#also those hearings that congress had were not interviewing the people who claimed to have seen uaps no they were interviewing people who

[cinematicbookworm]

Man the average right leaning person really is just the most gullable people like shit some times I forget how stupid some people can be and then they open their mouths and start talking about aliens and demons on planes after watching some video online of some lady going crazy on a plane talking bout a passenger being not real like the woman was probably haveing a mental break and y’all are really out here talking bout demonic fucking possession of the person who is being screamed at by someone clearly having a break from reality shits crazy

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

A recent study (sorry, some stuff I can only find in Hebrew, this is one of those articles) shows 83% of Israeli kids are experiencing psychological distress since Oct 7. Among the kids of the south, (the area which was hit the worst, and where even communities that were not massacred by Hamas, were evacuated following this massive invasion), the percentage is even higher, 93%. An important note is that the study sampled both Jewish and Arab kids based on the size of these populations (Arabs make up 21% of Israeli citizens).

The IDF published aerial footage of Hamas stealing humanitarian aid from regular Gazans, and beating them up. If there's a blog that claims to be sharing pro-Palestinian info, but doesn't share this kind of news, they're not really pro-Palestinian, they're just exploiting Palestinians as an excuse to be anti-Israel.

The leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, is believed to have escaped from the northern Gaza City to the south, to Khan Younis, in a medical convoy. Just take in the cynical use of medical and humanitarian protections, to do anything which would prolong the fighting, no matter how many Palestinian lives it would cost. I'm trying hard to remember any other (real) liberation movement that was directly responsible for the deaths of so many of the people it seeked to liberate...

Five Israeli soldiers were pronounced dead yesterday, four were killed in Gaza, while one was badly wounded on Oct 7, and after over two months in hospital, passed away. The number of Israeli soldiers killed in the fighting in Gaza so far is 97. Up until number, the bloodiest battle Israel has had to wage in Gaza since withdrawing from it, was operation Protective Edge in 2014, with 70 Israeli soldiers killed.

The Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister said, when discussing plans for Gaza after the end of the war, that Hamas is an integral part of the Palestinian mosaic, and that dismantling Hamas is unacceptable to the Palestinian Authority.

Yesterday, an American base in Iraq was attacked by Hezbollah forces. You absolutely should ask yourself why the terrorist organization calling itself the "defender of Lebanon" has units in Iraq, and how is attacking American forces there helping Lebanon. Just a side note, Iran funds Hezbollah.

Also yesterday, the Yemenite terrorist group known as the Houthis announced that instead of going after Israeli ships only, they will target any ship that is headed for Israel through one of the most important naval routes in the world, and which is Israel's only connection to the far east. Essentially, it means they're placing Israel under a naval blockade. I'm looking forward to people condemning Yemen for occupying Israel. Just a side note, Iran funds the Houthis.

Today, it was published that in Cyprus, two Iranian political refugees, who entered the country with a fake passport, were arrested for collecting intel to carry out a terrorist attack against Israelis there. Just a side note, these refugees were in touch with Iran's political militarized force, IRGC. Stop me when you notice a theme here...

On the first even of Hanukkah, 138 hanukkiot were lit at the Kotel (the Western wall), one for each hostage. Since then, two of the hostages have been confirmed as murdered.

Following the Congress hearing where three presidents of prestigious universities couldn't explicitly say that a call for the genocide of the Jewish people constitutes bullying and harassment, UPenn's president resigned. That's good, but I wanna point out that, as their answers were obviously coordinated, down to repeating the exact same terms, there is no difference between UPenn's president and the ones of Harvard and MIT. They all need to go home. And the universities still have the burden of proof that this will be more than a cosmetic change in leadership.

I watched a TV interview with two married Israeli Harvard professors, who recounted how they went out and celebrated when Claudine Gay was elected as their university's president, and now they've chosen to leave Harvard and the US, to return to Israel, because the campus has become an environment that's just too toxic. I think if the amount of Jews who are moving to Israel, while the country is in a state of war, isn't a wake up call for the west, then nothing will be.

On the left is 25 years old Gal Eizenkott, the son of Israel's former Chief of Staff, and current minister, who is a part of the war cabinet, Gadi Eizenkott. I wrote about Gal in previous daily updates. Something I can add is that his father happened to be in an IDF command center, when they got the news of the incident in which Gal was killed. It took several minutes for the info to arrive at the command center, that one of those soldiers injured mortally was Gadi's son.

On the right is 19 years old Maor Cohen Eizenkott. Maor is Gal's cousin, and was a soccer player. He was killed a day after Gal, when an explosive device planted in a Gaza mosque blew up. Maor was buried today. May his memory be a blessing.

This is 53 years old Eitan Levi.

He was a taxi driver, who on Oct 7 took a lady to one of the kibbutzim on the border of Gaza. On his way back, he called his sister, telling her about the rocket barrages into Israel, and that he was scared. She stayed with him on the line as he was driving back from the south of Israel, but then he was stopped, his sister heard Arabic, shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and shots. Later, his phone was detected in Gaza, and he was considered kidnapped. Then Hamas released a video of its terrorists abusing a body. It was beyond recognition, but based on some accessories, the army finally determined it was Eitan, that he had been murdered on Oct 7, and it was his body that was kidnapped to Gaza. His sister watched the vid, but as the body is unrecognizable, she said in an interview, "He's the only family I have in this world. We don't even have a body to sit Shiva for. Until such time, I'm going to keep hoping he's alive, kidnapped and just injured."

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[beardedmrbean]

DETROIT (AP) — Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles and dozens of other women who say they were sexually assaulted by Larry Nassar are seeking more than $1 billion from the FBI for failing to stop the sports doctor when the agency first received allegations against him, lawyers said Wednesday.

There’s no dispute that FBI agents in 2015 knew that Nassar was accused of assaulting gymnasts, but they failed to act, leaving him free to continue to target young women and girls for more than a year. He pleaded guilty in 2017 and is serving decades in prison.

“It is time for the FBI to be held accountable,” said Maggie Nichols, a national champion gymnast at Oklahoma in 2017-19.

Under federal law, a government agency has six months to respond to the tort claims filed Wednesday. Lawsuits could follow, depending on the FBI’s response.

White noted the 2018 massacre at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The FBI received a tip about five weeks before 17 people were killed at the school, but the tip was never forwarded to the FBI’s South Florida office. The government agreed to pay $127.5 million to families of those killed or injured.

The approximately 90 claimants include Biles, Aly Raisman and McKayla Maroney, all Olympic gold medalists, according to Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, a California law firm. Separately, 13 claims were filed by others in April.

“If the FBI had simply done its job, Nassar would have been stopped before he ever had the chance to abuse hundreds of girls, including me,” said former University of Michigan gymnast Samantha Roy.

An email seeking comment was sent to the FBI.

Indianapolis-based USA Gymnastics told local agents in 2015 that three gymnasts said they were assaulted by Nassar, a team doctor. But the FBI did not open a formal investigation or inform federal or state authorities in Michigan, according to the Justice Department’s inspector general, an internal watchdog.

Los Angeles agents in 2016 began a sexual tourism investigation against Nassar and interviewed several victims but also didn’t alert Michigan authorities, the inspector general said.

Nassar wasn’t arrested until fall 2016 during an investigation by Michigan State University police. He was a doctor at Michigan State.

The Michigan attorney general’s office ultimately handled the assault charges against Nassar, while federal prosecutors in Grand Rapids, Michigan, filed a child pornography case.

In remarks to Congress last year, FBI Director Christopher Wray acknowledged major mistakes.

“I’m especially sorry that there were people at the FBI who had their own chance to stop this monster back in 2015 and failed. And that’s inexcusable,” Wray told victims at a Senate hearing.

At that same hearing, Biles, widely considered to be the greatest gymnast of all time, said an “entire system” enabled the abuse. Maroney recalled “dead silence” when she talked to FBI agents about Nassar.

The Justice Department in May said that it would not pursue criminal charges against former agents who were accused of giving inaccurate or incomplete responses during the inspector general’s investigation.

Failures by federal law enforcers have led to major settlements, including $127.5 million for families of those killed or injured in 2018 at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The FBI received a tip about five weeks before 17 people were killed, but the tip was never forwarded to the South Florida office.

Michigan State University, which was also accused of missing chances over many years to stop Nassar, agreed to pay $500 million to more than 300 women and girls who were assaulted by him. USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee made a $380 million settlement.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Most Americans remember Watergate as a scandal involving the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and President Richard M. Nixon’s coverup of that crime. But during the course of the subsequent investigation, an even broader range of presidential misconduct was revealed. Nixon maintained a secret enemies list, some of whom were the subject of extraordinary abuses, including the use of the IRS to target their tax filings and the FBI to monitor their phones.

Nixon’s abuse of the Justice Department led to strict rules to govern FBI investigations and insulate them from White House interference, so that extraordinary investigative practices could only be deployed when justified in the most serious of cases.

The rules established after Watergate to ensure the independence of the Justice Department served our nation well for half a century, until another president shattered them.

Donald Trump had his own enemies list, which included members of the media, elected officials and congressional staff. But while Nixon’s list was held in private, Trump was proud to declare his enemies on Twitter, at rallies and during interviews.

