#and that future includes donald trump as the president for the next four years

[lucky-clover-gazette]

non american mutuals, i don’t really know how to say this, but like. you’re a reminder that this isn’t everything. it’s not the whole world. comforting words and thoughts would be appreciated, even if you don’t think you have anything to offer. i’m guessing i’m not the only american tumblr user who feels that way right now

[mariacallous]

With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in the coming weeks, speculation is mounting that Ukraine and Russia may soon begin serious peace negotiations. However, there is very little sign that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to abandon his goal of subjugating Ukraine. Instead, the peace formula currently being promoted by Kremlin officials would be more likely to pave the way for the next stage in Putin’s campaign to erase Ukrainian independence entirely.

Ever since the abortive peace talks of spring 2022 during the initial phase of the full-scale invasion, Russia has insisted that any peace deal must include territorial concessions from Kyiv along with Ukrainian neutrality and the country’s comprehensive demilitarization. Putin himself spelled out Russia’s territorial expectations in June 2024, demanding that Kyiv cede four partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, none of which are fully under Russian control. This would mean handing over large amounts of unoccupied Ukrainian territory including the city of Zaporizhzhia with a population of around three quarters of a million people.

On numerous other occasions, Putin and his Kremlin colleagues have reaffirmed their conditions. These include Ukraine officially giving up its pursuit of NATO membership and agreeing not to enter into any military alliances with Western powers. Kyiv is also expected to accept extensive limitations on the size of its armed forces and on the kinds of weapons systems it is allowed to possess.

These proposals are not a recipe for a sustainable settlement. On the contrary, Putin’s peace plan is in fact a call for Kyiv’s complete capitulation. Moscow’s demands are deliberately designed to leave Ukraine internationally isolated and unable to defend itself. If these terms are imposed on the Ukrainian authorities, there can be little doubt that Putin would use any subsequent pause in hostilities to rearm before renewing the war in the coming years.

Russia’s true intentions can be seen in its insistence that Ukraine abandon efforts to join NATO and accept permanent geopolitical neutrality. Moscow claims this is essential in order to safeguard Russian national security, but Putin’s own actions suggest otherwise.

When neighboring Finland announced plans to join NATO in 2022, Putin made no effort to block the process and announced that Russia had “no problems” with Finnish accession. He then went even further, withdrawing most Russian troops from the border with Finland. Clearly, Putin does not view NATO as a security threat to Russia itself. Instead, he sees the alliance as a potential obstacle to his own expansionist ambitions in Ukraine.

Russian demands for a neutral and demilitarized Ukraine should be equally unacceptable in Kyiv and among Ukraine’s Western partners. Agreeing to the Kremlin’s conditions would mean leaving millions of Ukrainians at Putin’s mercy, while also emboldening Moscow and inviting more Russian aggression. From Chechnya and Georgia to Crimea and Syria, there is ample evidence from the past two decades that each successive failure to hold Russia accountable only encourages fresh escalations.

The West’s misguided efforts to appease Putin have already led to the largest and bloodiest European war since World War II. Any further attempts at appeasement will have similarly disastrous consequences for the future stability and security of Europe. Indeed, senior European officials are now warning that a military confrontation with Moscow is becoming more likely, with German spy chief Bruno Kahl recently predicting that Russia may seek to test NATO before the end of the current decade.

While Russia is pushing for a disarmed and neutral Ukraine, Ukrainian officials are preparing for possible peace talks by prioritizing the need for credible security guarantees. In recent months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signaled the country’s readiness to temporarily compromise on territorial integrity in order to move forward toward a viable peace. At the same time, officials in Kyiv have underlined that there is no room for any similar compromises on the issue of security guarantees.

Ukraine’s objective remains NATO membership, which is seen in Kyiv as the only credible long-term guarantee of the country’s security and sovereignty. However, key members of the alliance including the United States and Germany remain deeply reluctant to embrace Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.

With their country’s pathway to NATO accession likely to be extremely politically challenging, Ukrainian officials are also exploring the possibility of bilateral security guarantees. In a recent interview with US podcaster Lex Fridman, Zelenskyy said security guarantees for Kyiv to end Russia’s war would only be effective if the United States provides them. He was also scathing of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which saw Ukraine surrender the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK that ultimately proved worthless.

Given the diametrically opposed positions of Russia and Ukraine on the issue of NATO membership, it seems certain that security guarantees will be the most problematic point during any forthcoming negotiations to end the war. Can Western leaders come up with a credible security formula that will safeguard Ukrainian statehood and deter further Russian aggression? Unless they do so, Ukraine’s prospects will be grim and the rest of Europe will face years of costly confrontation with a resurgent Russia.

[thatstormygeek]

So for the next couple months, we are essentially Schrödinger’s Electorate. There is no uncertainty about Trump’s ambitions....But there is real uncertainty about his capacity to execute.

We won’t know until at least January just how dark things are about to get. There is a version of Trump’s second term where he talks a lot about mass deportation, but actually deports comparatively few people. He gestures at massive tariffs, but mostly as a negotiating tactic. The most dangerous parts of Project 2025 languish because they require more attention to detail than he cares to give. (Plus they would be unpopular. And Trump likes to feel popular.) This would be a Trump II that kind of resembles Trump I, when he talked a whole lot about “building the wall,” but lacked the will and skill to actually put the plan into practice. This is not a good future, mind you. But it’s the best possible of all the bad futures. Its one where we suffer through several years of mid-level corruption and a ceaseless barrage of Trump intrigue and incompetence. It’s a future that still yields a couple hundred more Trump judges with lifetime appointments to the federal bench, ensuring that no future administration can accomplish its goals. It’s also a future that sets us back at least four years on climate commitments, all while handing the plutocrats more money and power that they will ruthlessly work to defend. It’s, y’know, still really bad. But the other version of Trump II is the one where he deputizes and mobilizes a deportation force that removes tens of millions of people from their homes. Some will be sent back to their home countries. But most will be rounded up and sent to makeshift camps. And that’s a future where he also uses Schedule F to replace all federal workers with Trump ideologues, reducing the federal government to a cutout front for the Trump organization. It’s one where he shuts down all progressive organizations under the cover of fighting “extremism,” rendering the Democratic Party network incapable of competing in future in elections. One where his political opponents go into hiding, and the military is deployed against protestors, and press critics quickly learn that their constitutional protections are not self-enforcing. This would be much, much worse.

I’ve heard a cold-comfort, rally-the-troops message in some progressive circles: “we’ve been here before. We know how to mobilize against him!” I hate to be a downer, but… no. If your strategic plan for Trump II relies on a repeat of the conditions of Trump I, that is a very bad strategic plan. When Donald Trump assumed the Presidency in 2017, we had (1) a mainstream media that was eager to play a watchdog role, (2) a Republican Party that had not been entirely cleansed of Trump critics, (3) a judicial branch with zero Trump appointees, and (4) Trump and his team lacking even the vaguest sense of how to run the executive branch. We had, in other words, a huge attack surface. ... It’s also going to be harder to tie him up in the courts than it was in the first term. Trump appointed 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court Justices. These Trump judges have shown no deference to precedent. Many are naked partisans, with no incentive to hide it. (Hell, a Trump judge just struck down Biden’s overtime pay Executive Order yesterday.) The Supreme Court has also gotten very comfortable using its shadow docket to speed up and slow down cases to Trump’s benefit. ... Here’s a rough outline of what I think might work. The basic assignment is simple: run out the clock. There are 102 weeks until the 2026 midterm election. There are 206 weeks until the 2028 Presidential. That’s a lot of time to be playing prevent defense against an opponent who controls all the structural power levers at the federal level. This will hardly be easy. But Donald Trump is not some strategic genius, enacting a meticulously-crafted long-term plan. He has grown older, but no wiser. He is as likely to focus on deporting 20 million people as he is to get into a weeklong Twitter spat with Mark Cuban. He is a ridiculous person, and tremendously vulnerable to ridicule. His administration will be staffed by devoted ideologues, not skilled operators. Rudy Giuliani was a devoted Trump supporter. So was John Eastman. Both were comically inept, and are now disbarred as a result. The benchwarmers suiting up now that they are off the playing field have no great excess of skill.

[rjzimmerman]

Environmentalists Have a Wish List for the Lame Duck Session. (Sierra Club)

Excerpt from this story from the Sierra Club:

Americans who care about public lands conservation, wildlife protection, and climate action are bracing for a grim future. President-elect Donald Trump has boasted about gutting key climate programs to appease fossil fuel interests. And right-wing lawmakers, who will control both houses of Congress, are sharpening their axes to cut funding for endangered species protections, aiming to rescind laws meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and even daydreaming about selling off public lands.

Environmental groups will be an essential check on the next administration. Leaders at groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and Earthjustice are already preparing legal strategies to combat Trump’s policies, activating their grassroots networks and seeking legislators who will advocate for environmental protections. 

