| |
|
Here are 3 big lies the NRA has told regarding its financial and legal troubles.
Friday, January 22, 2021
The NRA's Lies About Its Bankruptcy Filing
RSN: FOCUS: Andrew Weissmann | Gaps in Trump's Pardons: How the Biden Administration Can Still Pursue Justice
22 January 21
We Need a Good Day of Fundraising in the Worst Way
It is a real battle at this point to get people donating. We are far behind where we need to be. A good day of fundraising would be a wonderful thing at this point.
With urgency.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
22 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
FOCUS: Andrew Weissmann | Gaps in Trump's Pardons: How the Biden Administration Can Still Pursue Justice
Andrew Weissmann, Just Security
Weissmann writes: "Former President Donald Trump issued numerous pardons and commutations to friends, family and associates, as well as felons who engaged in heinous crimes involving war crimes, murder, political corruption, and civil rights violations."
He seemed to revel in absolving corrupt politicians, corrupt law enforcement officers, and of course, anyone prosecuted by Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Office. The latter served not just to reward those who refused to cooperate with this Special Counsel, but also undermined future Special Counsel investigations by setting a dangerous precedent for future efforts to conduct such independent investigations, and to hold a corrupt president to the rule of law.
In issuing his pardons, Trump, true to form, followed no process. He did not seek to identify those most worthy of the use of the clemency process. Instead, his abuse of this constitutional power has led many to deplore the expansive executive authority, although it can be a means of meting out justice when wielded impartially and even-handedly to the most deserving after due consideration of the interests of numerous parties.
But there is good news. If the Biden administration’s Department of Justice wants to rectify some of Trump’s abuse of the pardon power, there are now options at its disposal.
Some of the pardons Trump issued were exceedingly broad, such as that given his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who admitted in federal court when he pleaded guilty that he had lied to the government about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, but then later claimed he had lied — this time to the court — when he swore that he was guilty. Flynn’s pardon (on Nov. 25, 2020) covers most any crime one can imagine, clearly seeking to leave no room for now holding Flynn to account for his past felonious conduct.[1]
But, oddly, not all of Trump’s pardons followed the Flynn model. Indeed, many are narrowly drawn.
The pardon for Paul Manafort (on Dec. 23, 2020), is illustrative. By its own terms, the pardon covers only the crimes “for his conviction” on specific charges and not any other crimes (charged or uncharged). Specifically, the pardon is solely for the crimes of conviction — eight in the Eastern District of Virginia and two in the District of Columbia. That leaves numerous crimes as to which Manafort can still be prosecuted, as in Virginia there were 10 hung counts. In Washington, the situation is even more wide open. In that district, Manafort pleaded to a superseding information containing two conspiracy charges, while the entire underlying indictment — containing numerous crimes from money laundering, to witness tampering, to violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act — now remains open to prosecution as there was no conviction for those charges.
What’s more, the trial on such charges would be unusually simple. First, as part of his plea agreement, Manafort admitted under oath the criminal conduct in Virginia as to which the jury hung (although he did not plead to those counts and thus they are not subject to the pardon). In addition, he admitted in writing the underlying criminal conduct in Washington. Thus, proving the case could largely consist of introducing Manafort’s sworn admission to the charges.
Second, all such charges could be brought in Washington, and not require two separate trials (in Virginia and D.C.), since Manafort waived venue in his plea agreement Third, Manafort waived the statute of limitations — the deadline by which a prosecution must be brought — and thus all these charges would not be time-barred.
Finally, because the Washington, D.C. district judge, the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, ruled in February 2019 that Manafort breached his cooperation agreement by repeatedly lying to the government, the court found that the government is not bound by the provision in the cooperation agreement not to pursue these other charges. That cooperation agreement explicitly provides that Manafort’s admissions as part of his plea can be used against him in a future trial of such charges.
