November 19, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-opponents-try-to-beat-him-at-the-electoral-college/

Donald Trump opponents try to beat him at the Electoral College
AP November 19, 2016, 3:10 PM

Photograph -- A small group protest outside the courthouse in opposition of President-elect Donald Trump, Friday, Nov., 11, 2016, in Fort Worth, Texas. BRANDON WADE, AP
Play VIDEO -- Growing push to reform the U.S. election process


BOISE, Idaho — Grassroots campaigns have sprung up around the country to try to persuade members of the Electoral College to do something that has never been done in American history — deny the presidency to the clear Election Day winner.

Activists are circulating online petitions and using social media in hopes of influencing Republican electors to cast their ballots for someone other than President-elect Donald Trump and deprive him of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to become the next occupant of the White House.

“Yes, I think it’s a longshot, but I also think we’re living in strange times,” said Daniel Brezenoff, who created a petition in favor of Hillary Clinton and is asking signers to lobby electors by email or phone. “If it was ever plausible, it’s this year.”

Mr. Trump has won 290 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan undecided, but Clinton is on pace to win the popular vote by at least 1 million ballots. Mr. Trump’s opponents are motivated by the outcome of the popular vote and by their contention that the businessman and reality TV star is unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Just one elector so far has wavered publicly on supporting Trump.

Texas Republican Art Sisneros says he has reservations about the president-elect, but not because of the national popular vote. He told The Associated Press he won’t vote for Clinton under any circumstance.

“As a Christian, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is not biblically qualified for that office,” he said.

He said he has heard from ecstatic Clinton supporters and even supportive Republicans, but also from outraged Trump backers writing “threatening and vile things.”

Sisneros signed a state party pledge to support the GOP’s standard-bearer, but that was before Mr. Trump was the official nominee. He said one of his options is to resign, allowing the state party to choose another elector.

Electors are chosen by party officials and are typically the party’s most loyal members. Presidential electors are not required to vote for a particular candidate under the Constitution. Even so, the National Archives says more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged throughout the nation’s history.

Some state laws call for fines against “faithless electors,” while others open them to possible felony charges, although the National Archives says no elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. In North Carolina, a faithless elector’s vote is canceled, and he or she must immediately resign and be replaced.

Layne Bangerter and Melinda Smyser, two of Idaho’s four Republican electors, said they have been flooded with emails, telephone calls and Facebook messages from strangers urging them to reconsider their vote.

“It’s just not going to work,” Bangerter said. “I hope it dies down, but I don’t see that happening.”

The volume and tone of the messages caught the attention of Idaho’s secretary of state, who urged the public to remain civil as electors prepare to cast their ballots on Dec. 19 while meeting in their states.

Republican Party officials in Georgia and Michigan said their electors also have been bombarded with messages, and Iowa reported increased public interest in obtaining contact information for electors.

Michael Banerian, 22, one of Michigan’s 16 Republican electors, said he has received death threats from people who do not want him to vote for Mr. Trump. But he said he is undeterred.

“It’s mostly just a lot of angry people who don’t completely understand how the process works,” said Banerian, a political science major at Oakland University.

P. Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector in Washington state, said he and a small group of other electors from the party are working to contact their Republican counterparts and ask them to vote for any GOP candidate besides Mr. Trump, preferably Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

Under the Constitution, the House — currently under Republican control — decides the presidency if no candidate reaches the required electoral vote majority. House members choose from the top three contenders.

This isn’t the first time electors have faced pressure to undo the results of Election Day.

Carole Jean Jordan, a GOP elector from Florida in 2000, recalled the “unbelievably ugly” aftermath of the recount battle between George W. Bush and then-vice president Al Gore, a dispute that ended with the U.S. Supreme Court leaving Bush’s slim margin intact and handing him the presidency.

Jordan said Florida’s electors were inundated with nasty letters from people saying they should not vote for Bush. Police kept watch over her home until the electors convened in Tallahassee to cast their votes. They stayed at the same hotel, guarded by security officers who also escorted them to cast their ballots at the state Capitol.



EXCERPTS -- “Yes, I think it’s a longshot, but I also think we’re living in strange times,” said Daniel Brezenoff, who created a petition in favor of Hillary Clinton and is asking signers to lobby electors by email or phone. “If it was ever plausible, it’s this year.” …. Texas Republican Art Sisneros says he has reservations about the president-elect, but not because of the national popular vote. He told The Associated Press he won’t vote for Clinton under any circumstance. “As a Christian, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is not biblically qualified for that office,” he said. He said he has heard from ecstatic Clinton supporters and even supportive Republicans, but also from outraged Trump backers writing “threatening and vile things.” …. Michael Banerian, 22, one of Michigan’s 16 Republican electors, said he has received death threats from people who do not want him to vote for Mr. Trump. But he said he is undeterred. “It’s mostly just a lot of angry people who don’t completely understand how the process works,” said Banerian, a political science major at Oakland University.