But there’s another antidote to the next administration’s antics—and that’s President Biden. Congress is in session for four more weeks, and the president has committed to working up until January 20. Environmental organizations have a list of suggestions that they’re urging the president to consider, and he and his team seem eager to continue at least some of their environmental work. The challenge for environmental groups and the White House now is to merge their ambitions. 

More national monuments

Conservation groups' biggest public lands priority is getting the president to designate more national monuments. These areas protect some of the country's most treasured public lands, and monuments often serve as a precursor to national park designation, one of the highest forms of preservation. Outdoor coalitions have prepared a list of outstanding areas they think are ripe for monument status. Establishing them should be an easy lift for the president—these lands are already public, there’s local support, and all that’s needed is his signature. 

Last month, at the United Nations biodiversity conference in Colombia, Native American tribes called on President Biden to create three national monuments in California. These areas include the Kw’tsán National Monument in Southern California, the Chuckwalla National Monument near Joshua Tree National Park, and the Sáttítla National Monument close to the Oregon border. While President Trump may threaten to downsize these areas if designated, just as he attempted with Bears Ears National Monument, it’ll likely be an uphill battle. 

Fill judicial vacancies 

Another significant step the president could take would be to nominate federal judges who have a strong grasp of environmental law. In recent years, federal judges have shaped American policy perhaps even more so than legislators. The most recent high-profile environmental decision ended the Chevron Doctrine, a 40-year-old legal theory that judges have cited when deferring to federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes. 

In the wake of the 2024 election, Senate leaders and the White House have hinted at ramping up nominations. Filling the 46 open judgeships, split between the US district courts and the courts of appeals, will likely mean the difference between protecting an endangered species and letting developers run roughshod over the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

New rules

At the administrative level, conservation groups hope two federal agencies will finalize long-overdue decisions before the next president takes office. The US Fish and Wildlife Department has been mulling over federal protections for grizzly bears for almost two years. The agency was supposed to release a decision back in the summer but punted to January at the last minute. Conservation groups want the agency to keep bears listed throughout their range, given that there are so few bears and limited connectivity between populations. Keeping the bears listed would make it harder for a future administration to delist them in the immediate future, said Bradley Williams, the deputy legislative director for the Sierra Club's Wildlife and Lands Protection campaign.  

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is updating the studies it uses to assess pending and new LNG export applications. The agency announced a pause on new LNG exports in January while it conducted its analysis. Now climate advocates are hoping the administration will reject six pending requests to build new facilities, especially Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 facility on the Gulf Coast. If completed, it would be the region’s largest LNG facility, pumping out the annual emissions of 51 coal-fired power plants. 

Action in Congress 

There is still work to be done by Congress. Lawmakers have until December 20 to pass a spending bill to fund the federal government. This package could be an opportunity to squeeze in funding for land-management agencies, like the National Park Service, or pass last-minute environmental legislative packages, such as the EXPLORE Act, which expands access to the outdoors. House lawmakers passed a version of the bill in the summer. Now it only needs to get through the Senate to reach the president's desk. 

Smaller lands packages, like the effort to preserve Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or the Owyhee Canyonlands in Oregon, could also be included in the yet-to-be-passed National Defense Authorization Act. That bill, which sets annual funding for the armed forces, has typically had broad support and has been reauthorized every year for the past six decades. 

[houseofbrat]

When do you Think This war in gaza Will end? Do you believe This war can weak kamala Win The election? English is not my First language

This will be a long post.

One, I don't think the Gaza war will end this year. It's probably going to get worse given that Israel has invaded the West Bank. Netanyahu doesn't seem at all motivated to stop the war maneuvers in the near future. He's already attacked Lebanon. Now he's attacking the West Bank in addition to what is continuing to happen in Gaza.

Iran has shown a lot of restraint by not attacking back, so far. That's not going to last forever. It's hard to know when that will change, but I suspect it will. We start "eclipse season" next Tuesday, 03 September, and it'll last until 16 October. Big changes are coming in lots of different areas. Also, Mars moves into its (sidereal) debilitation sign, Cancer, on 20 October. What is most interesting about Mars' upcoming transit in Cancer is that a) it will be a long transit because Mars will go retrograde in early December and b) Mars will significantly aspect both Israel & Iran's charts.

Mars will transit Iran's 1st house and aspect its 4th house (home), 7th house (partnerships, allies, opposition), and 8th house (death, mortality, war).

Mars will transit Israel's 10th house (government, leadership, actions of the country), and aspect it's 1st house (national identity, collective personality), 4th house (home), and 5th house (national leader, education, youth/children, border disputes).

It's interesting that on 07 October 2023, Mars was transiting through (sidereal) Libra, which is Israel's 1st house, and hit the previous eclipse point when the attack by Hamas happened. I think given Mars' upcoming & long transit through Cancer that we're probably looking at more war happening in the Middle East, not less.

What is even more interesting is that Mars will retrograde out of (sidereal) Cancer and into (sidereal) Gemini on 20 January 2025, which is the inauguration of US President. I don't know if that portends a certain length to the any possible fighting between Israel & Iran, or if there's something about that particular person being inaugurated that might provoke a change. Won't know for sure until November.

It's not going to be Donald Trump or J.D. Vance being inaugurated. Neither of them have favorable charts for winning in November. They just don't. Kamala has a better chart for winning, but as I've said before, I don't think she's going to be the person being inaugurated on 20 January 2025 "because the person who does will die in office." I have not studied Kamala's chart thoroughly, but I do not have the impression that she will be dying in the next four years or less than that.

When it comes to Donald Trump, he has a ceiling of support in the polls. That is, no matter what has happened over the course of this year (including the assassination attempt on him), his level of support in the polls has never increased above a static level. The people who like him, support him, and are going to vote for him does not seem to have increased. It is his third time on the ballot in November, and all voters already have an opinion of him. He does not seem able to increase his base of support based on the events of this year, regardless of what has happened. That is a difficult position when it comes to the ballot box because the largest group of voters is not those registered to either the Democratic or Republican parties but independent voters, who generally do not have a professed preference for a political party. If Trump cannot appeal and win more independent voters, then it is literally impossible for him to win because there are not enough Republican voters to make up the difference.

Two, Kamala Harris is doing better in the polls, currently, than Joe Biden. However, she has some obvious weaknesses. She hasn't differentiated herself much from Joe Biden.

She also seems afraid of the press, given that she's only done one major interview (CNN) after becoming the nominee.

The problem with a bigger war in the Middle East (Israel & whomever else Israel is starting shit with) is that it will likely decrease enthusiasm and support for Kamala because she won't differentiate herself or her positions from Joe Biden. When a bigger war happens, and the US military is doing whatever it is that they are going to do with American tax dollars, for a boondoggle war that no one in Congress voted and approved. It's disheartening & angering for a lot of people.

One-third of the US navy is sitting in the Middle East. That's ONE-THIRD of the largest navy on earth. For a conflict that the vast majority of Americans want no part in and are not interested in seeing American servicemen (& servicewomen) being sacrificed.

So when the bullets start flying and the US military is involved in something so high profile, you bet that it will weaken Kamala as a candidate. Because what will be the future direction of US involvement in a Harris Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be that different from Joe Biden. Donald Trump isn't likely to change the US military involvement in the region, but his voters don't seem to care about that, based on what I've seen so far. Independent and Democratic voters are not interested in seeing the US participate in a wider war. When Kamala loses enthusiasm of her supporters, then her chances of winning in November will start to decrease.

Here are three videos from a tarot reader about Kamala.

This one is from 18 November 2020 on whether Kamala will ever be President.

This next one is from 09 December 2023.

And this one is from 19 November 2020.

One of my current thoughts is that the Democratic Party delegates voted/confirmed Kamala as the party's nominee virtually, as in they did it online/electronically instead of in person. The roll call vote that happened at Democratic National Convention (DNC) was purely ceremonial. If they can have one virtual vote, then another virtual vote can also happen.

Back in July, there was a lot of reporting in some news outlets about how many people privately within the Democratic Party did not think Kamala should be on the ticket. I think Gretchen Whitmer, the current governor of Michigan, was rumored to have told Kamala that she wasn't interested in being her VP. (Rumored, not publicly confirmed) Because those who aren't going to be affiliated with the Democratic ticket in 2024--if Kamala & Tim Walz lose--can have an easier time running for president in 2028 without being connected to an electoral loss.

This is the chart for the 2025 Presidential Inauguration:

There are two things I would point out of major relevance:

The Sun is conjunct Pluto within one degree and aspected by Mars.

Mars is debilitated and weak in Cancer.

The Sun is the indicator of the president. The aspect by Mars--even though it is retrograde and debilitated--indicates a likely act of violence, aggression, or some natural force against the life of the president. Given the recent failures of the Secret Service over the last ten years, this is very plausible. (Could also just be death by natural causes.) The close conjunction with Pluto--the god of death--likely confirms it. (Just my opinion at this point.) This is the only presidential chart that will have the Sun conjunct Pluto within one degree, probably ever.

