THE HOW AND WHY OF IMPEACHMENT – Reblog – THE SHINBONE STAR

12/07/201912/07/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 7 Comments

As much as you may view this as politics, it is also education. Impeachment is a complicated business with a single motive: to protect the American Constitution.

I can see all the sides of this impeachment. I understand why Nancy Pelosi wanted to wait and I can see why she changed her mind. I agree with the three scholars who feel that if Trump doesn’t warrant an impeachment, no one does. On the other hand, I also completely understood the one who felt we needed to give the people time to absorb the data and get on board.

I also understand that since the President’s office has categorically refused to provide any of the documents or testimony required by subpoenas, is there any value in waiting when — even if the Supreme Court nods in the Democrat’s direction — it does not necessarily mean the President or his coterie of evil-doers will comply. It would not be the first time an American President refused to obey an order from the Supreme Court.

So what are we to do? If it were possible — if the election weren’t so close — I would slow it down and allow more Americans to understand why impeachment is critically important to us.

Is it possible to slow it down? I don’t think so. But I don’t have answers. Just many more questions.

WRITTEN BY FRED BUNCH, DECEMBER 5, 2019

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove “the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The last word in this sentence is very important in today’s political world.

Without doubt, Donald J. Trump and members of his entire crew aboard and piloting his Ship of Vipers have amassed enough misdemeanors by their refusal to abide by the numerous subpoenas they are ignoring at his order.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Tax evasion is a key phrase here and the reason Trump is fighting so fiercely to prevent the House or anyone else from accessing his returns.

The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred. It seems to fit Trump to a T. Only this time, he withheld money from Ukraine for a political favor against his political opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, and son Hunter.

It should be remembered that the impeachment process is political, not criminal.

According to the rules of impeachment:

The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

Rule 3 doesn’t give Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham — or anyone else the right to block the impeachment.

The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

In contrast to the presidential oath, where it’s used only by tradition, the phrase “so help me God” has been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.

Each and every one of them swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

When the subject of an oath arose during the Federal Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were divided. Should an oath be required in a free country at all? And should state officials swear allegiance to the federal Constitution, or should federal officials swear to uphold state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution?

According to the History, Art And Archives web page of the House of Representatives: “Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania viewed oaths as ‘left-handed security only’ and that ‘a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.’ The lexicographer and political writer Noah Webster called oaths ‘instruments of slavery’ and a ‘badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry.’ Both Wilson and Webster argued that people would be naturally inclined to support just governments, so oaths were unnecessary. Many others thought such concerns were overwrought. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that requiring oaths for government officials ‘would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.’”

The web page continues: “The current practice for swearing-in Members is an innovation of Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who abandoned the practice of Members taking the oath by state delegations in 1929. Longworth altered the practice because he hoped the mass swearing-in would better ‘comport with the dignity and solemnity’ of the ceremony and, according to some historical accounts, to avoid a potential attempt to challenge the seating of Oscar De Priest of Illinois, the first African- American elected to Congress in the 20th century.

“While subsequent Speakers went back to the original method, in 1937 Speaker William B. Bankhead chose to return to the en masse swearing-in and this has remained the practice. Since the 80th Congress (1947–1949), Members have also been required to sign an oath, which is held by the Clerk of the House.”

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

This is an excellent defense to the oft used mantra of “let the voters decide.” George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought treason and bribery did not cover all the harm a president might do.

As we can sadly see, Mason’s fears were well-founded.

If the Founding Fathers could see how our entire governmental process has been stolen by the Republican Party, they would likely suffer apoplexy.

Likely if the Democrats were the target of impeachment charges, they would vote party line to quash the impeachment. It’s how every presidential impeachment attempt has ended.

In a perfect, ethical and moral political world one can only dream that the Democratic Party would stand erect and purge their embarrassment. Obviously, the Trumplican Party will cling to their crooked, vile captain and vote nay. Like Captain Queeg in “The Caine Mutiny,” Donald Trump, Captain of his Ship of Vipers, sits and juggles his marbles — as it were.