And Trump made no secret of his demand that the Justice Department investigate his opponents, openly demanding his attorneys general go after any number of people. Including — quite frequently — me.

Over his four years in office, Trump baselessly accused me of treason, of leaking classified information, of engaging in unspecified corruption and other offenses. He said I should be investigated and prosecuted, and that someone needed to “do something” about me.

Last month, I learned that Apple had been served a subpoena by the Justice Department in 2018 seeking records from more than a dozen accounts belonging to two members of Congress, committee staff and even family members — one of whom was a minor. There is a lot we don’t know, including how the department came to seek those records and whether prosecutors understood what records they were requesting. We still don’t know whether only Democrats were the subjects of these requests or whether the investigation was properly predicated. The department has yet to explain.

The investigation reportedly began under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, and was continued under Attorney General William P. Barr. Leak investigations, particularly those involving subpoenas on members of the media, are extraordinarily sensitive and require approval from top DOJ officials. Subpoenaing the records of members of Congress in connection with such an investigation may be unprecedented, since our constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers militates against the executive branch taking such action. In this case, prosecutors also repeatedly sought gag orders so that the media and Congress would not find out. That all three top Justice Department officials at the time now deny any knowledge of the matter strains credulity.

We cannot accept these assertions at face value. Sessions made claims during his confirmation hearing that were not borne out by the facts. Barr has a well-documented history of dissembling, including under oath. Barr willfully misrepresented the Mueller report even as he withheld it and claimed not to know of Mueller’s objections to his “summary” of that report when he did. Barr also made false representations to the court about the process of reaching his conclusion that Trump committed no prosecutable offense — two federal judges have now rebuked him for his lack of candor.

And to the department’s lasting detriment, Barr repeatedly put the DOJ into service as Trump’s personal law firm, reducing the sentencing recommendation of a Trump crony who lied for the president and dismissing the case against another Trump associate who pleaded guilty to perjury. Barr then abused his office further by ordering the investigation of those who had investigated the president.

The Biden Justice Department has taken the right first steps. Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the inspector general to investigate both the subpoenas affecting members of Congress and those served on the media. But it will also be essential for the attorney general to examine the full extent to which the department lost its independence over the past four years. We must establish new and stronger laws and policies to protect the agency from presidential and political interference in the future. Given Garland’s long history with the department, I have every confidence that he will do so.

But Congress has an important job to do here, too. We must conduct our own vigorous oversight, into former top officials’ knowledge or participation in these abuses of power and any other politically motivated decisions made by the department. And at a minimum, we must urgently pass reforms to prevent the abuse of powers we saw under Trump from ever happening again. The Protecting Our Democracy Act, a package of reforms designed by House Democrats that I introduced last year, contains new safeguards designed to strengthen the department’s independence from the White House and improve other vital checks on executive power.

The credibility of our justice system — and the very health of our democracy itself — is dependent on the steps we take now to ensure that the Justice Department represents the interests of the people and not the whims of any particular president.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 14, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Yesterday, news broke that, under pressure from Republican leaders, Republican-dominated Tennessee will no longer conduct vaccine outreach for minors. Only 38% of people in Tennessee are vaccinated, and yet the state Department of Health will no longer reach out to urge minors to get vaccinated.

This change affects not only vaccines for the coronavirus, but also all other routine vaccines. On Monday, Tennessee’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tim Jones sent an email to staff saying there should be "no proactive outreach regarding routine vaccines" and "no outreach whatsoever regarding the HPV vaccine." The HPV vaccine protects against a common sexually transmitted infection that causes cervical cancer, among other cancers.

Staff were also told not to do any "pre-planning" for flu shots events at schools. Any information released about back-to-school vaccinations should come from the Tennessee Department of Education, not the Tennessee Department of Health, Jones wrote.

On Monday, Dr. Michelle Fiscus, Tennessee's former top vaccine official, was fired without explanation, and Republicans have talked about getting rid of the Department of Health altogether, saying it has been undermining parents by going around them and straight to teens to promote vaccines.

Video editor J.M. Rieger of the Washington Post put together a series of videos of Republicans boosting the vaccine and thanking former president Donald Trump for it only to show the same people now spreading disinformation, calling vaccines one of the greatest scandals in our history, and even comparing vaccines to the horrors of the Nazis.

This begs the question: Why?

Former FBI special agent, lawyer, and professor Asha Rangappa put this question to Twitter. “Seriously: What is the [Republicans’] endgame in trying to convince their own voters not to get the vaccine?” The most insightful answer, I thought, was that the Republican’s best hope for winning in 2022—aside from voter suppression—is to keep the culture wars hot, even if it means causing illness and death.

The Republican Party continues to move to the right. During his time in office, the former president put his supporters into office at the level of the state parties, a move that is paying off as they purge from their midst those unwilling to follow Trump. Today, in Michigan, the Republican Party chair who had criticized Trump, Jason Cabel Roe, resigned.

Candidates who have thrown their hat into the ring for the 2022 midterm elections are trying to get attention by being more and more extreme. They vow to take on the establishment, support Trump and God, and strike terror into the “Liberals” who are bringing socialism to America. Forty QAnon supporters are running for Congress, 38 as Republicans, 2 as Independents.

And yet, there are cracks in this Republican rush to Trumpism.

Yesterday, on the Fox News Channel, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that "Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He legitimately got elected." Trump supporters immediately attacked McCarthy, but the minority leader is only too aware that the House Select Committee on the Capitol Insurrection will start hearing witnesses on July 27, and the spotlight on that event is highly unlikely to make the former president—and possibly some of the Republican lawmakers—look good.

Already, the books coming out about the former administration have been scathing, but tonight news broke of new revelations in a forthcoming book by Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker. Leonnig and Rucker interviewed more than 140 members of the former administration and say that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley was increasingly upset as he listened to Trump lie about having won the election, believing Trump was looking for an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military.

Milley compared the former president’s language to that of Hitler and was so worried Trump was going to seize power that Milley began to strategize with other military leaders to keep him from using the military in illegal ways, especially after Trump put his allies at the head of the Pentagon. “They may try, but they’re not going to f---ing succeed,” he allegedly said.

In addition to damaging stories coming out about the former president, news broke yesterday that Fitch Ratings, a credit rating company, is considering downgrading the AAA rating of the United States government bonds. The problem is not the economy. In fact, the Fitch Ratings report praises the economy, saying it “has recovered much more rapidly than expected, helped by policy stimulus and the roll-out of the vaccination program, which has allowed economic reopening…. [T]he scale and speed of the policy response [is] a positive reflection on the macroeconomic policy framework. Real economic output has overtaken its pre-pandemic level and is on track to exceed pre-pandemic projections....”

Although the report worries about the growing debt, we also learned yesterday that the deficit for June dropped a whopping 80% from the deficit a year ago, as tax receipts recover along with the economy. Year-to-date, the annual deficit is down 18% from last year.

The problem, the report says, is politics. And it is specific. “The failure of the former president to concede the election and the events surrounding the certification of the results of the presidential election in Congress in January, have no recent parallels in other very highly rated sovereigns. The redrafting of election laws in some states could weaken the political system, increasing divergence between votes cast and party representation. These developments underline an ongoing risk of lack of bipartisanship and difficulty in formulating policy and passing laws in Congress.”

—-

Notes:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/07/13/tennessee-halts-all-vaccine-outreach-minors-not-just-covid-19/7928701002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/09/gop-fox-news-rush-turn-vaccine-door-knockers-into-terrifying-straw-men/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/14/under-trump-republicans-touted-coronavirus-vaccines-now-under-biden-theyre-questioning-them/

Tim Hanrahan @TimJHanrahanKevin McCarthy on Fox News, when asked about Trump's continued election claims: "Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He legitimately got elected. " On if Trump should run again: "Donald Trump has to make that decision whether he wants to run for president or not."408 Retweets1,373 Likes

July 13th 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/13/party-extremists-gop-primary-contenders-struggle-break-out/

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/here-are-qanon-supporters-running-congress-2022

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michigan-gop-director-who-said-trump-blew-it-in-2020-resigns/ar-AAMa7oM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/house-select-committee-first-hearing-democrats-capitol-police/index.html

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-affirms-united-states-at-aaa-outlook-negative-13-07-2021

CNBC @CNBCJUST IN: The U.S. budget deficit for June plunged to $174 billion. @ylanmui has the numbers. 309 Retweets669 Likes

July 13th 2021

Asha Rangappa @AshaRangappa_Seriously: What is the GOP’s endgame in trying to convince their own voters not to get the vaccine?5,083 Retweets45,461 Likes

July 13th 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joint-chiefs-chairman-feared-potential-reichstag-moment-aimed-at-keeping-trump-in-power/2021/07/14/a326f5fe-e4ec-11eb-a41e-c8442c213fa8_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/donald-trump-election-coup-new-book-excerpt/index.html

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[funknrolll]

Focusing on Prince and the song Avalanche: Lesson learned or....??

Hi my music lovers, today we are celebrating the birthday of the undisputed music legend and virtuoso: Prince Rogers Nelson. Since all that is happening these days, I wanted to offer you guys the chance to reflect on these crucial issues. Therefore I chose to focus only on one song in Prince's vault: Avalanche. In my opinion, this piece is quite relevant to what is happening these days. I really hope I do Prince justice. I hope we can learn something from this article and the lesson Prince taught us. Should there be anything, I missed do not think twice to let me know or contact me. Enjoy the article.

In 2002, Prince released One Nite Alone (Solo Piano and Voice by Prince). As the title suggests, the only accompaniment in this album is the piano. Today I want to offer you the chance to reflect on the song Avalanche. Avalanche. The message delivered with this song is compelling, and the lyrics were magistrally written. Moreover, as many people know, Prince was an avid reader and an extremely educated person who had a vast knowledge not only about music but also about history, in this case. Indeed, with these words, the Artist is referring to some historical events to create one of the most MONUMENTAL protests songs in music history. Before I explain this total MASTERPIECE, I need to mention some crucial points. I will never stress enough about this. We all know that Prince was a black man. However, the fact that he, in some interviews, said things like "I was brought up in a black and white world. Black and white, night and day, rich and poor. I always said that one day I was going to play all kinds of music and not be judged for the color of my skin, but the quality of my work" or quoting his song Controversy "I wish there was no black or white" etcetera... It does not mean he was not conscious and aware or proud of being black. This does not mean that he was not aware of what black people had and still have to endure and go through. Indeed, Prince was extremely knowledgeable of everything that I mentioned, and he was proud of being black, and this is something significantly present in his music, in his sense of style, in his words, lyrics, music videos, concerts, and movies. I'm making this point because I have overheard too many people accusing Prince of not embracing his blackness or even being biracial as the new york times erroneously claimed. None of these things are true. I also heard that the Artist was not aware of what black people had and still are going through and that his music was not "politicized enough." This is another big fat lie. This song is proof. Therefore, before writing and describing this MONUMENTAL song, I thought I needed to re-emphasize this significant point. By the way, Prince's mother was NOT Italian. She was a beautiful black woman. Furthermore, as already mentioned, Artist had extensive historical knowledge and was also conscious and aware of how black people have always been exploited and treated. Moreover, Prince was accustomed to speaking his mind and saying what he meant, and just by reading the superlative and poignant lyrics, we could see that the Artist was quite straight-forwarded in writing this piece. Indeed:

He was not or never had been in favor

 Of setting are people free

 If it wasn't for the thirteenth Amendment

 We woulda been born in slavery

 He was not or never had been in favor

 Of letting us vote, so you see...

 Abraham Lincoln was a racist who said

 "You cannot escape from history "Like the snow comin' down the mountain

 That landed on Wounded Knee

 Nobody wants to take the weight 

 The responsibilityHear the joyous sound of freedom

 The Harlem Renaissance

 Hear Duke Ellington and his band

 Kick another jungle jam

 Ooh, do you wanna dance?

 Who's that lurking in the shadows?

 Mr. John Hammond with his pen in hand...

 Sayin' "Sign you're kingdom over to me

 And be known throughout the land!"

 But, you ain't got no money, you ain't got no cash

 So you sign yo name, and he claims innocence

 Just like every snowflake in an avalanche...Like the snow comin' down the mountain

 That landed on Wounded Knee

 Nobody wants to take the weight 

 The responsibility 

This masterpiece begins with a quote taken from the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate held in Charleston, South Carolina, on September 18, 1858. Lincoln opened his discussion with these words: 

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the (slur)  and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something regarding it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of (slur), nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And since they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man is in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This was just the beginning of the speech Lincoln gave, and the words bolded are the exact beginning of the song by Prince (disclaimer: I replaced the racial slurs with this (slur) since I do not want any slurs on my platform). Moreover, as we can see in this song, the Artist was calling out the former President Abraham Lincoln for being racist. As you can see from this speech, HE REALLY WAS A RACIST. Moving on with the speech, Lincoln also said that he was not against slavery, and therefore he did not want to abolish it. Additionally, Prince mentioned the thirteenth Amendment. Before I report the Amendment, I believe it is important to contextualize it. What I am about to write will show one more time that Lincoln was a stone-cold racist, unlike many people were taught in schools. So, during the Civil War, the South USA (which economy was unfortunately still based on slaves working in plantations), wanted to keep a balance of free and slave states to maintain its political power in Congress. Southern slaveholders feared the loss of control for many reasons, including a rational fear that if Northern abolitionists had eventually swayed their representatives to vote to abolish slavery, the South wouldn't have had the votes to stop it. So, on September 22, 1862, President Lincoln warned the Confederate states that if they did not rejoin the Union before January 1, 1863, he would free their slaves. If they had timely surrendered, he would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore, on January 1, 1963, Lincoln "proclaimed" the "end of slavery." Bear in mind that this was as much an act of political/military strategy rather than moral courage.

Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves held in the eleven Confederate states that had seceded, and only in the portion of those states not already under Union control. Slavery was left untouched in the loyal border states. The Proclamation also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy (the Southern secessionist states) that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon the Union (United States) military victory.  The actual abolition of slavery was achieved when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. The first section of the Amendment declares, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.". In addition to everything mentioned, the second segment of the speech I bolded is about the right to vote. Eventually, the Artist ends these verses accusing Lincoln of being racist, saying that it is not possible to escape from history. I must say that Lincoln really was A RACIST, and we have always been taught history the wrong way. I also must say that despite the abolition of slavery, black people were never really free, for racism was and still is one of the biggest plagues not just in the USA but all over the world and what we have seen until now is the proof.

Moreover, in the next verses, the Artist mentioned the Harlem Renaissance. For those who do not know that was, I will give a quick explanation of it. The Harlem Renaissance was a cultural, literary, and intellectual movement that fostered a new black cultural identity. This movement flourished in Harlem, New York, after World War I and ended around 1935 during the Great Depression. The movement raised significant issues affecting the lives of African Americans through various forms of literature, art, music, drama, painting, sculpture, movies, and protests. Voices of demonstration and ideological promotion of civil rights for African Americans inspired and created institutions and leaders who served as mentors to aspiring writers. The Harlem Renaissance arose from a generation that had lived through the gains and losses of Reconstruction after the American Civil War. Sometimes the parents or grandparents of those who lived during that historical period were slaves. Many people who lived in the Harlem Renaissance were part of the Great Migration. They moved out of the South into the black neighborhoods of the North and Midwest of the USA. African Americans sought a better standard of living and relief from the institutionalized racism in the South. Others were people of African descent from racially stratified communities in the Caribbean who came to the United States hoping for a better life. Uniting, most of them were their convergence in Harlem, New York City. Furthermore, Harlem was the center of a musical evolution that uncovered amazing talents and created a unique sound that had yet to be paralleled. Jazz was the newest sound, and it attracted both blacks and whites to go to nightclubs like the Savoy Ballroom to hear artists like Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, and Miles Davis. Jazz was a result of the Harlem Renaissance, which originated from the musical minds of extraordinarily talented African American people. The genre includes traits that survived from West African American music, black folk music forms developed in the New World. In his song, Prince was indeed referring to jazz music and one of its most relevant and most brilliant artists: Sir. Duke Ellington. In the next lines, we see the Artist mentioning John Hammond. Hammond was a white talent scout, record producer, and music critic. This is another excellent example of how history has been distorted. Indeed, if you look upon the net, you will find that this man fought against segregation and racism. However, if you read Frank Kokofsky's book, John Coltrane and the Jazz Revolution of the 1960s, you will learn the truth about the political economy of white domination over black music. In particular, Kokofsky focuses on the relationship between John Hammond, Columbia Records, and the Artist Bessie Smith. Indeed, as Kokofsky writes:

"The first and most important point to emphasize is that, as author Chris Albertson reveals in his biography of Bessie Smith, Hammond signed the singer to a series of contracts with Columbia Records that gave her a small, fixed fee for each performance she recorded and no royalties. Such contracts were apparently standard practice with the executive, for Billie Holiday unequivocally stated in her autobiography, Lady Sings the Blues: 'Later on John Hammond paired me up with Teddy Wilson and his band for another record session. This time I got thirty bucks for making half a dozen sides.' When she protested about this arrangement, it was, according to her, a Columbia executive named Bernie Hanighen – and not John Hammond – 'who really went to bat for me' and 'almost lost his job at Columbia fighting for me.'" 

Hear the joyous sound of freedom

The Harlem Renaissance

Hear Duke Ellington and his band

kick another jungle jam

Ooh, do u wanna dance?

Who's that lurking in the shadows?

Mr. John Hammond with his pen in hand...

sayin' "Sign ur kingdom over 2 me

and b known throughout the land!"

But, u ain't got no money, U ain't got no cash,

So u sign yo name and he claims innocence

just like every snowflake in an avalanche. 

This situation is quite familiar, isn't it? Perhaps Prince had heard or read about this, and therefore he decided to add this fact to this masterpiece.

