#expecting them to get in power and then use their political capitol to put ranked choice voting in place is akin to hoping

[cinemaocd]

Uh ok but more effective than hoping that that Dems will be pushing for a voting system that is as likely to put THEM out of power as the other guys, the thing you can do is join one of the major political parties and push for ranked choice voting at caucuses/meetings...

If you (like me) want 3rd party candidates to be an actual viable option in USA elections so you no longer have to vote for Democrats OR Republicans as your first and only choice, then what we need is Ranked Choice Voting. In order for that to happen, we as voters have to do two things:

Vote Democrat this fall, because Republicans fucking hate Ranked Choice Voting, and in several Republican-run states they have outlawed it. So if you want it, you have to keep Democrats in power in your state.

Lobby for and then vote for Ranked-choice voting in your state!Many American states have already adopted Ranked Choice voting and several more are set to do so in 2024. The ball is literally already rolling on this, we just need YOU to help it along.

[tomorrowusa]

Even by the abysmally low standards of the 21st century GOP, Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson ranks close to the bottom of Republican office holders. Johnson is a flunky to a flunky.

Historian Timothy Snyder has written eloquently about the need to stand up for democracy against fascism. He castigates "MAGA Mike" and reminds us that Russia's war is not just against Ukraine.

Johnson's term of office consists of stratagems to avoid funding Ukraine.  He and a minority of Trumpist Republicans have left Ukrainians without the means to defend themselves, and enabled Russian aggressors to retake Ukrainian territory.  As a result, troops are killed and disabled every day.  Around the world, Johnson's behavior is seen as betrayal and weakness.  We tend to focus on the details of Johnson's various excuses, rather than seeing the larger pattern.  Johnson's success in making the war a story about him exemplifies the American propensity to miss the big picture.  [ ... ] An elementary form of apocalypse is genocide.  Russia is making war on Ukraine with the genocidal goal of eliminating Ukrainian society as such.  It consciously fights its war with its own national minorities, and takes every opportunity to spread racist propaganda (including about African-Americans).  Russian occupiers deport Ukrainian children, rape Ukrainian women, castrate Ukrainian men, and murder Ukrainian cultural leaders with this purpose in mind.  They keep children out of school and force families into emigration, all with the goal of putting an end to a nation.  Ukrainian resistance, though, has put the backbone into "never again."  Where Ukraine holds territory, and that is most of the country, people are saved.  Ukrainians have shown that a genocide can be halted -- with the right kind of help. When we cut off that help, as we have done, we enable genocide to proceed.  This is not only a horror in itself, but a precedent. [ ... ] Russia is testing an international order. The basic assumption, since the Second World War, is that states exist have borders that war cannot alter. When Russia attacked Ukraine, it was attacking this principle. Russia's rulers expected that a new age of chaos would begin, in which only lies and force would count.

It doesn't get repeated enough that a Russian victory is a defeat for efforts to halt climate change.

For the past half century, people have been rightly concerned about global warming. Whether we get through the next half century will depend upon a balance of power between those who make money from fossil fuels and lie about their consequences and those who tell the truth about science and seek alternative sources of energy. Vladimir Putin is the most important fossil fuel oligarch. Both his wealth and his power arise from natural gas and oil reserves. His war in Ukraine is a foretaste of the struggle for resources we will all face should Putin and other fossil fuel oligarchs get the upper hand. Precisely because Ukraine resisted, important economies have accelerated their green transition. Should Ukraine be abandoned and lose, it seems unlikely that there will be another chance to hold back fossil fuel oligarchy and save the climate.

This is the most politically useful chart regarding aid to Ukraine. I've posted it before and will post it again. It shows Republican members of the US House of Representatives who represent districts won by Joe Biden in 2020. These are among the most vulnerable Republicans on Capitol Hill. One seat was just flipped last month in a special election; that should make Biden-district Republicans more attentive to their constituents.

If you live in one of those districts, contact your Rep and urge support to break the House logjam on Ukraine aid. Use language that will resonate with a Republican such as "What would Reagan do?". Check to see if like-minded friends or family live in those districts. Encourage them to contact their Rep.

Not sure who represents you? Use your ZIP+4 to find out here…

Find Your Representative

[arcticdementor]

In a democracy, every vote is supposed to be equal. If about half the country supports one side and half the country supports another, you may expect major institutions to either be equally divided, or to try to stay politically neutral.

This is not what we find. If it takes a position on the hot button social issues around which our politics revolve, almost every major institution in America that is not explicitly conservative leans left. In a country where Republicans get around half the votes or something close to that in every election, why should this be the case?

This post started as an investigation into Woke Capital, one of the most important developments in the last decade or so of American politics. Although big business pressuring politicians is not new (the NFL moved the Super Bowl from Arizona over MLK day), the scope of the issues on which corporations feel the need to weigh in is certainly expanding, now including LGBT issues, abortion laws, voting rights, kneeling during the national anthem, and gun control.

…

As I started to research the topic, however, I realized there wasn’t much to explain. Asking why corporations are woke is like asking why Hispanics tend to have two arms, or why the Houston Rockets have increased their number of 3-point shots taken over the last few decades. All humans tend to have two arms, and all NBA teams shoot more 3-pointers than in the past, so focusing on one subset of the population that has the same characteristics as all others in the group misses the point.

I think one reason Woke Capital is getting so much attention is because we expect business to be more right-leaning, and corporations throwing in with the party of more taxes and regulation strikes us as odd. We are used to schools, non-profits, mainline religions, etc. taking liberal positions and feel like business should be different. But business is just being assimilated into a larger trend.

Corporations are woke, meaning left wing on social issues relative to the general population, because institutions are woke. So the question becomes why are institutions woke?

…

Through the lens of ordinal utility, in which people simply rank what they want to happen, we are about equal. I prefer Republicans to Democrats, while you have the opposite preference. But when we think in terms of cardinal utility – in layman’s terms, how bad people want something to happen – it’s no contest. You are going to be much more influential than me. Most people are relatively indifferent to politics and see it as a small part of their lives, yet a small percentage of the population takes it very seriously and makes it part of its identity. Those people will tend to punch above their weight in influence, and institutions will be more responsive to them.

Elections are a measure of ordinal preferences. As long as you care enough to vote, it doesn’t matter how much you care about the election outcome, as everyone’s voice is the same. But for everything else – who speaks up in a board meeting about whether a corporation should take a political position, who protests against a company taking a position one side or the other finds offensive, etc. – cardinal utility maters a lot. Only a small minority of the public ever bothers to try to influence a corporation, school, or non-profit to reflect certain values, whether from the inside or out.

In an evenly divided country, if one side simply cares more, it’s going to exert a disproportionate influence on all institutions, and be more likely to see its preferences enacted in the time between elections when most people aren’t paying much attention.

…

Here are two graphs that have been getting a lot of attention

What jumps out to me in these figures is not only how left leaning large institutions are, but how the same is true for most professions. Whether you are looking by institution or by individuals, there are more donations to Biden than Trump. Yet Republicans get close to half the votes! Where are the Trump supporters? What these graphs reveal is a larger story, in which more people give to liberal causes and candidates than to conservative ones, even if Americans are about equally divided in which party they support (and no, this isn’t the result of liberals being wealthier, the connections between income and ideology or party are pretty weak). Here are some graphs from late October showing Biden having more individual donors than Trump in every battleground state.

…

In the 2012 election, Obama raised $234 million from small individual contributors, compared to $80 million for Romney, while also winning among large contributors.

…

In September 2009, at the height of the Tea Party movement, conservatives held the “Taxpayer March on Washington,” which drew something like 60,000-70,000 people, leading one newspaper to call it “the largest conservative protest ever to storm the Capitol.” Since that time, the annual anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington has drawn massive crowds, with estimates for some years ranging widely from low six figures to mid-to-high six figures. March for Life is not to be confused with “March for Our Lives,” a pro-gun control rally that activists claim saw 800,000 people turn out in 2018. All these events were dwarfed by the Women’s March in opposition to Trump, which drew by one estimate “between 3,267,134 and 5,246,670 people in the United States (our best guess is 4,157,894). That translates into 1 percent to 1.6 percent of the U.S. population of 318,900,000 people (our best guess is 1.3 percent).” Even if the two left-wing academics who did this research are letting their bias infuse their work, there is no question that protesting is generally a left-wing activity, as conservatives themselves realize.

People who engage in protesting care more about politics than people who donate money, and people who donate money care more than people who simply vote. Imagine a pyramid with voters at the bottom and full-time activists on top, and as you move up the pyramid it gets much narrower and more left-wing. Multiple strands of evidence indicate this would basically be an accurate representation of society.

Another line of evidence showing that the left simply cares more about politics comes from Noah Carl, who has put together data showing liberals are in their personal lives more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa across numerous dimensions in the US and the UK. Those on the left are more likely to block someone on social media over their views, be upset if their child marries someone from the other side, and find it hard to be friends with or date someone they disagree with politically. Here are two graphs demonstrating the general point.

…

There’s a great irony here. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical of pure democracy, and believe in individuals coming together and forming civil society organizations away from government. Yet conservatives are extremely bad at gaining or maintaining control of institutions relative to liberals. It’s not because they are poorer or the party of the working class – again, I can’t stress enough how little economics predicts people’s political preferences – but because they are the party of those who simply care less about the future of their country.

Debates over voting rights make the opposite assumption, as conservatives tend to want more restrictions on voting, and liberals fewer, with National Review explicitly arguing against a purer form of democracy. Conservatives may be right that liberals are less likely to care enough to do basic things like bring a photo ID and correctly fill out a ballot. If this is true, Republicans are the party of people who care enough to vote when doing so is made slightly more difficult but not enough to do anything else, while Democrats are the party of both the most active and least active citizens. Yet while being the “care only enough to vote” party might be adequate for winning elections, the future belongs to those at the tail end of the distribution who really want to change the world.

The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital, though it must to a certain extent be disciplined and limited by the preferences of consumers. Start your own institutions? Good luck staffing them with competent people for normal NGO or media salaries, and if you’re not careful they’ll be captured by your enemies anyway, hence Conquest’s Second Law. And the media will be there every step of the way to declare any of your attempts at taking power to be pure fascism, and brush aside any resistance to your schemes as righteous anger, up to and including rioting and acts of violence.

…

From this perspective we might want to consider this passage from Scott Alexander, who writes the following in his review of a biography of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The normal course of politics is various coalitions of elites and populace, each drawing from their own power bases. A normal political party, like a normal anything else, has elite leaders, analysts, propagandists, and managers, plus populace foot soldiers. Then there's an election, and sometimes our elites get in, and sometimes your elites get in, but getting a political party that's against the elites is really hard and usually the sort of thing that gets claimed rather than accomplished, because elites naturally rise to the top of everything.

But sometimes political parties can run on an explicitly anti-elite platform. In theory this sounds good - nobody wants to be elitist. In practice, this gets really nasty quickly. Democracy is a pure numbers game, so it's hard for the elites to control - the populace can genuinely seize the reins of a democracy if it really wants. But if that happens, the government will be arrayed against every other institution in the nation. Elites naturally rise to the top of everything - media, academia, culture - so all of those institutions will hate the new government and be hated by it in turn. Since all natural organic processes favor elites, if the government wants to win, it will have to destroy everything natural and organic - for example, shut down the regular media and replace it with a government-controlled media run by its supporters.

When elites use the government to promote elite culture, this usually looks like giving grants to the most promising up-and-coming artists recommended by the art schools themselves, and having the local art critics praise their taste and acumen. When the populace uses the government to promote popular culture against elite culture, this usually looks like some hamfisted attempt to designate some kind of "official" style based on what popular stereotypes think is "real art from back in the day when art was good", which every art school and art critic attacks as clueless Philistinism. Every artist in the country will make groundbreaking exciting new art criticizing the government's poor judgment, while the government desperately looks for a few technicians willing to take their money and make, I don't know, pretty landscape paintings or big neoclassical buildings.

The important point is that elite government can govern with a light touch, because everything naturally tends towards what they want and they just need to shepherd it along. But popular/anti-elite government has a strong tendency toward dictatorship, because it won't get what it wants without crushing every normal organic process. Thus the stereotype of the "right-wing strongman", who gets busy with the crushing.

