"Republican Justin Amash fires back at GOP critics — and makes a forceful case for impeaching Trump"

Yesterday, I was going to write an opinion on the case for impeaching the worst, most cruel, most mendacious, most obstructive abuser of power and the most threatening to our constitutional democratic way of life of any president in US history, Donald J. Trump.   Instead I wrote a piece about the verbal lying lead up to war with Iran.

In truth, that opinion had everything to do with the myriad of investigations, lies, Russian interference in the homeland and a case Mueller made for impeachment in response to Trump's obstruction of justice and abuse of power laid out in Volume II of the Mueller Report.

I was going to research it all but instead Justin Amash, Libertarian Republican from Missouri did it for me by releasing a set of his tweets that said it all.  Representative Amash wrote a well written and Constitutionally sound case of the rationales for impeachment of Donald Trump.  He is the first Republican with the moral scruples to have written such.  I could not have written one as complete as he.  Donald J. Trump  surely this deserves impeachment.  If he doesn't no one does.  I paste Rep. Amash's tweets below:

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) is firing back at critics within his own party who slammed him for arguing over the weekend that President Donald Trump has committed “impeachable” offenses.

In a tweet storm posted on Monday afternoon, Amash issued a point-by-point takedown of all the arguments Republicans have made to shield Trump from impeachment.

“People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation — and therefore cannot be impeached — are resting their argument on several falsehoods,” Amash began. “In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.”

Amash then ripped apart the argument that you can only obstruct justice if you are implicated in an underlying crime — and he showed how the entire legal system could fall apart if suspects could get away with obstructing justice to thwart prosecutors from determining whether crimes had been committed.

“Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution,” he wrote. “If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.”

Read the entire tweet storm below.

Justin Amash ✔ @justinamash

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.

In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.

In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.

In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

If only the remainder of Congressional Republicans would be brave enough to enunciate what they know to be true as Justin Amash did.  There is no question the president obstructed justice and abused his power many times.  Read Volume II of the Mueller Report which describes how he did in plain English how he did for all to understand.

At long last

The latest trumped up rationale attempting to justify an American war-like posture regarding the Iran threat is one I could have predicted.  One wonders why the media with the reflection of the Iraq debacle in the not-too-distant background says nothing challenging the president's veracity about the threat that Iran poses.   When asked what the threat was from Iran reality show Donald says "You do not want to know."  Sounds convincing?  No it sounds like the Trump Reality Show lie speak which I admit he does very well.  The unfit for the presidency illiterate in the White House pulled the US out of a nuclear agreement with Iran that the previous administration worked so hard to create and to which Iran was adhering.  It lowered the potential of war between the US and Iran as well as lowered the nuclear threat.  Bolton and Trump pulling the US out of it knew justification for war with Iran would be easier.

Iran is a threat?  I suspect not.  Trump ought to take what Iran had to say in response to Trump's explosive rhetoric of eradicating Iran and, indeed, show some respect.  And by the way tell the truth.  Who is the real threat? Trump's ugly bellicose rhetoric and a president who kisses the authoritarian Putin's ring, a president who turns his back on the west and our separation of powers Constitutional democracy is not one I can easily believe.   Could the truth telling MSNBC, CNN and other credible networks ask how is Iran to react when Trump pulls out of a nuclear agreement that tamped down the threat of war between both nations?  Trump's threatening rhetoric toward Iran created one cog in the wheel of war so Trump can justify it.

Why does the real press not tell the truth about US war and why does it let Trump spew his lies and foment fear to justify it?  Get it right this time as war monger Bolton tries to ramp up Trump's words of war so he can get what he has always wanted regime change in Iran and at the same time Trump can turn the public's eye away from Trump's corruption, legal woes, obvious obstruction of justice and possible impeachment by wagging the dog's tail.  Howard Zinn used to say about a nation's leaders advocating war "question everything."  What does a nation have to gain and what do people in that nation have to gain the most from war? 

