#and then played a major social role for several presidencies afterward

[fictionadventurer]

The fun part of digging into history from multiple different sources is that you start to piece together information about people across different eras, until history starts to feel like a massive crossover event involving surprise guest stars.

For example:

The book about Lincoln's Cabinet presents William Seward as the expected Republican candidate for the 1860 election. As they discuss his backstory I'm like, "Oh, he's Seward the anti-slavery New York Whig who influenced Zachary Taylor." And then they mention Seward becomes Lincoln's Secretary of State.

And I'm like

Wait a minute...

SEWARD'S FOLLY???

HE'S BEEN THE ALASKA MAN THIS WHOLE TIME???

An emergency trip to Wikipedia confirmed that he was. Which feels much stranger than it probably should, but in high school, all the Alaska stuff was presented as completely separate from the Civil War, so it's taken me a long time to put the pieces together. Still kind of fun to make connections like that, though.

[edie-k]

Legally Ginger - Prologue (PG-13, Romione)

Now, for something totally different...

Title: Legally Ginger

Chapter 1/9

Rating: PG-13 (I use fuck more than the MPAA allows for PG-13 but that's a stupid rule - there's no explicit content)

Pairing: Romione endgame

Summary: When Ron Weasley's college girlfriend declines his proposal because he doesn't meet her standard for future husband, he decides comes up with a plan to let her see him in a new light.

Notes: This is an AU Muggle reimagination of Legally Blonde. It's very different than anything I have ever written - and my first chapter story. I intend to update each Monday.

Thank you to adnei for all of her beta feedback!

While I really enjoy Legally Blonde, it has some things that need a bit of updating or calling out in the year 2021. This fic will attempt to do those things but not lose the fun and fluffiness of the concept.

Also... I love the pop culture/time capsule references of the movie so plan to see that same vibe in this fic. If any of them are unclear to you, let me know in the comments because I love to talk pop culture!

Finally, lots of our favorites are scheduled to appear throughout the story - I eagerly anticipate all guesses as to who will be who!

Disclaimer: Neither Harry Potter or Legally Blonde or any of their characters are owned by me and are not being used for profit.

Link to AO3 or click below to read more.

“Hey Tim!” Ron Weasley shouted, raising his hand to greet the guy behind the coffee cart but not breaking his stride.

“Hey Ron! Thanks for that recommendation. She loved it!”

Ron grinned and kept on running his recreational route that wove through the Los Angeles campus of California University. Even though his cross country career had come to an end with the conclusion of his senior season this fall, he didn’t intend to let his personal records slip. In fact, he was almost working harder. If everything went according to plan tonight, he planned to be competing in the iconic Boston Marathon next April.

“Ron! We still on to study tomorrow?” shouted his chem lab partner Kelsey as he strode past her.

“Yep! We’re going to rock that test out!”

“Hi Ron!” he heard a few female voices chorus together as he passed the Zeta Beta house. Several girls were doing yoga out on the front lawn.

“Great form ladies!” he yelled back, grinning as he heard the giggles.

He grabbed his shirt to wipe his forehead and glanced at his watch. 4:30. He was approaching the house and he had time to do some cool down stretches, shower, check that they had enough brothers to cover the Animal Aid fundraiser tomorrow, send his Econ professor his problem set, and dress for dinner before he had to leave for the Delta Nu house.

He slowed to a jog as his feet hit the driveway. He took the porch steps two at a time before entering the house. Immediately, he was greeted by a snort.

“Pig! Good boy,” he greeted, scratching the pug behind his ears.

“Come on boy,” he said, starting up the house stairs to his room, Pig following dutifully behind. As president, he lucked out with his own room with an en-suite bathroom but as was typical for his life, it wasn’t empty.

“Hey brother brother!” two voices said.

Ron rolled his eyes at the twins. “That joke will never be funny.” Fred and George grinned, one sprawled on his bed and one in his desk chair.

“We just have this last semester to even make the joke. Afterwards, it’ll be pathetic,” Fred said.

“That 40k is so close I can taste it,” said George.

His twin brothers were two years older than him, however, they’d dropped out after their sophomore year to open a retail shop selling joke and novelty items. They quickly realized they were more interested in conducting their own research and development; manufacturing their own products to distribute and sell. It was certainly more profitable. In order to get the seed money, they returned to college after two years. Their schooling, like Ron’s, was financed by his Aunt Muriel and upon receiving their bachelors degree, Muriel also handed over a $20,000 cash gift. The crotchety old broad put a lot of value on their schooling.

“And little Ronniekins is going to spend his on a girl,” Fred teased. It was then that he noticed Fred was fiddling with the small gray ring box that had previously been hidden in Ron’s sock drawer. He moved to snatch it back but Fred tossed it across the room to George.

Ron frowned. “First, I’m not spending it all on a girl. Part of it will be for the wedding and the rest I’ll save for a down payment on a house. Maybe not in Boston because we may not stay there after she finishes law school.”

“Oh yes, Bah-stan,” George mocked in a truly terrible accent.

“Yes. She’s sure that it’ll happen. She’s a legacy or something like that. I hope so because I think Boston Beer Company is going to make me an offer.”

“Free Sam Adams? I’ll take it,” Fred nodded.

“Secondly,” said Ron. “She’s not just a girl.”

The twins groaned. “Ugh, Ronnie, there’s no free beer yet. I can’t listen to this sober.”

Ron rolled his eyes.

“I have to ask,” started George. “Are you sure about this? You’re so young and it hasn’t been that long. You could still go to Boston with her without getting engaged.”

While it was annoying to get another “you’re too young” speech, it wasn’t often that his brothers asked him a serious question. “I’m sure. She’s the one.”

“Well then,” said George, flipping the box to him. “Go get her.”

A few hours later, he was shifting nervously in his seat at their table at Chaudron Qui Fuitfont, playing with the same gray ring box in his pocket. The dinner course had been cleared and they were now waiting for dessert to arrive as well as the bottle of champagne he’d surreptitiously requested.

“Astoria, have I told you that you look absolutely breathtaking tonight?”

“Just three or four times,” she laughed.

“Well, I might tell you a few more,” Ron said.

“It’s not everyday that you put so much effort into a date. I had to deliver on my side as well,” Astoria replied.

“It’s appreciated,” Ron smiled. “I-I appreciate everything about you. How gorgeous you are, how driven… the past 18 months with you has really made me sit down and focus on what I want for my future, you know?”

“That’s great, Ron,” Astoria said, reaching across the table to give his hand a squeeze. She glanced around him. “I want another glass of Merlot.”

“Yeah. You know I’m in the final stages for jobs at three companies,” he said.

“Mmm,” she said distractedly.

“Including Boston Beer Company,” he added.

“That’s a reputable company. Although make sure the job isn’t on the Truly brand. They’ll never get the market from White Claw. Mark my words, they’ll fizzle in two years.”

“Astoria, I see my future with you.”

She looked up at him sharply. “What?”

“Yes. I love you. I’m ready to start the next stage of our relationship. Astoria - ” Ron stood up, pulling the ring box out.

“No.”

“Will you marry me?” Ron asked, kneeling next to her.

“No, now get up.”

Ron’s blood suddenly ran cold. “Wha-what?”

“I said, no, now sit down.” He numbly followed her direction.

“Ron,” Astoria sighed. “Oh, honey, I’m sorry.”

“But… why?”

Astoria gave him a pitying look. “Look, we have had so much fun. You’re a great guy.”

“Great guy? You told me you loved me,” he hissed, trying to keep his voice low to avoid more embarrassment.

“And I do. As a college boyfriend. You are a great college boyfriend. You’re president of the second best fraternity on campus so you get all the best party invites. You’re on the cross country team so I can tell everyone I’m dating a Division I athlete, but you aren’t in one of those sports where it like, takes up all your time. You had a cool internship, everybody on campus loves you because you volunteer and help and you’re nice to everyone, even the janitors. You’re sweet and you’ve got a great body and you… you know,” she dropped her voice now “always deliver on what’s promised. You’ve been the perfect person to spend the last few semesters with.”

“I… I don’t understand what the problem is. I sound great from what you’re saying,” Ron seethed, frustration clear in his tone.

“I need a man for the next part of my life. Not a frat boy, not even if he doesn’t exactly fit the stereotype. I’m going to Harvard Law School in the fall. Do you understand how big of a deal that is?”

“Yes! That’s why I am pursuing a job in Boston. To be with you.”

“At a beer company.”

“I’m not opening a bar with my buddies. It’s a research and development role at a major corporation!”

“You have a degree in food science,” Astoria replied, rolling her eyes.

“It’s not like we spend all our time eating. It’s a real field. I got an A in Organic Chemistry.”

“Org Chem with Murphy. The serious students take it with Professor Kettle.”

Ron just gaped at her.

“If I’m going to be a federal judge by the time I’m 40, I need to stop dicking around. And I’m sorry, you’re not a Marty Ginsberg.”

“Yeah, well, I’m not an Armie Hammer either. Feels like there’s some wiggle room between those two extremes.”

“You’re a great guy. And I’m sure you’ll be a great husband to a marketing specialist or a pharmaceutical sales rep. And maybe if I was going to go to Wayne State or Northwestern, things would be different. But this is Harvard Law. There are just… expectations that any potential spouse meet a certain intellectual bar. Or at least a social bar. I mean, my sister is engaged to a Kennedy!”

At that point, the waiter approached the table with their desserts. Astoria stood up. “I’m really sorry. I’ll just call an Uber.” She paused and kissed him on the cheek before exiting the dining room.

“Uh, should I wrap these to go?” asked the waiter as Ron watched Astoria leave.

[uncloseted]

my mom keeps badgering me about the capital event bc i really hated it but i support the blm protests and she says it’s hypocritical of me bc the protests were just as “violent” as the capital and “caused lots of deaths”. i never really have anything to say back to justify what went down, do you have any info i could use to explain myself? i know they were for completely different causes and one actually matters, but i don’t know how to justify the “violence” (i personally don’t think a majority of them were violent, all the ones where i lived were routinely peaceful and i think the extreme ones were sensationalized for the news). anyway sorry if it’s dumb i’m 14 and just trying to get into politics and stuff so i’m not super well informed and just trying to learn.

I’m sorry this has taken me a few days to get to.  What happened at the Capitol is complicated, and I want to make sure I give you as full of an answer as possible.  I also want to just quickly say that it’s awesome you’re getting involved in politics at such a young age and trying to help your parents understand these issues.  I would love to answer any questions you have about politics or social issues (or just kind of anything in general, I’m not picky).  Last thing and then I’ll get into the meat of this post- I’m a huge supporter of the BLM and police abolition movements and was a protestor over the summer, so I’m maybe a little bit biased.  This situation makes me really angry on a personal level, but I’ll try to stick to just the facts as much as possible in this post and let you know when I’m showing my own opinions.

