Sabotaging any hope of justice

Senate Majority Leader “Moscow” Mitch McConnell reportedly is close to finalizing a rule that would allow Trump’s clown-car legal team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly after some evidence has been presented, as a sort of safety valve in case the trial starts going bad.

The discussions came as Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that the trial could extend “to six to eight weeks or even longer” if the Senate decided to hear from additional witnesses.

McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn’t be obligated to publicize the final version of his resolution setting the parameters of the impeachment trial until Tuesday, but top Republicans have said they supported affording Trump the opportunity to cut the trial short.

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, for example, said he would be “very, very surprised” if McConnell’s resolution didn’t include that kind of kill switch.

“I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago,” Hawley told Axios. “My understanding is that the resolution will give Trump’s clown-car legal team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss……..”

Trump, Hawley wrote on Twitter after Axios’ article was published, “deserves the right during Senate trial to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss – otherwise trial will become endless circus run by Adam Schiff.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have voiced frustration that McConnell was holding the final rules for the trial secret.

“The House managers have absolutely no idea what the structure of the trial two days before the trial begins,”

For his part, Trump suggested earlier this month that an “outright dismissal” might be appropriate.

This whole strategy may end up being moot because whacky Law professor Alan Dershowitz, is set to present an argument against impeachment during the Senate trial, said Sunday it will be clear there will be “no need” for witnesses if his presentation were to succeed. “Criminal-like conduct,” Dershowtiz said, was required for impeachment.

Anything to avoid a fair trial, right?

from Fox News and The Associated Press

We don’t trust John “chickenhawk” Bolton

 

Why would anybody trust “chickenhawk” John Bolton to tell the truth about his buddy Donald Trump? These belligerent bullies are cut from the same cloth. Bolton’s not going to turn on Trump unless it makes him some serious money.

Even rightwing republican apologist Joe Scarborough doesn’t trust John Bolton’s intentions when it comes to testifying before Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. The “Morning Joe” host said he believes the former national security adviser has cut a behind-the-scenes deal with the White House on his offer to testify.

“Forgive me for being cynical, but I think John Bolton wants to sell his book,” Scarborough said. (no shit!) “These people who were saying, you know what? We’ll give you Bolton. You give us, fill in the blank. I mean, whoever else is called, if the Republicans call (anyone), will not talk about executive privilege, but I guarantee you John Bolton will.”

“You talk about drug deals,” he said. “I think there’s a smaller drug deal going on between Bolton and the White House right now, where there’s a nod and a wink. Yes, I’m going to say that I’ll testify, knowing perfectly well the second he gets there to testify the White House will claim executive privilege, and he’ll say, you know what? I came here to testify, but this really does fit under executive privilege, and I’m not going to weaken the presidency and so then Republicans call who they want to call. I think the fix is already in here.”

We think Scarborough is right, this is Bolton injecting meth into his book sales. He’s teasing testimony knowing he’ll never give it so people will be forced to by his book.

John Bolton who always wants to send people to their deaths fighting in some war he’s provoked is a POS and always will be.

American consumers are paying for Trump’s stupid “Trade War”

Xi laughing at Trump’s trade stupidity

According to a new study from the New York Federal Reserve, Chinese businesses have not lowered prices in a significant way when it comes to exports in response to President Trump’s trade wars, leaving Americans to absorb additional import taxes levied by the Trump administration, to the tune of around $40 billion per year.

“The continued stability of import prices for goods from China means US firms and consumers have to pay the tariff tax,” study authors Matthew Higgins, Thomas Klitgaard, and Michael Nattinger, wrote.

As Business Insider points out, the study’s findings contradict a claim made by Trump that foreign exporters are shouldering up to 25 percent of the costs — a claim the White House has continued to disseminate even after other studies have reached the same conclusion.

 “China is paying us tremendous — and they’re paying for it,” The ignorant Trump said last week. “Those tariffs are not paid by us. Those tariffs are paid because they’re devaluing their currency and pouring cash into their economy.” (Ya right “stable genius”!)

According to the New York Fed, Chinese firms have “accepted the loss in competitiveness in the US market and have used the weaker currency to pad profits on each unit of sales.”