People die and some are maimed for life in war.  Taking the US government's justification for war needs to be scrupulously questioned.  Nearly 60,000 American lives were lost in Vietnam and a million Vietnamese deaths based on the Gulf of Tonkin lie; Nearly 5000 American deaths in Iraq along with its allies numbers, over 500,000 Iraqi deaths and countless others wounded and/or maimed for life based on the WMD lie.  American soldiers die in war.  Civilian innocents die in war and are often led into it by leaders who never spent a day in their life fighting it. President Bone Spur got out of Vietnam and could not tell you on which foot his so called bone spur was. 

Quoting Joseph Welch during the Army/McCarthy fabrications of Communists in the US government that ruined lives and careers in the 1950's:  "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"  RESIST!

NYT: "Trump May Be Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes"

As I have been saying for a long time nothing horrific about Trump ever surprises me anymore.  What would Justice Jackson say? What did Nuremberg stand for?  Our nation or part of it has gone utterly insane.  Our nation is better than that aren't we?  A question I never had to pose.

The story:  

By Dave Philipps

• May 18, 2019

"President Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder and desecration of a corpse, according to two United States officials.

The officials said that the Trump administration had made expedited requests this week for paperwork needed to pardon the troops on or around Memorial Day.

One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, who is scheduled to stand trial in the coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq.

The others are believed to include the case of a former Blackwater security contractor recently found guilty in the deadly 2007 shooting of dozens of unarmed Iraqis; the case of Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, the Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010; and the case of a group of Marine Corps snipers charged with urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said they had not seen a complete list, and did not know if other service members were included in the request for pardon paperwork.

The White House sent requests on Friday to the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which alerted the military branches, according to one senior military official. Pardon files include background information and details on criminal charges, and in many cases include letters describing how the person in question has made amends.

The official said while assembling pardon files typically takes months, the Justice Department stressed that all files would have to be complete before Memorial Day weekend, because the President planned to pardon the men then. A second United States official confirmed the request concerning Chief Gallagher.

[Chief Gallagher’s case has been thrown into turmoil over claims of spying.]

The military branches referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment on the matter.

Mr. Trump has often bypassed traditional channels in granting pardons and wielded his power freely, sometimes in politically charged cases that resonate with him personally, such as the conviction of the former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Earlier this month, the president pardoned former Army First Lt. Michael Behenna, who had been convicted of killing an Iraqi during an interrogation in 2008.

While the requests for pardon files are a strong sign of the president’s plans, Mr. Trump has been known to change his mind and it is not clear what the impetus was for the requests. But most of the troops who are positioned for a pardon have been championed by conservative lawmakers and media organizations, such as Fox News, which have portrayed them as being unfairly punished for trying to do their job. Many have pushed for the president to intervene. The White House declined to comment.

Pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals at once, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history, legal experts said. Some worried that it could erode the legitimacy of military law and undercut good order and discipline in the ranks.

Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, left, the Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010. Creditvia the office of Rep. Duncan Hunter"

Image

Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, left, the Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010.Creditvia the office of Rep. Duncan Hunter

“These are all extremely complicated cases that have gone through a careful system of consideration. A freewheeling pardon undermines that whole system,” said Gary Solis, a retired military judge and armor officer who served in Vietnam. “It raises the prospect in the minds of the troops that says, ‘Whatever we do, if we can get the folks back home behind us, maybe we can get let off.’”

Chief Gallagher’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, was surprised by the news that the president could be considering a pardon, and said ideally the chief would be acquitted at trial.

“We want the opportunity to exonerate my client,” Mr. Parlatore said in an interview. “At the same time, there is always a risk in going to trial. My primary objective is to get Chief Gallagher home to his family. To that end, Chief Gallagher would welcome any involvement by the president.”

[Navy SEALS were warned not to speak out about Chief Gallagher.]

Other than violating military law, the cases the president is said to be considering defy easy categorization.

Navy SEALs who served with Chief Gallagher told authorities he indiscriminately shot at civilians, gunning down a young woman in a flowered hijab and an unarmed old man. They also said he stabbed a teenage captive, then bragged about it in text messages. His trial is set to start at the end of this month. If convicted, he faces life in prison. He has pleaded not guilty and denies all charges.

