RSN: Marc Ash | An Acquittal of Donald Trump Is By No Means a Certainty

30 January 20 Two Days to Go. We Need Help With Donations! We are fighting tooth and nail for the basic funding needed to run RSN. There are only two days left in January. Stop. Donate. Please. Marc Ash Founder, Reader Supported News Sure, I'll make a donation! Update My Monthly Donation If you would prefer to send a check: Reader Supported News PO Box 2043 Citrus Hts CA 95611

30 January 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

A PLEA TO OTHER RSN READERS - Please make a contribution and support those of us who have. We want Reader Supported News to continue but we can’t carry the whole load. Marc and the RSN Team do a good job of bringing us news worthy of the term. And this site is one of the few where one can have an adult conversation with other people about what is happening in our world. PLEASE, let’s keep RSN on a sound financial footing! / Mainiac, RSN Reader-Supporter

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

RSN: Marc Ash | An Acquittal of Donald Trump Is By No Means a Certainty

Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
Ash writes: "From the place we are now, it is still difficult to imagine 14 Republican senators voting on the floor of the Senate to remove Donald Trump from office. It is, however, finally a moving train - and the entire country is on it."
READ MORE



Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz arrives at the Capitol on January 29, 2020. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)

Alan Dershowitz's Latest Defense of Trump Would Let Presidents Get Away With Almost Anything
Aaron Rupar, Vox
Rupar writes: "One of the defenses presented by one of Trump's lawyers during Wednesday's portion of the Senate impeachment trial stood out from the others - big time."
READ MORE



Urban Revitalization Coalition's CEO Darrell Scott at the White House in 2018. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

Trump Allies Are Handing Out Envelopes of Cash to Black Voters at Pro-Trump Events
Haven Orecchio-Egresitz, Business Insider
Orecchio-Egresitz writes: "Allies of President Donald Trump have been hosting events in predominantly black communities where they hand out envelopes of cash while praising the commander and chief, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger reported in an exclusive story."

At the first event, which was held in Cleveland in December, attendees with winning tickets would win cash, according to Politico. While the events are hosted with the intention to honor the president, the giveaways are run by a non-profit — the Urban Revitalization Coalition — which allows donors to remain anonymous.

The CEO of URC, Darrell Scott, has been one of Trump's closest and most prominent supporters, and he's the co-chair of Black Voices for Trump, a group that campaigns for the president in black communities. He told Politico that most gifts given away at the event last month were between $300 and $500, and if someone received more than that they were made to fill out a W-9 form to comply with tax law.

Scott, a pastor, declined to name the donors funding the effort.

"I'd rather not," he told Politico. "They prefer to remain anonymous."

The organizers say the events are intended to promote economic development in inner cities. In a conversation with Politico, one leading nonprofit tax expert said the giveaways might put URC's tax-exempt status ar risk because the group doesn't seem to be vetting the recipients of the money for need.

A similar event had been scheduled for the Virginia Union University, but it was canceled, according to a statement from the school. Organizers initially told the university that the event would be an "economic development discussion providing over $30,000 in cash giveaways to local residents to help stimulate economic and community development while celebrating the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." 

"The university was not a part of the planning for this event, was not informed of who would be participating, and was not a part of distributing information about the event," the university said. "We learned about it as the flyers were distributed."

READ MORE



Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, speaks at a climate rally with the Sunrise Movement at The Graduate Hotel, Jan. 12, 2020, in Iowa City, Iowa. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

Pro-Israel Dark Money Group Begins Attacking Bernie Sanders With Negative Ads
Middle East Eye
Excerpt: "A Pro-Israel Democratic super PAC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting a negative ad campaign in Iowa which targets 2020 Presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of next week's caucus."

EXCERPT:

Anticipating blowback from the ad, Sanders released a counter video late on Tuesday, arguing that the billionaire class was "getting nervous" that his campaign was gaining ground.

"It's no secret that we're taking on the political establishment and the big money interests, who are now running attack ads against us in Iowa," Sanders tweeted. "But we have the people, and our grassroots movement will prevail."

The attack ads come as a Real Clear Politics (RCP) poll shows Sanders leading his Democratic rivals ahead of the Iowa caucus.

Bernie Sanders

✔@BernieSanders

It's no secret that we're taking on the political establishment and the big money interests, who are now running attack ads against us in Iowa. But we have the people, and our grassroots movement will prevail.

