DONALD TRUMP IS A DISASTER...BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT...

BLAST FROM THE PAST: "THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT."

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:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?

NPR NEWS: White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law

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.

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

READ: Testimony Of Philip Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary Of State For Europe

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

READ: Testimony Of White House Budget Official To Impeachment Inquiry

" '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.

AUDITING COMPUTER RESULTS, TO DETECT ELECTION FRAUD. WHAT A GOOD IDEA, IF YOU WANT HONEST ELECTIONS. (GUESS THE U.S. ISN'T READY.)

(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.

LATIN AMERICA

Amid Accusations Of Fraud, Bolivia's President Claims First-Round Election Victory

WORLD

How Bolivia's Evo Morales Could Win A 4th Term As President

"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

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION- Eastern Division Meeting: The Teaching Hub.

Dear DAVID, 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): Teaching Core Texts: Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics Philosophy Begins in Apathy: Building Student Curiosity in Introductory Courses Navigating Philosophy Classrooms Penn Project for Philosophy for the Young Pre-College Philosophy as Pedagogy: Lessons for Teaching in Higher Education The Bhagavad Gita in the Philosophy Classroom Teaching Philosophy as a Way of Life Creative Assignments for Philosophical Skills My Top Five: Philosophers Share Their Lists Closing Reception: Undergraduate Research and Faculty SoTL Poster Session Register now for the 2020 Eastern Division meeting!   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!