So the first thing I want to talk about is language.  The Black Lives Matter protests were protests- a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards a political idea or action, usually with the intention of influencing government policy.  In the US, protesting is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment.  The storming of the Capitol was not a protest, and it wasn’t intended to be.  It was planned several weeks in advance with the explicit intention of disrupting the counting of Electoral College ballots.  Their stated goal was to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in the presidential election, an election that is widely considered to be the freest, fairest, and safest election in US history (ironically, in part due to Trump’s insistence that there was voter fraud in the 2016 election).  Storming a public building is not a form of protest protected by the US Constitution.  Further, an attempt to overturn a democratic election is an attempt to carry out a coup.  The Capitol rioters will likely be charged with sedition (conduct that incites rebellion against the established order) and/or insurrection (a violent uprising against an authority or government).  The Black Lives Matter protestors were not attempting to carry out a coup against the US government, and none have been charged with offenses as big as those.

Next, I want to touch on motivation.  The Black Lives Matter protesters were protesting against police brutality towards minorities, particularly Black people.  There has long been a documented history of police misconduct and fatal use of force by law enforcement officers against Black people in the US.  Many protests in the past have been a response to police violence, including the 1965 Watts riots, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and the 2014 and 2015 Black Lives Matter protests in response to the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray.  By contrast, the Capitol rioters were not motivated by fact.  They were called to action by the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  They were told that the election had been “stolen” from Trump, and were encouraged to march over to the Capitol to “take back our country”.  The idea that the election was stolen from the president is demonstrably false.  They weren’t motivated by a social issue, a concern for their own lives, facts, or even really principle.  “Our president wants us here...we wait to take orders from our president,” was what motivated them. The affiliations of those rioters are varied, but many of them are affiliated with either the far-right, anti-government Boogaloo Boys, the explicitly neofascist Proud Boys, the self-proclaimed militia The Oath Keepers, or the far-right militia group Three Percenters.  Many are also on the record as being QAnon followers (followers of a disproven far-right conspiracy that started off as a 4chan troll, which states that an anonymous government official, “Q”, is providing information about a cabal of Satan-worshiping, cannibalistic pedophiles in the Democratic party who are running a child sex trafficking ring and plotting against Trump.  Yes, really).

The intentions of BLM were largely peaceful.  BLM protest documents encouraged protesters to be peaceful even in the face of police violence, because the BLM protesters knew what the price of being violent would be.  We were encouraged not to bring weapons or anything that could be misconstrued as a weapon.  Even non-violent protests were met with tear gas, rubber bullets, and riot gear.  A reported 96.3% of 7,305 BLM protests were entirely peaceful (no injuries, no property damage).  The 292 “violent incidents” in question were mainly the toppling of statues of “colonial figures, slave owners, and Confederate leaders”.  There were also several instances of right wing, paramilitary style militia movements discharging firearms into crowds of protesters, and 136 confirmed incidences of right-wing participation at the protests (including members of the aforementioned Boogaloo Boys, Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys).  It was also rumored that off-duty police were inciting violence (although to my knowledge, that is unconfirmed).  There is no evidence that “antifa” (a decentralized, left-wing, anti-racist and anti-fascist group) played a role in instigating the protests or violence, or even that they had a significant role in the protests at all.  People who were involved in crimes were not ideologically organized, and were largely opportunists taking advantage of the chaos for personal gain.  

By contrast, the “Storm the Capitol” documents were largely violent; messages like, “pack a crowbar,” and “does anyone know if the windows on the second floor are reinforced” were common on far-right social media platforms.  One message on 8kun (formerly 8chan, a website linked to white supremacy, neo-Nazism, the alt-right, etc) stated, "you can go to Washington on Jan 6 and help storm the Capitol....As many Patriots as can be. We will storm the government buildings, kill cops, kill security guards, kill federal employees and agents, and demand a recount."  The speakers at the Trump rally encouraged attendees to see themselves as foot soldiers fighting to save the country, and to be ready to “bleed for freedom”.  The Capitol rioters were mostly armed; rioters were reportedly seen firing pepper spray at police officers, and pipe bombs, molotov cocktails, and guns (including illegal assault rifles) were found on the protesters. One protester was filmed saying, “believe me, we are well armed if we need to be.”  Some protesters arrived in paramilitary regalia, including camo and Kevlar vests.

I quickly want to touch on scale.  The George Floyd BLM protests are thought to be the largest protests in US history, with between 15 and 26 million (largely young, sometimes children, minority) people attending a protest in over 2000 cities in 60 countries.  There were around 14,000 arrests, most being low-level offenses such as violating curfews or blocking roadways. 19 deaths have been reported, largely at the hands of police.  Only one death is known to have been a law enforcement officer.  The number of people who stormed the Capitol is still somewhat unclear, but it seems to be between 2,000 and 8,000 (largely older white, cis, straight, Christian men) people.  80+ people have been arrested for federal crimes, including 25+ who are being charged with domestic terrorism (something nobody associated with BLM is being accused of).  There have been five deaths reported.  One was a police officer, and the other four were rioters.  Of those deaths, one was a police related shooting (a female Air Force veteran).  The other three died of unrelated medical emergencies.  One reportedly had a history of high blood pressure and suffered a heart attack from the excitement.  

Now I want to look at government response.  During the BLM protests, there was a huge response from law enforcement.  200 cities imposed curfews, 30 states and Washington DC activated over 96,000 National Guard, State Guard, 82nd Airborne, and 3rd Infantry Regiment service members.  The deployment was the largest military operation other than war in US history, and it was in response to protests concerning, in part, the militarization of police forces.  The police were outfitted in riot gear.  They used physical force against BLM protesters, including batons, tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, “often without warning or seemingly unprovoked,” per the New York Times.  Anecdotally, everyone I know now knows how to neutralize pepper spray, treat rubber bullet wounds, build shields out of household items, how to prevent cellphones from being tracked, and how to confuse facial recognition technology to prevent being identified (as six men connected to the Ferguson protests mysteriously turned up dead afterwards, and the police were using cellphone tracking technology).  Amnesty International issued a press release calling for police to end excessive militarized response to the protests.  There were 66 incidents of vehicles being driven into crowds of protesters, 7 of which explicitly involved police officers, the rest of which were by far-right groups.  Over 20 people were partially blinded after being struck with police projectiles.  When the BLM protests were happening, Trump said that, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

In contrast, the response to the Capitol protesters was relatively tame, especially given that the US Capitol’s last breach was over 200 years ago (when British troops set fire to the building during the war of 1812) and the rioters weren’t being shy about their aspirations to conduct an armed insurrection incited by the sitting president.  There was (widely available, able to be found through a Google search, everyone saw it) prior intelligence that far-right, extremist groups were planning on (violently) Storming the Capitol on January 6th, with the intention of interrupting the Electoral College ballot counting and holding lawmakers hostage.  However, the US Capitol Police insisted that a National Guard presence would not be necessary for the protests, and Pentagon officials reportedly restricted DC guard troop from being deployed except as a measure of last resort, and restricted them from receiving ammunition or riot gear.  They were instructed to engage with rioters only in self-defense, and were banned from using surveillance equipment.  Despite prior knowledge of the “protests”, Capitol Police staffing levels mirrored that of a normal day, and no riot control equipment was prepared.  The Capitol Police weren’t in paramilitary gear the way they were for the BLM protests.  The mob walked in to the Capitol with little resistance.  Some scaled walls, some broke down barricades, some smashed windows, and one video even seems to show Capitol Police opening a gate for the mob. Rioters traipsed around the Capitol (one of the most important government buildings in the country) with little resistance, looting and vandalizing offices of Congress members.  Some rioters felt safe enough to give their names to media outlets, livestream their exploits, and take selfies with police officers.  One man was (ironically) carrying a Confederate flag, a symbol of a secession attempt on the part of the South (and of racism). It took 50 minutes for FBI tactical teams to arrive at the scene, and the National Guard were initially directed by Trump not to intervene.  Pence later overturned that ruling and approved the National Guard.  Police used finally used riot gear, shields, smoke grenades, and batons to retake control of the Capitol, but notably no tear gas or rubber bullets.  Video showed rioters being escorted away without handcuffs.  Trump’s response to the riot was, "we love you. You're very special ... but you have to go home." 

This is where I’m going to get a little editorial, but I think it’s important to say.  If the people storming the Capitol Building were Black, they would have been met with a large, pre-coordinated military presence, violent restraint, arrests, and quite possibly would have been shot.  They wouldn’t have made it inside the Capitol, much less been given free rein to wander around without immediate consequence. Hundreds of people during the George Floyd protests were arrested for just being present- 127 protesters were arrested for violating curfew on June 2nd in Detroit alone, twice the number of arrests made during the storming of the US Capitol.  It turns out that the police do know how to use restraint, after all.  What an absolute shock.  It’s almost like they’re a corrupt and racist institution we should get rid off...

The last big thing I want to talk about is the outcome.  The BLM protests were meaningful, but the outcome from them has been tame.  Nobody has been accused of domestic terrorism. State and local governments evaluated their police department policies and made some changes, like banning chokeholds, partially defunding some departments, and passing regulations that departments must recruit in part from the communities they patrol.  Only one city, Minneapolis, pledged to dismantle their police force.  The response has largely been localized.  I think the biggest impact it’s had is introducing people to the concept of police abolition and getting more people involved in the movement.  By contrast, the Capitol riots have resulted in over 25 people being accused of domestic terrorism and the second attempt to impeach Donald Trump, something that has never happened before in the history of the US.  

But what really concerns me is the precedent this sets.  Donald Trump is an idiot, and he’s gotten this far.  We can’t count on the guy who takes his place to be an idiot, too.  The next guy could be clever, strategic, well-spoken, well-mannered... not to invoke Godwin’s law here, but people liked Hitler.  He was a persuasive speaker and capitalized on conspiracy theories about World War 1 to gain support.  His 1923 attempt to overthrow the Bavarian government failed, but sympathy for his aims grew.  He painted himself as a good, moral man who loved dogs and children and was trying to do right by his country (by, among other things, arresting communists and leftists, and then eventually all minorities).  Trump isn’t Hitler.  He’s not even a Hitler analogue.  But Trump has already done this much damage to the fabric of our society.  He’s worn down our relationship with the media, with one another, with democracy, with morality, and with truth itself.  We have to be prepared for the idea that the next guy might be a much better politician.  Getting rid of Trump isn’t the end; it’s the beginning of a fight against fascism that’s only going to grow from here.

There are other differences you could point to.  BLM protesters wore masks to prevent the spread of COVID (and indeed, researchers have reported that the protests did not drive an increase in virus transmission), for example, while the rioters were largely unmasked.  But I think the bottom line is that the millions of BLM protesters were doing their best to be responsible citizens fighting peacefully for an evidence-based, human rights cause, even though they knew that as a primarily minority group of people, they would be met with violence.  The thousands of far-right, white, Capitol insurrectionists were doing their best to overturn a free, fair, safe, and democratic election because of a call to action by Trump and a stringent belief in disproven conspiracy theories, which they knew would be met with minimal resistance despite the severity of their actions.  The insurrectionists are fascists, full stop, and we should call them what they are.  The BLM protesters were by and large just people, of all different political views and motivations, who wanted to fight against something they saw as unjust.  

I’m sorry that this is such a long post. This topic has been on my mind all week, and I wanted to give it the nuance it deserves.  All we can do from here is to keep fighting- for justice, for truth, and, hopefully, for peace.