In Manafort’s case there are also equitable reasons to take such a step now; he served just two years of his 90-month sentence, and his release on home confinement (prior to the pardon) due to the COVID virus, did not comply with the Bureau of Prison rules as he had not served the requisite percentage of his prison sentence (i.e. before he received an undue pardon from Trump, he received a release from prison that others similarly situated did not receive). And the pardon itself rewarded not just decades of substantial criminal activity, but also rewarded Manafort for keeping his lips sealed and lying to the Special Counsel about important topics. These topics include why he passed internal Trump campaign polling data to a Russian spy and why he met with that spy both during the campaign and after Trump took office. Reimposing appropriate punishment — one imposed by two courts —is thus not only fair in a system wedded to the rule of law, but may increase the chance of finally learning the truth.
Manafort is not the only example of narrow Trump pardons that may be rectified by the incoming Attorney General. The same narrow pardons were provided to Special Counsel Office defendants Roger Stone (Dec. 23, 2020), George Papadopoulos (Dec. 22, 2020), and Alex van den Zwaan (Dec. 22, 2020), as well as the myriad other felons who received pardons or commutations on December 22 and 23, 2020. As noted, these defendants include murderers, corrupt politicians and law enforcement officers, and Philip Esformes, the single largest health care fraudster in history. These windows of opportunity are due in significant part to a practice followed by prosecutors’ offices across the country: permitting defendants to plead to some, but not all, of their crimes. That feature of these cases should now redound to the benefit of the government, as it may now permit the Department to see that justice is done.
A responsible Department of Justice should determine for each such defendant whether, like Manafort, there is sufficient evidence to support charges other than those for which the felon was convicted, and whether such charges are warranted under the circumstances. Such an examination is particularly appropriate given that there is reason to believe that the Department of Justice never had an opportunity to weigh in on these pardons before Trump issued them.
Many may wonder what the reason is for the striking difference between the sweeping Flynn pardon in November and the narrow pardons issued on December 22-23, 2020. Was it by design or an oversight? Is this an example of what some noted about the Trump administration: malevolence, fortunately matched by incompetence? Or did lawyers in the White House Counsel’s office seek to advance only the narrowest pardons possible, so as not to exacerbate Trump’s abuse of his office? Regardless of the answer, which may never be known, the narrow pardons leave the Biden administration ample room to stand for the rule of law.
[1] Flynn’s pardon covers “any and all possible offenses arising from the facts” in his Criminal Information and Statement of Offense, “any and all possible offenses within the investigatory authority or jurisdiction of the Special Counsel” and “any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation of the Special Counsel.”
RSN: Bernie Sanders | This Is the Agenda Democrats Should Pursue Under Biden's Leadership
22 January 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bernie Sanders | This Is the Agenda Democrats Should Pursue Under Biden's Leadership
Bernie Sanders, CNN
Sanders writes: "We must not lose sight of the pain and anxiety of millions of working families all over this country, as they suffer through the worst public health and economic crises in the modern history of our country."
he headlines dominating the news understandably deal with the outrageous behavior of President Donald Trump and the attempted coup he inspired at our nation's Capitol.
Yes, it was important for the House of Representatives to impeach Trump. Yes, the Senate must convict him. No president, now or in the future, can lead an insurrection against the United States government and get away with it.
But as enormously important as that is, we must not lose sight of the pain and anxiety of millions of working families all over this country, as they suffer through the worst public health and economic crises in the modern history of our country. In fact, many working families are facing more economic desperation today than any time since the Great Depression.
As a result of the pandemic, tens of millions of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs and incomes. Hunger is at its highest level in decades, and 40 million could be on the brink of eviction when the federal moratorium expires at the end of January. While more than 24 million people in our country have tested positive for the Covid-19 virus, tens of millions of Americans are uninsured or under-insured.
Amid so much economic suffering and despair, when many Americans have lost faith in their government -- and when millions are prepared to accept lies about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election -- it is imperative that Democrats pass a bold and aggressive economic agenda within the first 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency. Now is not the time to think small. It is the time to think big and to restore faith among working families -- Black, White, Latino, Asian American and Native American -- that in a democratic society, government can respond to their needs.