Check out the original on The Shinbone Star. They have written some brilliant material that can answer a lot of questions. No, they are not a neutral voice, but they are also right.

WHAT IF YOU WERE WRONG? – REBLOG- Sue Vincent

12/05/201912/04/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / Leave a comment

There is a lot of stuff to think about in this post! And it strikes so very close to home.

Sue Vincent's Daily Echo

rumi quote

I was thinking about a discussion I had enjoyed with a friend, about how our upbringing colours our worlds more than we realise. Both cultural and personal influences shape the images that imprint themselves upon the mind of the child and it is against these that we measure the experience of life in later years.

Life is a confusing thing sometimes and there is not always clear guidance on how best to live it. Social conduct and the parameters of acceptable behaviour differ from country to country. Laws and morality share many core tenets worldwide, but also throw up areas of wide disparity and within every nation there are even more variances dictated by local custom, heritage and the beliefs of a multicultural society. There are as many ideas about what is the ‘right’ way to live as there are minds, hearts and rule-books to conceive them.

Many of our…

View original post 131 more words

WHAT THE DOES THE FEDERAL JUDGE’S RULING ABOUT MCGAHN MEAN? Reblog – Washington Post

11/26/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 2 Comments

This is one of the contextual posts The Washington Post sends out to help us understand complicated rulings from courts and congress. This one is important insofar as it says what many of us have been thinking.

In America, we do not have Kings. We do not have monarchs with unlimited powers. That is what the Revolutionary War was about. In all of our history, this is the one thing the U.S. has always stood against: allowing unlimited power by one person over all others. We are not Trump’s subjects. He is our subject. We elected him — and he is not in any way the absolute ruler here.

The Daily 202: In ordering McGahn to testify, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson broadly rejects Trump’s absolutist claims

By James Hohmann

November 26 at 11:32 AM

With Mariana Alfaro

THE BIG IDEA: In her ruling that Don McGahn must comply with a congressional subpoena, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington goes to great lengths to illustrate how far out on a constitutional limb President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have crawled with their absolutist claims of executive power.

Jackson invokes “Animal Farm” as she dismisses the Justice Department’s position that the president alone has the authority to make unilateral determinations regarding whether he and his senior aides, current and former, will respond to, or defy, subpoenas from House committees during investigations of potential wrongdoing by his own administration.

“For a similar vantage point, see the circumstances described by George Orwell,” the judge writes in her 118-page decision. “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

House Democrats want the former White House counsel, who left his position in October 2018, to testify about the episodes of possible obstruction of justice that former special counsel Bob Mueller outlined in his report. They are debating whether to proceed with articles of impeachment related to the president’s alleged efforts to undermine that investigation. Jackson said McGahn can assert executive privilege when asked specific questions, but Trump cannot issue a blanket order to stop his former aide from showing up to testify.

“Compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law,” she concludes.

— The Justice Department, which is representing the former White House counsel in the case, quickly announced plans to appeal, and the White House decried the ruling in a statement. McGahn’s lawyer said his client will comply with Jackson’s order to appear unless a court issues a stay pending appeal.

— Jackson accuses the Trump administration of “emasculating” the House by trying to thwart its ability to seek redress from the courts when subpoenas are ignored. The judge quotes from “The Federalist Papers,” specifically No. 51 by James Madison and No. 69 by Alexander Hamilton, along with Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” as she rejects the administration’s argument that White House senior staff are “absolutely immune.”

— Trump has cottoned to describing his authority as “absolute.” He has publicly declared his intention to stonewall and ignore all subpoenas. White House counsel Pat Cipollone said in an Oct. 8 letter that the administration would not cooperate in any way with the House’s inquiry into whether the president abused his power vis-a-vis Ukraine.

— Some variant of the word “absolute” appears 124 times in Jackson’s opinion. She picks apart each of the Justice Department’s arguments with often elegant prose and lays out a standard for compliance that would apply just as much to, say, former national security adviser John Bolton as McGahn. She apparently wrote this opinion knowing that her decision would be appealed, and the case could eventually wind up before the Supreme Court. Some Democrats hope that her ruling, in the meantime, could embolden other current or former Trump administration officials to comply with subpoenas and appear for depositions.