The issue with Mars being debilitated is very different. It's the first time this has ever happened in a US Presidential administration chart since the inaugurations moved to January after 1932. Mars rules the 1st house in this chart, so it doesn't likely affect the administration as a whole. It's a unique feature. I'm not entirely sure what exactly it means, but what I've been thinking about lately is that this president may be seen by many as illegitimate. And if the Democrats end up switching Kamala for someone else, then, well, that may explain that debilitation of Mars in the 2025 inauguration chart and any perceived "illegitimacy."

Sounds crazy.

But it's been a crazy year.

And it's going to get even crazier sooner than later.

[simply-ivanka]

The Reinvention of Kamala Harris

Democrats stuck with Biden because they thought she was even weaker. Has that changed?

By Gerard Baker Wall Street Journal

The only real question for the 90 days remaining in this presidential campaign: Can Operation Transfiguration succeed?

Can the Democrats and a collaborative media pull off their recasting of Vice President Kamala Harris from the verbally maladroit, politically inept, ruinous-policy-espousing electoral dud we have all seen over the past five years into the holy trinity of Joan of Arc, Harriet Tubman and Margaret Thatcher we have been presented with in the past two weeks?

Can, shall we say, the protective phalanx of Democratic aides, strategists, fundraisers, reporters, editors, influencers and Taylor Swift persuade enough voters to imagine a presidential future of what can be, unburdened by the reality of the vice president, presidential candidate, senator and state attorney general that has been?

Time—or the lack of it—is the key to the operation’s success. I say 90 days but in practice they will need to keep the hype show on the road for just two months after an August of jubilees.

This week the hosannas will ring anew when Ms. Harris announces her vice-presidential nominee. It’s a sure bet that when the man is unveiled we will be treated to a week of gauzy newspaper accounts of his genius and kindliness. Television pundits will explain how the pair on the ticket represent the perfect distillation of American diversity. They will take their campaign on the road, Ms. Harris never more than a few feet away from her truly indispensable companion, the teleprompter, and a much safer distance from any enterprising reporter who may ask a difficult question.

Then we will have a week of a Democratic convention like no other. It will open with Biden Night (only one), when the withered man the party has just knifed will be hoisted aloft before adoring delegates and media panegyrists and hailed as Mount Rushmore-ready. Then, three nights of tributes to the Pantsuit Pericles bidding to run the country for the next four years, culminating in a peroration that will leave White House correspondents weeping.

Operation Transfiguration may be the most audacious plan a political party has ever undertaken. It requires the effective deployment of the full toolkit of press and social media deception: selective editorial amnesia, gaslighting, memory-holing. The whole campaign is the political and media equivalent of answering every question voters may have about the pre-July 21 Ms. Harris with “404 Error Page Not Found.”

If you think I’m overstating the extent to which Ms. Harris is being reclothed, cast your mind back oh so many weeks ago, before President Biden self-immolated at the presidential debate, before a would-be assassin nearly took down Donald Trump, before Mr. Biden was bundled out of the race—to late June, a political epoch away, when polling, punditry and political logic all told us the same thing: Ms. Harris was a loser. Her approval rating had been hovering lower even than Mr. Biden’s for most of the past few years. Many Democrats were saying privately—and some publicly—that if Mr. Biden were jettisoned from the ticket, there should be an accelerated primary contest because they couldn’t risk letting the vice president simply ascend to the job.

We are all familiar with why that was: memories of Ms. Harris’s political identity as the most liberal member of a Senate that included Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; a presidential campaign five years ago in which she pledged to eliminate private health insurance, ban fracking, give benefits to illegal immigrants, and force gun owners to sell certain firearms to the government; more recent recollections of her San Francisco-bred extremism such as when she helped raise money for the legal defense of rioters and looters in the summer of 2020; and her role in helping Mr. Biden deliver a long list of economic, social and national-security failures for the country—most obviously at the border.

All this is why so many Democrats were alarmed at the thought of a Harris nomination, the same nomination they now trumpet as triumphant.

Only two things can derail Operation Transfiguration: The first is a focused, disciplined and relentless Republican campaign that raises the debate above the vacuity of social-media memes and reminds voters that the Democratic candidate is the same person—and her party is the same party—that she was two weeks ago. If the election is decided on the issues, on voters’ perceptions of the state of the country, Ms. Harris is surely in as much trouble as Mr. Biden was. If the campaign is dominated by pointless assertions about Ms. Harris’s racial identity or her maternal status or all the other entertaining little diversions Mr. Trump likes to indulge, she may get away with skating past the realities of her past.

The other is the media. Are they really going to guide this campaign gently across the finish line? Is there anyone left beyond hostile outlets with a modicum of journalist dignity who is prepared to ask serious questions, do serious reporting, demand a press conference or two? Or are they all intent on doing what they nearly got away with doing for Mr. Biden the last few years and cover for someone evidently incapable of holding office?

Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the August 6, 2024, print edition as 'The Reinvention of Kamala Harris'.

[feministfocus]

The 2024 Presidential Election: The Candidates’ Policies and Their Impact on Marginalized Groups

by Sofia Bocchino

Today, Americans know Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President of the United States, but what will we know her as after November 5th? The 2024 presidential election will be historic regardless of who wins, as Kamala Harris will be the first female candidate of color to make it this far into the election, and now the second woman running against former president Donald Trump.

Sources such as The New York Times indicate that this election is going to be close, where either candidate could win by a narrow margin. When considering who to vote for on election day, it is important for voters to educate themselves on the policies each candidate holds in order to make an informed decision to determine what the future of our country will look like. This is especially impactful for voters in swing states, who have the power to sway the state towards either candidate. Swing states also serve as a “battleground” for the competing parties, and according to NPR, where 75% or more of campaign funds are spent. It is crucial that Americans understand which candidates will protect their rights and best serve the country for the next four years.

Since Joe Biden dropped out of the race, Harris has worked tirelessly to continue progressive policies and restore freedom to marginalized communities. Her policies include restoring and protecting reproductive freedom, providing affordable housing, strengthening and bringing down the cost of health care, ensuring safety against gun violence and crime, fixing the immigration system, tackling the opioid and fentanyl crisis, protecting civil rights and freedoms, and so many more liberating policies that can be found on Harris’ website. For citizens who are less privileged and experience disadvantages due to lack of resources for issues they may be affected by, Kamala Harris proves to be the better choice for rebuilding the rights that these marginalized groups have been stripped of. According to Cambridge University Press, a recent study concluded that over 40.3% of U.S. citizens are politically, socially, and economically marginalized groups.

Although the 40.3% of Americans in marginalized groups still make up a little under half the population, that will increase with racial, gender, ethnic, and religious minorities, regardless of their income and privilege. Unlike Harris, Donald Trump’s policies are more conservative and radicalized, not taking into account the large percentage of the population that could be negatively impacted by what he is calling for, essentially a new system of government. Some of Trump’s policies include carrying out “the largest deportation in American history,” protecting the right to bear arms, cutting outsourcing, strengthening the military, cutting federal funding to schools which educate students on anything related to race, sexual orientation, or politics, keepinging men out of women’s sports, and determing women’s reproductive rights by states. All of these policies can be found on Trump’s website and The Washington Post.

These policies are directly targeted towards deporting immigrants, who, according to the American Immigration Council, make up 17% of the U.S. labor workforce, denying trangender people of basic equality and rights, and radicalizing the education system, leaving students uneducated on critical socio-political issues. With these policies in mind, it is important to consider how the Democratic or Republican parties in the running could affect the future of the United States of America. Conservative policies present limitations for minorities and intersecting marginalized groups, which together make up over half the population of the U.S. according to research conducted in 2020 by Census. If you are eligible to vote this year, please take into account how both candidates’ policies will not only affect you, but your friends, family, and most importantly, the country as a whole.

Harris’ policies serve as a beacon of hope to marginalized communities, minorities, and liberal groups in preserving their rights and access to better education, healthcare, housing, jobs, safety, and civil liberties. As I mentioned in the beginning of the article, this election is predicted to be close, and it is likely either candidate will win within the margins. It is important that swing state voters, single issue voters, and those undecided vote on November 5th, as every vote counts in the race to that will either progress our government forward or radicalize it.

From my perspective, I believe Harris has the ability to make a positive change in the U.S. government, and enforce policies that will positively impact the future of the country, helping to establish a fair balance between the majority and minority. If you are not yet eligible to vote, please educate your peers on the importance of voting and the policies each candidate plans to enact if elected. The future of the country is at the hands of its people, and it is our job to ensure everyone is granted their basic freedoms and rights as a human being, so if you are 18 or older on Tuesday, November 5th, please head to the polls and exercise your civic duty as an American citizen and vote, not only for your personal benefit, but for the benefit of all individuals who deserve the same rights, freedoms, justice, and equality.

