Thursday, January 14, 2021
RSN: FOCUS: David Sirota, Andrew Perez, Walker Bragman, Julia Rock | The Giant Corporate Giant Slush Fund Bankrolling the Extremist GOP
Come On Folks, Work With Us on Donations We are scratching and clawing for basic funding. What this organization needs to function extraordinarily minimal. Take a moment to chip in. Your help really does matter. Sincerely, Marc Ash If you would prefer to send a check: |
It's Live on the HomePage Now: FOCUS: David Sirota, Andrew Perez, Walker Bragman, Julia Rock | The Giant Corporate Giant Slush Fund Bankrolling the Extremist GOP
“In light of a divided political climate and an increase in attacks on those participating in the political process,” the company said, “we believe a clear and apolitical position is in the best interest of our clients, employees, stockholders and the communities in which we operate.” While the news generated headlines, the company did not respond to questions from the Daily Poster about whether it will review or try to restrict the much larger political contributions made by the company’s billionaire chairman Charles Schwab. During the 2020 election, the firm’s namesake donated more than $9 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), the two main party-aligned super PACs supporting House and Senate GOP lawmakers. A majority of House Republicans, 139 of them, voted to overturn the election results, while Republican leaders in the Senate were still endorsing Donald Trump’s right to challenge the election results after media outlets had already called the race. Schwab is no anomaly: Name-brand companies have issued press releases about halting or reviewing the relatively small PAC donations to the lawmakers who egged on the mayhem. However, the Daily Poster contacted scores of companies linked to top SLF and CLF donors, and virtually none committed to taking steps to restrict top corporate officials from continuing to make far larger donations to the super PACs that bankroll congressional Republicans. Halting PAC donations while doing nothing to stop corporate titans’ bigger super PAC donations is a head fake: The maneuver lets companies clean their reputations by pretending they are taking decisive actions to punish insurrectionist Republicans, even though they will not stop corporate officials from recapitalizing the slush fund that those lawmakers will rely on for reelection. And the vast majority of these companies do not publicly disclose if and when they make donations to dark money groups that also spend on elections. The bait and switch is underscored by the data: SLF and CLF together raised more than $578 million to support Republican lawmakers in the 2020 election, while their affiliated dark money nonprofits, One Nation and American Action Network, spent another $50 million on unregulated TV ads, according to OpenSecrets. By comparison, all corporate PACs combined donated less than half that amount to Republican congressional candidates in the 2020 election, and those contributions comprise an all-time low of just 5 percent of all campaign donations in 2020. An election in Colorado illustrates how the CLF often plays a far more direct role than PAC donations in supporting insurrectionist Republicans. Freshman Rep. Lauren Boebert, who voted against certifying the presidential election and refuses to walk through Capitol metal detectors, was boosted by more than $900,000 of spending by CLF and only received $20,000 from business PACs. “Are these corporations saying they’re no longer donating their $5,000 max corporate PAC checks to Republicans or saying they’re no longer doing bundling and financing million-dollar super PACs on behalf of Republicans?” asked Justice Democrats’ Waleed Shahid, whose organization works to elect progressive lawmakers. “Big difference.” That difference explains the dissonance between exuberant media headlines heralding the end of PAC donations and quiet reassurances that there will be no interruption of the much larger flood of cash funding the GOP’s political apparatus. Indeed, most corporations contacted by aides to GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy — who voted to block the election results — “have assured them that they have no plans to back away from the party,” according to Politico. “This is a temporary issue that will quickly disappear when corporate America sees how extreme the agenda is of the Democrats who now have complete unchecked power in Washington,” one GOP lawmaker told the Hill. “They will be running to [the National Republican Campaign Committee] and CLF by March or April.” No Pledges to Permanently Stop Bankrolling the GOP’s Key Super PACs The Daily Poster contacted roughly ninety companies and interest groups that either directly donated or whose officials contributed to the CLF and SLF, accounting for roughly $370 million raised by the groups last cycle. Among the organizations donating directly from their treasuries to CLF and SLF were the National Association of Realtors, ConocoPhillips, and Boeing, which have all said they are reviewing their donations. None of the companies have pledged to permanently stop donating to the Republican super PACs. The National Association of Realtors said that its PAC met this week and the “association is temporarily pausing federal political disbursements.” The organization, which directly contributed $6.6 million to SLF last cycle, said it “will continue to closely monitor events in Washington in the days and weeks ahead in order to ensure our political participation most closely represents the will of our REALTOR® members and the best interests of American real estate.” “Given the current environment, we are not making political contributions at this time,” Boeing announced on Wednesday, in a statement that appeared to cover its PAC contributions. Boeing made $750,000 worth of corporate contributions to SLF, including $250,000 in mid-November, as the group turned its sights on the two Georgia senate runoff races. ConocoPhillips, which directly donated $1.3 million to the groups, said: “In light of Congress’s recent vote on the certification of the electoral college results, ConocoPhillips has suspended all political contributions for at least six months. While the company has a robust governance for political contributions, we are actively reviewing our current policies.” The Daily Poster reached out to several companies that have said they are halting or reviewing their PAC donations and that contributed to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) last election cycle. Republican attorneys general in seventeen states sought to invalidate the election results in at least four swing states, and RAGA’s nonprofit arm helped direct people to the protest at the US Capitol last week that preceded the insurrection. “Future political donations are under review based on the events of the past few weeks,” said a spokesperson for CVS Health, which donated $50,000 to RAGA last year, according to data from Political MoneyLine. Coca-Cola, which donated $100,000, said the company is “reviewing our participation in groups like the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), and we will continue to do so with last week’s events in