 Last but not least, another relevant part of this song is the chorus. Indeed, with this brilliantly written chorus, Prince is referring to the massacre of Wounded Knee, where more than 350 Native-American were killed. Indeed, On the morning of December 29, 1890, Chief Spotted Elk (Big Foot), leader of a group of some 350 Minneconjou Sioux, sat in a makeshift camp along the banks of Wounded Knee Creek. The group was surrounded by U.S. troops sent to arrest him and disarm his followers. The atmosphere was tense since an order to arrest Chief Sitting Bull at the Standing Rock Reservation just 14 days earlier had resulted in his murder, prompting Big Foot to lead his people to the Pine Ridge Agency for a safe haven. Alerted to the band's Ghost Dance activities, General Nelson Miles commanded Major Samuel Whiteside and the Seventh Cavalry to apprehend Big Foot and his followers, and the regiment intercepted them on December 28, leading them to the edge of the creek. While confiscating their weapons, a shot pierced the brisk morning air. Within seconds the charged atmosphere erupted as the Indian men rushed to retrieve their seized rifles, and troopers began to fire volley after volley into the Sioux camp. From a hill above, a Hotchkiss machine gun raked the tipis, gun smoke filled the air, and men, women, and children ran for a ravine near the camp, only to be cut down in the crossfire.

More than 200 Lakota laid dead or dying in the aftermath, as well as at least 20 soldiers. Although the story of the Wounded Knee Massacre is well-known, its causes and effects are still an enigma 125 years later. For 19th century Americans, it represented the end of Indian resistance and the conquest of the West. For Native-American, it represented the utter disregard of the U.S. toward its treaty responsibilities, its duplicity, and its cruelty toward Native people. In the 20th century and beyond, Wounded Knee continued to fuel controversy and debate. Notably, what is particularly controversial was and is the impetus and intent of the government that day, the role of the military, and the conflicting ways the tragedy is remembered today. Indeed, from this story, we can see how Prince gave his listener another example of how racism was a persistent plague.

Like the snow comin' down the mountain

that landed on Wounded Knee

Nobody wants 2 take the weight-

The responsibility

Moreover, as I said, the Artist with this MAGISTRALLY written lyrics educates his listener on how racism has always been a persistent, prominent, outraging, and horrifying plague that is still going on today. In addition to that, we can notice Prince's deep and broad historical knowledge, which is something incredibly fascinating and mesmerizing. Moreover, the arrangement of this song, the instrumental and the vocal delivery is among the finest and most poignant he has ever done. Indeed, the Artist with this masterpiece delivers an extraordinarily intimate and intense but yet POWERFUL performance. In my opinion, even though the only instrument played is the piano, its arrangement is outstandingly complex. The blues genre the Artist opted for, also could not have been more following the whole meaning and purpose of the song. Furthermore, the Artist's incredibly broad vocal techniques are perfectly accompanying the meaningful message of the song. Prince, with his ability to shift from a beautiful falsetto to an extremely low chest voice to eventually change to a powerful head voice during the last chorus, is putting into sounds magistrally and vividly a poignant lesson we are still struggling to learn.

Thank you for your attention.💜 Peace. G💜

[rickmctumbleface]

Good advice to Dems regarding SCOTUS seat steal

If we accept the premise, as it seems to me we must, that there is no way to stop Republicans from confirming Amy Coney Barrett before next Inauguration Day,the following analysis and advice seem like a great approach to the confirmation hearings to me: (Attributed to Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame. And an author, etc. ) “A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice. - As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise. By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will. So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her. - Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is. If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3. So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. Here's a few more suggestions. - Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character. - Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?! - If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause? Then turn to the Hatch Act. Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office? Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those. Then turn to Congressional Oversight. Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice? Then turn to Trump's impeachment. Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American? Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election. Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time. Taking this approach does a number of things. 1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been. 2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump. 3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice. Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character. Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...”

[phoenixonwheels]

If we accept the premise, as it seems to me we must, that there is no way to stop Republicans from confirming Amy Coney Barrett before next Inauguration Day,the following analysis and advice seem like a great approach to the confirmation hearings to me:

(Attributed to Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame. And an author, etc. )

“A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.

- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.

The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.

So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.

- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.

So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one.

Here's a few more suggestions.

- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.

- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!

- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?

Then turn to the Hatch Act.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?

Then turn to Trump's impeachment.

Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?

Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.

Taking this approach does a number of things.

1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...”

[reading-writing-revolution]

How the Democrats should handle the SCOTUS nominee - this is brilliant!

If we accept the premise, as it seems to me we must, that there is no way to stop Republicans from confirming Amy Coney Barrett before next Inauguration Day,the following analysis and advice seem like a great approach to the confirmation hearings to me: 

(Attributed to Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame. And an author, etc. )

“A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.

- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases. 

The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.

So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.

- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.

So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one. 

Here's a few more suggestions.

- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.

- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!

<These are the best suggestions>

- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there:

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause? 

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?

Then turn to the Hatch Act. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight. 

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?

Then turn to Trump's impeachment.

Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?

Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election. 

Such questions could go on for days. 

Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.

Taking this approach does a number of things.

1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice. 

Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character. 

Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...”

Thanks for the post Christina Oliver

[96thdayofrage]

Since the attack, House members, who were forced to evacuate the chamber after it was stormed by pro-Trump insurrectionists, have been debating the potential creation of an independent investigative commission, after the pattern of the one formed following 9/11, to investigate the January 6 riot.

And as of Friday, when the leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee announced a bipartisan agreement on its formation, that commission looks closer than ever — much to McCarthy’s potential discomfort, should he be called to testify.

Specifically, if McCarthy testifies either voluntarily or under subpoena as part of the commission’s investigation, he could be faced with the prospect of bridging the rather large gap between Trump — who has shown no inclination to relinquish his grasp on the Republican Party — and the truth of what happened at the Capitol on January 6.

As CNN and other outlets have reported previously — and pro-impeachment Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) confirmed in a statement in February — McCarthy spoke with Trump while the riot was still ongoing and pleaded with Trump to call his supporters off.

According to Herrera Beutler, Trump “initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol” on the call with McCarthy.

Subsequently, Herrera Beutler said in her February statement, “McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

Other Republicans have corroborated Trump’s state of mind as the attack was unfolding. According to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), “Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”

If McCarthy is called on to substantiate Herrera Beutler’s account of the McCarthy-Trump call for the commission, however, it would likely also put McCarthy in an awkward position politically.

That’s because McCarthy’s call with Trump — which reportedly took place as rioters were attempting to break through the minority leader’s office windows — is a reminder of the true severity of the January 6 attack, and of Trump’s support for the mob, who he described as “very special” in a video later the same day. It’s also increasingly out of step with a Republican conference eager to downplay the insurrection and a former president who is hypersensitive to criticism — and it’s hard to imagine McCarthy looking forward to giving a faithful retelling of January 6 to a potential commission.

The commission plan isn’t a sure thing yet

Despite Upton’s and Cheney’s comments, however, there are still lots of “ifs” floating around any potential McCarthy testimony — like the commission itself. Though Friday’s agreement between House Homeland Security Committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and ranking member John Katko (R-NY) gives the commission at least a veneer of bipartisanship, it’s less clear how much support the proposal will find with House GOP leadership.

Katko, specifically, is an outlier — one of just 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Trump — and his conference just purged the only member of leadership, Cheney, who likewise voted to impeach Trump for inciting insurrection.

For now, McCarthy has yet to come down either for or against the plan — telling reporters Friday that he hadn’t approved the deal and wants to see more details — but a vote on the measure could be coming “as soon as next week,” according to the statement released by Thompson.

“Inaction — or just moving on — is simply not an option,” Thompson said Friday. “The creation of this commission is our way of taking responsibility for protecting the U.S. Capitol. ... we owe it to the Capitol police and all who enter our citadel of democracy to investigate the attack.”

There are also questions about whether a McCarthy subpoena could materialize even if the commission is established in its proposed form.

McCarthy will likely get a say in selecting half of the commission

According to the statement released Friday by Thompson, the independent commission would consist of 10 total members appointed by a bipartisan, bicameral leadership group — five by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), including the commission chair, and five by McCarthy himself and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), including a vice chair.

None of those members may be sitting members of Congress or current government employees, according to Thompson, and they must all have “significant expertise in the areas of law enforcement, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, intelligence, and cybersecurity.”

But though the commission would have subpoena power in its proposed form, actually issuing a subpoena would require at least limited bipartisan consensus — either an agreement between the chair and vice chair, or a simple majority vote.

In other words, McCarthy will have a direct hand in choosing enough commission members to block the subpoena process if they vote as a bloc, which could make Upton and Cheney’s suggestion that McCarthy be subpoenaed aspirational at best.

The Republican conference is trying to whitewash the insurrection

If the commission proposal, which calls for a final report and “recommendations to prevent future attacks on our democratic institutions” to be issued by the end of this calendar year, does come to fruition, it could be a valuable reminder of what actually occurred on January 6 — something which some House Republicans appear increasingly fuzzy about.

In the past week alone, the GOP effort to whitewash the insurrection, which injured 140 members of law enforcement, has kicked into high gear.

On Wednesday, for example, in a committee hearing on the attack, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) said that “there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a boldfaced lie.”

“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures,” Clyde said. “You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Clyde isn’t alone — also this week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that “there’s no evidence this was an armed insurrection,” and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) described the insurrectionists as “peaceful patriots.”

Needless to say, all three statements (and there are several others in the same vein just from this week) are flat-out false — and there’s abundant video evidence to prove it.

In addition to all of the footage that has already emerged from the riot — much of which is graphic and disturbing — CNN just this week obtained new bodycam video showing a DC Metropolitan Police officer, Michael Fanone, being attacked by the mob.