“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” Jackson writes. “This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life.”

— Jackson, nominated by Barack Obama, has been a district court judge since 2013. Still only 49, she’s often mentioned in elite legal circles as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court by a future Democratic president, which could make her the first black woman to join the high court. The judge studied government as an undergraduate at Harvard and stayed for law school, like Chief Justice John Roberts, where she was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. Jackson clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, served as a federal public defender and spent a few years in private practice.

— The judge blasts the Justice Department for arguing in the McGahn case that courts don’t have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the legislative and executive branches while the president’s personal lawyers simultaneously ask courts to block subpoenas for his tax records. “A lawsuit that asserts that a legislative subpoena should be quashed as unlawful is merely the flip side of a lawsuit that argues that a legislative subpoena should be enforced,” she explains. “DOJ implicitly suggests that (much like absolute testimonial immunity) the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is properly invoked only at the pleasure of the President.”

Jackson emphasizes that a 1971 memo from Richard Nixon’s Office of Legal Counsel asserting that senior White House aides do not need to appear before Congress is “neither precedential nor persuasive.” She argues that the executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege. “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth,” she adds.

The judge notes that Ronald Reagan, during the Iran-Contra affair, declined to assert executive privilege and even furnished relevant excerpts of his personal diaries to Congress for review. She recalls how George Washington turned over records so that Congress could investigate a military operation that went awry. She also notes how legislative and executive branches have often reached accommodations to prevent courts from getting involved and points out that Trump has rejected this approach.

— Jackson repeatedly cites a 2008 decision in which U.S. District Judge John Bates, also of Washington, rejected President George W. Bush’s bid to block testimony by his former counsel Harriet Miers to the House Judiciary Committee on the firings of U.S. attorneys. An appeals court never ruled on the case because the White House and Congress reached an accommodation. But Bates, a Bush appointee, concluded that the Bush administration’s claim of “absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.”

Jackson cites or refers to Bates’s ruling more than 40 times. “Just as with Harriet Miers before him,” Jackson writes, “Donald McGahn must appear.”

— She explains how legislative subpoenas are older than the country itself. Citing a 1926 law review article, Jackson notes that, even before the ratification of the Constitution in 1787, the colonial assemblies, like the House of Commons, assumed, usually without question, the right to investigate. She shows how the historical roots of the concept of a “subpoena” go back to the times of ancient Rome and Athens. Jackson traces how the concept evolved in English common law. Jackson quotes an opinion from Chief Justice John Marshall in 1807 that concluded “the obligation [to comply with a subpoena] is general, and it would seem that no person could claim an exemption” from it.

“As far as this Court can tell, no federal judge has ever held that defiance of a valid subpoena does not amount to concrete and particularized injury in fact; indeed, it appears that no court has ever even considered this proposition,” Jackson writes. “And perhaps for good reason: if defiance of duly issued subpoenas does not create Article III standing and does not open the doors of the court for enforcement purposes, it is hard to see how the wheels of our system of civil and criminal justice could keep turning.”

— Judges always cite precedents, of course. That’s their job. But it reveals something deeper about the present political moment that so many federal judges, appointed by previous presidents of both parties, feel compelled to offer what read like increasingly discursive and detailed, history lessons in their rulings to illustrate why Trump’s conception of his power is so at odds with the American tradition. In May, for example, another judge at the same courthouse likened Trump to James Buchanan, who also whined about “harassment” from Congress. Perhaps part of the impulse is the incumbent’s clear disinterest in U.S. history or his demonstrated lack of basic historical knowledge.

— For his part, Barr has been accusing “the left” of trying to “incapacitate” Trump by conducting oversight, which he likens to a “war” on the president. “The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law,” the attorney general said at the Federalist Society’s annual meeting earlier this month. “I don’t deny that Congress has some implied authority. But the sheer volume of what we see today, the pursuit of scores of parallel investigations through an avalanche of subpoenas, is plainly designed to incapacitate the executive branch and indeed is touted as such.”

— This case could certainly end up on the Supreme Court’s docket. The justices, including two appointed by Trump, may soon weigh in on other major cases revolving around the separation of powers. Last night, for instance, the Supreme Court blocked a House committee from immediately reviewing Trump’s financial records after the president’s lawyers agreed to an expedited review of a lower court ruling granting access.

“The court’s action signals that, even as Congress considers impeaching Trump, the court will undertake a more complete consideration of the legal powers of Congress and state prosecutors to investigate the president while he is in office,” Robert Barnes reports. “The court instructed Trump’s lawyers to file a petition by Dec. 5 stating why the court should accept the case for full briefing and oral argument. If the petition is eventually denied, the lower-court ruling will go into effect. If accepted, the case probably will be heard this term, with a decision before the court adjourns at the end of June.”

— In the meantime, Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the House investigations is likely to emerge as the basis for its own article of impeachment. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a letter to his colleagues on Monday that he plans to send a report summarizing the conclusions of his investigations to the House Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from Thanksgiving break next week. “We will catalogue the instances of noncompliance with lawful subpoenas as part of our report to the Judiciary Committee,” Schiff wrote, “which will allow that Committee to consider whether an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress is warranted along with an article or articles based on this underlying conduct or other presidential misconduct.”

Welcome to the Daily 202, PowerPost’s morning briefing for decision-makers.
Sign up to receive the newsletter.

How We Domesticated Cats, Twice – Reblog

11/13/201911/13/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 4 Comments

This is based on the belief that we really have domesticated cats!

ScienceSwitch

A burial in Cyprus that dates back to around 9,500 ago is the oldest known evidence of companionship between humans and cats. But when did this close relationship start? And how did we help cats take over Cyprus, and eventually the world?

Via – PBS Eons

View original post

IT’S CONSTITUTIONALLY SIMPLE: TRUMP HAS VIOLATED THE LAW: THE SHINBONE STAR – Marilyn Armstrong

11/09/201911/08/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 11 Comments

From the U.S. Constitution (as amended; emphasis added)

“It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.”

It’s this simple: Read the Constitution. It states it’s “unlawful” to “solicit” help from a foreign national to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent. It’s a crime. It’s spelled out in black and white for anyone and everyone to read.

The Constitution does not provide a political partisan spin on what’s legal or illegal. The document crafted by our founding fathers — sustained as the foundation for the safety and security of our republic for more than 240 years — is clear, crystal clear on this topic.

To repeat loudly from the Constitution: It’s “unlawful” for any person “to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.”

Notice no mention here of any need for a “quid pro quo” to make a solicitation of aid illegal. Simply asking for help is against the law.

Just to make certain the facts of the issue are clear in all of our minds, here’s what pertinent portions of a White House-provided “memo” — a heavily edited and heavily redacted “transcript” of the July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky — reveals. It’s important to note this is not a “perfect” phone conversation.

UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019

MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine
Participants: President Zelensky of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
Date/Time: July 25, 2019/9:03-9:33 am EDT
Place: Residence

“President Zelensky: … I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people. The server: they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it … Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelensky: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier … I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine … I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great … The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

So ignore all the noise that Trump has done nothing wrong, nothing impeachable, coming from the White House and Republican lawmakers across the country as public testimony begins in earnest Wednesday in the House impeachment investigation. All the nonsensical ravings from these lunatic minds are aimed at distracting “we the people” from the “unlawful” (illegal) and corrupt activities undertaken by government officials during the past few months at the direction of the current Oval Office occupant.

Focus on this fact: Trump has violated the law and is feverishly working to obstruct the Constitutionally-authorized impeachment inquiry by ordering White House officials familiar with particulars of the Ukranian phone call not to testify before House Committees involved in the impeachment process.

Focus on this fact: Ignoring a subpoena to testify is an “obstruction of Congress” or an “obstruction of justice” both criminal acts. So, in essence, Trump is ordering executive branch employees — paid for with taxpayer dollars — to commit a crime

Focus on this fact: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has stated emphatically that if the House passes articles of impeachment against Trump he will personally make certain the articles are “taken care of.” In other words either no Senate trial or no conviction.

Focus on this fact: House Democrats engaged in the impeachment inquiry continue to work up legislation to address many of the key issues that directly impact “we the people,” including measures on gun control, minimum wage, and health care. These bills once approved are sent over to the Senate where McConnell, in his role as majority leader, ignores them.

Focus on this fact: It’s the “do-nothing Senate Republicans” intent and obsessed with defending an unlawful president who are not going about the business of governing the country. Apparently, they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

The facts, Constitutionally speaking, show Trump is acting “unlawfully,” attempting to once again solicit help from foreign governments in order to win reelection as president (remember Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election in order to get their man into the White House).

Our country, the global community, can not afford to allow this type of anti-American, treasonous behavior to continue. Focus on the facts provided by our Constitution, not the fiction flowing from the White House.

CAN DONALD TRUMP READ? – Marilyn Armstrong

11/01/201910/29/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 13 Comments

On Quora today, the question was: What is Donald Trump’s reading level?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGuJlTVXfw&amp=&t=1s

This particular answer, which I very much enjoyed, comes from Roland Temmerman, Masters in Social Sciences & Political Science (1990). His answer was written on August 19, 2019, but I’m pretty sure nothing much has changed in the interim.

I’ve frequently said that I thought that our huge Orangeman can’t read. He certainly can’t write and I don’t think he is faking it to encourage his moronic political base to be less embarrassed by their lack of basic education.

I believe he is barely literate and got through school because daddy paid off his schools. What, you think that this is the first time schools have taken bribes to pass illiterate students? When I was in college, for the kind of money people have been giving schools, they would have named the school after the kid and given him not only a B.A. but also his master’s and maybe even a doctorate.

Colleges and universities are notoriously welcoming of large checks that don’t bounce.

Hello!

I just happen to know the answer to your question!

People across social media made fun of Donald Trump at a United Nations lunch for African countries back in 2017 when he referred to the African country of Namibia as “Nambia.” Everyone laughed but me. Even though I am well-known for the sensitivity and politically correct tactfulness that I display on a regular basis, there is another reason that I didn’t laugh when our president was standing in front of the United Nations reading like your nephew giving his Easter speech:

I believe Donald Trump can’t read.

Maybe “can’t” is too harsh a word. I think he struggles with multisyllabic words. This isn’t something I recently came up with when he was embarrassing the entire country in front of world leaders like he was taking an oral exam for a book he read on the way to class. I’ve known about his semiliteracy for years, but I think it’s time I outlined my well-researched list of reasons I believe this to be true.

1. He’s Racist

We can debate whether or not Donald Trump is a white supremacist, but we must admit that he’s at least a little bit racist, right? Okay, now that you’ve agreed to that premise, you should know that “a little bit racist” is like your girlfriend telling you she’s “a little bit pregnant.”

We can all agree that racism is stupid. It’s very rare that anyone meets an intelligent racist. Because I don’t want a bunch of “not all racists … ” comments below this answer, I will concede that there are probably a few smart white supremacists, but if you receive as many hate comments as I do, you will notice that they all possess a remarkable deficiency when it comes to reading and grammatical ability.

2. This:

3. His Unconstitutional Policies

When Trump signed the executive order for the travel ban, targeted Mexicans for deportation, banned transgender people from serving in the military or went to war against the press, many people thought he was going down the path of an authoritarian dictatorship, but there might be another reason:

Maybe he’s never read the Constitution.

To be fair, there are a lot of big words in the Constitution. Who the hell even knows what “domestic tranquility” even means? Maybe a genius or one of those math eggheads who can do long division, but not regular people like him.

And why does the preamble mention “posterity”? Everyone likes a woman with a nice, round posterity, but does it belong in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States?

And what’s a preamble?

4. He’s Orange

That safety-vest-colored spray-tan shit he sprays himself down with probably has some Thalidomide or lead in it. I bet it does. That’s probably why Bert was a little slow on Sesame Street. It’s the toxins.

5. He Hates Teleprompters

Remember how Trump chided former President Barack Obama for reading from a teleprompter all the time? What if it had nothing to do with Obama’s lack of authenticity but was because Trump was jealous of Obama’s reading skills the whole time?