mind.” Corporations Now Trying to Distance Themselves From Their Own Officials None of the companies contacted by the Daily Poster pledged to restrict donations by their senior officials. A few firms argued that their corporate officials are simply making their own contribution decisions. A spokesperson for Elliott Management, whose founder and co-CEO Paul Singer contributed $7 million to SLF and CLF, said: “You seem to be referring to donations made by individual employees in their capacity as private citizens — these are not corporate decisions.” Legal experts told the Daily Poster that, in general, corporations can restrict executives political donations as a condition of employment — and in fact some companies assure investors that their executives’ donations are reviewed and approved by the companies so they don’t trip over anti-corruption rules and avoid potential reputational damage. “If they say that they are reviewing [donations], they do have the ability to influence,” said Jay Dubow, a former SEC regulator who now advises corporations on compliance. “If it has to be reviewed then there’s a veto [power].” “I can’t think of anything that would stop a company from telling executives not to make political contributions, or from requiring pre-approval of any political contributions,” said Brendan Fischer, the director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center. He added that, with some exceptions, “in most private sector, non-unionized workplaces, the law does not stop employers from firing workers for their political views or activities, including for their record of political contributions.” Companies’ new attempt to feign ignorance and powerlessness about their officials’ donations obscures how corporate and individual contributions often work in tandem. A recent study from Northwestern University researchers found that executives’ political contributions are driven by business considerations. “The likelihood of an individual corporate leader donating to a member of Congress increased by 11 percent when that legislator received a committee assignment making him or her ‘policy relevant’ to the donor’s company,” the analysis concluded. “The likelihood of a corporate executive donating to a sitting member of Congress was 31 percent higher during election cycles in which that executive’s company was actively lobbying the federal government.” Bruce Freed — whose organization, the Center for Political Accountability, encourages companies to disclose their political contributions — said firms “need to have policies and procedures in place to protect the company and to protect themselves from the risk they face from election-related spending.” “At this point, companies are facing existential risks by having any association with the insurrection attempt of last Wednesday, but also any association with the congressmen who voted to overturn the election results or the attorneys general who were involved in the lawsuits to overturn the election results,” he said. Freed noted that many companies are only talking about reviewing or halting their PAC donations, which are limited to $5,000 per candidate, rather than contributions to groups like super PACs, dark money nonprofits, trade associations, and 527 committees — which can accept donations of any size, including money direct from corporate treasuries. Moreover, most political donations — more than 70 percent since 2000 — are from individuals. “Seriously Negative Business Ramifications” Blackstone presents the most illustrative example of the cat-and-mouse game of culpability and authority when it comes to political spending. The private equity giant is run by billionaire CEO Steve Schwarzman, who gave $35 million to SLF, $2.5 million to CLF, and $3 million to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action. He also gave $325,600 to the Republicans who objected to the electoral results. Right after the election, Schwarzman — a Trump confidant — reportedly told business leaders that Trump had a right to challenge the results and “took issue with suggestions made during the meeting that the U.S. could be on the verge of a coup,” according to the Financial Times. Schwarzman publicly acknowledged Biden’s victory a few weeks later, and last week he decried the violence at the Capitol — but he has not pledged to stop funding any Republican groups. “We have been advised by counsel that we cannot direct political giving by individuals,” a Blackstone spokesman told the Washington Post. Blackstone’s own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggest that the company evaluates all donations from executives. “Personal political contributions or other political activity could be restricted by law or agreement or could have seriously negative business ramifications,” Blackstone’s policy reads. “Therefore, all [Blackstone Group] employees and senior advisors (and members of immediate family) must obtain prior approval … to make any political contributions or to solicit or coordinate any political contributions, including contributions to political parties or political action committees…. The employee will receive a reply from [Blackstone’s] chief legal officer or his designee granting or denying clearance.” A company spokesman told the Daily Poster: “Our code of ethics simply helps ensure our employees adhere to their legal and compliance obligations; it does not relate in any way to directing employee giving on a partisan or ideological basis, and implying so is a total distortion.” |
n response to the violent insurrection at the US Capitol, the Charles Schwab Corporation yesterday announced it will shut down its political action committee, which gave less than a quarter million dollars to Republican lawmakers in 2020.RSN: Jeremy Scahill | The Trump Precedent: No President Should Be Above the Law Again
14 January 21
Pulling Teeth to Get (Some of You) Donating
Truth: We love RSN, we love what we do. More Truth: Getting (some of you) folks to donate takes too long. The time expended every month to pull in what relatively little funding is required to sustain the project is disproportionate to the point of being counter productive. Yes we get the necessary donations eventually, but the time we expend should rightly be dedicated to the mission. Timing is everything.
For your consideration.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
14 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Jeremy Scahill | The Trump Precedent: No President Should Be Above the Law Again
Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept
Scahill writes: "The halls of the U.S. Capitol are thundering with demands for President Donald Trump to be held directly responsible, alongside his foot soldiers, for the siege of Congress on January 6."
Accountability for high crimes needs to exist for not just the current president, but future ones too.
There have already been a couple dozen arrests, and many more are certain to come. There is an active federal investigation of the murder of a police officer at the hands of the pro-Trump mob, and media and political figures have raised the prospect of Trump’s criminal exposure for the bloodshed. There will certainly be convictions and prison sentences.