So the idea of "right-wing populism" might invoke this general concept of somebody who, because they have made themselves the champion of the populace against the elites, will probably end up incentivized to crush all the organic processes of civil society, and yoke culture and academia to the will of government in a heavy-handed manner.

To put it in a different way, to steelman the populist position, democracy does not reflect the will of the citizenry, it reflects the will of an activist class, which is not representative of the general population. Populists, in order to bring institutions more in line with what the majority of the people want, need to rely on a more centralized and heavy-handed government. The strongman is liberation from elites, who aren’t the best citizens, but those with the most desire to control people’s lives, often to enforce their idiosyncratic belief system on the rest of the public, and also a liberation from having to become like elites in order to fight them, so conservatives don’t have to give up on things like hobbies and starting families and devote their lives to activism.

[guardian-esper]

Entry #0: An Introduction

Date: I couldn’t reliably tell you in my current state.

Time: Late morning. Headache-o’-clock.

This might not practically be the best time to start writing, or rather this isn’t the best personal state of physical being, but it’s not like I can do much else when I’m this hung over. Gods, my head is pounding. I don’t think I’ve ever celebrated quite like I did last night. I went ahead to the infirmary and asked for a concoction to deal with this bottle ache, hopefully that’ll kick in soon.

Anyhow, let me back up a little here, remark on some context. Yesterday, I was awarded my first ever promotion in rank for the town guard. Last night, my new fellow sergeants decided to give me the usual rite-of-passage celebration for privates who rank up. I had, ah, to be honest, never touched a drink in my life. Not like that, at least. So uh, that’s two major developments: My first promotion, and my first drunken escapade.

I don’t really remember everything after the first few rounds, but right now I think I feel mostly regret, despite my excitement. Although, I do think I accidentally bumped into one of the women sergeants, in an accident of...inappropriate contact. I think I tried to explain myself through the alcoholic fog, but based on the faint stinging on my left cheek, I feel fairly certain of the strength her backhanding capability.

I uh, I don’t think I’ll be indulging in whiskey quite like that ever again. Need to remind myself to go and apologize later.

Ahem. At any rate, I’m here writing now at the recommendation of the lieutenant I’m now serving directly under. They said it would be good to keep a record of some kind, a source of reflection on any future operations or happenings. Not that I or they expect there’ll be all that much, considering how usually peaceful and calm it is in this little town. Still, I guess it might be worth it in a general sense, at least.

I think I’ve gotten a little ahead of myself, though. I’ve completely forgotten to record an introduction. Let’s continue this properly.

Name: Ivan Stavros.

Race: Human.

Age: 21. Born on the twenty-first day of the ninth month of the year.

Title: Sergeant of the town guard of Trelynshire.

Responsibilities: Second in command to my unit’s leader, Lieutenant B’jorn. In addition to making the usual town rounds and participating in the usual drills, I’ll be sometimes sent as messenger boy between the lieutenants and the captain. In more rare occasions, I’ll be put in charge of my unit. If circumstances ever demand it, that is.

...honestly, aside from a bit of a pay raise and some more authority, I don’t expect my new station to amount to too much. Other than a rare few major incidents, not a lot of particular danger ever comes knocking on our doors. Trelynshire is a pretty quiet town, with nothing but miles of wilds and forestry surrounding. So we’re a bit on the isolated side here, and in the context of the wider world...if I’m being honest, it’s rather boring. Peaceful, yes, and full of kind and hardworking folk, but you aren’t exactly going to find many thrilling stories about imminent danger threatening the townsfolk or anything.

Many, I emphasize. There have been a few. Including, I should mention, the events surrounding what led to my somewhat sudden promotion. Which, I will get into after my introductions here are finished. I need to fully recover before I start going over those more recent events again. Otherwise, Trelynshire itself isn‘t entirely boring, or empty of intrigue or mystery. Far from it, actually, though most of its secrets are kept rather hush-hush. Again, I will get into that, probably in a future entry.

Back to myself, however, I’ve got a solid 21 years of life to recount. At this point, they’re not something I’ve sat down to think about very much. There are...some things that aren’t very favorable to reminisce. Some things I’ve only spoken to a few people in confidence about; one of them being Lieutenant B’jorn, mentioned above. The man doesn’t like to pry too much, but he has genuinely tried to help me out, even with advice on personal matters. That might be another reason he recommended I start journaling: for the supposed therapeutic aspect of it. I mean, maybe he’s right, perhaps it would be good to finally sit down and take stock of my 21 years on this Earth, but...I’m not certain how easy that’s going to be.

I think maybe I should let this hangover let up first. Let me just sleep on it for a bit.

...

The time: Early evening, same day.

Right, I feel better now. That concoction’s worked wonders, and I’ve napped the hangover off otherwise. The rain and grey skies outside helped me sleep. Just a little worn-out still. Thank the gods that I was allowed a few days off to recuperate before taking my new station.

Anyroad, where was I? Right. The story of my life. Hmm...

Let me preface by saying that, I’m not taking stock of any of this for reader’s sympathy, not to say ‘poor poor me’ or anything like that. I don’t like to stay too hung up on the past. Growing up here in Trelynshire, my mentor would often tell me that the past need not define me or anyone, yet reflection is important all the same. That it’s to be learned from, or something. Honestly, I don’t know about that. The past is what it is, and can’t be changed. In my case, I prefer to just not hinge on it. Or think about it much at all, really. It’s not like I’m going to get closure or anything like that, and besides, there’s the here and now, and the future to think about. This town has been kind and patient with me, and gave me as good of a fresh start as I could have ever asked for. What good can really come from hinging on things that can’t be changed?

Damn it, I’m delaying. I told Lieutenant B’jorn that I would try to write, if at least to keep my head clear and focused in my upcoming post as a sergeant. He needs me focused, like everyone else. C’mon, Ivan, buckle down and get it done. It’s not like anyone else is going to read this anyway.

Right, then. I guess the very beginning of things would normally be the best place to start. Yet...I think it might be necessary here to jump around a bit. At least to better contextualize past events in conjunction with where I am in the present.

It would be most prudent then to start with the fact that Trelynshire is not my native home. No, I’m actually not from anywhere quite near here. I’m from a much more largely governed area, and Trelynshire is for all intents and purposes an independent town, as far as I can tell. As much as Trelynshire is (by a long shot) more home to me than my original home was, I feel the need to tell about my origins here.

To put matters simply, I am more or less a refugee. My home city is, as far as I know, currently in a severely war-torn state. I only saw a few days of a glimpse at this conflict before I, and many other children at the time, were rescued and extracted from the children’s boarding school we had been living in. Or rather, I should say, where we were frankly being kept and groomed. You see, according to what little I’ve learned, my home city-state has fallen into a state of fascism and borderline dictatorship over the last few generations. Growing up, I couldn’t really grasp what was going on around me there, especially being one of the ostracized lower-class kids, but in hindsight, the place is and has been a right mess.

For a more broad geographical and political context: Trelynshire is located deep within forested wilds, further inland on the continent, which all major maps call Eliostar. If one travels from Trelynshire far to the northwest, they will encounter a major desert region. This region extends into a major peninsular landmass, which is the geographical home to a major empire composed of a number of distinct city-states. Well, ex-empire, I should say. Over time, the political configuration become more democratic as the various city-states began to elect representatives to rule alongside the empress, and keep her power in check. If I recall correctly, this area is now officially called The Imperial Republic of Akkacia, formerly the Akkacian Empire.

My home city, Ireithett, is actually the capitol of one the Republic’s major city-states, Vortix, which lies near the mountainous threshold between the Republic and the desert separating the peninsula from the rest of the continent. As far as the past of this city-state goes, what I do know is that it has always been notable as one of the more militarily powerful of the states, second only to Sythemar further west. In the recent decades, however, Vortix has been the cause of tension through the Republic, and by the time I was around eleven years old, any political stability it maintained with the rest of the Republic had broken down. Whatever sparked it, an armed conflict broke out between Vortix and the rest of the Republic, who in time had fought their way across Vortix’s farmlands into Ireithett itself, intent to storm the capitol, take control, and force the leaders into some kind of agreement. I don’t know what the source of the conflict was, or even if it’s close to have been resolved yet, but that’s not currently high on my list of interests to know. As far as my life there goes, however...

Ireithett was always called the ‘crown jewel’ of Vortix, being the one major city to populate the otherwise overwhelmingly farmland structure of the nation-state. But if you were asking me if that was true, having grown up on the inside of the capitol, I could tell you that is actually far from the case. Most of the city is, frankly, overwhelmingly slums. There was always a more poor district in the outer areas, but in the past, it was much smaller. Where there was apparently an existing middle class region, there isn’t really anything left of that. I snuck in once, in fact, only to find that all of the housing was abandoned, decaying, and/or used for some governing or policing purpose by those in their unreachable ivory towers, which were separated from us common folk by tall, iron-wrought walls. In short, where I lived, and everywhere I could even go, were all slums. Even more bizarrely than this, we weren’t even allowed to leave the city itself, so I never saw much of the green fields and farmlands outside the city. A decaying capitol was all I knew, and as you might guess, it was rife with danger. Crime, homelessness, gangs, violence and substance abuse were common, and there were even rumors of trafficking. Of weapons, drugs, and...I loathe to think about it, but of people. As hard as it was being a growing kid in the slums, I shudder to think about how some less fortunate than I ended up.

In short, well, it was a shithole. I really can’t describe it any other way.

Ironically, though, the only thing scarier than thugs or traffickers was the city guard. A lot of brutalizing bastards acting at the behest of the elite, or whoever might be able to pay them more or do them the right favors. They knew little mercy and had just as little patience. Claimed to be acting in our best interests to try and get us to cooperate, but they were all the bloody definition of dirty law enforcement. And I was one of the kids unfortunate enough to be born in this city’s walls, under their monitoring.

Yet I was fortunate enough to eventually be rescued, just as all hell was breaking loose upon the city from the invading united armies that made their ways to the city gates. Obviously, it’s nearly impossible for me to look back in positivity at those days. My family didn’t have much to its name, and avoiding trouble (and resisting the urge to get into trouble for a scrap of anything better) was a monumental task all its own. I had seen my hefty share of street fights, brutality, fear and strife before I was free from it all, and it’s a difficult thing to look back on.

Honestly, though, it’s not that I don’t ever look back. I try not to, but...unfortunately, I’m not certain I can say all ties with the place are completely cut. I did, of course, have family and friends there when I was extracted and eventually brought here to Trelynshire. I don’t know, but I like to think I still do have said friends and family. The thing is, I have no idea where they are, if they ever broke free from that place, or if they’re even alive. And this was ten years ago. I don’t know what happened to my mother after I was separated from her and put in that bloody stupid boarding school. I never learned what became of my father, who joined the city guard apparently in hopes of bringing us into a better life inside the upper-class walls. And my friends...not a day goes by when I don’t wonder about them, if they’re okay or not. This kind of distance from them...it’s a thing that I loathe about how things have turned out.

Don’t get me wrong. I could not be more fortunate than I am to have been taken care of these past ten years by the folk here in Trelynshire. Despite the difficulties I’m (often, but in jest) reminded I posed to them, I’ve always been cared for and looked after here. I have a place in the world here, and it seems I’m carving out a future of some kind. But do you know how tantalizing it is to be suddenly whisked away from your home, downtrodden and hellish as it was, never to know what became of everyone you knew?! It sticks with you. Indefinitely. You feel things like guilt, even regret, regret for not finding out on your own before it was too late. Regret for not bloody fighting for it, even if you know there was little you could do.

Forgive me. I need another moment to cool off. Emotion is getting the better of me here.

...

Apologies. I’m alright. Let me try and wrap this up for the time being.