Major Golsteyn is charged with killing an Afghan man that he and other soldiers said had bomb-making materials. After an interrogation, the soldiers let the man go. Fearing that the man would return to making improvised explosives, which had already killed two Marines in the area, Major Golsteyn later said he killed the man.

Mr. Trump has singled both men out on Twitter, calling Major Golsteyn a “U.S. Military hero,” and praising Chief Gallagher for his service to the country.

The Blackwater contractor, Nicholas A. Slatten, is one of several Blackwater contractors charged in the killing of 17 Iraqis and the wounding of 20 more on a Baghdad street. After a number of mistrials and other delays, he is the only one who has been convicted.

The Marines charged in urinating on the corpse of a Taliban fighter were caught after a video of the act was found.

The fact that the requests were sent from the White House to the Justice Department, instead of the other way around, is a reversal of long-established practices, said Margaret Love, who served as the United States pardon attorney during the first Bush administration and part of the Clinton administration.

Long ago, presidents wielded clemency power directly, Ms. Love said, but that changed at the end of the Civil War when President Lincoln delegated review of clemency requests to his attorney general. Since then, cases have generally been vetted by Justice Department lawyers before being sent to the president.

President Trump has upended that practice, often issuing pardons with little or no notice to the Justice Department, she said, adding that the fact the department is requesting files on men like Chief Gallagher at all suggests that Attorney General William P. Barr is trying to re-exert some authority over the process.

Process aside, she said that pardoning the men would be an abrupt departure from the past.

“Presidents use pardons to send messages. They recognize when a process wasn’t just or when punishments were too extreme, like for some nonviolent drug cases,” she said. “If this president is planning to pardon a bunch of people charged with war crimes, he will use the pardon power to send a far darker message.”

Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman and Katie Benner contributed reporting.

"I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion"

Everyone should read this story below and think what the bestial men and one woman governor of Alabama have done. Shame on them and shame on any court that does not strike down this anti-choice draconian insane law! Keep abortion private, legal and safe. Let the woman decide her fate.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-abortion-law-rape_n_5cdc3627e4b09d94af53f471

The light of Day

Doris Day died today.  She lived a long, sometimes difficult but interesting life. Her name Day was a metaphor, I think, for the cultural light she reflected. I remember her well. No matter the age those who have defined an era are particularly hard to see leave us.

Sometimes I wish I could return to that innocent era where a movie like Pillow Talk with Rock Hudson could be so popular. In our age of realism the fact that Rock Hudson was gay could never be hidden and that is a good thing, however, the innocence that has been lost to a modern era that has far too much sexual realism, physical brutality and the freedom to declare the crass speech of hate okay has done something evil to our culture and coarsened it. Steve Allen entitled his book "Vulgarians at the Gate" and wrote about it.  It allows a Donald Trump to joke about killing immigrants in the Florida panhandle with no penalty levied against him for saying it. It was, he claimed, a joke after all until some sick someone who supports Trump chooses to think that a very good idea to do.

A president colors an era.  Trump's use of incorrect as well as profane verbiage defines the ugliness of our present time. There are no limits to the filth that pours out of his mouth as well as his emblem of adultery, misogyny and harassment that has defined his behavior with women.   I am sure Doris Day had something critical to say about that.  I know I do.

How has it come to this?

My father and I had many political discussions.  His views, at least initially, had a profound impact on me.  Although Republican he did not hide his love for Franklin Roosevelt and his love of Roosevelt's proclivity for verbal eloquence.  When FDR spoke my father listened.  I was born well after Roosevelt's death but I felt like I knew him.  I visited his grave, Eleanor's grave and his dog Fala's grave at Hyde Park, New York.  I stood there and cried yearning for that moment in time when he lived to be repeated in my era.  I have never known what it would be like to love a president like my father loved Roosevelt. 