He probably went home thinking, “Look at that uppity Negro with his fancy-schmancy word machine, showing off by reading words as they move, acting all literate and shit. I hate him.”

6. He Said He Doesn’t Read

During the presidential campaign, Trump told the Washington Post that he doesn’t have time to read and he never has. This might explain the reason he thought Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War even though Jackson died 15 years before the Civil War started and …

Wait, what? Trump said that? No, there’s no way. I refuse to believe that people actually voted for him after he said … hold on, let me go read the entire article.

Sigh. Yeah, he said it.

7. His Tweets

Trump’s tweets have an amazing number of spelling errors for someone who made it past the fourth grade. He said Obama was trying to “tapp” his phones. He said China’s theft of naval secrets was “unpresidented.” He often confuses “too” and “to,” and said he was “honered” to serve as president.

Or maybe those were honest mistakes. Sometimes he wakes up too early and needs a cup of covfefe.

8. I Could Be Wrong

There is the infinitesimal possibility that I am wrong and Donald Trump can actually read. Which means he actually read the Constitution but chose to treat it with complete disregard. This means he insults world leaders just to insult them. This means he doesn’t care about the bills he passes or the executive orders he enacts and has no regard for the law of the land, Congress, or the American people.

This would also mean that the man with the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world at his fingertips could reduce the entire planet to nothing but ashes, roaches and toupee hair, not because he didn’t read the instructions, but because he is an insane supervillain mad with power and has an out-of-control ego.

Damn, I kinda hope Donald Trump can’t read.

Fuck it. I’m moving to Nambia.

This answer is in part attributed to YouTube, MSNBC — Breaking News, Top Stories, & Show Clips The Root | Black News, Opinions, Politics and Culture. and http://busnissinsider.com

I usually avoid reading Quora because sooner or later, I’ll feel a passionate urge to answer a question and there goes the rest of my day. But every once in a while — and this is it — a comment reaches out to me and shakes me by the throat. I’m going to pass it along to YOU and let you ponder it.

TRUMP STILL IN OBAMA’S SHADOW AFTER ISIS HEAD KILLED – THE SHINBONE STAR

10/30/201910/29/2019 / Marilyn Armstrong / 4 Comments

President Barack Obama got Osama bin Laden, the meanest of the mean.

Oval Office Occupant The Donald got Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

WHO?

Oh, yeah, head of the Islamic State (ISIS), “the world’s No. 1 terrorist leader,” according to Donald.

Donald, is under threat of impeachment for abuse of power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his domestic political rivals. He’s sooo grasping at any straw to deflect.

Ever the “showman,” Don described in gory detail Abu’s ending, in a tunnel along with his family, where Abu apparently detonated a suicide vest rather than surrender.

“Osama bin Laden was very big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center (bombing),” Trump said, stating this kill by the U.S. Special Forces was the biggest there is. “This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it a country – a caliphate and was trying to do it again.”

Poor Donnie was upstaged in the dreaded media last night when the “fake news” broadcast the event.

The White House released a photograph of Trump surrounded by top advisers on Saturday in the Situation Room where he monitored the raid on al-Baghdadi’s hide-out in Syria — much like the famed image of President Barack Obama watching the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. An obviously envious Trump even seemed to suggest that killing al-Baghdadi was a bigger deal than killing Bin Laden.

Nowhere close Delusional Don. Even though he is/was a mean mother, he is/was no where as infamous as bin Laden. Don, you got a guppie.

Abu, 48, the son of an Iraqi sheepherder, was hiding deep inside a part of northwestern Syria controlled by archrival al Qaeda groups according to the Times. Hiding among your enemies. Brilliant.

Or, was he there to broker an alliance? Time will tell.

Abu al-Baghdadi has been incorrectly reported killed before, and American military officials were concerned that Trump, who posted a cryptic message on Twitter on Saturday night teasing his Sunday announcement, was so eager to announce the development that he was getting ahead of the forensics, wrote the New York Times.