To shed light on what I was just talking about, I have indeed tried, once or twice, to learn about the goings-on in Ireithett the past ten years. Unfortunately, even if someone makes it through the desert to the border, it’s hard to be granted passage into Akkacia as a whole right now. Apparently the conflict is still going on, and the Republic’s government isn’t exactly keen on letting very many details out. In light of all this, I frustratingly only have more questions instead of answers. Still, the captain of  the guard here assured me that she would keep whatever line of information possible between here and there, and update me on any developments. There is at least that, and she has my deepest appreciation. Not that I’m really holding my breath for anything to come to light any time soon, but all the same it means a lot. I’ve thanked her, and in meantime, I’ve just tried to carry on and focus on where I’m going, not where I’ve been.

With that though, I’m getting a little too tired, emotionally and physically, to carry on with all this right now. It’s getting dark outside, and the post-nap drowsiness from earlier is really starting to weigh on me. There is more to tell, certainly, but at the moment, I don’t feel very up to the task. I do, however, have a few days of off-time left before my first official shift as a lieutenant, so maybe after a good night’s rest I can go into more detail tomorrow. For better or worse, there’s a lot left to unpack here, but I’ll try again perhaps in the morning. Hmm...mayhaps I’ll set up to write in the local cafe. I could use something strong to reset with, and the service there is always top-knotch. For now, if Hypnos would be so willing to give me an uninterrupted sleep, I’ll be up and going strong again in the morrow. Until then.

                                                                                                          -Ivan

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 26, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

As the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol starts its work, former president Trump and his supporters are consolidating their power over the Republican Party. Through it, they hope to control the nation.

Trump this morning tried to assert his dominance over the party by issuing a statement in which he demanded that Republican senators scrap the infrastructure bill that has been more than three months in the making. Although he did not note any specific provisions in the bill, he claimed that senators were getting “savaged” in the negotiations because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “and his small group of RINOs wants nothing more than to get a deal done at any cost to prove that he can work with the Radical Left Democrats.” Trump ordered lawmakers not to do an infrastructure deal “until after we get proper election results in 2022 or otherwise…. Republicans,” he ordered, “don’t let the Radical Left play you for weak fools and losers!”

The term “RINO” comes from the 1990s, when the Movement Conservatives taking over the Republican Party used it to discredit traditional Republicans as “Republicans In Name Only.” It reversed reality—the Movement Conservatives were the RINOs, not the other way around—but it worked. Movement Conservatives, who wanted to get rid of the New Deal and take the government back to the 1920s, pushed aside traditional Republicans who agreed with Democrats that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure.

Now, the former president is doing the same thing: claiming that the Movement Conservatives who now dominate the leadership of the Republican Party are not really Republicans. True Republicans, he says, are those loyal only to him.

He is using the infrastructure bill as a loyalty test. The reality is that an infrastructure package is very popular, and walking away from it will cost Republicans in states that are not fully under Trump’s sway. A new poll by the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC is the nonpartisan National Opinion Research Center affiliated with the university) finds that 83% of Americans, including 79% of Republicans and 80% of Independents, want funding for roads, bridges, and ports. Sixty-six percent of Americans, including 43% of Republicans and 53% of Independents, want to pay for it with higher taxes on corporations.

Walking away from those kinds of numbers seems like political poison, and yet the discussions to whip the bipartisan bill into shape seemed to veer off track today.

The demand for Republican loyalty is playing out as the January 6 committee gets down to business. Organizing that committee has driven a wedge through Republican lawmakers. After an initial period in which leaders like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed outrage and a desire to learn what had created the January 6 crisis, the leaders have lined up behind the former president. Emboldened, Trump’s supporters have become more aggressive in their insistence that they, not those interested in stopping a future insurrection, are the good guys.

After Republican senators rejected the establishment of a bipartisan select commission and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) set up a House select committee instead, McCarthy tried to sabotage the committee by putting on it two extreme Trump supporters out of the five slots he was assigned. He named Jim Jordan (R-OH) but pretty clearly expected Pelosi would toss him and put up with Jim Banks (R-IN), whom McCarthy had named the ranking member of the committee. Banks was on record attacking the committee as a leftist plot, and could undermine the committee’s work while getting enough media time to launch him as a national political candidate (his hiring of Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson’s son long before this indicated his hope for good media coverage for a possible swing at a higher office).

But Pelosi didn’t play. She refused to accept either Jordan or Banks, prompting McCarthy to pull all five of his nominees. She had already chosen Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) as one of her eight seats on the committee; yesterday she added Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) as well. Both Cheney and Kinzinger are Movement Conservatives, but they are not willing to jump on the Trump bandwagon.

Today, when PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked McCarthy what he thought of Cheney and Kinzinger’s participation on the committee, he called them “Pelosi Republicans.” He has suggested that they might face sanctions from the party for their cooperation with the committee.

Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted for Trump. Cheney voted with Trump more than 90% of the time. Kinzinger voted with him 99% of the time in the president’s first two years in office. Trying to make them into Democrats because they did not support the insurrection is a double-edged sword. McCarthy is trying to read them out of the Republican Party, for sure, but he is also tying the entire party to Trump, and it seems likely—from Trump’s rising panic, if nothing else—that the committee will discover things that will not show the former president and his supporters in a good light.

Today Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), chair of the select committee and of the House Homeland Security Committee, published an op-ed in the Washington Post. He noted that in a recent CBS News survey, 72% of Americans said they thought there was more to learn about what happened on January 6. He promised that “nothing will be off-limits” as the committee figures out “what happened, why and how. And we will make recommendations to help ensure it never happens again.”

Along with Thompson, Liz Cheney will deliver opening remarks from the committee before it begins to hear the testimony of Capitol Police.

But McCarthy and other Trump supporters are doing all they can to derail the investigation into what happened on January 6. The committee’s work is not a criminal investigation: that is the job of the Department of Justice, which has already charged more than 535 people for their actions in the insurrection. The committee will try to piece together the events leading up to January 6, along with why the response from law enforcement was so delayed. It will look at the response of the White House, as well as the funders and organizers of the rallies of January 5 and 6. It will look at members of Congress, and how they intersected with the events of that day.

Politico’s congressional reporter Olivia Beavers reported that McCarthy will try to counter the committee’s first hearing tomorrow morning with a press conference. Sometime later in the day, Representatives Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), staunch and vocal Trump supporters all, are planning a press conference outside the Department of Justice, where they plan to demand “answers on the treatment of January 6th prisoners” from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

One of the hallmarks of a personality like that of former president Donald Trump is that he cannot stop escalating. It’s not that he won’t stop; it’s that he can’t stop. And he will escalate until someone finally draws a line and holds it.

—-

Notes:

Cheney:

BrooklynDad_Defiant! @mmpadellanRep. Liz Cheney will be delivering the opening remarks of the January 6th hearing before Capitol Police testify. This should be...interesting.1,762 Retweets13,293 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-rino-rino-rino

https://apnorc.org/projects/views-on-the-infrastructure-bill/

Yamiche Alcindor @YamicheI asked Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy what he makes of GOP Reps Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger sitting on the January 6th Select Committee. He replied in two words here at the WH: “Pelosi Republicans.”842 Retweets4,461 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://www.oneillinois.com/stories/2021/1/8/kinzinger-voted-for-with-trump-before-turning

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/cheney-mccarthy-jan-6-investigation-500741

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-opinion-poll/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/26/bennie-thompson-jan-6-investigation/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-talks-in-dire-state-ahead-of-pivotal-week/ar-AAMzKuV

Olivia Beavers @Olivia_BeaversGOP Strategy: 2 sources tell me House Rs — including members McCarthy picked to serve on the 1/6 select panel and then pulled & likely Scalise/Stefanik — will hold a presser tomorrow AM to try to counter Dems’ messaging about the 1/6 probe ahead of committee’s first hearing.103 Retweets269 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-arrests-latest-2021-07-22/

https://www.justsecurity.org/77588/questions-the-january-6-select-committee-should-ask-its-witnesses/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime/where-things-stand-july-26-2021-tomorrow-sinister-counter-programming

https://www.axios.com/jan-6-graphic-footage-capitol-attack-041e0422-42b7-4f4b-8d1b-bc55612733b8.html

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[phroyd]

WASHINGTON — After months of anticipation, Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, on Wednesday delivered nearly seven hours of dry, sometimes halting testimony before Congress. Republicans and Democrats sparred over his conclusions, but in back-to-back hearings, Mr. Mueller mostly reiterated the findings of his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election without offering any significant new disclosures.

Here are seven takeaways.

Mr. Mueller batted down President Trump’s claims about his report and threw a few barbs.

Mr. Mueller may have been reluctant to go beyond the four corners of his 448-page report, but with a series of one-word answers and short-winded darts, he dealt a sharp blow to President Trump’s version of events by broadcasting his own meticulous research.

Asked if Mr. Trump “wasn’t always being truthful” or complete in his written answers under oath to the special counsel’s questions, Mr. Mueller responded, “I would say generally.” He called Mr. Trump’s encouragement of the WikiLeaks releases of purloined Democratic emails “problematic” to say the least. He fretted that the Trump campaign’s openness to accepting Russian assistance would prove to be “a new normal.” And he warned that not only had the Russians not been deterred from election interference, but “they’re doing it as we sit here.”

Under questioning by Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the Intelligence Committee chairman, Mr. Mueller agreed that receiving campaign assistance from a foreign power was “unpatriotic” and “wrong.”

The most helpful moment to Democrats may have come as Mr. Mueller faced his first questions, from Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is a sequence that is likely to play out on television and in political ads for months to come.

“Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?” Mr. Nadler asked.

“Right, that is not what the report said,” Mr. Mueller replied.

The exchange went on in that fashion, with Mr. Mueller shooting down Mr. Trump’s claims.

Time and again, Mr. Mueller defied Democrats looking for a flashy new moment.

It did not take long for the routine to become predictable: Democrats asked a leading or politically damaging question, and Mr. Mueller demurred. The special counsel clearly laid down limits.

“The most important question I have for you is why? Why did the president of the United States want you fired?” asked Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida.

“I can’t answer that question,” Mr. Mueller replied. It became a frequent refrain.

He repeatedly declined Democrats’ invitations to read passages from his report, consciously depriving Democrats of potentially useful footage of him speaking aloud some of the most damaging material he uncovered.

When Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, walked through an analysis suggesting that several episodes documented by Mr. Mueller met the criteria for obstruction of justice, the former special counsel tossed cold water his way.

“I don’t subscribe necessarily to the way you analyzed that,” Mr. Mueller said.

The Democrats’ challenge was visible in miniature when Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, offered Mr. Mueller an open platform to tell the American people why they ought to care about his work. He essentially refused to step onto it.

“We spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report,” Mr. Mueller said.

“It is a signal, a flag to those of us who have responsibility to exercise that responsibility, not to let this kind of thing happen again.”

Republicans tried to sow doubts, but Mr. Mueller frustrated them too.

Republicans’ playbook with Mr. Mueller was clear: Trumpet prosecutorial conclusions beneficial to Mr. Trump while trying to sow doubt about the basic fairness of Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. and his team. More often than not, they met a stiff arm from Mr. Mueller, but succeeded in roughing him up around the edges.

There were questions — sometimes tangled and obscure — about shadowy figures in the investigation, about the supposed bias of Mr. Mueller’s team of investigators, and about charging decisions. Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, told Mr. Mueller that he had “inverted burden of proof” by detailing the president’s conduct without charging him with a crime.

“Respectfully, respectfully, you managed to violate every principle in the tradition,” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not, but he damned sure shouldn’t be below the law” either.

Representative Devin Nunes of California, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, opened with, “Welcome everyone to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy.”

But Republicans gained little ground in their effort to better understand why Mr. Mueller or the F.B.I. made the choices they did. The former special counsel swatted away questions on a salacious but unverified dossier of information on Mr. Trump used by the F.B.I., on the former British spy who compiled it, and on other aspects of the origins of the Russia investigation.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio asked elaborately why Mr. Mueller chose not to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told a Trump campaign adviser that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Mr. Jordan’s voice raised. His arms flailed.

Mr. Mueller answered, “I can’t get into it.”

Whither impeachment? Mueller did not help advocates much.

Liberals who support opening impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump had hoped that testimony by the former special counsel would finally electrify their efforts. The early verdict suggests that did not happen.

