”, noting many people with visual impairments. On 10/17/1795, the Overseers recorded the following regarding the occupants of their poor houses, “Resolved that Nancy Lunce have noticed this day that She is to leave this place in one month from this date having behaved herself in a disorderly Manner & it appearing to use she is able to get her living having recovered her sight pretty well & is in good health. Resolved that none of the People Received at the Poor Shall leave the Place without Permission & that when they do they shall be considered as discharged from it.” Clothing, corn, tools (such as axes), tin pans and a variety of other items indicate the range of labor needed to maintain the poor house.

Changing opinions along with focused efforts to stigmatize those disadvantaged led to sparse and harsh conditions, which provided additional challenges for persons with disabilities or for the elderly. White officials used poor houses to emancipate enslaved persons they did not want, forcing the county to pay for the person’s upkeep. Prince William County was the site of one of the first ten constructed by a county government and operated into the 19th century. You can delve into the history of this specific site, including archaeological artifacts, on the Prince William Forest’s National Park Services site by clicking here.

Note: Disregard your Saturday morning chores to join us as we celebrate Free Comic Book month by reading famous comic books! From one of the first prototypes to heroes such as Ace Harlem and the Green Turtle, we will delve into the fascinating visual art of comic books! Click here for more info and tickets.

(Sources: HDVI Archival Files; Historic Dumfries Virginia, Inc. Records of Dettingen Parish Prince William County, Virginia 1745-1802. Westminster: Heritage Books, 1976; Ragosta, John. "Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 28 Apr. 2021; National Park Service: Prince William Forest: Poor House, https://www.nps.gov/prwi/learn/historyculture/poor-house.htm)

[docrotten]

DONOVAN’S BRAIN (1953) – Episode 120 – Decades of Horror: The Classic Era

"Janice, listen carefully. I've got to break away from the brain. I may have to do something desperate." Desperate is as desperate does. Watch your back, Janice. Join this episode’s Grue-Crew - Whitney Collazo, Chad Hunt, Daphne Monary-Ernsdorff, and Jeff Mohr - as they pick each others’ brains over Donovan’s Brain (1953).

Decades of Horror: The Classic Era Episode 120 – Donovan’s Brain (1953)

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

ANNOUNCEMENT Decades of Horror The Classic Era is partnering with THE CLASSIC SCI-FI MOVIE CHANNEL, THE CLASSIC HORROR MOVIE CHANNEL, and WICKED HORROR TV CHANNEL Which all now include video episodes of The Classic Era! Available on Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, Online Website. Across All OTT platforms, as well as mobile, tablet, and desktop. https://classicscifichannel.com/ https://classichorrorchannel.com/ https://wickedhorrortv.com/

Three scientists attempt to keep alive the brain of millionaire megalomaniac W.H. Donovan after an otherwise fatal plane crash. The brain has other ideas and begins to possess people.

IMDb

  Director: Felix E. Feist

Writers: Felix E. Feist (screenplay); Curt Siodmak (novel: Donovan's Brain, 1942); Hugh Brooke (adaptation)

Selected Cast:

Lew Ayres as Dr. Patrick Cory

Nancy Reagan as Janice Cory (as Nancy Davis)

Gene Evans as Dr. Frank Schratt

Steve Brodie as Yocum

Tom Powers as Donovan's Washington Advisor

Lisa Howard as Chloe Donovan (credited as Lisa K. Howard)

James Anderson as Chief Tuttle (credited as Kyle James)

Victor Sutherland as Nathaniel Fuller

Michael Colgan as Tom Donovan

Peter Adams as Mr. Webster

Harlan Warde as Treasury Agent Brooke

Shimen Ruskin as Tailor

John Hamilton as Mr. MacNish, Bank Manager (uncredited)

Mark Lowell as Allied Supply Clerk (uncredited)

Chad chose Donovan’s Brain because when he saw it as a kid, he wasn’t scared by it at all. Wait, what? True, but being a Curt Siodmak fan and someone who always appreciates John Hamilton (Perry White in Adventures of Superman, 1952-1958), he decided to give it another go.  He appreciates Donovan’s Brain more this time, describing it as a good, solid, Sci-Fi B-movie with good performances all around, most especially, that of the brain.

Donovan’s Brain is also a lot of fun for Daphne. She just loves a growing, pulsating brain in a fish tank. Whitney thinks it is pretty neat knowing that Donovan’s Brain is based on a book by the author who wrote Universal’s The Wolf Man (1941). Jeff describes Donovan’s Brain as a science fiction picture with no science, just a lot of fiction and magical thinking. He’s particularly impressed with Lew Ayre’s performance as the doctor possessed by Donovan’s brain, and always loves Gene Evans and Steve Brodie.

If you’re in the mood for some 50s Sci-Fi B-move goodness, Donovan’s Brain is available to stream (at the time of this writing) from the Classic Horror Movie Channel and as PPV on Amazon. The movie is also currently available on physical media as a Blu-ray from Kino Lorber.

Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror: The Classic Era records a new episode every two weeks. Up next in their very flexible schedule is one chosen by Jeff: Son of Frankenstein (1939), featuring Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Basil Rathbone, and Lionel Atwill.

Please let them know how they’re doing! They want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans: leave them a message or leave a comment on the site or email the Decades of Horror: The Classic Era podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com

To each of you from each of us, “Thank you so much for listening!”

Check out this episode!

[patriotsnet]

How Many Republicans Would Need To Vote For Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-would-need-to-vote-for-impeachment/

How Many Republicans Would Need To Vote For Impeachment

Ten Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump Giving The Vote Bipartisan Bona Fides That Could Win Over Senate Gop

The Washington Post

Rep. Tom Rice, a staunch supporter of President Trump from deeply conservative South Carolina, issued a plea as rioters raged through the Capitol last week.

“Where is the president!?” Rice asked. “He must ask people to disperse and restore calm now.”

On Wednesday, exactly one week later, Rice voted with Democrats to impeach Trump, saying, “I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.”

All told, 10 Republicans voted with the Democrats to impeach Trump on charges of “incitement of insurrection.” Although the group represents a small fraction of the conference, their support gives impeachment bipartisan bona fides that could help it gain traction in the Senate. It also reflects the deep division within the Republican Party about its future and the role the president should play.

The group represents the party’s ideological spectrum, from Rep. Liz Cheney , who holds a leadership position, to moderate Rep. Fred Upton , to Rice.

The others who voted to impeach Trump are Anthony Gonzalez , Jaime Herrera Beutler , John Katko , Adam Kinzinger , Peter Meijer , Dan Newhouse and David Valadao .

In statements, many called their decision of vote of conscience.

Video: Pelosi: House may impeach Trump a second time

Asked whether Trump could remain an effective leader of the party, Jordan said, “Of course, he is.”

mike.debonis@washpost.com

Mcconnell Is Said To Be Pleased About Impeachment Believing It Will Be Easier To Purge Trump From The Gop

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking. The House is voting on Wednesday to formally charge Mr. Trump with inciting violence against the country.

At the same time, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most steadfast allies in Congress, has asked other Republicans whether he should call on Mr. Trump to resign in the aftermath of the riot at the Capitol last week, according to three Republican officials briefed on the conversations.

While Mr. McCarthy has said he is personally opposed to impeachment, he and other party leaders have decided not to formally lobby Republicans to vote “no,” and an aide to Mr. McCarthy said he was open to a measure censuring Mr. Trump for his conduct. In private, Mr. McCarthy reached out to a leading House Democrat to see if the chamber would be willing to pursue a censure vote, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ruled it out.

Making their task more difficult, Mr. Trump has shown no trace of contrition, telling reporters on Tuesday that his remarks to supporters had been “totally appropriate,” and that it was the specter of his impeachment that was “causing tremendous anger.”

In His First Public Appearance Since The Capitol Siege Trump Expresses No Contrition For Inciting The Mob

President Trump on Tuesday showed no contrition or regret for instigating the mob that stormed the Capitol and threatened the lives of members of Congress and his vice president, saying that his remarks to a rally beforehand were “totally appropriate” and that the effort by Congress to impeach and convict him was “causing tremendous anger.”

Answering questions from reporters for the first time since the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday, Mr. Trump sidestepped questions about his culpability in the deadly riot that shook the nation’s long tradition of peaceful transfers of power.

“People thought what I said was totally appropriate,” Mr. Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, en route to Alamo, Texas, where he was set to visit the wall along the Mexican border. Instead, Mr. Trump claimed that protests against racial injustice over the summer were “a real problem.”

“If you look at what other people have said, politicians at a high level about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle and various other places, that was a real problem,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s defiance came despite near universal condemnation of his role in stoking the assault on the Capitol, including from within his own administration and some of his closest allies on Capitol Hill.

We analyzed the alternating perspectives of President Trump at the podium, the lawmakers inside the Capitol and a growing mob’s destruction and violence.

Members Of A Senate Panel Express Skepticism That Bidens Pentagon Pick Should Get A Waiver For The Job

Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday expressed skepticism that Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star Army general who is President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s pick for secretary of defense, should be given a Congressional waiver needed to serve in that role.

The waiver, the subject of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, is required for any Pentagon chief who has been retired from active-duty military service for fewer than seven years. Mr. Austin, who would be the nation’s first Black defense secretary, retired in 2016.

Congress approved a similar measure four years ago for President Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, a retired four-star Marine officer. But many Republicans seem reluctant to grant that to Mr. Biden’s pick, and Democrats, long skeptical of the practice, did not seem uniformly moved by the case to do it again either, in spite of the historic nature of Mr. Austin’s nomination.

“This is a very deep and difficult issue,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine. “General Austin is well qualified,” Mr. King said, “but on the other hand the whole idea of civilian control of the military is a fundamental part of who were are.”

While the outgoing chairman of the committee, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has made it clear that he will support the waiver and doesn’t really believe in the requirement, other Republicans seemed unconvinced.

The House Formally Called On Pence To Invoke The 25th Amendment To Strip Trump Of Power He Declined

The House voted on Tuesday night to formally call on Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers after he incited a mob that attacked the Capitol, as lawmakers warned they would impeach the president on Wednesday if Mr. Pence did not comply.

Lawmakers, escorted by armed guards into a heavily fortified Capitol, adopted the nonbinding measure just before midnight largely along party lines. The final vote was 223 to 205 to implore Mr. Pence to declare Mr. Trump “incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting president.”