[arcticdementor]

Jewish Democrats are celebrating this week and with good reason. Their party is about to take back power in Washington and end the presidency of the man they all love to hate: President Donald Trump. But adding a certain frisson of pride to their touchdown dances is the number of Cabinet members, and other officials and personalities, within the new First and Second families who are Jewish.

It’s an impressive tally. Social media is awash with posts with lists of the Jewish cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries, as well as the Jewish connections of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. When placed in the broad sweep of the nation’s history, it’s an important statement about the acceptance and the accomplishments of American Jewry. A century ago or even for several decades afterward, such a number would have been inconceivable.

But it’s 2021, not 1921. Having Jews in positions of great influence is no longer such a big deal; in fact, it’s quite commonplace.

Nine Jews are in the new Senate (including the new Majority Leader) and 25 in the House of Representatives, making up more than 6 percent of the total Congress. That’s more than triple the percentage of Jews in the general population. There are also two Jews out of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Seen in that light, a Jewish secretary of state, treasury secretary, homeland security secretary, attorney general and director of national intelligence—to name a few high-level positions—are merely a reflection of the preponderance of Jews who have risen to the top of just about every sector of American society.

…

If you thought Trump was a Nazi—a piece of deeply misleading hyperbole that became conventional wisdom among many Jews—you weren’t going to care if the secretary of the treasury or a number of other important officials was a Jew, or about the fact that the president had a daughter who converted to Judaism and had Jewish grandchildren. Since politics has become a cultural tribal war, Jews on the other team are to be deemed traitors or worse; only your side’s Jews are something about which to express pride.

…

But while some Jewish baseball fans still take note of players who identify as Jews, in an era when, despite the persistence of anti-Semitism, American Jews are not the weak minority they were in Greenberg’s time, it doesn’t really matter.

The same applies to those counting Jews in any administration, but with one caveat. Having someone who can be considered Jewish in positions of influence is especially unimportant if their policies and actions don’t contribute to the security of the Jewish community or of Israel.

One of the most disgraceful chapters in American Jewish history involves the behavior of those Jews—like Rabbi Stephen Wise and others like Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter—who had the ear of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet failed to use their influence to advocate for the rescue of European Jewry during the Holocaust. By contrast, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. is remembered with honor because he did speak up for rescue when it mattered and helped save many lives.

Many Jewish officials have played important roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy throughout the last three decades. But for the most part—and without casting aspersions on their integrity or intentions—their presence in the corridors of power did little to influence events to the benefit of the alliance between the only Jewish state on the planet and the United States. Indeed, many Jewish diplomats seemed to specialize in pressuring Israel and in seeking to undermine its efforts to resist policies that the majority of its people believed to be dangerous to their security.

…

What ought to matter to the Jewish community is not the number of Jews or people with Jewish relatives there are in any administration, but whether they act in a manner that makes both the United States and the Jewish people more secure. The verdict of history on those who served Trump should be far more laudatory than most American Jews are currently likely to give them. It remains to be seen whether those employed by Biden will deserve as much praise.

[elcorreodetorreon]

Rusia. News from Ambassador Yakovenko regarding Salisbury Incident and lack of response from UK

 23 February 2019

Moscow: 16:09

London: 13:09

Consular queries:  

+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

info@rusemb.org.uk  

 356 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     348 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

22.02.2019

Russia 2019-2025: 5G country (by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko).

Despite the attention that foreign policy enjoys in the media headlines, Russian domestic social and economic development enjoys the top priority for my compatriots. That was also the main theme of President Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly. Serious progress has been made in this area in the recent decade according to the long-term national objectives that we have set for ourselves. Massive financial resources, accumulated by virtue of the nation’s creativity, talents and hard work, are concentrated on development goals. Just a few examples:

Extra $1 bn has been earmarked for the social benefits within the new home loans system in 2019-2021, which will be used by as many as 600,000 families. In the same period approximately $1.35 bn is to be directed for support measures for families having a third and subsequent children. By the end of 2021 additional 270,000 places will be created in nurseries, both state-owned and private, with over $2.2 bn allocated for this purpose from national and local budgets over a three-year period.

In the healthcare sector 1590 outpatient clinics and paramedic stations are to be built or renovated in 2019-2020, with the focus on IT technologies making healthcare more accessible even in the most remote regions.

New green technologies will gradually replace oil and diesel fuel with gas and electricity in city transport as well as private cars. By 2025 industrial pollution will be reduced by at least 20%.

Plans are in place to create a cultural-educational regional network, with major hubs operating in Kaliningrad, Kemerovo, Vladivostok and Sevastopol. By combining access to the funds of our leading museums and theatres with extensive educational capacities, they will become the genuine cultural magnets.

For a country as large as Russia, communications are vital. In 2019-2025 60 airports are to be built, expanded or upgraded, including new ones in Khabarovsk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. The traffic capacity of the Baikal-Amur and Trans-Siberian railway lines will nearly double. 5G network is already being installed and in a few years it should cover the whole territory of Russia.

The expenses will be significant, of course, but we are prepared for it. First and foremost, they constitute investments in the better life of our citizens. And we can afford it. Despite all these ambitious projects, our budget shows steady surplus. The GDP growth is predicted to exceed 3% in 2021 and surpass the world’s annual rates afterwards. Quite ambitious for today’s Europe.

Being a sovereign and steadily developing state, Russia is ready for cooperation with all countries. This is the essence of our foreign policy.

 Alexander Yakovenko

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Court of St.James’s

LATEST EVENTS

23.02.2019 - Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at the UN Security Council Meeting on CAR

We would like to thank Special Representative P.Onanga-Anyanga, African Union Commissioner S.Chergui, European External Action Service Managing Director for Africa K.Vervaeke, Permanent Representative of Morocco O.Hilale and Representative of Côte d'Ivoire G.Hipeau for their briefings. Let me express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Parfait Onanga-Anyanga for his work as Head of MINUSCA. Parfait, you have proven to be the man who would not lose temper even in a critical situation. Your contribution to stabilization in CAR can hardly be overestimated. We hope that your expertise and experience will be in demand in the UN system. We wish you every success in your future endeavors. Mm. President,

21.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning placing Sergey and Yulia Skripal on a missing person list

Question: How would you comment on the media reports suggesting that Sergey Skripal’s mother has officially requested Russian law enforcement agencies to record her son and granddaughter as missing and initiate a missing person investigation? According to the British side, the UK agencies have not received any official notice from the Russian authorities with regard to placing the Skripals on a missing person list. Answer: We fully understand the natural concern of Elena Skripal with what has happened to her relatives. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of access to the Russian citizens in violation of international law and the bilateral 1965 Consular Convention. In this case we are unable to officially state that Sergey and Yulia are still alive. We are disturbed by the recent media leaks concerning the worsening health of Sergey Skripal, whose track has been lost since the incident on 4 March 2018. As for Yulia, she was seen only once in May 2018 in a video address which was obviously pre-written by the British secret services. All this indicates that both our nationals are being isolated.

20.02.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 5th anniversary of the state coup in Ukraine and its consequences

Following the 2014 state coup, which the United States and several other countries openly supported, Ukraine has been falling ever deeper into political chaos, corruption, lawlessness and aggressive nationalism. Over the past five years, Ukraine has been engulfed in violence and crimes committed on political and ideological grounds. Most of these crimes were not followed by appropriate legal action. The case of the snipers who shot people on Maidan has not been objectively investigated, and the tragedy in Odessa in May 2014 has not been solved. Contrary to their declarations of commitment to democracy and human rights and freedoms, the Ukrainian authorities are actually hunting down those whose views differ from the official position. Many independent Ukrainian media outlets and journalists, including editor-in-chief of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky, have been victimised and persecuted.

19.02.2019 - INF TREATY: FACT SHEET

- Full name: Treaty Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. - Signed in Washington on 8 December 1987 by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan. Entered into force on 1 June 1988. - Required destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment, thus promoting stability and predictability, as well as playing a major role in reformatting the geopolitical landscape in Europe and interstate relations between the key players in this region. - Contained detailed rules on the procedure of missiles elimination and inspections.

19.02.2019 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 16, 2019

First of all, Wolfgang (Ischinger), thank you for your presentation and your kind words. There is yet another reason why I address [this conference] more often than anyone else: this is because you have kept your post for so long. Today, the situation on the European continent and generally in the Euro-Atlantic region is, certainly, extremely tense. There appear ever more new rifts and the old ones grow deeper. I think that under these circumstances, it is relevant and even timely to turn to the European Home idea, no matter how strange this may sound in the current situation. Many great modern day politicians realised the need for pooling the potentials of absolutely all European states. Let me mention Charles de Gaulle, who put forward the concept of Greater Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, a peaceful Europe without divides or bloc confrontations, which, in his opinion, made Europe “artificial and barren.” Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand also spoke about the importance of the broadest possible partnership with Russia in the name of stability and security.

17.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the appearance of the Russian flag on the Salisbury Cathedral

Question: How would you comment on the reports by the British media that on Sunday morning someone hoisted a Russian flag on the scaffolding around the Salisbury Cathedral? Answer: We saw these reports, but we do not have any official information on them. If the reports of hoisting a Russian flag are true, then it all looks to us like a well-staged provocation.

16.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the interview by Dawn Sturgess's parents

Question: The Guardian has published an interview with the parents of the British citizen Dawn Sturgess, who died in July last year allegedly from “Novichok” poisoning. They put the blame for the non-transparent investigation on the UK government. How would you comment on their statements? Answer: We have studied carefully the interview and fully agree with Dawn Sturgess's family. Numerous questions regarding the tragedy in Amesbury remain unanswered, the British authorities continue to conceal the circumstances of that incident. We fully understand the fair indignation Dawn Sturgess's relatives feel.

14.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent appeals of the British officials to impose new sanctions against Russia

Question: How would you comment on the recent statements by the British officials calling upon their European partners to impose new sanctions against Russia over the incident in the Kerch Strait last year? Answer: We have not been surprised with such an active UK’s approach. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policy. British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions.

13.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council Briefing on Ukraine

Mr. President, Above all, let me thank today’s briefers: Mr. M.Jenča, Mm. U.Müller, Mr. E.Apakan and Mr. M.Sajdik. We have initiated this meeting in order to discuss the course of implementation of “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” – the most important document for the settlement of Ukraine’s internal crisis. It was signed 4 years ago, on 12 February 2015 by the representatives of OSCE, Ukraine, Russia, DPR and LPR.

11.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UN Security Council meeting on the situation in Kosovo

Thank you, Mr. President, Above all, we would like to thank our colleagues from Equatorial Guinea for their principal position and for inclusion of a meeting on Kosovo in the Council’s agenda for February in order to discuss the situation in the Province and the report by Secretary-General of 31 January on the implementation of UNSC resolution 1244. We welcome the participation of Mr. Ivica Dačić, First Deputy Prime-Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. Distinguished Minister, we share the profound concerns about the situation in Kosovo that you talked about.

all messages 2012 @ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

[phroyd]

Joe Manchin is shouting in the middle of a job fair. It’s in an exhibition space at a community college in Parkersburg, West Virginia, an industrial town on the Ohio river. He is going booth to booth to booth, making conversation and taking selfies.