Mr. Mueller himself clearly did not want to let the term escape his mouth, nor did he provide the kind of shocking new evidence or analysis that would have forced the issue. When Representative Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, asserted that the special counsel’s report did not recommend or even discuss impeachment, the witness would not even nod along.

“I am not going to talk about that issue,” Mr. Mueller said.

The staunchest supporters of the impeachment effort pressed on anyway, and are likely to keep up pressure on party leaders.

“To not open an impeachment inquiry in the face of such obvious corruption is an abdication of the oath we took to defend our country, uphold the rule of law and hold the president accountable for his misconduct,” said Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island and the head of his party’s messaging arm.

One Democrat, freshman Representative Lori Trahan of Massachusetts, joined 90-odd other House members calling for the opening of an impeachment inquiry.

Others could follow this week, and some sensed new openness by Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday evening to pursuing such a case. But with a six-week August recess looming and the views of most Americans fixed on what is now a two-year-old story line, a lasting shift in public opinion appears unlikely.

Mr. Mueller appeared a little shaky at the witness table.

In his years as F.B.I. director, Mr. Mueller was never known as a loquacious witness, but his performance on Wednesday frequently turned heads and prompted cringes from lawmakers looking on.

He stumbled over his words, asked lawmakers again and again to repeat their questions after misunderstanding or seemingly not hearing them, and declined to engage in any extended discussions over the legal rationale of his work. On occasion, Mr. Mueller, 74, appeared to be unfamiliar with details of his own report and even in one instance his own résumé. That may have robbed his testimony of some of the power that many had expected.

When Representative Greg Stanton, Democrat of Arizona, asked which president had first appointed him as a United States attorney, Mr. Mueller could not remember, guessing that it may have been President George Bush.

“According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan who had the honor to do so,” Mr. Stanton said.

“My mistake,” Mr. Mueller replied.

But other moments proved stronger, particularly during the afternoon hearing with the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Mueller appeared more at ease and more willingly strayed from his written report.

The Justice Department’s opinion that bars charging a president brought confusion.

Democrats thought they had struck gold during the day’s first hearing when Mr. Mueller seemingly told Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California, that he would have indicted Mr. Trump if not for Justice Department policies prohibiting a federal indictment against a sitting president.

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Mr. Lieu asked, referring to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“That is correct,” Mr. Mueller said.

Mr. Mueller’s statement directly contradicted what he wrote in his report and could have been damaging to Mr. Trump, implying that he was a criminal in all but name.

But when Mr. Mueller delivered an opening statement before the Intelligence Committee a short while later, he backtracked. He did not agree with Mr. Lieu’s statement, he said, repeating a version closer to what his team put in their report: that the policy prevented them from even considering whether to charge Mr. Trump.

“We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” he said.

Mr. Mueller offered a defense of his investigation, belatedly.

Through months of withering attacks by Mr. Trump and his allies, Mr. Mueller’s response was unchanged and often frustrating to his allies: total silence. On Wednesday, he finally pushed back, albeit late and with a light touch

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mr. Mueller declared flatly, when asked by Mr. Schiff about a term Mr. Trump has lobbed his way hundreds of times since the investigation began.

He betrayed stronger hints of emotion when Representative Tom McClintock, Republican of California, said, “Having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead.”

Mr. Mueller replied, “I don’t think you have reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us.”

He had just as starchy a retort ready for Republicans who accused him of filling his office with partisan Democrats who were out to tank Mr. Trump.

“We strove to hire those individuals that could do the job,” Mr. Mueller, a Republican, said. “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.”

Phroyd

[meetthetank]

Peccatum Chapter 9: Fireside Chat

Ao3 Link: https://archiveofourown.org/works/14454675/chapters/43675304 Rating: Mature Archive Warning: Graphic Depictions Of Violence Category: F/M Fandom: NieR: Automata (Video Game) Relationships: 2B/9S (NieR: Automata), A2/A4 (NieR: Automata). Jackass/The Commander (NieR: Automata) Characters: 2B (NieR: Automata), 9S (NieR: Automata), A2 (NieR: Automata), A4 (NieR: Automata), 6O (NieR: Automata), 21O, Jackass (NieR: Automata), The Commander (NieR: Automata) Additional Tags: Alternate Universe - Fantasy, Alternate Universe, genre typical violence, long fic, Slow Burn, War

“Damnit!” 9S shouts, kicking a charred plank.

Ash billows out over the darkening sky as the wood crumbles into dust. A light gust carried the cloud of soot over what remains of the humble grain village; a few free standing bits of scaffolding, defaced statues of the region’s senator, and blackened remnants of stone structures.

“This is the fourth one in a row…” 32S mumbles, burying his head in his hands.

“But…” 801S stammers, “I was here not...a month ago! I was here and it was fine! Everyone was fine!”

He sinks to the ground, a cloud of ash billowing out around him. 9S wraps his arms around his friend’s shoulders as 801S lists the people he met (or at least he thinks they’re people he met...it’s impossible to one charred corpse from the next) who ended up in a vile mass grave burning in the center of town. His voice chokes on the name of a farmhand he had been writing to for some time.

“Why...Why would they attack here?!” 801S yells, “There’s nothing here but wheat! No soldiers lived here! There’s no walls, no battlements...They were just farmers!”

For a moment, a heavy silence fills the air between them.

“...The demons are trying to starve us out,” 11S growls, putting words to what they had realized when they arrived, “It isn’t just bloodlust that makes them target these defenseless towns. These farms supply food all across the Republic. Cut off the supply…”

“...And the capitols weaken,” 9S finishes. “The armies weaken.”

The scouts remain quiet, either out of respect for the dead or from the icy fear that grabs hold of their hearts. Somewhere in the back of all of their minds they knew they were fighting an uphill battle, but this is the first time where they fully realize they’re on the losing side of this war. Grossly outnumbered, outmaneuvered at every turn, unable to keep up with the rapid evolution of their enemy. The only ones that stood a chance were the Devoted, but none of the Theocratic clergymen were allowed within the ranks of a Republic army.

“...One of us should double back to the Commander,” 32S says, breaking the silence.

A low sigh escapes 9S. “No one’s gonna be happy about this. We’ve been marching for nearly three days straight.”

9S volunteers to be the one to go back while the other scouts press onward. A strictly maintained five mile gap separates the main force from the scouts, but with only flat farmland and open fields to cross, it doesn’t take long for him to see Commander White atop her warhorse leading the troops. He falls in step next to her and Lieutenant Jackass’ horses easily.

“Well?” White asks, exhaustion creeping into her normally level tone.

9S sighs. “No good. That town’s been razed too. No survivors either.”

“Damn…” Jackass rubs her face with one hand. “We can’t push them for much longer, White.”

“We can’t stop,” the Commander snaps and pulls a small map from her saddlebag. “It’s far too dangerous to halt everyone out in these open fields.”

“It’s also too dangerous to make exhausted soldiers try to defend anything. Look at them White, any longer than another day or so and they’ll start dropping.”

She gestures to the irregular lines of soldiers and carts, most nursing varying degrees of injury that come with days of nonstop movement. A few hitch rides on carts wherever they can find space, or double up on the back of a horse just to get some kind of reprieve. Even 2B, who 9S can see peeking around the bulk of the army, sits on the healer’s supply cart with 6O.

“Here,” White says, snapping 9S out of his thoughts. “There’s a proper town half a day beyond the one we’re about to pass. Walls and a militia. If that’s been razed too, we stop anyway.”

“Understood.”

With time of the essence Jackass loans 9S her horse, a brown stallion named Hort, to ride further ahead. With the speed of the ornery beast, he catches up to the other scouts within the hour. Relaying the information brings some light and hope back to the scouts. 801S hops on the back of Hort, sitting close behind him as they ride.

To pass the time, the pair chat idly about whatever crosses their mind, careful to avoid heavier subjects or politics. 801S teases 9S about 2B, and in turn 9S teases 801S about the archer boy he’s been eyeing for a while. They reminisce about old times, simpler times, till they see the turrets of the town’s walls.

“Their wall’s still standing!” 801S shouts, bouncing excitedly much to the displeasure of Hort.

9S is about speak, but the sight of a wooden sign with a crude depiction of a half-demon stops the words in his throat. Though it is devoid of words, the message is clear enough to him. A warning. A threat.

801S’ expression sours when he notices the tension creeping through 9S. “...Stop the horse here. I’ll go ahead inside and let the town know the main force is on its way.”

“Thanks,” 9S says with a shudder in his voice.

Uncertainty worms its way through his gut as he rides back towards the advancing army. It wouldn’t be the first time that he’s come across a town with that kind of mindset, but it always brings risk. It isn’t exactly like he can blame them, either. With the only thing separating the town from the demon hordes roaming around is a few stones, paranoia is to be expected.

At least within the ranks of an army he’s relatively safe.

The sun reaches its highest peak by the time 9S reaches White again, who announces the good news. Soldiers erupt into cheers, energy surging back through their exhausted bodies. They don’t even complain when she announces that the march will move into double time to reach the town before nightfall, in fact it seems to bolster their spirits further.

9S returns Hort to his owner and hops onto the healer’s wagon with 6O and 2B.

“So, what are you ladies talking about? Girl things?” he asks with a smirk.

6O snorts, “We have much better things to talk about than fashion and marriage.”

2B tilts her head to the side in a way that 9S can’t help but consider adorable. “Is that what humans consider feminine?”

“Well, yeah,” 9S says with as much confusion as is on 2B’s face, “What do Coatyls consider feminine?”

“Stoicism, well maintained weapons, and…” 2B pauses to think for a moment. “...A healthy amount of bloodlust.”

“Oh. That...explains some things.”

6O laughs at his expense. 2B just holds that same bewildered expression she has whenever she’s confronted with the novelties of human culture as 9S and 6O trade playful punches with each other.

“Anyway, 2B,” 6O begins once she’s had her fill of punching and laughing at 9S, “as I was saying, my patron god isn’t necessarily evil. None of the old gods are, they’re simply...forces of nature.”

“Oh no,” 9S groans. “She’s doing this again.”

“Quiet, you.”

He sticks his tongue out at her, but lets 6O continue.

“I’m familiar with the pantheon, but why...that one?” 2B asks.

“They’re representative of nature, decay, the cyclical aspects of life; that kind of thing. They’re a bit overlooked compared to some of the other, more powerful gods.”

“Wait, which one is this again?” 9S interrupts.

“Their name isn’t exactly pronounceable by the untrained tongue, and invoking it without warrant can have...nasty consequences. Roughly translated, the name is Infinite Equine, or Long Horse.”

“Ugh, right. That nasty horse skull thing. It’s so creepy!”

“I have to agree with 9S,” 2B says. “It is a bit...off-putting.”

“What did you think the manifestation of life, death, and rebirth was going to look like?!” 6O snaps. “A cute little rabbit?!”

“You’re a cute little rabbit!” 9S shouts, and bursts into laughter a second later.

“That...doesn’t seem like an insult,” 2B says through barely contained laughter.

True to the Commander’s word, the army arrives at the town’s gates as just as the moon begins to rise. 801S and the rest of the scouts, along with a few local guards, greet them as they pass through the walls. The townsfolk who are still wrapping up their daily routines stop and stare at the army nearly four times the size of their haphazard militia marching down their main street.

He knows it’s a fools game, but 9S can’t help but let his mind wander. This town is decently fortified, relatively clean, not destitute but not aristocratic...It’d be the perfect place to settle down once the war is over. To finally stop being a soldier, being a part of an army and live a simple life. Maybe even get married and start a family. His gaze wanders to 2B, who looks around the town and its well maintained brick buildings with wonder.

Well..so long as he’s fantasizing.

He must look like a blushing maid, but at the moment he doesn’t really care. It’s good for the mind to indulge in the ideal future every now and then. Images play across his mind in quick succession, each one more unobtainable than the last. It doesn’t stop his heart from fluttering at the thought.

What a silly daydream this is. Why would a warrior such as 2B have any desire to be a housewife, to raise children, or to settle down entirely? She probably intends to live and die on the battlefield, swathed in blood and glory. He doesn’t pay it too much mind, it is a simple daydream after all. No need to get too hung up on reality.

Until reality hits him square in the chest.