According to CNN, Fanone was “stun-gunned several times and beaten with a flagpole” by Trump supporters. He also suffered a “mild” heart attack, according to the Washington Post, and at least one insurrectionist shouted that the mob should “kill [Fanone] with his own gun!”

As the Washington Post editorial board argued on Friday, it’s no sure thing that the 9/11-style commission agreed on by Thompson and Katko will stop Republicans from pushing a false, revisionist account of January 6.

“But,” the board writes, “as [the commission] answers outstanding questions about how the riot occurred and who is responsible — in part, we hope, by taking the sworn testimony of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other eyewitness lawmakers — the panel ought to make it harder for Republicans to twist the truth.”

Upton himself has made the same point: In the same CNN interview Sunday, he told Bash that his colleagues’ claims that the attack was “peaceful” were “absolutely bogus.”

“I saw the gallows that were constructed on the East Front of the Capitol,” Upton said. “It was chilling, what happened, absolutely chilling. And that’s why I think that it’s important that we move forward with this bipartisan commission.”

[paodequeijofeliz-blog]

Let me tell you a good story

Bloodbound Fanfiction (characters and main story belongs to Pixelberry Studios).

Pairing: Kamilah Sayeed and MC (Annie)

Information: this takes place after Bloodbound 3, here I’m recreating how Kamilah and MC would meet if she had never gone to Raines Corporation right away.

Summary: Thirty years after meeting Annie for the first time, Kamilah is now a wife and a mother. During a regular family dinner, she decides to tell her daughter and the new son-in-law the story of how she fell in love with Annie after an unusual meeting through the hallways of NYU.

Warnings: none.

Part 1 Part 3

Let me tell you a good story - Part 2

March 2nd, 2048 

 “You’re telling it wrong.” Anna shook her head in disbelief. “Kamilah Sayeed, you be a woman and admit to them that you checked my butt when I was opening the office’s door.”

“I don’t think they need to know that part. It’s not an important piece of information.”

 “Ha! But me shivering when you sensually pressed yourself against me is an important piece of information?”

 “I did not sensually pres…”

 “Guys!” Lysia hit the table, laughing. “Focus!”

“Maybe I should be the one telling the rest now” Anna pinched Kamilah’s arm playfully. “Since you’re omitting the good bits.”

 “You know what, my love? That is not a bad idea. I want to hear your version of the next part. It’s my favourite one.” Kamilah eyes had a glimpse of amusement. “And you do not dare to hide anything from our conversation in the hallway.”

While trying not to blush over that memory – and failing – Anna turned to Lysia and Drake with a happy broad smile on her face. “So, let’s continue. We went for coffee. And you mother just couldn’t stop staring at my butt.”

Kamilah rolled her eyes but didn’t interrupt it.

 August 15th, 2018

 “So, how do you like your coffee?” Anna had guided them to a small coffee cart by the side of the building. There was barely anyone around, unlike the other gigantic coffee carts they passed by. 

The woman arched her eyebrows to the small old man playing some sort of card game with a kid. They were speaking a language she couldn’t understand. “Black. No sugar.”

“Figured.” Anna laughed softly, approaching the old man and playing a kiss on both his cheeks before starting to talk in the same language as them. “Tudo bem, Antônio? Pode me fazer dois cafés pretos extrafortes? Um deles sem açúcar, por favor.”

“You know him?” She asked when the girl took a step back, waiting for the coffee.

“Yup.” Annie drove her attention to the kid on the floor. He looked back when felt her hugging from behind, smiling and waving to both women. “I stay here a lot.”

“So I see…” those brown eyes once again started to analyse the cart, now with less suspicion. “That language you spoke. Was it Portuguese?”

“Yeah. Got it right away, huh? People usually think it’s Spanish or Italian. Every time I tell them I’m Brazilian, they just start to speak Spanish with me… Or a really loud and slow version of English. Both suck. My Spanish is horrible. And I’m not deaf.”

“Aqui, Aninha. Dois cafés bem fortes. Um sem açúcar, e o seu bem doce.” Antônio gave her a warm smile. He always remembered how Annie liked her coffee. She paid for it with a five-dollar bill and refused any change.

Slowly, they started to walk away with their coffees. The sunset was almost over, a dark shade of orange shining on Anna’s black wavy hair. She kept her eyes staring at the floor, lips twitching with indecision. It seemed she was trying to find the right words. The stranger besides her had such an intimidating aura that suddenly Anna felt like a shy teenager again, not the impressive college professor who won tons of arguments during congresses. She tried to gather courage to look at the woman once again, her mouth opening to ask a question, but someone interrupted with a touch on the shoulder.

“Anna?” They turned to face another college professor. She looked no more than thirty, blue eyes shining behind blond bangs. “Sorry to disturb you. I was just passing by. Did you get the chance to read my email?”

“No worries, Faith. I’m the one who should be apologizing, I did read the email, but I was so distracted by the donations this week I forgot to give you an answer. It was about the article, right? You sent me a sketch?”

“Yes, yes. For a new magazine we’re working on. It’s due to Monday. I was wondering if you could take a look and help me fix the mistakes. I’m sure there are plenty of them.”

The one named Faith took a step forward, practically excluding the other woman from the conversation. There was something on her smile, a hint of a special admiration.

“To Monday? Gosh, I’m so sorry. Let’s do the following. Are you staying for the lecture today?” Anna pointed to the sign on the wall. They were having those big weekly lectures with different CEOs and tonight was going to be a Mrs. K. Sayeed speaking… Among others less important names.

“What? Oh. Yeah. I am.” She cleared wasn’t planning to until now.

“Perfect. That’ll give me time to read it again and make better notes. When the lecture finishes, come and meet me at my office, we can talk about it. Okay?”

“Sure thing, Ann. I’ll see you later.” Faith took another step forward, kissing Annie on both cheeks before turning back to the building.

The woman beside her had a judgemental look on her face.

“What?” Anna took a sip of the coffee.

“Do all of your co-workers kiss you?”

“I’m Brazilian. We kiss people on the cheek. Regularly. It’s the polite thing to do.”

“She is definitely not Brazilian. I don’t think her kissing was over politeness.”

“Why, are you jealous?” Anna opened a teasing smile.

The woman answered with a short laugh. “No.” But her eyes were sparkling. Analysing. Right now, she was capturing Annie’s features: the pink-flowered blouse stuck inside social pants, stains of coffee on one of the blazer’s sleeves, her short stature, those black burning eyes. 

“Why are you here?” The professor’s voice cracked the silence that lingered between them. “I mean, you’re not a student. Is it the lecture?”

“Oh. Yes. I have to be there in ten minutes.” A flash of discomfort crossed Annie’s face after hearing those words. “What? Something against the lecture?”

“No. Not exactly. It’s just… Not my kind of thing.”

“How so?”

They were back at the entrance. Anna leaned her head for a second, deciding what to do. Then, she took a step in, waiting to be followed by the woman.

“Well. Let’s just say that listening to billionaires giving advices to a hundred rich kids about how to perpetuate the same M.O. of exploitation their parents and grandparents had been doing for decades is not on my top list of good use of academic time and space.” That was the sincerest she could be without cursing. “I’d rather watch other lectures.”

“Did you watch any of the previous ones to have such a sharp opinion?”

“I did, in fact. Two. The first one, with the Canadian guy, Mr. Phelps. And last week. I had some spare time. It was… Raines. Adrian Raines. From Raines Corporation. He was better than Phelps. A little.”

The woman seemed to stiff a bit.

“What about tonight? Do you know the speakers?”

Anna’s eyes moved away to the floor. Every time she had to search for something in her memory, there were these little signals. Fingers entangling, like a little prayer about to start. Eyebrows furrowing. Lips pressing. The unknown woman noticed it all, since she couldn’t stop looking at the professor.

“Three of them. Mr. Walker. He’s a teacher here. Stupid, arrogant, and too touchy around female professors, may I add. I also know Haley, Haley Dens, I helped her with a job interview a while ago. We met during a lecture at Columbia. She’s nice, but I’m not familiar with her work. I also know the main attraction, not on person, but I read her thesis. Ms. K. Sayeed. Solid thesis. Better than Mr. Raines.”

“Hm. Tell me more about it.”

Anna kept her posture, walking slower by the minute. “How can I say it? I sensed… A little bit of naivety on Mr. Raines thesis. He’s not actually perpetuating the status quo, instead he tries to fix it’s problems, make it into a new system by improving the qualities. This doesn’t work. He’s just embellishing something that’s already broken. Ms. Sayeed is clever. Her mistakes are different ones.”

The silence and the curious look on the woman’s face were pushing Anna to continue.

“Hm. Ok. Let’s just say that Ms. Sayeed thesis is more consisting, but the end is frustrating. She admits the system sucks. With better words, of course. And that it’s impossible to fix it. So far, I’m on board. But then, her analysis stop. It’s like a Fukuyama kind of thing, you know? He said history was over. Ms. Sayeed is claiming economy is doomed. Dead. Over. Nothing to do. No one can change things. I beg to differ. That’s such a stupid and lazy conclusion. I do believe the system is broken, and fixing it won’t take us anywhere… That’s why we need to build a new one. From scratch.”

“A dreamer, aren’t you?”

Annie lifted her gaze to find a malicious smile on the woman’s face. She was suddenly stunted by the beauty of it. All the seriousness on her tone, the posture, the entangled fingers, all of it dropped. Suddenly, the college professor returned to the hypnotized teenager mode, bouncing from one foot to another. She looks like a goddess. Oh my. Oh my. She’s… Wait. Who is she?

“Oh no. I’m so sorry. I was so distracted I forgot to ask your name.”

The woman’s brown eyes locked with Anna’s as she approached. For a moment, the professor thought they were going to kiss. Her back was pressed against the pillar, so dangerously close to the stranger that lavender parfum started to dominate her senses. And even though there were a few students walking around, she wouldn’t mind having that gorgeous woman kissing her in the middle of the hallway.

“Kamilah.” She tucked a lock of hair behind Anna’s ear. The small touch sent electric signals through their bodies. “Nice to meet you, Annie.”

“Nice to meet you too.” That was barely a whisper. Her voice was gone. Disappeared.

And all Anna could do was watch as that goddess step back and head inside the auditorium, wondering if all that talk was real. If she was real.

The coffee definitely is. The taste of it was lingering on her tongue.

So was the desire to kiss Kamilah.

[citylightsbooks]

Presidential Election Crisis 2020: An Interview with Alan Hirsch

Alan Hirsch is the author of A Short History of Presidential Election Crises. Interview conducted by Greg Ruggiero, editor at City Lights Publishers.

***

In what ways has the 2020 presidential election been unprecedented?

The pandemic led to exponentially greater use of mail-in voting.  And because some state legislatures refused to authorize the counting of absentee votes before Election Day, the process of counting votes (never mind re-counting them) has taken longer. Also, because voting by mail was primarily by Democrats, President Trump was way ahead in several critical states on Election Day, only to see Biden come roaring back—fueling Trump’s claims of fraud.  Of course, Trump created this situation by discouraging his base to vote by mail. 

This election has also been unprecedented in the sense that one of the candidates was complaining about fraud months before Election Day.

On November 10, 2020, the New York Times reported "President Trump, facing the prospect of leaving the White House in defeat in just 70 days, is harnessing the power of the federal government to resist the results of an election that he lost, something that no sitting president has done in American history,” and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.”

What concerns should these unprecedented developments be raising?

In context, it appears that Pompeo was joking, but it's a scary joke that seems to reflect the denialism among the Trump administration and many of his supporters.  This is frightening and unprecedented.  One major difference between this situation and the post-election crises of 1876 and 2000 is that, in those situations, the incumbent president was not one of the candidates.  Here, we have a defeated president who is nevertheless fighting for a second term.  Will he abuse the office to make that happen?  This is the man with the armed forces and nuclear codes at his command.  

What is your assessment of President Trump’s news conference on November 5, his statement of Nov 7, and his ongoing insistence that he, not Joe Biden, has won the 2020 Presidential election “by a lot”?

It is mind boggling, and that’s understatement.  The new conference started with his false claim that he won the election, and went downhill from there.  The President apparently considers “legal” votes and “illegal” votes as synonymous with Trump votes and Biden votes respectively. 

The big lie at the heart of Trump’s complaint is that he had Pennsylvania and other key states easily won until the suspicious onslaught of Biden votes.  The only reason for both Trump’s huge lead and Biden’s big comeback was the fact that Democrats voted largely by mail and most Republicans voted in person.

What would happen if Trump refuses to accept the election’s outcome and refuses to leave? 

Fortunately, the winner of this election seems fairly clear, and no recounts or lawsuits seem likely to change the outcome.  If Trump refuses to leave, he will presumably be escorted from his office—by force if necessary.   

It’s not often taught that the Electoral College was a compromise the North made with the South. In the process, white slave owners were able to count each black person they enslaved as 3/5 a person, and thereby gained greater representation in the Electoral College.

The legacy of that compromise continues to distort our democracy today. As Wilfred Codrington III writes in The Atlantic, “The South’s baked-in advantages—the bonus electoral votes it received for maintaining slaves, all while not allowing those slaves to vote” made the difference in the election outcomes.  In some ways, Trump’s 2016 victory was a direct result of baking white supremacy into the electoral process.

Given this history, are there any civic arguments to keep the Electoral College?

The argument one hears most often is that the Electoral College protects the interests of small states.  The senate protects the interests of small states (since every state, even the least populated, gets the same two senators), and no one proposes abolishing the senate.  It is argued that, without the Electoral College (ensuring that even the tiniest state has 3 electoral votes), candidates would never visit small states.  This gets things backwards.  Without the Electoral College, candidates would have at least some incentive to campaign in all states.  Because of the Electoral College, they spend almost all of their time in a handful of swing states (whether or not small).

How might Trump’s lawsuits succeed in altering the election outcome?

It appears that he would need to reverse the outcome in several states.  In other words, he’d need three or four Bush v. Gores, and even that doesn’t capture the desperation of his situation.  Florida in 2000 was essentially a tie, and the legal arguments on both sides had at least some merit.  Trump has offered no semi-convincing reason why the outcomes in any of the close states should be reversed. 

In addition to litigation, might there be other routes Trump could take to derail the election result or attempt to stay in power?

The one being pushed by Trump allies is to try and convince Republican legislatures in several states to substitute a Republican slate of electors for the Democratic slate that was chosen in the election.  After all, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to choose the “manner” in which electors are chosen. The problem for Trump is that these electors did choose the manner—popular elections.  They can’t just substitute their will for that of the people because they don’t like the result.

Outlandish as it may sound, could Trump somehow use an act of war or claim of insurrection to maintain power? After all, he threatened to use the Insurrection Act in June 2020.

He can try, but there’s no legal basis or precedent for a president remaining in power after his term was over. 

Of the past presidential election crises, do any resemble the situation we are in now?

It resembles both 1876 and 2000 in that the election came down to a few states with narrow margins.  And, like 2000, recounts and litigation will extend the period of uncertainty.  But the Biden margins appear to be large enough that we will probably avoid the chaos that ensued after those elections.  

Can you go into more detail about parallels between the current moment and the election crises of 1876 and 2000? What form did corruption take then? How might it manifest now?

As the 2020 post-election crisis unfolds, we must learn from history—specifically the presidential election chaos in 1876 and 2000.  In each of these three elections, the outcome came down to one or more disputed states.  Most history books claim the 1876 election was resolved by a fifteen-man commission that voted along party lines.  In truth, Democrats were prepared to ignore the commission’s determinations, and the threat of duel inaugurations and another civil war loomed ominously.  The resolution came only when Republicans assured Democrats in Congress that, if they went along with Rutherford B. Hayes’s election, would cease implementing Reconstruction.  The nation paid a terrible price for the backroom dealing.  In 2000, the election was resolved by the Supreme Court – with five conservative Justices intervening to assure the election of George W. Bush.

Today, both of these threats are present—political deal-making and/or a partisan Supreme Court could determine the outcome.  There are additional parallels to 1876 and 2000 that need to be explored.  In both 1876 and 2000, as in 2020, the election took place against the backdrop of voter suppression.  In 1876 and 2000, like today, there were calls for state legislatures to intervene and nullify the results of their state’s popular vote.  In 1876, states sent competing slates of electors that Congress had to choose between.  Today, the possibility of competing slates of electors cannot be ruled out.  Ditto the threat of the conservatives on the Supreme Court intervening.  

To prevent these destructive outcomes, we need to understand how things unfolded during the prior election crises.

In your latest book, A Short History of Presidential Election Crises, you write: “Abolition of the Electoral College would reduce but not eliminate the dangers of a presidential election marred by fraud and post-election chaos.”  How would your proposed Presidential Election Review Board potentially help eliminate the dangers of post-election instability?

Trump’s various claims of election irregularities would be resolved by a tri-partisan (Democrats, Republicans, and independents) commission rather than the courts.  Because many judges are seen as partisan, the public would rightly have more confidence in the process and outcome.

***

Special thanks to Essential Information. Alan Hirsch, Instructor in the Humanities and Chair of the Justice and Law Studies program at Williams College, is the author of numerous works of legal scholarship and many books including A Short History of Presidential Election Crises (And How to Prevent the Next One), Impeaching the President: Past, Present, and Future and For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights (Free Press, coauthored with Akhil Amar). He received a J.D. from Yale Law School and B.A. from Amherst College. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Newsday, and the Village Voice. Hirsch also serves as a trial consultant and expert witness on interrogations and criminal confessions, testifying around the nation. He lives in Williamstown, Massachusetts.   

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Atrocities in Nicaragua: In 1981 the Moonies sponsored a news conference for Contra chief “Chicano” Cardenal

The Pittsburg Press   December 20, 1982

By Katherine Ellison

... The Coalition for a Free World [formed in 1981] was organized by CARP, the Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles. Dan Fefferman, CARP’s national president in New York, describes the group – founded 28 years ago in South Korea – as “a Reverend Moon organization, but not a Unification Church organization.”

“CARP is legally separate from the church, and primarily educational.” Fefferman said.

Both former Moonies and police, however, contend that CARP is a major recruiting arm of the church.

Local events sponsored by CARP members and, more recently, the coalition have included twice-monthly political discussions, a May flag-burning ceremony in front of the Soviet Consulate in San Francisco, a march last year [1981] to honor visiting then-President José Napoleón Duarte of El Salvador, and a September [1981] news conference with militarist Nicaraguan exile José “Chicano” Cardenal. [who was at that time a Nicaraguan contra chief – he lost his role in the CIA shakeup of the Democratic Nationalist Force in 1982.]

Mike Cardone, a member of both CARP and the Unification Church, said he has been trying to unite two rival Nicaraguan exile factions in the San Francisco Bay area.

One, represented by Cardenal and with U.S. political headquarters in Miami, includes ex-members of deposed dictator Anastasio Somoza’s national guard, who are currently carrying out raids into Nicaragua from bases in Honduras. That group, the Nicaraguan Democratic Front, reportedly has been receiving clandestine aid in Honduras from the Honduran military and the CIA.

The other group is led by dissident members of the Nicaraguan Sandinista government who have repeatedly refused to deal with Somoza’s ex-followers, the Somocistas.

Describing the intent of the Coalition for a Free World, Cardone said: “We’re trying to create a platform where (the exiles) can express their ideology – we’d like them to have a clear idea of how and why we’re fighting.

“We’re not promoting violence,” he added. “I mean, granted, (Cardenal’s) got an army. But what are his motivations, his ideals? The guy’s coming from somewhere, and we want to help him explain to the American public what his problem is.”

_________________________________________

Inside the League – The shocking exposé of how terrorists, Nazis, and Latin American death squads have infiltrated the World Anti-Communist League. by Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson.

page 247 “... former contra chief José Francisco “Chicano” Cardenal (who lost his role in the 1982 CIA shakeup of the FDN [Nicaraguan Democratic Force] )”

page 233  “CAUSA [a Moonie organized front group] also turned its attention to the Nicaraguan exiles. In a Tegucigalpa safe-house in 1983, contra leader Fernando “El Negro” Chamorro told one of the authors that CAUSA had first approached him the year before, offering to help “unite the contra factions” [who were fighting the legitimate government of Nicaragua].”

_________________________________________

In 1985 the Washington Times sponsored a fund for the Contras who committed atrocities, and trafficked drugs to the US

_________________________________________

Nicaragua rebels accused of abuses

The New York Times    March 7, 1985

A new report by a private group asserts that over the last three years, rebels from one of the organizations seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government have engaged in a pattern of attacks and atrocities against civilian targets.

A preliminary draft copy, made available here, gives details of 28 incidents that it says “have resulted in assassination, torture, rape, kidnapping and mutilation of civilians.”

Four of the 28 incidents were chosen at random and witnesses were independently interviewed by The New York Times. These interviews seemed to verify some of the details in the report.

The new report, prepared by a three-member team headed by Reed Brody, a former New York State Assistant Attorney General, is based on interviews conducted in Nicaragua between September 1984 and January 1985. It is to be officially released in Washington on Thursday.

The findings are similar to those in a report issued today in Washington by Americas Watch, a private, non-political organization that monitors human rights in the Western Hemisphere. At the same time, the Americas Watch study cited human rights abuses by the other side, noting that there had been violations by the Nicaraguan Army. But it said that there had been a “sharp decline” in such abuses by the Government since 1982. The reports are being released in advance of what is expected to be a heated debate in Congress over United States financing for the anti- Sandinista rebels prior to a vote later this month. President Reagan has asked Congress to renew $14 million in financing to the insurgents, whom he has described as “freedom fighters” who are the “moral equal of our Founding Fathers.”

One Rebel Group Cited

The allegations of killing, rape and kidnapping described in the Brody report seem to apply only to the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, which is based in Honduras and is most active in the northern part of Nicaragua. No charges of atrocities were made by witnesses against the other main anti-Sandinista military force, the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance, which is dominated by disgruntled former officials of the Sandinista Government.

With the help of the Washington law firm of Reichler and Appelbaum, which is representing Nicaragua in its lawsuit against the United States in the International Court of Justice, Mr. Brody’s group was able to obtain official cooperation in arranging interviews with victims of rebel violence.

The follow-up interviews of the witnesses were conducted by The Times in Spanish, in the presence of relatives. No Nicaraguan police, army or other Government officials were present, and none of the interviews were arranged through official channels.

Law Firm Proposed Study

Although Mr. Brody says he disagrees with Reagan Administration policies in Nicaragua, he says he undertook the project out of personal, not political, interest. At the same time, he acknowledges that the release of his report during the debate over renewed aid to the rebels “is not unintentional.”

Reichler and Appelbaum, the law firm, originally proposed an independent study and arranged for Mr. Brody’s participation.

One of the witnesses, who was quoted in the report and later was questioned by The Times, described an early morning attack that he said came as he was on his way to pick coffee at a cooperative farm north of here.

Along with about 30 other volunteers, the witness, Santos Roger Briones, 16 years old, said he was was traveling in a Government-owned truck early last December. Nearly a kilometer ahead was a pickup truck carrying armed soldiers who had been supposed to protect the unarmed civilians from rebel attack.

Suddenly, Mr. Briones recalled, the dump truck was peppered with rifle, machine-gun, grenade and rocket fire. Many in the truck were wounded. Those who could jumped down and ran for their lives.

Played Dead

“I was hit in the foot and was covered with blood, so I lay on the ground, pretending to be dead,” said Mr. Briones. He said he remained motionless as men in blue uniforms robbed him of his boots and wallet. “Then the contras came and cut the throats of the people who stayed on the truck,” he said, using a Spanish term for the rebels.

“When they were finished, they set the truck on fire,” he added. “From where I was lying, I could hear the groans and the screams of those who were being burned alive.”

All told, 21 civilians ranging in age from five to 60 were killed, 8 wounded and one kidnapped in that incident, which is discussed in the Brody report.

Both the interviews with The Times and the report itself indicate that the distinction between combatants and noncombatants is not always clear in Nicaragua. Civilian vehicles sometimes offer rides to hitchhiking soldiers in uniform, and farmers, workers and students in civilian dress often carry arms for what they say is self-defense.

Recurring Patterns Cited

Unarmed victims of the guerrilla attacks said in each case that they shouted that they were civilians as soon as the firing started. In some instances the shooting stopped, they said, but in other cases it continued.

The witnesses interviewed by The Times described several patterns that they said enabled them to identify their attackers as rebels. There were constant references, for example, to blue uniforms with shoulder patches reading “F.D.N.,’’ the Spanish initials for the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, as well as repeated mentions of Chinese-made AK-47 machine guns and a type of Belgian-made rifle that the Nicaraguan Democratic Force uses.

Witnesses also spoke of tents, knapsacks, and boots with “U.S.A.’’ printed on them, which they took as proof that their captors were rebel forces and not Sandinista troops trying to pass themselves off as insurgents. Another characteristic, the witnesses said, was the constant use of a word meaning ‘rabid dog’ that the Nicaraguan Democratic Force uses to refer to Sandinistas and their supporters.

An Abduction Described

Each of these patterns was mentioned by Digna Barreda de Ubeda, 29, who told of an ordeal at the hands of the Nicaraguan Democratic Force that began in May 1983 with a visit to her uncle in Sapote, north of here. She and her husband were abducted at gunpoint by men claiming to be officials of the Ministry of the Interior investigating counterrevolutionary activities.

Once outside of the town, however, the men identified themselves as members of the Nicaraguan Democratic Force and began to beat her 50-year-old husband, she said. The couple was marched to an encampment commanded, Mrs. Barreda says, by men called “Poison” and “The Vulture.”

Mrs. Barreda said she made no effort to hide her pro-Sandinista sympathies. She is a member of a Christian peasant self-help group that works closely with Sandinista groups and also belongs to the official Nicaraguan Women’s Association; her husband fought with the Sandinistas during the insurrection in 1979 that ousted Gen. Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

“There were 50 or 60 of them in the group, and over five days they took turns raping me until each had had his chance,” said Mrs. Barreda.

While she was being raped, said Mrs. Barreda, other soldiers standing by stabbed her with bayonets in the legs and side. During some episodes, she says, her husband was forced to watch.

Mrs. Barreda said that during her five days as a captive she witnessed the torture and murder of a peasant acquaintance who had been kidnapped by the Nicaraguan Democratic Force in a separate incident.

“They asked him if he loved the revolution,” she recalled. “He said, ‘Yes, I love the revolution, because it has given me land, which is more than Somoza ever did.’

“So they started to gouge out his eyes with a spoon,” she said. “Then they bayoneted him through the neck.”They finished him off with a burst of machine gun fire,” she said.

Mrs. Barreda said the soldier who was told to set her free raped her again. She said her husband was released shortly afterward.

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/07/world/nicaragua-rebels-accused-of-abuses.html?searchResultPosition=2

_________________________________________

In 1985 the Washington Times sponsored a fund for the Contras who committed atrocities, and trafficked drugs to the US

In Bolivia, Moon disciple Tom Ward and the former Hitler SS Officer, Klaus Barbie were often seen together

How Sun Myung Moon’s organization helped to establish Bolivia as South America’s first narco-state.