Manchin has come to one table that provides office workers to companies on a provisional basis and is convinced that someone he just met is a perfect fit. He starts asking his staffers to find the young man who was looking for an accounting job and direct him over to the booth.

The Democratic senator could have come out of a lab for politicians. The 71-year-old Manchin has salt and pepper hair and just the right amount of twang. He comes across as one of God’s natural retail politicians, treats every voter like a friend. Most return the adoration, although there are a few rolled eyes. High schoolers ask him to come to their football game and grown men excitedly pile next to him to pose for a photograph.

However, less than 24 hours after Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate judiciary committee, he kept getting asked about Brett Kavanaugh – the conservative supreme court pick whom Manchin would eventually vote for.

West Virginia was a traditionally Democratic state for generations. However, it has pivoted on a dime. A former bastion of blue-collar New Deal Democrats it has become a Republican stronghold based on issues like guns, abortion and the “war on coal”. Although West Virginia has long been economically populist, it is socially conservative and the coal industry occupies a key place in the state’s psyche.

West Virginia is one of two races – alongside one in Tennessee – that are crucial to the Democrats’ chances of winning back the Senate in next month’s midterm elections. Democrats probably need to win in both West Virginia and Tennessee to have a chance of flipping the slim 51-49 Republican majority in the Senate. Democratic control of the upper chamber would mean that they could block not just legislation but Trump appointees to office, including the courts, as well.

Manchin and Bredesen are both willing to embrace Trump at times and practice a Clintonian brand of politics

Thus Democratic fortunes in the Senate rest on the unlikely shoulders of two septuagenarian white men in states that Donald Trump won overwhelmingly. These two older white men are a world away from the slate of diverse candidates that the Democrats are running across America for the House.

Although much has been made of the so-called “blue wave” that Democrats are counting on in the midterms to win control of the House of Representatives, their task in taking back the Senate is a much stiffer challenge. And in the centre of that challenge are Manchin in West Virginia and Phil Bredesen in Tennessee.

These two candidates differ markedly from the new slate of Democratic candidates who are rushing to embrace progressive causes like Medicare for All, a $15-an-hour minimum wage and flirt with the concept of abolishing Ice (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Manchin and Bredesen are from a different school of centrist Democrats. They are also both willing to embrace Trump at times and practice a Clintonian brand of politics where they look at both political parties in Washington and proclaim “a plague upon both your houses”.

Both men supported the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the supreme court – the two most prominent Democrats to do so.

A clear sign of why Manchin eventually backed Kavanaugh was evident in Parkersburg where attendees were invariably coming up to Manchin to urge him to support the embattled nominee – while the West Virginia senator was staying perched precariously on the fence. To one woman, he simply laid out the recent history of judicial nomination fights on Capitol Hill. He said Democratic anger on the issue was rooted in the showdown over Merrick Garland that Republicans “wouldn’t even meet him and that’s what makes ’em mad”. Manchin went on to point to fault on “both sides” and insisted “we want to get everyone back together”.

Speaking to the Guardian afterwards in a public park before a veterans event, Manchin pointed out “there’s still more Democrats than there are anything else in West Virginia. The bottom line is they got upset after it got to the point that the Washington Democrats forgot about the rural Democrats.” Manchin, who is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, instead tried to emphasize his independence. “I don’t care whether [you’re a Democrat or a Republican] … it’s about West Virginia first and that’s where I’ve always been.”

His Republican opponent, Patrick Morrisey, is almost the antithesis of Manchin. While Manchin is a native West Virginian who grew up as the star high school quarterback, Morrisey is a New Jersey native who worked as staffer and lobbyist on Capitol Hill before moving to the Mountain State and beating a five-term incumbent to become the first Republican state attorney general since before the New Deal.

The Republican regularly branded his opponent as “dishonest Washington liberal” and painted him as a pawn of the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer. Trump has appeared regularly with Morrisey and the West Virginia Republican could not name one area of disagreement with him.

“I want to emphasize my areas of commonality with the president because the body of his work has been very impressive for the people of West Virginia,” insisted the Republican Senate candidate. “No one is an ideological twin of another person. President Trump has been a strong ally for West Virginia and we’re going to keep emphasizing that.”

The message may not be cutting through in polls. Manchin has maintained a steady lead in West Virginia and has consistently been hitting Morrisey on his past as a pharmaceutical lobbyist, an important issue in a state that has been devastated by the opioid epidemic as well on the Republican’s opposition to Obamacare and the effect that would have on West Virginians with pre-existing conditions.

However, while that message and approach may be working for Manchin in West Virginia, it may not be as successful in Tennessee.

As a fellow centrist Democrat, or blue dog, Bredesen is running a similar race to Manchin. However, although his Republican opponent, Marsha Blackburn, is just as ardent a Trump fan as Morrisey, the state has surprisingly little in common with West Virginia save the Appalachian mountains and a blowout margin for Trump in 2016.

Tennessee is divided into three parts by the swoop of the Tennessee river, which rises in the eastern part of the state, descends into Alabama before emerging to flow northward into the Ohio river in Paducah, Kentucky. The key battlefield is middle Tennessee, the central part of the state penned inside the river.

Centered around Nashville, the region is economically thriving. Nashville is a tourist hub that has attracted Fortune 500 companies and the population of the metro area has doubled since 1990. One of the key figures in this process was Bredesen. First as mayor of Nashville and then as Tennessee’s governor, the 74-year-old played a key role in reviving the city, attracting pro sports teams and reviving Tennessee’s once sleepy capital city.

A wealthy former CEO of a healthcare company and transplant from the north, Bredesen long cut an almost disconcertingly moderate figure in the state.

He has tried to run a campaign that avoids national politics as much as possible. In one television ad, Bredesen looks squarely at the camera and says: “Look, I’m not running against Donald Trump.” Instead, he paints himself as a bipartisan problem solver and deflects any talk of the Democrats taking control of the Senate. “The chances of my party of being in the majority are minuscule,” he said in a debate.

Instead of making it about party labels or national figures, Bredesen has tried to keep things local in a state that has been strongly Republican in recent decades. In an interview with Politico, the former governor said if the race is about, “‘do you want to send a Democrat or Republican to Washington?’ I would lose. If it’s, ‘Do you want to send Phil Bredesen or Marsha Blackburn to Washington?’ I think I can win that.”

In contrast, his opponent Marsha Blackburn, a 16-year-veteran of Capitol Hill, is fully embracing Trump. Blackburn, who uses the masculine title ofcongressman, is a bomb thrower who long irritated many establishment Republicans in Tennessee dating back to her time in the state legislature.

Blackburn, who has been a frequent cable television presence, is a fervent social conservative. She has been an implacable opponent of abortion and even co-sponsored legislation, prompted by conspiracy theories about then President Barack Obama, to force presidential candidates to disclose their birth certificates.

During the campaign, she has consistently echoed Trump’s rhetoric. On television, she slams Bredesen for opposing the Trump travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries and for his skepticism about the efficacy of a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Blackburn’s hard-right policies even prompted an intervention by Taylor Swift, a Tennessee resident in the race. Swift endorsed Bredesen in an Instagram post and cited the Republican’s record on gay rights and women’s issues in doing so

However, demographic changes in the state and not its pop singers represent her key vulnerability. Her home base, the well-to-do Nashville suburb of Williamson, was one of only four in the state where Hillary Clinton did better than Barack Obama in the general election and was the sole holdout from Trump in the primary, when it went for Marco Rubio.

Although Nashville suburbs are still solidly Republican, that is starting to change ever so modestly and in the long term are trending towards Democrats. This combined with Blackburn’s weak personal poll numbers has given Democrats hope.

Scott Golden, the chair of the Tennessee Republican party told the Guardian, “there are no moderates left in Washington DC … it is a partisan team sport.” He cited the divisive vote over Kavanaugh.

In recent weeks Tennessee voters have seen the race through the same lens. In the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, Blackburn has surged while before the showdown, Bredesen held a narrow lead.

For Republicans, the hope is these highly charged and highly partisan national issues can trump the brands carefully built by both Bredesen and Manchin over decades in public office. The two men both came out in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination, trying to thwart one potential line of attack and cool the partisan enthusiasm of the Trump voters whom they will be relying on in November. The result was that one major Democratic Super Pac, Priorities USA, announced that it would no longer be supporting the two Senate candidates in November. The decision is simply another indication that their politics as moderate, red state Democrats may increasingly be outliers in a party that is moving leftwards.

Many liberal activists have argued that leftwing candidates in diverse states like Andrew Gillum in Florida or Beto O’Rourke in Texas are their party’s future. But for now, in a Senate map that is tilted towards red states, Democrats have no other options but to embrace throwbacks to a moderate past if they have any hopes of regaining the majority.

Phroyd

[caraidean]

Genealogy of the Holy War: Shadowrun AU

This is very possibly one of the most self indulgent AUs I've ever put together, but the tone and lore of the Shadowrun RPG setting fits Genealogy really well at some points - also I love it, please play Dragonfall or Hong Kong if you have something that can run it.

The first bit is frontloaded with a bunch of general info about the setting, so feel free to skip past it if you already know or don't care that much.

THE PITCH & BASIC CONCEPT

Shadowrun is a tabletop RPG setting taking place in our world, in the 2070s. It's a cyberpunk setting, where corporations have more power than the nations and money (specifically, the 'Nuyen') is king. It's filled with fairly standard cyberpunk tropes, such as rebelling against society, capitalism, faceless corporations grinding people into dust, etc. There's also a lot of advanced technology, with cybernetics and a wireless Augmented Reality based internet replacement called the Matrix permeating the world on every level.

Oh, also magic is real, in a BIG way. Wizards exist. One of the world's biggest megacorporations is run by a literal Dragon. Chicago is a hellscape overrun by unkillable Insect Spirits. People have a chance to turn into Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Trolls or any other kind of fantasy creature at birth or puberty. The result is a mix of William Gibson, Tolkien and pulp fantasy that results in a setting not quite like anything else.

Players take the role of 'Shadowrunners', deniable assets. Criminals for hire, mostly by the other corporations in covert operations against each other. They can exist to make a quick buck, or to further their own political agendas long-term. In this AU, I fuse this hot mess of a setting with the plot of Fire Emblem 4, with a focus on the second generation.

"Watch your back. Shoot Straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon." - Street proverb.

BASIC SHADOWRUN TIMELINE

In the early 2000s, corporations of a certain size were granted rights as micronations and a great deal of power due to an incident during a trucker strike in New York. The rest of the 2000s was fairly standard cyberpunk fare, with the ascent of MegaCorporations and hypercapitalism taking place, as well as great leaps in augmetic research. Then, in 2011, everything went straight to hell. VITAS, an unexplained virus, took out ten percent of the world's population - and children started being born with strange genetic changes, resembling stereotypical Dwarves and Elves from western fantasy. Multiple civil wars erupt as countries lose more and more power as corporations become more dominant, Scotland becomes highly irradiated, the Korean War resumes, and it just keeps getting worse and worse.

Then, on December 24 2011, The Awakening happened.