But it is quite likely that this fate will only apply to those unfamous citizens who joined the mob, not their ideological masters.
When it comes to holding the most powerful responsible for their role in crimes, particularly those committed while holding high office, the U.S. track record is anemic. While Democrats are rightly intent on proceeding with impeachment and other measures against Trump, the reality is that U.S. history is rife with episodes of political elites ultimately deciding to move on “for the good of the country.” It is why so many shameless Republicans are whining about the need to unify the country so it can heal. They know the game.
Listening to many Democrats and some Republicans speak in holy terms about the “sanctity” of the “temple of democracy” being pillaged and ransacked, it is easy to be seduced into believing that this time will be different, that the perpetrators — from top to bottom — will be held to account. But doing so would buck a long-standing pillar of the bipartisan system: When it comes to the crimes of the powerful, we must always look forward.
No senior military official was prosecuted for the torture at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq. No CIA officer went to jail, much less lost their job, for operating a global kidnapping and torture program. No one faced an indictment for the U.S. use of banned cluster bomb munitions in President Barack Obama’s first airstrike in Yemen in December 2009 that shredded a few dozen human beings into ground meat. The failure to hold senior U.S. officials responsible for their crimes ensures that the crimes can and will continue. Look no further than the ascent of Gina Haspel, a key player in the CIA’s torture program and the destruction of videotapes of the abuse of detainees, to become the first woman to head the agency. It was a fruit of Obama’s look-forward-not-backward doctrine. There has rightly been outrage at Trump’s pardons for soldiers and mercenaries convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the other side of that coin is the bipartisan refusal to prosecute the masterminds of U.S. imperial crimes in those countries or elsewhere.
The events of January 6 were shocking in only one way: the fact that a violent mob was able to so easily storm and occupy the Capitol. These events were unprecedented in that the most powerful political figure in the United States was the circus master who used incendiary language as he called on the mob to descend on the building. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness,” Trump declared at a rally moments before the siege began. “You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” Trump’s disgraced lawyer Rudy Giuliani went a step further, suggesting that the mob needed to create the conditions on Capitol Hill for a “trial by combat.”
Among the most serious questions as yet unresolved are: What role did law enforcement and Republican members of Congress play in facilitating the violent takeover of the Capitol? What did Trump administration officials in control of federal forces and the military know leading up to the siege? And did they facilitate it either directly or through deliberate inaction?
No one should pretend that this moment was not in some form predictable. Trump has spent four years using lie-filled bile to empower and embolden violent, dangerous, low-information racists and xenophobes to embrace a worldview where their “real America” had been snatched from them by Black people, immigrants, socialists, “abortionists,” and anarchists. Trump has openly encouraged police and other law enforcement to be more brutal toward protesters (and other people they arrest, for that matter); he has offered to pay legal expenses of supporters who beat dissidents at his rallies; and he issued orders in September for the Proud Boys militia to “stand back and stand by” as he waged his preemptive campaign to declare the election stolen. Trump has also sent a clear message that he will use the power of the presidential pardon to rescue war criminals, including U.S. soldiers and Blackwater mercenaries, who murder people. The rioters at the Capitol may have sincerely believed that Trump would absolve them of any actions they took that day in their pseudo-revolutionary war.
Leading up to January 6, the message from the president and his sizable coterie of allies among the Republican Party in Congress was clear: Joe Biden and the radical left are stealing not just the presidency but America itself. In portraying the “resistance” to the certification of Biden’s election victory as the second coming of the American Revolution — their 1776 2.0 — Trump offered a presidential seal of approval for any means necessary to “stop the theft.”
The fact that very few of the MAGA warriors who stormed Congress on January 6 attempted to conceal their identities is simultaneously a symbol of their idiocy and their belief that they were operating on orders from the commander in chief. It also served as dramatic evidence of the privileges assumed by the president’s supporters. Violence from Black Lives Matter supporters or antifa is regarded as punishable by death, but when performed by MAGA mobs, you might just deserve the Medal of Freedom like Rush Limbaugh.
How we as a society choose to respond to these events is of great consequence to our future. People were killed in this riot, including a police officer who was allegedly beaten to death by a mob whose members spent four years screaming about blue lives mattering. It seems clear that some among the mob spoke of, if not actively contemplated, murdering House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hanging Vice President Mike Pence as a traitor from a tree on Capitol Hill. Particularly if you watch the videos of the mob attacking police as well as journalists, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss any of this as political disagreement or rhetoric that went too far in the heat of the moment.
It is easy, morally and politically, to join calls for Trump to be prosecuted. He is a cartoonish villain who clearly relishes his crimes. And let there be no doubt, Trump should face prosecution for a wide range of offenses, from his grifts to inciting violent white supremacists, to war crimes. But the most likely scenario, based on history and the current discourse among the elite political class, is that Trump mainly has reason to fear prosecution in New York and possibly other state jurisdictions, largely for financial crimes that predated his presidency. Trump may well be impeached and convicted under a Democratic-controlled Senate. But that is a very big maybe, given the razor-thin margin and the need to convince at least 17 Senate Republicans to vote to convict him. For a variety of reasons, Trump’s most consequential crimes as president will almost certainly go unpunished.