Sun Myung Moon organization activities in Central & South America

Robert Parry’s investigations into Sun Myung Moon

Sun Myung Moon: The Emperor of the Universe, transcript and links

Sun Myung Moon makes me feel ashamed to be Korean

1. Moon’s first son wrote a letter saying his father was a fraud. 2. Ashamed to be Korean 3. Sun Myung Moon: “Women have twice the sin” 4. “Japanese blood is dirty,” Mrs Gil Ja Sa Eu said 5. Moon’s Divine Principle Theory Applied 6. Sun Myung Moon’s explanation of the Fall of Man is based on his Confucian ideas of lineage, and his belief in shaman sex rituals. 7. The establishment of a worldwide government under Moon 8. Sun Myung Moon in 2012: “There is no Mother” 9. Moon’s words on Hak Ja Han, Justin Kook Jin and Sean Hyung Jin 10. Hak Ja Han married “God” in January 2012. Moon was furious. 11. The Sokcho Incident – the removal of Hyun Jin from the succession 12. In 2018 Hak Ja Han was questioned about the Sokcho Incident

[sophiehotch]

PORTRAITS OF CONGRESS: CHARLIE KEETING (NY-10) BY SOPHIA HOTCHNER - AUGUST 11, 2020 - THE WASHINGTON POST

When I sat down with Representative Charlie Keeting - an environmental activist and the current NY-10 Representative, there was an immediate sense of warmth. Maybe that had to do with the fact that the bustling-yet-quiet walls of the cafe they had chosen to meet in was a beautiful shade of corals and yellows, or maybe it had to do with the Representative’s dedication to making sure I was comfortable, but there’s no denying that Charlie Keeting has a warm heart beating in his chest.

I met Charlie Keeting (who uses they/them and he/him pronouns interchangeably) back at the beginning of the year when I had the opportunity to collect information on current Democratic activists, of which Charlie had made the list. Their activism in trans health and trans safety (they’re agender themselves), their work with LGBTQ+ youth within their district and beyond, and their unflinching stance on climate change have made them a bright young face in Washington - one many kids and young adults can see themselves in. On top of that, their eclectic style and infectious laughter certainly made me feel right at home within our small world of interviews.

We order before we get started, Representative Keeting settling on a Mediterranean Salad - “Vegan,” they say, “I’m working on it, but it’s not always feasible for everyone, and that’s okay,” - and then we begin our conversation about what it means to be a leader in congress at an age so young, what’s next for the New York Representative, and the upcoming elections.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: So, Representative, tell us a little about yourself - where you grew up, what your life was like at a young age?

REP. KEETING: I grew up in a small suburb in north New York - Rochester, to be exact. I was more than fortunate enough to be able to grow up in a household that was extremely LGBTQ+ friendly, and despite being a child of divorce, really lovely. My mom came out when I was six. She told my dad she had met someone else and we just kind of moved on from there. My upbringing was... a bit abnormal to say the least for two reasons: one, my dad and mom remained best friends (which I know doesn’t always happen in divorces), and two, my dad was halfway across the country. Regardless, my parents were more than supportive of everything I did, and Rochester might have been a small town, but it has a lovely queer community within it.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: It’s really great that you had such a supportive community at such a young age.

REP. KEETING: Honestly, I’m thankful for it every day. Growing up being encouraged to explore myself, my interests, and my identity is definitely one of the reasons I feel so comfortable today.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Has DC and the world of politics changed that at all? 

REP. KEETING: I certainly don’t always have the freedoms that I’d like to have in regards to how I’d like to dress. Regulations on the hill for what constitutes as formal are still extremely gendered. It’ll be something I work on if I get the chance to return to the Capitol in the winter.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Yes, you’re up for re-election, correct?

REP. KEETING: I am indeed.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: How are you feeling about the campaign?

REP. KEETING: I’m feeling pretty good. If the citizens of New York City want me in office, they’ll put me there, you know? If that’s not what they want, I’ll surely be doing this work in other capacities. I’ve been in and around Washington since 2012 doing different sorts of climate and political work, so I’m pretty confident that I won’t be leaving the city or the realm of politics anytime soon.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: You did work for different politicians before you were elected office, correct? Writing grants and doing climate crisis research?

REP. KEETING: Yes, I used to be knee deep in grant-writing on any given day in the first few years i spent here. I don’t think I miss it completely, but I do miss some of it sometimes.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Did you always know you wanted to go into politics eventually? Or was it just a natural next step?

REP. KEETING: I can confidently say the younger version of me had no idea they were going to end up in politics. I didn’t really know what I wanted to do, but my parents have always been supportive no matter what I attempted to make of my life. I knew from a young age I was heavily interested in science and the arts, so I figured I’d end up doing something in those categories. I still kind of do, and I still paint and create art displays and curate galleries when I can, but that’s definitely taken a back seat to the science side of my interests, which have turned very political with the climate crisis. It was definitely more of a natural next step to slide into office.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Sometimes things just fall into place, don’t they?

REP. KEETING: It certainly feels like it. My degree was like that too. So many people ask me why I double majored in Climate Science and Art History, but it just felt right. Moral of the story? Pursue your interests as much as you can. Hobbies, career options, whatever they are. Pursue it. Nothing is too small to care about.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: That’s good advice. I know younger me would have loved to hear that more. On the topic of your schooling and on the climate crisis - you’re nearing the completion of your PhD, yes? How has your schooling and your continuing education informed your stance on certain topics?

REP. KEETING: Since I had the opportunity to complete my masters degree in Climate & Society, I was able to put a lot of that work to use right away because it was a partially practical degree. I ended up working for a couple of environmental firms here in DC, working with politicians to help implement eco-friendly laws, but also tangible laws. I’d say that’s the biggest way my education has helped impact my stance -- in a much more actionable way. Studying both sides of it allowed me to see the changes that needed to be made from the science side of it, but also taught me the best way to explore how things can be implemented in a manageable and realistic way.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: At the same time, you’ve been a large inspiration for a lot of young activists, both within Climate Activism as well as in the LGBTQ+ Community  - what are your thoughts on that? Do you have any words of wisdom for your followers?

REP. KEETING: As much as it’s an honor to be seen as an inspiration, I’m not the first and I’m certainly not the last to fight for what I’m fighting for. I’m just one person who was elected into office to help do the work from a legislative perspective. Connect with your local communities, find workplaces and grassroots communities that stand for what you believe in. I didn’t start in politics, after all - I started there, and it most certainly shaped who I am today. And - as cheesy as it is - follow your heart. As long as you love what you do, you’ll never be really bored a day in your life. Frustrated? Maybe. But never bored.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: On that note of inspiration and firsts, this is your first term in congress, and you’re only 34. How has being a young activist in Congress shaped your experience?

REP. KEETING: I wish it wasn’t true, but people do tend to take me less seriously. What part of lack of respect that falls under is up for debate, but I do think my age definitely comes into play. It’s easy to claim seniority and push that ‘seasoned minds know best’, but I don’t think that’s true. I think what it really comes down to is how dedicated you are to your work, no matter your age. At the same time, being a young representative in Congress has allowed me to connect with a demographic of young voters that has felt consistently under-heard from the older members of the administration. By no means do I want to be a spokesperson, and I’m certainly not going to be young forever, but I think my age has helped me form an immediate connection with a lot of younger individuals who are maybe voting for the first time, or voting for the third or fourth time, who want to see their ideas moving into congress.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Do you have any plans for last minute moves in the House before your re-election? Or will you be waiting for a hopeful new term to bring forward any movements or bills to the table?

REP. KEETING: A combination of both. I know there’s always the chance that I might not get another term in office, so I definitely have a few more things up my sleeve before the elections potentially take that chance. But I can confidently say that if I’m able to take up office again in January, rest assured I won’t be playing nice. I’ve got a lot I want to do, and a team behind me ready to help me make it happen.

SOPHIA HOTCHNER: Last question, for the sake of the fact that I kind of have to - you’ve vocalized your support for the Democratic Candidates, correct? How do you see the landscape of Capitol Hill changing depending on who takes office?

REP. KEETING: I most certainly have. I’m a vocal supporter of Berkeley-Zafar, and I’ll continue to be so. I’m not sure exactly how my job will change after the elections quite yet, but definitely the majority in the house will shape how much I’ll be able to get done next term, considering most of my politics aren’t quite… in line with most of the GOP’s. But we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. We still have some time left on the campaign trail, and I’ll be excited to see how it all plays out, that’s for sure.

I thanked Representative Keeting for sitting down for lunch with me as we wrap up, talking more casually about the meal and they ask me how everything’s going at the Post. It’s small conversations like this that make it easy to see why the Representative is only projecting upward. Their interest in community building and cross-disciplinary studies make them a strong candidate for politics, despite not growing up rooted in politics. They care and are passionate about their work, and it’s easy to feel that through the few conversations I’ve had with them. I’m positive others who have interacted with Representative Keeting know exactly what I’m talking about. 

Representative Keeting is currently running for re-election within the 10th District of New York State (Manhattan) and you can find their platform located on their website. Make sure you’re registered to vote, and get out to the polls this November!

[dancesinlight]

THIS IS BRILLIANT!

Bill Svelmoe's brilliant idea regarding the Barrett confirmation hearings.  Bill Svelmoe, associate professor of history at Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame. And an author."A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one.Here's a few more suggestions.- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?Then turn to the Hatch Act.Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.Then turn to Congressional Oversight.Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?Then turn to Trump's impeachment.Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.Taking this approach does a number of things.1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ..."