The Great Eastern Dragon Ryumyo erupts from his sleeping place underneath Mount Fuji in Japan. Daniel Coleman leads a group of Native American protesters into the desert, while manifesting a magical forcefield that prevents the US Army from shooting them. Leylines and other magical phenomena start appearing. Regular human people undergoing adolescence start to undergo Goblinization, turning into Orcs, Trolls, Oni and other such races. Several other Dragons appear and start attacking or aiding humanity, and everything is descending into outright chaos and confusion until finally the Western Dragon Dunkelzhan lands outside Denver and gives a twelve hour interview explaining what was happening.

Every few thousand years, magic either manifests or leaves the Earth, creating a new Age. In the 2000s, Earth was entering the newest Age, with magic returning in violent form. People began to become mages of various kinds, spirits appeared, paranormal creatures from all kinds of mythologies manifested - and the Dragons were the most important part. Dunkelzhan became known as the greatest ally of humanity, Ryumyo made it clear that nobody was to ever attack Japan, Hestaby became the protector of the Elven race and set up the nation of Tir Tairngire, and most importantly Lofywr - arguably the main antagonist/protagonist of the setting - gained control of one of the ten MegaCorporations forming the Corporate Court, Saeder-Krupp in Germany.

Rather than go too far in detail on what happened between the 2020s and the 2070s in which this AU is set, I'll hit a few more major events. The Internet was destroyed by the Crash Virus, resulting in the creation of the semi-wireless VR based system called the Matrix; the United States fell apart, forming the United Canadian & American States (UCAS, Canada and eastern seaboard USA), Confederation of American States (the south), and Native American Nations (NAN, mostly the western seaboard); The corporation Aztechnology managed to unite all of South America into one nation they called Aztlan, essentially setting up a dictatorship with very good PR; Dunkelzhan was voted President of the UCAS, only to be assassinated shortly afterwards; the other nine members of the Corporate Court and many minor corporations gave Aztechnology a bloody nose with Operation RECIPROCITY, a joint military strike warning them against expanding past Mexico; A second Crash was initiated by a terror group, causing the end of the VR Matrix and its eventual replacement with an Augmented Reality and fully wireless version; and Chicago falls victim to the Insect Spirits, a malevolent magical force that can't really be stopped, only delayed. It becomes a hell on earth called 'Bug City' that nobody ever goes to.

For more detailed information, I suggest picking up one of the Core Books (20th Anniversary Edition and 5th Edition are the ones I use most), listening to a few episodes of the Neo-Anarchist Podcast (an in-character history podcast from the perspective of a Neo-Anarchist Crow Shaman, Opti) or bugging me on Discord because I am always down to talk Shadowrun lore.

SHADOWRUN GLOSSARY

MEGACORPS AND THE CORPORATE COURT: Corporations that are large enough to have Extraterritoriality, which essentially means that while on ground they own, you follow their rules. The ten largest corporations are referred to as AAA Corporations, and have a seat on the Corporate Court - the closest thing the world has to a ruling body or oversight committee with the complete irrelevance of any individual country or the UN. The current corporations on the Corporate Court circa 2070, ranked from most powerful to weakest, are:

Saeder-Krupp: A German conglomerate based on steel, heavy industrial goods, cars, arms and communications, particularly in Europe - where it has a monopoly on all those markets. Its majority shareholder is Lofwyr, a Great Dragon and the most powerful individual in the setting.

Ares Macrotechnology, a Detroit-based mix of automotive, steel and arms companies. Corporate culture is based off the US Military

Aztechnology: Based in consumer goods, chemistry and magical research. Owns South America as a country they call 'Aztlan', steeped in Aztec culture.

EVO (formerly Yamatetsu): Shipping and infrastructure. Originally Japanese, later became Russia- based.

Horizon: The unholy fusion of Disney and Facebook. A multimedia and social marketing nightmare.

Mitsuhama Computer Technologies: A money laundering op for the Yakuza that became succesful enough for them to go straight.

NeoNET: Formed from the merger of Transys Neuronet, Erika, and Novatech following the Crash 2.0

Renraku Computer Systems: Japan-based computer and arms company.

Shiawase Corporation: The first megacorp. Energy production, biotech and environmental procedures.

Wuxing: a Hong Kong-based company based on shipping goods.

SHADOWRUNNERS: Criminals for hire. Actually exist in a quasi-legal state, as mercenaries - and can be hired for entirely legal jobs. This normally isn't the case.

MR. / MRS JOHNSON: The moniker used by those hiring shadowrunners, for deniability. Occasionally changes name based on region. 

THE MATRIX: Currently, an Augmented Reality wireless network that replaced the internet and the first, VR-based matrix. Accessed by everyone wearing contacts or other eyewear (cybernetic or glasses) and either special gloves or implated electrodes in their fingers that let them interact with it. May be quasi-magical in nature, but that is still up for debate.

COMMLINKS: Smartphones that let you run your own personal 'node' on the Matrix.

DECKER: Hackers, who use special edited commlinks called Cyberdecks to access parts of the matrix denied to others.

CYBERWARE: Cybernetic enhancements of any kind.

BIOWARE: Biological enhancements of any kind, such as genetically engineered muscles.

TECHNOMANCERS: People who don't need Commlinks to access the Matrix.

MAGES: Magic users who manifest magic in the traditional sense.

ADEPTS: Magic users who manifest their abilities by changing their physical form - shapeshifting, increased strength, changing voice and appearance, etc.

ESSENCE: The 'soul' of a person, which also determines magical ability. Too many augmentations eats away at your Essence, making it harder for you to cast or resist magic.

STREET SAMURAI: The ‘muscle’ of a shadowrun team, normally with cyberware and bioware up to their eyebrows. 

RIGGER: Anyone who drives vehicles or pilots drones. 

FACE: The member of a shadowrun team who does the talking. 

GEN 1 PLOTLINE

The first generation of FE4 is kept fairly uneventful in comparison to the game. Most of the major houses are transitioned into A- or AA-level megacorps, not large enough to be part of the Corporate Council but with a high amount of power in their own rights. These include:

The Grannvale Collective, a collection of A-level corps who manage to operate at the AA and fringe AAA level by consensus. They consist of Friege Energy (an alternative energy distributor), Velthomer MagiTech (magical theory & equipment), Barhara Heavy Industry, Edda Medical, Chalphy Security Solutions (a private police force), Dosel Dynamics (a spinoff of Edda Medical, focusing on augmetics) and Jungby Mobility (vehicles and alternative personal transport).

Silesse Aerodynamics, one of the largest non-Ares investors in the new Space Race.

Thracia Group Solutions, a multimedia company that was on the verge of qualifying for the Corporate Cort before internal power struggles between Thracia itself and its rapidly rising subdivision Manster MMT, a private security force and magitech developer.

Verdane Agriculture, one of the few distributors of fresh food to the UCAS outside of Aztechnology.

Miletost Mercantile Solutions, a trading & gambling company that barely scrapes A-level status.

Isaach Industries, creating experimental weapons and armor with a focus on close-range urban environments.

Agustria Analogue, an entertainment company.

The only major shakeup during the 2030s through early 2060s is the capturing of Sigurd's wife Deirdre, by a team of shadowrunners hired by the Great Dragon Loptyr (more on him in this AU later). She is kept in hiding while a team of mages carefully wipe memories from her, working to set up the next stage in Loptyr's plan. Sigurd devotes a large amount of time and Chalphy's resources to trying to find her, resulting in it beginning to falter as a company and losing several lucrative contracts to LoneStar or Ares Knight Errant. It looks as though the other members of the Grannvale Collective are preparing to eject Chalphy from the collective, until late 2064 rolls around.

On November 2nd 2064, the terrorist groups Winternight and Ex Pacis initiate the Crash 2.0, destroying the VR Matrix and causing untold damage to corporations, nations and individuals worldwide. This works as the 'Barhara' equivalent, even without the direct involvement of Velthomer Magical, and results in the death or un-personing of many of the first generation characters. The few weeks with no real matrix capabilities are chaotic, but when the dust settles a new status quo has emerged.

Silesse Aerodynamics is no more, having been dissolved and its assets acquired by Ares. 

Manster MMT has split from Thracia Group Solutions, becoming its own corporation att odds with TGS

Agustria Analogue was bought out by Horizon Media during their ascent to AAA status. 

Verdane Agriculture and Miletos Mercantile Solutions were bought out by Aztechnology. 

The Grannvale Collective is reduced to a total of three corporations - Velthomer MagiTech, Friege Energy and Barhara Heavy Industries.  Velthomer has absorbed Chalphy Security Solutions as well as Edda Medical and Dosel Dynamics, with Friege acquiring Jungby Mobility. The sudden reappearance of Deirdre results in her remarrying to Arvis, resulting in the merger of Barhara Heavy Industries and Velthomer MagiTech into the renamed Velthomer-Barhara Corporation. VBC starts applying for AAA status, and becomes seriously considered for it. 

Notable survivors from the first generation of the game include Finn, Quan & Ethlyn - who manage to keep Manster MMT afloat as its own corporation despite heavy pressure from Thracia. Sigurd died during a hit by a shadowrunner team hired by Arvis on advice from Manfroy. Deirdre, instead of dying at Julius' hands, is assassinated by Manfroy's shadowrunner teams after she starts digging into the past life she forcibly forgot about too far. Manster MMT tries its best to find Seliph, but he seems to have vanished off the face of the earth. Ethlyn never stops looking.

GEN 2 PLOT HOOK

By the 2070s, we have entered the second generation proper. The new Matrix is well in effect, and Velthomer-Barhara has begun talks with Friege Energy to merge into Granvalle Incorporated, headed by Julius and Ishtar post merger. Such a move would bring them onto the Corporate Court for sure, furthering Loptyr's shadowy plan. Most of the rest of the second generation and any survivors from the first generation have been forced into the shadows, when someone starts leaking information to them regarding the merger - and the possible motives behind it. 

Oifey starts acting on it, gathering those he can find and getting funding from Manster MMT to equip and train these Shadowrunners to start acting against Velthomer-Barhara directly.

LOPTYR'S PLAN

Like some of the other Great Dragons, Loptyr despises humanity. Instead of retreating into seclusion or rampages like Sirrug or the Sea Dragon, however, Loptyr takes a page out of Lofwyr and Hestaby's books - he will bring about the downfall of humanity with them as his implements. He identified Deirdre and Arvis as relatives, using this connection to create Julius and Julia both - the resulting twisted nature of their bloodline making them highly susceptible to becoming hosts to the destructive Insect Spirits that led to the fall of Chicago. He intends for Velthomer-Barhara to obtain AAA status, become one with the Corporate Court, and then use that position to destroy the AAA Corporations through an Insect Spirit conspiracy and leave the world leaderless, falling into chaos.

CHARACTERS

ISHTAR is the heiress of Friege Energy, who goblinized into an Elf during puberty. Her brother Ishtore remained unchanged, which resulted in her mother Hilda focusing on her as the next great thing for Friege. She eventually also manifested abilities as a powerful Technomancer, capable of interfacing with the AR matrix without use of a Commlink or other devices. She is engaged to Julius, waiting for the paperwork to go through before marrying him and resulting in the eventual merger of Friege and Velthomer-Barhara into what they plan to call Grannvale Incorporated, certain to replace NeoNet as the tenth AAA corporation on the Corporate Court. Recently she suspects that all is not right in Velthomer-Barhara, and has begun digging into the shady deals of Arvis' 'Head of Human Resources', Manfroy. She's the one who leaked this information to Oifey and Tine, hoping they can act on it some more and right things before they get out of hand. 