16.6K

19:23 - 28 Jan 2020

Twitter Ads information and privacy

4,446 people are talking about this

READ MORE



Construction crew works on a fallen section of the U.S.-Mexico border on January 29, 2020. (photo: Getty)

New Section of Trump's 'Virtually Impenetrable' Wall Gets Blown Over by Wind in California
Matt Stieb, New York Magazine
Stieb writes: "On Wednesday, Customs and Border Protection confirmed to CNN that newly installed wall panels in Calexico, California, were knocked down by wind gusts of up to 37 miles per hour."
READ MORE

Mexican National Guards escort four Honduran women to an immigration checkpoint after detaining them near Ciudad Hidalgo on Jan. 22. (photo: Marco Ugarte/AP)

How Cruelty at the Mexican Border Became an American Export
Josue De Luna Navarro, BuzzFeed
Navarro writes: "In the early weeks of 2020, hundreds of Central American families once again woke up and started a long northward journey together."

EXCERPTS:

Honduran security forces have thrown tear gas at the caravan and Guatemalan authorities have turned away immigrants at the border, the AP reports, while Mexico has declared flatly they won’t allow any immigrant to get to the United States.

Through a combination of threats and tariffs, the US is cajoling countries on the caravan route to turn back these desperate asylum-seekers on its behalf. Homeland Security personnel aren’t confined to their own homeland anymore, either — according to the AP, embedded Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are “providing advisory and capacity building support” at the Guatemala–Honduras border as well.

The Trump administration has been uniquely cruel to these refugees, from its notorious family separation practices to its “Remain in Mexico” policy that forces asylum-seekers to remain in immigrant camps in Mexico. Trump himself has even called on authorities to illegally shoot immigrants.

In times like these, it’s easy to feel disempowered by the magnitude of the issue. But there is a simple way for us to protect immigrants risking their lives seeking refuge: We must push Congress to defund the border industrial complex.

All the anti-immigrant operations carried out by ICE and CBP are funded by our own taxpayer dollars. And every last one of those dollars is appropriated by Congress. So, tell your member to commit to cutting all money for ICE and CBP.

Seeking asylum is a legal right, and the freedom of movement is a human right. Let’s defund hate and uphold our collective right to freedom.

READ MORE

San Francisco and Oakland, California, sued several fossil fuel companies for contributing to climate change. Both cities face increasing risks as sea level rises. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Emails Reveal US Justice Dept Working Closely With Oil Industry to Oppose Climate Lawsuits
David Hasemyer, InsideClimate News
Hasemyer writes: "In early 2018, a few months after the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued several major oil companies over climate change, attorneys with the DOJ began a series of email exchanges and meetings with lawyers for the oil companies targeted in the litigation."

DOJ attorneys describe working with industry lawyers as a ‘team,’ raising questions about whether government was representing the American people. 

At one point, Eric Grant, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, sent an email to Indiana's solicitor general saying that his "boss" had asked him to set up a meeting to go over a plan for the government to intercede in the cases on the companies' behalf. 

The cities were arguing that oil companies should be held liable for catastrophic flooding, sea-level rise and other harmful consequences caused by climate change. The DOJ was preparing an amicus brief in support of the industry, and the Indiana solicitor general was leading the charge by Republican attorneys general from 15 states to also file a court brief supporting the industry.

In another email, an assistant U.S. attorney general referred to the DOJ attorneys and industry lawyers—many of them former DOJ environmental lawyers—as a "team."

The messages were among 178 pages of emails exchanged by government and industry from February through May 2018 as they worked together to oppose the cities' lawsuits. They were obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) under a federal Freedom of Information Act request and shared with InsideClimate News.

Although the emails do not reveal the substance of discussions that took place during the meetings, they bespeak the unapologetically close relationship between the Trump administration and the oil industry. They also provide a window into the closely coordinated efforts to block the climate lawsuits between industry and the Justice Department's environmental division, which touts itself as "the nation's environmental lawyer, and the largest environmental law firm in the country."

Legal experts say the conversations raise questions about the federal government's objectivity and whether the Department of Justice, in these cases, was acting in the best interest of the country's people.

The "boss" to whom Grant, the deputy assistant attorney general, referred in his email at the time was Jeff Wood, the Trump-appointed acting assistant attorney general leading the Environment and Natural Resources Division. Wood had landed at the DOJ after serving on the Trump-Pence campaign and after an earlier stint as staff environmental counsel to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, who would become Trump's attorney general.

Wood declined to comment, though he cited a footnote in the order by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup dismissing the cases that the federal government's amicus brief supporting the oil industry had been submitted "at the Court's invitation." The dismissal is now being appealed.

Neither Grant nor his colleagues involved in the meetings with the industry responded to a request for comment. The Justice Department and industry lawyers also did not respond.

The climate lawsuits that grabbed Wood's attention argue that the companies created a public nuisance—climate change—by producing fossil fuels that become the principal cause of global warming when burned.

