JUNE 4 AND 5, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


LIKE IT OR LUMP IT, THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE GAY WEDDING CAKE. I’M SURE SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAPPILY BAKE THE CAKE, BUT IT’S A VERY BAD PRECEDENT. WE COULD BE BACK TO THE SIGNS ON THE FRONT DOOR OF ESTABLISHMENTS SAYING “WHITES ONLY,” AND FROM THE WAY THE SOCIETAL DRIFT LOOKS RIGHT NOW, VERY QUICKLY.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=844b7296-50a4-11e5-8d53-fa163e2c24a6&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple
Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
Reuters • June 4, 2018

5 PHOTOGRAPHS -- Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood
Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado U.S. September 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

Related Searches
Supreme Court NewsUnited States Supreme CourtSupreme Court JusticesSupreme Court Gambling

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The baker case became a cultural flashpoint in the United States, underscoring the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory. The couple's supporters noted that the ruling embraced the importance of gay rights and made it clear that businesses open to the public must serve everyone. The baker's lawyers said the ruling emphasized that the government must respect religious beliefs.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy said the state commission's hostility toward religion "was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

In one exchange at a 2014 hearing before the commission cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

Kennedy said the commission ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

Republican President Donald Trump's administration, which intervened in the case in support of Phillips, welcomed the ruling. "The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

'MORAL AND RELIGIOUS REASONS'

The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defense.

Kennedy wrote that any ruling in favor of creative professionals must be "sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote.

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

They filed a successful complaint with the state commission, the first step in the six-year-old legal battle. State courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the top U.S. court.

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," the couple, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Phillips and others like him who believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with their Christian beliefs have said they should not be required to effectively endorse the practice.

"Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that," said lawyer Kristen Waggoner of the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Phillips.

Phillips himself was not available for comment.

The litigation, along with similar cases around the country, is part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling.

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday are set to consider whether to hear an appeal filed by a flower shop owner in Washington state who refused to create an arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding based on her Christian beliefs.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)



PRIVACY AS A “GATEKEEPER,” IS A NEW NOTION FOR ME. “IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT PRIVACY ACTS AS A GATEKEEPER TO OTHER RIGHTS.” I HAD NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MUCH BEFORE, THOUGH THE IDEA OF “THE GOVERNMENT” TRACKING OUR OPINIONS IS TRULY SCARY. I DO THINK OF IT, BUT AS “FREEDOM” MORE OFTEN THAN “RIGHTS.” THAT IS PROBABLY A “WHITE” WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT, UNFORTUNATELY. FREEDOM OFTEN MEANS “MY WAY.” THAT’S LAZY THINKING ON MY PART, OF COURSE. I’LL TRY FROM NOW FORWARD TO CORRECT IT.

I DO WONDER IF FACEBOOK HAS ACTUALLY STOPPED ABSOLUTELY ANY USE OF OUR PRIVATE DATA? PROBABLY NOT. THE WHOLE PROCESS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, AND THE OWNERS OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC MIND IN SUCH AN UNDERHANDED WAY, AS THEY DID IN 2016, SHOULD BE FORCED TO FACE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, IF THERE IS SUCH A LAW; AND IF THERE ISN’T, WE SHOULD MAKE ONE. OF COURSE, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE, TO SHIELD THE OWNERS FROM SHARING THE BLAME. OF COURSE, A WIDELY BASED BOYCOTT OF THEM AND THEIR PRODUCTS CAN DO THAT IF THEY ARE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA IS ALREADY OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT I’M NOT SURE FACEBOOK IS FACING ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES, YET. SEE THE INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THIS SUBJECT BELOW.

https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-is-more-than-a-data-breach-its-a-human-rights-problem-96601
Cambridge Analytica is more than a data breach – it’s a human rights problem
June 4, 2018 10.03am EDT

The closure of Cambridge Analytica following the revelations about its use of Facebook data not only points to the need for greater business regulation. It also highlights the importance of thinking more about how people can bring human rights claims in cases like these.

The right to a remedy is often overlooked. That’s at least in part because it’s difficult to understand the extent of the harm caused by incidents like the kind involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Data breaches are fairly common events, so companies can downplay their seriousness. Consumers, for their part, may have started to see such breaches as normal too. The harm is not immediately tangible and therefore can feel less real.

However, in incidents like these, the implications for human rights are serious and pervasive. The harm caused by data breaches is often framed as “just” privacy, as if a breach of privacy is not important. But it’s hard to see how accessing and sharing people’s private thoughts and opinions without meaningful consent isn’t [sic] a very serious act.

It’s also important to remember that privacy acts as a gatekeeper to other rights. Users’ rights to freedom of thought and opinion and assembly and association are put at risk by allowing their private information to be used against them in an effort to influence their views – including their political opinions. This has serious implications for the functioning of democracy.

In these types of situations, the risks to human rights are even greater if data are made accessible or even sold to third parties. Once out there, people’s data could be fed into algorithms to help companies and states make decisions about them. That could be whether or not to grant them a mortgage, provide health insurance or whether a person gets bail when arrested. People’s human rights could be at perpetual risk once their data has been shared, potentially “without them* even knowing it.”

Making a claim

Under international human rights law, people have a right to make a claim when they have an arguable case that their rights have been violated. If successful, the United Nations says they are entitled to a remedy “capable of ending ongoing violations” as well as measures such as apologies, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition in order to ensure that violations don’t happen again.

This means that companies need to offer processes that address the human rights dimensions to a complaint. States also need to ensure that there are bodies, like courts and ombudspersons, available to hear complaints and that victims are supported in bringing a claim, for example, through legal aid.

Cambridge Analytica’s offices have now closed. EPA/Andy Rain

However, the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica incident reveals the significant obstacles people face in claiming their rights. As part of the debate on regulation of technology companies, these obstacles merit more attention and need to be addressed.

Victims can only bring a claim if they know their rights have been put at risk. Facebook reportedly knew of the situation in 2015 and claims that it sought assurances from Cambridge Analytica that the data had been deleted. However, users were only notified once investigative journalists broke the story years later. These delays could in themselves be seen as a human rights issue. States and businesses should be under a clear obligation to promptly notify people if their rights have been potentially affected so that they can bring a claim.

Ending ongoing violations is also tricky in a case like this. If data has been accessed, shared or sold to third parties, deleting the initial data set will not put a stop to its use further along the chain. Tracing the journey of data is difficult, particularly if it has been combined with other data sets. This again highlights the need for regulation to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place.

Ascertaining the data journey and whether, how and what decisions have been made on the basis of the data is critical for assessing the level of harm and compensation that should be awarded. Where the data journey cannot be fully traced –- and therefore deleted – the perpetuation of ongoing harm can continue into the future, potentially without end. Compensation should therefore not only focus on harm that can be identified already but also take into account potential future harm where the data is still out there.

Even if all these issues were addressed, the case of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook highlights the problems of companies closing down. As the chair of the House of Commons Select Committee for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already noted, it’s crucial that the Cambridge Analytica closure does not result in the destruction of data until investigations are complete; otherwise the level of harm and who is accountable will be difficult to determine.


I FEEL COMPELLED TO MENTION A RELATIVELY IGNORANT WORD USE ABOVE; OTHERWISE THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE IN MY VIEW. SO HERE GOES. "WITHOUT THEM* EVEN KNOWING IT.” THE ONLY USE FOR “WITHOUT THEM” IS TO MEAN SOMETHING LIKE “WE WENT SHOPPING WITHOUT THEM.”

THE REASON I LABELED THIS WITH “SIC,” IS BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A DIFFERENT WORD AND MEANING, RATHER THAN A MISSPELLING, THOUGH IT IS COMMONLY CONFUSED AND MISUSED IN ORDINARY SPEECH. THE PROPER WORD TO USE IS THE POSSESSIVE, “THEIR.” IT’S THE SAME AS SAYING “THEIR KNOWLEDGE.” I’LL BET “THE BRITS” DON’T MAKE THIS MISTAKE NEARLY AS OFTEN AS WE DO, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH SCHOOL. SOME OF THE CORRECT ENGLISH PHRASES ARE CUMBERSOME AND/OR POINTLESSLY FINICKY, LIKE STICKING YOUR PINKY OUT WHILE DRINKING YOUR COFFEE OR TEA, AND WE THEREFORE IGNORE THEM, JUST AS WE DROP ALL THOSE “OUR” SPELLINGS AND USE “OR” INSTEAD, SUCH AS IN “NEIGHBOR VS NEIGHBOUR.”

WORSE STILL, SOME OF OUR SOCIALLY FINICKY SPEECH IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT, FOR INSTANCE “AREN’T I?” I HATE THAT BECAUSE IT’S A SOMEWHAT UNEDUCATED PERSON’S WAY OF TRYING TO BE “HOITY TOITY,” WHICH ALWAYS ANNOYS ME ANYWAY; AND IT THEREFORE IS RIDICULOUS AS WELL AS WRONG. IT’S WRONG BECAUSE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE MUST AGREE IN FORM AND NUMBER, OR SO I WAS TAUGHT, AND NOBODY WOULD SAY “ARE I.” THAT'S THE BEST AND SIMPLEST WAY TO TEST A PHRASE LIKE THAT FOR CORRECTNESS. JUST SAY IT OUT LOUD, AND IF IT "SOUNDS WRONG," IT LIKELY IS. SO THEN, BEFORE USING IT IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS, GO TO GOOGLE AND TYPE THE PHRASE IN ON THE SEARCH LINE. ARE IS PLURAL AND I IS SINGULAR. THE REAL PHRASE IS “AM I NOT,” [SHORTENED TO “AIN’T”] AND THAT’S “CUMBERSOME,” SO WE AS AMERICANS AVOID IT. WE ARE STRICTLY TOLD NEVER TO SAY “AIN’T.” DUE TO MY UNDERCLASS BACKGROUND, THOUGH, I DO USE AIN’T TO EMPHASIZE THINGS. I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M DOING.

THERE IS ONE “BRITISHISM” THAT I USUALLY DON’T SAY, AND THAT IS “ONE” THIS AND “ONE” THAT, WHEN WHAT WE REALLY MEAN IS “I.” TOTAL AVOIDANCE OF THE WORD “I” IS JUST SILLY TO ME, UNLESS THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SELFISHNESS INVOLVED. I SHOULD NEVER TRY TO SPEAK FOR ANOTHER PERSON IN VOICING THEIR OPINION WITHOUT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US. “WE METHODISTS DO TAKE COMMUNION,” FOR INSTANCE, ALTHOUGH I FEEL SURE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME METHODISTS WHO ESCHEW THAT ANCIENT PAGAN CEREMONY. (ON THE OTHER HAND, I LOVE THE WORD “ESCHEW,” SO I USE IT WITH JOY, BECAUSE IT LOOKS AND SOUNDS SO FUNNY TO ME -- A LOT LIKE "ACHOO!")

“ONE” MEANS “TO A MAN,” OR THAT “EVERYBODY” DOES IT, WHEN THE TRUE CASE IS THAT MOST OFTEN THOSE WHO SAY THAT MEAN “EVERYBODY IN OUR SOCIAL CLASS” DOES THIS OR THAT, OR SIMPLY “I” DO IT-- A GOOD HONEST PERSONAL STATEMENT. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. IT’S ONE OF THOSE “HOITY TOITY” SPEECH PATTERNS, THAT DIVIDES “OUR” SOCIAL CLASS FROM “THEIRS.” I DO USE “WE” WHEN I MEAN MORE THAN JUST MYSELF, AND ESPECIALLY IF I REALLY
DO MEAN “EVERYONE.” IT DOESN’T AGREE IN NUMBER OF COURSE, IF I'M REALLY REFERRING ONLY TO MYSELF, BUT IT SOUNDS INCLUSIVE AND BEAUTIFUL, SO IT DOESN’T BOTHER ME.

ALONG THESE SOCIAL CLASS LINES, WHICH WE ALL ARE SOMEWHAT INVOLVED WITH IN THIS COUNTRY, TO SEE A REALLY FUNNY BRITISH COMEDY, WATCH “KEEPING UP APPEARANCES,” ABOUT THIS CLASH OF SOCIAL CLASSES, WHICH DIDN’T START IN THE USA, BUT IN ENGLAND, OR MORE LIKELY BACK IN TRULY ANCIENT TIMES. THAT GREAT TELEVISION COMEDY CAREFULLY AVOIDS ISSUES OF RACE OR RELIGION, SO IT DOESN’T HAVE THAT UGLINESS TO IT, TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY, AND I CERTAINLY DON’T MISS THAT ELEMENT. AMOS AND ANDY HAS BEEN OVERDONE ALREADY, AND IT WAS ALWAYS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY. IN THIS SHOW, THE WRITERS DO NOT MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, IN OTHER WORDS, SO THAT’S FINE WITH ME. THE LEAD ACTRESS, DAME PATRICIA ROUTLEDGE IS A MAGNIFICENT COMEDIENNE WHO REMINDS ME A GOOD DEAL OF LUCILLE BALL, BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DOING ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS THINGS TO GET A LAUGH, AND DO IT SPECTACULARLY WELL.

TO WATCH IT, GO TO: “KEEPING UP APPEARANCES YOUTUBE.”



THIS NEXT ARTICLE IS ABOUT TRUMP AND THE RULE OF LAW, AND HOW THAT TERM VARIES IN ITS’ INTERPRETATIONS. AS WITH RICHARD NIXON AND KING GEORGE III, THIS IS THE KEY ELEMENT OF WHY TRUMP IS SO UNPOPULAR AMONG LIBERALS AND POPULAR AMONG CONSERVATIVES. HE TENDS STRONGLY TOWARD DOMINANCE OF ONE GROUP OVER ANOTHER, AND OF THE HEAD OF STATE ABOVE ALL OTHERS.

AS THE ARTICLE BELOW PUTS IT, “INDEED, THE WORLD MAY BE WITNESSING LESS AN OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND MORE A SUBTLE MOVE BY MANY ELECTED LEADERS TO CONCENTRATE POWER IN AUTHORITARIAN WAYS.” TO ME THIS, TO USE ONE OF MY FAVORITE STATEMENTS, IS “A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE,” AND PHRASED MORE POINTEDLY, PERHAPS, “A COUP BY ELECTION.” IT’S CLEAR TO ME THAT TO SOFT-SOAP WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS A MISTAKE BY THE DECENT AMERICANS AND A PASSIVE WEAK-KNEED COLLAPSE OF OUR GROUP BACKBONE. WE HAVE BECOME SO TIMID IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE CAN’T STAND UP TO ANYTHING.

LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT “RULE OF LAW” MEANS, UNFORTUNATELY, IS THE IDEA OF OUTRIGHT AND EVEN GLEEFUL ABUSE OF PEOPLE TO THE POINT OF SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH OF CERTAIN CAREFULLY SELECTED GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO DEFINE THE AMERICAN UNDERCLASS. MAINTAINING OR ALLOWING THE DENIGRATION OF ANY GROUP IS DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF DEMOCRATIC OR FAIR GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRIMARY REASON THAT TRUMP IS LITERALLY HATED.

OUR WORST PROBLEM, WHICH HAS SWOLLEN INTO A VERY LARGE ONE SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, IS THAT THE EPITOME OF HUMAN HORROR OF THE 1930S AND 40S IS UPON US AGAIN. A RACIALLY AND CULTURALLY TORN SOCIETY LIKE THIS MAY WELL DESTROY US; AND THE LEADER WE HAVE NOW IS, IN MY VIEW, A WANTON CREATURE. IT’S JUST THE FORMULA FOR ANOTHER RUPTURE OF WHO AND WHAT WE ARE. THE AUTOCRATIC VIEWPOINT IS EQUALLY POPULAR AND UNPOPULAR IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, ACCORDING WHAT GROUP WE BELONG TO.

THE RACIALLY BASED PLACEMENT OF ALL WHITES NO MATTER THEIR TRUE EDUCATION, PERSONAL HONOR OR ECONOMIC STATUS ABOVE ALL PEOPLES WHOSE SKIN HAPPENS TO BE DARKER -- EVEN THOUGH IT’S BY A SMALL DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE IN MANY CASES -- IS SO DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN AMERICAN THOUGHT THAT THOSE OF US WHO HAPPEN TO BE “WHITES,” BUT LIBERAL RATHER THAN CONSERVATIVE, CAN BARELY DISCERN OUR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES AGAINST THOSE “OTHERS” AS BEING, IMPORTANTLY, OUR OWN “WHITE PRIVILEGE.” IT’S HARD TO CONVINCE US THAT WE EVEN HAVE “WHITE PRIVILEGE,” IN MANY CASES, OR IN OTHERS, WE SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT IT’S OUR DUE. I HAD NEVER HEARD THE TERM UNTIL ABOUT A YEAR AGO. IT’S HARD TO FIGHT THE PROBLEM WHEN WE ARE A PART OF IT.

PART OF OUR OVERARCHING PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT WE, AS A PEOPLE, TOO RARELY TAKE THE TIME AND ENERGY TO DO SOME EDUCATIONAL READING OR TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL. THAT ISN’T JUST OUR THICK SKINS, BUT OUR THICK SKULLS AS WELL. WE INTEND NOT TO LEARN ANYTHING, SO WE CAN’T. FOR INSTANCE, WHY DID I GET A PASS ON THAT TRAFFIC TICKET? WAS THAT REALLY “FAIR,” AND DOES IT MATTER? NOW THE CLINCHER, DO I CARE? I PERSONALLY REALLY DO CARE, AND WE VERY MUCH DO NEED TO MOVE IN ANOTHER PATH.

AS A RESULT, WE TEND TO STAND BACK AND WATCH OR EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THE MISTREATMENT WHEN A PERSON IS SCAPEGOATED OUTRIGHTLY OR SIMPLY TREATED WITH BIAS IN ONE SITUATION OR ANOTHER. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED IN ONE RESTAURANT OR ANOTHER AS LONG AS THEY EAT? WHAT IF THEY DON’T EAT? “IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM.”

THE SAME ARGUMENT MOTIVATES DECISIONS BETWEEN THE WEALTHY AND THE POOR, WITH AN UNDERLYING BELIEF THAT THE INTELLIGENT AND GOOD PEOPLE WILL GET THE MOST MONEY, AND THAT THE VERY WEALTHY ARE SIMPLY DESERVING OF HONOR, WEALTH, POWER, GREAT LIVING CONDITIONS, PLENTY OF EXCELLENT FOOD, ETC. ETC. ETC. THEY ALSO ARE NOT MORALLY BOUND TO SHARE ANY OF THAT WEALTH, AND SHOULDN’T’ BE LEGALLY CONSTRAINED TO DO SO. THAT’S WHY LIBERAL AND SOCIALIST THOUGHT ARE SO THOROUGHLY HATED BY TOO MANY OF THE UPPER-CLASSED PEOPLE AND MOST OF THE WHITES OF ALL FINANCIAL GROUPS.

THIS ARTICLE DELVES INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “THE RULE OF LAW” OVER THE “RULE OF PEOPLE;” OR AS THE AUTHOR PUTS IT, TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THE RULE OF LAW ACTUALLY MEANS. WE LIBERALS WANT THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WHO ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW; WHEREAS IN TRUMP’S VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE HEAD OF STATE IS LARGELY EXEMPT FROM THE RULE OF LAW, OR SIMPLY PUT, “A STRONG LEADER.” TO ME, THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY IS EQUAL TREATMENT, AND A HEAD OF STATE WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT A “RULER.” I’LL NEVER FORGET A QUOTATION OF RICHARD NIXON’S BACK IN THE ‘70S WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE “REIGN” OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. THAT USE OF TERMS WAS AS BAD AS CLINTON’S “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES,” AND ALL TOO SIMILAR. AS A LAWYER, THEY BOTH SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. WHAT THE “CONSERVATIVES” DON’T SEEM TO THINK ABOUT (UNTIL ELECTION TIME) IS THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, IF NOT A HUGE ONE, REALLY DESPISE THAT KIND OF THINKING. DONALD TRUMP MAY WIN RIGHT NOW, BUT HE WILL LOSE HUGELY IN 2020, I BELIEVE, IF NOT SOONER.

https://theconversation.com/trump-may-believe-in-the-rule-of-law-just-not-the-one-understood-by-most-american-lawyers-97757
Trump may believe in the rule of law, just not the one understood by most American lawyers
June 5, 2018 9.49am EDT

PHOTOGRAPH – DONALD TRUMP SPEAKING AP

Donald Trump’s June 4 tweet suggesting he could pardon himself in the event that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation brings charges drew outrage among critics, part of mounting and long-standing concern about the president’s disrespect for “the rule of law.”


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

8:35 AM - Jun 4, 2018
84.4K
79.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Many prominent lawmakers, law professors and journalists, among others, see the administration flouting this cornerstone value of American legal politics.

But what is the rule of law?

As a lawyer and political scientist who studies this question in diverse Arab countries and elsewhere, I can affirm that the answer is not obvious. The rule of law means a variety of things within and across countries. And they are not always consistent.

This helps make sense of the fact that Trump and some of his supporters may actually endorse one version of the rule of law. If this is controversial in the U.S., because it’s because [sic] Trump’s version is more dominant in nondemocratic political systems.

Meanings of the rule of law

Like “democracy” or “equality,” the rule of law is a popular ideal, but not always a clear one. For this reason, United Nations officials have tried to define it. Prominent organizations like the World Bank have measured it through basic indices, or complex criteria, such as civil rights, order and security, constraints on government power and absence of corruption.

Yet using an appealing phrase to describe different social phenomena can have real political consequences.

The “rule of law” has at least two broad definitions that exist in obvious tension.

One is a dominant dogma of American political history, as conveyed by Founding Father John Adams’ succinct phrase: “a government of laws, not men.” The idea here is basic. Government leaders, like all citizens, should not be above the law, but rather bound by it. This means, for example, that a U.S. senator who extorts money is no more immune to being charged with this crime than an ordinary American.

A second possible meaning, in tension with the first one but present in democracies nonetheless, is that law ensures that people obey government.

Law over leaders

Let’s first consider the rule of law as John Adams and the U.S. Constitution’s framers defined it.

The U.S. Constitution and courts’ mandate to review specific laws defines the rule of law as a value and set of procedures that provide legal protection to all Americans. The framers of the Constitution stressed in Federalist 78 the need for judges with autonomy from politics who could defend fundamental citizen rights. Equality under the law was popularized as a foundation of the rule of law in the wider English-speaking world by the 19th century.

A carving reads ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

This has not meant that all Americans, in fact, enjoy equal legal resources. Nor has it prevented powerful individuals or groups from using laws to their advantage. Nonetheless, institutions that enforce the idea that legal rules and procedures bind everyone, including leaders, are central to the U.S. and other countries. The expectation that rules will be applied to everyone also underpins contemporary international law.

The rule of law, understood as laws over leaders, takes on added significance in the U.S. Here, a comparatively large proportion of people become lawyers. In turn, many lawyers become bureaucrats and politicians. American leaders with legal training are educated to focus on specific rules, procedures and a close reading of legal texts.

Because of this, many government officials and members of the private and public-interest law firms who rotate in and out of government care about details of legal rules, procedures and transparency. A leader like Trump, whose tweets denigrate the neutrality of American judges, who refuses to submit to the same expectations of his peers or other citizens, who appears to interfere with an important legal inquiry and who argues that he has an absolute right to pardon himself, raises the hackles of other lawyers and politicians.

Many Americans who are trained in the importance of the autonomy of laws will mistrust a leader who seems not to respect such autonomy.

Thus, it was not surprising that as soon as Trump became president, lawyers mobilized against an executive attitude that demeans their sense of the rule of law. As Trump and his legal team make increasingly broad claims about executive power, lawyers continue to object.

Law and order

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer arrests an immigrant in San Clemente, California. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Trump and some supporters appear to embrace a different understanding of the rule of law. The president has in fact stated his dedication to the rule of law. Some argue that his leadership on certain issues, such as enforcing immigration law, has confirmed this commitment. This is not merely a case of alternative media. It underscores the importance of multiple meanings for the rule of law.

Trump seems to view the rule of law as deference to political authority and efficient law enforcement. This includes institutions that execute laws, which might be summarized as “cops, courts and clinks” (jails).

Part of candidate Trump’s appeal was his repeated charge that people in the U.S. who broke the law, particularly undocumented immigrants, were inadequately policed. Since taking office, he has stressed enhancing police power and loyalty to authority, especially his own.

This is hardly a fringe meaning of the rule of law. Efficient enforcement and state order are critical components of a legal system that also embraces citizens’ rights and protections. Yet these two key facets of the rule of law don’t always sit well together.

Strong policing can accompany denial of equal protection to suspected criminals, patterns of brutality and racism. Leaders’ natural interest in strong and efficient law enforcement and citizen loyalty can override their legal accountability.

Different political systems strike different balances with this tension. This helps explain Trump’s fondness for claiming presidential immunity from most criminal prosecution and some conflict-of-interest standards. This, and his impatience with protest and criticism against him, appear to show that the president cares about law as a tool to bolster his authority, rather than to enhance ordinary Americans’ rights.

The world is certainly seeing a trend toward leaders like Egypt’s President Sisi and Turkey’s President Erdogan, who wish to control law, rather than subordinate themselves to it.

Trump, and Americans who consider him a strong leader, likely believe in the rule of law, as they understand it. The controversy among many lawyers is that the level to which the new administration elevates efficiency, enforcement and executive privilege tramples their dominant sense of the rule of law as government by laws, not people.

Growing conflicts between the Trump administration and a range of lawyers, judges and activists stem, in part, from each side invoking real, contestable concepts of the rule of law.

Naturally, even if Trump and some supporters share a genuine belief in the rule of law as enforcement and order, this does not justify acts he may have taken that violate American laws. It should nevertheless serve as a reminder that using complex concepts like the rule of law without context or nuance may make it much harder to understand genuine political disagreements.

Indeed, the world may be witnessing less an outright rejection of democracy and more a subtle move by many elected leaders to concentrate power in authoritarian ways. With Trump’s appreciation of leaders with strong power, and the possibility of a constitutional crisis over the Mueller investigation, it is particularly important to clarify whether Trump’s idea of the rule of law matches up with most Americans’ sense of this important, but slippery, term.



THIS ARTICLE IS LESS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY THAN ABOUT LAW AND ILLEGALITY, AND I BELIEVE IN THIS ONE CASE, MUELLER HAS FOUND ANOTHER SERIOUS SITUATION TO SET ALONGSIDE MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC., AND THAT TO THE DEGREE THAT TRUMP HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, HE WILL BE BLAMED AS WELL.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/muellers-team-accuses-manafort-witness-tampering-010919309--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=dbb2094c-7d9a-37c0-96b9-7f844af62e78&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Mueller's team accuses Paul Manafort of witness tampering
Associated Press
Chad Day and Eric Tucker, Associated Press
Associated Press June 4, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE - In this Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves Federal District Court, in Washington. Prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller are accusing former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of making several attempts to tamper with witnesses in his ongoing criminal cases. Mueller’s team says in a new court filing that Manafort and one of his associates made several attempts to contact two witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony while he was on house arrest earlier this year. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort made several attempts to tamper with witnesses in his ongoing criminal cases, prosecutors said Monday as they asked a federal judge to consider revoking his house arrest.

In a court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller wrote that Manafort and one of his associates "repeatedly" contacted two witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony. The contacts occurred earlier this year, shortly after a grand jury returned a new indictment against Manafort and while he was confined to his home.

Court documents do not name Manafort's associate, but they refer to him as "Person A" and note the pseudonym is consistent with previous filings in the case. In earlier filings, Person A has referred to Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort associate who prosecutors have said has ties to Russian intelligence.

The two witnesses are also not named in court filings. But prosecutors say they worked with Manafort in organizing a group of former European officials, known as the Hapsburg Group, who promoted Ukrainian interests in Europe as well as the U.S.

According to the court filing, Manafort began messaging and calling one of the witnesses in February shortly after a federal grand jury in Washington returned a superseding indictment against him that included allegations of unregistered lobbying related to the Hapsburg Group.

Manafort messaged and called one of the witnesses the day after his co-defendant and business partner, Rick Gates, pleaded guilty and continued reaching out over the next several days, according to a sworn affidavit filed by an FBI agent in the case.

In one call, the agent wrote, Manafort said he wanted to give the person a "heads-up about Hapsburg." The individual then hung up "because he was concerned about the outreach," according to the affidavit.

On Feb. 26, Manafort sent the person a series of messages through an encrypted application, including a link to a Business Insider story with the headline: "Former European leaders struggle to explain themselves after Mueller claims Paul Manafort paid them to lobby for Ukraine." Another message said, "We should talk. I have made clear that they worked in Europe."

The person told investigators that he interpreted Manafort's efforts to reach him as a way to influence his potential statements. The person believed from his experience that the Hapsburg Group lobbied in the United States and knew that Manafort knew that as well, the agent wrote.

Manafort faces several felony charges in two federal cases. He has pleaded not guilty.

___

Day reported from Alexandria, Virginia.

JUNE 3, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


SEE THE NEXT TWO STORIES. I HAVE TRIED THREE TIMES NOW TO GET THE STRAIGHT AND COMPLETE STORY THAT THESE TWO ARTICLES ARE EITHER TRYING TO EXPLAIN, OR PERHAPS TRYING TO OBSCURE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT I CONCLUDED “THERE’S NO THERE THERE.” THEY’RE AFRAID OF BEING SUED FOR REVEALING SOME CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, MAYBE. WHATEVER THE DOCUMENT IS, IF IT’S REAL, I’M GLAD THAT MUELLER HAS IT, BECAUSE HE’S ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS, AND TEAM TRUMP ARE ALL UNTRUSTWORTHY AT BEST. IT’S POSSIBLE THAT NEITHER OF THESE TWO SOURCES IS RELIABLE, BECAUSE I’VE NEVER SEEN EITHER ONE. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT A SCREWY STORY LIKE THIS IS ANOTHER RUSSIAN PLANT INTO OUR NEWS SOURCES.

WHATEVER. HERE THEY BOTH ARE. AFTER LOOKING AT WIKIPEDIA, I THINK THE “APNEWS” DESIGNATION IS A PROPER ONE, THOUGH I’VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE. I DO HOPE THIS ARTICLE ISN’T AN ACCUSATION AGAINST ROSENSTEIN FOR BEING INVOLVED IMPROPERLY WITH COMEY’S FIRING, WHICH IS ALL I CAN GLEAN HERE. WE NEED HIM IN PLACE UNTIL THIS INVESTIGATION IS OVER.

https://www.apnews.com/7270dcc7cba1461a8939462a9da38c73
AP source: Ex-FBI deputy McCabe wrote memo on Comey firing
By ERIC TUCKER
May. 31, 2018

FILE PHOTOGRAPH -- In this June 7, 2017, file photo, FBI acting director Andrew McCabe listens during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington. McCabe drafted a memo on the firing of his onetime boss, ex-director James Comey. That’s according to a person familiar with the memo, who insisted on anonymity to discuss a secret document that has been provided to special counsel Robert Mueller. The person said the memo concerned a conversation McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about Rosenstein’s preparations for Comey’s firing. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe drafted a memo on circumstances leading up to the firing of his onetime boss, James Comey, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity Wednesday to discuss a secret document that has been turned over to special counsel Robert Mueller. His team is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 presidential election and whether the president sought to obstruct that inquiry through actions including the firing of Comey last May.

The memo concerns a conversation that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about Rosenstein’s preparations for Comey’s firing. Rosenstein played an important role in that episode, having written a memo faulting Comey for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation that the White House held up as justification for President Donald Trump’s decision to fire the FBI director.

Rosenstein has said he wrote a memo laying out his concerns with Comey after learning that the White House intended to fire him.

According to McCabe’s memo, Rosenstein indicated to him that he was initially asked to reference the Russia investigation in his own memo on Comey. But the final version didn’t include discussion of Russia and focused instead on the Clinton email case.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel one week after Comey was fired. He has said he would recuse himself if necessary if his actions became relevant to Mueller’s investigation.

The AP reported in March that McCabe had drafted multiple memos, including about his interactions with Trump. Comey also drafted a series of memos about his own encounters with Trump that unnerved him.

The New York Times first reported on the content of this particular memo.

McCabe became FBI acting director following Comey’s firing last May. He was fired as deputy director in March, just days before his scheduled retirement, amid an inspector general finding that he had misled internal investigators about his role in an October 2016 disclosure to The Wall Street Journal.



http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/1529682/ex-fbi-no-2-official-wrote-memo-on-comey-firing.html
Fired FBI Deputy Director McCabe Wrote Memo On Comey Firing
May 31, 2018 4:00 pm

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe drafted a memo on circumstances leading up to the firing of his onetime boss, James Comey, a person familiar with the situation said Wednesday night.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to discuss a secret document that has been turned over to special counsel Robert Mueller. His team is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 presidential election and whether the president sought to obstruct that inquiry through actions including the firing of Comey last May.

The memo concerns a conversation that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about Rosenstein’s preparations for Comey’s firing. Rosenstein played an important role in that episode, having authored a memo faulting Comey for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation that the White House held up as justification for President Donald Trump’s decision to fire the FBI director.

Rosenstein has said he wrote a memo laying out his concerns with Comey after learning that the White House intended to fire him.

According to McCabe’s memo, Rosenstein indicated to him that he was initially asked to reference the Russia investigation in his own memo on Comey. But the final version didn’t include discussion of Russia and focused instead on the Clinton email case.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel one week after Comey was fired. He has said he would recuse himself if necessary if his actions became relevant to Mueller’s investigation.

The AP reported in March that McCabe had drafted multiple memos, including about his interactions with Trump. Comey also drafted a series of memos about his own encounters with Trump that unnerved him.

The New York Times first reported on the content of this particular memo.

McCabe became FBI acting director following Comey’s firing last May. He was fired as deputy director in March, just days before his scheduled retirement, amid an inspector general finding that he had misled internal investigators about his role in an October 2016 disclosure to The Wall Street Journal.

(AP)



NAZIS IN THE CALIFORNIA GOP? WELL, IT IS A PRESENCE IN THE POLICE FORCES IN SOME PRESUMABLY LOCALIZED CALIFORNIA AREAS. ISN’T THAT THE GOVERNMENT? I’LL LOOK FOR MORE ON THE GOP SPECIFICALLY, THOUGH. “CALIFORNIA POLICE INVESTIGATING A VIOLENT WHITE NATIONALIST EVENT WORKED WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS IN AN EFFORT TO IDENTIFY COUNTER-PROTESTERS AND SOUGHT THE PROSECUTION OF ACTIVISTS WITH “ANTI-RACIST” BELIEFS, COURT DOCUMENTS SHOW.” THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG WITH BEING “ANTI-RACIST?” THAT’S THOSE “FAMILY VALUES” FOR YOU.

POINT AND COUNTERPOINT ON THOSE REPORTED NAZIS IN THE CALIFORNIA GOP, THERE IS A STRONG SHOWING IN PORTLAND OREGON OF ALT-RIGHT ADVOCATES. I WAS READING A FASCINATING IF CREEPY ARTICLE ON THEM. THEY WANT TO CREATE A NATION OF THEIR OWN IN THE WEST, AND THE ARTICLE SAID THAT PORTLAND OREGON WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT LOCATION FOR THEIR CAPITAL. WONDER HOW THE OTHER RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT THAT? MAYBE YOU DON’T THINK THAT IS CREEPY, BUT I DO. NO, THAT ISN’T CALIFORNIA, BUT IT’S AWFULLY CLOSE BY.

SEE THE FOLLOWING FROM THE GUARDIAN ON THE CA FAR RIGHTIST LINKS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND IT ISN’T JUST A SMALL REPRESENTATION THERE, IT DOESN’T APPEAR, EITHER. I CONSIDER THE POLICE AND CERTAINLY THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO BE “THE GOVERNMENT.” SO, I DON’T BELIEVE THE “VANDALISM” MADE IN GOOGLE TO BE INACCURATE INFORMATION, JUST DANGEROUS TO SOME. IT’S BECOMING DANGEROUS THESE DAYS TO SPEAK OUT, I’M AFRAID, ESPECIALLY WHOEVER HACKED WIKIPEDIA. I PERSONALLY HAATE TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE MANY, MANY OF US DO USE WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT CHECKING EVERY STATEMENT IN THOSE ARTICLES.

WHERE IS THE ACLU AND THE SPLC? AND CONGRESS? WHAT ABOUT THE FBI? COULD THEY STILL BE CLEAN? FOR YOUR INFORMATION, GO TO THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. THEY’RE THE SOURCE OF A GREAT DEAL OF RELIABLE INFORMATION; AND THEY AREN’T “COMMUNISTS” OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND CERTAINLY NOT VIOLENT. ANTI-FA IS A FIGHTING GROUP WHO TACKLE THE NAZI BANDS LIKE THOSE WHO FLOODED INTO POOR LITTLE BEAUTIFUL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA LAST YEAR.

HERE IS THE ONLY VERIFIED CASE I FOUND OF A CALIFORNIA POLITICIAN OPENLY PRAISING HITLER, AND THANK HEAVENS, HE WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY EJECTED FROM THE MEETING. JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE REPUBLICAN DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE “NO GOOD.” THIS STORY MAKES ME FEEL MUCH HAPPIER. I DON’T WANT MY NATION TO BE POLLUTED TO THE CORE. SEE THE TEXT ARTICLE AND VIDEO: http://abc7news.com/politics/neo-nazi-senate-candidate-ejected-from-california-gop-convention-/3436763/.SADLY, THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT HE GOT “A STRONG SHOWING.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest
Sam Levin in San Francisco @SamTLevin Email
Fri 9 Feb 2018 07.00 EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sacramento mounted police officers at the June 2016 rally, which was organized by a neo-Nazi group. Photograph: Jerry H. Yamashita/AP

California police investigating a violent white nationalist event worked with white supremacists in an effort to identify counter-protesters and sought the prosecution of activists with “anti-racist” beliefs, court documents show.

The records, which also showed officers expressing sympathy with white supremacists and trying to protect a neo-Nazi organizer’s identity, were included in a court briefing from three anti-fascist activists who were charged with felonies after protesting at a Sacramento rally. The defendants were urging a judge to dismiss their case and accused California police and prosecutors of a “cover-up and collusion with the fascists”.

Defense lawyers said the case at the state capital offers the latest example of US law enforcement appearing to align with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups while targeting anti-fascist activists and Donald Trump protesters after violent clashes.

Resisting the resistance: anti-liberal rage brews in California's right wing

“It is shocking and really angering to see the level of collusion and the amount to which the police covered up for the Nazis,” said Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley teacher and anti-fascist organizer after participating in the June 2016 Sacramento rally, where she said she was stabbed and bludgeoned in the head. “The people who were victimized by the Nazis were then victimized by the police and the district attorneys.”

Steve Grippi, chief deputy district attorney prosecuting the case in Sacramento, vehemently denied the claims of bias in an email to the Guardian, alleging that anti-fascist stabbing victims have been uncooperative and noting that his office has filed charges against one member of the Traditionalist Workers Party (TWP), the neo-Nazi group that organized the rally.

Some California highway patrol (CHP) investigation records, however, raise questions about the police’s investigative tactics and communication with the TWP.

Felarca’s attorneys obtained numerous examples of CHP officers working directly with the TWP, often treating the white nationalist group as victims and the anti-fascists as suspects.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Members of the group called Antifa Sacramento (Anti-Fascism Action) outside the state capitol building in 2016. Photograph: Sacramento/Rex/Shutterstock

The TWP is “intimately allied with neo-Nazi and other hardline racist organizations” and “advocates for racially pure nations”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Its leaders have praised Trump, and the group claimed to bring more than 100 people to the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, where a counter-protester was killed.

In one phone call with Doug McCormack, identified by police as the TWP affiliate who acquired the permit for the Sacramento rally, CHP investigator Donovan Ayres warned him that police might have to release his name in response to a public records requests. The officer said he would try to protect McCormack.

“I’m gonna suggest that we hold that or redact your name or something until this gets resolved,” Ayres told McCormack, adding that he didn’t know who had requested records of the permit and noting, “If I did, I would tell you.”

Ayres’s reports noted that McCormack was armed at the rally with a knife.

The officer’s write-up about an African American anti-fascist activist included a photo of him at the hospital after the rally and noted that he had been stabbed in the abdomen, chest and hand.

It is shocking and angering to see the level of collusion and the amount to which the police covered up for the Nazis
Yvette Felarca, teacher anti-fascist organizer

Ayres, however, treated the protester like a suspect in the investigation. The police investigator recommended the man be charged with 11 offenses, including disturbing the peace, conspiracy, assault, unlawful assembly and wearing a mask to evade police.

As evidence, Ayres provided Facebook photos of the man holding up his fist. The officer wrote that the man’s “Black Power salute” and his “support for anti-racist activism” demonstrated his “intent and motivation to violate the civil rights” of the neo-Nazi group. He was ultimately not charged.

Ayres’s report also noted Felarca’s political activism in great detail, referencing her activism on behalf of students of color and women’s rights protests.

“This is a textbook case of a political witch-hunt and selective prosecution,” Shanta Driver, one of Felarca’s attorneys, said in an interview.

Officers also worked with TWP member Derik Punneo to try to identify anti-fascist activists, recordings revealed. Officers interviewed Punneo in jail after he was for an unrelated domestic violence charge. Audio recordings captured investigators saying they brought photos to show him, hoping he could help them identify anti-fascist activists.

The officers said, “We’re pretty much going after them,” and assured him: “We’re looking at you as a victim.”

Ayres’s report noted that Punneo was armed with a knife at the neo-Nazi rally and that one stabbing victim told officers he believed Punneo was responsible. Using video footage, Ayres also noted that Punneo was “in the vicinity” of another victim at the time he was injured, but the officer said the evidence ultimately wasn’t clear.

Punneo and McCormack, who could not be reached for comment, were not charged. Ayres’s report included images and names of three other TWP-affiliated men who he said were armed with knives, but who also have faced no charges.

Several people were stabbed at the rally, where rightwing extremists clashed with leftwing counter protesters.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Several people were stabbed at the rally, where rightwing extremists clashed with leftwing counter-protesters. Photograph: Paul Kitagaki Jr./AP

The CHP declined to comment.

In a response filed on Thursday, prosecutors said “every assertion” in the motion to dismiss is “inaccurate or fabricated” and accused Felarca’s lawyers of using the filing to “make a political statement”. The response also repeatedly blamed the stabbing victims for ignoring the district attorney’s inquiries: “Despite the fact that we have not gained the cooperation of these victims, the investigation to hold their attackers responsible continues forward.”

Prosecutors also said the charges were based on video evidence and argued that “no one is beneath the protection of the law, no matter how repugnant his or her rhetoric or misguided his or her ideals”.

Allegations of police bias and collusion with neo-Nazis have emerged in similar cases across the US. Last year, US prosecutors targeting anti-Trump protesters in Washington DC relied on video evidence from a far-right group with a record of deceptive tactics.

At an Oregon “alt-right” event, police allowed a member of a rightwing militia-style group to help officers arrest an anti-fascist activist.

Police in Charlottesville were widely accused of standing by as Nazis attacked protesters, and a black man who was badly beaten by white supremacists was later charged with a felony.

Sam Menefee-Libey, an activist who advocated for protesters charged for Inauguration Day rallies last year, said the government has repeatedly gone to great lengths to target anti-fascists: “We have patterns of acknowledged and unacknowledged overlaps between the interest of ultra-right nationalist organizations and the police and prosecutors’ offices.”

Topics
The far right
California

Activism
Protest
US policing
news


The Resistance Now: Sign up for weekly news updates about the movement

WHO IS THE RESISTANCE: https://www.theresistanceparty.org/

“Join the Resistance
We're a grassroots movement fighting against the hateful and authoritarian agenda of Donald Trump and the radical right.
WE FIGHT TO DEFEND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEMOCRATIC NORMS, & THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.



I’M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT THE AMERICAN WEST DOES HAVE A NAZI PROBLEM. HERE’S ANOTHER ARTICLE FROM CNN WHICH YOU CAN LOOK UP AND READ IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/kansas-gop-candidate-nazi-anti-abortion-trnd/index.html


https://www.apnews.com/d6ca50e8f27d403f9c1037d3fb2b08bc
Google blames Wikipedia for linking California GOP to Nazism
By The Associated Press
Jun. 01, 2018

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google is blaming “vandalism” at Wikipedia for search results that incorrectly said the ideology of the California Republican Party included “Nazism.”

The results appeared in a Google information box screen-captured by Vice News on Thursday. Google quickly removed the section on ideology.

Wikipedia’s publicly available change log shows that an anonymous user added the term “Nazism” to the entry for the California GOP on May 24. The change was reversed by another editor a week later. A second, similar change on Thursday afternoon was reverted a minute later.

The California GOP has formally repudiated U.S. Senate candidate Patrick Little, who has praised Adolf Hitler and advocated for limiting the representation of Jews in the government. While Little calls himself a Republican, the Republican Party says it has not endorsed any Senate candidates in California.

California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, tweeted that the Google result was a “disgrace.” California Republican Party executive director Cynthia Bryant called the result “libelous” in a statement and said Google and Wikipedia should “take more ownership of what is published on their sites.”

Federal law exempts internet companies from liability for user-posted material as long as they promptly remove offensive items once notified. The California GOP situation, however, underscores the risks that companies like Google face when they rely on user-generated sites like Wikipedia.

“We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that’s what happened here,” Google said in a Thursday statement. “This would have been fixed systematically once we processed the removal from Wikipedia, but when we noticed the vandalism we worked quickly to accelerate this process to remove the erroneous information.”

Two months ago, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki told an audience at the SXSW technology conference that YouTube would begin to rely on Wikipedia entries to create a “companion unit” that will be shown beside conspiracy theory videos that continue to spread on the service.

Wojcicki told Wired editor Nicholas Thompson at the time that the goal was to show alternative sources of information so viewers would “be able to research other areas as well.”


BILL CLINTON CO-AUTHORS A POLITICAL THRILLER WITH THE PRIMO WRITER OF THRILLERS. SHOULD BE GOOD.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-and-james-patterson-the-president-is-missing/
CBS NEWS June 3, 2018, 10:04 AM
Bill Clinton and James Patterson co-author a political beach read

A political thriller has to convincingly blend both fact and fiction, which is just what a certain debut novelist with plenty of White House experience says he has to offer. He and his writing partner are talking with Mo Rocca:

Here's something you might expect a former president to do: lead last weekend's hometown Memorial Day parade, in Chappaqua, N.Y. But Bill Clinton has just done something else you might not expect of an ex-president: "To me it was, first of all, exciting. And because I'd never done it before I told everybody, 'I'm an old dog, and this is a new trick.'"

That new trick? Writing a political thriller, teaming up with author James Patterson.

PHOTOGRAPH -- the-president-is-missing-cover-little-brown-244.jpg
LITTLE BROWN

Patterson has had a few bestsellers by now. Mr. Clinton joshed, "Yeah, if he keeps working at it, he's gonna amount to something!"

Actually, Patterson is already the best-selling author in the world, with more than 300 million books sold.

Mr. Clinton said, "I've consumed literally thousands and thousands of thrillers, political novels, all this kind of stuff. You know, he's just good at it. But I wanted it to be real. I want people – I didn't want anybody able to say, 'Oh, this is just made up bull,' you know?"

The result: "The President is Missing" (Little, Brown), in which the president takes on an international terrorist plot, at times single-handedly.

In the audio book, actor Dennis Quaid is the voice of the president:

"Every decision I make today is a risk. We are on the high wire without a net. I make the wrong decision, either way, and we're screwed."

The president goes rogue, getting in the middle of a shootout at Nationals Park in Washington, and another shootout on the 14th Street Bridge. But President Clinton and Patterson insist it's perfectly plausible.

"The worst possible attack on the United States happens in this book," Patterson told Rocca. "And if it happened, this is the way it would happen. There's a traitor in the White House. If it happened, this is authentically how it would happen. If the president has grapefruit for breakfast in the residency, it would happen something like this!"

Mr. Clinton explained, "We swapped these drafts back and forth. And I'd read something, and I'd say "Well, I don't think this works, this wouldn't really happen. But we've gotta make something happen and still keep it exciting.' And it's, like, how dumb is that, right?"

mo-rocca-interview-bill-clinton-james-patterson-620.jpg
Mo Rocca interviews former President Bill Clinton and his co-author, James Patterson. CBS NEWS

The terrorists' weapon is a cyber-attack that could wipe out our entire country's internet, and with it the systems that control virtually everything – tantamount to an act of war.

Mr. Clinton and Patterson see their story as not just a pager-turner, but as a warning about dangers they say we only got a taste of during the 2016 election.

"We got a real serious problem with the cyber terrorism that could go way beyond fixing the elections," Mr. Clinton said. "And those problems will happen faster if we allow our elections to continue to be tampered with by others."

Rocca asked, "Do you think there was any tampering in 2016, with results?"

"I don't know, I don't know," he replied.

Patterson said, "You look at our defense budget, and we've got this much spent on 'Let's stop bombs,' and this much spent on 'Let's deal with cyber terrorism." And it should be the opposite."

"Right, because you described the water supply, obviously, financial systems, all these things that are vulnerable, like hospital records."

"You think about it, I want Americans to be reading this book thinking, "God, let's see, I've got a bank account, I've got a savings account, I've got a 401(k)," Mr. Clinton said.

The book is written from the point of view of the president.

Rocca said, "I think a lot of people are going to read this book and think, 'Oh, this is President Bill Clinton!'"

"We didn't design it to be me," Mr. Clinton replied. "But he doesn't say things that I think are false. He says things that I think are true, true to himself, things he believes."

Still, you can be forgiven for mixing up the two presidents. The book kicks off with the fictional President Jonathan Lincoln Duncan facing removal from office. You'd think impeachment would be the last thing William Jefferson Clinton would want to revisit when he reflects on his time in office.

Rocca asked, "Because the fictional president – and it comes up early in the book – is under threat of impeachment, how do you look back at your impeachment?"

"Well, I knew it wouldn't succeed," President Clinton said. "It wasn't a pleasant experience. But it was a fight that I was glad to undertake. They knew there was nothing impeachable. And so, we fought it to the end. And I'm glad."

It's been 20 years since President Clinton was impeached, then acquitted by the Senate. But the repercussions reverberate to this day.

In this #MeToo age, some – including members of his own party, like New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand – have said Mr. Clinton should have stepped down because of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Rocca asked, "But since we're talking about that period, what did you think six months ago when Senator Gillibrand said, 'He should have resigned'?"

"Well, I just disagree with her," he said. "I mean, you have to really ignore what the context was. But you know, she's living in a different context. And she did it for different reasons. So, I just disagree with her."

As for the investigation led by Robert Mueller swirling around the current commander-in-chief, Rocca asked, "Do you think that the press has been fair to President Trump?"

"I think they have tried by and large to cover this investigation based on the facts," Mr. Clinton said. "I think if the roles were reversed – now, this is me just talking, but it's based on my experience! – I think if it were a Democratic president, and these facts were present, most people I know in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already."

"If there were a Democrat in power right now?"

"Yes. And most people I know believe that the press would have been that hard, or harder. But these are serious issues."

"You hear from Trump supporters who say, 'You know, the press slobbered all over President Obama, he could do no wrong. And now this guy can do no right. What gives, that there's a kind of whiplash?'"

"Well, they did treat him differently than other Democrats and Republicans," Mr. Clinton replied. "That was the political press."

Why? "You know, I don't know. They liked him, and they liked having the first African-American president. And he was a good president, I think. I don't agree with President Trump's assessment of his service."

Nor do the authors agree with the current president's rhetorical style.

Rocca said, "President Trump – this is just factual – is fond of personal insults. I mean, he still refers to Mrs. Clinton as 'Crooked Hillary' in tweets."

Patterson said, "It's been effective for him. It's unbelievable that he became president. But he figured some things out. And I think most people do not like these tweets. They just wish it wouldn't go that way."

President Clinton said, "I don't like all this. I couldn't be elected anything now 'cause I just don't like embarrassing people. My mother would have whipped me for five days in a row when I was a little boy if I spent all my time badmouthing people like this."

Mr. Clinton, of course, thought he was going to be the first-ever First Husband. And he says he's reminded of 2016 and the divisions in the country whenever he goes for a walk: "There's a Trump supporter here in town that I walked past his house with my dogs. He had a 'Lock her up' poster in his front window. And I said to him, 'If you're gonna do that to my wife, you make sure the prisons are comfortable, 'cause you're gonna have a lot of company of your supporters in there!' And you know what he said? 'Obama and Hillary started the second Civil War.'

"So, there's division. But underneath that, there's a core of fundamental decency that can be really skewed when people feel abused, left out, or looked down on."

From "The President Is Missing":

"Our democracy cannot survive its current downward drift into tribalism, extremism, and seething resentment."

Yes, their new book is a thriller about a chief executive who's practically a superhero. But the 42nd President of the United States believes they have something deeper to say about why the office matters. "I want people to see the presidency as a job, and a hard one, and it matters who gets it," he said. "It matters how they do it. Which I hope was the subtext of this. That is, I hope it's really exciting to people, but I hope when they put it down, they think, 'You know, we got a good kind of government here; we don't want to mess it up."

And in the words of the fictional President Duncan: "May God bless the United States of America, and all who call it home."


WHETHER THE NRA LIKES TO ADMIT THIS OR NOT, THERE IS AN EXTRA RISK TO SOCIETY WHEN EVERY WOMAN AND HER SISTER ARE CARRYING WEAPONS. SHE WAS BEING CHASED OVER A HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT. WAS THAT DONE ON PURPOSE, PERHAPS? SO, WHY DID SHE START SHOOTING? A POLICE RECORD OR WARRANT, MAYBE. CBS, TELL US MORE!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rock-n-roll-san-diego-marathon-woman-arrested-held-gun-to-head-fired-shots-2018-06-03/
CBS/AP June 3, 2018, 7:27 PM
Police officer wounds himself during pursuit near San Diego marathon

PHOTOGRAPH -- The scene near the finish line of the Rock 'n' Roll San Diego Marathon. BRANDON LEWIS / KFMB-TV

SAN DIEGO -- A San Diego officer accidentally shot himself in the leg Sunday while pursuing a hit-and-run suspect who pointed a weapon at police and was eventually arrested on the roof of a parking structure near the finish line of an annual marathon, authorities said. Officers fired at the woman but missed after she brandished the weapon at the parking facility at the edge of a downtown plaza shared by City Hall, police Chief David Nisleit told reporters.

The suspect, who the police did not identify, threw the weapon from the top of the structure to the street below before being taken into custody, Nisleit said. It was unclear what type of weapon it was, but investigators were looking into whether it was a pellet gun that resembles the real thing, the chief said.

Detectives were also investigating whether the woman was connected to a kidnapping in nearby Chula Vista, Nisleit said. In that incident a man called police to report that he was bound and gagged at gunpoint but managed to escape, he said.

In announcing the woman's arrest, police said the scene was secure and there was no threat to the area near the San Diego Rock 'n' Roll Marathon, which brought thousands of people downtown along with a heavy police presence.

Runner Fabian Tabares, 49, finished the race for the second year in a row and then heard the news that an armed suspect was arrested only two blocks from the route.

"I'm surprised to hear that but since I'm slow, luckily I was not affected," he said, adding that it was a well-organized event and felt safe. "I'll be back next year to do it again."

View image on Twitter

Abbie Alford
✔
@AbbieNews8
UPDATE: Suspected shooter in custody. @SanDiegoPD still have parts of #RockNRoll marathon blocked in downtown C (Broadway-A) A (3rd & 2nd) 2nd (A-Broadway) @News8 @CBS8

3:03 PM - Jun 3, 2018 · San Diego, CA
24
38 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The incident began shortly before 11 a.m. as a call about a hit-and-run, officials said. A number of streets were closed after police chased the woman driving a white sedan into the parking structure.

The chief said the wounded officer's gun accidentally discharged and the man was struck once in the lower leg. He's expected to fully recover. Officers fired at least two shots at the woman after she pointed the weapon at them, Nisleit said.

Initially, police received calls of an "active shooter" and said that the woman had fired her weapon, but Nisleit did not confirm that during a press briefing.

The race was halted for about 10 minutes and rerouted, marathon officials said.

Marathoner Beth Grew, 40, of Yuma, Arizona, said she had no idea the race was delayed. "Oh my God. That's so scary," she said after finishing and learning about the shooting.

Leilani Sandan and her 7-year-old son were playing music from "Les Miserables" on their way to see the musical at the San Diego Civic Theater when they were suddenly passed by more than a dozen police cars, sirens blaring. The shooting had just occurred in the parking garage they were headed to next to the theater.

"It was crazy," Sandan said as she stood with hundreds of other ticketholders behind police tape. "It was like police, police, police, siren, siren, siren."

She said she was glad to hear the marathon runners were OK. They were later escorted into the theater with the others, who shuffled past the yellow police tape.

Charlotte Behler said she was with her grandparents when police responded to the scene. They quickly ducked into a nearby restuarant where they remained for three hours.

"She kept us safe and well fed," Behler's grandmother, Janet, told The San Diego Union Tribune.

The 26.2-mile marathon course weaves its way through the city and also includes a half-marathon and a 5K run. Thousands of runners participated in the annual event.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



WHY DID THIS WOMAN WALK AWAY WITHOUT HER CHILD? WAS SHE THREATENED BY THE FATHER? ANOTHER SAD HUMAN STORY HERE, WHATEVER THE REASON. THANK GOODNESS THE LITTLE BOY WAS SAVED. AS THEY SAY IN NORTH CAROLINA, “HE’S AS CUTE AS A BUTTON.” I NEVER COULD FIGURE THE DERIVATION OF THAT ONE, BUT I LIKE TO SAY IT ANYWAY.

http://komonews.com/news/nation-world/police-missing-1-year-old-found-naked-and-lying-in-dirt-in-oregon-forest
Police: Missing 1-year-old found naked and lying in dirt in Oregon forest
by Falycia Campbell Monday, May 14th 2018

PHOTOGRAPH – BEAUTIFUL KID AND WIDELY SMILING DCSO OFFICER (Courtesy: Deschutes County Sheriff's Office)

BEND, Ore. — A one-year-old boy was found naked and lying in the dirt in a forest in Oregon.

According to a post on the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Facebook page, the sheriff's department was in desperate search of a one-year-old boy, after his father Brandon Blouin, 25, of Belpre, Ohio, came out of the woods on May 10.

Blouin told police that he, an 18-year-old female and their son, Bradley Michael Thomas, had been staying in a vehicle in the forest. The female had walked away from the vehicle at some point alone and left Bradley in the care and custody of Blouin. Blouin said he waited for a period of time for her to return, but then took Bradley with him to search for the female.

At some point during his search, he set Bradley down in the forest and left him.

Deputies believe that Blouin may have been under the influence of a controlled substance when he made the choice to sit Bradley down and walk away.

The sheriff's office began their search for Bradley on horseback, they used drones and helicopters with thermal image sensors. Around 12:10 p.m., a detective who was assisting with the search, located Bradley a mile away from the family's vehicle. Bradley was taken to an area hospital.

Blouin facing charges of criminal mistreatment, child neglect, endangering the welfare of a minor and assault. The assault charges stem from an injury that deputies believe Bradley suffered while in the care of his father, according to the sheriff's office

The investigation is currently ongoing.

JUNE 2, 2018


News and Views


I’LL BET PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULDN’T LIKE IT IF I INVENTED A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THIS, SO I WON’T. BESIDES, THERE ARE PROBABLY ALREADY 20 OR SO IN CIRCULATION. I’LL BE TRUTHFUL LIKE A GOOD DEMOCRAT OR PROGRESSIVE. NO DEMOCRAT CAN TOP A REPUBLICAN AT THE FINE ART OF LYING, ANYWAY. I AM GOING TO PUT THIS STORY AND ITS’ SISTERS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE, THOUGH, AND REFRAIN FROM ADDING MY PERSONAL SPECULATION TO WHAT THE PRESS IS ALREADY DOING. IT WOULD ONLY TORMENT MELANIA HERSELF, IN ALL PROBABILITY. IT IS INTRIGUING TO SAY THE LEAST.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/jun/02/missing-melania-trump-barely-makes-news-things-are-getting-weirder
Melania Trump The week in patriarchy
Missing Melania Trump barely makes news – things are getting weirder
We’re so used to bizarre behavior from the Trump administration that a missing first lady barely registers as strange.
@JessicaValenti
Sat 2 Jun 2018 10.00 EDT

THE WEEK IN PATRIARCHY
Jessica Valenti tracks what’s happening in the world of feminism and sexism. Get this newsletter via email – sign up

PHOTOGRAPH -- Melania Trump at the White House in Washington DC on 7 May 2018. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP

I am not one for conspiracy theories, and so I don’t find the guesses flying around the lefty internet about Melania Trump’s whereabouts particularly convincing. But I am very interested in double standards – and I find it hard to believe that if Michelle Obama disappeared from the public eye for nearly a month that there wouldn’t be some sort of sustained public inquiry.

It’s fun to imagine that Melania – who has been memed endlessly because of her apparent distaste for the president – has finally flown the coop and left her notoriously misogynist husband. And who knows, maybe she has.

But the reasons behind her lack of public appearances are less interesting to me than the fact that we’re so used to bizarre and out-of-bounds behavior from this administration that something like a missing first lady barely makes the grade for news coverage.

Things are weird, my friends. And they’re only going to get weirder.

Glass half full
Illinois just became the 37th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and wouldn’t it just be incredible to finally get this thing passed during the Trump years?

What I’m RTing

Spencer Ackerman
✔
@attackerman
He's accused of tying a woman up in a basement to photograph her naked, making her perform oral sex on him when she tried to leave, and blackmailing her into silence. You misspelled "rape." https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1001568302072844289 …

5:05 PM - May 29, 2018
15.6K
5,867 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

thomas violence
@thomas_violence
I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons

10:18 PM - May 31, 2018
521K
159K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

b-boy bouiebaisse
(@jbouie)
It is truly horrifying to see the collective political class shrug at the fact that thousands of Puerto Ricans are dead because of President Trump’s inaction and indifference.

May 31, 2018

NOTE: ON JASON'S LOOK AT THE IMAGE.

Jason O. Gilbert
(@gilbertjasono)
(Chanting)
WE! JUST! TOOK! AMBIEN! pic.twitter.com/esu3IMj8gu

May 30, 2018

Who I’m reading

Rebecca Traister on Samantha Bee and the war of words; Katha Pollitt on Ireland’s historic win for women and choice; and Erin Biba on the sexist mob defending Elon Musk.

What I’m listening to
Helen Rosner talking about #MeToo in the culinary world on David Chang’s podcast.

THIS STORY IS TRUE.
How outraged I am

A man who identifies himself as a rapist and pedophile is running for office in Virginia and thinks he will win because “a lot of people are tired of political correctness” and on a scale of one to ten, I’m going to take a nap.

How I’m making it through this week
Channeling this hedgehog’s chill.


THIS IS THE BEST --

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-met-melania-trump-missing-huppke-20180531-story.html
Column: Melania Trump isn't missing — she's living with the Obamas!
Rex HuppkeContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
JUNE 1, 2018 8:45 PM

Melania Trump -- First lady Melania Trump announces her Be Best anti-bullying initiative May 7 in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Jim Watson / AFP/Getty Images

et’s talk about Melania Trump.

America’s first lady was last seen in public on May 10. On Friday morning we learned she won’t join the president this weekend at Camp David. Her absence has sparked all manner of wild theorizing, from rumors of plastic surgery to suggestions she moved back to New York City.


But I’m here to tell you it’s far more scandalous than anyone imagined.

After minutes of careful conjuring and professional assumptionizing, I unraveled the truth: The Deep State helped sneak Melania out of the White House through a tunnel and she is now living with Barack and Michelle Obama.

It’s the most shocking, absolutely made up political scandal since Donald Trump proved conclusively that President Barack Obama was not born in America.

I’ll get to the details of my investigation in a moment, but first, let’s make sure everyone understands the Deep State. It’s the insidious network of government workers devoted to bringing down President Trump’s administration. We know it’s real because a bunch of people on television and the president of the United States say it’s real.

We also know the Deep State is behind another very real scandal that Trump has dubbed “SpyGate.” SpyGate — also known as SPYGATE! — involves spies Trump claims were placed inside his campaign in an effort to unfairly link him to all the secret meetings members of his campaign were innocently having with shady Russian figures.

SpyGate is 100 percent real, and we know that because the evidence is so overwhelmingly obvious that regular non-Trump humans aren’t able to see it. It’s a bit like how the president said definitively that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama’s — our eyes clearly saw that Obama had the bigger crowd, but we were wrong because Trump has superior eyes and is right and we should know better.

OK, now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s get back to Melania and the fact that she let the Deep State extract her from the White House via a tunnel built by Eric Trump (did I mention Eric Trump is part of this?) and is now living happily with the Obamas.

This is the timeline of events:

April 21: Melania attends the funeral of former first lady Barbara Bush and is photographed sitting next to Barack and Michelle Obama. Suspiciously, Melania is smiling warmly for the first time in recorded history.

May 7: Melania introduces her anti-bullying campaign: Be Best. It’s a clear shot at her husband, who invented bullying and prides himself on being worst.

May 10: The first lady is last seen in public.

May 14: Melania has kidney surgery at Walter Reed Medical Center. It wasn’t announced publicly until the surgery was over. Few details are given.

May 19: The White House reports that the first lady has returned to the White House, though there’s no explanation for a five-day hospital stay following a surgery many doctors said is often an outpatient procedure.

May 20: A sinkhole is spotted on the North Lawn of the White House.

May 30: As questions mount about the first lady’s whereabouts, a tweet is sent from her Twitter account that reads: “I see the media is working overtime speculating where I am & what I'm doing. Rest assured, I'm here at the @WhiteHouse w my family, feeling great, & working hard on behalf of children & the American people!”

Now let me ask you this: If you’re the Trump administration and you don’t want people to know that the first lady ran off via a tunnel to live with the Obamas — President Trump’s arch-enemies — what would you do? You would write that tweet and send it from the first lady’s Twitter account.

And then you would have the first lady’s communication director draw attention to the tweet and pretend it’s proof that everything is status quo. Sure enough, Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s communication director, retweeted the May 30 tweet and wrote: “Straight from @FLOTUS!”

You’re probably wondering how I put together the specifics of Melania’s escape? Simple.

The five-night hospital stay for a minor surgical procedure was clearly a ham-handed story concocted by White House officials trying to cover something up. As the days with no public appearances dragged on, I asked myself: Where would Melania most likely be?

Then I remembered the funeral photo and thought, “She’s happiest when she’s with the Obamas.” (Who can blame her? They’re lovely people.) So that told me where she had gone.

It was also clear her accomplice was the Deep State. It’s to blame for literally everything that goes wrong in the administration.

The trickiest part was figuring out how the first lady made it off the White House grounds unnoticed. The sinkhole was the breakthrough.

We all know Eric Trump is a vampire (Google it), and as such, he must have an underground lair at the White House. That makes him the only person connected to the administration with the subterranean skills to create an escape tunnel. The sinkhole was just a minor tunnel cave-in that happened weeks after Melania fled.

And there you have it: MelaniaGate! As ironclad a conspiracy as any of President Trump’s theories on Russia, inauguration sizes, Obama’s birth certificate, tapped phones in Trump Tower or widespread voter fraud.

The unseeable evidence is all there. You just have to believe.

rhuppke@chicagotribune.com

RELATED
Unseen for weeks, Melania Trump tweets she's 'feeling great' »
Melania Trump released from hospital, returns to White House in 'high spirits' »


AND NOW, TO SNOPES FOR THE LAST WORD:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-relationship-tweet/
THIS SNOPES ENTRY LEAVES THE ANSWER OPEN, WHILE FORWARDING THE QUESTION. WHERE IS MELANIA TRUMP?



FOR YOU FEMINISTS WHO HAVE BEEN LONELY SINCE THE 1970S, LOOK FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE GUARDIAN’S FEMINIST POST’S JESSICA VALENTI, THE WEEK IN PATRIARCHY:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/may/12/eric-schneiderman-particular-awfulness-to-using-feminist-politics-to-shield-bad-behavior
The week in patriarchy
Jessica Valenti



THIS NEXT IS AKIN TO “IT AIN’T RAPE IF SHE’S YOUR WIFE,” DESPITE THE BRUISES. THIS INFORMATION WAS REPORTED ON THE TV NEWS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE, BUT THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE MEMO IS NEW TO ME.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-in-memo-to-mueller-trumps-lawyers-argue-he-could-not-have-obstructed-justice/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS June 2, 2018, 3:57 PM
Report: In memo to Mueller, Trump's lawyers argue he could not have obstructed justice

A confidential letter obtained by The New York Times shows President Trump's personal lawyers making the case to special counsel Robert Mueller that the president cannot obstruct justice, and that Mueller cannot force him to testify.

A memo dated January 29, 2018, argues that the Constitution gives the president vast authority to, for instance, fire FBI Director James Comey, and even argues that the president cannot obstruct justice by terminating an investigation. The never-before-seen memo makes a broad case for the executive autonomy of the commander-in-chief, as the president's lawyers argue a sitting president cannot be subpoenaed. The memo is titled," Re: Request for testimony on alleged obstruction of justice," The New York Times reports.

"It remains our position that the president's actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired," writes John Dowd, the president's former personal attorney who left the team in March.

RELATED: Read the memo obtained by the New York Times

CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reported in April that Rudy Giuliani and other members of the president's legal team met with special counsel Mueller that month to discuss a possible interview.

The White House declined to comment, referring to outside counsel. Mr. Trump's legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shortly before The New York Times published its story, however, Mr. Trump accused Mueller's team or Justice Department officials of leaking information to the media. He did not question the veracity of the letter.

"There was No Collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats)," the president tweeted Saturday. "When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end? So bad for our Country. Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?"


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
There was No Collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats). When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end? So bad for our Country. Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?

1:43 PM - Jun 2, 2018
31.8K
23.4K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The memo further argued that the president can terminate any investigation without obstructing justice. It's a move that some critics might view as the legal case for ending the Mueller investigation.

"A president can also order the termination of an investigation by the Justice Department or FBI at any time and for any reason," the memo reads. "Such an action obviously has an impact on the investigation, but that is simply an effect of the president's lawful exercise of his constitutional power and cannot constitute obstruction of justice. We remind you of these facts simply because even assuming, arguendo*, that the president did order the termination of an investigation (and the president, along with Mr. Comey in his testimony and in his actions, have made it clear that he did not) this could not constitute obstruction of justice."

The memo also addresses 16 topics that, according to Dowd, Mueller's team "desired to address with the president in order to complete your investigation on the subjects of alleged collusion and obstruction of justice." Among those areas of interest is Mr. Trump's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to recuse himself in the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump has berated his attorney general, as recently as this week, for recusing himself, and has suggested he would have picked someone else for the job if he had known what Sessions would do.

Special counsel's interest in Jeff Sessions' recusal has grown

The New York Times also published a June 23, 2017 memo from the president's legal team to Mueller, in which the president's lawyers suggest they are aware that Mueller might be investigating whether there was any obstruction of justice in the firing of Comey. Mr. Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017.

"We write to address news reports, purportedly based on leaks, indicating that you may have begun a preliminary inquiry into whether the president's termination of former FBI Director James Comey constituted obstruction of justice," the June 2017 memo from Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz to Mueller reads.

According to the more recent memo, these are the topics Mueller's team is interested in discussing with the president as the team questions whether there was any obstruction of justice:

1 Former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — information regarding his contacts with Ambassador Kislyak about sanctions during the transition process;
2 Lt. Gen. Flynn's communications with Vice President Michael Pence regarding those contacts;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's interview with the FBI regarding the same;
3 Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates coming to the White House to discuss same;
4 The President's meeting on February 14, 2017, with then-Director James Comey;
5 Any other relevant information regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn;
6 The President's awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House and the Senate into possible collusion;
7 The president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia investigation;
8 The president's reaction to Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony on March 20, 2017, before the House Intelligence Committee;
9 Information related to conversations with intelligence officials generally regarding ongoing investigations;
10 Information regarding who the president had had conversations with concerning Mr. Comey's performance;
11 Whether or not Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony lead to his termination;
12 Information regarding communications with Ambassador Kislyak, Minister Lavrov, and Lester Holt;
13 The president's reaction to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel;
14 The president's interaction with Attorney General Sessions as it relates to the appointment of Special Counsel; and,
15 The statement of July 8, 2017, concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting in Trump Tower.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


ARGUENDO*

WHAT A GREAT NEW WORD! IT DOES MEAN “FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT,” AND THE PRONUNCIATION IS “AR-GEN-DO,” RATHER THAN “AR-JEN-DO.”



SINCE WHEN ARE PRESIDENTS ALLOWED TO CONCEAL THEIR APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS? AND WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THIS? UNFORTUNATELY, IT’S FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY CONCEAL THEIR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH BOYS. AND YET, IN THIS CASE, THE APPOINTMENT WAS APPARENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE SENATE, OR MAYBE THAT WASN’T NEEDED FOR THIS POSITION. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS.