JULIUS is the heir of the Velthomer-Barhara Corporation, and a child marked by Loptyr's breeding program as a perfect host to an Insect Spirit. Manfroy manages to get him possessed by his fifteenth birthday, resulting in him becoming the same kind of twisted individual he is in canon - just now with the regenerative and magical powers that the Insect Spirits gift to their hosts. 

SELIPH and many of the other Second Generation units lost their SINs and resources during the Crash 2.0, being forced into hiding as unpersons while other corporations looted their homes and lives. They either live homeless, or turn to the quasi-legal life of Shadowrunners to survive and perhaps seek justice against those that wronged them during the Crash. 

CED was the heir apparent to Silesse Aerospace, before the Crash 2.0. He was unpersoned like his sister following the Crash, his parents dying when their spacecraft lost computing ability and crashed into the ocean. He uses his impressive magical abilities as a Shadowrunner to great effect, generating quite a reputation in the Seattle area as he begins to gather allies and resources for his ultimate goal: exposing and bringing down Damien Knight, CEO of Ares. 

TINE is a former heiress of Friege, who lost her SIN during the Crash and due to the machinations of Hilda never managed to recover it. Ishtar has been keeping close tabs on her since the Crash, trying to send help whenever she can and acting as a high-level corporate contact should she decide to turn to Shadowrunning to survive.

NANNA lost everything but her father when Agustria was bought out by Horizon, including her SIN. Fortunately, Quan and Ethlyn managed to move to protect her on Finn's request - bringing her into Manster MMT by wedding her to her childhood friend and longtime crush, Leif. She now works as a high-end PR agent for the firm, keeping an eye open for her half-brother Diarmuid should he ever resurface.  

FINN is Manster MMT's head of security, responsible for their own sites and their hiring of Shadowrunners - as a result, many of Gen 2 know him by the moniker 'Mr Johnson'. He is a combat cyborg, heavily augmented and mourning the loss of his wife Lachesis during the Crash. Notably, he has impressive combat experience thanks to time as a field commander in Operation RECIPROCITY, giving him an intimidating reputation in the security field. 

LEWYN survived the Crash, but only barely. He later resurfaced in Tir Tairngire under the new name of Holsety, using his status as an Elf to apply for new citizenship. He has no idea that Ced and Fee survived, and manages to get a job with Horizon Media as a magical consultant.

[keencolorking]

Why did the "Starbucks Incident" raise racial discrimination and the absurd tragedy repeated in the United States?

【Special attention】

American coffee retail chain Starbucks announced on the 17th that more than 8,000 stores across the United States will be closed on May 29 for anti-racial discrimination training. This incident has once again aroused people's attention to the long-standing racial discrimination in the United States. The matter has to start with the recent "rejection of toilet access" by two African Americans at a Starbucks coffee shop in Philadelphia, the United States, which led to the "Starbucks racial discrimination" incident.

Starbucks suspected of discriminating against blacks

On April 12, two African Americans waited for their friends at a Starbucks coffee shop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, without ordering food. When they wanted to borrow the toilets in the store, they were rejected by the store staff on the grounds that they did not consume at Starbucks and therefore could not "use" the toilets. The clerk also asked them to leave Starbucks. But the two African Americans stayed in the store and refused to leave, and then the clerk called the police. Upon hearing the news, the police arrived and took the two African Americans away with handcuffs. They were released after being detained for several hours. Some customers at the scene filmed the incident into a video and then broadcast it on social media, which aroused widespread public concern. In particular, the footage of two African-Americans being taken away by police in handcuffs was widely disseminated by netizens. Many people believe that "the clerk called the police and arrested the police only because of skin color." The two African-American lawyers said that the two had made an appointment at a coffee shop to discuss business, and the reason they did not order was because they were waiting for other friends to arrive.

📷

On April 15, people in Philadelphia, the United States, protested in front of Starbucks before the two blacks were taken away by the police at Starbucks. Bright Pictures/Visual China

On April 16, dozens of demonstrators rushed into the Starbucks coffee shop where the incident occurred, holding slogans, chanting the slogan "Boycott Starbucks racial discrimination", demanding that Starbucks fire employees suspected of racial discrimination and demand that the police pursue arrests Black police officer. Protests caused the store’s business to be interrupted for a while, and for a while, "Starbucks discriminated against black people" spread like wildfire and intensified in the media. Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson quickly issued a letter of apology for this incident. In the letter of apology, he stated that Starbucks employees’ practice of reporting to the police was wrong, and this did not represent Starbucks’ philosophy and values. He was willing to personally report to the incident. Of two African Americans apologize. The letter of apology also stated that Starbucks will take the matter seriously and reflect on the deficiencies in the past, so as to better deal with emergencies in the future. Starbucks will also hold training courses to collectively learn about anti-racism. According to the relevant statement of Starbucks, the training courses will be developed with reference to the opinions of external experts and targeted at nearly 175,000 employees. The media here estimates that the closure of business for half a day will cause Starbucks to lose 12 million US dollars.

Social ills are hard to eradicate

Compared with Starbucks' sincere apology, the attitude of the US police in this incident was completely opposite. Richard Rose, chief of the Philadelphia Police Department, emphasized that the police are handling the case in accordance with the law. During the live broadcast on social media, Rose pointed out that the police officer involved did not do anything wrong. The police officer was reported to the scene. At that time, the two African Americans were told to leave by Starbucks employees on the grounds of "illegal invasion", but the two ignored them. , And the police officer had politely asked two African Americans to leave three times, but they were taken away only after being refused. Ross said that when companies call the police for help, saying they don't want anyone to interfere with their business, the police are obliged to perform their duties. Ross, who is African-American himself, admits that he understands the hidden racial prejudice and discrimination in society, but insists that the police will be committed to justice and unbiased law enforcement.

📷

On April 15, people in Philadelphia, the United States, protested in front of Starbucks, and police were on duty at the scene. Bright Pictures/Visual China

Analysts believe that a Starbucks "refusal to go to the toilet" incident has aroused national attention and led to large-scale protests. It is nothing more than people who used the incident to vent their serious dissatisfaction with racial discrimination in American society. It is not difficult to see from the protest videos on social media that not only black people but also many white people protested at the Starbucks coffee shop. This shows that racial discrimination in the United States is not deliberately caused by a certain color of the group, but has formed a social ailment that is difficult to eradicate. It is not only disgusted by black people, but also disgusted by white people.

In 1963, Martin Luther King, the leader of the black civil rights movement in the United States, delivered a famous speech "I Have a Dream" in front of the Lincoln Memorial, opening a page in the history of the United States against racial discrimination and fighting for equal rights and inspired countless African Americans. . April 4th marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. Fifty years have passed, and the problem of racial discrimination in the United States still exists and is getting worse. Even former US President Barack Obama once said embarrassingly that, including himself, almost all African Americans have been followed when shopping.

Absurd law enforcement occurs frequently

In recent years, the United States has exposed many incidents in which the police caused the death of civilians, especially blacks, in the course of law enforcement. In August 2014, Brown, an 18-year-old black young man in Ferguson, Missouri, was killed by the police, triggering large-scale protests and violent riots throughout the United States. In the past few days, from California on the west coast to New York on the east coast, people from many cities in the United States took to the streets to protest against the manslaughter of the 22-year-old black young man Clark in Sacramento. Of the 20 shots fired by the police, 8 shots hit Clark, and one bullet pierced the lungs. According to US media statistics, since January 2015, the Sacramento police have shot and killed 6 people including Clark, 5 of whom were African-American men. In recent years, the ongoing "Black People's Life is Fate" movement reminds people that racial discrimination still persists in America. Such incidents seem to be the norm, and have exacerbated the racial division of American society time and time again.

Looking back at several absurd police shootings of black people in the United States in recent years, people can see from a special perspective that American law enforcement agencies always seem to be "entangled" with the term racial discrimination. The reason why the role played in the incident was "broken".

In June 2017, a black alarming incident in Seattle, the United States was called an "absurd tragedy." The Washington Post reported that an African-American woman in Seattle called the police after suspecting a burglary. When the police arrived, they saw the African-American woman holding a knife and shot at her. When the police found out that a major mistake had been made, rescue was soon carried out, but the woman died. Afterwards, the police department gave an explanation that the policeman who carried out the shooting mistakenly believed that the African-American woman was the thief. The woman’s family questioned the reason for the police shooting, saying that the police could obviously use electric shocks to take away the thin and pregnant woman; even if she was holding a knife, the threat to the police was very small, but the police But choose Wu to disconnect the gun. Relatives firmly believe that the death of the African-American woman was due to racial discrimination, only because she was of African descent.

Coincidentally. In July 2016, a similarly absurd police shooting and killing of black people occurred in Minnesota, the United States. The black man who was killed was named Castir. He and his girlfriend were stopped by a policeman named Yanez when they were driving because the taillights of the car were damaged. According to the process, Yanez asked to see Castile’s driver’s license and insurance. Castiel provided insurance and informed the police that he had legal firearms. As soon as he said this, Yanez felt nervous, and subconsciously pulled out his gun. When Castiel reached for his driver's license in the car, a tragedy happened-Yanez fired several shots at Castiel in the car, killing him. Throughout the whole process of the incident, it is not difficult to see that Yanez fired because he misinterpreted Castille’s driver’s license to take a gun. Yanez was later acquitted by the court. Castiel's family was very angry about this and questioned the Minnesota judicial system, saying that this system continues to disappoint blacks.

Whether it’s Starbucks coffee shops rejecting African-Americans to go to the toilet or American police accidentally killing African-Americans, these incidents are not accidental, and I am afraid they are not the end. They undoubtedly reflect the serious racial problems and ethnic conflicts in the United States, and reflect the white Americans. The lack of mutual trust with the black community. The phrase "Remember, we only kill blacks" when the police officer of Cobb County, Georgia, United States, was on duty last year, directly tore off the fig leaf of American racial issues. In August 2017, Charlottesville, Virginia, broke out in the worst white supremacist movement in the United States in 10 years, exposing the deep tears in American society. Statistics show that there were 954 hate groups in the United States in 2017, an increase of 4% over the previous year and an increase of 20% since 2014; there are more than 600 white supremacist groups. In addition to the constant violent death tragedies, black Americans also encountered prejudice and discrimination on political, economic, educational, and social security issues.

Only by enhancing the equality and mutual trust between races and ethnicities can we prevent such tragedies from happening again. But the current reality of American society is that more than half a century after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, black Americans still find themselves trapped in impoverished areas across the country. It can be said that the stubborn racial problems in the United States are difficult to eliminate, and the "black and white confrontation" is intensifying. It is difficult to guarantee that the tragedy that occurred in Starbucks coffee shops will not happen again.