“We’re trying to tell him that the time of a 25th Amendment emergency has arrived,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the author of the resolution, said before the vote. “It has come to our doorstep. It has invaded our chamber.”

Only one Republican, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, voted in favor of the resolution.

The House proceeded even after Mr. Pence rejected the call in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. “I do not believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our nation or consistent with our Constitution,” he wrote. “I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our nation.”

Trump Administration Will Release All Vaccine Doses Adopting A Policy Proposed By The Biden Team

The Trump administration will recommend providing a wider distribution of a coronavirus vaccine, just days after aides to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. said his administration would make a similar adjustment by using more of the already procured vaccines for initial doses.

Mr. Biden’s team has said it would aim to distribute the doses more quickly at federally run vaccination sites at high school gyms, sports stadiums and mobile units to reach high-risk populations.

The Trump administration plans to release the shots that had been held back and aims to make the vaccine available to everyone over 65 in an attempt to accelerate lagging distribution.

The doses had been held back to ensure that those who receive a first dose had the second and final inoculation available when it was needed. The change means all existing doses will be sent to states to provide initial inoculations. Second doses are to be provided by new waves of manufacturing.

The idea of using existing vaccine supplies for first doses has raised objections from some doctors and researchers, who say studies of the vaccines’ effectiveness proved only that they worked to prevent illness when using two doses.

The agency is expected to announce the new guidelines at a briefing at noon Eastern on Tuesday, according to an official briefed on the plans who was not authorized to speak publicly about the change. Axios earlier reported the new guidelines.

Madison Cawthorn Attacks Dr Fauci: We Want To Prosecute This Guy To The Full Ability Of The Law

David Badash

U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci, saying House Republicans will “prosecute” the esteemed immunologist and director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , as a “pawn of the Chinese Communist Party” and for lying to Congress.

There is no evidence either of those claims are true.

Speaking to former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis, the host of “Just the Truth” on the Real America’s Voice website, Cawthorn falsely claimed Dr. Fauci has “directly lied to Congress,” echoing a claim made by Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday. Ellis, who claims to be a “constitutional law attorney,” did not mention to Cawthorn that the House of Representatives does not have the power to criminally prosecute.

“I’ll tell you when we take the majority back in 2022, I’ll make sure consequences are doled out,” Cawthorn promised. “But we want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law because I’ll tell you to lie to the American people just to get your name in the news just to see your face on the cover of books just to get fame or fortune, I’ll tell you, Dr. Anthony Fauci does not deserve either fame or fortune.”

On Wednesday Cawthorn told Newsmax, “I think we should indict Jill Biden.”

Watch:

Rep. Madison Cawthorn vows that if the GOP gains control of the House in 2022, he will “make sure that consequences are doled out” to Dr. Anthony Fauci: “We want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law.”pic.twitter.com/kFN0rGOCGJ

Jamie Raskin Is Leading The Effort To Impeach Trump While Mourning The Recent Death Of His Son

A day after Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, buried his 25-year-old son, he survived the mob attack on the Capitol. He is now leading the impeachment effort against President Trump for inciting the siege.

Mr. Raskin’s son, Tommy Raskin, a 25-year-old Harvard University law student, social justice activist, animal lover and poet, died by suicide on New Year’s Eve. He left his parents an apology, with instructions: “Please look after each other, the animals, and the global poor for me.”

As he found himself hiding with House colleagues from a violent mob, Mr. Raskin feared for the safety of a surviving daughter who had accompanied him to the Capitol to witness the counting of electoral votes to seal Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.

Within hours, Mr. Raskin was at work drafting an article of impeachment with the mob braying in his ear and his son’s final plea on his mind.

“I’ll spend the rest of my life trying to live up to those instructions,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview on Monday, reading aloud the farewell note as he reflected on his family’s grief and the confluence of events. “But what we are doing this week is looking after our beloved republic.”

The slightly rumpled former constitutional law professor has been preparing his entire life for this moment. That it should come just as he is suffering the most unimaginable loss a parent can bear has touched his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Guns For Hire: Gop Governor Accused Of Renting Out South Dakotas National Guard Troops As For

David Badash

It may be called South Dakota but the “Mount Rushmore State” is pretty far up in the northern United States. And yet Governor Kristi Noem, a Trump-loving far right Republican, is sending her National Guard troops to patrol the border: the Southern Border, in Texas.

The capitol of South Dakota, Pierre, is over 1100 miles from Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s capital city of Austin, about a 17 hour drive according to Google, if you don’t stop to eat or sleep.

Gov. Noem is sending her National Guard troops down to the Lone Star State to help out Gov. Abbott with the “ongoing violations of state and federal law by illegal aliens crossing the unsecured border,”she has just announced.

Who’s paying for these soldiers?

In a statement Noem says “private donations,” the source of which she does not disclose. Nor does she say where the funds are going.

“The Biden Administration has failed in the most basic duty of the federal government: keeping the American people safe,” Governor Noem’s statement reads.. “The border is a national security crisis that requires the kind of sustained response only the National Guard can provide.  We should not be making our own communities less safe by sending our police or Highway Patrol to fix a long-term problem President Biden’s Administration seems unable or unwilling to solve.  My message to Texas is this: help is on the way.”

“The deployment will be paid for by a private donation.”

— Amanda Carpenter June 29, 2021

Five House Republicans Back Impeachment As Party Leaders Forgo Formally Lobbying Against It

Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 House Republican, announced on Tuesday that she would vote to impeach President Trump, saying there had “never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States” than Mr. Trump’s incitement of a mob that attacked the Capitol last week.

In a stinging statement that drove a fissure through her party, Ms. Cheney dismissed fellow Republicans arguing that the impeachment was rushed, premature or unwarranted. Her words were unequivocal and likely to give cover to two dozen or so other House Republicans looking to break ranks and join an effort that was also said to have the tacit support of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

“Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough,” said Ms. Cheney, the scion of a storied Republican political family. “The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president.”

She added: “The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.”

Ms. Cheney’s announcement came a short time after Representative John Katko of New York became the first House Republican to commit to voting to impeach.

Representatives Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, all Republicans, followed them.

Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump 7 Already Facing Challenges For Their Seats In Congress

U.S.Donald TrumpRepublicansGOPCongress

Some of the Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in January are already having their seats challenged and their ability to hold onto their place in Congress may be dependent on the moves the former president makes in the next 18 months.

Ten Republicans joined Democrats in impeaching Trump a historic second time, a move that was quickly met with condemnation back in their home states. They’ve been publicly scolded, pushed to resign and warned that local organizations will mount a strong push to oust them from office in the primary.

“After my last election, I had decided not to run again. But the vote by Congressman Valadao to impeach President Trump with no witnesses, evidence, or without allowing any defense was too much for me to stay on the sidelines,” Chris Mathys, a former Fresno, California, city council member, told Newsweek.

Valadao, who represents California’s 21st district, wasn’t in office during Trump’s first impeachment, as he had been ousted from office in 2018 by Democrat TJ Coxx. In November, Valadao won back his seat from the Democrat who beat him in 2018 by less than a point. The Republican placed blame on Trump for the Capitol riot, saying that his rhetoric was “un-American, abhorrent and absolutely an impeachable offense.”

Senate Republicans Out of Step With Majority on Convicting Donald Trump

Opinionmy Fellow Republicans Please Do The Right Thing And Back An Impeachment Inquiry

On Tuesday, Romney finally had some company. He was joined by the same four colleagues — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — who also joined him in November in acknowledging Joe Biden’s victory and standing steadfast in opposition to outlandish claims that the election was rigged or stolen.

Murkowski denounced Trump for having “perpetrated false rhetoric that the election was stolen and rigged, even after dozens of courts ruled against these claims.” Sasse said Trump didn’t have any evidence to back up his claims of election fraud, “and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.”

Opinionthis Trump Impeachment Defense Falls Apart As Soon As You Read The Constitution

Yet 45 Republican senators voted against taking up the impeachment trial Tuesday. Some want to spend as little time thinking and talking about Trump as possible, but many are still in thrall to his base. Twenty Republican-held Senate seats will be contested in two years, and the current occupants no doubt fear primary challengers from the MAGA right if they show any sign of breaking with Trump. What’s less clear is why, given their rhetoric and behavior over the last four years, they think the country would be any worse off with Trump sycophants in their seats.

Thanks to the impeachment process they’ve been gifted by the Democrats, Senate Republicans have one last chance to break with Trump and the conspiracist authoritarianism he represents. Their opening move Tuesday was a weak one, but they still have time for a course correction when the vote on conviction takes place next month. If they won’t do it for the country, they should at least do it to save their place in the party.

Related:

Twice As Many Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump Than Democrats Voted To Remove Clinton

Newsweek

More Republicans in the House voted for the second impeachment of President Donald Trump on Wednesday than Democrats voted in favor of impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998.

The House voted to impeach Trump in the aftermath of riots at the U.S. Capitol in January, an event many have said Trump incited, by a vote of 232-197. Four Republican members of the House declined to vote. While a majority of Republicans chose to stand behind Trump and his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, 10 GOP members decided to break ranks with Trump and call for his impeachment.

NBC News

Trump’s second impeachment was seen as the most bipartisan impeachment in U.S. history. Only 5 Democrats broke ranks to vote for impeaching Clinton. During the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, only 7 Republicans joined with Democrats to vote in favor of Johnson’s impeachment.

A majority of the 10 Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment represent districts that voted for Trump in the 2020 election.

Ohio Republican Representative Anthony Gonzalez announced his support for impeaching Trump on Wednesday.

“When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the President’s lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack,” Gonzalez wrote, “I am compelled to support impeachment.”

Michigan Representative Peter Meijer, who supported a resolution to censure Trump on Tuesday, voted for impeachment on Wednesday.

Related Articles

What Does An Impeachment Vote Mean For A Sitting President And For A Former President

A president can continue governing even after he or she has been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Trump continued to govern after his impeachment in December 2019, and of course, ran for reelection in 2020. After Clinton was impeached on Dec. 19, 1998, he finished out his second term, which ended in January 2001, during which time he was acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial. While Clinton continued governing, and the impeachment had no legal or official impact, his legacy is marred by the proceeding.