This country made a grave mistake by not prosecuting former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior U.S. officials who lied to justify the invasion of Iraq, who trampled on basic international laws and conventions, and whose policies destroyed nations and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of U.S. military personnel. We can recognize that it was and remains unforgivable to forgive Bush and Cheney while still agitating for justice to be served against Trump. In doing so, a precedent could be set that a U.S. president can be prosecuted for crimes committed in the course of their duties.
But that is almost unfathomable to imagine. While Democratic leaders in Congress are eager to impeach Trump, President-elect Joe Biden has indicated, in the words of one of his advisers, that he “just wants to move on.” Another aide told NBC News that Biden is “going to be more oriented toward fixing the problems and moving forward than prosecuting them.” Political elites in the U.S., particularly Democrats, are guided by fear of political blowback. They overemphasize the possibility of Republicans seeking revenge on them and creating a debilitating spiral where no president can govern without constant investigation and threat of prosecution. But that era is already here. The Republicans spent eight years undermining the legitimacy of Obama and moving mountains in an effort to block him from governing. The Trump administration, with support from its Congressional allies, spent four years investigating Obama and Hillary Clinton. And a significant number of these Republicans have endorsed the fantasy that Biden actually lost the election. This weak-kneed game theorizing from powerful Democrats must end. If we cannot hold the president accountable, the crimes will continue unabated.
This could be a moment for reflection about the dangers of unchecked executive power and the crimes that stem from it. But it won’t be. Even if the unthinkable happens and Trump is somehow prosecuted for his high crimes, it will almost certainly be treated as an anomaly rather than a precedent. The unstated conclusion will be that the crimes of the Bushes of the world pale in comparison to Trump’s, that his actions were more abominable than those of the men who authorized two nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945, incinerating more than 130,000 people in an instant and many more after. Trump will be painted as the one president — the only one — we cannot allow to get away. This too would be a disservice to justice. The principle and the gravity of the crimes should guide our actions, not the personality or particulars of the accused.
There are ample dangers present in the aftermath of the siege. On the one hand, there may be more mobs, more violence, more attacks. There are indications that Biden’s inauguration and the days preceding it could become the next theater for the MAGA warriors. In his first remarks in front of reporters since the siege, Trump on Tuesday defended his incitement and ominously warned Pelosi and Chuck Schumer that trying to impeach him is “causing tremendous danger to our country, and it’s causing tremendous anger.” Much as the Hosni Mubaraks of the world directed their unofficial gangs of thugs after defeat in elections, Trump has his irregular army, and he seems dedicated to unleashing them again.
But among liberals, there have been disturbing undemocratic trends emanating from the crisis. Some have called for an expansion of the no-fly list; others have questioned why police didn’t gun down the rioters. There are calls for expanding surveillance capabilities and authorities through new domestic anti-terrorism legislation.
And there is a real danger that advocating the banning of right-wing figures on social media could lead to a popular mobilization toward a broader limiting of speech in this country. We have to be able to rely on principle rather than passion in determining the path ahead. There are dire consequences to ceding to Silicon Valley the decision-making on who is entitled to core liberties. One can believe that Twitter was right to shut down Trump’s account because of its role in inciting violence while also holding extreme concern over how far such bans will go and how much power we as a society bestow upon the tech monarchies.
Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel — no fan or friend of Trump — criticized Twitter’s banning of Trump, labeling it a violation of the “fundamental right to free speech.” As the Financial Times reported, Merkel believes “that the U.S. government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules.” The political dynamics and Constitution in the U.S. suggest that European laws, such as the German statute that criminalizes Holocaust denial as an act of incitement, would be widely opposed as violations of free speech. But Merkel’s broader point about who makes the rules in an increasingly monopolistic social media environment is an important one.
History has taught us over and over that in the aftermath of crises, the government uses popular fear and outrage to push through far-reaching policy changes that ultimately serve as howitzers blasting away the liberties of the many. That is what happened after 9/11 with the Patriot Act, which most members of Congress didn’t bother to read, and only one senator, Democrat Russ Feingold, opposed. It was this dynamic that led the country into a state of perpetual war with the veneer of legitimacy offered by a law signed nearly 20 years ago, the Authorization for Use of Military Force. There was just one member of Congress, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who recognized this danger. With incredible bravery and her voice shaking, she took to the floor of Congress just days after the 9/11 attacks with an urgent warning.
“There must be some of us who say, let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today — let us more fully understand their consequences,” Lee said. “We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.” She concluded her remarks by describing how difficult it was knowing she would be the lone voice ringing the alarm bells. “I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ‘As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.’”
Lee’s sentiments are an important reference point for the moment we now face. As the country debates the fate of Trump, the legislative response to the Capitol siege, and the role that the Silicon Valley moguls play in deciding what speech is acceptable, it is vital that we view them all through the lens of the precedents that will be set and the consequences that they will enact.
Protesters converged on the National Mall outside the Washington Monument last week waiting for President Trump to speak. (photo: Jason Andrew/The New York Times)
Capitol Riot Fallout: Democrats Demand Answers About Visitors a Day Before the Riot
The New York Times
Excerpt: "One week after an angry mob stormed the Capitol, lawmakers called for new investigations and federal authorities fanned out across the country, taking into custody several more suspects, including two police officers from Virginia and a firefighter from Florida."
Lawmakers question what they described as an “extremely high number of outside groups” let into the Capitol on Jan. 5.