[patriotsnet]

Did Any Republicans Vote To Impeach

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-any-republicans-vote-to-impeach/

Did Any Republicans Vote To Impeach

Here Are The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Trump acquitted by the Senate29:52

Seven Republican senators voted to convict former President Trump on the charge of incitement to insurrection, joining Democrats to make it it a far more bipartisan vote than Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial. But the final vote of 57-43 fell short of the 67 votes that would have been needed for conviction. 

The Republicans voting to convict were Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Romney’s vote was all but a given, and the votes from Collins and Murkowski weren’t unexpected. Perhaps the most surprising vote came from Burr.

But something distinguishes most of the Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump — most of them aren’t up for reelection soon. Murkowski is the only one of the group facing reelection in 2022. Burr and Toomey aren’t running for another term.

Collins and Murkowski asked some of the most probing questions on Friday when senators had the chance to pose questions to the defense and to the House impeachment managers. 

Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse also joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses Saturday, as did Repubilcan Senator Lindsey Graham. But Democrats ultimately backed off on calling witnesses. 

Several of the senators released statements explaining their decisions following the vote Saturday.

Congressional Opposition To Impeachment

A number of prominent Republicans rejected calls for impeachment, including House SpeakerJohn Boehner, and Sen. John McCain. McCain said impeachment would be a distraction from the 2014 election, and that if “we regain control of the United States Senate we can be far more effective than an effort to impeach the president, which has no chance of succeeding.” Rep. Blake Farenthold said that impeachment would be “an exercise in futility.”

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal — even if he is convicted — because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators — banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message — that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

United States V Nixon Ruling

In a much-anticipated landmark ruling on July 24, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to release all White House tapes, not just selected transcripts, pertinent to the Watergate investigation. The unanimous ruling in United States v. Nixon found that the president of the United States does not possess an absolute, unqualified executive privilege to withhold information. Writing for the court, Chief JusticeWarren Burger stated:

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

A short while after the decision was made public, Nixon issued a statement saying that, while “disappointed in the result, I respect and accept the court’s decision, and I have instructed Mr. St. Clair to take whatever measures are necessary to comply with that decision in all respects.” The president was at the Western White House in California at the time, where he remained through July 28.

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

Play media

On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand jury and obstruction of justice, was 21–17, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 20–18, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton “the legal benefit of the doubt”. The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 21–17 vote, again, along party lines.

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice . The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case and abuse of power . Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached; the first, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868. The only other previous U.S. president to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixon in 1973–74. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.

Richard M Burr Of North Carolina

Mr. , 65, a senator since 2005, is not seeking re-election in 2022. Despite holding Mr. Trump immediately responsible for the Capitol riot, he had voted against moving forward with the impeachment trial, and his decision to convict came as a surprise.

“As I said on Jan. 6, the president bears responsibility for these tragic events,” Mr. Burr said in a statement on Saturday. “The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government and that the charge rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Therefore, I have voted to convict.”

Republican Groups Censure Party Lawmakers Who Voted To Impeach Convict Trump

Kinzinger said 11 family members sent him a handwritten two-page note that started, “Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!” The letter accused him of working with “the devil’s army,” which it said included Democrats and the “fake news media.” “We thought you were ‘smart’ enough to see how the left is brainwashing many ‘so called good people’ including yourself” and other Republicans. “You have even fallen for their socialism ideals! So, so sad!” “It is now most embarrassing to us that we are related to you,” the family members wrote. “You have embarrassed the Kinzinger family name.” Kinzinger said the family members suffered from “brainwashing” at conservative churches. “I hold nothing against them,’’ he said, “but I have zero desire or feel the need to reach out and repair that. That is 100% on them to reach out and repair, and quite honestly, I don’t care if they do or not.” Kinzinger said he knows his vote against Trump could imperil his political career but that he “couldn’t live with myself” if “the one time I was called to do a really tough duty, I didn’t do it.” 

Here Are All Of The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

Ten members of the GOP joined with Democrats in the vote.

President Donald Trump impeached for ‘incitement of insurrection’

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump — making him the only president in American history to be impeached twice.

Unlike his first impeachment in 2019, 10 Republicans joined Democrats to charge Trump for the “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with a final vote of 232-197.

Some Republicans may have feared for their own safety if they voted for impeachment, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of those who voted against Trump, said. Kinzinger told ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast that some members of his party are likely holding back from voting for impeachment due to fear of highlighting their own participation in supporting the president’s false claims of election fraud.

Democrat Jason Crow, of Colorado, relayed similar thoughts in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday morning.

“I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears talking to me and saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment,” he said.

Here is a list of the 10 Republicans who took a stance against Trump:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.“It’s not going to be some ‘Kumbaya moment’ on the floor — it’s going to be an awakening by the American people to hold their leaders accountable to their rhetoric,”

Raskin Compares Trumps Actions On January 6 To Lighting A Fire In Closing Argument

Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen, meanwhile, insisted his client did nothing wrong and maintained he was the victim of vengeful Democrats and a biased news media. He called the impeachment proceedings a “charade from beginning to end.”

While he often seemed angry during his presentation, van der Veen was delighted by the acquittal. Reporters saw him fist bump a fellow member of Trump’s legal team afterward and exclaim, “We’re going to Disney World!”

McConnell, who’d rebuffed Democratic efforts to start the trial while Trump was still in office, had condemned Trump’s conduct after the riot and said he’d keep an open mind about voting to convict — something he’d ruled out entirely during Trump’s first impeachment trial last year.

After voting to acquit, McConnell blasted Trump for his “disgraceful dereliction of duty” and squarely laid the blame for the riot at Trump’s door in what amounted to an endorsement of many of the arguments laid out by House impeachment managers.

“There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

“The Constitution makes perfectly clear that Presidential criminal misconduct while in office can be prosecuted after the President has left office, which in my view alleviates the otherwise troubling ‘January exception’ argument raised by the House,” he wrote.

Andrew Johnson: Impeached In 1868

The 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. 

Johnson was elected as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864. The toughest decision facing Lincoln’s second term was how to reestablish ties with the Confederate states now that the Civil War was over. Lincoln’s plan for favored leniency while so-called “Radical Republicans” in his party wanted to punish Southern politicians and extend full civil rights to freed slaves.

Lincoln was only 42 days into his second term, leaving Johnson in charge of Reconstruction. He immediately clashed with the Radical Republicans in Congress, calling for pardons for Confederate leaders and vetoing political rights for freedmen. In 1867, Congress retaliated by passing the Tenure of Office Act, which barred the president from replacing members of his cabinet without Senate approval.

Believing the law to be unconstitutional, Johnson went ahead and fired his Secretary of War, an ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress. Johnson’s political enemies responded by drafting and passing 11 articles of impeachment in the House.

“Sir, the bloody and untilled fields of the ten unreconstructed States, the unsheeted ghosts of the two thousand murdered negroes in Texas, cry for the punishment of Andrew Johnson,” wrote the abolitionist Republican Representative William D. Kelley from Pennsylvania.

READ MORE: 150 Years Ago, a President Could Be Impeached for Firing a Cabinet Member

Rep Jaime Herrera Beutler

While Beutler admitted that she did not vote for Trump in 2016, she did back the president for a second term in 2020.

On Tuesday, the congresswoman she would vote to impeach, saying: “The President’s offenses, in my reading of the Constitution, were impeachable based on the indisputable evidence we already have.”

“I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters,” she added. “But I am a Republican voter… I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.”

Here Are All The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump:

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming’s At-Large Congressional District.

Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler of Washington’s 3rd District.

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio’s 16th District.

Rep. John Katko of New York’s 24th District.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois’s 16th District.

Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan’s 3rd District.

Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington’s 4th District.

Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina’s 7th District.

Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan’s 6th District.

Rep. David Valadao of California’s 21st District.

Articles Referred To Senate

Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;

prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;

prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and

his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:

Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills. Clinton’s counsel staff included Charles Ruff, David E. Kendall, Dale Bumpers, Bruce Lindsey, Nicole Seligman, Lanny A. Breuer and Gregory B. Craig.

‘a Win Is A Win’: Trump’s Defense Team Makes Remarks After Senate Votes To Acquit

Despite the acquittal, President Joe Biden said in a statement that “substance of the charge” against Trump is “not in dispute.”

“Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol,” Biden’s statement read in part.

The president added that “this sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Saturday’s vote “the largest and most bipartisan vote in any impeachment trial in history,” but noted it wasn’t enough to secure a conviction.

The trial “was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate split 50-50, the House managers always had an uphill battle when it came to convincing enough Republicans to cross party lines and convict a former president who is still very popular with a large part of the GOP base.

Early Calls For Impeachment

During the opening months of the 93rd Congress, multiple calling for a presidential impeachment inquiry were introduced in the House and referred to its Judiciary Committee. The committee began an examination of the charges under its general investigative authority. In February 1973, the House approved a resolution providing additional investigative authority that did not specifically mention impeachment.

The first resolution to directly call for President Nixon’s impeachment was introduced on July 31, 1973, by Robert Drinan. His resolution, which did not contain specific charges, was made in response to Nixon’s clandestine authorization of the bombing of Cambodia, as well as his actions relative to the growing Watergate scandal. The resolution was effectively ignored by leaders of both parties. House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill later said,

Morally, Drinan had a good case. But politically, he damn near blew it. For if Drinan’s resolution had come up for a vote at the time he filed it, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated—by something like 400 to 20. After that, with most of the members already on record as having voted once against impeachment, it would have been extremely difficult to get them to change their minds later on.

The 10 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

Ten House Republicans joined every Democrat in voting yes, in the most bipartisan impeachment in US history

Ten Republican members of the US House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump over the deadly insurrection at the Capitol, making it the most bipartisan presidential impeachment in US history.

The break with the president stood in sharp contrast to the unanimous support for Trump among House when he was first impeached by Democrats in 2019.

Read more

All Democrats who voted supported impeachment, while 197 Republicans voted no.

The Republican votes made it a historic moment. In comparison, five Democrats voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998.

How the Senate will fall on Trump’s second impeachment trial vote remains to be seen. Two-thirds of the 100-member body are required to convict a president, meaning 17 Republicans would have to join to render a guilty verdict. So far only a small number of Republican senators have indicated an openness to convicting the president in a senate trial, which is now set to begin after Biden’s inauguration. Mitch McConnell, the top-ranking Republican in the Senate, indicated to colleagues that he is undecided on how he would vote.

Below are the Republicans who voted for impeachment in the House of Representatives:

Patrick J Toomey Of Pennsylvania

Mr. Toomey, 59, a senator since 2011, is not seeking re-election in 2022. He had denounced Mr. Trump’s conduct; in a statement on Saturday, he said had decided during the trial that the former president deserved to be found guilty.

“I listened to the arguments on both sides,” Mr. Toomey said, “and I thought the arguments in favor of conviction were much stronger.”

Second Impeachment Of Donald Trump

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump

Second impeachment of Donald Trump The House of Representatives votes to adopt the article of impeachment Accused January 13, 2021  ?–? February 13, 2021  Acquitted by the U.S. Senate Charges Voting in the U.S. Senate Accusation

Protesters gathered outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021 Background

The second impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, occurred on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired. It was the fourth impeachment of a U.S. president, and the second for after his first impeachment in December 2019. Ten representatives voted for the second impeachment, the most pro-impeachment votes ever from a president’s party. This was also the first presidential impeachment in which all majority members voted unanimously for impeachment.