Gop Leader Mccarthy: Trump ‘bears Responsibility’ For Violence Won’t Vote To Impeach

Some ambitious Republican senators have never been as on board the Trump train as the more feverish GOP members in the House, and the former might be open to convicting Trump. But their ambition cuts two ways — on the one hand, voting to ban Trump opens a lane to carry the Republican mantle in 2024 and be the party’s new standard-bearer, but, on the other, it has the potential to alienate many of the 74 million who voted for Trump, and whose votes they need.

It’s a long shot that Trump would ultimately be convicted, because 17 Republicans would need to join Democrats to get the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction. But it’s growing clearer that a majority of the Senate will vote to convict him, reflecting the number of Americans who are in favor of impeachment, disapproved of the job Trump has done and voted for his opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Correction Jan. 14, 2021

A previous version of this story incorrectly said Rep. Peter Meijer is a West Point graduate. Meijer attended West Point, but he is a graduate of Columbia University.

Republicans Who Voted To Acquit Trump Used Questions Of Constitutionality As A Cover

Following the vote, McConnell gave a scathing speech condemning Trump’s lies about election fraud as well as his actions on January 6, only moments after he supported acquittal.

That speech was emblematic of how many Republican senators approached the impeachment vote: Although GOP lawmakers were critical of the attack on January 6, they used a process argument about constitutionality in order to evade confronting Trump on his actual actions.

Effectively, because Trump is no longer in office, Republicans say the Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction to convict him of the article of impeachment. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explained, there’s some debate over that, but most legal scholars maintain that it is constitutional for the Senate to try a former president.

“If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge,” McConnell said. McConnell, however, played an integral role in delaying the start of the trial until after Trump was no longer president.

His statement on Saturday was simply a continuation of how Republicans had previously approached Trump’s presidency: There’s been an overwhelming hesitation to hold him accountable while he was in office, and that still appears to be the case for many lawmakers.

State Department Cancels All Planned Travel By Officials To Ensure Smooth Transition

The State Department is canceling all planned travel by department officials this week, including what would have been Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s last foreign trip to Europe, as part of a departmentwide effort to ensure a smooth transition to the incoming Biden administration, Morgan Ortagus, a department spokeswoman, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The cancellation order would also include a three-day trip to Taiwan planned by Kelly Craft, the ambassador to the United Nations. It would have been the first official visit by an American official after the State Department relaxed restrictions on such meetings — and it would almost certainly have angered the Chinese government, which views Taiwan as its sovereign territory.

Beijing has so far responded with characteristic bluster. The Xinhua state news agency ran an editorial this week calling Mr. Pompeo “the worst secretary of state in history,” while The Global Times, a state-backed tabloid, said he was pushing the Taiwan issue “deeper down the road of no return.”

The abrupt order comes as United States allies are making clear that they believe that Mr. Pompeo and President Trump presided over the most far-reaching damage in decades to America’s traditional role as an exemplar of democracy.

Mr. Pompeo has not acknowledged Mr. Trump’s role in inciting the rioters who laid siege to the Capitol last week. And just weeks before, Mr. Pompeo had suggested that Mr. Trump won an election that he lost.

Democrats Introduce A Measure To Remove Lawmakers Who Tried To Overturn The Election

Progressive House Democrats on Monday introduced legislation that would allow a committee to investigate and potentially expel Republican lawmakers who had participated in efforts to subvert the results of the November election.

The legislation would direct the House ethics committee to “investigate, and issue a report on” lawmakers who had sought to overturn the election, and to determine if they “should face sanction, including removal from the House of Representatives.”

House lawmakers can be expelled from their seats under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies elected officials who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Representative Cori Bush, Democrat of Missouri, began drafting the bill as she and other House lawmakers sheltered in place during the storming of the Capitol last week. The resolution, which has 47 co-sponsors, names Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama and Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri as leaders of the effort by 147 Republicans to overturn the results of the election.

Ms. Bush said in an interview that she did not know ultimately how many members of Congress should be expelled, but expected to learn the number from an investigation of the Ethics Committee.

“Even if it’s just a few, we have to make sure the message is clear that you cannot be a sitting Congress member and incite an insurrection and work to overturn an election,” she said.

House Votes To Impeach Trump But Senate Trial Unlikely Before Biden’s Inauguration

9. Rep. John Katko, New York’s 24th: Katko is a moderate from an evenly divided moderate district. A former federal prosecutor, he said of Trump: “It cannot be ignored that President Trump encouraged this insurrection.” He also noted that as the riot was happening, Trump “refused to call it off, putting countless lives in danger.”

10. Rep. David Valadao, California’s 21st: The Southern California congressman represents a majority-Latino district Biden won 54% to 44%. Valadao won election to this seat in 2012 before losing it in 2018 and winning it back in the fall. He’s the rare case of a member of Congress who touts his willingness to work with the other party. Of his vote for impeachment, he said: “President Trump was, without question, a driving force in the catastrophic events that took place on January 6.” He added, “His inciting rhetoric was un-American, abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense.”

Enhanced Security Measures For The Inauguration Are Starting Earlier Than Planned

With the resignation of Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary for the Homeland Security Department, on Monday, the task of coordinating the security of the upcoming inauguration, will now fall to Peter T. Gaynor, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who will replace Mr. Wolf for the remaining days in the Trump administration.

The Secret Service, which falls under the Homeland Security Department, is leading the security operations for the event on Jan. 20, and officials are bracing for heightened threats of violence.

Before his resignation, Mr. Wolf announced that enhanced security measures would begin on Jan. 13 instead of Jan. 19 as initially planned.

Mr. Wolf said he did so “in light of events of the past week and the evolving security landscape leading up to the inauguration.”

On Saturday, the mayor of Washington, Muriel E. Bowser, sent a firmly worded letter to the Department of Homeland Security, asking officials to move up security operations and requesting a disaster declaration, which would free federal funding for the inauguration. President Trump granted the request on Monday night.

Ms. Bowser’s call to action came as law enforcement officers in several states made arrests related to the assault on the Capitol.

The National Guard plans to deploy up to 15,000 troops to the nation’s capital for the inauguration.

Would Impeachment Prevent Trump From Seeking Office In The Future Its Complicated

With just days remaining in his term, House Democrats have introduced an article of impeachment in Congress charging President Trump for a second time with committing “high crimes and misdemeanors,” this time for his role in inciting a mob that stormed the Capitol last week.

Impeaching a president with less than two weeks left in his term presents an extraordinary challenge. But if Mr. Trump is impeached in the House and subsequently convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and removed from office, the Senate could then vote to bar him from ever holding office again.

The Constitution says that the Senate, after voting to convict an impeached president, can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” This would be determined by a second vote, requiring only a simple majority of senators to successfully disqualify him from holding office in the future. Such a vote could be appealing not just to Democrats but also possibly to many Republicans who have set their sights on the presidency.

Mr. Trump, who is said to be contemplating another run for president in 2024, has just eight days remaining in office, presenting an impeachment timeline for congressional Democrats that is tight, but not impossible. As soon as the House votes to adopt an article of impeachment, it can immediately transmit it to the Senate, which must promptly begin a trial.

[historybizarre]

The entire issue is available here: http://tph.ucpress.edu/content/40/3

SPECIAL ISSUE: STATE OF BLACK MUSEUMS: HISTORIOGRAPHY COMMEMORATING THE FOUNDING AND EXISTENCE OF BLACK MUSEUMS OVER FOUR DECADES

Vol. 40 No. 3, August 2018

 “A Long Journey to the Washington Mall” James F. Brooks (pp. 5-8) 

“The State of Black Museums” Deborah L. Mack, John S. Welch (pp. 9-12)

“Building Homes for Black HistoryMuseum Founders, Founding Directors, and Pioneers, 1915–95″ Fath Davis Ruffins (pp. 13-43)

“The Impact of Social Movements on the Development of African American Museums” John E. Fleming (pp. 44-73)

“Transitions In Time: Leadership And Governance In African American Museums” Juanita Moore (pp. 74-89)

“Growth of Historic Sites: Teaching Public Historians to Advance Preservation Practice” Brent Leggs (pp. 90-106)

“Reassessing the Vocational Origins of Hampton University and Celebrating a Singular History of Arts Engagement” John S. Welch (pp. 107-141)

“Lifting Every Voice Throughout the Nation: Establishing IMLS’s Grants Program for Museums of African American History and Culture” Nancy E. Weiss (pp. 142-162)

“The Emergence of the Field of African American Museums” Jeff Hayward, Christine Larouche (pp. 163-172)

[wazafam]

The Mauritanian tells the true story of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, but mostly skips from Slahi's trial to the present day, leaving some lingering questions about what happened in the intervening decade and what is still to come. Some of these questions can be answered through Slahi's book, Guantanamo Diary, which was one of the sources for the film, and the subsequent event in his life. Others remain to be answered because of the still-ongoing legal debate around Guantanamo Bay and the detainees there.

Slahi was arrested in Mauritania in 2001 and was held in an "extraordinary rendition" site in Jordan and then in Guantanamo Bay for almost fifteen years. The Mauritanian tells the story of his experience and the legal effort to free him, lead by Nancy Hollander, portrayed by Jodie Foster.

RELATED: The Underground Railroad Show Vs Book: Biggest Differences Explained

The Mauritanian simplifies the chronology of the legal battle over Slahi's story to create a more compelling narrative. In reality, Stuart Crouch (portrayed in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch) refused to prosecute the case in 2003, while the judge did not make a ruling until 2010. The following decade is only covered in the film through a series of captions at the end of the film, leaving out much of the legal struggle to release Slahi.

While The Mauritanian is a fictionalized depiction of Slahi's ordeal, the story follows Slahi's autobiographical account closely, and as such the lingering questions about The Mauritanian are largely the lingering questions about his real-life experience. Like other biopics, The Mauritanian makes choices as to what to include and what to omit. While some questions will only be answered by the passage of time, others are a matter of recent historical record.

The Mauritanian largely concludes with Judge James Robertson granting a writ of habeas corpus. The judge determined that Slahi's past association with members of al-Qaeda and confessions extracted by torture were not enough to hold him, and ordered his release. However, it would still take six years for him to be released.

The US Department of Justice appealed Robertson's decision. In the fall of 2010, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision and returned it to the District Court, asking it to further question Slahi about his relationship to al-Qaeda. However, these hearings never took place. Slahi thus found himself in a kind of legal limbo, not officially released, but not charged or convicted of anything either.

