REMEMBER, A FEW YEARS AGO, WHEN THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA NOMINATED MERRICK GARLAND FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND THE REPUBLICANS VIOLATED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY NOT HOLDING MANDATED SENATE HEARINGS TO DISCUSS THE NOMINATION, AND HOLD A PUBLIC VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPROVE OF THE NOMINATION? REMEMBER HOW HARD THE DEMOCRATS FOUGHT TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES ROLE IN THE PROCESS? OH, THATS RIGHT... THEY DID NOTHING!! SO NOW WE HAVE ROE vs WADE POSSIBLY BEING JUDGED BY 2 DONALD TRUMP APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT. THIS IS PART 4 OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE:
THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.
In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
- THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.
- GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED. DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?
- IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.
- EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?
Mark Sandy, a senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget, outside the Capitol before his close-door deposition earlier this month. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images
Updated at 6:02 p.m. ET
White House officials questioned whether President Trump might be breaking the law when he ordered military assistance for Ukraine frozen in July, according to transcripts released on Tuesday by House Democrats.
A career official with the Office of Management and Budget told impeachment investigators that he wasn't given details about why millions of dollars for Ukraine should not be paid — but he observed to superiors that the move would raise big legal questions.
Mark Sandy, deputy associate director for national security within the Office of Management and Budget, talked with impeachment investigators behind closed doors on Nov. 16.
The transcript of his deposition was released on Tuesday along with that of Philip Reeker, a top State Department official.
An OMB attorney was said to have resigned at least in part over concerns about the need to follow the law, Sandy told investigators.
In Sandy's case, he described receiving an email on July 12 from a supervisor that announced Trump wanted to hold up military-support funding for Ukraine.
No other country was mentioned and no explanation was included, according to the transcript. The message Sandy took away in so many words was: Stop the assistance now, and then you may learn why later.
" 'Let the hold take place' — and I'm paraphrasing here — 'and then revisit this issue with the president,' " was how Sandy described a conversation between two other White House officials.
No explanation was offered about freezing the assistance until September, Sandy said, when he remembered seeing an email about Trump's concern that other allies weren't contributing enough to Ukraine's defense.
Allegations about abuse of power
Sandy's testimony is important to Democrats' argument that Trump used his power capriciously — the president did not say in real time, according to this account, that he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and wanted to freeze assistance until he was satisfied with reforms there.
That has been among explanations that the White House and others have since given about why Trump acted as he did. What Sandy's testimony illustrated was that no explanation was given in real time.
Moreover, critics argue, the law obligates Trump to dispose of funds in whatever way Congress designates. Sandy told investigators that when he learned of the hold, he warned about its implications under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.
The funds Trump wanted to freeze had to be used by Sept. 30, Sandy said. If they weren't, "they basically expire and they return to the Treasury."
A new summary released by the House Budget Committee earlier on Tuesday describes how the first official act to stop $250 million in security assistance took place on July 25 in a letter signed by an OMB official.
Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees warned the Trump administration in an Aug. 3 letter that any such hold could constitute an "illegal impoundment" of funds, the new document says.
That echoed the concerns that Sandy said he and some colleagues voiced inside the administration.
Ultimately, the White House released the Ukraine assistance in early September. Trump and aides had wrought a policy over the year aimed on extracting concessions from Ukraine's leader.
In exchange for a meeting and the military assistance, witnesses have said, Trump wanted Ukraine's president to announce investigations that Trump thought might help him in the 2020 election.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy never made such a commitment.
Nonetheless, Democrats call the actions in the Ukraine affair an abuse of power that could merit impeachment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said on Tuesday that he plans to convene the next hearing in the process on Dec. 4.
Defenders: All's well that ended well
Republican defenders argue that the totality of Trump's actions on Ukraine over this year show there was no improper exchange. Trump's allies reject Democrats' claims of "attempted bribery" or "attempted extortion."
Trump maintains that his July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy was "perfect."
Separately, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has said that all foreign policy is political and every president places conditions on U.S. assistance for foreign governments. Assistance for other nations also has been stopped or frozen and then restored.
Anyone who can't accept Trump's use of his powers needs to "get over it," Mulvaney said.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"GET OVER IT." Such an Intellect, is this the type of Reasoning Skills they taught at TRUMP UNIV? Perhaps followed by: "I know you are, but what am I?" - David.