The flurry of arrests and appeals for inquiry came as the House brought a historic second impeachment charge against President Trump and federal law enforcement officials continued to examine whether the assault on the Capitol included coordinated efforts by small groups of extremists and was not merely a mass protest that spiraled out of control. All of this took place as official Washington remained in a defensive crouch, with much of the city surrounded by protective fencing and armed troops camped inside the Capitol complex.
Led by Representative Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat and former Navy pilot, more than 30 lawmakers called on Wednesday for an investigation into visitors’ access to the Capitol on the day before the riot. In a letter to the acting House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the U.S. Capitol Police, the lawmakers demanded answers about what they described as an “extremely high number of outside groups” let into the Capitol on Jan. 5 at a time when most tours were restricted because of the coronavirus pandemic.
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty)
Trump Has Told Staff Not to Pay Rudy Giuliani Over Irritation at Being Impeached Again
Kaitlan Collins, Pamela Brown and Jamie Gangel, CNN
Excerpt: "President Donald Trump, irritated at being impeached for a second time, has told people to stop paying Rudy Giuliani's legal fees, a person familiar with the matter tells CNN, though aides were not clear if the President was serious about his instructions given he's lashing out at nearly everyone after the day's events."
Trump became the first president in US history to be impeached twice on Wednesday, one week after a mob stormed the US Capitol following a speech by the President that excoriated his supporters to fight against the counting of the electoral votes that would affirm President-elect Joe Biden's win. The insurrection left five people dead, including one Capitol Police officer, and has left the nation's capital and state capitols around the country preparing for potential violence as Biden is set to be inaugurated next week.
Trump has been blaming his longtime personal attorney and many others for the predicament he now finds himself in, though he has not accepted any responsibility in public or in private, people familiar with his reaction told CNN. Giuliani is still expected to play a role in Trump's impeachment defense but has been left out of most conversations thus far.
Trump's campaign senior adviser Jason Miller seemed to push back on reports Trump was souring on Giuliani, though did not deny the President had told associates not to pay him.
"Just spoke with President Trump, and he told me that @RudyGiuliani is a great guy and a Patriot who devoted his services to the country! We all love America's Mayor!" Miller wrote on Thursday morning.
Meanwhile, John Eastman, the conservative attorney who falsely told Trump that Vice President Mike Pence could block the certification of Biden's win, could join Trump's legal team defending him in the upcoming impeachment trial, a person familiar with the matter said.
The discussions are still preliminary and Eastman isn't yet formally a part of the team. Chapman University, where Eastman had been working as a professor, announced Wednesday it had "reached an agreement pursuant to which he will retire from Chapman, effective immediately" following discussions this week.
"Dr. Eastman's departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman and provides the most immediate and certain path forward for both the Chapman community and Dr. Eastman," Struppa said."Chapman and Dr. Eastman have agreed not to engage in legal actions of any kind, including any claim of defamation that may currently exist, as both parties move forward."
Another source of Trump's ire is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who incensed Trump further on Wednesday by saying he bears responsibility for last week's riot. The President had already been upset with McCarthy after the California Republican left the option of censuring Trump on the table in a letter to colleagues earlier this week.
The details about Giuliani's legal fees were first reported by the Washington Post.
The President is now more isolated than ever. Several of his Cabinet secretaries -- the ones who haven't resigned in protest -- are avoiding him, his relationship with the vice president remains fractured and several of his senior staffers are scheduled to depart their posts this week.
One White House adviser told CNN that "everybody's angry at everyone" inside the White House, with the President being upset because he thinks people aren't defending him enough.
"He's in self-pity mode," the source said, with Trump complaining he's been under siege for five years and he views this latest impeachment as a continuation of that.
But many people close to Trump view the current situation as different than his first impeachment, when he was charged with pressuring the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden to try and influence the presidential election.
"His actions led to here, no one else," the White House adviser said, adding, "He instigated a mob to charge on the Capitol building to stop the certification, he's not going to find a lot of sympathetic Republicans."
During the last impeachment effort, Trump allies in and out of the White House publicly defended him and sent out talking points throughout the impeachment proceeding.
No similar effort materialized this time, with House Republican leadership deciding against pressuring their colleagues to stay in line and instead allowing them to vote their conscience. Ten Republicans voted with every Democrat to pass the single article of impeachment.
After the House voted to impeach him, Trump released a video statement that did not mention the historic development that had occurred a few hours earlier. Instead, he delivered a call for calm as the threat of new riots -- which Trump said he'd been briefed on by the Secret Service -- casts a pall over Washington. Later, an official described the briefing as "sobering" and said it contributed to Trump's decision to tape the video.
"No true supporter of mine could ever endorse political violence. No true supporter of mine could ever disrespect law enforcement or our great American flag," he said from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.
"Now I am asking everyone who has ever believed in our agenda to be thinking of ways to ease tensions, calm tempers and help to promote peace in our country," he said.
Trump's Oval Office speech came only after advisers talked him into taping it, according to a person familiar with the matter. Trump had seemed reluctant to tape the videos, in part because he believes they make him look like he's caving to pressure to tone down his stance on the election.
His first video on the day of the insurrection came partly at the urging of his daughter Ivanka Trump, but the President threw out the script his team had prepared and ad-libbed most of it, including the line telling the rioters "we love you."
The subsequent videos have been more tightly scripted, with heavy input from the White House counsel's office on the text. Trump has read them from teleprompters set up by the White House Communications Agency as senior officials look on, ensuring he does not diverge from the words as written.