As the army passes through the center of town, 9S comes face to face with the grim truth of his life. In the middle of the open plaza, a crude wooden gallows looms over them, and from this morbid structure hangs a recent victim.

The body, whose face is obscured by a roughspun sack, appears fresh. The skin is only a pale shade of purple and rot has yet to set in. His hands are bound behind his back with thick rope that cuts into the skin, staining them black with dried blood. He’s stripped of clothing, revealing thick brown fur that covers him from the waist down, barely concealing the wound where his genitals would have been as well as the hooves in place of human feet. A length of parchment hangs from his chest, held in place by rusting iron hooks.

“Here hangs…..for the crime of Demonic Parentage.”

The name appears to have been vandalized, instead of identifying the victim, it instead reads slurs and obscenities 9S would rather not read in their entirety.

A number of soldiers, including 21O and Jackass, fidget and shy away as they pass the body. Tension worms its way through everyone, even the horses grumble with agitation.

He pulls his hood around his face and sinks into anonymity within the ranks of the army.

What a fool he is to dream.

The army pitches a slap-dash camp on the northern side of the town, a rough series of tents and bedrolls. It isn’t much, but it gives the soldiers a chance to sit down and rest within the safety of the walls. They eat and drink and sing bawdy songs around a small fire, and despite the dire state of the war levity and joy returns to the army. If only for a moment.

It all proves to be too much for 2B, who excuses herself to river a few miles away when the songs take a much louder and raunchier turn. She underestimated just how social humans were, the constant chatting and the way they move around in groups of three or more, groups of people who weren’t even related. The open air and quiet solitude is something she needed before she starts snapping at people.

This region’s fish are small, too small for her liking. She should have expected it: the water barely came up to her scaled ankles. They’re more like snacks than a proper meal, each one barely larger than her beak. 6O warned her about passersby that might see a giant white dragon and attack, but the only thing that catches her eye is a deer that gets a bit too close for her liking. She eats her fill of fresh fish, something she’s found herself longing for since falling in with White’s army, then flies back to the town.

2B perches on the top of the wall, taking a moment to preen her wings of dirt and grime. To her surprise the camp is silent, save for the snores of soldiers and the crackling of one remaining campfire. The way they were carrying on, she thought they were going to be at it all night. Their leader must have told them the march would resume early. To 2B, someone who possesses the gift of flight, the whole idea of an ordered march seems unnecessary. She chastises herself for thinking this way, these humans and their awful work beasts called horses don’t have the same abilities she does, so they must work around their faults.

The approaching footsteps of a local guard break her from her musings. Not wanting to attract unwanted attention herself, she hops from the top of the wall in the middle of a transformation. A swordswoman out for a quiet walk is more explainable than a feathered beast in a human’s eyes.

As 2B wanders past the last dying campfire, she notices a familiar face sitting alone. Curled into himself, sitting on the ground, is 9S. His face is buried in his arms, but the shock of white hair is unmistakable, even in the low light. A sharp pang shoots through 2B’s chest at the pathetic sight and finds herself walking over to him.

9S looks up at the sound of encroaching footsteps with fear in his eyes, though his features quickly soften once he realizes it’s only 2B. He gives her a half hearted wave before wrapping his arms around himself.

“You seem troubled,” 2B says, sitting on the ground next to him.

“Huh?” He rubs his face. “No, no I’m fine. I’m…”

“A poor liar.”

9S lets out a quiet chuckle. “Yeah. I guess so.”

2B gives him a moment to collect himself. He sits up straighter, kicking his legs out and letting himself stretch and get a few breaths of cool night air.

“I guess it’s...I’m…” He sighs. “You never really get used to seeing a body that…that could have been you.”

“Ah...I see,” 2B mutters.

How could she be so dense? Of course seeing something like that would affect him. She should try to comfort him.

She has no idea how to comfort humans.

“I’m sorry,” 9S says. “It’s...it’s silly to be scared. White’s army is one of the only safe places for people like me...For half-demons. We can live and work and fight without having to fear our friends turning on us. But…”

He swallows a lump forming in his throat and wipes his eyes. “But the moment I step outside the army, the moment I try and form a life outside combat and war...I could end up on the end of a rope. Or worse.”

“You look human, though. Your charm necklace conceals anything suspect.”

“Yeah, but it isn’t foolproof.” He turns the little charm in his fingers a few times. “It’s weak magic, something a child could pull off. Easily detected or disarmed, but discrete and easy to make. Mom-...21O made this for me, it’s like the one she’s got.”

9S taps the jewel twice. With a faint shimmer, small nub-like growths appear just below his hairline, parting his hair slightly. His thin tail curls around his leg, and his eyes fade to nearly pure white.

It’s odd, 2B has only seen this form only once before, but the shock is gone. It’s about as strange to her as seeing him with a different haircut. So instead of recoiling in fear, all she does is tilt her head a little.

He taps the jewel again and the demonic features disappear. “It’s so stupid...everyone’s so scared of a few weird additions. But...We’re capable of...gods know what.”

9S hangs his head in shame and curls back into himself. He rests his forehead on his knees. “Are you scared, too?”

She twists the end of her robe between her clawed fingers. “I...I’ve never met a half-demon before you, I must admit.”

“Really?”

2B shakes her head and stares into the embers. “I’ve only ever had...encounters...with proper demons.” Her hands curl into fists. “They attacked our village one day, without warning. Even our strongest warriors had trouble fighting them off. They killed…I don’t know how many of us. The village was devastated in just an hour.”

“Oh…”

An aching cold creeps its way through 9S’ chest, one that won’t leave no matter now tightly he pulls his cloak.

“I’ve never met a half-demon before,” 2B says again. “...But if they’re anything like you…”

Her fist unlocks itself, and with uncharacteristic trepidation, she places her hand on his shoulder. 9S doesn’t anticipate just how warm it was, its gentle weight more comforting than his old coat.

“Well...I think you’re a good person.”

9S smiles, just a little, and leans into her, his head resting on her shoulder.

“...Thanks, 2B.”

[bountyofbeads]

House Democrats Move to Rein In Trump on Immigration https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/politics/border-funding-vote.html

House Democrats Move to Rein In Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Emily Cochrane | Published June 25, 2019 | New York Times | Posted June 25, 2019

WASHINGTON — The House pressed toward a vote Tuesday evening on an emergency $4.5 billion humanitarian aid bill to address the plight of migrants at the border, as Democratic leaders appeared confident they had quelled a rebellion in their ranks by adding new health and safety requirements for children and adults held by the government.

A group of liberals and Hispanic-American lawmakers had threatened to withhold their backing for the bill because they fear that the aid package would enable President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

But Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she had reached an agreement on the House floor with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others to include a provision in the bill that would require government contractors operating temporary shelters to meet strict standards of care within six months or lose their contract. Ms. Jayapal said she would wait to see the final bill language but anticipated that the agreement would bring many of her colleagues on board.

“If this final language is what we’ve agreed to, then I plan to support it,” she told reporters. “I have tremendous apprehensions about doing so. I am not doing so with a free heart. I am not doing so believing that this is going to solve the problems. I am doing so because I am willing in the name of these children to see if we can do something to improve those conditions at the border.”

[An exclusive from “The Weekly,” a new TV series from The New York Times, on FX and Hulu: Meet the youngest known child taken from his parents at the United States-Mexico border.]

The breakthrough indicated the power that the party’s liberal wing is now willing to wield. Many of them, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, have said they will not vote to send one cent to the agencies that have carried out the president’s harsh immigration policies, even with strings attached to rein in those policies and even if the package is intended to help vulnerable women and children living in badly overcrowded, squalid shelters.

“I am not planning on voting as it is,” said Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota. “We have a humanitarian crisis, and what we are trying to do does not match that crisis.”

Efforts to meet liberal demands will only bolster the White House’s opposition to a spending bill that Mr. Trump initially requested. But they could get the measure through the House — and spare Democrats an embarrassing floor defeat.

“The overwhelming majority of House Democrats, including the overwhelming majority of the Progressive Caucus, will support this legislation, because we understand the urgency of the moment,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the chairman of the Democratic caucus, told reporters on Monday. “This week, we have to resolve the humanitarian crisis.”

During a closed-door meeting of House Democrats at their campaign headquarters near the Capitol on Tuesday morning, Ms. Pelosi made an impassioned plea for her rank and file to support the bill, arguing that it would send a signal to the world that Democrats want to help suffering children at the border, according to a senior Democratic aide who described her private remarks on the condition of anonymity. Ms. Pelosi also warned that allowing their divisions over the measure to sink it would play into the president’s hands.

“The president would love for this bill to go down today,” Ms. Pelosi told Democrats, according to the aide. “A vote against this bill is a vote for Donald Trump and his inhumane, outside-the-circle-of-civilized attitude toward the children.”

Then the speaker, who is well known for her flair for tamping down internal rebellions in her ranks, asked a room packed with Democrats whether anyone had a problem with the legislation. Nobody spoke up, the aide said. She concluded the session by saying she expected “very few noes” and urging those thinking of opposing the bill to bring their questions to her and other House leaders.

Later, she repeated to reporters a point she had made to lawmakers behind closed doors, saying that the bill was a spending measure, not a policy plan.

“This isn’t an immigration bill,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s an appropriations bill to meet the needs of the children.”

Critics of the package huddled with Ms. Pelosi in her Capitol office on Monday night to air their complaints, and some emerged saying changes would be needed to garner their support. Leaders met into the night to discuss those modifications and came up with a handful that they plan to add to the bill before it reaches the floor on Tuesday afternoon.

Democrats plan to add language that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene, and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and adults in custody. Another new provision would require the secretary of health and human services to specify which requirements are being temporarily waived to deal with a sudden influx of migrants. That amendment would limit the detention-center stay of any unaccompanied child to 90 days unless written notification is submitted to Congress attesting that no other facilities are available.

Democrats also intended to add new requirements for translators at Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The White House has already threatened that Mr. Trump would veto the House bill because of restrictions that were included even before those new measures.

Senate Republicans and Democrats came together last week to draft a $4.6 billion version of the humanitarian aid package that also includes limitations on the use of the funds and several other conditions.

With House Republicans almost uniformly opposed to the stricter House measure, the fate of the entire effort remains uncertain. If the changes Ms. Pelosi settled on win over enough Democrats to push the package through the House on Tuesday afternoon, it would still have to be reconciled with the Senate’s bill before being sent to Mr. Trump for his signature.

Ms. Pelosi has argued that in order to give the House leverage in any such negotiation with the Senate, Democrats have to show the broadest possible support for the bill. Some lawmakers said the changes that leaders had agreed to over the last 24 hours persuaded them to support the measure.

“I was on the fence, but that makes me feel much better, so I’m leaning to supporting it,” said Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Democrat of Florida. “For me, specifically, it was the time frame that we had to set for reunification.”

Lawmakers from districts along the border have been among the strongest proponents of the bill, arguing that Democrats must put aside their antipathy for Mr. Trump’s immigration policies and focus on alleviating a humanitarian debacle.

“There are legitimate concerns about trust with the administration, and there is a legitimate fear that we are funding a dysfunctional system,” said Representative Veronica Escobar, Democrat of Texas, whose El Paso district abuts the border. “But we have to meet our obligations as human beings and fund the needs for the care of these children.”

Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to Secret Identity, our regular column on identity and its role in politics and policy.

In the days after Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the two people who seemed like the Democratic Party’s most obvious 2020 candidates, then-Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, hinted that Clinton had gone too far in talking about issues of identity. “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman; vote for me,’” Sanders said. Other liberals lamented that the party had lost white voters in such states as Ohio and Iowa who had supported Barack Obama, and they said Democrats needed to dial back the identity talk to win them back.

But that view never took hold among party activists. Liberal-leaning women were emboldened to talk about gender more, not less, after the 2016 election. We’ve had women’s marches and women running for office in greater numbers than ever — all while emphasizing their gender. President Trump’s moves kept identity issues at the forefront, too, and gave Democrats an opportunity both to defend groups they view as disadvantaged and to attack the policies of a president they hate.