RELATED: The 25 Best Movies On Amazon Prime Right Now

The Obama administration and the DoJ continued to block Slahi's release. While Obama was elected on a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay internment camp, he was unwilling to release people that military intelligence still believed were linked to the 9/11 attacks. Obama had planned to keep some Guantanamo detainees under indefinite detention in US-based prisons, fulfilling his promise in letter if not in spirit, but no US facility was willing to hold accused terrorists.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder further denied an ACLU petition for a review into Slahi's detention in 2015. The Mauritanian notes that Hollander and her assistant Teri Duncan, the basis of Shailene Woodley's character in The Mauritanian, continued to visit Slahi on a bimonthly basis, but he still endured extreme isolation and was still in the camp during the death of his mother in 2011, a year after his release. A Periodic Review Board finally approved Slahi's release in July 2016, and he was returned to Mauritania in October of that year.

There is a fairly brief account of Slahi's post-Guantanamo life in The Mauritanian, mostly taking place as a montage over the concluding credits. The montage shows Slahi with his family and counting the different translations of Guantanamo Diary. Understandably, such a short segment can't capture the full experience of Slahi's life in the over four years since his release. It's not surprising for movies based on memoirs, like the recent Hillbilly Elegy, to make changes, adding a narrative conclusion to a still-ongoing life.

In The Mauritanian Hollander comments that Slahi should become a writer, and this is what he ended up doing. He originally wrote Guantanamo Diary, a memoir of his experience, in 2005, but it took a decade to be published due to the US government marking it as classified information. Slahi eventually published Guantanamo Diary in 2015 with numerous redactions. Slahi has said that he wrote four more books while imprisoned, but his drafts were seized before his release.

RELATED: Why Amazon Original Shows Now Rival Netflix

Slahi has also made a few public appearances since his release. In 2017, he was interviewed by 60 Minutes, where he expressed forgiveness to those involved in his detention. In 2018 he followed through on this by having a public reunion with Steve Wood, one of his guards at Guantanamo. Slahi also signed a public letter in the New York Review of Books earlier this year urging the newly-inaugurated President Biden to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Sadly, Slahi's life is still restricted because of his experience in Guantanamo Bay. The United States never returned his passport to him, meaning that he cannot leave Mauritania. This has resulted in him being separated from his wife, another lawyer who worked on his case, and their son. Slahi is also unable to travel abroad to receive treatment for his medical conditions. Even four years after being freed, the impact of his detention remains.

While Slahi may have been freed, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is still in operation. As depicted in other War on Terror dramas like The Report, the revelation of civil rights violations did not lead to immediate change. President Obama pledged to close the camps, and made an effort to provide a trial to the inmates suspected of terrorism, but ran into obstacles due to the poor organization of the camp's files, the reluctance of stateside prisons to take detainees, and the extensive use of torture at the camp making detainee statements inadmissible in court. The United States military establishment remained certain that the people imprisoned were involved with terrorism, but feared going to a trial due to the taint of torture.

Republican lawmakers still largely support the camp. In 2012, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to prevent Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred to the US. President Trump publicly supported the indefinite detention program and, in 2018 signed an executive order for the camp to remain open. While mainstream media may have moved beyond the War on Terror-era paranoia of shows like 24, a large number of politicians still prioritize protection from real or imagined terrorism over Constitutional rights. The ACLU and other civil rights organizations criticized Obama, Trump, and Congress alike for allowing the camps to remain open.

RELATED: Why Netflix & Prime Have Some Of The Same Movies

The number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been reduced since the end of the Bush administration, due to releases like Slahi's, but 40 men are still held in the camp. President Biden has announced his intentions to close the internment camp, but many are skeptical after Obama's failure to deliver on the same promise. For now, the fate of Guantanamo and the people within remains undetermined.

Much of the American debate about the War on Terror and the civil rights violations of the Bush presidency has taken place through movies, from early examples like Jarhead to controversial hits like Zero Dark Thirty. The Mauritanian is part of this tradition, ultimately making a strong case that Slahi was a victim of a government willing to ignore liberty in the name of security. The movie concludes by noting that no United States agency has provided an apology to Slahi or other victims of torture, let alone compensation of the kind other countries have given to the victims of indefinite detention. Given the difficulties Slahi had even obtaining his release, it seems sadly unlikely that there will be official redress for what he suffered any time soon.

NEXT: Best Movie Directors Of The Decade

The Mauritanian: Lingering Questions On What Happened Next from https://ift.tt/3vhScwY

[architectnews]

SOM and Phillip K Smith III install light-up mirrored sculpture in Santa Monica

Global design firm Skidmore Owings and Merril collaborated with American artist Phillip K Smith III to create Santa Monica Linear, a mirrored glass installation that lights up at night.

Santa Monica Linear sits on a sloping landscaped site on the grounds of a house designed by celebrated Californian modernist Ray Kappe.

Santa Monica Linear is 30 feet long

Made of steel and glass, the 30-foot-long (nine metres) artwork is a horizontal slash that reflects the sky and trees.

At night, LEDs turn it into a shifting light display that echoes the famous sunset of the beachfront California town.

Its mirrored surface reflects the sky and surrounding plants

Architect-turned-artist Phillip K Smith III worked with SOM's director of structural engineering Eric Long to design the site-specific piece and install it on a steep-sided hill.

"The simplicity of Smith's concept and beauty of the site posed direct challenges to the perfect implementation of the artwork," said SOM.

"Of particular importance was the 42-degree sloped site and the necessity of the 30-foot-long mirrored plane to be a perfectly level extruded form, free from internal structural elements."

An LED screen displays shifting colours

During the day, the mirrored surface reflects the light and scenery. As night falls, the LED display shows a shifting array of light and colour like an artificial sky.

"At sunset, the reflection of the glowing sky and onshore moving clouds merges with floating, shifting gradients of light across the surface of the work," said Phillip K Smith III.

A red haze echoes the coastal sunset

Mirrored projects often raise concerns about birds flying into them, but the artist said that its positioning means it poses no risk to wildlife.

"Bird strikes are not an issue as the piece," Phillip K Smith III told Dezeen.

"[The piece] reflects the sky in the midst of a wall of green landscape. Bird strikes are issues for skyscrapers, where the sky is reflected adjacent to real sky."

Santa Monica Linear sits amongst lush planting and tall eucalyptus trees, bracketed by an early Skyspace chamber by the artist James Turrell and a 40-foot-tall (12 metres) piece by the sculptor Nancy Rubins.

Santa Monica is a beachfront city in Los Angeles county, California. Local architecture includes this cactus-filled greenhouse by Part Office and the headquarters of Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand Goop.

Phillip K Smith III is an artist that trained as an architect

Smith grew up in Palm Springs, California, and trained as an architect at Rhode Island School of Design before becoming an artist.

His previous works include mirrored posts installed along Laguna Beach, a wall of mirrors in an Italian piazza and a light-up skybridge in Detroit.

Photography is by Lance Gerber Studio.

The post SOM and Phillip K Smith III install light-up mirrored sculpture in Santa Monica appeared first on Dezeen.

[uicscience]

Dr. Janet Lin, UIC professor of emergency medicine at the College of Medicine.

UIC launches three COVID-19 clinical trials for blood clot prevention

The University of Illinois Chicago will conduct three clinical trials for studying blood clot prevention in patients with COVID-19.

“Blood clots are one of the leading complications of COVID-19,” said Dr. Jerry Krishnan, UIC associate vice chancellor for population health sciences. “Patients with COVID-19 often form blood clots throughout their bodies, which, if untreated, can lead to organ damage, including stroke, pulmonary embolism and heart attacks. We need to stop blood clot formation in order to prevent these potentially fatal complications of COVID-19 infection.”

The three clinical trials will study the safety and effectiveness of various types of blood thinners to treat adults diagnosed with COVID-19. The trials are part of the antithrombotics arm of the National Institutes of Health’s Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines, or ACTIV, initiative. All three clinical trials, collectively known as the ACTIV-4 antithrombotics studies, are coordinated and overseen by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and are funded through Operation Warp Speed.

UIC is the only institution in Chicago that served on the NIH’s Protocol Development Committees for these national clinical trials.

“Through these trials, we want to find out the best way to use approved blood clot treatments and prevention strategies for patients with COVID-19,” said Krishnan, who also is UIC professor of medicine at the College of Medicine, professor of public health at the School of Public Health and executive director at the Institute for Healthcare Delivery Design.

Two of the three trials have launched at UIC.

The ACTIV-4 Outpatient study at UIC, which began enrolling patients Oct. 21, is investigating whether anticoagulants or other antithrombotic therapies can reduce life-threatening cardiovascular or pulmonary complications in newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients who do not require admission to the hospital, or those who are “outpatients.”

Participants in the study will be enrolled when they visit UI Health, UIC’s health system.

At UIC, Dr. Janet Lin is the principal investigator for the outpatient study.

“This is an opportunity for us to determine the best medications and medical advice to provide to COVID-19 patients who visit our clinics or the emergency department. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments or a placebo comparator, and we will follow these patients to see if one group has better outcomes,” said Lin, UIC professor of emergency medicine at the College of Medicine.

Participants who enroll in the outpatient trial are assigned to take either a placebo, aspirin, low-dose apixaban or a treatment-dose of apixaban. Researchers also will collect patient data and blood samples to help identify new drug targets and biomarkers that may determine a patient’s risk of developing thrombotic complications related to COVID-19.

The ACTIV-4 Inpatient study at UIC, which began enrolling patients Oct. 30, is investigating the safety and effectiveness of using varying doses of blood thinners such as heparin or enoxaparin to prevent clotting events and improve outcomes in COVID-19 patients hospitalized at UI Health, or those that are “inpatients.”

Patients in the inpatient trial are assigned to receive either low or high doses of a blood thinner, and as the trial progresses, additional antithrombotic medications may be tested. All participants in the study continue to receive standard clinical care, as indicated, for their condition.

Dr. John Quigley is the principal investigator for the inpatient trial at UIC.

“Patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19 are very vulnerable. Our job as physicians is to use emerging clinical and scientific evidence to inform our bedside decisions. By understanding which treatments work best to prevent blood clots in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we can better personalize their care and, hopefully, prevent life-threatening complications to improve their outcomes,” said Quigley, UIC associate professor of hematology/oncology at the College of Medicine.

A third trial is anticipated to launch later this month.