[newstfionline]

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Nerves frayed in Canada and Mexico over US trade relations (BBC) As Americans prepare to vote for their next president, Canadians and Mexicans are watching on nervously. The two-way trade of goods between the US and Mexico totalled $807bn (£621bn) last year, making Mexico the US’s biggest trading partner when it comes to physical items. Meanwhile, the US’s goods trade with Canada in 2023 was in second place on $782bn. By comparison the figure for the US and China was $576bn. Mexico and Canada’s future trade with the US could be impacted if Donald Trump wins the US election. This is because he is proposing to introduce substantial import tariffs. These would be 60% for goods from China, and 20% on products from all other countries, apparently including Mexico and Canada. By contrast, Kamala Harris is widely expected to maintain the current more open trade policies of President Biden. This is despite the fact she voted against the 2020 United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) free trade deal, saying it didn’t go far enough on tackling climate change. Trump and Harris have “starkly different visions for the future of US economic relations with the world”, said one study in September.

Inside the Last-Ditch Hunt by Harris and Trump for Undecided Voters (NYT) Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump are carrying out a virtual house-to-house hunt for the final few voters who are still up for grabs, guided by months of painstaking research about these elusive Americans. Inside the Delaware headquarters of Ms. Harris’s campaign, analysts have spent 18 months curating a list of which television shows and podcasts voters consume in the battleground states. Her team has assigned every voter in these states a “contactability score” from 0 to 100 to determine just how hard that person will be to reach—and who is best to deliver her closing message. The results are guiding Ms. Harris’s media and travel schedule, as well as campaign stops by brand-name supporters. For instance, the movie star Julia Roberts and the basketball great Magic Johnson earned high marks among certain voters, so they have been deployed to swing states. At Mr. Trump’s headquarters, in South Florida, his team recently refreshed its model of the battleground electorate and found that just 5 percent of voters were still undecided, half as many as in August. The Trump team calls them the “target persuadables”—younger, more racially diverse people with lower incomes who tend to use streaming services and social media. Mr. Trump has made appearance after appearance on those platforms, including on podcasts aimed at young men.

A Nationwide Blackout, Now a Hurricane. How Much Can Cuba Endure? (NYT) The lights came back on Sunday night in Lidia Núñez Gómez’s Havana neighborhood—the first time since Friday morning—so she rushed to use her electric cooker to save the frozen chicken legs and pork her son had sent her from the United States. Meat is scarce, the power was sure to go out again soon, and Ms. Núñez, 81, needed to keep food from rotting. Her daughter, Nilza Valdés Núñez, 61, fury in her voice and tears in her eyes, took stock of months of power outages, plus food and gas shortages. With a hurricane slamming the eastern coast of the country and a four-day blackout that plunged the entire country into darkness, she summed up the past few days like this: “super bad.” “The lack of electricity, of gas, and all the other problems we have here,” Ms. Valdés said, pausing to weep, “make you feel bad.” Cuba, a Communist country long accustomed to shortages of all kinds and spotty electrical service, is in the throes of a crisis so severe that experts say it threatens to explode into social unrest.

Peru’s ex-president Toledo gets more than 20 years in prison in case linked to corruption scandal (AP) Peru’s former President Alejandro Toledo on Monday was sentenced to 20 years and six months in prison in a case involving Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which became synonymous with corruption across Latin America, where it paid millions of dollars in bribes to government officials and others. Authorities accused Toledo of accepting $35 million in bribes from Odebrecht in exchange for allowing the construction of a highway in the South American country. Odebrecht, which built some of Latin America’s most crucial infrastructure projects, admitted to U.S. authorities in 2016 to having bought government contracts throughout the region with generous bribes. The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice spun probes in several countries, including Mexico, Guatemala and Ecuador.

Once You Try a Four-Day Workweek, It’s Hard to Go Back (Bloomberg) Germany’s brief experiment with a four-day workweek is over, but for many of the businesses that participated, there’s no going back. “I don’t want to work on Fridays anymore. I just don’t,” says Sören Fricke, co-founder of event planner Solidsense. “Friday has actually become the third day of the weekend. You only work if there is no other option.” Solidsense is one of 45 companies that participated in the six-month trial, during which employees worked fewer hours but still received their full paycheck. In the end, 73% of the participants said they’re prepared to make the change permanent or extend the experiment.

Putin Brings Together Economies He Hopes Will Eclipse the West (NYT) After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the West imposed sweeping economic sanctions, cut its access to the global banking system, and sought to isolate Russia diplomatically from the rest of the world. But President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is determined to show the West that he has important allies on his side. This week Russia is hosting the so-called BRICS group—which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—in a gathering of emerging market countries. The meeting, which begins Tuesday, has expanded this year to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Its wonky name notwithstanding (it was coined by a Wall Street banker in 2001), BRICS now includes countries representing almost half the world’s population and more than 35 percent of global economic output, adjusted by purchasing power. The conference is intended to present a hefty showcase of economic might but also entice new countries into a coalition Russia hopes to build that would form a new world order not dominated by the West.

King Charles III ends first Australian visit by a reigning British monarch in 13 years (AP) King Charles III ends the first visit to Australia by a reigning British monarch in 13 years Tuesday as anti-monarchists hope the debate surrounding his journey is a step toward an Australian citizen becoming head of state. Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, watched dancers perform at a Sydney Indigenous community center. The couple used tongs to cook sausages at a community barbecue lunch at the central suburb of Parramatta and later shook the hands of well-wishers for the last time during their visit outside the Sydney Opera House. Their final engagement was an inspection of navy ships on Sydney Harbor in an event known as a fleet review. Charles’s trip to Australia was scaled down because he is undergoing cancer treatment. He arrives in Samoa on Wednesday.

Hug it out, but make it quick. New Zealand airport sets time limit on goodbyes (AP) Emotional farewells are a common sight at airports, but travelers leaving the New Zealand city of Dunedin will have to be quick. A new three-minute time limit on goodbye hugs in the airport’s drop-off area is intended to prevent lingering cuddles from causing traffic jams. “Max hug time three minutes,” warn signs outside the terminal, adding that those seeking “fonder farewells” should head to the airport’s parking lot instead. The cuddle cap was imposed in September to “keep things moving smoothly” in the redesigned passenger drop-off area outside the airport, CEO Dan De Bono told The Associated Press on Tuesday. It was the airport’s way of reminding people that the zone was for “quick farewells” only. But passengers need not worry unduly about enforcement. “We do not have hug police,” De Bono said. Visitors might, however, be asked to move their lingering embraces to the parking lot, where they can cuddle free of charge for up to 15 minutes.

Blinken heads to the Middle East for the 11th time since the Gaza war (AP) Secretary of State Antony Blinken is heading again to the Middle East, making his 11th trip to the region since the war in Gaza erupted last year and as Israel steps up attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The State Department said Blinken would depart Monday for a weeklong trip to Israel. His other stops are likely to include Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, officials say. Since the Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli response, Blinken has traveled to the Middle East 10 other times seeking an end to the crisis. His previous trips have yielded little in the way of ending hostilities, but he has managed to increase aid deliveries to Gaza in the past.

Israel’s wars are expensive (AP) On top of the grievous toll in human life and misery, Israel’s war against the Hamas and Hezbollah militant groups has been expensive, and the painfully high financial costs are raising concerns about the long-term effect of the fighting on the country’s economy. The Israeli government is spending much more per month on the military, from $1.8 billion before Hamas started the fighting by attacking Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, to around $4.7 billion by the end of last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In the three months after Hamas attacked, Israel’s economic output shrank 5.6%, the worst performance of any of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of mostly rich nations. The war has inflicted an even heavier toll on Gaza’s already broken economy, where 90% of the population has been displaced and the vast majority of the workforce is unemployed. The West Bank economy has also been hit hard, where tens of thousands of Palestinian laborers lost their jobs in Israel after Oct. 7 and Israeli military raids and checkpoints have hindered movement. The World Bank says the West Bank economy contracted by 25% in the first quarter.

The fear, loathing and excitement surrounding AI in the workplace (AP) Artificial intelligence’s recent rise to the forefront of business has left most office workers wondering how often they should use the technology and whether a computer will eventually replace them. Those were among the highlights of a recent study conducted by the workplace communications platform Slack. After conducting in-depth interviews with 5,000 desktop workers, Slack concluded there are five types of AI personalities in the workplace: “The Maximalist” who regularly uses AI on their jobs; “The Underground” who covertly uses AI; “The Rebel,” who abhors AI; “The Superfan” who is excited about AI but still hasn’t used it; and “The Observer” who is taking a wait-and-see approach.

[mightyflamethrower]

One of the few people with a literal front-row seat to be able to judge how well Joe Biden is performing since his disastrous debate appearance is ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos. He was the person granted the first post-debate interview with Biden, where the President performed a bit better than he did during the debate, but really not all that much.

So what did Stephanopoulos personally think of the President's cognitive abilities and whether or not he should still be running for a second term? Apparently he wasn't impressed. He was caught on camera while walking in Manhattan this week when a random pedestrian asked him whether or not Biden should step down. He responded by saying that he doesn't think that Biden can serve four more years. We should note up front that he did not say this in his official capacity as an ABC News anchor. (NY Post)

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos admitted Tuesday that he does not believe President Biden can serve out a second term — days after conducting a closely watched interview with the commander-in-chief following his disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump last month. Stephanopoulos, 63, was recorded by TMZ answering a question from a passer-by about Biden’s political future in midtown Manhattan. “Do you think Biden should step down?” the anonymous interrogator asked the “Good Morning America” co-host and “This Week” moderator. “You’ve talked to him more than anybody else has lately.” “I don’t think he can serve four more years,” the soft-spoken Stephanopoulos responded after a pause.