(LETS SEE: BOLIVIA AUDITS ELECTIONS TO CATCH COMPUTER FRAUD, AND EXPOSE THE "IMPOSTER," WHILE THE U.S. PLACES THE BENEFICIARY OF ELECTION FRAUD IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IGNORING EVIDENCE THAT CLEARLY INDICATES "BOGUS" RETURNS IN A NUMBER OF STATES. ANOTHER PROUD MOMENT IN THE DONALD TRUMP ERA.
(NPR NEWS.)
Bolivian President Evo Morales has resigned amid widespread protests across the country alleging fraud in the presidential election that he declared himself the winner of just three weeks ago.
"It is my obligation, as the indigenous president and as the president of all Bolivians, to look for peace," Morales said in a televised address on Sunday. "For this and many reasons, I am resigning."
Morales added that he felt deeply sorry for what he referred to as a "civic coup."
Since October's election, Bolivia has descended further into turmoil as allegations of fraud cast a cloud over the results of the vote. Morales initially called for new elections early on Sunday, after the Organization of American States released a preliminary audit indicating "serious security flaws" and a "clear manipulation" of a computer system, which the audit says ultimately affected the final count.
"The manipulations to the computer system are of such a magnitude that they should be deeply investigated by the Bolivian government to get to the bottom of and assign responsibilities in this serious case," the audit said.
The audit wasn't the only factor likely forcing Morales' hand: Police across the country began to declare themselves in mutiny, joining the throngs of protestors. In several cities, there have been reports of officers marching with demonstrators and chanting opposition slogans.
Williams Kaliman, commander of the Bolivian armed forces, said Saturday at a press conference that the military would not confront protestors.
"We will never face the people who we serve and we will always ensure peace between our brothers and the development of our country," Kaliman said.
Luis Fernando Camacho, a Bolivian protest leader, tweeted that he "cried with joy" at the mutiny of police forces, thanking them for "being with the people
Have you registered for
the 2020 Eastern Division meeting, January 8–11 in Philadelphia,
PA? If not, take a moment and register
online now!
This year’s meeting will feature the popular
Teaching Hub, a two-day series of workshops and sessions that
address the teaching of philosophy at all levels. The Teaching
Hub, sponsored by the APA and the American Association of
Philosophy Teachers, will run from Thursday, January 10, through
Friday, January 11, 2020. Eastern Division meeting registrants
are invited to attend any or all of the sessions. The 2020
Eastern Meeting Teaching Hub will include the following sessions
(visit the APA website
for details):
Early bird registration rates ($125 for APA
members, $240 for non-members, and $40 for student members) are
available until online registration closes on December 18. Eastern meeting registration will not be
available December 19 through January 7. You will be able to
register on-site at the meeting; however, on-site registration rates
will be $50 higher than early bird registration for all
categories. If you haven’t already done so, renew your
membership for 2019–2020 now to be eligible for the APA member
registration rates.
You’ll save an additional $5 on meeting
registration if you opt not to receive a paper copy of the
program. The meeting program is available online, and our free
meeting app for smartphones and tablets will also contain the
full program.
We look forward to seeing you in Philadelphia!
All the best,
Amy E. Ferrer
Executive Director
P.S. Have you made your hotel
reservations? The special conference rate of
$149/night (plus applicable taxes and fees) is in effect at the
Philadelphia 201 Hotel until December 10. Make
your reservations today!
It's a massive blow
for the longtime leader, who has been fighting to keep his job
after two inconclusive elections this year. He is accused of
bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
As the House of Rep. continues its investigation into whether or not DONALD TRUMP should be IMPEACHED, there are several issues that are not being properly addressed; #1. How he has been allowed to use the elected office of PRESIDENT as a means to promote PURELY PRIVATE ENTERPRISES: - FINANCIAL GET RICH SCHEMES, BOTH AS A CANDIDATE, AND THE OFFICE ITSELF. - PRIVATE MEDICAL PLANS CALLED "TRUMPCARE." ...without any objection as to the Criminality of such behavior, makes absolutely no sense, since the evidence for both is extensive. (SEE MY ARTICLES) #2. While the focus has been on the charge of "BRIBERY", MENTIONED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS A REASON FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE (FOR GOOD REASON), LET US REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING, THE ENTIRE WORDING THAT REFERENCES "IMPEACHMENT." ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I would like to point that that while TREASON AND BRIBERY ARE MENTIONED, the following are also included; ...or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. With the Testimony we have already heard, TOGETHER WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION, (EMPHASIZING THE BOGUS RETURNS THAT HANDED THE OFFICE TO DONALD TRUMP), AND THE USE OF THE OFFICE TO PROMOTE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, (SEE ABOVE), WE MIGHT ALSO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CHARGES*:
Lets start with BRIBE. BRIBE- money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. CONSPIRACY- (CONSPIRE)-to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement. INFLUENCE PEDDLING- is the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favours or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment. COLLUSION- secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
TO BE CONTINUED... *I used the MERRIAM-WEBSTER Dictionary as a guide for the General Public.