The study — called the ACTIV-4 Post-Discharge study — will investigate treatments to help prevent blood clots after a patient is discharged from the hospital. Quigley also will serve as the UIC principal investigator of this trial.

“We have quickly recognized that the effects of COVID-19 often last well beyond the initial illness,” Quigley said. “Following these COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge and learning how to prevent further complications after the acute illness is an important part of ensuring that people can get back to their normal activities and remain healthy.”

In addition, UIC was awarded $8.5 million by the NIH to serve as the national Research Communication Center, or RCC, for two of the three clinical trials — the outpatient and post-discharge studies.

The RCC will serve as the critical point of contact for the thousands of study participants from around the nation enrolled in these two studies and their health care providers. The RCC will respond to questions, collect safety and effectiveness outcomes data, and track progress of study participants with the help of call center agents and UI Health clinical pharmacists and physicians.

“The RCC is a vital part of the ACTIV-4 studies. It is a collaborative effort between UIC, the University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, which serves as a foundation for ensuring the data from these studies are reliable,” said Krishnan, who serves as the principal investigator for the RCC.

At UIC, the RCC represents a collaboration between the College of Medicine, College of Pharmacy and the Institute of Healthcare Delivery Design.

UIC also was awarded $3.4 million to serve as an Illinois Clinical Coordinating Center for other sites in Illinois to participate as clinical enrollment sites for the ACTIV-4 Outpatient study.

The UIC research team working with the principal investigators includes Dr. Jeff Jacobson, Neha Atal, Nina Bracken, Laura Carrera, Lauren Castro, Gabrielle Cavaliere, Colleen Clark, Julie DeLisa, Sharon Hasek, Erika Hellenbart, Nina Huynh, Sai Illendula, Keri Kim, Ann Kutcha, James Lee, Cindy Leman, Miriam Martinez, Conny Mei, Brandi Morlen, Jennifer Peterson, Erin Pozzolano, Barbara Predki, Jennifer Sculley, Nancy Shapiro, Jissell Torres and Ellen Uppuluri.

The NIH announced the ACTIV public-private partnership in April 2020 to develop a coordinated national research response to accelerate COVID-19 treatment and vaccine options. As part of this partnership, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer have agreed to donate antithrombotic treatments for the ACTIV-4 Outpatient and Post-Discharge studies.

[dzthenerd490]

File: The Twilight Zone S1 E26 Execution

SCP#: AHW

Code Name: A Reminder That Time Travel Will Always Bite You in the Ass

Object Class: Neutralized

Special Containment Procedures: SCP-AHW has been dismantled due to its dangerous nature. As such no containment procedures will be made for the anomaly. It’s parts and its design will not be researched either as it is too dangerous to even study. In accordance with Temporal laws created and established by the Anomalous Correction and Protection Alliance which the Foundation is a member of, every bit of knowledge on how SCP-AHW's mechanics work has been destroyed. 

Description: SCP-AHW is by all intents and purposes a time machine though it is not a traditional time machine created in past failed attempts or described in fictional media. Instead of being a vehicle or capsule device that sends a person to a different time it instead has the power to pluck someone from a time period and send them to the present or vice versa. Unfortunately, upon creation there was no way to have SCP-AHW control who was plucked or placed where only that it would happen one way or another. This makes SCP-AHW extremely dangerous in that history can be altered to the point of disaster in a matter of seconds if used even once. 

SCP-AHW was discovered in 1960 when a rouge scientist created it and used it to pluck a murderer form the 1880’s into the present. The murderer obviously killed him but was unable to comprehend the modern world so trapped himself in the lab. From retrieved footage of the lab, the Foundation could see that a thief infiltrated the lab and killed the murderer but also sent himself into the past.

Thankfully as SCP-AHW was activated twice, both times releasing temporal wavelengths, the Foundation was able to find and acquire it rather easily. As far as the Foundation can tell this didn’t alter history that much except spawned a legend in 1880 where the murderer was supposed to die. The legend regards an outlaw that mysteriously changed into the devil when he was hanged. Though this has been disregarded as an urban legend and faded into obscurity.

Still, SCP-AHW was declared a temporal threat and needed to be destroyed. It was only thanks to our allies at the Global Occult Coalition that SCP-AHW was dismantled properly without causing a temporal rift or other dangerous temporal anomalies. No knowledge about how SCP-AHW was made, how it was dismantled, or how it even works is to be shared. All info, even insignificant info on its functionality, is to be found and erased in all forms. Instead, the only knowledge on SCP-AHW that is to be shared is the danger of temporal anomalies as well as time travel in general.

"Humanity is still far too young to understand even the most basic anomalies but unfortunately even the Foundation cannot begin to comprehend the damage temporal anomalies can accomplish if used incorrectly. For all we know, incorrect use of temporal based anomalies is exactly what caused The Reset. Though we should consider ourselves lucky that whatever The Reset was it only reversed time and didn't erase all of reality. I know we all have a lingering desire to go back in time so that we can prevent ourselves form suffering through our mistakes. But in my 70 years of working at the Foundation has taught me anything... nothing is worth the risk." -Site Director James

.

SCP: Horror Movie Files Hub

[patriotsnet]

How Many Republicans Would Need To Vote For Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-would-need-to-vote-for-impeachment/

How Many Republicans Would Need To Vote For Impeachment

Ten Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump Giving The Vote Bipartisan Bona Fides That Could Win Over Senate Gop

The Washington Post

Rep. Tom Rice, a staunch supporter of President Trump from deeply conservative South Carolina, issued a plea as rioters raged through the Capitol last week.

“Where is the president!?” Rice asked. “He must ask people to disperse and restore calm now.”

On Wednesday, exactly one week later, Rice voted with Democrats to impeach Trump, saying, “I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.”

All told, 10 Republicans voted with the Democrats to impeach Trump on charges of “incitement of insurrection.” Although the group represents a small fraction of the conference, their support gives impeachment bipartisan bona fides that could help it gain traction in the Senate. It also reflects the deep division within the Republican Party about its future and the role the president should play.

The group represents the party’s ideological spectrum, from Rep. Liz Cheney , who holds a leadership position, to moderate Rep. Fred Upton , to Rice.

The others who voted to impeach Trump are Anthony Gonzalez , Jaime Herrera Beutler , John Katko , Adam Kinzinger , Peter Meijer , Dan Newhouse and David Valadao .

In statements, many called their decision of vote of conscience.

Video: Pelosi: House may impeach Trump a second time

Asked whether Trump could remain an effective leader of the party, Jordan said, “Of course, he is.”

mike.debonis@washpost.com

Mcconnell Is Said To Be Pleased About Impeachment Believing It Will Be Easier To Purge Trump From The Gop

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking. The House is voting on Wednesday to formally charge Mr. Trump with inciting violence against the country.

At the same time, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most steadfast allies in Congress, has asked other Republicans whether he should call on Mr. Trump to resign in the aftermath of the riot at the Capitol last week, according to three Republican officials briefed on the conversations.

While Mr. McCarthy has said he is personally opposed to impeachment, he and other party leaders have decided not to formally lobby Republicans to vote “no,” and an aide to Mr. McCarthy said he was open to a measure censuring Mr. Trump for his conduct. In private, Mr. McCarthy reached out to a leading House Democrat to see if the chamber would be willing to pursue a censure vote, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ruled it out.

Making their task more difficult, Mr. Trump has shown no trace of contrition, telling reporters on Tuesday that his remarks to supporters had been “totally appropriate,” and that it was the specter of his impeachment that was “causing tremendous anger.”

In His First Public Appearance Since The Capitol Siege Trump Expresses No Contrition For Inciting The Mob

President Trump on Tuesday showed no contrition or regret for instigating the mob that stormed the Capitol and threatened the lives of members of Congress and his vice president, saying that his remarks to a rally beforehand were “totally appropriate” and that the effort by Congress to impeach and convict him was “causing tremendous anger.”

Answering questions from reporters for the first time since the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday, Mr. Trump sidestepped questions about his culpability in the deadly riot that shook the nation’s long tradition of peaceful transfers of power.

“People thought what I said was totally appropriate,” Mr. Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, en route to Alamo, Texas, where he was set to visit the wall along the Mexican border. Instead, Mr. Trump claimed that protests against racial injustice over the summer were “a real problem.”

“If you look at what other people have said, politicians at a high level about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle and various other places, that was a real problem,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s defiance came despite near universal condemnation of his role in stoking the assault on the Capitol, including from within his own administration and some of his closest allies on Capitol Hill.

We analyzed the alternating perspectives of President Trump at the podium, the lawmakers inside the Capitol and a growing mob’s destruction and violence.

Members Of A Senate Panel Express Skepticism That Bidens Pentagon Pick Should Get A Waiver For The Job

Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday expressed skepticism that Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star Army general who is President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s pick for secretary of defense, should be given a Congressional waiver needed to serve in that role.

The waiver, the subject of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, is required for any Pentagon chief who has been retired from active-duty military service for fewer than seven years. Mr. Austin, who would be the nation’s first Black defense secretary, retired in 2016.

Congress approved a similar measure four years ago for President Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, a retired four-star Marine officer. But many Republicans seem reluctant to grant that to Mr. Biden’s pick, and Democrats, long skeptical of the practice, did not seem uniformly moved by the case to do it again either, in spite of the historic nature of Mr. Austin’s nomination.

“This is a very deep and difficult issue,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine. “General Austin is well qualified,” Mr. King said, “but on the other hand the whole idea of civilian control of the military is a fundamental part of who were are.”

While the outgoing chairman of the committee, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has made it clear that he will support the waiver and doesn’t really believe in the requirement, other Republicans seemed unconvinced.

The House Formally Called On Pence To Invoke The 25th Amendment To Strip Trump Of Power He Declined

The House voted on Tuesday night to formally call on Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers after he incited a mob that attacked the Capitol, as lawmakers warned they would impeach the president on Wednesday if Mr. Pence did not comply.

Lawmakers, escorted by armed guards into a heavily fortified Capitol, adopted the nonbinding measure just before midnight largely along party lines. The final vote was 223 to 205 to implore Mr. Pence to declare Mr. Trump “incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting president.”

“We’re trying to tell him that the time of a 25th Amendment emergency has arrived,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the author of the resolution, said before the vote. “It has come to our doorstep. It has invaded our chamber.”

Only one Republican, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, voted in favor of the resolution.