Stephanopoulos almost immediately regretted answering the question, which is understandable. He said, “Earlier today I responded to a question from a passerby. I shouldn’t have." ABC News initially didn't have any comment on the exchange, but later came out to state that the anchor had "expressed his own point of view" and that it did not reflect the position of ABC. 

It would be easy enough to say that George Stephanopoulos simply screwed up by expressing such an opinion in public. After all, his professional occupation requires him to at least attempt to maintain the appearance of objectivity and a lack of bias. Also, he is a well-known television personality and he should clearly be aware that no matter where you go in public these days, somebody is going to be filming whatever is going on with their cell phones. Perhaps he was just distracted in the moment.

But at the same time, he's a thinking, breathing human being. He clearly must have opinions of his own. His previous history as an apparatchik of the Clintons suggests that he leans heavily toward the Democrats and liberals, most likely including Joe Biden. He had the chance to sit down for nearly half an hour with the President and question him directly while observing the responses he received. How would he not come away with the impression that Joe Biden is a cognitive mess who will be lucky to make it through the next four months, to say nothing of four more years beyond that? That's the impression being held by most people, including those in Biden's own party.

I tuned in to ABC News for a little while this morning to see how they are handling the situation. They don't seem to be talking about it very much. There almost seems to be a sense of resignation in the air. Most of their on-air staff would no doubt likely be cheering for Joe Biden, but he's still not capable of generating much enthusiasm among the normally loyal press pool. It appears increasingly likely that Biden will simply refuse to step aside and release his delegates. And if that's the case, the left is probably stuck with him for better or worse. And "worse" is looking more and more likely based on Donald Trump's most recent poll numbers. Here's to hoping those numbers hold all the way through to November.

[galerymod]

Should an American president engage in criminal activities while in office and then attempt to cover them up by presenting them as official business, he will remain unpunished.

It is a matter of concern that the more intelligent and criminal a future American president, regardless of party, may be, the greater the likelihood of them being able to avoid prosecution.

This represents a significant challenge to the integrity of the American justice system. It also raises concerns about the future of American democracy.

The highest court of the United States of America has once again demonstrated that it is not neutral in its decisions.

Any impartial jurist will question what the next step might be for those who have been granted such a favourable outcome. This could include acquittal for white collar crimes, bribery, and other forms of criminal activity.

Such a scenario would be beneficial for those who have been accused of such offences and who are seeking to become president.

mod

Update from July 1, 4:47 p.m.: The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the immunity of US presidents from criminal prosecution. The President enjoys partial, but not complete immunity. It is a partial victory for Donald Trump.

On the question of whether former presidents are protected from prosecution, the court in Washington ruled that immunity applies at least for official acts. This is likely to further delay the start of a possible trial against Trump for attempted election fraud. It is considered unlikely that the trial will start before the US election in November.

"The president does not enjoy immunity for his unofficial actions, and not everything the president does is official. The President is not above the law," the decision states. This leaves open which parts of the indictment against Trump still stand in Washington. The Supreme Court did not clarify this question. It is now up to the competent lower court to find out which actions Trump's immunity applies to. This is likely to be a lengthy process.

The ruling was made by six votes to three. The majority of judges, who are considered to be arch-conservative, agreed with the decision in principle. The three judges considered to be liberal dissented.

Supreme Court decides on immunity issue: Trump hopes for absolution

Initial report: Washington, D.C. - What is Donald Trump allowed to do? This question could be answered by the highest court on July 1. This is because the Supreme Court in the USA is ending its current session. The four outstanding rulings are due to be announced on Monday. This includes a decision on Trump, who wants to run again against incumbent Joe Biden in the 2024 US election in November. The 78-year-old had requested that he be granted "absolute presidential immunity" against criminal prosecution.

Trump is claiming immunity in criminal proceedings at federal level, among other things. The trial in the capital, Washington, is about his attempts to hold on to power after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. The special prosecutor in charge of the case, Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump in August 2023, rejects the former head of state's claim. The proceedings have been suspended until the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of immunity.

Does Donald Trump have "absolute" immunity? Supreme Court issues ruling

According to lower court rulings, a former president does not enjoy "absolute" immunity from prosecution. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over Trump's election fraud case, ruled that an incumbent president "cannot be given a lifelong carte blanche". A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals also later unanimously rejected Trump's claims and, according to ABC News, warned that "absolute presidential immunity" would ultimately "collapse our system of separation of powers".

At oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April, the court's conservative majority had indicated support for the notion that former presidents should enjoy some protection from prosecution in certain cases. However, the majority of the court was skeptical of Trump's demand for "absolute presidential immunity". After all, Trump's legal team had even argued that a president who orders the assassination of his political rival could also be protected from prosecution.

Supreme Court decision on Trump's "absolute" immunity: consequences for the US election

The decision on Trump's "absolute" immunity follows a potentially far-reaching ruling in favor of those who stormed the Capitol in Washington in 2021: After the attack on the parliament building, prosecutors had gone too far in some cases, the Supreme Court had ruled on Friday (June 28). The Court specifically overturned an indictment against former police officer Joseph Fischer, who had stormed the seat of Congress in Washington together with hundreds of other people.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman, The Star-Ledger

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 22, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Two major stories today seem to bring together both the past and the future of the country to chart a way forward.

The first involves a historic workers’ strike. A week ago, on Friday, September 15, after workers’ four-year contracts expired, the United Auto Workers union declared a limited and targeted work stoppage in which about 13,000 workers walked off the job at three Midwestern auto plants. For the first time in history, those walkouts included all three major automakers: workers left a General Motors plant in Missouri, a Stellantis (which includes Chrysler) plant in Ohio, and a Ford plant in Michigan. 

Workers accepted major concessions in 2007, when it appeared that auto manufacturers would go under. They agreed to accept a two-tier pay system in which workers hired after 2007 would have lower pay and worse benefits than those hired before 2007. But then the industry recovered, and automakers’ profits skyrocketed: Ford, for example, made more than $10 billion in profits in 2022.

Automakers’ chief executive officers’ pay has soared—GM CEO Mary Barra made almost $29 million in 2022—but workers’ wages and benefits have not. Barra, for example, makes 362 times the median GM employee’s paycheck, while autoworkers’ pay has fallen behind inflation by 19%. 

The new UAW president, Shawn Fain, ran on a promise to demand a rollback of the 2007 concessions in this summer’s contract negotiations. He wants a cap on temporary workers, pay increases of more than 40% to match the salary increases of the CEOs, a 32-hour workweek, cost of living adjustments, and an elimination of the tier system. 

But his position is not just about autoworkers; it is about all U.S. workers. “Our fight is not just for ourselves but for every worker who is being undervalued, for every retiree who’s given their all and feels forgotten, and for every future worker who deserves a fair chance at a prosperous life,” Fain said. “[W]e are all fed up of living in a world that values profits over people. We’re all fed up with seeing the rich get richer while the rest of us continue to just scrape by. We’re all fed up with corporate greed. And together, we’re going to fight to change it.”

Fain has withheld an endorsement for President Biden out of concern that the transition to electric vehicles, which are easier to build than gas-powered vehicles, will hurt union jobs, and out of anger that the administration has offered incentives to non-union plants. That criticism created an opening for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to announce he would visit Detroit next week to show autoworkers that he has “always had their back,” in hopes of winning back the support of Rust Belt states.

But for all his talk of being pro-worker, Trump recently attacked Fain, saying “The autoworkers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump.” Autoworkers note that Trump and the justices he put on the Supreme Court have been anti-union, and that he packed the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees labor laws and union elections, with officials who reduced the power of workers to organize. Before he left office, Trump tried to burrow ten anti-labor activists into the Federal Service Impasses Panel, the panel in charge of resolving disputes between unions and federal agencies when they cannot resolve issues in negotiations. 

Fain recently said: “Every fiber of our union is being poured into fighting the billionaire class and an economy that enriches people like Donald Trump at the expense of workers.” 

President Biden prides himself on his pro-union credentials, and as soon as he took office, he fired Trump’s burrowed employees, prompting the head of the union representing 700,000 federal employees to thank Biden for his attempt to “restore basic fairness for federal workers.” He said, “The outgoing panel, appointed by the previous administration and stacked with transparently biased union-busters, was notorious for ignoring the law to gut workplace rights and further an extreme political agenda.”

Today, in the absence of a deal, the UAW expanded the strike to dozens more plants, and in a Facebook live stream, Fain invited “everyone who supports our cause to join us on the picket line from our friends and families all the way up to the president of the United States.” Biden has generally expressed support for the UAW, saying that the automakers should share their record profits with their workers, but Fain rebuffed the president’s offer to send Labor Secretary Julie Su and White House senior advisor Gene Sperling to help with negotiations. 

Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and John Fetterman (D-PA) have both visited Michigan to meet with UAW workers, but it was nonetheless a surprise when the White House announced that the president will travel on Tuesday to Michigan, where he will, as he posted on X, “join the picket line and stand in solidarity with the men and women of UAW as they fight for a fair share of the value they helped create. It’s time for a win-win agreement that keeps American auto manufacturing thriving with well-paid UAW jobs."

If President Biden is showing his support for the strong unions of the past, Vice President Kamala Harris is in charge of the future. The White House today announced the establishment of a National Office of Gun Violence Prevention, to be overseen by the vice president. 

Lately, Harris has been taking the lead in embracing change and appealing to younger voters. On September 9 she hosted a celebration honoring the 50th anniversary of hip hop, and she is currently in the midst of a tour of college campuses to urge young people to vote. She has been the administration’s leading voice on issues of reproductive rights and equality before the law, issues at the top of concerns of young Americans. Now adding gun safety to that list, she is picking up yet another issue crucially important to young people. 

When 26-year-old Representative Maxwell Frost (D-FL) introduced the president today, he said that he got involved in politics because he "didn't want to get shot in school."

If the president and the vice president today seemed to represent the past and the future to carry the country forward, the present was also in the news today, and that story was about corruption and the parties’ different approaches to it.

ProPublica has published yet another piece about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s connections to wealthy donors. Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski reported that Thomas attended at least two donor summits hosted by the Koch family, acting as a fundraising draw for the Koch network, but did not disclose the flights he accepted, which should have been considered gifts, or the hospitality associated with the trips. His appearances were coordinated with the help of Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, who has been behind the court’s rightward swing.

The Koch family network funds a wide range of right-wing political causes. It has had interests in a number of cases before the Supreme Court during Thomas’s term, including an upcoming challenge to the government’s ability to regulate businesses—a principle the Koch enterprises oppose. 

Republicans have been defending Thomas’s behavior since these stories began to surface. 

Also in the corruption file today is Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who, along with his wife, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in New York on three counts of conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion in connection with using his influence to advance the interests of Egypt. 

This is Menendez’s second legal go-round: in 2015 he was indicted on unrelated charges of bribery, trading political help for expensive plane flights and luxury vacations. Ten of the twelve members of the jury did not agree with the other two that he was guilty and after the hung jury meant a mistrial, the Department of Justice declined to retry the case. 

That the DOJ has indicted Menendez again on new charges undercuts Republicans’ insistence that the department has been weaponized to operate against them alone. And while Menendez insists he will fight the charges, he has lost his position at the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the rules of the Democratic Conference, and New Jersey Democratic leaders have already called on him to resign.

“So a Democratic Senator is indicted on serious charges, and no Democrats attacking the Justice Department, no Democrats attacking the prosecutors, no Democrats calling for an investigation of the prosecution, and no Democrats calling to defund the Justice Department,” wrote former Republican representative from Illinois and now anti-Trump activist Joe Walsh. 

“Weird, huh?”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz for MSNBC:

The cycle of lies that drove the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection is again underway. Five months before the 2024 election, claims that only fraud could explain a future Donald Trump defeat are already commonplace in the right-wing media ecosystem. Fox News stars and Trumpist influencers are priming their audiences to listen if Trump once again claims an election was “rigged” against him — and to come to his aid.

Twice last week, Greg Gutfeld told viewers of “The Five,” Fox News’ most-watched broadcast, that the public will only believe the 2024 results are legitimate if President Joe Biden loses. “If they aren’t that worried that Joe’s going to lose, given his sorry state, what are they planning? What are they doing to save the day?” Gutfeld asked June 13. He added that if “by some weird, miraculous chance” Biden wins, “how do you convince anyone that’s real? Have they even thought of that?” He concluded, “Even the Dems behind the scenes better hope he doesn’t win because no one’s going to believe it.” Gutfeld reiterated the point the next day, saying that if Democrats “somehow pull this out” by using “shenanigans” to win, “you’re going to deal with a public that doesn’t buy the election.” That same week, Gutfeld’s colleague Jesse Watters used his prime-time show to call for banning ballot drop boxes on the grounds that they are “ripe for fraud” and to warn of millions of undocumented immigrants voting. “Biden let 10 million illegal immigrants into this country,” Watters claimed (falsely). “How are we ever going to accept the results of the election in this kind of landscape?”

This fear-mongering about the potential for election-changing fraud has been a consistent refrain all year on Fox News. “The Democrats are going to stop at nothing,” host Laura Ingraham declared in January. “If they can, they’re going to game the system or yeah, maybe even cheat.” 

While the network paid a heavy price for its election denial in 2020 — including a $787.5 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems — its hosts are under constant pressure from other Trumpist competitors who loudly claim that Democratic election-rigging is an indisputable fact. “There are no ‘issues’ with the 2020 election — they stole it,” former Trump adviser and right-wing podcast host Steve Bannon claimed in March. “The only way they defeat Trump is to steal it. The only way they defeat Trump is they steal it. The only way they defeat Trump is they steal it. He is unstoppable.” We saw four years ago that these disinformation campaigns can trigger horrific results. Trump’s plot to subvert the 2020 vote did not begin when he falsely declared victory in the hours after Election Day. By that point, the then-president and his right-wing media cronies had spent months preparing Republican voters not to accept a result that ended in his defeat. Outlets like Fox News relentlessly bombarded their audiences with misinformation about mail-in voting and election fraud. Trump in turn regularly promoted that bogus coverage, describing it as evidence that “Democrats are Rigging our 2020 Election!”

[...] All this suits Trump’s aims perfectly. Mimicking his right-wing propagandists, Trump told Time magazine in April that the only thing that can prevent him from winning “in record-setting fashion” is if Democrats rely on “the things that they did the last time.” He warned that if that happens, political violence from his supporters may be on the table. In other words, Trump is ready for another Jan. 6-style assault on democracy if one proves necessary. And propagandists in the right-wing media are laying the groundwork to ensure his plot’s success

Matt Gertz writes in a column on MSNBC’s site that Fox “News”, Newsmax, and Stephen Bannon, along with the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem, are planning a January 6th Insurrection: Part 2 if Joe Biden wins again in November with the same tired election denialist claims.

See Also:

MMFA: The right-wing media ecosystem is laying the groundwork for another January 6

[mariacallous]

Americans are already looking ahead to a second Donald Trump term. Now, imagine it where no one knows what’s happening within the administration.

The incoming Trump administration is promising a mass layoff of federal workers come January — an agenda that appears plucked directly from Project 2025, the extreme-right policy blueprint that GOP operatives, including many former Trump administration officials, compiled to guide Trump in a second term. 

It’s part of a quest to dismantle the so-called “deep state” bureaucracy that right-wingers claim has long conspired against the MAGA agenda. To that end, right-wing organizations, many led by former Trump officials, have spent the last few years inundating federal agencies with Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests, fishing for internal documents that identify federal employees working a variety of “culture war” issues, including climate change action and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or discussing the now President-elect Donald Trump. 

For a glimpse at how Trump and his allies are likely to use the documents, look no further than the right-wing American Accountability Foundation, which recently published a “watchlist” of 60 people at the Department of Homeland Security it identified as “subversive, leftist bureaucrats” who “cannot be trusted to enforce our immigration laws under a future administration intent on securing our border.”

At the same time that they are peppering FOIA offices with requests and demanding President Joe Biden’s officials promptly turn over documents, Trump loyalists are advising would-be appointees of the incoming administration on how to evade future FOIA requests, ones that might reveal the inner workings of the Trump agenda. 

In a Project 2025 training video obtained by ProPublica, Tom Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, encourages future government workers to avoid email and instead conduct government business in face-to-face meetings as much as possible, so as not to create a paper trail. 

The FOIA, the 1967 transparency law that allows the public to request records from federal agencies, has long been in shambles, with total requests, backlogs and lawsuits consistently surging amid chronic underfunding. The situation got worse during the first Trump administration and worse still under Biden. During Trump’s first term, federal agencies set a new record for censoring, blocking, and withholding FOIA requests. At least one department even proposed changing regulations to allow officials to deny “burdensome” requests and impose limits on how many requests could be made.

Combine Trump’s record of meddling with the FOIA during his first term and his current plans for “mass reductions in force” within federal agencies, and all signs point to the FOIA — along with government transparency — taking another huge hit over the next four years.

[whatsissue]

Donald Trump’s Sentencing Set for Jan. 10: What Could Happen Next?