Advisers have repeatedly urged him to tape the spots, citing both the potential legal implications of inciting the riot and the desire from fellow Republicans that he show a willingness to lower the temperature among his supporters.
With his favorite mode of communication -- Twitter -- no longer available to him after Trump was banned from the social network on Friday, another person close to the White House worried that Trump may lash out further.
"He's been holed up in the residence, that's never a good thing. He's by himself, not a lot of people to bounce ideas off of -- whenever that happens he goes to his worst instincts," that person said. "Now that Twitter isn't available God only knows what the outlet will be."
Lawmakers heard from two experts Tuesday who warned that granting another waiver to a recently retired general to serve as defense secretary weakens American norms. (photo: AP)
More Democrats Say They'll Vote 'No' on Waiver for Biden's Secretary of Defense Pick Lloyd Austin
Gina Harkins, Military.com
Harkins writes: "Lawmakers heard from two experts Tuesday who warned that granting another waiver to a recently retired general to serve as defense secretary weakens American norms."
Several Democratic senators say they will vote against granting a waiver for Lloyd Austin. President-elect Joe Biden has said he'll nominate the retired Army general officer, who fought in Iraq and oversaw all military missions in the Middle East, to lead the Pentagon.
Austin retired in 2016. By law, anyone serving as defense secretary must have been out of uniform for at least seven years unless they have a waiver from Congress.
Several senators, including Biden's former colleagues in Congress, say the move won't get their vote after a waiver was granted to Jim Mattis, a retired Marine general who served as President Donald Trump's defense secretary, in 2017.
"The reason for the principle of civilian control is not only to protect our democracy against military interference, it is to protect the military against excessive interference -- political partisan interference --that may jeopardize the professionalism and effectiveness of our military," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and Marine Corps veteran.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and former National Guard officer, said she doesn't believe the seven-year rule is long enough.
"The military is a much smaller community than it may seem to people who haven't served," she said. "Especially as service members make their way up the ranks and that pyramid gets steeper and steeper."
A newly retired general is likely to have personal relationships with most of the military's highest-ranking leaders, Duckworth added, which "puts them in a difficult situation."
Duckworth first stated in December that she planned to oppose a waiver for Austin.
Lindsay Cohn, a professor at the Naval War College who studies civilian-military relations, said giving Austin a waiver so soon after Mattis received one sets "a dangerous precedent." When members of Congress considered a waiver for Mattis, she noted, it was said to be a once-in-a-generation exception.
"I think that this chamber has a very difficult decision in front of it to decide whether the reasons that the president-elect has given, and the reasons that you all can think of yourself, justify printing another waiver," Cohn told senators.
Biden has defended his decision to select Austin to be his future defense secretary nominee.
"I believe in the importance of civilian control of the military," he said last month. "So does the secretary-designee Austin. He'll be bolstered by a strong and empowered civilian sector and senior [officials] working [Defense Department] policies and to ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."
Cohn and Kathleen McInnis, an international security specialist with the Congressional Research Service, laid out potential fallout if military officers more routinely move into the defense secretary role, which they say is inherently political.
The seven-year "cooling-off period" required before a military member can serve as defense secretary helps reduce their reliance on uniformed networks, Cohn said.
McInnis noted that Mattis faced criticism from some for relying more on military colleagues for information and advice than he did Defense Department civilians. DoD civilians have, in recent years, had their voices "relatively muted," she added.
"They are there to do the day-to-day work of civilian oversight of the military," McInnis said. "They work with their counterparts overseas to understand political and military dynamics that might impact national security. They go to war zones and help military commanders really understand the secretary's intent. They are where the rubber meets the road of civilian-military relations."
Several members of Congress have expressed support for Austin's selection as the future defense secretary nominee and indicated they will support a waiver approval. It is noteworthy, though, that members of Biden's party are taking a stance against it.
As Blumenthal put it, "It is a matter of principle."
"I have immense respect and admiration for General Austin," he said. "... It's not personal."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also said she plans to vote against a waiver for Austin, though she added that if Congress grants one, she'll consider his nomination independently on its merits.
If confirmed, Austin would be the first Black defense secretary. Lawmakers on Tuesday noted the importance of having a defense secretary who represents those in the ranks, something Cohn echoed in her testimony.
"The importance of the fact that he would be a Black man in a very visible position of authority, trust and responsibility, should not be underestimated," she wrote. "As scholars like Meg Guliford have noted, the national security world has thus far done a poor job of fostering the advancement of people of color to leadership positions, and of making it a world that is inviting to young people of color."
Austin will appear before the House Armed Services Committee on Jan. 21 to discuss civilian control of the military, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said last week.
Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with killing two at a protest in Kenosha, Wis., was photographed drinking underage, using 'white power' hand gestures and meeting members of the Proud Boys group at a bar, prosecutors say. (photo: Kenosha County District Attorney)
Prosecutors Want to Restrict Kyle Rittenhouse's Bail Conditions, After Being Spotted Flashing White-Power Signs With Proud Boys
Dan Hinkel, Chicago Tribune
Hinkel writes: "Kyle Rittenhouse flashed a hand sign adopted by some white supremacist groups and was 'loudly serenaded' with a song reportedly adopted by the far-right group the Proud Boys as the 18-year-old drank at a Wisconsin bar last week, prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday."