The House proceeded even after Mr. Pence rejected the call in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. “I do not believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our nation or consistent with our Constitution,” he wrote. “I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our nation.”

Trump Administration Will Release All Vaccine Doses Adopting A Policy Proposed By The Biden Team

The Trump administration will recommend providing a wider distribution of a coronavirus vaccine, just days after aides to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. said his administration would make a similar adjustment by using more of the already procured vaccines for initial doses.

Mr. Biden’s team has said it would aim to distribute the doses more quickly at federally run vaccination sites at high school gyms, sports stadiums and mobile units to reach high-risk populations.

The Trump administration plans to release the shots that had been held back and aims to make the vaccine available to everyone over 65 in an attempt to accelerate lagging distribution.

The doses had been held back to ensure that those who receive a first dose had the second and final inoculation available when it was needed. The change means all existing doses will be sent to states to provide initial inoculations. Second doses are to be provided by new waves of manufacturing.

The idea of using existing vaccine supplies for first doses has raised objections from some doctors and researchers, who say studies of the vaccines’ effectiveness proved only that they worked to prevent illness when using two doses.

The agency is expected to announce the new guidelines at a briefing at noon Eastern on Tuesday, according to an official briefed on the plans who was not authorized to speak publicly about the change. Axios earlier reported the new guidelines.

Madison Cawthorn Attacks Dr Fauci: We Want To Prosecute This Guy To The Full Ability Of The Law

David Badash

U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci, saying House Republicans will “prosecute” the esteemed immunologist and director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , as a “pawn of the Chinese Communist Party” and for lying to Congress.

There is no evidence either of those claims are true.

Speaking to former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis, the host of “Just the Truth” on the Real America’s Voice website, Cawthorn falsely claimed Dr. Fauci has “directly lied to Congress,” echoing a claim made by Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday. Ellis, who claims to be a “constitutional law attorney,” did not mention to Cawthorn that the House of Representatives does not have the power to criminally prosecute.

“I’ll tell you when we take the majority back in 2022, I’ll make sure consequences are doled out,” Cawthorn promised. “But we want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law because I’ll tell you to lie to the American people just to get your name in the news just to see your face on the cover of books just to get fame or fortune, I’ll tell you, Dr. Anthony Fauci does not deserve either fame or fortune.”

On Wednesday Cawthorn told Newsmax, “I think we should indict Jill Biden.”

Watch:

Rep. Madison Cawthorn vows that if the GOP gains control of the House in 2022, he will “make sure that consequences are doled out” to Dr. Anthony Fauci: “We want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law.”pic.twitter.com/kFN0rGOCGJ

Jamie Raskin Is Leading The Effort To Impeach Trump While Mourning The Recent Death Of His Son

A day after Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, buried his 25-year-old son, he survived the mob attack on the Capitol. He is now leading the impeachment effort against President Trump for inciting the siege.

Mr. Raskin’s son, Tommy Raskin, a 25-year-old Harvard University law student, social justice activist, animal lover and poet, died by suicide on New Year’s Eve. He left his parents an apology, with instructions: “Please look after each other, the animals, and the global poor for me.”

As he found himself hiding with House colleagues from a violent mob, Mr. Raskin feared for the safety of a surviving daughter who had accompanied him to the Capitol to witness the counting of electoral votes to seal Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.

Within hours, Mr. Raskin was at work drafting an article of impeachment with the mob braying in his ear and his son’s final plea on his mind.

“I’ll spend the rest of my life trying to live up to those instructions,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview on Monday, reading aloud the farewell note as he reflected on his family’s grief and the confluence of events. “But what we are doing this week is looking after our beloved republic.”

The slightly rumpled former constitutional law professor has been preparing his entire life for this moment. That it should come just as he is suffering the most unimaginable loss a parent can bear has touched his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Guns For Hire: Gop Governor Accused Of Renting Out South Dakotas National Guard Troops As For

David Badash

It may be called South Dakota but the “Mount Rushmore State” is pretty far up in the northern United States. And yet Governor Kristi Noem, a Trump-loving far right Republican, is sending her National Guard troops to patrol the border: the Southern Border, in Texas.

The capitol of South Dakota, Pierre, is over 1100 miles from Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s capital city of Austin, about a 17 hour drive according to Google, if you don’t stop to eat or sleep.

Gov. Noem is sending her National Guard troops down to the Lone Star State to help out Gov. Abbott with the “ongoing violations of state and federal law by illegal aliens crossing the unsecured border,”she has just announced.

Who’s paying for these soldiers?

In a statement Noem says “private donations,” the source of which she does not disclose. Nor does she say where the funds are going.

“The Biden Administration has failed in the most basic duty of the federal government: keeping the American people safe,” Governor Noem’s statement reads.. “The border is a national security crisis that requires the kind of sustained response only the National Guard can provide.  We should not be making our own communities less safe by sending our police or Highway Patrol to fix a long-term problem President Biden’s Administration seems unable or unwilling to solve.  My message to Texas is this: help is on the way.”

“The deployment will be paid for by a private donation.”

— Amanda Carpenter June 29, 2021

Five House Republicans Back Impeachment As Party Leaders Forgo Formally Lobbying Against It

Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 House Republican, announced on Tuesday that she would vote to impeach President Trump, saying there had “never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States” than Mr. Trump’s incitement of a mob that attacked the Capitol last week.

In a stinging statement that drove a fissure through her party, Ms. Cheney dismissed fellow Republicans arguing that the impeachment was rushed, premature or unwarranted. Her words were unequivocal and likely to give cover to two dozen or so other House Republicans looking to break ranks and join an effort that was also said to have the tacit support of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

“Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough,” said Ms. Cheney, the scion of a storied Republican political family. “The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president.”

She added: “The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.”

Ms. Cheney’s announcement came a short time after Representative John Katko of New York became the first House Republican to commit to voting to impeach.

Representatives Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, all Republicans, followed them.

Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump 7 Already Facing Challenges For Their Seats In Congress

U.S.Donald TrumpRepublicansGOPCongress

Some of the Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in January are already having their seats challenged and their ability to hold onto their place in Congress may be dependent on the moves the former president makes in the next 18 months.

Ten Republicans joined Democrats in impeaching Trump a historic second time, a move that was quickly met with condemnation back in their home states. They’ve been publicly scolded, pushed to resign and warned that local organizations will mount a strong push to oust them from office in the primary.

“After my last election, I had decided not to run again. But the vote by Congressman Valadao to impeach President Trump with no witnesses, evidence, or without allowing any defense was too much for me to stay on the sidelines,” Chris Mathys, a former Fresno, California, city council member, told Newsweek.

Valadao, who represents California’s 21st district, wasn’t in office during Trump’s first impeachment, as he had been ousted from office in 2018 by Democrat TJ Coxx. In November, Valadao won back his seat from the Democrat who beat him in 2018 by less than a point. The Republican placed blame on Trump for the Capitol riot, saying that his rhetoric was “un-American, abhorrent and absolutely an impeachable offense.”

Senate Republicans Out of Step With Majority on Convicting Donald Trump

Opinionmy Fellow Republicans Please Do The Right Thing And Back An Impeachment Inquiry

On Tuesday, Romney finally had some company. He was joined by the same four colleagues — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — who also joined him in November in acknowledging Joe Biden’s victory and standing steadfast in opposition to outlandish claims that the election was rigged or stolen.

Murkowski denounced Trump for having “perpetrated false rhetoric that the election was stolen and rigged, even after dozens of courts ruled against these claims.” Sasse said Trump didn’t have any evidence to back up his claims of election fraud, “and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.”

Opinionthis Trump Impeachment Defense Falls Apart As Soon As You Read The Constitution

Yet 45 Republican senators voted against taking up the impeachment trial Tuesday. Some want to spend as little time thinking and talking about Trump as possible, but many are still in thrall to his base. Twenty Republican-held Senate seats will be contested in two years, and the current occupants no doubt fear primary challengers from the MAGA right if they show any sign of breaking with Trump. What’s less clear is why, given their rhetoric and behavior over the last four years, they think the country would be any worse off with Trump sycophants in their seats.

Thanks to the impeachment process they’ve been gifted by the Democrats, Senate Republicans have one last chance to break with Trump and the conspiracist authoritarianism he represents. Their opening move Tuesday was a weak one, but they still have time for a course correction when the vote on conviction takes place next month. If they won’t do it for the country, they should at least do it to save their place in the party.

Related:

Twice As Many Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump Than Democrats Voted To Remove Clinton

Newsweek

More Republicans in the House voted for the second impeachment of President Donald Trump on Wednesday than Democrats voted in favor of impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998.

The House voted to impeach Trump in the aftermath of riots at the U.S. Capitol in January, an event many have said Trump incited, by a vote of 232-197. Four Republican members of the House declined to vote. While a majority of Republicans chose to stand behind Trump and his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, 10 GOP members decided to break ranks with Trump and call for his impeachment.

NBC News

Trump’s second impeachment was seen as the most bipartisan impeachment in U.S. history. Only 5 Democrats broke ranks to vote for impeaching Clinton. During the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, only 7 Republicans joined with Democrats to vote in favor of Johnson’s impeachment.

A majority of the 10 Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment represent districts that voted for Trump in the 2020 election.

Ohio Republican Representative Anthony Gonzalez announced his support for impeaching Trump on Wednesday.

“When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the President’s lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack,” Gonzalez wrote, “I am compelled to support impeachment.”

Michigan Representative Peter Meijer, who supported a resolution to censure Trump on Tuesday, voted for impeachment on Wednesday.

Related Articles

What Does An Impeachment Vote Mean For A Sitting President And For A Former President

A president can continue governing even after he or she has been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Trump continued to govern after his impeachment in December 2019, and of course, ran for reelection in 2020. After Clinton was impeached on Dec. 19, 1998, he finished out his second term, which ended in January 2001, during which time he was acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial. While Clinton continued governing, and the impeachment had no legal or official impact, his legacy is marred by the proceeding.

Gop Leader Mccarthy: Trump ‘bears Responsibility’ For Violence Won’t Vote To Impeach

Some ambitious Republican senators have never been as on board the Trump train as the more feverish GOP members in the House, and the former might be open to convicting Trump. But their ambition cuts two ways — on the one hand, voting to ban Trump opens a lane to carry the Republican mantle in 2024 and be the party’s new standard-bearer, but, on the other, it has the potential to alienate many of the 74 million who voted for Trump, and whose votes they need.