Clearly these electors don’t see Donald Trump as a very dangerous man, as I and so many other progressives do. They also are desperate to stay within the bounds of tradition and law. Barbara Boxer is planning to introduce a Senate Bill to eliminate the Electoral College entirely. Hip, hip, HOORRAY! That is what needs to happen. It is an institution that has no value and stands between the people and justice. I think there should be a further vote which can undo an election, and a stiffer set of personal requirements that a presidential candidate should have to meet to qualify at all. Sen. Barbara Boxer has introduced such a bill. See below.



http://qz.com/841135/the-math-behind-california-senator-barbara-boxers-push-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

VOTING POWER
The math behind senator Boxer’s push to abolish the Electoral College
Christopher Groskopf
November 19, 2016


A week after America voted Donald Trump into the White House, California senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College, the system by which states allocate votes to presidential candidates. The College, long an unpopular feature of American politics, was decisive in the election of Trump, who lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

The Electoral College is established in Article II of the US Constitution. It gives each state a certain number of electors, all of whom vote according to the winner of the popular vote within that state. There are 538 total electors, which means any candidate needs 270 to win. Trump won with 290.

Because the number of electors in a state is not tied to its population, voters in some states end up having more influence over the outcome than others. In particular, voters in less populous states, such as Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming, have significantly more power than those in more populous states such as California, Florida, and Texas.

In California, for example, there are about 546,000 voters per elector. In Wyoming there are only 149,000. Thus, an individual vote in Wyoming carries about 3.7 times more weight in choosing who ultimately becomes president. Because less populous states also tend to be more rural, this effectively diminishes the power of urban voters.

Despite being frequently criticized, the Electoral College has never seen a serious challenge. Previous calls to abolish or reform it have had a tendency to evaporate soon after election day.

Trump’s controversial election might be enough to build some momentum behind Boxer’s bill, but, even if it is, the Democrat’s proposal will almost certainly fail. Abolishing the College would require a constitutional amendment. That’s difficult under any circumstance and probably impossible right now with a Republican majority in Congress.

Boxer herself is retiring from Congress at the end of the year, and thus won’t be in a position to push the bill forward. As frustrating as it may be for her fellow Democrats, and for anyone who would prefer more straightforward elections, it’s almost certain the Electoral College will still exist when Americans vote again in 2020.


FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE TRUMP RECOMMENDATIONS REACHES TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY


KEEP https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-and-intelligence-community-chiefs-have-urged-obama-to-remove-the-head-of-the-nsa/2016/11/19/44de6ea6-adff-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1479577805&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news

National Security
Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA
By Ellen Nakashima
November 19 at 12:46 PM

Photograph from Reuters Gary Cameron – NSA Dir Rogers in September

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Action has been delayed, some administration officials said, because relieving Rogers of his duties is tied to another controversial recommendation: to create separate chains of command at the NSA and the military’s cyberwarfare unit, a recommendation by Clapper and Carter that has been stalled because of other issues.

The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

The White House, Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. The NSA did not respond to requests for comment. Carter has concerns with Rogers’s performance, officials said. The driving force for Clapper, meanwhile, was the separation of leadership roles at the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command and his belief that the NSA should be headed by a civilian.

[Trump’s security picks signals intent to keep hard-line promises]

Rogers, 57, took the helm of the NSA and Cyber Command in April 2014 in the wake of revelations by a former intelligence contractor of broad surveillance activities that shook public confidence in the agency. The contractor, Edward Snowden, had secretly downloaded vast amounts of digital documents that he shared with a handful of journalists. His disclosures prompted debate over the proper scale of surveillance and led to some reforms.

But they also were a black eye for an agency that prides itself on having the most skilled hackers and cybersecurity professionals in government. Rogers was charged with making sure another insider breach never happened again.

Instead, in the past year and a half, officials have discovered two major compromises of sensitive hacking tools by personnel working at the NSA’s premier hacking unit: the Tailored Access Organization. One involved a Booz Allen Hamilton contractor, Harold T. Martin III, [SEE BELOW] who is accused of carrying out the largest theft of classified government material ever. Although some of his activity took place before Rogers arrived and at other agencies, some of it — including the breach of some of the most sensitive tools — continued on Rogers’s watch, the officials said.

Martin’s alleged theft was discovered when some of the tools he is accused of stealing were mysteriously released online in August. They included computer code based on obscure software flaws that could be used to take control of firewalls and networks — what one former TAO operator called “the keys to the kingdom.”

Martin, who moved from the NSA to a job in a Defense Department acquisitions agency last year, was arrested in August. The news broke last month.

[Government alleges NSA contractor stole ‘astonishing quantity’ of classified material]

But there was a second, previously undisclosed breach of cyber tools, discovered in the summer of 2015, which was also carried out by a TAO employee, one official said. That individual also has been arrested, but his case has not been made public. The individual is not believed to have shared the material with another country, the official said.

Rogers was put on notice by his two bosses — Clapper and Carter — that he had to get control of internal security and improve his leadership style. There have been persistent complaints from NSA personnel that Rogers is aloof, frequently absent and does not listen to staff input. The NSA is an intelligence agency but part of the Defense Department, hence the two overseers.

FBI agents investigating the Martin breach were appalled at how lax security was at TAO, officials said. “[Rogers] is a guy who has been at the helm of the NSA at the time of some of the most egregious security breaches, most recently Hal Martin,” said a senior administration official. “Clearly it’s a sprawling bureaucracy . . . but I think there’s a compelling case that can be made that some of the safeguards that should have been put in place were either not fully put in place or not implemented properly.”

At the same time, Rogers has not impressed Carter with his handling of U.S. Cyber Command’s cyber offensive against the Islamic State. Over the past year or so, the command’s operations against the terrorist group’s networks in Syria and Iraq have not borne much fruit, officials said. In the past month, military hackers have been successful at disrupting some Islamic State networks, but it was the first time they had done that, the officials said.

The expectation had been that Rogers would be replaced before the Nov. 8 election, but as part of an announcement about the change in leadership structure at the NSA and Cyber Command, said a second official.

“It was going to be part of a full package,” the official said. “The idea was not for any kind of public firing.”

The president would then appoint an acting NSA director, enabling his successor to nominate their own person. But a key lawmaker, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, threatened to block any such nominee if the White House proceeded with the plan to split the leadership at the NSA and Cyber Command.

The rationale for splitting what is called the “dual-hat” arrangement is that the agencies’ missions are fundamentally different, that the nation’s cyberspies and military hackers should not be competing to use the same networks, and that the job of leading both organizations is too big for one person.

But McCain is concerned that placing Cyber Command under its own leadership will hinder its effectiveness as it is highly dependent on the NSA for capabilities.

Meanwhile, in February, Rogers announced a major reorganization at the NSA, which he called NSA21. He has merged the agency’s spying and hacking arms with its computer security division into one Directorate of Operations. That reorganization has only intensified the discontent that has marked Rogers’s tenure at the agency, current and former officials said.

“The morale is horrible,” said one former senior official. Especially during a period of change, a leader needs to be present, the official said. “Any leader knows that when you institute change, you have to be there. You have to help heal the wounds, be very active. He was not.”

But Saxby Chambliss, a former Republican senator from Georgia who served on the Select Committee on Intelligence, said that he thinks highly of Rogers. “When it comes to the world of cyber, there’s nobody more capable than Mike Rogers in the military world today,” he said.

Rogers is a Navy cryptologist whose military career spans more than 30 years. Before landing at Fort Meade, Md., he headed up the Navy’s cyber arm, Fleet Cyber Command. A Chicago native, Rogers began his career as a surface warfare officer in 1981. Over the years he has served as head of the Chairman’s Action Group, an in-house Pentagon think tank to advise on policy and long-term issues, under then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, and as director of intelligence at Pacific Command and then on the Joint Staff.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_T._Martin_III

Harold T. Martin III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harold T. Martin III (born November 1964) is a former contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton who has been accused of stealing 50 Terabytes of data from the National Security Agency (NSA).[1][2][3][4][5][6]

The New York Times reported that the NSA had apparently failed to note or effectively respond to a number of issues with Martin's security practices and behaviors over a period of ten to twenty years.[7]

Investigators failed to link Martin with any unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and it is suggested that he was "no Edward Snowden", and that his behavior is an example of compulsive hoarding.[8]



EXCERPTS – Washington Post – “The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. …. Action has been delayed, some administration officials said, because relieving Rogers of his duties is tied to another controversial recommendation: to create separate chains of command at the NSA and the military’s cyberwarfare unit, a recommendation by Clapper and Carter that has been stalled because of other issues. The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. …. Carter has concerns with Rogers’s performance, officials said. The driving force for Clapper, meanwhile, was the separation of leadership roles at the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command and his belief that the NSA should be headed by a civilian. …. Rogers was put on notice by his two bosses — Clapper and Carter — that he had to get control of internal security and improve his leadership style. There have been persistent complaints from NSA personnel that Rogers is aloof, frequently absent and does not listen to staff input.”


If this weren’t involved in Donald Trump’s incoming arrangements, I wouldn’t have paid much attention. I’m concerned about who he appoints, however. This man Rogers has been ineffective in his job, and is what we used to call a “hotdog.” He never shows up to work and doesn’t show interest in what his employees have to say. He was under pressure from his supervisors, so he made an under the table deal with Trump. Add disloyal to the list of comments against him. I wonder how long he will stay with Trump, who has a hair trigger temper and no tolerance for disloyalty.



http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-disgusted-with-chris-christie-detailed-report-confirms-nasty-breakup-001256393.html

Donald Trump 'disgusted' with Chris Christie, detailed report confirms nasty breakup
ROBERT SOBEL
Published on:13 November 2016


Donald Trump 'disgusted' with Chris Christie, detailed report confirms nasty breakup Chris Christie will not have a role in the upcoming administration after Donald Trump lashed out at the governor.

After #Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and became the new president-elect, it was only a matter of time before decisions were made about the future of the administration. Despite several names being rumored to be involved with the team, one of those names can now be scratched off the list.

Water under the bridge

As the election result became offical, [sic] it appeared that it would be a foregone conclusion that New Jersey Gov. #Chris Christie would lead the Trump transition team into the White House. Just prior to the start of the weekend, it was announced that Christie has been bumped from the spot, with Vice President-elect Mike Pence filling the role. Christie had clashed with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, causing major friction between the two and contributing to the governor's departure. As reported by Mediaite on November 13, Trump himself is no longer a fan of Christie.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Mediaite ✔ @Mediaite
REPORT: Christie Lost Transition Leadership Because Trump 'Disgusted' With Him Over Bridgegate http://bit.ly/2eQmI9b
12:02 PM - 13 Nov 2016
15 15 Retweets 16 16 likes

According to a source close to the New York Post, who originally reported the story, Trump is "disgusted" with Christie for not taking the blame in the "Bridgegate" scandal. Last week, two of Christie's top aides, Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni, were found guilty of fraud and a possible conspiracy in relation to the aforementioned scandal, but the governor got off the hook and continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Follow
The New York Times ✔ @nytimes
Steve Bannon of Breitbart News is named President-elect Donald Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor http://nyti.ms/2fp0f7i
4:36 PM - 13 Nov 2016

Reince Priebus at Trump Tower on Saturday.

Donald Trump Picks Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff and Stephen Bannon as Strategist

The appointments created rival centers of power and elevated the voice of Mr. Bannon, whose longtime website, Breitbart News, has traded in conspiracy theories and sometimes racist messages.
nytimes.com
1,247 1,247 Retweets 1,040 1,040 likes

Trump noted that Kelly is a wife and mother of young children, and the billionaire real estate mogul was sickened that Christie left her out to dry. "She was a factor in the decision because Trump didn’t like seeing her crying," the source told The New York Post. Christie also appears out of the running for a future position in the administration, but neither side have yet to offer an official statement or comment on the issue.

Next up
With Christie apparently out of the inner circle, he's no longer expected to fill a position in the administration. Trump has just over 70 days to fill out his administration roster, but will first step into a courtroom and face charges of fraud and racketeering in regards to the #Trump University Trial, which will begin on November 28.



Trump, who only last week decided to pay a fine over his fake “university,” has no patience with Christie for not standing up like a man and taking responsibility for Bridgegate; supposedly this is the reason for Trump’s demoting him. Trump himself, of course, after all of his trauma inducing interactions with women has never “taken responsibility” for those. The one comment in this article that looks to me to be a more likely cause of Christie’s ouster is that he had a disagreement with Trump’s son in law. Trump has put several of his children into important positions, raising the cry of nepotism across the country. I am afraid that his style of dealing with the country will be more like “ruling” than “presiding.”



SHIFT FURTHER TO THE RIGHT

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-sessions-mike-pompeo-michael-flynn-picks-donald-trump-administration-shift-right/

Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, Michael Flynn picks for Trump administration signal shift to right
CBS NEWS
November 19, 2016, 8:00 AM

Play VIDEO -- Breaking down Trump's choices for key Cabinet positions
Photograph -- Donald Trump sits with U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York, Oct. 7, 2016. REUTERS/MIKE SEGAR
Play VIDEO – Trump University agrees to $25M settlement
Play VIDEO -- Sanctuary cities prepare for fight
Play VIDEO -- Rep. Mike Pompeo tapped for CIA director
Play VIDEO -- Democrats critical of Trump's picks so far


President-elect Donald Trump was close to making more choices for his Cabinet on Saturday.

CBS News has learned that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the leading candidate for secretary of state.

Steve Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, will be tapped for treasury secretary, and the commerce secretary nominee will likely be billionaire investor Wilbur Ross.

Those appointments were expected to be announced early next week.

This comes on the heels of this week’s announcement of three picks to Mr. Trump’s national security team.

CBS News correspondent Weijia Jiang reports all the people the president-elect has tapped in his latest round of picks have one thing in common: They all supported him early -- and staunchly -- even when it was wildly unpopular.

Friday’s names in particular signal a sharp shift to the right in U.S. national security policy, a sign Mr. Trump so far was fulfilling one of his top campaign promises.

Mr. Trump escaped New York’s Fifth Avenue on Friday evening, moving his transition team to his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for the weekend.

On Saturday, he planned to meet with retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who was under consideration for secretary of defense, and former foe Mitt Romney despite his previous efforts to knock out Mr. Trump’s campaign.

“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud,” Romney said in March. “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.”

Mr. Trump’s transition has been criticized for being frenzied, but Vice President-elect Mike Pence insists it’s a smooth process.

“We’ve got a great number of men and women of great qualifications,” Pence said.

Late this week, Mr. Trump named three picks for key posts.

Former military intelligence chief and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn will be his national security adviser, a life-long Democrat who has frequently questioned President Obama’s strategy against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

“Let’s get off the dime and just call it like it is, which is Islamic extremism,” Flynn said on “CBS This Morning” co-host Charlie Rose’s PBS program.

Tapped to head the CIA was Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo, who was a critical voice in the 2012 Republican report on the State Department’s handling of the Benghazi terror attacks that killed four Americans.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions accepted the nomination for attorney general. In 1986, Sessions’ efforts to secure a federal judgeship were derailed amid accusations of making racist comments while serving as a U.S. attorney, including calling groups like the NAACP “un-American.”

“My opinion is they have not, they may have taken positions that I consider to be adverse to the security interests of the United States,” Sessions said during his confirmation hearings.

“Does that make them un-American?” then-Sen. Joe Biden said.