Invoking The 25th Amendment

25th Amendment

On the evening of January 6, CBS News reported that Cabinet members were discussing invoking the 25th Amendment. The ten Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, led by U.S. Representative David Cicilline, sent a letter to Pence to “emphatically urge” him to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Trump “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, claiming that he incited and condoned the riots. For invocation, Pence and at least eight Cabinet members, forming a simple majority, would have to consent. Additionally, if challenged by Trump, the second invocation would maintain Pence as acting president, subject to a vote of approval in both houses of Congress, with a two-thirds supermajority necessary in each chamber to sustain. However, Congress would not have needed to act before January 20 for Pence to remain acting president until Biden was inaugurated, per the timeline described in Section 4.

On the same day, the House of Representatives voted to call for Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment. The resolution passed with 223 in favor, 205 against, and 5 not voting; Adam Kinzinger was the only Republican to join a unified Democratic Caucus.

Article Of Impeachment Introduced

has original text related to this article:Article of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump

On January 11, 2021, U.S. Representatives David Cicilline, along with Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu, introduced an article of impeachment against Trump, charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection” in urging his supporters to march on the Capitol building. The article contended that Trump made several statements that “encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action” that interfered with Congress’ constitutional duty to certify the election. It argued that by his actions, Trump “threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government,” doing so in a way that rendered him “a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution” if he were allowed to complete his term. By the time it was introduced, 218 of the 222 House Democrats had signed on as cosponsors, assuring its passage. Trump was impeached in a vote on January 13, 2021; ten Republicans, including House Republican Conference chairwoman Liz Cheney, joined all of the Democrats in supporting the article.

President’s Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws

On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, “A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment” as he accused Obama of “claim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

Efforts To Impeach Barack Obama

This article is part of a series about

During Barack Obama‘s as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, stated that Obama had engaged in activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. Rationales offered for possible impeachment ranged from Obama allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, to the 2012 Benghazi attack, to Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws, and false claims that he was born outside the United States.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that a near of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, though a bit more than a simple majority of Republicans did support such efforts. For example, found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported impeachment, but in general, 65% of American adults, disagreed with impeachment with only 33% supporting such efforts.

Overview Of Impeachment Process

See also: Impeachment of federal officials

The United States Congress has the constitutional authority to impeach and remove a federal official from office—including the president—if he or she has committed an impeachable offense. Impeaching and removing an official has two stages. First, articles of impeachment against the official must be passed by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, a trial is conducted in the United States Senate potentially leading to the conviction and removal of the official.

In most impeachment trials, the vice president presides over the trial. However, in impeachment trials of the president, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides. In order to remove the person from office, two-thirds of senators that are present to vote must vote to convict on the articles of impeachment.

[sotina886]

Why did the "Starbucks Incident" raise racial discrimination and the absurd tragedy repeated in the United States?

【Special attention】

American coffee retail chain Starbucks announced on the 17th that more than 8,000 stores across the United States will be closed on May 29 for anti-racial discrimination training. This incident has once again aroused people's attention to the long-standing racial discrimination in the United States. The matter has to start with the recent "rejection of toilet access" by two African Americans at a Starbucks coffee shop in Philadelphia, the United States, which led to the "Starbucks racial discrimination" incident.

Starbucks suspected of discriminating against blacks

On April 12, two African Americans waited for their friends at a Starbucks coffee shop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, without ordering food. When they wanted to borrow the toilets in the store, they were rejected by the store staff on the grounds that they did not consume at Starbucks and therefore could not "use" the toilets. The clerk also asked them to leave Starbucks. But the two African Americans stayed in the store and refused to leave, and then the clerk called the police. Upon hearing the news, the police arrived and took the two African Americans away with handcuffs. They were released after being detained for several hours. Some customers at the scene filmed the incident into a video and then broadcast it on social media, which aroused widespread public concern. In particular, the footage of two African-Americans being taken away by police in handcuffs was widely disseminated by netizens. Many people believe that "the clerk called the police and arrested the police only because of skin color." The two African-American lawyers said that the two had made an appointment at a coffee shop to discuss business, and the reason they did not order was because they were waiting for other friends to arrive.

📷

On April 15, people in Philadelphia, the United States, protested in front of Starbucks before the two blacks were taken away by the police at Starbucks. Bright Pictures/Visual China

On April 16, dozens of demonstrators rushed into the Starbucks coffee shop where the incident occurred, holding slogans, chanting the slogan "Boycott Starbucks racial discrimination", demanding that Starbucks fire employees suspected of racial discrimination and demand that the police pursue arrests Black police officer. Protests caused the store’s business to be interrupted for a while, and for a while, "Starbucks discriminated against black people" spread like wildfire and intensified in the media. Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson quickly issued a letter of apology for this incident. In the letter of apology, he stated that Starbucks employees’ practice of reporting to the police was wrong, and this did not represent Starbucks’ philosophy and values. He was willing to personally report to the incident. Of two African Americans apologize. The letter of apology also stated that Starbucks will take the matter seriously and reflect on the deficiencies in the past, so as to better deal with emergencies in the future. Starbucks will also hold training courses to collectively learn about anti-racism. According to the relevant statement of Starbucks, the training courses will be developed with reference to the opinions of external experts and targeted at nearly 175,000 employees. The media here estimates that the closure of business for half a day will cause Starbucks to lose 12 million US dollars.

Social ills are hard to eradicate

Compared with Starbucks' sincere apology, the attitude of the US police in this incident was completely opposite. Richard Rose, chief of the Philadelphia Police Department, emphasized that the police are handling the case in accordance with the law. During the live broadcast on social media, Rose pointed out that the police officer involved did not do anything wrong. The police officer was reported to the scene. At that time, the two African Americans were told to leave by Starbucks employees on the grounds of "illegal invasion", but the two ignored them. , And the police officer had politely asked two African Americans to leave three times, but they were taken away only after being refused. Ross said that when companies call the police for help, saying they don't want anyone to interfere with their business, the police are obliged to perform their duties. Ross, who is African-American himself, admits that he understands the hidden racial prejudice and discrimination in society, but insists that the police will be committed to justice and unbiased law enforcement.

📷

On April 15, people in Philadelphia, the United States, protested in front of Starbucks, and police were on duty at the scene. Bright Pictures/Visual China

Analysts believe that a Starbucks "refusal to go to the toilet" incident has aroused national attention and led to large-scale protests. It is nothing more than people who used the incident to vent their serious dissatisfaction with racial discrimination in American society. It is not difficult to see from the protest videos on social media that not only black people but also many white people protested at the Starbucks coffee shop. This shows that racial discrimination in the United States is not deliberately caused by a certain color of the group, but has formed a social ailment that is difficult to eradicate. It is not only disgusted by black people, but also disgusted by white people.

In 1963, Martin Luther King, the leader of the black civil rights movement in the United States, delivered a famous speech "I Have a Dream" in front of the Lincoln Memorial, opening a page in the history of the United States against racial discrimination and fighting for equal rights and inspired countless African Americans. . April 4th marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. Fifty years have passed, and the problem of racial discrimination in the United States still exists and is getting worse. Even former US President Barack Obama once said embarrassingly that, including himself, almost all African Americans have been followed when shopping.

Absurd law enforcement occurs frequently

In recent years, the United States has exposed many incidents in which the police caused the death of civilians, especially blacks, in the course of law enforcement. In August 2014, Brown, an 18-year-old black young man in Ferguson, Missouri, was killed by the police, triggering large-scale protests and violent riots throughout the United States. In the past few days, from California on the west coast to New York on the east coast, people from many cities in the United States took to the streets to protest against the manslaughter of the 22-year-old black young man Clark in Sacramento. Of the 20 shots fired by the police, 8 shots hit Clark, and one bullet pierced the lungs. According to US media statistics, since January 2015, the Sacramento police have shot and killed 6 people including Clark, 5 of whom were African-American men. In recent years, the ongoing "Black People's Life is Fate" movement reminds people that racial discrimination still persists in America. Such incidents seem to be the norm, and have exacerbated the racial division of American society time and time again.

Looking back at several absurd police shootings of black people in the United States in recent years, people can see from a special perspective that American law enforcement agencies always seem to be "entangled" with the term racial discrimination. The reason why the role played in the incident was "broken".

In June 2017, a black alarming incident in Seattle, the United States was called an "absurd tragedy." The Washington Post reported that an African-American woman in Seattle called the police after suspecting a burglary. When the police arrived, they saw the African-American woman holding a knife and shot at her. When the police found out that a major mistake had been made, rescue was soon carried out, but the woman died. Afterwards, the police department gave an explanation that the policeman who carried out the shooting mistakenly believed that the African-American woman was the thief. The woman’s family questioned the reason for the police shooting, saying that the police could obviously use electric shocks to take away the thin and pregnant woman; even if she was holding a knife, the threat to the police was very small, but the police But choose Wu to disconnect the gun. Relatives firmly believe that the death of the African-American woman was due to racial discrimination, only because she was of African descent.

Coincidentally. In July 2016, a similarly absurd police shooting and killing of black people occurred in Minnesota, the United States. The black man who was killed was named Castir. He and his girlfriend were stopped by a policeman named Yanez when they were driving because the taillights of the car were damaged. According to the process, Yanez asked to see Castile’s driver’s license and insurance. Castiel provided insurance and informed the police that he had legal firearms. As soon as he said this, Yanez felt nervous, and subconsciously pulled out his gun. When Castiel reached for his driver's license in the car, a tragedy happened-Yanez fired several shots at Castiel in the car, killing him. Throughout the whole process of the incident, it is not difficult to see that Yanez fired because he misinterpreted Castille’s driver’s license to take a gun. Yanez was later acquitted by the court. Castiel's family was very angry about this and questioned the Minnesota judicial system, saying that this system continues to disappoint blacks.

Whether it’s Starbucks coffee shops rejecting African-Americans to go to the toilet or American police accidentally killing African-Americans, these incidents are not accidental, and I am afraid they are not the end. They undoubtedly reflect the serious racial problems and ethnic conflicts in the United States, and reflect the white Americans. The lack of mutual trust with the black community. The phrase "Remember, we only kill blacks" when the police officer of Cobb County, Georgia, United States, was on duty last year, directly tore off the fig leaf of American racial issues. In August 2017, Charlottesville, Virginia, broke out in the worst white supremacist movement in the United States in 10 years, exposing the deep tears in American society. Statistics show that there were 954 hate groups in the United States in 2017, an increase of 4% over the previous year and an increase of 20% since 2014; there are more than 600 white supremacist groups. In addition to the constant violent death tragedies, black Americans also encountered prejudice and discrimination on political, economic, educational, and social security issues.

Only by enhancing the equality and mutual trust between races and ethnicities can we prevent such tragedies from happening again. But the current reality of American society is that more than half a century after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, black Americans still find themselves trapped in impoverished areas across the country. It can be said that the stubborn racial problems in the United States are difficult to eliminate, and the "black and white confrontation" is intensifying. It is difficult to guarantee that the tragedy that occurred in Starbucks coffee shops will not happen again.