It’s a long shot that Trump would ultimately be convicted, because 17 Republicans would need to join Democrats to get the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction. But it’s growing clearer that a majority of the Senate will vote to convict him, reflecting the number of Americans who are in favor of impeachment, disapproved of the job Trump has done and voted for his opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Correction Jan. 14, 2021

A previous version of this story incorrectly said Rep. Peter Meijer is a West Point graduate. Meijer attended West Point, but he is a graduate of Columbia University.

Republicans Who Voted To Acquit Trump Used Questions Of Constitutionality As A Cover

Following the vote, McConnell gave a scathing speech condemning Trump’s lies about election fraud as well as his actions on January 6, only moments after he supported acquittal.

That speech was emblematic of how many Republican senators approached the impeachment vote: Although GOP lawmakers were critical of the attack on January 6, they used a process argument about constitutionality in order to evade confronting Trump on his actual actions.

Effectively, because Trump is no longer in office, Republicans say the Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction to convict him of the article of impeachment. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explained, there’s some debate over that, but most legal scholars maintain that it is constitutional for the Senate to try a former president.

“If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge,” McConnell said. McConnell, however, played an integral role in delaying the start of the trial until after Trump was no longer president.

His statement on Saturday was simply a continuation of how Republicans had previously approached Trump’s presidency: There’s been an overwhelming hesitation to hold him accountable while he was in office, and that still appears to be the case for many lawmakers.

State Department Cancels All Planned Travel By Officials To Ensure Smooth Transition

The State Department is canceling all planned travel by department officials this week, including what would have been Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s last foreign trip to Europe, as part of a departmentwide effort to ensure a smooth transition to the incoming Biden administration, Morgan Ortagus, a department spokeswoman, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The cancellation order would also include a three-day trip to Taiwan planned by Kelly Craft, the ambassador to the United Nations. It would have been the first official visit by an American official after the State Department relaxed restrictions on such meetings — and it would almost certainly have angered the Chinese government, which views Taiwan as its sovereign territory.

Beijing has so far responded with characteristic bluster. The Xinhua state news agency ran an editorial this week calling Mr. Pompeo “the worst secretary of state in history,” while The Global Times, a state-backed tabloid, said he was pushing the Taiwan issue “deeper down the road of no return.”

The abrupt order comes as United States allies are making clear that they believe that Mr. Pompeo and President Trump presided over the most far-reaching damage in decades to America’s traditional role as an exemplar of democracy.

Mr. Pompeo has not acknowledged Mr. Trump’s role in inciting the rioters who laid siege to the Capitol last week. And just weeks before, Mr. Pompeo had suggested that Mr. Trump won an election that he lost.

Democrats Introduce A Measure To Remove Lawmakers Who Tried To Overturn The Election

Progressive House Democrats on Monday introduced legislation that would allow a committee to investigate and potentially expel Republican lawmakers who had participated in efforts to subvert the results of the November election.

The legislation would direct the House ethics committee to “investigate, and issue a report on” lawmakers who had sought to overturn the election, and to determine if they “should face sanction, including removal from the House of Representatives.”

House lawmakers can be expelled from their seats under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies elected officials who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Representative Cori Bush, Democrat of Missouri, began drafting the bill as she and other House lawmakers sheltered in place during the storming of the Capitol last week. The resolution, which has 47 co-sponsors, names Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama and Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri as leaders of the effort by 147 Republicans to overturn the results of the election.

Ms. Bush said in an interview that she did not know ultimately how many members of Congress should be expelled, but expected to learn the number from an investigation of the Ethics Committee.

“Even if it’s just a few, we have to make sure the message is clear that you cannot be a sitting Congress member and incite an insurrection and work to overturn an election,” she said.

House Votes To Impeach Trump But Senate Trial Unlikely Before Biden’s Inauguration

9. Rep. John Katko, New York’s 24th: Katko is a moderate from an evenly divided moderate district. A former federal prosecutor, he said of Trump: “It cannot be ignored that President Trump encouraged this insurrection.” He also noted that as the riot was happening, Trump “refused to call it off, putting countless lives in danger.”

10. Rep. David Valadao, California’s 21st: The Southern California congressman represents a majority-Latino district Biden won 54% to 44%. Valadao won election to this seat in 2012 before losing it in 2018 and winning it back in the fall. He’s the rare case of a member of Congress who touts his willingness to work with the other party. Of his vote for impeachment, he said: “President Trump was, without question, a driving force in the catastrophic events that took place on January 6.” He added, “His inciting rhetoric was un-American, abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense.”

Enhanced Security Measures For The Inauguration Are Starting Earlier Than Planned

With the resignation of Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary for the Homeland Security Department, on Monday, the task of coordinating the security of the upcoming inauguration, will now fall to Peter T. Gaynor, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who will replace Mr. Wolf for the remaining days in the Trump administration.

The Secret Service, which falls under the Homeland Security Department, is leading the security operations for the event on Jan. 20, and officials are bracing for heightened threats of violence.

Before his resignation, Mr. Wolf announced that enhanced security measures would begin on Jan. 13 instead of Jan. 19 as initially planned.

Mr. Wolf said he did so “in light of events of the past week and the evolving security landscape leading up to the inauguration.”

On Saturday, the mayor of Washington, Muriel E. Bowser, sent a firmly worded letter to the Department of Homeland Security, asking officials to move up security operations and requesting a disaster declaration, which would free federal funding for the inauguration. President Trump granted the request on Monday night.

Ms. Bowser’s call to action came as law enforcement officers in several states made arrests related to the assault on the Capitol.

The National Guard plans to deploy up to 15,000 troops to the nation’s capital for the inauguration.

Would Impeachment Prevent Trump From Seeking Office In The Future Its Complicated

With just days remaining in his term, House Democrats have introduced an article of impeachment in Congress charging President Trump for a second time with committing “high crimes and misdemeanors,” this time for his role in inciting a mob that stormed the Capitol last week.

Impeaching a president with less than two weeks left in his term presents an extraordinary challenge. But if Mr. Trump is impeached in the House and subsequently convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and removed from office, the Senate could then vote to bar him from ever holding office again.

The Constitution says that the Senate, after voting to convict an impeached president, can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” This would be determined by a second vote, requiring only a simple majority of senators to successfully disqualify him from holding office in the future. Such a vote could be appealing not just to Democrats but also possibly to many Republicans who have set their sights on the presidency.

Mr. Trump, who is said to be contemplating another run for president in 2024, has just eight days remaining in office, presenting an impeachment timeline for congressional Democrats that is tight, but not impossible. As soon as the House votes to adopt an article of impeachment, it can immediately transmit it to the Senate, which must promptly begin a trial.

[88newszone-blog]

Standing down: How Trump decided that not striking back was his best option on Iran

Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran, was in Los Angeles to talk about US policy toward Iran. But by the time he stepped to the podium, he was already more than an hour late, having spent much of the day on a secure line speaking to US officials in Washington including his boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And now, he had to leave. "The peoples of Iraq and Lebanon and Iran, they want their country back," Hook said. "And they are tired of Iran being unable to stay within its own borders. Thank you." With that, Hook walked briskly off stage. America's defense apparatus was spinning into action. Minutes earlier, US intelligence satellites had picked up signs of a heat signature from Iran, suggesting the country had just launched short range ballistic missiles. The US knew an impending attack was likely, thanks to a tip from the Iraqi government, which had been told by the Iranians an attack was coming and which bases to avoid. Still, using information from the satellites and US aircraft in the region -- which had intercepted Iranian communications -- US intelligence analysts quickly determined that two bases in Iraq were the targets, al-Asad and Erbil. Within minutes, US troops stationed there were warned. They'd already been on high alert and sought safety in bunkers, according to a source familiar. Troops took short-term cover the day before out of a concern of a possible attack. Now, the threat was imminent, and the troops were told of incoming missiles. At 7:30 p.m. ET, the official announcement went out: Iran had launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against US military and coalition forces in Iraq. Just five days after killing Iran's top military leader, Qassem Soleimani, in a drone strike in Baghdad, this was the moment that the Trump administration had been preparing for -- a direct retaliatory attack from Iran. News of the missile strike came as the administration had spent days stuck in a chaotic series of self-inflicted wounds. First, Trump had threatened to target Iranian cultural sites. Then there was the shocking letter announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq that the Pentagon had to walk back as "a mistake." It all raised questions about the administration's handling of the situation, and even had some Republican allies of the President privately expressing concern about whether the administration was truly prepared to deal with the events it had unleashed with the Soleimani strike. The moment wasn't lost on Trump's top aides, who convened in the basement Situation Room knowing that the ensuing hours could redeem a chaotic several days -- or cement the impression of a rudderless ship. On Tuesday evening, aides watched as the situation went from the potential for dramatic conflict to one that seemed to offer Trump a new opportunity to deescalate. Bolstered by incoming messages from Iran sent through back-channels, Trump's aides realized the damage would be limited. "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump said on Wednesday morning. The following account of the events that unfolded over the past are based on interviews with dozens of Trump administration officials, foreign diplomats, as well as staffers and top lawmakers on the Hill. Scramble to inform Within an hour of the strikes, leaders on Capitol Hill were being briefed. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was discussing the situation in Iran with a group of top Democrats when she was handed a note with news of a rocket attack on a US military base in Iraq. Among those present was Rep. Dan Kildee, who told CNN that Pelosi paused the discussion to alert members of the situation. "Pray," Pelosi told members, according to Rep. Debbie Dingel. Not long after, Pelosi got on the phone with Vice President Mike Pence, who briefed her on the Iranian attacks. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also received a call from Pence around the same time and was briefed on the attack. Meanwhile, GOP leaders were getting briefed directly by the President. At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior defense officials as soon as he got word of the attack. Less than an hour after news broke of the Iranian strike, Esper's office reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul al-Mahdi, who just days earlier had criticized the US drone strike on Soleimani as a "flagrant violation of the conditions for the presence of the American forces in Iraq." At first Esper's team couldn't get through. It was around 3 a.m. in Baghdad and the number the Pentagon had for Mahdi's office wasn't working, said a source familiar with the outreach. They contacted the ambassador in Washington at home, who managed to connect the two parties. After making a few calls to senior congressional officials, Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed to the White House. In the Situation Room Just before 7:30 p.m. ET, Esper, Milley and Pompeo all pulled up to the White House within a few minutes of each other. Pompeo arrived first. As he waited for the others, Pompeo turned the light on in the back seat of his Cadillac sedan and was reading from two cellphones. Once the other two cars arrived, Pompeo, Esper and Milley all entered the West Wing together. Soon, a group of senior administration officials were gathered in the Situation Room. Along with Pence, Pompeo, Esper and Milley, the group included national security adviser Robert O'Brien, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. White House counsel Pat Cippolone and press secretary Stephanie Grisham were there, while CIA Director Gina Haspel joined by teleconference. The first objective was to determine whether any Americans had died in the strike. A senator who spoke with Trump told CNN the President appeared ready to attack Iranian facilities had there been even one American casualty. Though it took well into the night to confirm, the early evidence suggested there had not been any American deaths. That lack of casualties fed a sense of restraint in the room, according to sources. While some consideration was given to striking back at Iran that night, according to one White House official, the decision was made to hold off until more information came in regarding Iran's intentions and the conditions on the ground. One of the initial reactions in the room was one of surprise that the Iranians fired so few missiles out of their arsenal of thousands, this source said. That, along with the expectation that Iran was always going to strike back, created a sense of calm. Though there was an obvious level of tension given the high stakes, part of the reason the group was more relaxed was the initial view among many administration officials that Iranians were more bent on sending a message than in killing Americans. One source pointed to how accurate Iranians have been in the past with its ballistic missiles, such as the attack a Saudi oil refinery, suggesting the attack could have been lethal. Within hours of the strike, the President had made clear he wanted to make a public address and began dictating an outline of what it should look like, according to a person familiar. As Trump and his advisers continued to meet in the Situation Room, aides began making urgent plans for an address to the nation, including prepping the Oval Office. The framework of a speech started coming together with aide Stephen Miller at the helm and senior advisers weighing in. Over the past few days, top White House officials expressed regret that Trump hadn't addressed the nation sooner after the strike that killed Soleimani, and worried he'd missed a chance to shape the narrative in his favor. Right after the strike, White House aide and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner was among those pushing Trump to give a speech, but the decision was made to hold off. On the Hill, Republican leaders were getting constant updates from the White House, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Armed Services Chairman Sen. James Inhofe. The overall message to the White House from Republicans, according to a number of sources, was one of restraint, and that this was a moment for de-escalation. In the end, White House officials said Trump would not emerge on Tuesday night to make an address. The news was met with a collective sigh of relief on the Hill, according to several GOP aides who spoke to CNN. Around 9 p.m. ET, Trump began making calls to several GOP lawmakers, including Inhofe, who told reporters Wednesday the President was in a "very, very positive" mood and said he was willing to negotiate with Iran. Inhofe agreed, telling the President this was an opportunity to not just de-escalate but start negotiations. At 9:45 p.m. ET, Trump tweeted, "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning." But the night was far from over. Iran Back Channels Starting late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, Iran initiated contact with the administration through at least three back channels, including Switzerland and other countries, according to a senior administration official. The message from Iran was clear: This would be their only response. They would now wait to see what the US would do. As part of its response back, the US conveyed that it was fully aware that Iran controls its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah. The source told CNN that Iran tried to "squeak out of it," saying they are not responsible for those proxies, but the US made clear it didn't buy that argument. By around 1 a.m. ET, the battleground assessment came in, confirming no US casualties. Working through the night without sleep in secure rooms at the White House, national security teams put response options together, including plans to sanction Iran. By early Wednesday morning, teams met again with the President, who was given an update on the latest assessment. That's when Trump made the final decision that the US response would be sanctions, signaling to advisers that the threat of escalation was off the table. "They've stepped back -- now we've taken a bit of a step back," said a senior administration official. Trump then began making his own edits on the draft of the speech, as did a handful of other national security advisers including Esper, Pompeo and Milley. As the White House prepared for an 11 a.m. ET address to the nation, advisers kept weighing in on the draft of the President's remarks, delaying Trump's address by nearly half an hour. As junior staffers and reporters crowded into the red-carpet lined White House foyer, the President's top national security officials -- many wearing their military uniforms -- lined up on either side of the podium. The wooden doors opened behind them and Trump -- silhouetted by late-morning sun -- emerged. CNN's Kaitlan Collins, Jennifer Hanlser, Manu Raju, Alex Marquardt and Kylie Atwood contributed to this report. Source link Read the full article

[unathletic-athletic-opinion-blog]

The Unpaid Employee: Should Student-Athletes Be Paid?

The days of amateurism, as we have come to know them under the framework of intercollegiate athletics, are now numbered. That’s correct, the once inconceivable thought of a student-athlete earning outright financial compensation for his/her services on the field is now a likelihood – at least in the state of California.

SB 206, more commonly known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, successfully passed through the California Senate with a unanimous 39-0 vote a few weeks back on September 10th.[1] The day before, the state’s Assembly also passed the bill through on a 73-0 vote.[2] It will now go to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

So what exactly does this bill entail?

The Fair Pay to Play Act, which can take effect as early as 2023, would give California student-athletes from any of its 58 postsecondary educational institutions the right to earn financial compensation for the use of their name, image, or likeness – the exception being community college student-athletes.[3]Athletes would also be within their right to hire representation in the form of an agent or attorney for any business deals (i.e. potential endorsement deals, autograph sessions) without any consequence of losing eligibility.[4]

Essentially, universities WOULD NOT have to pay student-athletes a dime out of their pockets.

Yet, the NCAA and the California institutions these student-athletes represent continue to oppose the premise of this legislation. In May, NCAA president Mark Emmert penned a letter to California legislators to halt their vote so the intercollegiate governing body could thoroughly examine the impact this bill could have on the macro-environment.[5] Additionally, Stanford athletic director Bernard Muir, in his letter to the California State Senate, followed suit by adding:

“Allowing student-athletes to receive compensation from their name, image, and likeness, would present serious challenges for higher education institutions and to the collegiate sports model… We believe that for any reform to be fair and meaningful to all student-athletes it needs to occur at the national level and be adopted by the NCAA.”[6]

Both the NCAA and these institutions perceive the landmark vote to be “unconstitutional” and “harmful.”[7]

Then on the other end of the spectrum are the bill’s endorsers, most notably NBA superstars LeBron James and Draymond Green as well as Senator Bernie Sanders. Each praises the potential this bill could accomplish for student-athletes.[8] James, especially, has been a longtime critic of the NCAA’s practices. He decided to forgo playing in college so he could hurdle straight into the NBA from high school.

The debate surrounding student-athlete compensation is far from novel. The amateur/professional dilemma dates back even further than the inception of the NCAA – which evolved from the Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1908 as a means to promote safety and then subsequently adopted England’s Victorian amateur/professional guidelines once it gained more enforcement power.[9]

Amateurism has always been a critical component to the NCAA’s makeup. The NCAA consistently claims to mandate itself under an academic model, yet finds itself heavily entrenched in commercialization as a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

Athletic departments are continuously locked into arms races to remain competitive with the ultimate goal that their net operations land in the black. But winning is coming at a steep price. Most schools, as we know, will land in the red. Despite this truth, student-athletes are required to dedicate and/or “volunteer” the lion’s share of their time to their respective sports in an ill-fated exploitation to generate revenues. Not to their academics. Competition is the cause for the NCAA to allow exceptions to amateurism (i.e. scholarships, stipends, and “laundry money”) to occur in the first place.[10]

Why not further entice the student-athletes?

Pay them for the full-time job they have in addition to their schooling. Plus, some students are struggling to make ends meet outside of competition while their coaches are reaping the financial benefits of their heavy-lifting.

Unfortunately, as nice as it would be to pay student-athletes for their entertainment value on the gridiron, field, or court, issues will continue to formulate and fester. Namely in the forms of competition, governance, and image.

Student-athletes are expected to streamline their talents into the California institutions impacted by the Fair Pay to Play Act. Additionally, these schools may face exemption from national championships due to NCAA restrictions.

Governance of a student-athletes financial compensation must filter through their respective universities in the form of a contract. The schools, in turn, have the right to veto certain contracts if it conflicts with their best interests.

The NCAA has seen its products hindered by the crossover between amateurism and professionalism. Some viewers feel that intercollegiate athletics are already professional enough as student-athletes are provided with scholarships and educational resources that the ordinary student cannot reap. Adding a financial variable into this current equation may deter viewers since the academic premise of higher education is compromised.

It is quite obvious that trade-offs are present while assessing whether or not to financially compensate student-athletes. States, like North Carolina and New York, are already looking to follow California’s lead by drafting similar bills to the Fair Pay to Play Act.[11] But the NCAA and other institutions are prepping to lead the opposition.

So…?

What do you think…?

Should student-athletes be paid? Should other states follow California in passing a bill of this nature? How do you think academia with respond? Will this help or hinder student-athletes in the long-run?

For now, we have to test the waters of an intercollegiate athletic America with no or minimal amateurism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]“California Legislature Approves SB 206, the 'Fair Pay to Play Act'.” Senator Nancy Skinner, 12 Sept. 2019, sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/20190911-california-legislature-approves-sb-206-‘fair-pay-play-act.’

[2]Id.

[3]“UPDATE: California Senate Bill 206 Moves Closer To Becoming Law.” The National Law Review, www.natlawreview.com/article/update-california-senate-bill-206-moves-closer-to-becoming-law.

[4]Id.

[5]Bumbaca, Christopher, and Steve Berkowitz. “NCAA Sends California Governor Letter Calling Name, Likeness Bill 'Unconstitutional'.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 11 Sept. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2019/09/11/ncaa-sends-letter-calling-california-likeness-bill-unconstitutional/2284789001/.

[6]Lourim, Jake. “California Takes Another Step Toward Testing The NCAA.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 10 Sept. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/jakelourim/2019/09/10/california-takes-another-step-toward-testing-the-ncaa/#49c5fec77c6f.

[7]“California Would Allow College Athletes to Profit from Endorsements under Bill Sent to Newsom.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Sept. 2019, www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill.

[8]Id.

[9]Rosner, Scott, and Kenneth L. Shropshire. The Business of Sports. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011.

[10]Id.

[11]“California Would Allow College Athletes to Profit from Endorsements under Bill Sent to Newsom.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Sept. 2019, www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-college-athletes-endorsements-bill.