"The rapidly rising sea level along the Pacific coast and in San Francisco Bay, moreover, poses an imminent threat of catastrophic storm surge flooding because any storm would be superimposed on a higher sea level," the lawsuit filed by Oakland officials states. "This threat to human safety and to public and private-property is becoming more dire every day as global warming reaches ever more dangerous levels and sea level rise accelerates."

The emails cover a period beginning in February 2018, six months after climate cases were filed, and ending in May, a few weeks after the Justice Department filed the amicus brief on behalf of the five oil giants named in the lawsuits.

At one time or another, six attorneys—one-quarter of the attorneys assigned to division's Law and Policy Section—were brought into the loop with industry.

Justice Department attorneys had multiple conference calls with attorneys for BP and Chevron and hosted at least one in-person meeting at DOJ headquarters in Washington, prompting an attorney for BP to write at one point "thanks again for the helpful discussion last week," according to the emails. The string of electronic notes shows the extensive effort DOJ attorneys made in coordinating various meetings with their oil industry counterparts.

One of the Justice Department lawyers the emails identified as participating in the strategy sessions with the industry has notified the appeals court considering the case that she will be appearing during the time allotted for the industry to present its arguments next month.

Just Raised Eyebrows or Red Flags?

Because the emails do not reflect the substance of the meetings, Justin Levitt , a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said it is difficult to assess whether ethical lines were crossed.

"If these meetings discussed the logistics of a DOJ amicus filing but not the substance of what the DOJ would file, it may be reason to raise an eyebrow but not a red flag," he said.

It would be unusual and trigger questions if the meetings delved into the issues raised in the lawsuits, said Smith, a former deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

"It wouldn't pass the sniff test if the DOJ was trying to address substantive issues," he said. "If the meetings were about the logistics, there's nothing improper."

In its amicus brief, signed by Wood, the government argues the lawsuits violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the federal and state governments.

"Balancing the nation's energy needs and economic interests against the risks posed by climate change should be left to the political branches of the federal government in the first instance," Wood wrote in the brief.

"The United States has strong economic and national security interests in promoting the development of fossil fuels, among other energy resources," he wrote.

Wood, who has since left the justice department to become a partner in a Washington D.C. law firm representing clients in federal enforcement actions, also cites a 2017 executive order issued by President Donald Trump saying: "It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources."

No Similar Conversations with the Cities

Pete Huffman, a staff attorney for NRDC, acknowledged the emails offer just a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes action, but says they are enough to raise serious questions.

"We would expect them to be working in what they think are the best interests of the United States," he said. "We don't think that working with the industry against climate action in most of these places is in the best interests of the United States."

Especially worrisome is the apparent one-sided coordination with the industry, said Huffman, who signed an amicus brief filed by NRDC on behalf of the cities.

"We don't know all the facts from these documents, but it starts to look less like trying to get to the best interests of the United States and more like coordinating in the best interests of the industry," he said.

The conclusion of favoritism cannot be discounted because the emails do not reflect an attempt by DOJ to contact either the cities of Oakland or San Francisco, Huffman said.

"I can tell you for sure that DOJ never reached out to us," said Alex Katz, chief of staff for Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker. The same for the San Francisco city attorney's office, said spokesman John Cote.

A spokesman for the law firm now handling the two cases declined to comment.

Acting in Whose Best Interest?

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School, calls the apparent collaboration "troubling."

While it's within the realm of DOJ to express its view on the legal foundation of any case, the department should remain as objective as possible without the appearance of taking sides, he said. The government, he said, should have no contact with either side and simply express an opinion on the legal issues and allow the court to decide.

"From just the appearance standpoint here, it's troubling to see any coordination," Parenteau said.

That's an especially disconcerting line to cross in the climate cases where the public has been put in jeopardy by the industry's role in climate change, he said.

"The DOJ is supposed to represent the best interest of the people," he said. "In these cases there is an existential threat to the public. So clearly the government is defending against the best interest of the public by cozying up to the industry."

In a March 20 email, for example, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Ennis wrote to Ethan Shenkman, an attorney representing BP, inviting a conversation regarding the California cases.

"Jim Kilbourne, (an assistant U.S. attorney) who is copied here, told us that you would be interested in discussing the nuisance lawsuits filed against BP," Ennis wrote. "Justin Smith and I would be happy to speak with you."

The BP lawyer responds two days later: "Christine - many thanks for reaching out."

A few weeks earlier, an attorney for one of the oil companies sent a note reminding a Justice Department lawyer that a judge in California had set a filing deadline for DOJ's brief supporting the industry.

"Thank you for forwarding this," Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Heminger responded. "Best regards."

The Oakland and San Francisco cases—as well as the dozen other climate lawsuits—remain gridlocked in various legal proceedings from California to New York.

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation