California Rep. Eric Swalwell, like many Democratic officials, has been the target of right-wing media personalities like Tucker Carlson—largely because he is consistently vocal...
Talk about perfect timing. During a hearing on the FBI’s mishandling of allegations against Larry Nassar, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse raised questions about whether the Nassar investigation was...
In June, Oregon state legislators made history when they voted 59-1 to expel Republican State Rep. Mike Nearman from the chamber. Nearman became the first...
Former personal lawyer to twice impeached Donald Trump, is currently serving a 36-month house arrest sentence for his part in orchestrating a hush money...
In January 2020, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine filed a civil complaint against the Trump Organization and the Presidential Inaugural Committee alleging that they had misused...
It took a while, but Nancy Pelosi and the remaining hold-outs in the House are now on the right track, attempting to do something about the criminal in the White House. The current debate occupying the Democratic caucus focuses upon how to go about “doing it.” The disagreement is simple; whether the Democrats should go “fast and narrow,” or “bold and thorough. The Washington Post reports on the debate raging in the capitol’s bowels. House Democratic leaders are eyeing a fast-paced investigation into the possible impeachment of President Trump, instructing the committees handling the probe to wrap up their findings within weeks in hopes of concluding before the holiday season. Multiple Democratic lawmakers and congressional aides said there is no formal timeline for the inquiry, but the “need for speed,” as one aide put it, comes as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is under pressure from vulnerable freshmen to keep the investigation narrowly focused and disciplined. The “need for speed”? That doesn’t sound right to me. Fortunately, not everyone is on the “go-go train.” A senior Democratic aide familiar with discussions among the party’s moderate wing relayed concerns that a probe seen as moving too rapidly by the public could backfire … … The prospect of a quick impeachment means that a host of House probes could be left without a resolution. The House Financial Services Committee has been trying to secure Trump’s financial information amid Democratic allegations that he laundered money as a business executive. The House Oversight and Reform Committee is in a legal battle trying to get additional documents that former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen said demonstrate that the president undervalued his wealth to dodge taxes and win lower loan interest rates. Some issues would get left on the table? No shit? The stakes could not possibly be higher. The House Dems would have taken a shellacking – led by their base, had they not moved to initiate impeachment proceedings. But, the stakes could be just as high if it is done wrong. In my mind, unless Republican senators increasingly agree with the need to remove Trump, there is no point at all in “rushing” this through by the end of November (the date often cited.). As things stand right now, even if the testimony from the Whistleblower is as damning as the complaint seems to be, if it doesn’t compel the Senate to move, Trump gets acquitted, and then what? Trump declares victory. He declares victory without anyone getting answers to the questions he has most tried to hide, his financial dealings with other nations, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, though the public’s support for impeachment has jumped over the last week, it still doesn’t command a majority of Americans: One of the first credible polls to test the Democratic impeachment push following Pelosi’s Tuesday announcement found the public almost evenly split. An NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist Poll conducted Wednesday found Americans approving 49 percent to 46 percent of the House inquiry, with independents disapproving 50 percent to 44 percent. If the American public is “evenly split” then someone is going to have to explain to me the benefit of rushing forward with only the evidence the Democrats possess now. I am positive that there remains a memory fresh in your minds. The never-ending probe into Hillary’s emails […]
Who could possibly have seen this coming? According to a supposed “guard,” it is all management’s fault, because of staffing shortages. One of Jeffrey Epstein’s guards the night he hanged himself in his federal jail cell wasn’t a regular correctional officer, according to a person familiar with the detention center, which is now under scrutiny for what Attorney General William Barr on Monday called “serious irregularities.” … …It wasn’t clear what the substitute’s regular job was, but federal prisons facing shortages of fully trained guards have resorted to having other types of support staff fill in for correctional officers, including clerical workers and teachers. And here we go, with the precise problem we noted yesterday. It is plausible that staffing shortages did contribute to the inability to follow protocols that are impressive on paper. Yet how the ever-living … never mind, how are we to ever trust that finding? After all, even IF there were shortages in regular guards, why would you allow that shortage to hinder guarding the single most notorious prisoner you have at that point? If you have one single fully trained guard, would he not be dedicated to guarding the potentially suicidal and potentially targeted prisoner? Were the regular guards too busy overseeing DUI offenders in for their three day weekend? And just who is this person “not authorized to speak” to the matter? Bill Barr? Could be him just as sure as anyone, so why not? The problem is that this was a federal correctional facility (as opposed to county which are run by the sheriff, and opposed to state prisons run by the state) and thus falls somehow under Barr’s supervision, and – as we’ve already discussed – William Barr has proven on multiple occasions that he will say whatever is necessary to protect Republicans and Trump. The ability to trust anything, even plausible and non-conspiracy explanations, has been shot before it is even studied, due to the person who will have to sign off on the investigation. Let me tell you what comes next, should this explanation, “management is to blame because of staffing shortages” thing stick. “Management” will then state that of course they are not to blame because Congress caused the shortages by not allocating enough money. Of course that is what “management” will state. That way, blame gets shifted over to another branch, comprised of 535 people, with half controlled by Democrats, who control initiation of budgets. How perfect!. And every member of congress can state with a stern face: “Well, had someone told me staffing was an issue, I would certainly have voted for …” and blame goes away. Poof. I am not making light of suicide. However, when it comes to inept, and all too predictable excuses? What is that old song? The sun rose in the east this morning. It did, I watched it. And the excuse is that the facility was short-staffed. That is the excuse, I read it, just now. I will tell you how this ends. As Barr announced yesterday, a full “investigation” will be declared with very serious-sounding promise-like things. The investigation will be half-assed and edited at the highest levels. The investigation will note staffing shortages due to Congressional failure to allocate sufficient funds to hire well-trained guards to be the root […]
Attorney General William Barr issued a statement today from the podium, declaring there to be “serious irregularities” already found surrounding the Jeffery Epstein suicide this weekend. In other news, water continued to run down hill, and Amazon sold stuff. Jail, or “prison,” is the punitive means by which our society takes away the maximum amount of freedom any one person can have. Preventing suicide should be easier within a jail than even a hospital, or god-forbid, the home of a mentally-ill person. Yet Epstein succeeded in what he failed to do just three weeks earlier, and six days, prior. That alone suffices to prove that serious irregularities existed. When the world’s most notorious inmate succeeds in taking his own life, yes, serious questions must be answered. Barr, the master of “obviousness” and “lack of courage” noted that the Manhattan Correctional Center failed to adequately secure the prisoner.” Right. I agree with Bill Barr, and that is news. Then Barr went out of his way to note that the issue will be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the DOJ Inspector General. Of course, we all have no reason at all to not trust that the investigation will be thorough and non-partisan in assigning blame, just like anything else Bill Barr says, or does. Correct? Charlie Pierce over at Esquire had it right. Nothing can ever be done to squelch out various conspiracy theories regarding Epstein’s death, given how it occurred. That appears to be another truism, along with the water thing. But that is what happens when the inexplicable seems to happen anyway, and when what happened would seem to make a lot of powerful people rest easier. Bill Barr to the rescue again. He stated that anyone who conspired with Jeffery Epstein “should not rest easy” … except for political friends of the president and possibly the president himself, Barr did not go on to say. Here we have a dilemma. It is entirely possible that, faced with a life of unending imprisonment, Jeffery Epstein conned his way into solitude long enough to end his life purely on his own terms. It is also entirely possible that extremely rich and powerful people, already feeling vulnerable, managed to do what extremely rich and powerful people do, silence the person who poses the greatest threat. Moreover, the truth could be a mix of the above. I refuse to facilitate a conspiracy theory. However I will not naively stay mute when something this egregious happens and a noticeable stanch lingers. Either reaction squelches out possible leaks of “truth.” It is for this precise reason why – in the past – we had Attorneys General who, at least with respect to non-political crimes, such as sex-trafficking, could be counted upon to not cover-up inconvenient facts. Anyone doubt that Janet Reno actually would figure out what happened? Eric Holder? Yet we have already seen this Attorney General carry the water for this president in a largely unprecedented manner, with his great Russian hoax building upon the “Hire Me” memo written before Barr even got the Attorney General position. Do we now extend full trust again, lest we get labeled as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory freak? Or do we try to balance some sort of skepticism while also allowing the investigation to play out? In some ways, it […]