Failure to adequately respond to the economic desperation in America today will undermine the Biden administration and likely lead Democrats to lose their thin majorities in the US House of Representatives and US Senate in 2022. Democrats suffered significant loses in 1994, two years after President Bill Clinton's victory -- and, in 2010, two years after President Barack Obama's victory.
We must not repeat those mistakes.
The danger we face would not be in going too big or spending too much but in going too small and leaving the needs of the American people behind. If Republicans would like to work with us, we should welcome them. But their support is not necessary. In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell was willing to sabotage the economy to advantage Republicans, doing everything he could to make Obama a "one-term president."
We cannot let him play the same games again.
The Senate's 60-vote threshold to pass major legislation has become an excuse for inaction. But let's be clear: We have the tools to overcome these procedural hurdles. As incoming Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I will use a process known as budget reconciliation that will allow us to pass comprehensive legislation with only 51 votes.
This is not a radical idea.
When the Republicans controlled the Senate during the George W. Bush and Trump presidencies, they used reconciliation to pass trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations. They also used reconciliation to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. Today, Democrats must use this same process to lift Americans out of poverty, increase wages and create good-paying jobs.
First, we must increase the direct payments passed by Congress in December from $600 to $2,000 for every working-class adult and their children. On this issue, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, several Republicans in the House and the Senate and undoubtedly millions of struggling Americans -- who wanted more stimulus in December --would agree.
But given the enormous crises facing the country, that is not enough. Through reconciliation, we must pass a major Covid-relief package that expands emergency unemployment benefits to $600 a week, provides aid to state and local governments to prevent mass layoffs, enacts hazard pay for frontline workers, saves the US Postal Service, addresses the crisis of homelessness and ensures that no one in America goes hungry or is evicted.
During the crisis, we must provide emergency health care to all by requiring Medicare to pay the medical bills of the uninsured and under-insured. We must fully fund Covid-19 testing, tracing and vaccine distribution. At a time when our primary care health care system is faltering, and when millions have no medical home, we must also substantially increase funding for community health centers and the National Health Service Corps, which provides scholarships and forgive student debt of medical professionals who agree to work in underserved areas.
Through reconciliation, we must make sure that unemployment benefits during this crisis period are not taxable so that workers don't get hit with a huge tax bill they didn't expect on April 15.
Moreover, we need to create millions of good paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure -- our roads, bridges, sidewalks, schools, water systems and affordable housing. Further, as we lead the world in combating the existential threat of climate change, we can create millions more jobs by making massive investments in wind, solar, geothermal, electric vehicles, weatherization and energy storage.
We must guarantee at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave and end the international embarrassment of the United States as the only high-income nation that fails to provide paid maternity leave.
In order to address our dysfunctional early childhood education system, we must provide universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country and greatly expand childcare. And, if we are to have the best-educated workforce in the world, we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and cancel all student debt for working-class Americans.
As we do all these things, we can use the reconciliation process to substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs and raise the minimum wage to $15. Not only would these provisions improve life for millions, they would save the federal government hundreds of billions.
In this extraordinarily difficult moment, poll after poll has shown that the American people want government to respond aggressively to address the crises they face. The job of Congress now is to listen to the American people, move our country boldly forward on a path to economic success and show voters that Democrats are prepared to do everything possible to improve their lives.
This is an unprecedented moment in American history. We must act in an unprecedented way.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke at a campaign rally in Austin this weekend. (photo: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune)
Sen. Bernie Sanders Says Democrats Don't Need GOP Support to Approve 2,000 Stimulus Checks and Cancel Student Debt
Oma Seddiq, Yahoo! News
Seddiq writes: "Sen. Bernie Sanders this week implored Democrats to flex their power and implement a 'bold and aggressive economic agenda' now that the party has full control over Congress and the White House."
In an opinion column for CNN published Tuesday, the Vermont senator argued that Democrats should utilize the budget reconciliation process to pass a wave of "big" policies under the new Biden administration.
"The Senate's 60-vote threshold to pass major legislation has become an excuse for inaction," Sanders wrote. "But let's be clear: We have the tools to overcome these procedural hurdles."
Reconciliation allows the Senate to pass bills fairly quickly and with a simple majority, as they are not subject to filibuster. The maneuver, first used by Congress in 1980, is mainly aimed at budget and spending legislation that need quick consideration.
"When the Republicans controlled the Senate during the George W. Bush and Trump presidencies, they used reconciliation to pass trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations. They also used reconciliation to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017," Sanders wrote. "Today, Democrats must use this same process to lift Americans out of poverty, increase wages and create good-paying jobs."
"If Republicans would like to work with us, we should welcome them," he added. "But their support is not necessary."
Sanders, an independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats, emphasized that the party must move urgently as millions of Americans are still struggling financially because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without action, he warned, Democrats may end up in the minority in the 2022 midterm elections.
Democrats held the House in the 2020 elections, albeit by a slimmer margin at 222-212, after losing 11 seats. The swearing-in of three new Democratic senators and Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday granted Democrats the Senate, now evenly split 50-50 with Harris as the tie-breaking vote. Sanders is posed to become chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which handles reconciliation bills.
"Failure to adequately respond to the economic desperation in America today will undermine the Biden administration and likely lead Democrats to lose their thin majorities," Sanders wrote, cautioning that the party "must not repeat those mistakes" of the Obama and Clinton years, when Democrats lost majorities during the presidents' first terms in office.
Among the key measures Sanders has proposed to tackle the economic crisis include sending $2,000 direct payments to Americans, raising the minimum wage to $15, canceling student debt, as well as providing universal pre-K and guaranteed paid family and medical leave for 12 weeks.
Sanders also called for a coronavirus relief package that offers additional funding for COVID-19 vaccine and testing, aid for state and local governments, hazard pay for essential workers and expanded weekly unemployment benefits.
President Joe Biden has backed some of Sanders' progressive ideas and put forth major items in his $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, including $1,400 checks to bump up the $600 distributed in December to $2,000. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled on Thursday that her caucus is preparing to pass the relief in early February.
However, the stimulus bill's pathway in the Senate, as well as any other spending legislation, may not be as swift and easy as Sanders suggested.
Some moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have previously balked at Sanders' proposals. Considering the razor-thin Democratic majority, any reconciliation process will collapse if even a single Democrat fails to support it.
Biden, too, may be reluctant to approve bills only with Democratic support. He's repeatedly expressed his intentions to work across the aisle and come up with bipartisan agreements as president, in order to fulfill his campaign and inaugural promises of "unity."
Some Republicans have also signaled that they are ready to put up a fight against big spending moves.
"I've got a fight on my hands," GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who serves on the Senate Budget Committee, told Fox News this week.
Larry Rendall Brock Jr., an Air Force veteran, is seen inside the Senate Chamber wearing a military-style helmet and tactical vest during the rioting at the U.S. Capitol. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)
Nearly 1 in 5 Defendants in Capitol Riot Cases Served in the Military
Tom Dreisbach and Meg Anderson, NPR
Excerpt: "An NPR analysis has found that nearly 1 in 5 people charged over their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appear to have a military history."
s a violent mob descended on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, lawmakers and aides hid wherever they could, waiting for the military and police to arrive. But many of those who stormed the Capitol were military veterans themselves, who had once sworn to protect the Constitution. In fact, an NPR analysis has found that nearly 1 in 5 people charged over their alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appear to have a military history.
NPR compiled a list of individuals facing federal or District of Columbia charges in connection with the events of Jan. 6. Of more than 140 charged so far, a review of military records, social media accounts, court documents and news reports indicate at least 27 of those charged, or nearly 20%, have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. To put that number in perspective, only about 7% of all American adults are military veterans, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Several veterans are charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. One of them is Larry Rendall Brock Jr. The Air Force veteran was photographed in a military-style helmet and tactical vest carrying flex cuffs inside the Capitol. He posted on Facebook that he was preparing for a "Second Civil War," according to documents filed in federal court. In the weeks after Biden's victory, Brock posted that "we are now under occupation by a hostile governing force."
"I see no distinction between a group of Americans seizing power and governing with complete disregard to the Constitution and an invading force of Chinese communists accomplishing the same objective," Brock wrote. (There is no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.) He ended his post with a reference to the oath taken by members of the military: "Against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Some veterans who allegedly stormed the Capitol are still serving in some capacity. Jacob Fracker, 29, was an infantry rifleman in the Marine Corps and deployed to Afghanistan twice, according to the Pentagon. He now serves in the Virginia National Guard, according to widespread news reports, though he was not among the service members deployed to Washington ahead of the inauguration. He is also a police officer in Rocky Mount, Va. With him at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was his colleague from the Rocky Mount Police Department, Thomas Robertson, 47, who is an Army veteran also facing charges.
Federal prosecutors have also alleged that multiple members of the right-wing extremist group the Oath Keepers took part in the "incursion" at the Capitol. The group has been known to target and recruit active-duty members of the military and veterans, in part for their specialized skills. Among those charged in relation to the storming of the Capitol are Thomas Edward Caldwell, a Navy veteran and alleged leader among the Oath Keepers, and Donovan Ray Crowl, a Marine Corps veteran. They have been charged with conspiracy to obstruct the Electoral College vote, among other alleged crimes.
Attorneys representing those facing charges did not respond to NPR's messages seeking comment.
Rooting out extremism
Roughly one-third of active duty troops said they had "personally witnessed examples of white nationalism or ideological-driven racism within the ranks in recent months," according to a 2019 survey conducted by the Military Times and Syracuse University Institute for Veterans and Military Families. Troops said they had seen "swastikas being drawn on service members' cars, tattoos affiliated with white supremacist groups, stickers supporting the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi-style salutes between individuals."
At least one individual charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol allegedly embraced that extremist ideology. Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli, 30, is a Navy contractor who has worked at a naval weapons station with a secret security clearance, according to court documents. He is also an Army Reserve sergeant in the 174th Infantry Brigade and an "avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer," according to court documents.
Some experts argue the military has not done enough to tamp down on extremism in its ranks.
Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, called the military's efforts largely "haphazard."
"It's not like the military is just tolerating white supremacists," Pitcavage told NPR. But he said efforts to address the problem need to be more systematic.
"Not only does there need to be training," Pitcavage said, "but there also need to be clear expectations coming down from on high about what you should do when you encounter an extremist in your unit, at your base or whatever the circumstances are, and that here are the procedures that need to be followed."
The problem is not entirely lost on the Defense Department. After the Jan. 6 insurrection, a senior defense official told NPR there were 68 notifications of investigations by the FBI last year of former and current military members pertaining to domestic extremism.
When extremism in the military does go undetected or ignored, the stakes can be high.
As Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, testified to Congress, veterans and military personnel "have training that makes terrorist attacks more achievable and more deadly."
In 2019, federal prosecutors said that Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Hasson had planned a series of violent attacks against liberal politicians, and was an avowed white nationalist for decades. Hasson ultimately pleaded guilty to drug and weapons charges.
Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, was an Army veteran who served in the Persian Gulf War. He had taken inspiration from the white supremacist novel "The Turner Diaries," which continues to hold sway among far-right extremists.
Pitcavage cautions that there is limited evidence military veterans are more susceptible to extremist ideology than any other group of Americans.
"Overall, our veteran population is largely reflective of our general population," Pitcavage said.
Veterans, for example, have also been on the front lines of the fight against extremism. Brian Sicknick, the police officer who died trying to prevent the mob from storming the Capitol, was also a veteran.
The New Jersey Air National Guard, where Sicknick served, said, "Staff Sgt. Sicknick's commitment to service and to protect his community, state, and nation will never be forgotten."
In his inaugural address on Wednesday, President Biden pledged to combat "a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism."
Likewise, Biden's pick to lead the Department of Defense, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, told Congress on Tuesday that, if confirmed, he would work to combat extremism in the military, a problem the Defense Department acknowledged in a report in December.
Austin, who would be the nation's first Black defense secretary, said he would fight hard "to rid our ranks of racists."