IN ADDITION TO A MUCH LONGER LIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRESIDENT THAN THE CONSTITUTION NOW HAS LISTED, TO ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO BE SEATED, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A LIST OF ACCEPTABLE POWERS, LIKEWISE; AND WHICH ONES HE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED TO DO. FOR INSTANCE, I DON’T BELIEVE EVEN THE SENATE HAS TO APPROVE THE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. HE SHOULD BE UNABLE TO BE CONSIDERED A CANDIDATE UNTIL HE IS THOROUGHLY AND PUBLICLY VETTED. THAT’S MY VIEW, ANYWAY. IF WE DID THAT, THERE WOULD BE MUCH FEWER IMMORAL AND IDIOTIC PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT INTO OFFICE, AND THEREFORE A NEED FOR FEWER IMPEACHMENTS.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/390393-rejected-trump-nominee-quietly-hired-by-sec-report
Rejected Trump nominee quietly hired by SEC: report
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 06/02/18 12:03 PM EDT

Photograph -- © Greg Nash

Former Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.)*, President Trump's rejected nominee to run the Export-Import Bank, has been quietly hired to a position at the Securities and Exchange Commission despite the agency's hiring freeze, Politico reported Saturday

Garrett had an "excepted service" position as an attorney created for him at the SEC’s Office of the General Counsel earlier this year, according to the report. The personnel move, which was not announced publicly by the SEC, was discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Garrett's hiring to the SEC follows his failure to win enough votes last year after two Republicans joined with Democrats to oppose his nomination to lead the Export-Import Bank. Those who opposed him cited Garrett's past opposition to the bank.

The SEC implemented a hiring freeze at the beginning of fiscal year 2017, but Garrett's appointment was exempted from this as well as competitive hiring procedures - as are all attorney jobs for federal agencies - the Office of Personnel Management told Politico.

The agency's budget justification for 2019 says it expects its staffing levels to drop from about 4,600 to 4,528 by September of 2018.

The New Jersey Republican lost a bid for reelection in 2016 after Wall Street donors backed away from his campaign over his reported refusal to support gay or lesbian Republican candidates.

During his House career, Garrett chaired the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, which oversaw a number of top financial firms.


Scott Garrett*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ernest Scott Garrett (born July 9, 1959) is an American politician who was the U.S. Representative for New Jersey's 5th congressional district, serving from 2003 to 2017. He is a member of the Republican Party. He previously served in the New Jersey General Assembly from 1990 to 2003. Garrett chaired the United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises.[1] He lost his 2016 reelection campaign and was succeeded by Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat.

On June 19, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Garrett to become chairman and president of the Export–Import Bank of the United States, a post that requires confirmation by the United States Senate.[2] In a 10–13 vote on December 19, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee declined to advance his nomination.[3][4] Garrett was subsequently hired into an excepted service position at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of General Counsel.[5]

Early life, education and career

Garrett earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Montclair State College in 1981 and a Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law–Camden in 1984.[6]

Born in Bergen County in the town of Englewood, Garrett spent much of his life living in North Jersey. He is a proponent of preserving open space and protecting the Highlands, the Musconetcong River and the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge. He was elected to the New Jersey General Assembly in 1991, and was re-elected five times, serving from 1992 to 2003, representing the 24th legislative district, which covered all of Sussex County and several municipalities in Morris and Hunterdon counties.

. . . . Suffrage

In 2006, Garrett was the only congressman from New Jersey to vote against the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, citing his opposition to requirements to print non-English ballots.[37]

Garrett ran for re-election in 2016 as the Republican candidate, besting Michael Cino and Peter Vallorosi in the primary. Josh Gottheimer, his opponent, was the sole Democrat to file for election.[12] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Garrett was one of five House challengers and incumbents who relied more on the financial world to fund his 2016 election campaign than most others running for a House seat, raising $213,755 from the securities and investment industry compared to $170,752 on average.[13]

Gottheimer won the general election on November 8, 2016, with 50.5% of the vote to Garrett's 47.2%.[14]

. . . . Unlike most Republicans from New Jersey, Garrett compiled an unshakably conservative voting record. He held a lifetime rating of 99.3 from the American Conservative Union.[19] While in Congress, he founded and led the House Constitution Caucus.[20] Garrett

During his time in Congress, Garrett was a member of the Liberty Caucus.[21] He was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, which serves as a policy alternative to the Republican Study Committee.[22]

Foreign policy

In 2007, Garrett led nineteen U.S. lawmakers to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives backing United Nations membership for Taiwan.[23]

Economic policy

In 2006, Garrett supported H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.[24] In 2008, he opposed H.R. 5767, the Payment Systems Protection Act, which was a bill that sought to place a moratorium on enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 while the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve defined "unlawful Internet gambling".[citation needed]

Garrett voted to allow oil and gas drilling off the shore of New Jersey.[25] He voted against making "price gouging" by oil companies a crime,[26] and against the Further Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Act of 2005.[27] He was one of four members of the House of Representatives to vote against an extension of unemployment benefits.[28]

Garrett voted against the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 during the United States federal government shutdown of 2013.[29] When opponents criticized Garrett for not signing a letter urging the House to provide prompt aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy, Garrett responded by saying he had signed nine other letters seeking aid and had helped sponsor a final bill authorizing money.[30]



BERNIE SANDERS IN ACTION AT DISNEYLAND – TWO ARTICLES

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bernie-sanders-disneyland-20180602-story.html
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at rally to call for higher wages for Disneyland Resort workers
By HUGO MARTIN
JUN 02, 2018 | 1:30 PM

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at rally to call for higher wages for Disneyland Resort workers
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks Saturday at a rally in Anaheim to call for higher wages for Disneyland Resort workers. (Hugo Martin / Los Angeles Times)

At a rally attended by hundreds of Disneyland Resort workers, Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke out Saturday against wealthy corporations that fail to pay their workers a “living wage.”

Emphasizing the themes he relied on during his unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders told the crowd at an Anaheim church that the Walt Disney Co. should share its financial success with its employees.

“The struggle that you are waging here in Anaheim is not just for you,” he told the cheering crowd. “It is a struggle for millions of workers all across this country who are sick and tired of working longer hours for lower wages.”

The Vermont senator was accompanied on stage by members of a coalition of unions that has collected about 21,000 signatures, seeking to qualify a measure for the November municipal ballot that would require large employers accepting city subsidies to pay at least $15 an hour.

To qualify for the ballot, the unions needed to collect the signatures of 10%, or 13,150, of the voters in Anaheim. The Orange County Registrar of Voters has until June 14 to verify the signatures.

If adopted, the measure would require that workers be paid a minimum of $15 an hour starting Jan. 1, 2019, with salaries rising $1 an hour every Jan. 1 through 2022. Once the wages reach $18 an hour, annual raises would be tied to the cost of living.

During the rally for union workers, several Disneyland employees joined Sanders onstage to discuss their struggles to make ends meet on a theme park salary.

Grace Torres and her husband, Edgar Campista, of Garden Grove, said they both work at the resort but can’t afford to start a family.

“Disney prides itself on making dreams come true,” Torres said, choking back tears. “Disney, where is my dream?”

Opponents of the measure, including the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Disneyland Resort, say the higher salaries will increase the cost of doing business and scare off future development.

The Disneyland Resort announced last week that it has previously offered a 36% pay increase to about 9,500 resort workers over a three-year period. The workers in that union have been in contract negotiation with the resort since March.

The pay increase offered by Disney would give staffers who work in stores, attractions, custodial, costuming, parking, transportation and other fields a minimum of $15 an hour by 2020 — a year after the ballot measure would reach that pay scale.

“We are proud of our commitment to our cast, and the fact that more people choose to work at Disneyland Resort than anywhere else in Orange County,” said Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown. “While Mr. Sanders continues to criticize Disney to keep himself in the headlines, we continue to support our cast members through investments in wages and education.”

But the Masters Services Joint Council, which represents the workers, described the Disney raise offer as a “first step, but it is not enough.” In a statement released last week, the council said the Disney offer also threatens to cut “fringe benefits that have been long standing traditions at the park.”

The offer by the Disneyland Resort does not impact ongoing salary negotiations with hotel workers who also attended Saturday’s rally.

To justify the pay increase, the Disney workers have pointed to a study released in February that found 73% of Disney employees who were questioned said they don’t earn enough to pay for such basic expenses as rent, food and gas.

The study concluded that the average wage for Disneyland Resort workers when adjusted for inflation dropped 15% from 2000 to 2017, from $15.80 to $13.36.

Disney officials rejected the study, calling it flawed.

After the rally, Sanders traveled to Carson to speak out on behalf of Los Angeles and Long Beach port workers who have been calling for higher wages and other benefits.


DO WATCH THIS VIDEO. IT'S VERY INTERESTING.

http://komonews.com/news/nation-world/live-sen-bernie-sanders-holds-roundtable-with-disney-workers
Sen. Bernie Sanders holds roundtable on wages with Disney workers
by Circa Saturday, June 2nd 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. smiles during during [sic] a panel discussion with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the University Of New Hampshire in Durham, N.H., Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

(Circa) — Sen. Bernie Sanders attended a rally Saturday in Anaheim, California with Disneyland workers who are fighting for higher wages.

Speakers at the event included union leaders pushing a ballot measure that would require businesses receiving subsidies from the city to pay workers at least $15 per hour.

Disney is receiving a tax break of about $267 million over 20 years to build a luxury hotel at Disneyland, where 85 percent of employees currently receive an hourly wage of less than $15.



BILL MAHER AND BERNIE SANDERS MAKE A GOOD PAIR

SANDERS AND BILL MAHER DISCUSS THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/390370-sanders-trump-kind-of-likes-all-of-these-authoritarian-leaders
Sanders: Trump ‘kind of likes all of these authoritarian leaders’
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 06/02/18 08:23 AM EDT

INTERVIEW VIDEO – 9:57 MIN.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday accused President Trump of leading with "strong authoritarian tendencies," saying that the real estate mogul "kind of likes" despots.

"We have a president who has strong authoritarian tendencies; who wants to, every day, undermine American democracy," Sanders said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

"In my state and all over this country you have men and women who have fought and died to defend American democracy, and this guy looks all over the world and he kind of likes all of these authoritarian leaders."

Critics have argued that Trump has shown an unusual friendliness to autocratic leaders, like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, and often fails to discuss human rights with foreign counterparts — a break from past presidents.

Trump has, at times, been accused of leading like an autocrat himself, with critics pointing to his frequent attacks on political opponents, the news media and government institutions, like the Justice Department, as evidence.