Donald Trump’s Sentencing Set for Jan. 10: What Could Happen Next? As the legal landscape around Donald Trump continues to unfold, the judge in his hush money case has made a significant decision by scheduling sentencing for January 10, just days before his inauguration. This unprecedented situation raises numerous questions about what could happen next, particularly regarding the implications of a felony conviction for a former and future U.S. president. Background of the Case Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment made to silence porn actor Stormy Daniels regarding an alleged affair. Trump denies any wrongdoing and has sought to have the conviction overturned. His sentencing was originally set for July 11 but was postponed multiple times, culminating in the latest scheduling after he won the presidential election. Key Developments and Judge's Ruling Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan denied Trump's request to dismiss the conviction and ordered him to appear for sentencing, either virtually or in person. The judge indicated that he may lean toward an unconditional discharge, which would resolve the case without imprisonment, fines, or probation, but would leave Trump with a felony conviction. Potential Sentencing Outcomes The potential penalties for Trump's charges range from fines and probation to up to four years in prison. However, the judge has suggested that an unconditional discharge is the most likely outcome, meaning Trump would not serve time but would still be considered a convicted felon. Appeal Possibilities Trump's legal team is exploring options to appeal the conviction and the judge's rulings. While the specifics of appealing certain decisions can be complex, former Judge Diane Kiesel noted that Friday’s ruling itself cannot be appealed. However, Trump's lawyers have indicated they may seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly regarding presidential immunity, based on arguments surrounding the high court's previous rulings. Prosecutors' Stance Prosecutors have remained largely silent on the recent ruling but had previously suggested options for the judge, including delaying sentencing until Trump left office. They expressed a desire for the judge to uphold the conviction but acknowledged that some of their proposed solutions were untenable. Implications for Trump’s Future If Trump is sentenced without prison time, he would still carry a felony conviction as he assumes the presidency again. This unique scenario raises significant questions about the future of his political career and the broader implications for the Republican Party. Conclusion As the January 10 sentencing approaches, the situation remains fluid and unpredictable. The outcomes could set important precedents in U.S. law, particularly concerning the intersection of criminal convictions and political office. The nation watches closely as Trump navigates this unprecedented legal challenge. Read the full article

[usadailynews24]

Porn Star Bribery: Trump Conviction Guaranteed, But Jail Time Less Likely

Now, everyone is wondering what will happen to Trump next. Some think he might not go to jail because of probation or appeals. This could take years, making jail time unlikely. The case also raises questions about Trump's future in politics, even though he can still run for president.

Introduction to the Case

The case against Trump has gotten a lot of attention. People are interested in the verdict and what it means for Trump and politics. It's a big deal for understanding bribery and its legal effects.

Key Takeaways

Donald Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the porn star bribery case.

The conviction carries a sentence of up to four years behind bars, but jail time is less likely due to potential probation and appeal.

The case involved a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels to conceal a sexual encounter with Trump.

There is no constitutional prohibition preventing a felon from running for president or serving in the White House.

The conviction has significant implications for Trump's political future and the concept of porn star bribery.

The trial lasted around six weeks to two months, with the jury deliberating for roughly 10 hours before reaching a decision.

The conviction is a prime example of the legal implications of porn star bribery and the concept of trump conviction guaranteed.

Understanding the Porn Star Bribery Case Background

The bribery scandal has highlighted a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, an adult film star. This case shows how former President Donald Trump is accused of corruption.

The story began with a series of deals and agreements. The prosecution will focus on proving the reliability of witnesses like Michael D. Cohen. They will show how a hush-money deal with Stormy Daniels is key to the case.

Some important points in the case are:

34 counts of falsifying business records related to the $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels

Trump's plea of not guilty to the charges

The prosecution's intention to question defendants based on prior judgments against Trump in cases involving sexual abuse, defamation, and fraud

This trial marks a historic moment, being the first against an American president. As the case progresses, we'll look at the evidence and witness statements. This will help us understand the bribery scandal's impact and what it might mean for Trump.Key PlayersRoleStormy DanielsAdult film actress and recipient of hush money paymentMichael D. CohenKey witness and former lawyer for Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFormer President of the United States and defendant in the case

Detailed Analysis of Legal Charges

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a serious crime. To get a trump conviction, prosecutors must prove Trump falsified records to hide another crime. This is a Class E felony in New York, with a possible sentence of up to four years in prison.

The presidential immunity doesn't apply here because these charges are based on state law.

The payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal add up to $280,000. Cohen got $420,000 in reimbursements from the Trump Organization. These deals are central to the felony crimes charges against Trump. The prosecution must show Trump knowingly falsified records to hide these payments.

The legal charges against Trump are complex and involve many aspects. Some important points include:

Trump is facing four criminal indictments, including the New York case.

The New York case involves 34 counts of falsifying business records.

The charge is a Class E felony in New York, punishable by up to four years in prison.

The case's outcome will depend on the prosecution's ability to prove the legal charges against Trump. If found guilty, Trump could face up to four years in prison. But, the presidential immunity and other factors might affect the final verdict.

Role of Michael Cohen and Key Testimonies

Michael Cohen, a former lawyer for Trump, played a big role in the case. He gave important testimony about the hush money deals he set up for Trump's 2016 campaign. Cohen's documents and evidence, like receipts and payment records, helped build the case against Trump. The legal consequences of these actions are serious, with possible corruption charges and a political scandal that could harm Trump's reputation.

Cohen said he made $525,000 in his first year with Trump in 2007. He was paid $420,000, including money for the Daniels deal, $50,000 for tech services, and a $60,000 bonus. The National Enquirer paid $30,000 for a story about Trump and $150,000 for a Playboy model's story. Cohen also paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. These deals have raised questions about the political scandal and possible corruption charges against Trump.

Cohen testified about the hush money deals he helped arrange for Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

Cohen earned $525,000 in his first year working for Trump in 2007.

Cohen reached a deal to buy Stormy Daniels' silence for $130,000.

Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for his payments relating to Stormy Daniels.

Cohen's testimony has big implications, with possible legal consequences for Trump and his team. The case shows how important it is to be transparent and accountable in politics. It also highlights the need to stop corruption charges and political scandals from hurting our democracy.TransactionAmountNational Enquirer story about Trump$30,000Playboy model's story$150,000Stormy Daniels' silence$130,000

Porn Star Bribery: Trump Conviction Guaranteed, But Jail Time Less Likely

Donald J. Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. This has big legal implications for him. Many think he might go to jail, but experts say it's unlikely.

The bribery scandal involving Trump and Stormy Daniels has been a big deal. The Manhattan district attorney's office built a strong case against him. This conviction could change Trump's political future a lot.

The conviction of Trump on all 34 counts of falsifying business records

The potential sentencing guidelines, which call for up to four years in prison

The trump conviction guaranteed outcome and its implications for Trump's political future

The bribery scandal surrounding the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels

Everyone is watching this case closely. They want to know what the legal implications are. As sentencing gets closer, we'll see if Trump will go to jail. The bribery scandal has already hurt Trump a lot. This conviction will likely have big effects.

Prosecution's Strategy and Evidence Chain

The prosecution is using a strong evidence chain against Donald Trump. This includes financial records and communication evidence. They aim to show a clear pattern of Trump's actions.

Key parts of their strategy are:

Financial records that show money flow and possible laundering.

Communication like emails and texts that show Trump's interactions.

Proof of a pattern of behavior by Trump, showing a possible larger crime.

The prosecution wants to fully understand the alleged crimes. They believe this will strengthen their case against Trump. The evidence chain is key to proving Trump's guilt.

The use of financial and communication evidence will paint a detailed picture. This will help the jury make a well-informed decision. As the trial goes on, the importance of a strong strategy and evidence chain will be clear.Type of EvidenceDescriptionFinancial Transaction RecordsDocuments showing the flow of funds and potential money laundering activities.Communication EvidenceRecords of emails, phone calls, and text messages between Trump, his associates, and other parties involved.Pattern of Behavior DocumentationRecords of repeated actions and decisions made by Trump, potentially indicative of a larger conspiracy.

Defense Team's Counter Arguments

The defense team has made several counter arguments against the conviction. They focus on the legal implications of the case. They also bring up the issue of presidential immunity, which could change the case's outcome. The team argues that the prosecution's evidence is not strong enough to prove Trump's guilt.

Some key points from the defense team are:

The conviction is based on falsified business records, which is a minor offense compared to other crimes.

The prosecution's evidence is largely circumstantial and does not provide direct proof of Trump's involvement in the hush money payment.

The case is an example of lawfare, where the legal system is being used as a political tool to target Trump.

The defense team suggests overturning the conviction and dismissing the indictment. However, the prosecution has other options. They could freeze the case until Trump leaves office in 2029 or close it without a sentence due to presidential immunity. The defense team believes the only right choice is to overturn the conviction and dismiss the indictment, due to the case's legal implications.

The case has sparked a lot of debate. Many Republican officials and Trump advisors worry about the weaponized scales of justice and the legal system's abuse against Trump. The counter arguments from the defense team show the case's complexity and the need to think about the legal implications of the conviction.

Legal Precedents in Similar Cases

Looking at the case against Donald Trump, we must think about legal precedents in similar cases. Past cases of historical political corruption show us how these matters are usually handled. The sentencing patterns in these cases give us clues about what might happen next.

Looking back, sentencing patterns have been all over the map. Sometimes, defendants got off easy, while others faced harsher penalties. Knowing these legal precedents helps us guess what might happen with Trump's case.