"The Defense Department's job is to keep America safe from our enemies," he testified. "But we can't do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks."
U.S. congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. (photo: Getty)
Survivors Demand Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Resign Over School Shooting Conspiracy Comments
Alex Woodward, The Independent
Woodward writes: "The Georgia congresswoman appeared to endorse a conspiracy theory on Facebook in 2018 that the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was a 'false flag' event."
un control organisations and school shooting survivors have called for newly elected Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to step down after more uncovered social media posts appear to show her supporting conspiracies that the 9-11 attacks were “done by our own" government and that "none of the school shootings were real or done by the ones who were supposedly arrested for them."
Earlier this week, Media Matters discovered that the Georgia congresswoman appeared to endorse a conspiracy theory on Facebook in 2018 that the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was a “false flag” event.
The right-wing media research group also found that she had replied to a Facebook comment in 2018 amplifying numerous conspiracies, including that the killing of 20 children and six school staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 was a “staged” event, and that there are messages in the Georgia Guidestones, a granite monument in the state that has been central to several conspiracy theories.
She said: “That is all true. By the way, I’ve seen the Georgia guide stones.”
School shooting survivors as well as Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action – gun control advocacy groups that formed in the wake of several mass killings – have called for her resignation this week.
The congresswoman "continues to lower the already-subterranean bar she’s set for herself, and further embarrass our entire government,” said Sari Kaufman, a volunteer leader with Students Demand Action.
Ms Kaufman is also a survivor of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed and and more than a dozen others were injured in 2018.
“She should step down and take her radical extremism, conspiracy theories, and hate fueled lies far, far away," Ms Kaufman said in a statement.
In a message on Twitter, the congresswoman said: “Communists bloggers like [Media Matters] run the same playbook of lies and smears on people they feel threatened by. Produce fake news, spread it all around, then tag all fake news stories about their victim in all future stories. Guess what? Nobody cares about your BS.”
David Hogg, a gun control advocate who survived the Parkland killings, has also called for her resignation.
He also wrote to the congresswoman: “Why did you call the shooting at my high school a false flag? 17 classmates and staff died – spreading conspiracies about this tragedy is disgusting.”
Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the attack, wrote to the congresswoman on Twitter, saying: “We have never met. It appears you think or at one time thought the school shooting in Florida was a false flag. I know you have met Parkland parents. This is my daughter Jaime, she was killed that day. Do you still believe this? Why would you say this?”
In another statement, the congresswoman said that gun-free school zones are a “failure” but did not address the previous Facebook comments or her replies to them.
Sens. Josh Hawley, R-MO, and Ted Cruz, R-TX, after Republicans objected to accepting the Electoral College votes from Arizona on Jan. 6. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Senate Democrats File Ethics Complaint Against Republicans Hawley, Cruz Over Roles in Capitol Riot
Dareh Gregorian, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V, NBC News
Excerpt: "A group of Senate Democrats filed an ethics complaint against Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz on Thursday calling for an investigation to determine whether they coordinated with the organizers of the Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally that preceded the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol."
The two senators' actions call for an investigation and "a determination whether disciplinary action is warranted," the complaint says.
The Senate Ethics Committee "should also offer recommendations for strong disciplinary action, including up to expulsion or censure, if warranted by the facts uncovered," the seven Democrats, led by Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said in a letter to the committee's chair and vice chair.
Hawley, R-Mo., and Cruz, R-Texas, had announced in the days before the riot that they would object to accepting the votes from states that former President Donald Trump falsely claimed to have won during the Jan. 6 electoral vote count, which "amplified claims of election fraud that had resulted in threats of violence against state and local officials around the country," the letter said.
"The question the Senate must answer is not whether Sens. Hawley and Cruz had the right to the object to the electors, but whether the senators failed to '[p]ut loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department' or engaged in 'improper conduct reflecting on the Senate' in connection with the violence on January 6," the letter said.
It noted that both voted to reject electoral votes even after the violence at the Capitol disrupted the counting process.