“No, sir, it does not,” Sessions said.

“Does that make the positions un-American?” Biden asked.

“No,” Sessions said.

Sessions may have to soon revisit those allegations.

Both he and Pompeo have to go through Senate confirmation hearings before joining the new administration.

If the GOP sticks together, Democrats won’t be able to block any of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet picks, but they only have a slim one-seat Republican majority.



ABOUT Jeff Sessions – a close up of his numerous racist statements is below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2

Jeff Sessions Was Deemed Too Racist To Be A Federal Judge. He’ll Now Be Trump’s Attorney General.
He once joked that he only took issue with the KKK’s drug use and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American.”

Ryan J. Reilly
Senior Justice Reporter, The Huffington Post
11/17/2016 06:34 pm ET | Updated 23 hours ago


WASHINGTON ― The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an early Trump supporter who has been playing a major role on the Trump transition team, met with the president-elect in New York on Thursday. In a statement, the Trump team said the president-elect was “unbelievably impressed” with Sessions.

On Friday morning, Trump and Sessions confirmed that Sessions had been offered the attorney general position.

J. Gerald Hebert remembers Sessions’ time as the top federal prosecutor in Mobile, Alabama, well. Speaking to The Huffington Post earlier this month, Hebert said he was stunned that an Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a possibility.

More than three decades ago, Hebert was in his 30s and working on voting rights cases for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. He was based in D.C. but spent time in Alabama working with Sessions, who was a U.S. attorney in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

“He was very affable, always wanting to have a conversation, a cup of coffee,” Hebert said. “Over the course of those months, I had a number of conversations with him, and in a number of those conversations he made remarks that were deeply concerning.”

After Sessions was nominated to be a federal judge in 1986, Hebert appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about these remarks. It was unusual for a career DOJ lawyer to testify about a judicial nominee’s character, and Hebert said at the time that he did so with “very mixed feelings,” telling senators he considered Sessions “a friend.” Hebert told them Sessions had “a tendency to pop off” and that he was “not a very sensitive person when it comes to race relations.”

HuffPost reviewed a transcript of the Sessions’ 1986 confirmation hearings. In this selection, Hebert testified that he had once relayed comments about a white lawyer being described as a race traitor, and that Sessions had responded by saying “he probably is” (See website for Congressional Transcript).

Sessions testified that he did not believe he had made such a remark, but his views changed as he reflected.

“The best I could recall was that I said, well, he is not that popular around town; I have heard him referred to as a disgrace to his race,” Sessions said. He said he did not personally believe that the white civil rights attorney was a race traitor, and that he had respect for him.

Sessions testified that he enjoyed the “free flow of ideas” and liked to stir it up with Hebert when he was in town. “I like to discuss things. I am open: I like to discuss with liberals better than I do with conservatives,” Sessions said.

In describing one conversation with Hebert on civil rights, Sessions articulated his view that things were pretty great for minorities in the 1980s and that civil rights organizations were asking for too much.

“I made the comment that the fundamental legal barriers to minorities had been knocked down, and that in many areas blacks dominate the political area, and that when the civil rights organizations or the ACLU participate in asking for things beyond what they are justified in asking, they do more harm than good,” Sessions testified.

That’s not exactly how Hebert recalled it: (Go to website for exact comments, such as Sessions’ belief that the NAACP and ACLU are “un-American”).

Sessions also called the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP “communist-inspired,” Hebert testified.

Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. attorney, backed up Hebert’s testimony about Sessions’ views. He told Congress that Sessions said the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Operation Push and the National Council of Churches “were all un-American organizations teaching anti-American values.”

“I recall saying that civil rights organizations, when they demand more than is legitimate, it hurts their position,” Sessions testified.

Figures, who died last year, also said that Sessions once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks” after Figures told a white secretary that he found a comment she made offensive. Figures was the only black assistant U.S. attorney in the office.

“Had Mr. Sessions merely urged me to be careful what I say to ‘folks,’ that admonition would have been quite reasonable,” Figures said. “But that was not the language that he used. I realize, on the other hand, that Mr. Sessions’ remark may not have been premeditated. There was a period in our own lifetimes when blacks where regularly admonished to be particularly polite or deferential, and a remark of that sort may have just slipped out inadvertently.”

Figures also testified that Sessions and two others in the office referred to him as “boy.” Figures said he couldn’t say anything about it to Sessions because his position with him was “tentative.”

“I felt that if I had said anything or reacted in a manner in which thought appropriate, I thought I would be fired,” Figures said. “I had to guard my reaction to things, Senator, because I needed a job at the time... So I took a lot of things; I just kept it inside.”

Sessions “categorically” denied using the term “boy” to refer to Figures. “I have never used the word ‘boy’ to describe a black, nor would I tolerate it in my office,” Sessions testified.

Hebert said Figures’ testimony would be consistent with the views he believes Sessions holds.

“He demonstrated gross insensitivity to black people. So Tom Figures reporting that he had been called ‘boy’ by Jeff Sessions, that wouldn’t surprise me at all,” Hebert told HuffPost.

