William Barr, Bill Barr, Attorney General Bill Barr - Who Are You? How Corrupt Are You?

This guy is off the rails again, as Trump's fixer. It's unprecedented that an AG looks into sentencing by prosecutors and tamps down or removes the sentences. Barr has been on a rampage doing that for Trump's allies and friends who have already been found guilty or even pled guilty (Mike Flynn).

William Barr. Bill Barr. Attorney General Bill Barr.

DOJ walkout lays bare internal tension with Attorney General Willaim Barr

Attorney General William Barr and his lieutenants have increasingly exerted authority in politically sensitive investigations at the Justice Department, fraying ...

CNN59 minutes ago

Pelosi accuses Trump of 'political interference' in Roger Stone sentencing

video_youtubeFox News4 hours ago

The Roger Stone fiasco further diminishes the Justice Department

Top department brass intervene to help Trump's old friend.

The Washington Post3 hours agoOpinion

On Roger Stone, Trump and Barr Are Out of Control

The prosecutor who quit over the Roger Stone sentencing is sending a powerful message about political weaponization.

The New York Times3 hours agoOpinion

William Barr's efforts to protect Roger Stone are another blow to rule of law

Barr is a 'tough on crime' hypocrite, a Trump toady and chief law enforcement officer who makes a mockery of the legal system.

The Guardian7 hours agoOpinion 

Update Feb 15, 2020 

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/16/806525297/1-100-former-doj-employees-call-on-barr-to-resign-after-intervening-in-stone-cas 

Sign Petition: NO to Social Security and Medicare Cuts

Here Trump and his minions are going all reverse-Robin Hood on us again. Say no, help now -

Reject Trump's proposed budget cuts

Over the weekend, President Trump promised that his 2021 fiscal budget would not touch Social Security and Medicare. But just two days later, the White House’s new proposed budget included steep cuts to the social-safety-net programs millions of Americans rely on. 

If you agree that we shouldn't be slashing Social Security and Medicare, add your name now to stand with Kim >>

Petition Here 

February 2020: Senator Susan Collin’s Faux Moderate Schtick Exposed

What a week for Maine Sen. Susan Collins, huh? National laughingstock video here National laughingstock commentary here Collins' colleague, Utah Sen.  Mitt Romney, provided a master class in political principle, courage, and independence—you know, all those qualities Collins has pretended to possess during her too-long Senate career. Collins looked particularly gutless after the cringe-inducing interview she gave CBS to explain her vote to acquit impeached president Donald Trump, in which she said "I believe that the president has learned from this case." How much has Trump learned? Trump said he disagreed with Collins when asked about her comment by reporters. He said "It was a perfect call." Collins, made to look like a fool by the president she'd just voted to acquit, walked back her previous statement and said she "hopes" Trump learned his lesson. But fat chance of that! Just hours after Collins declared that Trump seeking political retribution against government officials who testified against him would be inappropriate, he axed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council. Now she's a national laughing stock, and the target of Saturday Night Live skits and Stephen Colbert monologues. But wait! The week wasn't over yet for Clown Collins! She had one last chance to save face, and bravely told local Maine media that she was "not going to discuss presidential politics at a time like this"—you know,presidential election year. Susan Collins has skated by in election after election with her faux moderate schtick. But now, after votes to pass Trump's tax scam in 2017, confirm Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and acquit Donald Trump this week, she can't hide from the fact that she's a right-wing hack. Chip in now to beat Collins and break Moscow Mitch McConnell's majority. Keep fighting, Joan McCarter, Daily Kos

Senate Acquits Trump to Save Him From Removal From Office - Moderate Senators Collins and Murkowski Toe the Line - Senator Mitt Romney Tells the Truth

Video Here
Senators Collins (R-Maine) and Murkowski (R-Alaska)  will never be able to live this down. Here is retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) explaining his capitulation and debasement to Donald Trump. What a horrible legacy.

The only GOP Senator to vote to impeach Trump on Abuse of Power. Good for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

This is his statement:

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.” I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions; and third that the judgement of the President’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.

The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public.

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Yes, he did.

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

Adam Schiff’s perfect shutdown of Trump’s ‘executive privilege’ claims is mandatory viewing

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I do want to address one issue that the president's team has been pushing out, not in the senate chamber but evidently everywhere else. And that is their last refuge. The last refuge of the Republican—not the Republican—of the president's team’s effort to conceal the evidence from the American people, and that is this claim of executive privilege. Now, we urged at the beginning of the trial that any witness issues be resolved at the beginning of the trial. The president's team wished to push that off, as did Senator McConnell, so that later in the process they could say, “well, if we were to entertain those questions now that would simply take too long.” That's nonsense. This is not a trial for a speeding ticket or shoplifting. 

This is an impeachment trial involving the president of the United States. These witnesses have important firsthand testimony to offer. The House wishes to call them in the name of the American people and the American people overwhelmingly want to hear what they have to say. Now unlike in the House where the president could play rope-a-dope in the courts for years—that is not an option for the president's team here—and it gives no refuge to people who want to hide behind executive privilege to avoid the truth coming out. We have a very capable justice sitting in that Senate chamber empowered by the Senate rules to decide issues of evidence and privilege. And so if any of these witnesses have a colorful claim that they wish to make, or the president on their behalf, we have a justice who is able to make those determinations, and we trust that the chief justice can do so. 

The Senate will always have the opportunity to overrule the justice, but what they fear, what the president’s team fears, is that the justice will, in fact, apply executive privilege to that very narrow category where it may apply. And here that category may be nowhere at all. Because you cannot use executive privilege to hide wrongdoing or criminality or impeachable misconduct. And that is exactly the purpose for which they seek to use it. 

And finally, they have withheld hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of documents for which there is no colorable claim of privilege. Several of the witnesses that we seek to call have no even colorable claim of privilege. This is merely the latest camouflage and merely the latest effort to obstruct the Congress in its investigation and now to obstruct the Senate in the trial.

That’s a fact. Rep. Schiff continues to just land devastating body blow after body blow.

New York Times: EPA to finalize rule that removes protections for streams and wetlands

The GOP administration is also dismantling protections of streams and wetlands.

As if their downsizing of the agency hadn't already put public safety at greater risk.

Profits over people is a short-sighted folly, followed by a fall. #GOP2020

Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands

The Trump administration has finished a new rule that rolls back environmental controls on many wetlands and intermittent streams, delivering a win to rural ...

The New York TimesYesterday

New York Times: EPA to finalize rule that removes protections for streams and wetlands

The Trump administration appears poised to finalize its replacement to stream and wetland regulations, and is expected to roll back a large body of federal ...

CNN3 hours ago

Trump Newspaper Headlines: December 20, 2019: Impeached

Well, there you go...

The 8-Counts of Impeachment President Trump SHOULD Have Had by December 2019 (New York Times)

Via NY Times Here by David Leonhardt

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee considered five articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon — and voted down two of them. During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the House voted on four articles — and rejected two.

So last week I posed a question to legal experts: If the House were going to forget about political tactics and impeach Trump strictly on the merits, how many articles of impeachment would there be?

I think the answer is eight — eight thematic areas, most of which include more than one violation.

In making the list, I erred on the side of conservatism. I excluded gray areas from the Mueller report, like the Trump campaign’s flirtation with Russian operatives. I also excluded all areas of policy, even the forcible separation of children from their parents, and odious personal behavior, like Trump’s racism, that doesn’t violate the Constitution.

Yet the list is still extensive, which underscores Trump’s thorough unfitness for the presidency. He rejects the basic ideals of American government, and he is damaging the national interest, at home and abroad. Here’s the list:

1. Obstruction of justice.

Both the Nixon and Clinton articles included the phrase “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,” and Trump’s impeachment should start with his pattern of obstructing investigations.

He has admitted that he fired the F.B.I. director to influence the investigation of his own campaign. He has harassed Justice Department officials who are Russia experts, including Andrew McCabe and Bruce Ohr. Trump also directed his White House counsel to lie about their conversations over whether to fire Robert Mueller. Most recently, the White House tried to hide evidence about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president, by improperly classifying material about it.

2. Contempt of Congress.

Another article of impeachment against Nixon said that he had “failed without lawful cause” to cooperate with a congressional investigation. Trump has gone much further than Nixon, outright refusing to participate in the constitutionally prescribed impeachment process. As a result, the country still doesn’t know the full truth of the Ukraine scandal.

3. Abuse of power.

The House will almost certainly adopt a version of this article, impeaching Trump for turning American foreign policy into a grubby opposition-research division of his campaign.

The most haunting part is that if a courageous whistle-blower hadn’t come forward, Trump most likely would have gotten away with it. He would have pressured the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation of the Bidens, and we in the media would have played along, producing the headlines that Trump wanted to see.

4. Impairing the administration of justice.

That phrase appears in the second impeachment article against Nixon, which detailed his efforts to use the I.R.S., F.B.I. and others to hound his opponents. It’s a version of abuse of power — but distinct from the previous item because it involves using the direct investigatory powers of the federal government.

Trump has repeatedly called for investigations against his political opponents, both in public and in private with aides. For example, as the Mueller report documented, he pressured Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, to investigate Hillary Clinton: “You’d be a hero,” Trump said. This behavior has violated the constitutional rights of American citizens and undermined the credibility of the judicial system.

5. Acceptance of emoluments.

The Constitution forbids the president from profiting off the office by accepting “emoluments.” Yet Trump continues to own his hotels, allowing politicians, lobbyists and foreigners to enrich him and curry favor with him by staying there. On Sunday, William Barr, the attorney general, personally paid for a 200-person holiday party at Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.

The Democratic-controlled House has done an especially poor job of calling attention to this corruption. It hasn’t even conducted good oversight hearings — a failure that, as Bob Bauer, an N.Y.U. law professor and former White House counsel, told me, “is just astonishing.”

6. Corruption of elections.

Very few campaign-finance violations are impeachable. But $280,000 in undisclosed hush-money payments during a campaign’s final weeks isn’t a normal campaign-finance violation. The 2016 election was close enough — decided by fewer than 80,000 votes across three swing states — that the silence those payments bought may well have flipped the outcome.

7. Abuse of pardons.

The president has wide latitude to issue pardons. But Trump has done something different: He has encouraged people to break the law (or impede investigations) with a promise of future pardons.

And he didn’t do it only during the Russia investigation. He also reportedly told federal officials to ignore the law and seize private land for his border wall, waving away their worries with pardon promises.

8. Conduct grossly incompatible with the presidency.

This is the broadest item on the list, and I understand if some people are more comfortable with the narrower ones. But the “grossly incompatible” phrase comes from a 1974 House Judiciary Committee report justifying impeachment. It also captures Trump’s subversion of the presidency.

He lies constantly, eroding the credibility of the office. He tries to undermine any independent information that he does not like, which weakens our system of checks and balances. He once went so far as to say that federal law-enforcement agents and prosecutors regularly fabricated evidence — a claim that damages the credibility of every criminal investigation.

You may have forgotten about that particular violation of his oath of office, because Trump commits so many of them. Which is all the more reason to make an effort to hold him accountable.

Gun Violence and Mortality in the US: It's on the GOP

When cops start losing their patience... the #GOP is toasted.... Here and below from The Guardian.

This is just a most straight-forward rip on Mitch McConnell... he's just got to go....

“We’ve got to get the Violence Against Women Act acted upon,” Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo said. “We’ve got to get in a room. I don’t want to hear about how much they support law enforcement, how much they care about lives and the sanctity of lives.

Guns and lies in America: sign up for email updates

“And yet we all know in law enforcement that this is one of the biggest reasons that the Senate and Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and others are not getting into a room and having a conference committee with the House, and getting the Violence Against Women Act, is because the NRA doesn’t like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends.”

The NRA says the act’s definition of domestic abuse is too broad. Experts disagree.
“And who killed our sergeant?” Acevedo asked. “A boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you’re either here for women and children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you’re here for the NRA.”

Growing more emotional, he continued: “So I don’t want to see their little smug faces about how much they care about law enforcement when I’m burying a sergeant because they don’t want to piss off the NRA.

“Make up your minds. Whose side are you on? Gun manufactures? The gun lobby? Or the children who are getting gunned down in this country every single day? In our schools, in our theatres, in our colleges, on our streets, in our homes, in our businesses. Who are you coming to work for?

The Violence Against Women Act, passed in 1994, lapsed during last year’s government shutdown. The Democratic-controlled House reauthorised it in April, adding protections for transgender victims and banning those convicted of domestic abuse from buying guns.
Responding to Acevedo’s comments last week, Cornyn referred to Donald Trump’s current predicament when he said: “Unfortunately, legislation like this has fallen casualty to impeachment mania.”
The Senate has not yet had to act on impeachment, as House committees continue to stage hearings before staging a formal vote.
On Monday Acevedo rejected Cornyn’s argument. “And don’t tell me, senator, with all due respect, it’s about the impeachment. Because you brag every day, you and Mitch McConnell, about getting judges confirmed. You brag about every piece of legislation you care about.

“Start caring about cops, children and women and everyday gun violence. And that will be the last thing I say this week, because the rest of this week is going to be about Christopher Brewster and his sacrifice.”

Cornyn did not immediately comment. Nor did the NRA.
“You are an American, and American blood is being shed every day in this community throughout this nation,” Acevedo said. “Do something about it or retire.”