 

Downey defends his MAGA god

King of Murder Mountain

Mike Downey who was worthless as our county sheriff and had the highest murder rate in Humboldt history continues to weigh in on everyday life on the local MAGA radio station.
In this morning’s edition of the “good ole boy” community comment, he offers his MAGA cheerleading and complete exoneration of the Trump administration. This is coming from the corrupt and/or incompetent guy that oversaw the pilfering in the coroner’s department and then decided to amalgamate the Jager and Paris grave-robbing team into his sleazy sheriff’s department.
Pay no attention to this fool, he has no creditability. Read the Mueller report for yourself it’s written by a lifelong Republican former FBI director and Marine and as much he pulls his punches and soft petals it all, it’s still a scathing indictment of the most corrupt, treasonous liar, to ever run the country.

Downey was a founding member of the far-right constitutional Sheriffs association, patterned after Joe Arpaio

It’s time to start the impeachment inquiry now!

Is the fix in for Bass? Sure looks suspicious

When our two popular local and widely supported candidates for the open coastal commission seat, Arcata Mayor Brett Watson and Eureka City Councilmember Natalie Arroyo were summarily rejected by Governor Gavin Newsom, it seemed like a red flag to many observers. Now we hear that the Governor’s office has actively encouraged Virginia Bass to apply for the position.  WTF?

The coastal commission has barely survived Jerry Brown’s 8-year effort to stack it with developers and elites.
Now Newsom wants to appoint Ryan Sundberg’s “bestie”! The pro-development, anti-coastal act and Arkley disciple Virginia Bass! Looks like Virginia’s more than a decade sarade as a Democrat is going to pay off big time.
Well maybe ol’ Rob Arkley can call in all those favors he has granted Bass over the years and finally get approval to build his ill-fated “Marina Center” big box mall!

The Barr B.S. press release spin

Trump’s current fixers and all around suck-up sycophants

Did Barr order Mueller to shut down the investigation before he was finished?

Handpicked Trump flunkey Attorney General William P. Barr has put forward what can only be called a press release setting forth what he views as the principal conclusions relating to the Russia probe conducted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Let’s first be clear about what the press release (letter) does not say.

It does not say whether Mueller found a preponderance of evidence of crimes. (The criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher.)

It does not say whether Mueller found Trump lied to the American people.

It does not say Mueller exonerated Trump; to the contrary, it says the opposite. It does not say anything about possible financial crimes under investigation in the Southern District of New York.

It does not say why there were more than 100 contacts between the Trump presidential campaign and transition team and Russia-linked operatives, or why so many people denied there were contacts.

The report does not say whether Trump and his associates welcomed the help of a foreign hostile power.

It does not say anything about possible state prosecutions.

Here’s is what Barr’s press release does say:

There were two main Russian efforts, one through primarily through social media and the other via email hacks disseminated through intermediaries such as WikiLeaks, to interfere with our election. If we accept Mueller’s investigation, the claim that there is uncertainty about who interfered with the election and on whose behalf is false.

It claims Mueller did not find that Trump or those with his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election, but we need to see the report to find out how all that unreported contact isn’t a conspiracy.

Mueller found a list of actions under the part of his investigation into obstruction of justice but did not reach a prosecutorial decision. Mueller explicitly did not exonerate Trump of obstruction. Trump’s appointed attorney general and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein decided it was not sufficient to establish that an obstruction-of-justice offense occurred. This is not their roll.

The demand for the complete report is overwhelming. Only the report can answer questions such as:

What was the series of actions that Mueller looked at when investigating obstruction?
Why did Mueller decide not to opine one way or the other on obstruction?
Did he find a preponderance of evidence of obstruction?
Why did Barr and Rosenstein conclude there was no obstruction-of-justice crime?
Did Mueller not find evidence of coordination/conspiracy, or did he rule it out (disprove it)?

What explains all the Russian contacts?
What financial incentives, if any, did Trump have to favor Russia?
Did the Russian government attempt to cultivate Trump as an asset or have leverage over him?
Why did Michael Flynn lie about Russia contacts?
Why did the president wait so long to fire Flynn?
Did any of Trump’s family members or associates lie to Congress, and if so, why is there as yet no indictment?
Barr does seem to concede that the demand for the report is bipartisan and compelling. He writes that he must separate out grand jury testimony and other material that could “impact other ongoing matters.” WAIT. WHAT?!  If Mueller came across evidence of crimes that the Southern District of New York or other parts of Justice are investigating, shouldn’t we know if the Trump is under investigation?