I wonder, too, what he would think of our current classless and brash 1000 lies narcissistic president who loves himself more than anyone else and because he does perpetrated the greatest con of the century upon an electorate who believed the lies he told.  He was going to give big tax breaks to everyone but did so permanently only for the top 2% wealthiest telling his friends at his Mar A Lago Estate that they were going to love him come tax time.  He told his supporters during the campaign that he was going to repeal Obamacare but that he was going to replace it with something better than before, moreover, he was not going to let insurance companies get away with not paying for preexisting conditions.  He did neither.  He told them he was going to solve illegal immigration but said nothing about a Holocaustesque separation of children from their parents made worse by failing to include a way to reunite them with the parents who brought them into this world in the first place leaving them alone and afraid stuck in cages or tents.  How did it come to this?

Trump told his fans he was extraordinarily wealthy, a fabulous businessman and smart.  They did not care he refused to show his taxes even though every other modern-day president has proclaiming ad infinitum they were under audit.  What was he hiding?   They did not care that he refused to show a copy of his grades and threatened a lawsuit if any of the institutions he attended revealed them.   When the Access Hollywood tape came out as he proudly declared because he was rich women let him do most anything to them.  Even that did not bother his so called moral Evangelical supporters.  He is the first American president to fall in love with authoritarian dictators and eschew the democracies of Europe even threatening NATO, America's premier defense of Europe.  I have read and it has been alleged that he keeps on his night table a copy of Mein Kampf, Hitler's autobiography written in Landsberg prison where he was held for an attempted overthrow of the German Weimer state.  Trump, by his own admission, has fallen in love with Kim Jong Un, the brutal executioner of the innocent of N. Korea.  Then there is always Putin, the man he loves the most; a man whom he believes did not subvert the 2016 election because Putin told him emphatically he did not and Trump believes him over the truth tellers of his own national security administration.  How did it come to this?

By far the most subversive element in which he is now engaged is threatening our nation's greatest 1789 foundational legacy -- The Constitutional separation of powers.  Our Founders formed this government so that each coequal branch of government would protect against totalitarian usurpation of power the Founders knew human flesh to be heir to.  They wanted a Republic we could keep.  Trump's hand has been caught in the cookie jar stealing all the benefits democracy has to offer, siding with dictators and denying all that our first branch of government, the legislative branch, is requesting from its second Executive branch.  Sure, Trump thinks, let it play out in the courts.  By that time he would have won a second term.  Donald J. Trump is a liar, he is a con man, he is a racist,  a self dealer, a criminal, a lousy deal maker we now know lost 1 billion bucks from from 1985 to 1994 paying zero taxes.  We now know he would be indicted, convicted and sent to jail for his myriad of crimes too numerous to mention here if only he were not president of a nation which does not indict a sitting president.  How has it come to this?

In one of my many discussions with my father I asked him about the 1933 southern Populist Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long.  My father said that he was a bad man who wanted to be a king.  Huey Long was ultimately assassinated on the steps of the Louisiana state capitol.   It reminds me of the Lord Acton quotes:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

“Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force.”

“Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a self-denying ordinance.”

“Absolute power demoralizes.”  

Will our Republic stand against this would be dictator Trump or will it succumb to an authoritarian corrupt executive who in his heart wants to be a king?  We must ask ourselves how it has come to this and, if we survive it, how will we never let it happen again.

Terror on the Right

Trump Admin Disbanded Domestic Terror Unit Amid Rising Far-Right Violence

The far right is the most vicious and violent of all on the political spectrum. The far right has zero empathy and zero morality. They are exclusionary and not egalitarian or inclusive. Since their morality is zero, killing for their cause -- the white "race" is done with impunity. They do not care about those who cannot care for themselves. Their belief in a superior white race means that they want the weakest to die and government to pay nothing to help anyone. It's that simple. 

Read Mein Kampf for their road map and listen to Adolph Hitler's screaming diatribes for their inspiration.  Trump has his visions set on eradicating Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security with a rollback of corporate regulations initiated in other administrations to protect us and the planet we live on.   The only thing Trump wants to protect is his bank accounts no matter the fraudulent methods he used to accumulate his wealth.  It is time to RESIST this, and act for all of those who cannot act for themselves.