The letter said "the pair touted their plan to challenge the electors to drum up campaign contributions," even though it is "probable" that both knew the underlying election fraud claims were false. "These solicitations continued during and after the insurrection," the complaint said.
Hawley and Cruz have denied any wrongdoing, and they maintain that they were trying to protect the integrity of the election.
"Joe Biden and the Democrats talk about unity but are brazenly trying to silence dissent. This latest effort is a flagrant abuse of the Senate ethics process and a flagrant attempt to exact partisan revenge," Hawley said in a statement.
Cruz told reporters Tuesday that he hadn't done anything to incite violence. "Debating a question of constitutional law on the floor of the Senate is the antithesis of trying to resolve conflicts through violent terrorist attack," he said.
The letter, which was also signed by Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, calls for an investigation into whether Hawley and Cruz had any involvement with the rally, where Trump called on his supporters to "fight" the election result to "save" the country.
"The extent, if any, of communication or coordination between Sens. Hawley and Cruz and the organizers of the rally remains to be investigated. Three members of the House of Representatives who coordinated with Sens. Hawley and Cruz to object to the electors, Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks, have been identified as alleged co-architects of the rally. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether and to what extent Senators Cruz and Hawley were also aware of these groups' activities or coordinated with their efforts," the letter said.
The Ethics Committee, which is chaired by Chris Coons, D-Del., had no comment. The committee's Republican vice chair, James Lankford of Oklahoma, initially signed off on Cruz's challenge, but he withdrew his support after the riot.
U.S.'s arms deal with UAE includes sale of as many as 50 F-35 fighter jets. (photo: Manuel Tiscareno/U.S. Navy)
Trump Administration Approved a Billion Arms Sale to UAE an Hour Before Biden Inauguration
Sheren Khalel, Middle East Eye
Khalel writes: "As US President Joe Biden was preparing to be sworn in, his predecessor was working on a last-minute deal to further solidify terms of a controversial arms sale to the United Arab Emirates, according to a think-tank that is suing the administration."
Last-minute move solidifies terms of controversial $23bn weapons deal between US and UAE, according to think-tank suing administration
Former President Donald Trump signed a letter of agreement (LOA) with the UAE to purchase as many as 50 F-35 warplanes and 18 armed drones in the final moments of his presidency.
The LOA solidifies the terms of the weapons sale between the two countries.
Before taking office, Biden had said he planned to re-examine the $23bn UAE arms deal, which is being challenged in a lawsuit by the New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs (NYCFPA).
The think-tank's principal director, Justin Russell, told Middle East Eye that Trump signed the LOA an hour before the inauguration, forcing the incoming administration into a difficult dilemma.
"It puts the Biden administration in a very odd position to either stop the deal or have the American government contribute to an escalating arms race in the Middle East," Russell said.
The Biden State Department declined MEE's request for comment on reports concerning the last-minute agreement, but in October, Biden's then nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told reporters that the sale was "something we would look at very, very carefully".
'Inflict harm in Libya and Yemen'
The F-35 jets are a major piece of the $23bn weapons deal, which was penned on the sidelines of Abu Dhabi's normalisation agreement with Israel.
The UAE has long sought the means to purchase the US's F-35 fighter jets, but had failed to do so until the Trump administration became adamant about adding Middle East normalisation deals with Israel to its foreign policy legacy.
Other than Israel, the US had previously barred any country in the Middle East from purchasing F-35s out of concerns that the military equipment would damage Israel's qualitative military edge (QME), which is enshrined and required by US law.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at first said he was not aware that the US had worked a side deal with the UAE in its push for Abu Dhabi to sign the normalisation agreement, but has seemed to come around to the prospect.
The nearly $3bn sale of 18 MQ-9 Reapers - armed drones - is also a significant order, with sources familiar with the situation telling Reuters that it would be the second-largest sale of US drones to a single country.
The Washington Post also reported that the munitions package included thousands of Mark 82 bombs, guided bombs, missiles and other arms.
Legal challenge
In December, two attempts to block portions of the UAE sale were shot down by Senate Republicans despite growing calls from anti-war and human rights groups to halt it.
Ahead of the failed Senate vote, lawmakers - mostly Democrats - underscored Abu Dhabi's role in the conflicts in Libya and Yemen as well as its poor human rights record at home.
"Unfortunately, there is significant potential for the F-35 aircraft and drones to be used to inflict harm in both Libya and Yemen that will further destabilize the Middle Eastern region," NYCFPA highlighted in a statement on Thursday.
"There is also the possibility of creating an arms race in the region while inheriting new security threats due to the potential sharing of US military technology with nations like Russia and China," it said.
NYCFPA filed a suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on 30 December, claiming that the $23bn arms sale was rushed through without meeting proper legal requirements.
Specifically, the suit targeted the secretary of state, then Mike Pompeo, and the State Department. However, since the suit targets the office of the secretary, it will be levied against the incoming secretary who will likely be Blinken.
The suit alleges that the sale violates the US Arms Export Control Act (ACEA), which gives the US president authority to control the import and export of defence equipment. Under the law, Congress has the right to block weapons sales - but its approval is not needed.
'Rewarding the UAE's troubling behaviour'
Among other things, ACEA requires that the executive branch has determined that the sale "will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace".
While the State Department under the former administration had said the deal meets such a requirement, it has provided little evidence, which it is obligated to do under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In Thursday's statement, NYCFPA said that its suit represented the "final opportunity to block the arms sale".
"The [Trump] administration not only disregarded said lawsuit but rewarded the UAE's repetitive and troubling behaviour," the group said. "For the administration to advocate for peace in the Middle East but continue to overlook crucial research and act in an opposite ideology is alarming."
During its last few weeks in office, the Trump administration pushed through a whirlwind of arms deals with Middle Eastern countries, including the approval of $290m in bombs to Saudi Arabia on 29 December.
On the same day, the State Department also announced a $4bn sale of Apache helicopters to Kuwait, $104m in defence equipment to outfit the plane of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and another $65.6m in precision targeting equipment for Egyptian warplanes.
Pesticide warning sign in an orange grove. This sign, bilingual in English and Spanish, warns that the poisonous pesticide Lorsban has been applied to these orange trees. Photographed in Woodlake, in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA. (photo: Jim West/Science Source)
Toxic Pesticide Faces New Scrutiny From Biden Administration
Dan Charles, NPR
Charles writes: "President Biden's initial wave of planned executive actions includes an order to reexamine one controversial, but widely used, pesticide called chlorpyrifos. The Trump administration had stepped in to keep the chemical on the market after Obama-era officials tried to ban it."
It's just one in a long list of science-related Trump administration actions that the incoming Biden team will now revisit. In a statement, Biden promised to take a close look at all policies "that were harmful to public health, damaging to the environment, unsupported by the best available science, or otherwise not in the national interest."
Farmers use chlorpyrifos to control insects on a wide variety of crops, including corn, apples, and vegetables. It is among the most toxic pesticides. Workers exposed to it can experience dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Most indoor uses of the pesticide were halted in 2001.
More recently, however, researchers at Columbia University studied health records from women who'd been exposed to this chemical before that ban, and found evidence that exposure to tiny amounts of chlorpyrifos harmed the brains of their developing fetuses and young children. Those studies, along with lawsuits filed by environmental advocates, convinced the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with a ban during the final months of the Obama administration.
When the Trump administration took office in 2017, the new EPA leadership put that decision on hold and later reversed it. This was due in large part to the agency's decision to exclude evidence from the Columbia University studies, because university researchers refused to turn over raw data from those studies. The researchers maintain that this would violate the confidentiality of the women whom they'd studied.
California, meanwhile, moved ahead with its own regulations. It banned sales of chlorpyrifos in the state in early 2020. Starting this year, California's farmers no longer can spray the chemical.
The Biden administration now will take a fresh look at chlorpyrifos, as well as the EPA's rules that justified excluding the Columbia University studies. In addition, the incoming administration will revisit a Trump administration decision to shrink the buffer zones around fields that have to be free of people when pesticides are applied. Farmworker advocates have challenged that decision in court.
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...