However, in a major respect, Barr’s action in declaring no crime of obstruction is inexplicable or is a blatant cover-up. Because it is the Justice Department’s position that Trump cannot be indicted as a sitting president, there is no requirement — indeed, it is inappropriate — for Barr to even weigh in. The job is up to Congress, according to Barr’s own department guidelines. Suspicions about Barr’s willingness to clear Trump, based on a memo he wrote to the Justice Department before being nominated as attorney general, look well-founded.

We now have an entirely untenable situation: The special counsel did not render a judgment on obstruction but clearly found evidence thereof. Trump’s own attorney general and deputy attorney general wouldn’t prosecute Dear Leader, but other independent prosecutors could certainly find that information sufficient to charge Trump now or later. Moreover, the evidence might be so compelling as to reach the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

We are, as has been suggested, at the end of the beginning. But the investigation into Trump is nowhere near completion.

 

 

An edited version of Jenifer Rubin opinion piece in Washington Post

.

With all of Trump’s bigotry on full display, Republican denunciations of others will always be hypocritical

Why does lame ass Chuck Todd have a show on MSNBC? Shouldn’t he be relegated to Sinclair?

 

The Devil himself and his spawn, Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.)

 

Democratic leaders expanded a resolution that initially focused on condemning anti-Semitism which was seen by many as targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.— to a broader one condemning “anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry,” 23 Republicans voted against the measure. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), (daughter of the war criminal and the devil incarnate) tried to defend her vote.

Cheney told the smarmy “ass kissing” host Chuck Todd, “I decided to vote against it because I think it was really clearly an effort to actually protect Ilhan Omar, to cover up her bigotry and anti-Semitism by refusing to name her.” Cheney went on to assert that “the kind of anti-Semitism that you’re seeing now from Ilhan Omar and that has been supported by her colleagues is the kind of anti-Semitism that really has the ability to creep in and become normalized in our discourse. And we have an absolute obligation not to let that happen.” (Except when republicans do it)

In her bigoted world, Cheney’s argument may make some perverted sense, though holding a vote on a resolution is a really odd method for a “cover-up.” But more importantly, it’s not clear how adding language condemning Islamophobia waters down the condemnation of anti-Semitism. Both are forms of prejudice based on the religious beliefs of the target. Both Islamophobia and anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise. And both types of bigotry are in danger of being normalized — thanks in no small part to Cheney and her fellow Republicans.

Where was all this faux-outrage Last fall, current House Minority Leader and total Trump sycophant Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) accused George Soros, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg (all Jewish or of Jewish descent) of trying to “buy” the midterm elections, and Republicans including Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) have amplified conspiracy theories that Soros has paid leftist protesters. Charges such as these invoke old and ugly anti-Semitic tropes that suggest that Jews use money to secretly exert control over the political process. Meanwhile, Trump speculates about closing mosques to fight terrorism; his buddy Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) pals around with anti-Muslim nationalists in Europe; and Fox News hosts charge that Islam is a destructive force and that Omar’s decision to wear a hijab signals secret and sinister anti-constitutional views rather than a choice to exercise her constitutionally protected freedom of religion. On Sunday, Cheney and Todd both deflected by saying that to bring up McCarthy and others as mere “whatboutism.” (Which by the way lame ass Todd does all the time)

It’s perfectly legitimate to point to King and McCarthy as evidence that the GOP scramble to condemn Democrats this week isn’t really about principled opposition to anti-Semitism. Even with Liz Cheney recently begun to sort of criticizing King, she even hinted he should resign. But she was nowhere to be found long after he had crossed the same lines before, such as when he tweeted that “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Nor has she criticized the legions of Iowa GOP leaders for supporting King’s reelection year after year.

Cheney’s stance is unsustainable, given her own record. Todd’s last question on the topic prompted a response from her that showed just how phony her position is. “Do you feel comfortable that Trump’s done enough to tamp down this right-wing fringe anti-Semitism that’s been rising up?” Todd asked.

Cheney refused to answer — even though Trump has responded to neo-Nazis chanting “Jews will not replace us” by saying there were “very fine people on both sides,” even though he repeatedly uses the term “globalist” despite its well-documented anti-Semitic associations, and even though he has fueled anti-Soros conspiracy theories. As long as Republicans duck criticism of Trump’s bigotry, their denunciations of others will always ring hollow.

 

 

An edited piece originally from Washington Post