Some big historical political corruption cases include Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. These examples show how legal precedents shape similar cases. The sentencing patterns in these cases offer hints about what Trump might face.

The table below shows some key historical political corruption cases and their sentencing patterns:CaseSentenceRichard NixonPardonedBill ClintonImpeached, but not removed from officeOther notable casesVarying sentences, including fines and imprisonment

By looking at these legal precedents and sentencing patterns, we can better understand Trump's case. As the case unfolds, it's key to keep these points in mind and how they might shape the outcome.

Potential Sentencing Scenarios

The case against Trump is complex. We need to look at the possible sentences, including the maximum penalties and likely recommendations. The charges could lead to up to four years in prison for falsifying business records in New York.

Factors that could lessen the punishment are important. On the other hand, the prosecution aims for the highest penalties. The judge's decision will depend on the case's details and the law.

Maximum Penalties Under Law

The penalties for Trump's charges are severe. He could face up to 20 years in prison for the most serious offenses. But, the actual sentence will depend on the offense's severity and Trump's past record.

Likely Sentence Recommendations

The recommended sentences for Trump's charges are likely to be harsh. The prosecution will seek the maximum penalties. Meanwhile, Trump's defense will push for a lighter sentence. The judge's final decision will be based on the case's specifics and the law.

Mitigating Factors

Factors that could lessen Trump's sentence include a clean record and cooperation with authorities. His legal team might argue that he has been cooperative and that the charges are politically motivated. This could help reduce his sentence.ChargeMaximum PenaltyLikely Sentence RecommendationMitigating FactorsFalsifying business recordsUp to 4 years in prison1-3 years in prisonLack of prior convictions, cooperation with authoritiesMore serious chargesUp to 20 years in prison5-10 years in prisonSeverity of the offense, defendant's prior record

In conclusion, Trump's sentencing is complex. It depends on many factors, including the maximum penalties, likely recommendations, and mitigating factors. The judge's decision will be crucial, based on the law and the case's details.

Political Implications of Conviction

The conviction of Donald Trump has big political implications for his administration and the presidency. People have mixed reactions, with some calling the charges political and others seeing it as a victory for justice.

This conviction has raised questions about what might happen next for the Trump administration. It could lead to impeachment or more legal trouble. The case shows the need for honesty and accountability in government.

Some key reactions to the verdict include:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell expects the conviction to be overturned on appeal.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters and other Democrats stress the importance of the rule of law in Trump's verdict.

Republican speaker Mike Johnson calls the verdict a political move to silence dissent.

The case has also affected Trump's campaign, with donations coming in and many supporters staying loyal. An ABC-Ipsos poll showed 80% of Trump’s supporters would still back him, even if he was found guilty of a felony.

The political implications of the conviction will likely be far-reaching. They could affect the Trump administration, the presidency, and the next election. As the case continues, we'll see more reactions from politicians and the public.ReactionPersonExpecting conviction to be overturned on appealMitch McConnellHighlighting importance of rule of lawMaxine WatersCriticizing verdict as political exerciseMike Johnson

Impact on Trump's Political Future

The recent conviction of Donald Trump has sparked a lot of debate. People are wondering how it will affect his political future, especially with the presidential election coming up. Experts say the impact could be complex, with some thinking it might not affect voters much because of fast news.

But others believe the conviction could change how Republicans see Trump. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that only 4% of Trump's supporters would stop supporting him if he's convicted. Another 16% might think about it.

The following table summarizes the potential impact of the conviction on Trump's political future:Potential ImpactPercentage of SupportersWithdraw support4%Reconsider support16%No change in support80%

The real impact on Trump's future will depend on many things. This includes the sentence he gets and how his supporters react. As the election gets closer, the conviction will likely keep being a big topic of discussion.

Public Opinion and Media Response

The public opinion on Trump's conviction is mixed. Some think it's a big hit to his campaign, while others see it as a small bump. The media response has been strong, with many outlets diving into what it means for Trump's future.

The conviction has led to a big debate on presidential corruption and accountability. Many want Trump to face the consequences of his actions. Others think it's a political witch hunt. The trump conviction also makes people wonder about its effect on the 2024 election.

Some important points about public opinion and media response are:

The media has covered the conviction a lot, offering detailed analysis and opinions.

People are split, with some backing Trump and others against him.

The conviction has brought up big questions about corruption and accountability in the presidency.

TopicPublic OpinionMedia ResponseTrump ConvictionDividedIntense coverage and analysisPresidential CorruptionConcerned about accountabilityDebate about the need for reform

Conclusion

The conviction of Donald Trump in the porn star bribery case has big implications. It goes beyond just the legal outcome. The former president might face jail time, which could change the political scene a lot.

This verdict shows what happens when power is abused. It sets a new standard for the American democratic system. It shows that corruption has real consequences.

Even if Trump doesn't go to jail, his conviction will still affect the 2024 presidential election. A poll found that 20% of his supporters might switch sides. This could weaken the Republican Party's grip on power.

The outcome of this case is a test for American justice and the rule of law. The nation is watching to see if justice will win out. Or if power and influence will keep shaping politics.

FAQ

What is the porn star bribery case against Trump?

The case involves an alleged payment to Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star. This was to keep her quiet about an affair with Donald Trump before he was president. It has big legal and political issues for Trump.

Is Trump's conviction in the porn star bribery case guaranteed?

Yes, Trump's conviction seems very likely based on the evidence. But, whether he'll go to jail is still up in the air. Lawyers are still figuring out the sentencing.

What role did Michael Cohen play in the porn star bribery case?

Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, was key in the case. He gave documents and testimony that support the claims against Trump. This could really affect the case.

What are the potential legal consequences for Trump if he is convicted in the porn star bribery case?

If found guilty, Trump could face fines, probation, or even jail. The exact punishment is still being looked at. But, a conviction could change Trump's political future and presidency.

How has the prosecution built its case against Trump in the porn star bribery case?

The prosecution used financial records, communication evidence, and behavior patterns. This evidence is crucial for their case against Trump.

What are the defense team's counter arguments in the porn star bribery case?

The defense says Trump might be immune from prosecution because of his presidency. They also point out the case's political nature. But, experts say the charges are serious and could still have big consequences.

How do the legal precedents in similar cases compare to the porn star bribery case against Trump?

Experts have looked at similar cases to understand the porn star bribery case. They've studied historical corruption cases and financial crime sentences. These examples help grasp the case's potential impact.

What are the potential political implications of Trump's conviction in the porn star bribery case?

Trump's conviction could greatly affect his presidency and the political scene. It could change how people see him, impact party support, and alter the presidency's image.

[swldx]

Voice of America 0414 4 Jan 2024

9775Khz 0358 4 JAN 2024 - VOICE OF AMERICA (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) in ENGLISH from MOPENG HILL. SINPO = 55233. English, "VoA One" Music in progress. @0400z "Worldwide News Update" anchored by Alexis Strope. § U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson retained the speakership in a first-round ballot Friday, as the 119th Congress came into session. Johnson won 218 votes, just enough to keep his job. Both the House and the Senate enter the new session with Republicans in the majority, the party having taken control from Democrats in the Senate. In that chamber, Senator Mitch McConnell has stepped away from party leadership for the first time in 18 years. Senator John Thune already has been selected to replace him as majority leader. § In an extraordinary turn, a judge Friday set President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money case for Jan. 10, just 10 days before he's due to return to the White House, but indicated he wouldn't be jailed. The development nevertheless leaves Trump on course to be the first president to take office convicted of felony crimes. Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, signaled in a written decision that he'd sentence the former and future president to what's known as a conditional discharge, in which a case is closed without jail time, a fine or probation. § A Finnish court on Friday denied a request for the release of an oil tanker suspected by police of damaging an undersea power line and four telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea last week. Finland on Dec. 26 seized the Eagle S tanker carrying Russian oil on suspicion that it damaged the Finnish-Estonian Estlink 2 power line and the telecoms cables the previous day by dragging its anchor across the seabed. § Alcoholic drinks should carry a warning about cancer risks on their label, the U.S. surgeon general said Friday in a move that could signal a shift toward more aggressive tobacco-style regulation for the sector. U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said alcohol consumption increases the risk of at least seven types of cancer, including breast, colon and liver cancer, but most U.S. consumers remain unaware of this. § President Joe Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, will make his final visit to India next week to emphasize Washington's partnership with New Delhi, the White House announced Friday. The visit will cap the Biden administration's efforts to maximize ties with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, in its strategic focus to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. Strengthening ties with India has been a "real foreign policy priority and area of legacy achievement for the Biden administration," a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity in a briefing to reporters Friday. @0405z "VoA One" continues , DJ'd by "DJ Lady". Backyard gutter antenna w/MFJ-1020C active antenna (used as a preamplifier/preselector), JRC NRD-535D, 100kW, beamAz 350°, bearing 84°. Received at Plymouth, United States, 14087KM from transmitter at Mopeng Hill. Local time: 2158.