“A Defense Department official said before The Donald’s announcement that there was a strong belief — “near certainty” — that al-Baghdadi was dead, but that a full DNA analysis was not complete,” wrote the Times.

Trump claimed that “American troops did “an on-site test” of DNA to confirm Mr. al-Baghdadi’s identity and that they brought back “body parts” when leaving the scene.

“The official said that with any other president, the Pentagon would wait for absolute certainty before announcing victory,” continued the story.

During his morning appearance, Trump put himself in the center of the action, describing himself as personally hunting al-Baghdadi since the early days of his administration. The only thing Delusional Donnie has hunted is glory and profits from his numerous visits to his own estates to play golf and bilk taxpayers.

He crowed that as he watched the action on Saturday with Mike Pence and others in the Situation Room (Not the CNN one with Wolf Blitzer.) it was “like watching a movie.” Wonder if he got to see all the blood and gore from the explosion?

Even more astounding, Trump trundled along Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R -S.C.), usually a strong ally who has been the most outspoken critic of his Syria decision, to join him for the speech on Sunday morning. Then, amazingly he sent cock sock Graham to brief reporters from the lectern in the White House briefing room. an unusual spectacle for a lawmaker, to say the least.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D – Ca.) called on the White House, to brief lawmakers about the raid, pointing out the Trump had informed the Russians of the military operation before telling congressional leadership.

Well, he had to tell his Master, Vlad “Puty” Putin first Nancy. Besides, you’re a woman AND a Democrat and he is apparently employed by Russia.

U.S. Oval Office Occupants typically follow the protocol of contacting congressional leaders, regardless of their political party, when a high-level military operation is conducted. As we know, nothing is typical about Trump except his lying and love for Russia.

“The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top congressional leadership were notified of in advance, and on the administration’s overall strategy in the region,” Pelosi said.

Trump told reporters at the lengthy news conference that he did not inform the House speaker of the raid because he “wanted to make sure this kept secret.” In other words, we can trust a liar, but not a woman to keep a secret, eh Donald?

Asked whether he had informed Pelosi, Trump replied, “No, I didn’t. I didn’t do that. I wanted to make sure this kept secret. I don’t want to have men lost, and women. I don’t want to have people lost.”

Trump continued, that he was “going to notify [congressional leaders] last night, but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before.”

No amount of grandstanding attempted deflections or grandiose self-congratulatory rallies will change the fact that The Donald, a narcissistic lying crook, is facing impeachment.

Abu al-Baghdadi may be gone, but there are others who will soon fill the void and the blood bath in Syria will continue as American troops flee.

As Pelosi so succinctly told Trump last week, as she stood to leave after he called her “a third-grade politician,” “Why (with you) do “all roads lead to Putin”?

Donald still hasn’t come up with an answer.

Serendipity Seeking Intelligent Life on Earth

https://teepee12.com/

reblog

THE HOW AND WHY OF IMPEACHMENT – Reblog – THE SHINBONE STAR

WHAT IF YOU WERE WRONG? – REBLOG- Sue Vincent

WHAT THE DOES THE FEDERAL JUDGE’S RULING ABOUT MCGAHN MEAN? Reblog – Washington Post

The Daily 202: In ordering McGahn to testify, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson broadly rejects Trump’s absolutist claims

Welcome to the Daily 202, PowerPost’s morning briefing for decision-makers.
Sign up to receive the newsletter.

How We Domesticated Cats, Twice – Reblog

IT’S CONSTITUTIONALLY SIMPLE: TRUMP HAS VIOLATED THE LAW: THE SHINBONE STAR – Marilyn Armstrong

CAN DONALD TRUMP READ? – Marilyn Armstrong

TRUMP STILL IN OBAMA’S SHADOW AFTER ISIS HEAD KILLED – THE SHINBONE STAR

December 2019
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Daily 202: In ordering McGahn to testify, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson broadly rejects Trump’s absolutist claims

Welcome to the Daily 202, PowerPost’s morning briefing for decision-makers. Sign up to receive the newsletter.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Welcome to the Daily 202, PowerPost’s morning briefing for decision-makers.
Sign up to receive the newsletter.