The Democratic Party hasn’t simply maintained its liberalism on identity; the party is perhaps further to the left on those issues than it was even one or two years ago. Biden and Sanders are still viable presidential contenders. But in this environment, so is a woman who is the daughter of two immigrants (one from Jamaica and the other from India); who grew up in Oakland, graduated from Howard and rose through the political ranks of the most liberal of liberal bastions, San Francisco; who was just elected to the Senate in 2016 and, in that job, declared that “California represents the future” and pushed Democrats toward a government shutdown last year to defend undocumented immigrants; and who regularly invokes slavery in her stump speech. (“We are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American or your people were kidnapped and placed on a slave ship, your people are immigrants.”)

Sen. Kamala Harris has not officially said she is running in 2020, but she hasn’t denied it, either, and she’s showing many of the signs of someone who is preparing for a run, including campaigning for her Democratic colleagues in key races and signing a deal to write a book. The Californian ranks low in polls of the potential Democratic 2020 field, and she doesn’t have the name recognition of other contenders. (Her first name is still widely mispronounced — it’s COM-ma-la.) But betting markets have her near the top, reflecting the view among political insiders that Harris could win the Democratic nomination with a coalition of well-educated whites and blacks, the way Obama did in 2008.

Whatever happens later, the rise of Harris and her viability for 2020 tell us something about American politics right now: We are in the midst of an intense partisan and ideological battle over culture and identity; the Democrats aren’t backing down or moving to the center on these issues; and politicians who want to lead in either party will probably have to take strong, clear stances on matters of gender and race.

An opportunity

Harris, who went from district attorney of San Francisco to attorney general of California, was a heavy favorite in her 2016 Senate race. But once elected, she was expected to become a virtually powerless freshman senator in Hillary Clinton’s Washington. In fact, she might have been only the second most important person in Washington from her family, since her younger sister, Maya, was a top Clinton policy adviser on the campaign and in line for a senior White House job.

But Clinton’s loss created an opportunity for Harris. The Democrats had the normal leadership vacuum of a party without control of the White House but also a specific void of people who were well-versed in immigration issues and were willing to take the leftward stances on them that the party base wanted as Trump tried to push U.S. immigration policy right. Meanwhile, Biden and Sanders were not natural figures to defend Planned Parenthood when, as part of the repeal of Obamacare, the GOP sought to bar patients from using federal funds at the nonprofit’s clinics. African-American activists went from being deeply connected to the White House to basically shut out of it, as Trump had few blacks in his Cabinet or in top administration posts. And, electorally, while Sanders or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren were obvious potential presidential candidates for the populist wing of the party that backed the Vermont senator in the 2016 Democratic primaries, the coalition of minorities and more establishment-oriented Democrats1 who had backed Clinton didn’t necessarily have an obvious standard-bearer, particularly with the uncertainty over Biden’s status as a candidate in 2020.

While veteran party leaders like Biden may have wanted the party to move to the center on identity issues, Democratic voters had moved decidedly to the left, a process that was happening under Obama but may be accelerating under Trump. For example, a rising number of Democrats say that racial discrimination is the main factor holding blacks back in American society, that immigration is good for America and that the country would be better off if more women were in office.

“The Democrats are the party of racial diversity, of gender equality — and there’s no going back from that,” said Lee Drutman, a political scientist at the think tank New America, who has written extensively about the growing cultural divide between the parties.

Harris has seized the opportunity. From attending the annual civil rights march in Selma to pushing legislation that would get rid of bail systems that rely on people putting up cash to be released from jail, she has seemed to try to lead on issues that disproportionately affect black Americans and to position herself as their potential presidential candidate. She was one of the earliest critics on Capitol Hill of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, and her push for a government shutdown over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program delighted party activists (even if the strategy ultimately failed). Harris was among the first Senate Democrats to call for Minnesota’s Al Franken to resign amid allegations that he groped several women, and she has been a strong defender of Planned Parenthood.

A different moment

You might be thinking, “Didn’t we just have a biracial person (who was often described as and embraced being a ‘black’ politician) who was fairly liberal on cultural issues as a major national political figure? Wasn’t he president of the United States?”

Well, yes. But here’s the big difference: Obama didn’t emerge as a presidential candidate by highlighting his strong stands on these divisive, complicated cultural issues, as Harris is attempting to do. In fact, his rise was in large part because he implied that America was not as divided on those issues as it seemed — and that those divides were diminishing. The 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that launched him to the national stage seems, now that we are in the Trump era, almost crazily optimistic. (“There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America,” he said back then. “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”)

Whatever the reality of such statements, the political strategy behind them made sense: It’s hard to imagine that America a decade ago would have embraced a nonwhite politician who wasn’t downplaying cultural divides and emphasizing unity. Back then, someone regularly talking about his or her ancestors being kidnapped and enslaved probably had no chance at being elected president.

But 2018 is much different than 2004 or 2008 in terms of the national debate on identity issues. For example, compared with a decade ago, a much higher percentage of Americans, particularly Democrats, see racism as a major problem. Over the past decade, Americans went through the birther movement, shootings of African-Americans by police captured on video, Black Lives Matter protests, Trump’s racial and at times racist rhetoric and Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark. And it’s not just race — think about #MeToo, the legalization of gay marriage and new debates on the rights of people who are transgender.

Harris can’t take the Obama “Kumbaya” route to the White House — I’m not sure at this point that a white Democrat could, either. By the end of his term, Obama didn’t sound particularly hopeful about America getting beyond its cultural divides. Clinton spoke more directly about race and racism in 2016 compared with Obama in 2004 and 2008. Sanders and other white Democrats are already talking taking fairly liberal stances on these issues, and I expect that to continue into next year.

I’m not sure Harris had much choice anyway. She is a Democratic senator from heavily Latino California with Trump as president, so it’s a virtual job requirement for to her to take leftward stances on immigration issues. She is a minority woman at a time when minorities and women are trying to gain more power in national politics, particularly within the Democratic Party — and she is the only black female senator. In other words, Kamala Harris and Barack Obama are, of course, different people. But they also arrived on the national scene at much different political moments.

“When you speak truth, it can make people quite uncomfortable,” Harris told a group of Democratic activists earlier this year in a speech in Henderson, Nevada. “And for people like us who would like to leave the room with everyone feeling lovely, there’s sometimes a disincentive to speak truth.

“But this is a moment in time in which we must speak truth.”

This is a bit longer than our normal Secret Identity column, so let’s skip “What else you should read.” But please contact me at perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com for your thoughts on this piece or ideas for upcoming ones.

[patriotsnet]

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-republicans-voted-for-the-impeachment/

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

Ial Retraction From Starr

Several House Republicans to vote to impeach President Trump

In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his first Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made to justify Clintonâs impeachment. Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clintonâs impeachment. In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress, and stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for. He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes âgrave disruptionâ to a national election.

Rep John Katko New York

To impeach a sitting president is a decision I do not take lightly, Rep. John Katko of New Yorks 24th Congressional District said in a statement Tuesday.

As a former federal prosecutor, I approach the question of impeachment by reviewing the facts at hand, he said. To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President.

Dont Miss: Trump Democrat Or Republican

One Voted Last Week Against Certifying Electoral College Results

Ten Republicans voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, exactly one week after a violent attack on the Capitol by the presidents supporters.;

The Democrat-led House voted 232-197 to approve one article of impeachment against Trump, charging the president with incitement of insurrection.;

The GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach the president from their own party included Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House. Cheneys vote has prompted House Republicans to call on her to step down as conference chairwoman.

While many in the group have a history of breaking with their party, the yes votes included several with a strong record of supporting Trump and one, South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, who voted last week against certifying President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory in two states.;

Most Republicans in the House opposed impeachment, with many arguing the hurried process would further divide the country. But for these 10 Republicans who supported impeachment, the fact that Trump incited the riot at the Capitol was indisputable.;

Four Republicans did not vote on impeachment, including Texas Rep. Kay Granger, who recently tested positive for COVID-19. The others were Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Daniel Webster of Florida.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump:;

Also Check: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Some Senators Didnt Have An Answer For What They Would Need To See In Order To Vote For The Measure

Republican senators on Friday drowned the hopes of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, gathering enough members of their own conference to block legislation to establish the panel.

Though it received overall majority support in the chamber, the procedural vote, a cloture vote on a motion to proceed, to the legislation fell short of the 60 votes needed, 54-35. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Rob Portman of Ohio were the only Republicans who voted to end debate on whether to take up the legislation.

The vote, which had been expected on Thursday, was delayed after some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, consumed floor time that brought the chamber to a painfully slow cadence and culminated at around 3 a.m. Friday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he struck an agreement that ensured the commission vote would happen in the light of day and not in the early morning hours.

On Thursday, the family and colleagues of a Capitol Police officer who died shortly after defending the Capitol on Jan. 6 met with several GOP senators to try to convince them to vote for the commission.

Gladys Sicknick met with Johnson Thursday morning and said GOP opposition to the commission is a slap in the face to officers because they put their lives on the line.

Staying Above The Fray

As autumn approaches, the pressure on Bice from within her party appears to be lifting. Oklahoma GOP leaders have said nothing about her since party Chairman John Bennett posted a rebuke on Facebook in May following her Jan. 6 commission vote. Bennetts post is now blocked from public view, and he did not respond to a request for an interview.

Bice, who voted in January to oppose certification of the presidential result in Arizona, has repeatedly given the same explanation for her stance;on both the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol riot, positions she reiterated in an interview with CQ Roll Call.;

She said she wanted to make a statement about the integrity of state lawmakers control over how elections are administered, noting a 2020 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed voters to cast absentee ballots without getting them notarized.

Voting rights advocates said the measure would protect voters during the coronavirus pandemic, but state Republican lawmakers called the decision judicial overreach and rushed a party-line bill through the Legislature restoring the requirement.;

Oklahoma could have become a statistic like other states that had their election laws changed by judicial or executive decree, Bice said. For me, that was something that was very troubling.

Video: Texas GOP working to redraw maps to favor Republicans as Senate Democrats introduce voter protections bill

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Rep Anthony Gonzales Republican Who Voted For Impeachment Will Not Seek Re

After being one of 10 House Representatives to vote to impeach former President Donald Trump, Ohio Representative Anthony Gonzalez has chosen to not run for re-election in 2022.

On Thursday, the former NFL wide receiver took to to issue a lengthy statement regarding his decision.

The Republican politician started the press statement by mentioning how his goal within politics was to do his job as long as the voters would allow and work to maintain his family.

“Since entering politics, I have always said that I will do this job as long as the voters will have me and it still works for my family,” said Gonzalez.

Gonzalez then went on to talk about the reasoning behind why he’s chosen to not seek out re-election in 2022.

“Given the political realities of the day, I know this news will come as a disappointment to those who have been involved in our efforts,” said Gonzalez.

“You have given me and my family tremendous strength and courage in the face of much adversity these past few months and years. While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez mentioned.

Gonzalez went on to say that he’s hopeful “the chaotic political environment that currently infects our country will only be temporary.”

Michigan Rep Peter Meijer

The freshman Republican, who won a primary last summer in the 3rd District with the backing of House GOP leaders such as Kevin McCarthy, already is cutting an image for himself independent of his party after two weeks on the job. Its less surprising considering that former Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian who split with Trump, held the seat before Meijer. Amash voted to impeach Trump in 2019.;

The scion of the Meijer family, which founded the grocery store chain of the same name, is a veteran of the Iraq War. Trump won the 3rd District, which includes Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, with 51 percent of the vote. Meijer, who turned his campaign operation into a grocery delivery service in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, outperformed Trump in November, taking 53 percent of the vote.;

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Why Didnt The Trial Begin While Trump Was Still In Office

The articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate immediately since the Senate wouldnt be in session until the day before Joe Bidens inauguration. The Democrats waited further until an agreement was reached in the Senate for the power-sharing structure that would regulate how the evenly split Senate would operate going forward. Under an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the trial was delayed to give the Senate more time to get Bidens nominees for his Cabinet approved.

Also Check: Gop Lapel Pin

Ohio Rep Anthony Gonzalez

President Trump faces Senate trial after historic House vote on impeachment

The two-term lawmaker said in a statement released as the vote was underway that he had concluded that the President of the United States helped organize and incite a mob that attacked the United States Congress in an attempt to prevent us from completing our solemn duties.;

Gonzalez represents the states 16th District, a mostly rural stretch that also includes the suburbs of Cleveland and Canton and which Trump carried by 14 points in 2020, according to Daily Kos Elections. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Gonzalez has voted to support Trumps position on legislation nearly 90 percent of the time, but the former professional football player couldnt stick with Trump over the riot. When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the Presidents lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am compelled to support impeachment, he added in his Wednesday statement.;

Read Also: House Democrats And Republicans

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

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 juryperjury and obstruction of justice, was 2117, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 2018, 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 2117 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 197374. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.

Democrats Formally Vote To Open Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump

WASHINGTON After weeks of GOP criticism that the U.S. House of Representatives had not formally opened an impeachment inquiry, House Democrats approved a resolution Thursday formalizing the process, though Republicans griped that it was too late.

The House voted 232-196 in favour of the resolution, with all but two Democrats and no Republicans voting in favour of the process. Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Collin Peterson, both Democrats, voted with Republicans, while independent Justin Amash of Michigan voted with Democrats.

The resolution lays out ground rules for the impeachment process, including how much time Republican committee leaders will get to question witnesses, guidelines on how Republicans can call their own witnesses, the process for the White House to respond to congressional inquiries, and the overall impeachment process.

In an attempt to finally get the White House to co-operate with their investigations, the resolution would actually give U.S. President Donald Trump more rights if he and his staff co-operate with congressional subpoenas, but would take some of those rights away if the White House continues not to co-operate.

As Democrats finally called the vote Thursday, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the president officers chair and announced the total. There was a spirited, partisan mood on the House floor.

What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy.

– U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Read Also: Tim Kaine Lapel Pin Debate

‘blood On His Hands’: Republican Rips Biden Over Afghanistan

Multiple House Republicans announced Tuesday evening they would support the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his role inciting last week’s riot as congressional Republicans made their clearest break with Trump to date after he showed no remorse for the US Capitol mob.

Led By Cheney 10 House Republicans Back Trump Impeachment

WASHINGTON Ten Republicans including Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House GOP leader voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday over the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. The GOP votes were in sharp contrast to the unanimous support for Trump among House Republicans when he was impeached by Democrats in December 2019.

Cheney, whose decision to buck Trump sparked an immediate backlash within the GOP, was the only member of her partys leadership to support impeachment, which was opposed by 197 Republicans.

There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution, said Cheney, whose father, Dick Cheney, served as vice president under George W. Bush. The younger Cheney has been more critical of Trump than other GOP leaders, but her announcement hours before Wednesdays vote nonetheless shook Congress.

Katko, a former federal prosecutor who represents the Syracuse area, said allowing Trump to incite this attack without consequence would be a direct threat to the future of our democracy.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

‘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.

South Carolina Rep Tom Rice

Rices vote for impeachment stunned those familiar with the South Carolina lawmakers record as a staunch Trump defender, especially during his first impeachment.;

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice, Rice;said in a statement;Wednesday evening. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Rice voted for motions to object to certifying Bidens Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania last week, votes that came after security teams cleared the building of rioters and members returned from a secure location. Rice told local media he waited until the last minute to cast those votes because he was extremely disappointed in the president after the riots and that Trump needed to concede the election. He also said last week that he did not support impeaching the president or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.;

Rice, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, has supported the Trump administrations position 94 percent of the time over the past four years. He represents a solidly Republican district in the Myrtle Beach area that Trump carried by 19 points in November. Rice, who has had little difficulty holding his seat since his first 2012 victory, won his race by 24 points in November.;

Read Also: Trump 1998 People Magazine Quote

[hola-mundo-adios]

Kamala Harris

With her inauguration, Vice President Kamala Harris has made history: She’s the first woman — and first Black and South Asian person — to serve in the role, and now the highest-ranking woman in US government.

But beyond these firsts, Harris is poised to have a vice presidency unlike few others, in large part because of the singular role she’s expected to take on.

Harris will be one of just a handful of vice presidents to preside over a 50-50 Senate, making her a pivotal tiebreaker in the upper chamber. And given her expertise as a lawmaker, she’s set to be an impactful voice as the US continues to combat ongoing public health and economic crises. President Joe Biden has also said Harris will be his top adviser — “the last person in the room” — with the ability to strongly influence White House policy.

“The way she’s approaching the vice presidency is very similar to the way Joe Biden approached the vice presidency with Barack Obama,” Harris press secretary Sabrina Singh previously told USA Today. “She’s walking into this office as a full governing partner to Joe Biden and is completely aligned and supportive of his priorities.”

In the Senate, Harris’s 51st vote could be a key one: On everything from resolutions rolling back Trump-era rules to confirmations for Cabinet nominees to legislation that’s approved via budget reconciliation, her vote may well be needed to reach a simple majority. And while breaking tie votes is nothing new for vice presidents — Mike Pence did it 13 times during his tenure — it’s typically less common, with Democrats’ incredibly narrow margins suggesting that Harris could be doing it a lot more often.

“Vice President Harris will be in a relatively unique role among modern vice presidents,” Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and expert on the vice presidency, tells Vox. “The even division of the Senate, the polarization of the parties, and the demise of the filibuster regarding appointments means that she may have occasion to cast some important tiebreaking votes.”

Harris could be a major tiebreaker on key votes

Prior to this term, Dick Cheney was the last vice president to preside over a 50-50 Senate — though that split only lasted for a few months in 2001 before Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) decided to switch parties.

At the time, Cheney only broke two ties while the Senate was divided in this way — both of which were on budget amendments.

Harris could have to do the same much more frequently, both because the Senate has grown more partisan since then and because the threshold for approving Cabinet nominees and most judges has been reduced to a simple majority.

“If there’s going to be a tie vote, it could easily come during nominations,” says George Washington University political science professor Sarah Binder.

And though Pence never presided over an evenly divided Senate, his tiebreakers could provide a glimpse into the subjects Harris may have to step in on: His vote helped confirm now-former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, advanced multiple judges, and allowed Republicans to roll back Obama-era regulations that enabled abortion providers to receive federal grants.

In general, Harris could potentially break ties on a few types of votes:

Cabinet nominees and judges: These nominees require 51 votes to be confirmed, and depending on how much GOP support they garner, they could need a tiebreaker to move forward.

Congressional Review Act votes: Using the Congressional Review Act, Senate Democrats are able to undo agency rules made within the last 60 legislative days if they have 51 votes to do so, and support in the House. Democrats could take this route to roll back Trump-era regulations, including changes to environmental protections.

Budget resolution: A budget resolution, which could be used to pass more ambitious legislation, including more Covid-19 relief, only needs a simple majority of votes to pass — rather than 60 votes, the threshold most legislation must clear. The process for approving this measure is known as reconciliation.

Just how many times Harris may have to use this power will depend on the opposition Senate Republicans put forth on issues like Cabinet picks and efforts to use the Congressional Review Act to undo the policies of the Trump administration. One factor is how united Democrats stay across legislative priorities and nominees: Because of the Senate numbers, every Democrat in the caucus will be needed to approve pretty much anything that requires a simple majority for it to be successful.

“The two variables are the reaction of the Republicans and whether the measures on the floor can garner [moderate support],” says Binder. If Democrats can consistently hold their caucus together and peel off one or more moderate Republicans, tiebreaking may be less necessary, for instance.

And while this procedural role is one that vice presidents have long held, Democrats’ bare majority in the Senate — and the expansive goals they’d like to achieve under the Biden administration — could put a spotlight on Harris.

“It certainly underscores the importance that she brings to the legislative agenda and will showcase her role,” former Sen. Tom Daschle, who served as minority leader in the last 50-50 Senate, told Vox.

As a tiebreaker, the vice president’s focus is more to aid the party to get to a particular vote threshold than to shape the legislation itself — though Harris could potentially also take on the latter job.

Harris, in a recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, said she would embrace this responsibility but urged lawmakers to find common ground. “Since our nation’s founding, only 268 tie-breaking votes have been cast by a vice president. I intend to work tirelessly as your vice president, including, if necessary, fulfilling this Constitutional duty,” she wrote.

There are different policy areas that Harris could prioritize

Much of the role of the vice presidency will depend on how Biden and Harris opt to structure their partnership, and his comments so far suggest that she could be quite influential.

“Different presidents structure the responsibilities of the vice president in different ways,” former Democratic Senate staffer Jim Manley told Vox. “Both Joe Biden and Al Gore had a seat at the table for every major decision.”

Biden has spoken about being how important it was for him to be the “last person in the room” when Obama made key decisions on everything from the Recovery Act to troop withdrawals in Iraq, and he’s committed to having the same type of relationship with Harris.

“I told him I wanted to be the last person in the room before he made important decisions. That’s what I asked Kamala. I asked Kamala to be the last voice in the room,” Biden has said. Harris, too, said she looks forward to being a “full partner” to the president.

“Vice presidents are only as powerful as their presidents let them be,” says Jody Baumgartner, a political science professor at Eastern Carolina University and expert on the vice presidency. This means the dynamic between the two leaders is often a deciding factor in how they coordinate governance responsibilities.

Exactly how Biden and Harris will share labor isn’t yet clear. But given Harris’s work as a senator — and her position as a tiebreaker — one role she could fill is as the administration’s liaison to Congress. When he was vice president, since he’d served in the body for decades at that point, Biden worked heavily with legislators. “Whenever [then-Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid had a problem with Republicans, one of his phone calls he would make would be with the vice president, who had good relationships with Capitol Hill,” says Manley.

Because of Biden’s background in Congress, this could be a continued focus for him as well. Harris has extensive experience she will bring on the legislative front and on specific issues. She was a leading author of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Senate’s anti-lynching measure, and the LIFT Act, which would expand tax credits for middle-class households.

During her four years as a senator, Harris served on the judiciary and intelligence committees. Before that, she spent more than two decades as a California prosecutor, both as the state’s attorney general and as San Francisco district attorney.

She comes into her new role with deep expertise and a broad skill set. And as the first Black woman and first South Asian woman in this role, she’ll also be in a position to elevate the voices of women of color on different policy subjects.

“I am interested to see whether and how her identity shapes her approach to this partnership,” Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant told Vox. “I am hopeful that she is able to translate her lived experience at the intersection of race and gender into policies that are sensitive to the lives of everyday people.”

With her background in criminal justice reform, this could be among the areas that Harris continues to focus on, with progressives likely to keep pressuring the administration on their stances.

Spokesperson Symone Sanders previously told the Associated Press that the Biden administration hopes to take advantage of Harris’s wide-ranging expertise by having her be involved in every major issue the administration tackles. The four pillars the new administration has laid out so far to focus on are Covid-19, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change.

“She has a voice in all of those. She has an opinion in all those areas. And it will probably get to a point where she is concentrating on some of the areas more specifically,” Sanders said. “But right now, I think what we’re faced with in this country is so big, it’s all hands on deck.”

[jeffdominguez]

Then fall, Caesar...

The passing of political firebrand Robbie Waters is a massive loss for the Greenhaven/Pocket community he once lovingly led with an iron fist  Robbie Waters was not a man who summoned ambivalent emotions among those who knew him. It may not be a conventional observation to note in memoriam that those who counted themselves as a man’s friends were more or less in pretty close proportion to those who… did not, but this is true of Robbie. Generally, a person’s feelings about him were either black or white. Somehow, very few opinions were ever gray.

If he liked you, there was no better friend to have in this world. He would throw the full weight and considerable power of his standing in the community and in citywide government, including law enforcement, behind your cause, whatever it may be. And if you crossed him, he was not one to forget it. You could bet that he would not allow you to forget it, either. He loved his city, especially his district, and he devoted tireless effort throughout his life to the betterment of both. People seemed to understand that about him—it was definitely a virtue—and he won election, and re-election, to the Sacramento City Council, for four terms in total. For 16 years, 1994-2010, he found himself perched atop a mini dynasty that recalled those old Chicago political machines, all run from his nerve center, a small office in the back of the True Value hardware store he co-owned in the Promenade shopping center.

Robbie was a legit hometown boy. He was born here in Sacramento in 1936. He attended Kit Carson Junior High and Sacramento High School. He excelled at sports and grew to be a “big fish in a small pond.” And as the pond grew, so did he, in proportion, putting him in the rare category of “big fish in a big pond.” After graduation from Sac High in 1954, he enlisted in the United States Air Force, and, upon his return home in 1957, he joined the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), where several chapters of his considerable legend would be written.

He climbed the ranks within the SPD like the kid who free soloed El Capitan, ascending great heights at a remarkably brisk pace, employing an occasional death-defying maneuver to get from station to station along the route. He was in charge of the Detective Bureau, served as a Lieutenant in the Homicide Division, ran Internal Affairs. He arrested a Manson-clan member who attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in Capitol Park. In 1975, following a dramatic shooting incident at Neptune’s Table ­­­­in the South Hills  shopping center, he was awarded the Sacramento Police Department Silver Medal of Valor.

Somewhere in all of this, he managed to earn his bachelor’s degree in Criminology from Sacramento State University, and he graduated from the FBI National Academy in Advanced Criminology. People tend to think of Robbie as a man who’s been handed things in life, but the almost absolute inverse is the actual truth. He worked nonstop for every accomplishment he realized. His heart pumped ambition. He inhaled opportunity and exhaled achievement. “Doing” was in his DNA. In 1982, he ran for his first elective office, Sacramento County Sheriff. And guess what: he won. He remained Sheriff until 1987.

His personal life, like his professional life, is marked by significant milestone achievements. His first personal home run came in the form of the diminutive Judie Kent, a blond girl he met on a blind date specially arranged after they’d spotted one another at a pool party they’d attended the week before, each with other dates. Like everything else he’d ever achieved, Robbie did whatever it took to make Judie his, and after a year-long courtship, they married. “I was 20 years old, and I weighed 99 pounds,” says Judie. Over the course of their marriage, she would prove to be worth her weight in gold to Robbie.

 Robbie and Judie were blessed with three great children, each born with a brightness that threatened their father’s considerable wattage, Dee Dee, Darren, and Danny. The Greenhaven neighborhood was more bare land than homes when Robbie took on the gargantuan task of constructing his own home—“Greenhaven 70” was the name of the development. With the help of many friends and family members, the home was finished in 1969, and the Waters moved in. 

After they installed their pool, the Waters residence became a hub among the children in the neighborhood. Behind the scenes, Robbie and Judie did what they could to eke out for their kids a childhood that was as normal and idyllic as could be expected when your dad is an extremely visible public law enforcement figure, Sacramento’s answer to a Clint Eastwood character, right down to the conservative politics.

Anyone who was active in any community endeavor in the Greenhaven/Pocket area was bound to cross paths with Robbie at some point. To enumerate all of his awards and accomplishments and civic memberships would be tantamount to emptying a can of alphabet soup in front of a reader. Separately, these achievements are each impressive monuments that speak volumes for his willingness to support a worthwhile cause with deeds rather than just words, for his selfless and remarkable bravery in the face of great danger, for the stunning level of proven expertise he possessed in his avocation. Collectively, they become the proverbial forest that obscures trees, a phone book of feats that simply cannot be properly appreciated when compiled into list format.

I knew Robbie because he co-owned the hardware store with my great hometown friend, Jay Weathers. Robbie always had a kind word in passing, a friendly greeting. We became forever linked in 1996, when I hatched an idea for a multi-pronged 4th of July celebration for our community—a parade, a carnival, and, eventually, an aerial fireworks display at Garcia Bend Park. It would be fashioned after the homespun Independence Day celebrations I enjoyed growing up in the Delta. It seemed to me like a natural for the Greenhaven/Pocket neighborhood. The first thing I could think to do was to go to Robbie for help in getting my plan off the ground, so I drove over to the hardware store and found him in his “district office.” He liked the idea, but he was a little skeptical about the scale I had in mind for the event. He was, after all, a politician now, and he had his eye steadfastly on the big picture, on public perception, on votes. In the end, though, he ensured that I had everything I needed to pull it off.

When the event was delivered, it was extremely well received and overwhelmingly embraced by the community. He was pleased, and he wanted a larger say in related decisions. That was a source of great conflict between us. We probably disagreed on more than we agreed on, and we argued strenuously while holed up in that back office at the hardware store. But not many people ever knew that kind of tension ever existed. In public, we were all smiles, and when it really counted, he had my back, and I had his. Politically, we were opposites, but we had this common interest that bonded us and fostered a mutual respect that remains of a value to me that I can’t adequately convey with mere words. And that, for me, is saying something.

This is who Robbie… was. It hurts to refer to him in past tense now. He was constantly climbing. He was no stranger to power, and he liked it, and he was good at it. He wanted to hold onto it, and he always wanted a little more. The latter of these is an exceedingly common human quality, a great thing when it’s wielded by a man whose heart is in the right place. And it’s a disaster when it resides in less of a man. Fortunately for all of us, Robbie was more of a man.

Robbie seemed to be the author of the philosophy, it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. In fact, he personally introduced me to that approach to getting things done in a bureaucracy. We need look no further than the local controversy that developed when he ordered “City of Trees” to be painted on the Freeport water tower for an example. That was classic Robbie. But whenever a problem in our neighborhood came up that needed to be addressed, Robbie proved himself to be indispensable. He was supremely responsive, and he followed up the issue like a dog on a bone.

In my favorite Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, Caesar is shown to be an incredibly effective leader, and Rome thrives under his reign. He is roundly loved by all of his people, and he loves them deeply in return. His detractors, however, point to his constant desire to expand his own power. They refer to him as ambitious, an unforgivable failing for a leader in those days. The senate members do Caesar in and turn the people against him, until Mark Antony comes along and reminds everyone that Caesar’s actions were always for the good of the people. We see, in brilliant oratory, how there are always two sides to a story. Human beings—even leaders, it turns out—are made in three dimensions, not one, not two. When Rome’s citizens are shown all sides of Caesar’s humanity, he is universally mourned.

Robbie Waters was brutally tough. He was undeniably ambitious. He was a formidable opponent to his political enemies. He could be short, blunt, uncomfortably plainspoken. He carried a grudge. And he was unapologetic regarding all of the above. But he also loved his family with all of his heart. And he loved his city. He enforced the law, and he kept us safe. He was willing to work tirelessly on behalf of a good cause. Above all, he was a relentless advocate for our community.

I encourage everyone to consider Robbie in full 3-D when thinking about his life and his legacy. You may come to bury him, but I promise you’ll end up praising him.

Rest in peace, Robbie.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/politics/2-department-of-justice-officials-dispute-double-standard-over-mueller-documents/

2 Department of Justice officials dispute 'double standard' over Mueller documents

Two senior Justice Department officials are privately dismissing claims by House Democrats that refusing to share special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report and other investigative materials with Congress would amount to a “double standard.”

The circumstances that led the Justice Department to disclose investigative information in other recent, high-profile cases now being cited by Democrats are “just not the same” as the circumstances surrounding the Mueller probe, one senior department official insisted to ABC News, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

That official and another high-ranking Justice Department insider both pointed to what they see as one big difference: former FBI director James Comey.

In past cases, the officials alleged, Comey’s public statements undercut the Justice Department’s ability to argue that certain investigative materials should remain private. And, they said, the department only shared documents when investigations were finished or couldn’t be impacted by the release of those documents.

Andrew Harnik/AP, FILE

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, arrives on Capitol Hill, June 21, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

Long-standing department policy prohibits the disclosure of information that could influence ongoing probes or harm people who haven’t been charged.

But powerful Democrats in Congress worry the Trump administration could stretch that policy to execute “a cover up,” as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., recently put it. And two weeks ago, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., accused the Justice Department of a “double standard” for turning over “substantial amounts of investigative material” when Republicans were in control of Congress last year and the year before.

In fact, the Justice Department gave lawmakers access to 880,000 pages of documents related to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of State. And the Justice Department offered lawmakers access to a wide array of documents from the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, including information related to Americans targeted in the probe.

In a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr three weeks ago, Nadler, Schiff and the Democratic chairs of four other House committees insisted that “precedent” leads them to “expect” access to Mueller’s report and other investigative material. On Friday, they introduced a congressional resolution reiterating their stance.

Democrats fear that even if Mueller fails to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, he could find evidence of misconduct that the public might never see.

“People are entitled to know it, and Congress is entitled to know it,” Nadler told ABC News last week. “It’s our job to hold the president accountable.”

But two weeks ago, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assailed what he called the “knee-jerk reaction” calling on the government to share its secrets.

“If we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens,” Rosenstein said.

In May 2017, just days before Comey’s firing, Rosenstein wrote a letter to Trump blasting Comey for publicly airing criticisms of Clinton a year earlier.

On July 5, 2016, inside FBI headquarters, Comey announced that — even though Clinton and her aides shouldn’t be charged — they were “extremely careless” in handling classified information. For 15 minutes, Comey detailed what his team found and contemplated.

Michael Reynolds/EPA via Shutterstock

Former FBI Director James Comey delivers remarks to members of the media after finishing his testimony before members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2018.

Without those public comments, the Justice Department could have withheld documents on the basis that they reflected internal deliberations. But “from the get-go we had a very, very weak litigating position because” Comey had in effect waived that privilege, one senior Justice Department official said.

In addition, the Clinton email probe was “over and closed” when lawmakers were granted access to materials, the other official noted.

Asked whether the Justice Department would share what Mueller found about allegations of obstruction of justice — since that inquiry would likely be closed when Mueller issues his report — the officials declined to answer.

Nevertheless, in Mueller’s case there are ongoing investigations and prosecutions to still protect, the officials said.

“The tentacles of [Mueller’s probe] are going to continue being investigated for some unforeseen period of time in the future,” according to one official. “[And] we do not give over to the Hill any material that could negatively impact an ongoing investigation.”

That didn’t stop the Justice Department, however, from disclosing pivotal materials from the FBI’s Russia probe while Mueller’s investigation was underway.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, Dec. 20, 2018.

When Republicans were accusing the FBI of abusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to target President Donald Trump’s associates, dozens of lawmakers were eventually granted access to four top-secret FISA applications, which after being approved by a federal court allowed the FBI to intercept the communications of former Trump adviser Carter Page, who at the time was suspected of being a Russian spy.

Key lawmakers were also able to review thousands of pages of internal emails and other classified materials.

Those accommodations “potentially” provide Democrats with their best argument to gain access to Mueller’s findings, the two Justice Department officials acknowledged to ABC News.

But — once again — the officials blamed Comey for opening the door for Congress, saying his public statements on the Russia probe had “a lot” to do with their decisions.

In early 2017, Comey took the rare step of publicly confirming the FBI launched an investigation into Trump’s associates and reviewed the so-called “dossier,” which by then had been published online by news outlets and detailed allegations against Page that were ultimately included in the FISA applications.

Then, in coordination with the White House, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., drafted and released a memo citing substantial portions of the FISA applications.

So two months later, based on what had already become public, the Justice Department made what it called the “extraordinary” decision to let the entire House and Senate intelligence committees review the FISA applications.

“[But] we really didn’t give them the keys to the kingdom,” one of the officials said.

Getty Images

The Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building is seen in Washington.

In fact, the Justice Department did refuse to comply with several Russia-related requests. And in a letter to Congress at the time, Rosenstein said the “voluminous” production of documents was done “in a manner that does not harm the integrity of any ongoing investigation.”

In Mueller’s probe, the department will similarly “protect the integrity of ongoing investigations” and “apply” privileges when appropriate, the two Justice Department officials told ABC News.

“We have to actually pick our battles, which we’re going to do,” one of them said.

Mueller could send his final report to Barr in the coming days. It is not expected to detail the findings of spin-off investigations that Mueller referred to prosecutors around the country to pursue separately.

According to federal regulations, after receiving Mueller’s report, Barr will then send his own summary of the findings to Nadler and other members of Congress. It’s unclear how extensive that summary will be.

Nadler and Schiff have said they will sue the Trump administration for Mueller’s evidence if necessary.

Spokespeople for Nadler and Schiff did not respond to requests seeking comments for this article.

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.