Kenosha County prosecutors asked a judge to modify the rules Rittenhouse has to follow while he’s free on $2 million bail as he awaits trial on murder and other charges for shooting three men, two of them fatally, with an AR-15-style rifle during chaotic protests Aug. 25.
The motion asks a judge to ban Rittenhouse from “publicly displaying symbols and gestures that are associated with violent white supremacist groups and from associating with known members of those groups, particularly the Proud Boys.” In support of the request, prosecutors filed several images from bar surveillance cameras showing Rittenhouse flashing the “OK” sign.
Prosecutors also asked a judge to bar Rittenhouse from drinking or going to bars while he’s free.
The motion notes that Rittenhouse went to a bar in Mount Pleasant with his mother, Wendy Rittenhouse. Wisconsin law allows people 18 and over to drink with their parents in taverns. Still, prosecutors asked a judge to ban Rittenhouse from drinking, noting that he recently turned 18 and faces a murder charge.
“The consumption of alcohol increases the likelihood of violent criminal acts,” prosecutors wrote.
The attorney representing Rittenhouse in criminal court, Mark Richards, could not be reached for comment. A lawyer representing Rittenhouse in civil cases, John Pierce, declined to comment.
Rittenhouse has been a popular figure with the political right, and his lawyers appealed to those sympathies as they sought money for his bond. Before Rittenhouse was freed, a chant of “break out Kyle” erupted at pro-President Donald Trump demonstrations in Washington that involved extremist groups including the Proud Boys. They’re a far-right group known for street fights that the Anti-Defamation League characterizes as “misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration,” with some members espousing “white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies.”
Pierce has tweeted in support of the Proud Boys leader accused of vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a Black church. Rittenhouse’s lawyers have said the Antioch teenager is not a white supremacist.
Rittenhouse’s appearance at the tavern — in a shirt reading “Free as F--k”— drew notice and condemnation on social media before prosecutors filed their motion.
Upon arrival, Rittenhouse posed with two men while flashing the “OK” sign, which prosecutors described as “co-opted as a symbol of white supremacy/white power.” He posed for several photos while drinking three beers over 90 minutes, prosecutors wrote.
Several men serenaded him with “Proud of Your Boy,” a song written for the Disney animated film “Aladdin” purported to be an anthem for the extremist group.
“The defendant’s continued association with members of a group that prides itself on violence, and the use of their symbols, raises the significant possibility of future harm,” prosecutors wrote. “Further, this association may serve to intimidate potential witnesses, who may be unwilling to testify in this case because they may fear that the defendant’s associates with harm them or their families.”
Prosecutors wrote that Rittenhouse’s appearance at the bar came after he pleaded not guilty last week. The charges stem from shootings that came during chaotic demonstrations that followed white Officer Rusten Sheskey shooting Jacob Blake, who is Black, several times in the back at close range. Kenosha County prosecutors announced last week that Sheskey would not be charged.
Rittenhouse’s lawyers have argued he shot the men in self-defense. He fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26. A third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who prosecutors have said was armed with a handgun, survived the teen shooting him in the arm.
A demonstrator is pepper sprayed shortly before being arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, Oregon, on 15 October. (photo: Marco Jose Sanchez/AP)
US Police Three Times as Likely to Use Force Against Leftwing Protesters, Data Finds
Lois Beckett, Guardian UK
Beckett writes: "Police in the United States are three times more likely to use force against leftwing protesters than rightwing protesters, according to new data from a nonprofit that monitors political violence around the world."
Law enforcement responses to more than 13,000 protests show a clear disparity in responses, new statistics show
In the past 10 months, US law enforcement agencies have used teargas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and beatings at a much higher percentage at Black Lives Matter demonstrations than at pro-Trump or other rightwing protests.
Law enforcement officers were also more likely to use force against leftwing demonstrators, whether the protests remained peaceful or not.
The statistics, based on law enforcement responses to more than 13,000 protests across the United States since April 2020, show a clear disparity in how agencies have responded to the historic wave of Black Lives Matter protests against police violence, compared with demonstrations organized by Trump supporters.
Barack Obama highlighted an earlier version of these statistics on 8 January, arguing that they provided a “useful frame of reference” for understanding Americans’ outrage over the failure of Capitol police to stop a mob of thousands of white Trump supporters from invading and looting the Capitol on 6 January, a response that prompted renewed scrutiny of the level of violence and aggression American police forces use against Black versus white Americans.
The new statistics come from the US Crisis Monitor, a database created this spring by researchers at Princeton and the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit that has previously monitored civil unrest in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America.
The researchers found that the vast majority of the thousands of protests across the United States in the past year have been peaceful, and that most protests by both the left and the right were not met with any violent response by law enforcement.
Police used teargas, rubber bullets, beatings with batons, and other force against demonstrators at 511 leftwing protests and 33 rightwing protests since April, according to updated data made public this week.
The Guardian compared the percentage of all demonstrations organized by leftwing and rightwing groups that resulted in the use of force by law enforcement. For leftwing demonstrations, that was about 4.7% of protests, while for rightwing demonstrations, it was about 1.4%, meaning law enforcement was about three times more likely to use force against leftwing versus rightwing protests.
The disparity in police response only grew when comparing peaceful leftwing versus rightwing protests. Looking at the subset of protests in which demonstrators did not engage in any violence, vandalism, or looting, law enforcement officers were about 3.5 times more likely to use force against leftwing protests than rightwing protests, with about 1.8% of peaceful leftwing protests and only half a percent of peaceful rightwing protests met with teargas, rubber bullets or other force from law enforcement.