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland arrives for a closed session before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees on Oct. 28. Sondland returned to give additional testimony in the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Updated at 9:19 a.m. ET
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, tied President Trump directly to the U.S. push for conditioning military aid to Ukraine and a meeting with the Ukrainian president with "a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election."
"Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians," Sondland said in his opening statement at the public impeachment hearings on Wednesday. "Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements."
Sondland also provided the most explicit link yet of the secretary of state's role in the Ukraine affair, saying he kept Mike Pompeo and other senior State Department officials abreast of his contacts with Giuliani who "specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two topics of importance to the president."
"They knew what we were doing and why," Sondland said of Pompeo and the others in his opening statement at the public impeachment hearings on Wednesday.
Sondland, a major donor to Trump's inauguration, has emerged as a pivotal witness as the Democrats attempt to make the case that the president sought an investigation into the Bidens from Ukraine's newly elected president in exchange for the resumption of military aid and a White House visit. Trump denies any such linkage was made.
Sondland also said he merely "followed the president's orders" in working with Giuliani, even though he, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Kurt Volker, the then special envoy to Ukraine, "did not want to work with" the president's personal lawyer. "Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said.
If "I had known of all of Mr. Giuliani's dealings or of his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, I would not have acquiesced to his participation," Sondland said. "Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong."
Sondland previously told House investigators that he delivered a key message to a Ukrainian official this year: Trump would not unfreeze more than $390 million in assistance for Ukraine unless Ukraine made a public statement committing to investigations Trump believed might help him in the 2020 election.
That revelation was included in a three-page addendum filed this month to the first deposition Sondland gave in the earlier, closed-door chapter in the Ukraine affair.
Initially the ambassador didn't discuss that episode, which took place Sept. 1 in Warsaw. But the testimony of others, Sondland said, "refreshed" his recollection and accordingly he amended his testimony.
The encounter in Poland is one of a number of episodes in the Ukraine affair in which Sondland was a star.
Another was a July 10 meeting at the White House at which a Ukrainian delegation pressed for a meeting between the new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and Trump.
Then-national security adviser John Bolton was cool to the idea, witnesses have said. He declined to commit. But Sondland said, according to others, that he already had an agreement with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for a meeting with Trump — if the Ukrainians agreed to investigations.
Bolton and the national security professionals within the White House staff objected not only to having been boxed out of the shadow channel to Ukraine, but the merits of Trump's strategy.
Sondland also is one of the actors in the drama who can speak directly about what he heard from Trump.
Witnesses have said that Sondland talked frequently with Trump by phone — even though that went outside the normal policy process — and the ambassador even dialed up the president on his mobile phone from a restaurant table this summer in Kyiv.
Zelenskiy would do them, Sondland said, according to foreign service officer David Holmes, who was at the table across from Sondland. Holmes, who is posted to U.S. Embassy Kyiv, is scheduled to appear at Thursday's impeachment hearing.
The afternoon panel
The witnesses scheduled to appear on Wednesday afternoon have much lower profiles.
One is Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, whose portfolio includes policy for Eastern Europe.
She's expected to describe the Pentagon's opposition to the White House's freeze on Ukraine assistance and her conversations with Ambassador Kurt Volker, who testified on Tuesday, about the anticorruption statement.
The other is David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs at the State Department. Hale is expected to give the Washington foreign policy perspective on the events of this year, including the scourging and removal of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled in an early phase of the saga.
Hale told House investigators that when people were appealing to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to support Yovanovitch — which he ultimately declined to do — he agreed to call Fox News host Sean Hannity and ask about the "evidence" that might be problematic for Yovanovitch.
Hale said he had been beyond the periphery of many of the events in the story. For example, he said he was surprised to read the White House's account of the July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a "favor."
"It did surprise me," Hale said. "I didn't know any of that was happening."
