Muckraker Farm

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

Friday, 13 March 2020, Day 1,148:

Donald Trump’s appalling, blame-shifting Rose Garden news conference, CNN Politics, Chris Cilizza, Friday, 13 March 2020: “A pandemic is sweeping the globe. Schools are closing. Major sports leagues are suspended. The stock market has plunged into bear territory. And, Donald Trump? ‘No, I don’t take responsibility at all,’ Trump responded when asked if he took responsibility for the lag in necessary coronavirus testing while speaking to reporters gathered in the Rose Garden to hear his declaration of a national emergency to combat the virus. Which sums up his response to this crisis well. And, in fact, is actually a pretty nice summation of his approach to the presidency.” See also, Trump Declares a National Emergency Over the Coronavirus Pandemic. Here’s What It Can Do. The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Trump on Friday signed an emergency declaration over the coronavirus pandemic, unlocking certain government powers to deal with the public health challenge. Here’s a breakdown of what that means on a legal and practical level.” See also, Transcript: Trump’s Coronavirus News Conference, The New York Times, Friday, 13 March 2020.

Some significant developments in the coronavirus pandemic on Friday, 13 March 2020: Trump declares coronavirus pandemic a national emergency, The Washington Post, Derek Hawkins, Miriam Berger, Marisa Iati, Meryl Kornfield, and Brittany Shammas, Friday, 13 March 2020: “Acting Brazilian ambassador Nestor Forster, who sat at President Trump’s table Saturday night during a dinner at Mar-a-Lago, has tested positive for the coronavirus, the embassy said late Friday. Forster is the third person who visited the president’s South Florida resort last weekend to test positive for the novel virus. Trump declared a national emergency over the coronavirus pandemic Friday as public life in America continued to grind to a halt. Trump’s announcement sent the Dow soaring nearly 2,000 points. Concerns about the coronavirus rippled across the globe, as schools closed to millions of students; more events were canceled, more landmarks shuttered; and the Group of Seven leaders planned a virtual crisis conference.

Many other significant developments are included in this article

Trump declares national emergency over coronavirus, but questions raised about what’s next, The Washington Post, Anne Gearan and Toluse Olorunnipa, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Trump declared a national emergency to confront the spread of the coronavirus Friday as his administration reached an agreement with House Democrats on a bipartisan economic relief package for Americans affected by the global pandemic. Trump made the emergency announcement during a news conference in the Rose Garden in which he repeatedly praised his handling of the crisis, denied responsibility for his administration’s missteps and said for the first time that he would likely undergo testing for the coronavirus after coming into contact with an infected man…. Trump [refused] to take ownership of the problems that have led to a lack of available tests and confusion about who is eligible to use the limited supply at hand. ‘I don’t take responsibility at all,’ Trump said, blaming his predecessors and saying he knew nothing about his administration’s 2018 decision to disband a team of experts who had focused on preparing for global pandemics…. Declaring a national emergency can be helpful for marshaling resources, and some experts and groups, including the American Hospital Association, called for it to be done earlier. It’s important to stress that these declarations are administrative and provide flexibility in accessing resources and spending money, experts said. They are not done to signify that the country is in imminent danger.” See also, Trump declares national emergency in latest bid to combat coronavirus, Politico, Anita Kumar, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on Friday to offset lagging coronavirus testing and unlock billions of dollars — accelerating a response plan that has faced weeks of criticism. Trump touted partnerships with private companies that he claimed would allow patients to learn if they need to be tested and locate a testing site, some of which will be drive-thru facilities at big box retailers across the country. ‘To unleash the full power of the federal government under this effort today, I’m officially declaring a national emergency,’ he said at an announcement in the Rose Garden. ‘Two very big words.'” See also, ‘I don’t take responsibility at all’: Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing debacle, Politico, Caitlin Oprysko, Friday, 13 March 2020. See also, Trump says he takes ‘no responsibility’ for coronavirus failures as he declares national emergency, The Guardian, Mario Koran, Daniel Strauss, Lauren Aratani, and Martin Belam, Friday, 13 March 2020. See also, Trump Declares National Emergency to Confront Coronavirus, The Wall Street Journal, Andrew Restuccia, Jennifer Calfas, Alejandro Lazo, and Sam Schechner, Friday, 13 March 2020. See also, Trump shook hands, patted backs, and touched the microphone 31 times while declaring the coronavirus national emergency, The Washington Post, JM Rieger, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Trump on Friday touted the work of his administration’s health experts on the novel coronavirus even as he ignored their public health advice. Trump shook hands, patted backs and touched the microphone at the White House lectern at least 31 times Friday, the sort of behaviors health experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have advised against to prevent the spread of the virus.” See also, Trump defiant on testing and handshakes even as third Mar-a-Lago case emerges, The Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold, Anne Gearan, and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Trump said Friday that he has not yet been tested for the novel coronavirus, even as three people who were with him at the Mar-a-Lago Club last weekend have now tested positive. Trump said he would be tested ‘fairly soon. We’re working on that. We’re working out a schedule.’ In one televised event, Trump seemed to defy two basic practices that the rest of his government has been urging Americans to follow to prevent the spread of the virus. People who were exposed to an infected person are urged to quarantine themselves and seek testing. And everyone — exposed or not — should stop shaking hands. But at a Friday news conference on efforts to combat the coronavirus, Trump continued to shake hands with other speakers, many of whom are members of the White House Task Force charged with trying to stem the disease. Trump and many of the speakers took part in backslapping and adjusting the shared microphone. Trump also said he will not self-quarantine, as members of Congress and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have chosen to do after known exposures.” See also, Trump’s False Claims About His Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic, The New York Times, Linda Qiu, Friday, 13 March 2020: “Trump inaccurately described travel restrictions he had announced, falsely blamed his predecessor for testing shortages and misstated the role Google was playing in mitigating the outbreak.” See also, Trump Oversold a Google Site to Fight Coronavirus, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear ad Daisuke Wakabayashi, published on Saturday, 14 March 2020: “After Jared Kushner liked the idea, President Trump inflated the concept. The disconnect is the latest example of the president exaggerating or making wholly inaccurate statements about his administration’s response.” See also, Contrary to Trump’s claim, Google is not building a nationwide coronavirus screening website, The Verge, Dieter Bohn, Friday, 13 March 2020: “Google is not working with the US government in building a nationwide website to help people determine whether and how to get a novel coronavirus test, despite what President Donald Trump said in the course of issuing an emergency declaration for the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, a much smaller trial website made by another division of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is going up. It will only be able to direct people to testing facilities in the Bay Area.” See also, Contrary to claims made by Trump during a Friday news conference, Google says it is not publishing a national-scale coronavirus site anytime soon, CNN Politics, Brian Fung, Friday, 13 March 2020: “Google will not be publishing a national-scale website for coronavirus testing anytime soon, contrary to claims made by President Donald Trump during a Friday news conference. Instead, a health-focused subsidiary owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, intends to launch a small-scale website next week to begin to triage California-based patients. The website will aim to serve a broader population only ‘over time’ — not ‘very quickly,’ as Trump said.”

House Passes Coronavirus Relief After Democrats Strike Deal With White House, The New York Times, Jim Tankersley and Emily Cochrane, Friday, 13 March 2020: “President Trump declared a national emergency on Friday over the coronavirus pandemic and announced steps he said would speed the availability of testing, and early Saturday, the House passed a bill reflecting a deal with his administration to provide billions of dollars to help sick workers and to prop up a slumping economy. Markets rallied on Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration, which he said would free up $50 billion for states and localities to cope with the outbreak — separate from the congressional relief measure — and which would allow the Treasury Department to delay tax filing deadlines for some individuals and businesses. During a news conference in the Rose Garden, the president also said he would indefinitely suspend interest collections on federal student loans, although no bills would go down. And he instructed the Energy Department to buy enough oil to fill the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve ‘to the top.’ The S&P 500 soared during the remarks and closed the day up by more than 9 percent. At the news conference, Mr. Trump followed none of the safety protocols recommended to combat the spread of the virus, shaking hands with multiple administration officials and chief executives and sharing a microphone with them.” See also, House passes coronavirus economic relief package with Trump’s support, The Washington Post, Erica Werner, Mike DeBonis, Paul Kane, and Jeff Stein, published on Saturday, 14 March 2020: “The House overwhelmingly passed an economic relief bill early Saturday for the coronavirus, dedicating tens of billions of dollars for paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, free testing and other measures to help Americans impacted by the crisis. The 363-40 vote — gaveled down just before 1 a.m. — capped two days of volatile negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that threatened to fall apart entirely for hours Friday amid GOP misgivings. But even after President Trump criticized House Democrats at an afternoon news conference Pelosi and Mnuchin kept at it, speaking by phone 13 times in the course of the day Friday and finally clinching a deal. Not long thereafter Trump endorsed the legislation over Twitter, ensuring widespread GOP support.” See also, There’s a Giant Hole in Nancy Pelosi’s Coronavirus Bill, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, published on Saturday, 14 March 2020: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi early Saturday celebrated passage of legislation she described as providing paid sick leave to American workers affected by the coronavirus. She neglected to mention the fine print. In fact, the bill guarantees sick leave only to about 20 percent of workers. Big employers like McDonald’s and Amazon are not required to provide any paid sick leave, while companies with fewer than 50 employees can seek hardship exemptions from the Trump administration…. The White House and congressional Republicans, who insisted on the exemptions as the price of bipartisan support for the legislation, bear the primary responsibility for the indefensible decision to prioritize corporate profits in the midst of a public health emergency…. But House Democrats also failed to act in the public interest. Paying sick workers to stay at home is both good policy and good politics. Why not pass a bill that required all employers to provide paid sick leave and then force Republicans to explain their objections to the public?”

In May 2018 the Trump Administration Dismissed the Top ‘Global Health Security’ Specialist on the National Security Council and Disbanded the Pandemic-Preparedness Team He Had Led. In News Conference on Friday, Trump Says He Doesn’t Know Anything About the White House’s Elimination of the Pandemic Response Team.  Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley, Friday, 13 March 2020: “The responsibility for monitoring infectious disease threats was technically given to another group within the NSC, but even at the time, the Washington Post wrote that the reorganization was seen by experts in the field as ‘a downgrading of global health security.’ This decision has been subject to some scrutiny during the last month of disaster un-preparedness and global health insecurity. On Friday PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked Trump about the subject during a White House press conference, and his response was, simply put, bad. Here’s the transcript (‘Tony’ is Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who, to be clear, has nothing to do with the National Security Council): ALCINDOR: You did disband the White House pandemic office, and the officials that were working in that office left this administration abruptly. So what responsibility do you take to that, and—the officials that worked in that office said the White House lost valuable time because that office was disbanded. What do you make of that? TRUMP: Well, I just think it’s a nasty question, because what we’ve done, and Tony had said numerous times that we saved thousands of lives because of the quick closing. [Ed.: The closing of borders to some travelers.] And when you say me, I didn’t do it. We have a group of people, I could ask perhaps, in my administration, but I could perhaps ask Tony about that, because I don’t know anything about it. I mean, you say we did that, I don’t know anything about it. Disbanding, no, I don’t know anything about it … ALCINDOR: You don’t know about the reorganization that happened at the National Security Council. TRUMP: … It’s the administration, perhaps they do that, let people go, you used to be with a different newspaper than you are now, you know, things like that happen.” See also, Video: Trump asked about disbanding pandemic office by Yamiche Alcindor, CNN Politics, Friday, 13 March 2020: “Reporter Yamiche Alcindor presses President Trump about disbanding the pandemic response team on the National Security Council in light of the coronavirus outbreak in the US.” See also, Trump Slams ‘Nasty’ Question as PBS Reporter Yamiche Alcindor Challenges Him on Shutdown of Pandemic Unit, Huff Post, Mary Papenfuss, Friday, 13 March 2020. See also, I ran the White House pandemic office. Trump closed it. The Washington Post, Beth Cameron, Friday, 13 March 2020: “When President Trump took office in 2017, the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense survived the transition intact. Its mission was the same as when I was asked to lead the office, established after the Ebola epidemic of 2014: to do everything possible within the vast powers and resources of the U.S. government to prepare for the next disease outbreak and prevent it from becoming an epidemic or pandemic. One year later, I was mystified when the White House dissolved the office, leaving the country less prepared for pandemics like covid-19. The U.S. government’s slow and inadequate response to the new coronavirus underscores the need for organized, accountable leadership to prepare for and respond to pandemic threats.”

Continue reading Week 165, Friday, 13 March – Thursday, 19 March 2020 (Days 1,148-1,154)

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

Friday, 28 February 2020, Day 1,134:

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy, The New York Times, Caitlin Dickerson, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal court on Friday upended a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, ruling that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their cases weave through American immigration courts. A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco blocked a policy that has required people applying for asylum at the border to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are reviewed, a process that often takes months or years. Since the new restrictions were rolled out early in 2019, more than 59,000 asylum seekers have been turned back by American authorities into Mexican border cities, where kidnappings and violence have surged. Because shelters in Mexico are scant and overrun, many of the migrants are living in vast tent encampments exposed to the elements. Powerful Mexican drug cartels have moved in to exploit them.” See also, Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy blocked in federal court, The Washington Post, Maria Sacchetti and Nick Miroff, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court in California halted the Trump administration’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ immigration policy on Friday, a blow to the president’s restrictive immigration agenda that cripples one of the government’s approaches to curbing migration across the U.S. southern border.” See also, Federal appeals court issues major blow to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, CNN Politics, Priscilla Alvarez, Friday, 28 February 2020. Update: Confusion on the Border as Appeals Court Rules Against Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy and Then Stays Its Decision in Order to Allow the Government Time to Appeal the Ruling, The New York Times, Caitlin Dickerson, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court found a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda legally invalid on Friday, ruling that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their cases weave through American immigration courts. The court stayed its decision, however, in order to allow the government time to appeal the ruling.” See also, Court halts Trump asylum policy and then suspends its own order, Associated Press, Elliot Spagat, Saturday, 29 February 2020: “A Trump administration immigration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts was blocked and then reinstated by a court in the matter of hours, creating chaos at border crossings, courtrooms and legal offices. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the policy on hold midday Friday, delivering a setback to a policy that has become one of President Donald Trump’s signature efforts to restrict immigration. But by the end of the day, the court allowed the program to go back into effect after the Justice Department argued that its suspension will prompt migrants to overrun the border and endanger national security. The White House argued that the suspension of the policy would overwhelm the nation’s immigration system, damage relations with the government of Mexico and increase the risk of outbreak from the new coronavirus.” See also, For Migrants at the Border, a Day of Hopes Uplifted and Dashed, The New York Times, Manny Fernandez, published on Saturday, 29 February 2020.

House Democrats Inquire About Political Interference at the Justice Department, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 28 February 2020: “House Democrats are scrutinizing whether President Trump or his appointees have interfered at the Justice Department for political reasons, a committee chairman said Friday, requesting documents and interviews with 15 U.S. attorneys related to the cases of three Trump associates and a review of the F.B.I.’s Russia inquiry. Among those singled out for interviews in a letter from Democrats to Attorney General William P. Barr were four career prosecutors who quit in protest after senior officials intervened to reverse their recommendation and suggest a shorter sentence for Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump confidant, in line with what the president had publicly demanded. The episode ignited long-smoldering fears that Mr. Trump’s personal and political interests were tilting the scales of justice. ‘These circumstances are deeply troubling,’ Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, wrote in the letter to Mr. Barr. ‘Although you serve at the president’s pleasure, you are also charged with the impartial administration of our laws. In turn, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with holding you to that responsibility.'” See also, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler seeks interviews with prosecutors who quit the Roger Stone case, Politico, Kyle Cheney, Friday, 28 February 2020: “House Democrats are seeking interviews with the four career prosecutors who quit the case of Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump, after Trump and Justice Department leaders intervened to demand a lighter jail sentence. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) requested the interviews in a Friday letter to Attorney General William Barr that also included broader demands for documents and testimony about allegations of political interference by Trump in the work of the Justice Department.”

Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight. In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.” See also, Trump wins appeal to block the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, a key witness in the Russia investigation, Politico, Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 28 February 2020: “President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena for his testimony.” See also, Appeals court finds former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to testify to House, The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 28 February 2020: “Former White House counsel Donald McGahn may defy a congressional subpoena, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled Friday in a decision siding with President Trump, who had blocked top advisers from testifying as part of the impeachment proceedings. The 2-to-1 ruling, which can be appealed, deals a sweeping blow to Congress’s investigative powers. The decision means Trump’s former lawyer cannot be compelled to appear on Capitol Hill, and it comes after Democrats lost their bid to call additional witnesses during Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.”

Continue reading Week 163, Friday, 28 February – Thursday, 5 March 2020 (Days 1,134-1,140)

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

Friday, 14 February 2020, Day 1,121:

Trump Claims He Has the ‘Legal Right’ to Interfere in Justice Department Cases, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Friday, 14 February 2020: “President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend. In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president ‘has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.’ The president said he had ‘so far chosen’ not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he was not legally bound to do so. ‘This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!’ he said. Though he and Mr. Barr both said the president had not directly asked for any specific inquiries, Mr. Trump has long pressured law enforcement officials both publicly and privately to open investigations into political rivals and to drop inquiries. Mr. Trump also pressed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retake control of the Russia investigation after he recused himself. The assertion by the president, which implicitly rejected a request by Mr. Barr to stop tweeting about the department’s cases, adds to the mounting controversy over the decision by senior Justice Department officials to overrule prosecutors who had recommended a seven- to nine-year sentence for Mr. Stone, who was convicted of seven felonies in a bid to obstruct a congressional investigation that threatened the president…. Past presidents in both parties have respected long standing traditions that are aimed at preventing political influence from the White House on Justice Department investigations, especially criminal inquiries that involved administration officials or friends of the president. The rules have been in place since the Watergate investigation, in which President Richard M. Nixon sought to pressure the F.B.I.” See also, Trump bucks Attorney General William Barr’s request to stop tweeting about the Justice Department, declaring he has a ‘legal right’ to seek intervention in criminal cases, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, John Wagner, Devlin Barrett, and Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 14 February 2020: “President Trump on Friday bucked his attorney general’s public request to stop tweeting about criminal cases just as the department prepared to reveal it would not charge a former FBI official Trump considers a political foe — significantly escalating the tension between the commander in chief and his top law enforcement officer. A day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly warned Trump not to tweet about the Justice Department, Trump did just that, declaring that he has the ‘legal right’ to ask his top law enforcement official to get involved in a criminal case. Just hours later, the department made a move that might be seen as exerting its independence, revealing that it would not charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe with lying to investigators about a media disclosure. McCabe had authorized the bureau to investigate Trump in 2017 and has been a persistent target of presidential attacks.” See also, Trump-Barr divide worsens as Trump bucks a request to stop tweeting, and the Justice Department declines to charge ex-FBI official Andrew McCabe, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, Devlin Barrett, and Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 14 February 2020. See also, Trump claims he has the ‘legal right’ to intervene in criminal cases, The Guardian, Edward Helmore, Friday, 14 February 2020.

Attorney General William Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Matt Apuzzo, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter. The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors. Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen.” See also, US officials say Attorney General William Barr privately ordered re-examination of Michael Flynn’s case, CNN Politics, Evan Perez, David Shortell, and Katelyn Polantz, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Attorney General William Barr is ordering a re-examination of several high-profile cases, including that of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, US officials briefed on the matter say, in a move that could bring fresh scrutiny of the political motives behind actions at the Justice Department.” See also, Justice Department opens inquiry into FBI interview at heart of Flynn’s guilty plea, NBC News, Carol E. Lee, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Department of Justice recently opened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the FBI’s interview of Michael Flynn while he was serving as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the inquiry. Flynn pleaded guilty to giving false statements to the FBI during that interview, but recently asked to withdraw that plea, further delaying his sentencing.” See also, 9 Democratic senators, including Warren and Sanders, formally call for Attorney General William Barr’s resignation, The Week, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has formalized her call for the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. Following up on her Wednesday insistence that Barr resign over his apparent interference in the criminal case against Roger Stone, Warren led eight other Democratic senators in a formal letter calling for Barr’s departure on Friday. ‘We are writing to express our alarm about and opposition to the unethical political intervention’ by Barr and the Justice Department in the case of President Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone, the senators, including fellow 2020 candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claim in their letter to Barr. ‘The interference … is a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial, and equal justice for all Americans,’ and ‘we call on you to resign immediately,’ the senators wrote to Barr.” See also, Attorney General William Barr Moves to Take the Reins of Politically Charged Cases, The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, Friday, 14 February 2020: “While Attorney General William P. Barr asserted his independence from the White House this week, he has also been quietly intervening in a series of politically charged cases, including against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, people familiar with the matter said on Friday. Mr. Barr installed a phalanx of outside lawyers to re-examine national security cases with the possibility of overruling career prosecutors, a highly unusual move that could prompt more accusations of Justice Department politicization. The case against Mr. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. in the Russia investigation, is a cause célèbre for Mr. Trump and his supporters, who say the retired general was ensnared in a ‘deep state’  plot against the president. The disclosures came as Mr. Trump made clear on Friday that he believes he has free rein over the Justice Department and its cases, rejecting Mr. Barr’s public demand of a day earlier that the president stop commenting on such cases.” See also, How Trump’s Relationship With Attorney General William Barr Got So Complicated, The New York Times, Peter Baker and Kichael D. Shear, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Since taking office, Mr. Trump has searched for an attorney general who would function much as Roy Cohn did for him as his personal lawyer and fixer in the 1970s — a warrior committed to protecting him and going after his foes. The president thought he had found that person in William P. Barr. But now, people close to Mr. Trump say, he is not so sure. The president was cheered this week when Mr. Barr moved to reduce the sentence of a convicted presidential friend, only to be shocked when the attorney general publicly called on Mr. Trump to stop tweeting about it. And after his livid reaction to the Justice Department’s decision to drop a separate case, which he heard about without any advance notice, he learned that Mr. Barr was intervening more favorably on behalf of another presidential ally. The whipsaw events of recent days have bewildered much of Washington, including some of the people around the president and his attorney general…. Critics assume it is all a Kabuki dance, cynical theater meant to preserve Mr. Barr’s credibility as he executes Mr. Trump’s personal political agenda while pretending to look independent. And it is certainly true that, even now, Mr. Barr continues to demonstrate a willingness to personally take charge of cases with Mr. Trump’s interests at stake. But insiders insist the tension is real, with potentially profound consequences for an administration that has redrawn the lines at the intersection of politics and law enforcement. Barely a week after being acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial, Mr. Trump is demanding that some of the people whose actions he believes led to his troubles be charged, convicted and sent to prison, and it is not clear that even Mr. Barr is willing or able to go as far as the president wants.”

Andrew McCabe, Ex-F.B.I. Official, Will Not Be Charged in Lying Case, The New York Times, Adam Goldman, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump’s, will not face charges in an investigation into whether he lied to investigators about a media leak, his defense team said on Friday. The decision by prosecutors in Washington ends a case that had left Mr. McCabe in legal limbo for nearly two years. It also appears to be a sign that Attorney General William P. Barr wants to show that the Justice Department is independent from the president: The notification came a day after Mr. Barr publicly challenged Mr. Trump to stop attacking law enforcement officials on Twitter and said the criticisms were making his job more difficult.” See also, The Justice Department won’t charge Andrew McCabe, the former FBI official who authorized the investigation of President Trump, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, Devlin Barrett, Karoun Demirjian, and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department will not charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe with lying to investigators about a media disclosure, according to people familiar with the matter and McCabe’s legal team, ending a long-running inquiry into a top law enforcement official who authorized the bureau to investigate President Trump and soon became [Trump’s] political punching bag.” See also, Department of Justice drops probe into former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Politico, Josh Gerstein, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department has decided to abandon its efforts to seek criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to a letter sent to his attorneys. McCabe’s lawyers were told last September that he should expect to be indicted on charges stemming from inaccurate statements he made to FBI investigators about his actions around the time of the 2016 election. However, no indictment was ever returned, leading to speculation that the Washington-based grand jury probing the matter took the rare step of rejecting charges. Prosecutors had been cagey since that time about the status of the investigation into McCabe, who has been a frequent subject of public attacks from President Donald Trump. In theory, they could have presented the case to another grand jury, but on Friday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington informed McCabe’s attorneys that it was giving up its quest to charge the FBI veteran.” See also, Justice Department Closes Investigation Into Ex-FBI No. 2 Andrew McCabe, The Wall Street Journal, Aruna Viswanatha, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department has closed its investigation into former No. 2 FBI official Andrew McCabe without bringing charges, lawyers for Mr. McCabe said Friday, bringing to an end a controversial investigation into someone President Trump has repeatedly criticized…. The office had been examining whether Mr. McCabe, the former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, misled investigators about his role in providing information related to an investigation into the Clinton Foundation in October 2016 to a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. McCabe has long disputed the allegations.”

Continue reading Week 161, Friday, 14 February – Thursday, 20 February 2020 (Days 1,120-1,126)

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

Friday, 31 January 2020, Day 1,107:

Republicans Block Impeachment Witnesses, Clearing Path for Trump Acquittal, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 31 January 2020: “The Senate brought President Trump to the brink of acquittal on Friday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress, as Republicans voted to block consideration of new witnesses and documents in his impeachment trial and shut down a final push by Democrats to bolster their case for the president’s removal. In a nearly party-line vote after a bitter debate, Democrats failed to win support from the four Republicans they needed. With Mr. Trump’s acquittal virtually certain, the president’s allies rallied to his defense, though some conceded he was guilty of the central allegations against him. The Democrats’ push for more witnesses and documents failed 49 to 51, with only two Republicans, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, joining Democrats in favor. A vote on the verdict is planned for Wednesday. As they approached the final stage of the third presidential impeachment proceeding in United States history, Democrats condemned the witness vote and said it would render Mr. Trump’s trial illegitimate and his acquittal meaningless. ‘America will remember this day, unfortunately, where the Senate did not live up to its responsibilities, when the Senate turned away from truth and went along with a sham trial,’ said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. ‘If the president is acquitted, with no witnesses, no documents, the acquittal will have no value because Americans will know that this trial was not a real trial.'” See also, Day in Impeachment: Senate Votes Against Considering Witnesses, The New York Times, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, 5 Takeaways From the Trump Impeachment Trial on Friday, The New York Times, Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Hearing From Witnesses in the Trump Impeachment Trial, The New York Times, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, Senate set to acquit Trump next week after bid for witnesses in impeachment trial is defeated, The Washington Post, Elise Viebeck, Mike DeBonis, and Seung Min Kim, Friday, 31 January 2020: “The Senate voted to bar new evidence in the impeachment trial Friday, paving the way for President Trump’s acquittal even as several top Republicans acknowledged that his actions toward Ukraine were not appropriate. Eleven days into the trial, the highly anticipated vote, which was decided 51 to 49, revealed the partisan divisions in the chamber over whether to subpoena witnesses and documents, a step Democrats argued was crucial to weighing whether Trump abused his power in pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals. Among Republicans, only Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitt Romney (Utah) supported the resolution. In declining to add to the case presented by House Democrats, the Senate delivered a victory for the White House that all but guaranteed that Trump will remain in office. With a final vote on the articles of impeachment set for Wednesday at 4 p.m., Democrats argued that Trump’s expected acquittal will be illegitimate, an acknowledgment of their looming defeat. ‘If [a] judge or president believes that it is to his or her advantage that there shall be a trial with no witnesses, they will cite the case of Donald Trump,’ said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the House impeachment managers. ‘They will make the argument that you can adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the party without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document. . . . I would submit that will be a very dangerous and long-lasting precedent that we will all have to live with.'” See also, Senate to vote Wednesday on whether to remove or acquit Trump on impeachment charges, The Washington Post, John Wagner, Colby Itkowitz, and Michael Brice-Saddler, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, Republicans defeat Democratic bids to hear witnesses in Trump impeachment trial, Politico, Kyle Cheney, John Bresnahan, and Andrew Desiderio, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, What we learned at Trump’s trial Friday, Politico, Politico Staff, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, Senate Rejects Witnesses in Trump Impeachment Trial, The Wall Street Journal, Andrew Duehren, Friday, 31 January 2020: “Senate Republicans rejected Democrats’ demands to call new witnesses and documents in President Trump’s impeachment trial, clearing the way for an acquittal on abuse of power and obstruction-of-Congress charges next week. The 51-49 vote late Friday afternoon represented a major victory for Republican leadership, which has sought to complete the trial as quickly as possible and avoid testimony that could be politically damaging. Democrats had spent weeks calling for the Senate to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton and other officials, seeking testimony about Mr. Trump’s efforts to press Ukraine to launch investigations that could benefit him politically.” See also, Impeachment Trial of President Trump, CNN Politics, Meg Wagner, Fernando Alfonso III, and Mike Hayes, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, Senate impeachment trial: Wednesday acquittal vote scheduled after effort to have witnesses fails, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb, Phil Mattingly, Manu Raju, and Lauren Fox, Friday, 31 January 2020. See also, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Trump can’t be considered acquitted if Senate doesn’t call witnesses in impeachment trial, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Anthony Man, Friday, 31 January 2020: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday that if the Senate votes not to convict President Donald Trump after a trial without witnesses, he can’t really be considered ‘acquitted. I disagree with the idea that he could be acquitted’ if the Senate finishes its proceedings on Friday, Pelosi said in a Deerfield Beach interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board. ‘You can’t be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you can’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and you don’t have documents.’ Even though he would remain in office ‘he is impeached — forever disgraced.’ Pelosi’s comments came before the Senate was to take up the question of whether to call witnesses.”

Trump Told Bolton in Early May to Help With His Ukraine Pressure Campaign to Extract Damaging Information on Democrats from Ukrainian Officials, Book Says, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt, Friday, 31 January 2020: “More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton. Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense. Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton to call Volodymyr Zelensky, who had recently won election as president of Ukraine, to ensure Mr. Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani, who was planning a trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations that the president sought, in Mr. Bolton’s account. Mr. Bolton never made the call, he wrote.” See also, A new Bolton revelation ties Trump to Giuliani’s early efforts in Ukraine–and loops in other Trump allies, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 31 January 2020: “New reporting from the New York Times suggests that then-national security adviser John Bolton was asked by President Trump to call Ukraine’s then-president-elect Volodymyr Zelensky to encourage Zelensky to meet with Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani. That report, detailed in Bolton’s upcoming book, would be a direct demonstration of Trump leveraging his office to advocate for investigations that would benefit himself personally — as Giuliani himself has indicated. When the New York Times reported last May that Giuliani planned to travel to Ukraine, the president’s lawyer was explicit about what he was seeking. His goal was to encourage Zelensky to investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and allegations centered on former vice president Joe Biden — the two investigations that Trump himself promoted in his call with Zelensky on July 25. Reporting has repeatedly suggested that neither investigation is rooted in demonstrated evidence.”

Trump Administration Adds Six Countries to Travel Ban, The New York Times, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Friday, 31 January 2020: “President Trump on Friday added six countries to his list of nations facing stringent travel restrictions, a move that will virtually block immigration from Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria, and from Myanmar, where the Muslim minority is fleeing genocide. Beside Nigeria, three other African countries, Eritrea, Sudan and Tanzania, will face varying degrees of restrictions, as will one former Soviet state, Kyrgyzstan. Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims could also be caught in the crossfire. All six countries have substantial Muslim populations. The total number of countries now on the restricted travel list stands at 13.” See also, Trump Administration Imposes New Travel Restrictions on Six Countries, The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Hackman, Friday, 31 January 2020.

Continue reading Week 159, Friday, 31 January – Thursday, 6 February 2020 (Days 1,107-1,113)

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

Friday, 17 January 2020, Day 1,093:

Trump Legal Team Adds Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz for Senate Impeachment Trial, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, Friday, 17 January 2020: “President Trump enlisted the former independent counsel Ken Starr and the celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz to join his defense team on Friday, turning to two veterans of politically charged legal cases to secure his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial that gets underway in earnest next week. Mr. Starr, whose investigation into President Bill Clinton led to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998, will be joined by Robert W. Ray, his successor as independent counsel, who negotiated a settlement with Mr. Clinton as he left the White House that included a fine and the suspension of his law license. Mr. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus who became famous as a defense counsel for high-profile defendants like O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bülow and Mike Tyson, will have a more limited role, presenting oral arguments at the Senate trial “to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal,” the legal team said in a statement. In choosing the three prominent lawyers, the president assembled what he regards as an all-star television legal team, enlisting some of his favorite defenders from Fox News. But each of them brings his own baggage. Mr. Dershowitz represented Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender. Mr. Starr was pushed out as a university president because of his handling of sexual misconduct by the football team. And Mr. Ray was once charged with stalking a former girlfriend.” See also, Trump expands legal team to include Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz for his impeachment trial, The Washington Post, Elise Viebeck, Josh Dawsey, and Manuel Roig-Franzia, Friday, 17 January 2020: “The team of lawyers expected to guide President Trump toward an election-year acquittal in the Senate expanded suddenly Friday to include Kenneth W. Starr and Alan Dershowitz, two of the biggest legal celebrities of the 1990s, who have drawn attention with their television appearances and involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s defense against charges of child prostitution in the mid-2000s. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, and Dershowitz, the Harvard Law emeritus professor who advised the defense team in football star O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, were announced as the newest members of Trump’s defense. The group will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi and former independent counsel Robert Ray, according to Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, who will lead the defense with the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. The four new lawyers were selected personally by Trump for their political-legal celebrity and vocal defenses of the president in the media — and despite the significant professional baggage that several of them bring to the impeachment saga.” See also, For impeachment defense team, Trump recruits from Fox News, The Washington Post, Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, Trump adds Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to impeachment defense team, CNN Politics, Kaitlan Collins, Pamela Brown, and Kevin Liptak, Friday, 17 January 2020: “A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial. ‘He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent,’ said the legal team, which noted Dershowitz opposed Clinton’s impeachment and voted for his wife, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election. Later Friday, Dershowitz told the website Mediaite it was an exaggeration to say he was joining the team per se. Instead, he described his role as more confined. ‘I think it overstates it to say I’m a member of the Trump team. I was asked to present the constitutional argument that I would have presented had Hillary Clinton been elected and had she been impeached,’ Dershowitz told the website. ‘I was asked to present my constitutional argument against impeachment. I will be there for one hour, basically, presenting my argument.'” See also, Trump Legal Team for Impeachment Trial to Include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, The Wall Street Journal, Michael Bender and Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 17 January 2020: “President Trump finalized his legal team for the Senate impeachment trial, choosing a group of attorneys with the household name recognition and TV experience he values, while overlooking their links to past and continuing controversies, a tradeoff that Mr. Trump has often made. Mr. Trump filled out his team on Friday by increasing the total number of attorneys to ten from four who will defend him against two charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The most controversial selections were constitutional-law professor Alan Dershowitz and former Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.” See also, Trump finally gets his TV-ready lawyers, thanks to impeachment, Politico, Darren Samuelsohn, Anita Kumar, and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, In Jay Sekulow, Trump Taps Longtime Loyalist for Impeachment Defense, The New York Times, Elizabeth Williamson, Friday, 17 January 2020: “Jay Sekulow, who will lead President Trump’s impeachment defense team with Pat A. Cipollone, is one of Mr. Trump’s longest-serving personal lawyers, an achievement in itself as the legal team’s revolving door spins wildly. Mr. Sekulow, 63, coordinates the work of eight lawyers from a cooperative working space a few blocks from the White House, under the name Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group. He is a conservative media personality with deep ties to the evangelical community, a critical part of Mr. Trump’s base. But Mr. Sekulow does not possess extensive experience in the proceedings that Mr. Trump will face in the Senate.” See also, Pat Cipollone: White House Counsel Who Will Help Lead Trump Legal Team, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, Ken Starr Returns to the Impeachment Fray, This Time for the Defense, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, Robert Ray Wanted to Indict Clinton. He Thinks Trump Will Be Vindicated. The New York Times, Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, Alan Dershowitz Adds Trump to the List of His High-Profile Clients, The New York Times, Annie Karni, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, Jane Raskin, Who Helped Trump in Mueller Inquiry, Joins President’s Defense Team, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Friday, 17 January 2020. See also, What Is the Impeachment Process? A Step-by-Step Guide. The New York Times, Weiyi Cai, updated on Friday, 17 January 2020.

Federal appeals court tosses landmark youth climate lawsuit against the U.S. government to force an end to fossil fuel-friendly U.S. policies, The Washington Post, Brady Dennis, Friday, 17 January 2020: “A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a 2015 lawsuit by nearly two dozen young people to force the U.S. government to take more aggressive action on climate change, saying that the children did not have legal standing to bring the landmark case. Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote that the plaintiffs had ‘made a compelling case that action is needed’ to slash the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the courts were not the place to compel such action. ‘We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box,’ Hurwitz wrote. In a blistering dissent, U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton, who served on the panel, criticized the notion that the courts have no role to play, saying the government itself has acknowledged ‘that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,’ Staton wrote. ‘My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.'” See also, Federal Appeals Court Quashes Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit Against the U.S. Government, The New York Times, John Schwartz, Friday, 17 January 2020: “A federal appeals court has thrown out the landmark climate change lawsuit brought on behalf of young people against the federal government…. The appeals court decision reverses an earlier ruling by a district court judge, Ann Aiken, that would have let the case go forward. Instead, the appeals court gave instructions to the lower court to dismiss the case.” See also, Youth activists lose appeal in landmark lawsuit against the US government over climate crisis, The Guardian, Lee Van der Voo, Friday, 17 January 2020: “The ninth circuit court of appeals ordered dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the federal government over climate crisis, citing concerns about separation of powers. The case was brought against the government in 2015, charging that it sanctioned, permitted and authorized a fossil fuel system that compromised the youth plaintiffs’ civil right to property. It implied a constitutional right to a stable climate, and alleged that the government violated the public trust by failing to protect assets held in trust, notably the atmosphere. The plaintiffs, now all between the ages of 12 and 23, also asked the US district court of Oregon to order the government to craft a climate remediation plan, one targeting scientifically acceptable standards to stabilize the climate. On Friday, the ninth circuit court found, however, that the court lacked the power to enforce such a plan or climate policy decisions by the government and Congress, concluding ‘in the end, any plan is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it.’ Nevertheless, the court found that the record ‘conclusively establishes that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions’ and ‘that the government’s contribution to climate change is not simply a result of inaction.’ The court also found that the youth met the requirements for standing in the case and that some of the plaintiffs met the requirements for actual injury.”

Messages show that Derek Harvey, an aide to Representative Devin Nunes (the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee), communicated with Lev Parnas about Ukraine campaign to obtain material that would be damaging to Joe Biden, The Washington Post, Paul Sonne, Rosalind S. Helderman, and Greg Miller, Friday, 17 January 2020: “House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trump’s personal attorney and an aide to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee regarding the effort to obtain material from Ukrainian prosecutors that would be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden. The text messages between Lev Parnas, who functioned as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunes’s office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president — and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering. The newly released texts show that Parnas was working last spring to set up calls for Harvey with the Ukrainian prosecutors who were feeding Giuliani information about Biden.” See also, New text messages put Republican Representative Devin Nunes on the hot seat, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, published on Saturday, 18 January 2020. See also, The Devin Nunes-Ukraine allegations, explained, The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, published on Saturday, 18 January 2020. See also, New impeachment documents show more texts about possible surveillance of Marie Yovanovitch, former US ambassador to Ukraine, CNN Politics, Jeremy Herb and Janu Raju, published on Saturday, 18 January 2020: “House Democrats on Friday released new documents from indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas ahead of the Senate trial that includes new information about the apparent surveillance of former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and additional contacts between Parnas and an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes of California. The new documents add to the growing trove of allegations and evidence that have come from Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas this week. Democrats have released three sets of Parnas documents this week after his attorney provided materials to the committee last weekend, and Parnas did television interviews with CNN and MSNBC in which he implicated Trump and said the efforts were ‘all about 2020.'” See also, House releases new impeachment evidence linking Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, to Lev Parnas, Politico, Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio, Friday, 17 January 2020: “House impeachment investigators sought Friday to pull Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, deeper into the Ukraine scandal at the center of President Donald Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial. A set of text messages released Friday evening by the Intelligence Committee show a top Nunes aide, Derek Harvey, in frequent contact with Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani who has become a key figure in the Ukraine controversy that resulted in Trump’s impeachment last month. In one exchange, Harvey appears to pass along Nunes’ contact information two days before the Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report indicated that a phone connected to Nunes made contact with a phone connected to Parnas.” See also, Democrats Release More Material From Lev Parnas on Ukraine Campaign, The New York Times, Kenneth P. Vogel, Friday, 17 January 2020: “House Democrats released another round of information on Friday that raised questions about elements of the impeachment inquiry, including allegations about the surveillance of the United States ambassador in Ukraine and efforts by an aide to a top congressional Republican to pursue investigations sought by President Trump. The information came from the electronic devices of Lev Parnas, the businessman who worked with the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pursue the pressure campaign on Ukraine at the center of the impeachment trial. Mr. Parnas, who is facing federal campaign finance charges in Manhattan, has publicly turned on Mr. Trump and his allies. He petitioned the court to allow him to release the information to Congress, and has offered to testify in the impeachment trial and to cooperate with prosecutors in New York investigating Mr. Giuliani. And he undertook a media tour of sorts this week in which he claimed that the president ‘knew exactly everything that was going on that Rudy Giuliani was doing in Ukraine.’… The documents released by House Democrats included WhatsApp messages between Mr. Parnas and Derek Harvey, an aide to Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and a leading defender of Mr. Trump. Mr. Nunes has suggested that Mr. Trump and his allies were justified in pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his family and Ukrainians who released information about Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.”

Continue reading Week 157, Friday, 17 January – Thursday, 23 January 2020 (Days 1,093-1,099)