Figures also said that Sessions, during a “very spirited discussion” about one civil rights case, threw a file on the table and said, “I wish I could decline all of them.” Figures said it was clear the remark was made in anger, and noted that Sessions didn’t make him toss out all of the civil rights cases, even though he apparently wished that they’d disappear.

“Mr. Sessions did not make such a remark to me on any other occasion, and he did not direct me then, or at any other time, to in fact systematically decline all civil rights cases,” Figures testified.

Figures also said that Sessions would overrule him solely in criminal civil rights cases.

“In all fairness to Mr. Sessions, however, I should make clear that the problems which existed in the area of civil rights were not present in other aspects of my case assignments,” he said. “Except in criminal civil rights cases, Mr. Sessions deferred to my recommendations regarding whether to pursue cases, and never withdrew a case assignment because he disagreed with my recommendations.”

Sessions also remarked that he thought the KKK was OK until he found out they smoked marijuana, according to Figures. The statement was made in connection with the prosecution of a Klan member who had hanged a black man. From Figures’ testimony: (Website) ….

Questioned at the time by now-Vice President Joe Biden, Sessions admitted to the comments and said they were intended humorously. (SEE Website – Sessions insists that though there was a black man sitting in the room, his comments were meant as humor.)

Biden also asked Sessions about the allegation that he had used a racial slur after a court hearing when he was in private practice. (The term appears uncensored in the transcript below. The U.S. Senate didn’t approve C-SPAN cameras until later that year.)

(FOR TRANSCRIPT, GO TO Website: Sessions refers to the only black commissioner in Mobile AL as “the nigger.” Sessions denied he ever said it.)

Sessions’ nomination was ultimately defeated in June 1986, making him the first Reagan nominee the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected.

Before his rejection, Sessions told senators he denied many of the claims made against him and that he felt he had been “caricatured.”

“All of us know that when the confidence of a private conversation is breached by a party with ulterior motives or one who simply misunderstands what the speaker says or means, he speaker can always be embarrassed,” Sessions said. “I enjoy repartee and frequently engage in devil’s advocacy. In short, when I talk to friends, I do not guard every word that I say because I think that I know they know that my commitment to equality and justice is real, and they would not twist my words or misinterpret what I am saying to them.”

“I deny as strongly as I can express it that I am insensitive to the concerns of blacks,” Sessions said.

Hebert, like many civil rights advocates, is deeply concerned about the future of the Civil Rights Division in a Trump administration. He referenced the politicization of the Civil Rights Division under former President George W. Bush, when political officials abandoned much of the division’s work.

“I fear we’ll see a repeat of that, or perhaps worse,” Hebert said. “I worry about those who are in the Civil Rights Division now, and what it will do to their careers. But more importantly, what it’s going to do to minority voters, minority citizens, across the country who need their basic fundamental human rights protected.”

“Just the thought of him overseeing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is frightening,” Hebert said. “He’s a mean-spirited individual.”

Hebert said his friends in Alabama were disappointed that Sessions didn’t become a federal judge because it would have prevented him from acceding to his current position.

“He would have quietly disappeared into the history books instead of being a U.S. senator and being on the Judiciary Committee,” Hebert said. “They tongue-in-cheek say to me, ‘Thanks a lot, Gerry.’”


EXCERPTS – “Sessions also called the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP “communist-inspired,” Hebert testified. Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. attorney, backed up Hebert’s testimony about Sessions’ views. He told Congress that Sessions said the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Operation Push and the National Council of Churches “were all un-American organizations teaching anti-American values.” “I recall saying that civil rights organizations, when they demand more than is legitimate, it hurts their position,” Sessions testified. Figures, who died last year, also said that Sessions once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks” after Figures told a white secretary that he found a comment she made offensive. Figures was the only black assistant U.S. attorney in the office. …. “I enjoy repartee and frequently engage in devil’s advocacy. In short, when I talk to friends, I do not guard every word that I say because I think that I know they know that my commitment to equality and justice is real, and they would not twist my words or misinterpret what I am saying to them.” “I deny as strongly as I can express it that I am insensitive to the concerns of blacks,” Sessions said. Hebert, like many civil rights advocates, is deeply concerned about the future of the Civil Rights Division in a Trump administration. He referenced the politicization of the Civil Rights Division under former President George W. Bush, when political officials abandoned much of the division’s work.”


Like so many aggressive and venomous people, Sessions claims that he merely likes to play “devil’s advocate.” There are enough racist and rightist things which he has been described as saying that this country is likely to be in for a return of the hateful politics of the 1960s unless somehow, someone stops Trump in his tracks. No, I am not advocating an assassination, but a trial of impeachment or a “vote of no confidence.” Again, this is something for our new Constitutional Convention, since the US version is of “symbolic” importance only. I got that piece of information from the Wikipedia article below.

See the Wikipedia article on that subject.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence

Motion of no confidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.

A censure motion is different from a no-confidence motion. Depending on the constitution of the body concerned, "No Confidence" may lead to compulsory resignation of the council of ministers or other position-holder(s), whereas "Censure" is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers. The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers, but the no-confidence motion is directed against the entire cabinet. Again, depending on the applicable rules, censure motions may need to state the reasons for the motion while no-confidence motions may not require reasons to be specified.

. . . .

United States[edit]

In the United States, motions styled as "no confidence" are only symbolic and are rare. Party leadership turnover generally occurs as a result of internal discussion and vote among the elected members of the party, followed by the response of the public in a primary election and general election.

In organizations that use Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), there is no motion of no confidence, although the assembly could adopt a motion expressing a lack of confidence in its leaders (i.e. a motion to censure).[11]

The United States Congress passed a no confidence motion against Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s[12] and considered one against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,[13] but these motions are of symbolic effect only.

As U.S. political tradition does not include motions of no confidence, laws provide for the removal of specific people. All of these processes are designed to be rare.

In some U.S. states, a recall election fills a similar role of removing an unpopular executive officer, but in contrast to a motion of no confidence, a recall vote is a no-confidence election by the public and is normally only allowed against elected executive offices, rather than legislative seats. In states that have recall elections, the law usually restricts how often they are held, so that recall attempts do not follow each highly contested election.

Each house of Congress may, by a two-thirds majority, vote to expel any of its own members, and similar processes exist in U.S. state legislatures. These removals are very rare, and the motivations are typically criminal misdeeds or ethics violations, not mere loss of confidence.

Impeachment in the United States can remove a government officer through a two-part process in the legislature. Congress can remove a federal officer, including the President and any federal judge. State legislatures have similar powers over the state offices. Impeachment is reserved for criminal conduct or major ethical violations and is not directly a vote of no confidence in the party, since removal of the head of government usually results in succession by an officer of the same party.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-bannon-on-white-nationalism-donald-trumps-agenda/

Steve Bannon speaks out on white nationalism, Donald Trump agenda
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
November 19, 2016, 1:09 PM


Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump, denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead about how his brand of “economic” nationalism will shake up Washington.

In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went on to chair Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the election.

“I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over.”

Bannon’s appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart’s) strong association with the alt-right, a political movement with strains of white supremacy.

In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right’s connections to racist and anti-Semitic agendas.

“Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,” Bannon told Mother Jones in August. “Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that’s just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements.”

In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its election promises, “we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years.”

“It’s everything related to jobs,” Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives “crazy” with his “trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.”

“With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up,” he proposed. “We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”

Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the “darkness” he touts in fighting against them.

“Darkness is good,” Bannon said. “Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they...get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”



“Darkness is good,” Bannon says. Well, this is one of the darkest news days in weeks, since November 9, that is. I’ll look one more time to see if I find something that we left leaning Americans can consider to be good. This next one is better.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-schumer-is-all-in-on-bernie-sanders-democratic-party_us_58307a38e4b030997bbfc3cc

Chuck Schumer Is All In On Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Party
The Vermont senator lost to Hillary Clinton, but the new Senate minority leader thinks his message is a winner.

Michael McAuliff
Senior Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post
11/19/2016 12:10 pm ET | Updated 3 hours ago

Photograph -- AMBER FERGUSONHUFFINGTON POST


WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lost the Democratic nomination and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the new leader of the Senate Democrats. But the Vermont senator’s vision and ideas will dominate the Democratic Party’s attempt to recover from Hillary Clinton’s ruinous White House run.

Schumer will be the person who crafts and leads the strategy, but in sitting down to explain it to The Huffington Post on Friday, he revealed how much of it comes from Sanders, as well as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“When you lose an election the way we did, you don’t flinch, you don’t look away. You look it in the eye and say ‘What did we do wrong?’” said Schumer, who also had a significant role in Democrats’ 2016 calculations. “To me, overwhelmingly, we did not have a strong economic message. What we need is a sharper, bolder, stronger, more progressive economic message.”

Schumer explained that includes staples from the Sanders and Warren wing of the party ― debt-free college, at least some of the free college that was so mocked by the Clinton campaign, a higher minimum wage, a “bolder” stance on trade, a tougher stance the “rigged” system of lobbyists and special interests, and major investments in infrastructure, among other ideas.

Some are initiatives that Schumer has long embraced, but others — and especially the language used to describe them are the sorts of things progressives have heard from Sanders and Warren for years.

“On economic issues in particular, a strong, bold economic message wins,” Schumer said. “Bernie and I think alike on these issues and always have,” he said, adding that Warren and Sanders both backed him when he first announced his intent to replace retiring Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Schumer has even embraced Sanders’ choice to head up the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

“Bernie convinced me of this. Bernie asked me to do it, to organize it,” Schumer said, adding that he agrees with Sanders’ idea that the DNC needs to become more of an activist and organizing operation.

“So when we’re pushing for a strong college bill on the floor, there are hundreds of thousands of people on campuses across the country emailing, and tweeting and calling and protesting. And when we do minimum wage, there should be minimum wage workers all over the country pushing for that,” Schumer said. “That’s what Bernie wants to do with the DNC, and I completely agree.”

Bernie makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

It’s almost as if Schumer thinks Sanders would have been the better candidate against President-elect Donald Trump, but he was not willing to say so.

“I’m not going to point fingers looking back. I think that is divisive,” he said. “But Bernie makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.”

Schumer is aware that many progressives do not see in him as the type of champion they adore in Sanders and Warren. He is, after all, a senator whose constituents include many of those system-riggers on Wall Street — people who have been Schumer’s top donors for decades. To name a couple, they are people like John Paulson and Carl Icahn, both of whom were major Trump backers and have supported Schumer in the past. Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made billions from the collapse of the housing market, was a major fundraiser for Schumer.

So Schumer knows he has to thread a needle in both protecting and containing a dominant industry in his state, and convincing liberals. He can point to the support of Sanders and Warren, who credit Schumer with advancing several of their interests.

“I don’t attack Wall Street just for the sake of attacking it,” Schumer said. “But whenever there’s a challenge, I go after them. I was one of the leaders — Elizabeth Warren — Prof. Warren — called me and Dick Durbin up [after the housing bubble collapsed] and said we need a [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]. I got it into the Dodd-Frank bill. I pushed the Dodd-Frank bill. And I have said repeatedly, and I say it as leader, they will not repeal it. They will not get 60 votes for any part of repeal of Dodd-Frank.”

Dodd-Frank also included numerous reforms to the banking industry. Republicans have pledged to do away with it, and most of Wall Street agrees.

“The number of people on Wall Street who are mad at me and don’t do donations exceeds the number who do,” said Schumer, noting that bankers and investors are also liberal New Yorkers. “A lot of these people support choice, support environment.”

Paulson is “one of the biggest environmentalists around,” Schumer said. “He’s a bird watcher.”

Regardless of progressive distrust of Schumer, he has long made it his mantra to focus on the needs of the middle class. And for him, the successes of both Sanders and Trump with disaffected white voters tells him he needs to address them more clearly. And the fact that the economic messages of Sanders and Warren from the left resonated better with them than the cautious pronouncements of Clinton tells him the progressive message is actually the one that speaks to the broader audience.

“There’s this debate ― do we appeal to the Obama constituency or the blue collar constituency? A bold, strong, progressive economic message that focuses on the rigged system and what we’re going to do when we change it, will appeal to both groups,” Schumer said.

“The beauty of that message is it unites Democrats.”

Unknown, though, is whether liberals will buy in.

In Schumer’s office is a photograph of Ebbets Field, taken on the last day the Brooklyn Dodgers played there before betraying the borough for the West Coast. In that picture can be seen one of the most famous baseball billboards of the day — a 3-foot-tall, 30-foot-wide advertisement for Brooklyn politician and tailor Abe Stark.

“Hit Sign, Win Suit,” it says. Schumer agreed it was brilliant because — unlike a much larger version that it replaced — it was a great promise that delivered almost no suits.

HuffPost asked Schumer if liberals would regard his newly bold and progressive agenda as something akin to Abe Stark’s sign offering something to swing for, but never hit.

Schumer certainly knew there would be some who feel that way. But he felt that more than words, he could offer deeds.

“Wait and see,” he said.



EXCERPT – “Regardless of progressive distrust of Schumer, he has long made it his mantra to focus on the needs of the middle class. And for him, the successes of both Sanders and Trump with disaffected white voters tells him he needs to address them more clearly. And the fact that the economic messages of Sanders and Warren from the left resonated better with them than the cautious pronouncements of Clinton tells him the progressive message is actually the one that speaks to the broader audience. …. A bold, strong, progressive economic message that focuses on the rigged system and what we’re going to do when we change it, will appeal to both groups,” Schumer said. “The beauty of that message is it unites Democrats.” Unknown, though, is whether liberals will buy in. …. HuffPost asked Schumer if liberals would regard his newly bold and progressive agenda as something akin to Abe Stark’s sign offering something to swing for, but never hit. Schumer certainly knew there would be some who feel that way. But he felt that more than words, he could offer deeds.”


I have the impression that the Dems who tried so hard to hug the center line have lost touch with those who own no house, or only one at any rate. They also did not PAY ATTENTION to Sanders’ activities and statements and his following, enough to see what he was doing differently. They said the old platitudes of the last 25 years and ran on the familiar faces of people like Hillary Clinton. They sometimes openly scorned Sanders as being unrealistic and radical, which he never was – feisty, yes.

Middle and Lower Middle Class people, the “working” people, are still out there and still need jobs with better pay. Go all out for them. The apathetic tenor of the party since Bill Clinton and others decided to move to the right, following a Republican, rather than fighting harder for better schools for all, good medical care, and speaking strongly to the need for cooperation among Blacks and Whites rather than class warfare, was the beginning of our defeat. We ceased to mean anything. Our party has been limp-wristed for years, trying so hard not to “make waves.” Our defeat to Donald Trump was merely the last gasp of a dying hope.

The DNC, instead of fighting on strongly for an inclusive society, tried to dodge the racial issue (the elephant in the room) rather than convincing the Whites to blend better with Blacks, and Blacks to forgive 200 years of slavery and abuse. I just don’t believe that evil has to be victorious. And any irritating demands like a higher minimum wage, which the Billionaires rejected entirely, was totally intimidating to the New Democrats. It’s time the DNC stopped living on the money from corporations and dealt instead with their natural constituency, the Working Class. Push for unions and factories and infrastructure projects of a massive scale. When have you ever seen Bernie Sanders sound or look apathetic?