“Police are not just engaging more because [leftwing protesters] are more violent. They’re engaging more even with peaceful protesters,” Dr Roudabeh Kishi, ACLED’s director of research and innovation, told the Guardian. “That’s the clear trend.”
ACLED’s data also shows that US law enforcement agencies were more likely to intervene in leftwing versus rightwing protests in general, and more likely to use force when they intervened. American law enforcement agencies made arrests or other interventions in 9% of the 10,863 Black Lives Matter and other leftwing protests between 1 April 2020 and 8 January, compared with only 4% of the 2,295 rightwing protests.
Half of the time police made any intervention into a leftwing protest, it involved using violent force, ACLED found, compared with only about a third of the time for rightwing protests.
Overall, 94% of the leftwing demonstrations in the past ten months were peaceful, compared with 96% of the rightwing demonstrations, according to ACLED’s most recently updated data. Kishi cautioned that the process of categorizing demonstrations as peaceful did not take into account whether demonstrators who engaged in violence or property damage were responding to aggressive or violent behavior from the police.
The US Crisis Monitor previously found that, despite Trump’s rhetoric and the intense media coverage of property damage or violence during protests this summer against police violence, more than 93% of Black Lives Matter protests since April had involved no harm to people or damage to property.
The majority of the protests ACLED categorized as leftwing were Black Lives Matter demonstrations, but also included pro-Biden demonstrations; protests by left-leaning groups such as Abolish ICE, the NAACP, or the Democratic Socialists of America; and protests associated with anti-fascists or left-leaning militia groups and street movements.
The rightwing protests included pro-Trump and pro-police demonstrations, including “Blue Lives Matter” rallies; rightwing protests against coronavirus public health restrictions; protests involving QAnon conspiracy theory supporters and others associated with the “Save Our Children” movement; and the “Stop the Steal” rallies promoting Trump’s false claims about his 2020 election loss.
A Logging operation in Canada. (photo: Ben Nelms/Bloomberg
Use Pandemic to Protect Forests, World Wildlife Federation Urges Consumers, Politicians
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "The world has lost tropical forest equivalent to the size of California over a 13-year period, environmental group World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said on Wednesday, calling for COVID-19 recovery plans to revitalize conservation efforts."
Deforestation and land-use change can raise risk of emergence of new diseases, WWF says in new report.
In a new report, WWF analysed 24 deforestation hotspots across Asia, Latin America and Africa, and found that more than 43 million hectares (106 million acres) of forest were cleared in those areas between 2004 and 2017.
Fran Raymond Price,the global forest practice lead at WWF International, said the COVID-19 pandemic had made the links between deforestation and human health clearer in the past year.
“Where you have greater deforestation and land-use change, you have the risk of new diseases being more likely,” Price told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The WWF report – which used the best-quality data available over the past 20 years – found deforestation was taking place at the fastest rates in the Brazilian Amazon and in a vast swath of the country’s tropical savanna called Cerrado, the Bolivian Amazon, Paraguay, Argentina, Madagascar, and Sumatra and Borneo islands in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Commercial agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation globally, particularly large-scale farming, with forested areas cleared for livestock grazing and crop cultivation, it said.
While subsistence farming was a driver in Africa, it noted, in Asia the expansion of plantations and commercial agriculture were key factors.
“It’s the way we produce and consume food that is at the heart of the challenge we face,” said Price, singling out beef production, soy and palm oil as the main culprits.
In all the hotspots, infrastructure development – including the expansion of roads and mining – also fuelled deforestation, WWF said.
Protection of the world’s forests is seen as vital to curbing global warming as they store planet-heating carbon and help regulate the climate through rainfall and temperature.
Pandemic opportunity
Forests covered about half the earth’s land area 8,000 years ago but only 30 percent is now forested, Price noted.
The COVID-19 pandemic, however, could serve as a trigger for greater action to safeguard forests, the report added.
“With this devastating pandemic, we also have the opportunity to build back better and really look at our relationship with nature and start to heal that relationship,” said Price.
The report urged people to play their part in combating deforestation by protecting nature where they live and avoiding products linked to deforestation by checking food labels.
Voters should also urge their leaders to champion policies aimed at halting deforestation and restoring forests, it added.
In addition, urgent action from governments, businesses and regulators was needed to secure land rights for Indigenous peoples and local communities, strengthen local control of forests and conserve biodiversity-rich areas, WWF said.
Measures should also be taken to ensure products sourced from forests are produced and traded legally, ethically and sustainably, to reform supply chains and to push more firms, lenders and investors to commit to zero deforestation, it added.
Other ways to curb deforestation, Price said, include reducing food waste, using degraded land to produce food, moving to ecological agriculture practices and focusing more on Indigenous and community-led conservation efforts.
“We need to transform our relationship with forests,” she added. “We are at a point where we are doing some soul-searching collectively … and now is the time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls
This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...
-
22 April 21 Urgent and Immediate Appeal for Donations It is — very — important to get moving on donations, right here right now. Yes we ...
-
25 November 22 Live on the homepage now! Reader Supported News WE CANNOT FAIL ON FUNDING — There is too much to lose by failing, and too m...
-
05 June 23 Live on the homepage now! Reader Supported News ANOTHER FAILED MONTH OF FUNDRAISING ISN’T GOING TO WORK — We haven’t covered ou...
