[Cyberyeti]

 Winstonm, on 2020-June-17, 17:00, said:

Couldn't agree any more strongly with Brian Klaas at the WaPo:

Well you may be better off than the UK at the last election where we could have done with ONE functional party

[awm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-18, 05:35, said:

Well you may be better off than the UK at the last election where we could have done with ONE functional party

The SNP seems pretty functional to me, not that it helps folks in England much.

[Cyberyeti]

 awm, on 2020-June-18, 06:17, said:

The SNP seems pretty functional to me, not that it helps folks in England much.

Sorry, one functional party out of the two that can form a Westminster government. The SNP is only good for trying to get as many referendums as it takes to get the answer they want.

[Winstonm]

Control the narrative - that is the one thing Trump understands better than any other candidate: if you can control the narrative, you cannot be held accountable.

Quote

But unlike Floyd's death — which triggered a wave of protests across the country, including in Las Vegas, and led to charges for the four Minneapolis officers involved — Williams' death drew little attention. Police released just part of the video from one of the body cameras; no bystander videos emerged. A single rally for Williams last fall drew about two dozen people. No charges have been filed against officers connected to the case.

There is a reason Trump has lots of support from police - he and they seem to think alike.

[johnu]

Millions Of Hydroxychloroquine Pills That Trump Touted For COVID-19 Are Now In Limbo

Quote

Tens of millions of doses of drugs that President Donald Trump touted as “game changers” in the fight against the coronavirus are now in limbo after the Food and Drug Administration stripped them of their emergency use authorization this week.

The drugs — hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate — were deemed too risky and likely ineffective to treat COVID-19.

The FDA’s decision Monday, which one Trump official denounced as a partisan attack, follows a mad dash by states and hospitals to purchase chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine after health care providers were given a green light to use the drug in March through the emergency use authorization. The drugs were otherwise not approved to treat COVID-19.

“What do we have to lose?” Trump asked in a March 21 news briefing that endorsed the drugs.

“What do we have to lose?” I couldn't agree more. These pills should be put to good use. Lets put out giant tubs of these pills at the Republican convention in August to protect the delegates that will be risking their lives by attending. The organizers could put out signs like "If one pill is good, 10 pills is great", "Take a pill for your President", "Trump friends are losing millions, do your part and take a handful of pills".

[y66]

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg said:

Chief Justice John Roberts has come to liberals’ rescue again, this time providing the decisive fifth Supreme Court vote to strike down the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

It’s morally uplifting that dreamers now won’t have to live under threat of deportation; and it’s unlikely that President Donald Trump will be able to rescind DACA, with new justifications, before he leaves office.

But don’t think that Roberts was motivated by any liberal sympathy for dreamers. The best explanation for his ruling is that Roberts is fed up with Donald Trump’s disrespect for the rule of law. Now he’s standing up for the role of the judicial branch of government in checking careless, lawless action by the executive.

Earlier in Trump’s presidency, Roberts made the mistake of deferring to presidential authority in the Muslim travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii. Roberts was probably gambling then that he could reach a kind of unspoken accommodation with the president: If Trump would show respect for the courts and try to achieve his policy aims through proper legal means, Roberts would provide his swing vote to the court’s conservatives and uphold the president’s decisions.

But Trump never acquiesced in the implicit bargain that Roberts was offering. He continued to criticize the courts, including by referring to “Obama judges” — a comment that elicited an extremely rare formal statement of disagreement from Roberts.

Subsequently, Roberts seems to have realized that Trump’s assault on the rule of law must be met with judicial supervision. The DACA decision exemplifies that supervisory authority. It’s part of an evolution that began a year ago, last June, when Roberts blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census on the basis of the administration’s misleading claims about its justification for doing so.

Today’s decision, DHS v. Regents of the University of California, is based in the same statute as the census decision, namely the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts use that law to review government action and determine if it is “arbitrary and capricious.” In practice, that means that the government must provide a satisfactory rationale to explain its action.

Roberts’s opinion held that the Trump administration failed to offer a sufficiently detailed, clear and logical justification for rescinding DACA. The Department of Homeland Security initially said it was rescinding the program because it was unlawful in light of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down a similar program aimed at dreamers’ parents rather than the dreamers themselves. 1

Roberts focused on the fact that the Fifth Circuit only said it was unlawful for the president to extend work authorization to the program’s beneficiaries. The appeals court didn’t say there was anything wrong with not bothering to deport them.

Roberts pointed out that DHS had said that it had to cancel DACA altogether, when it could plausibly, even within the contours of the Fifth Circuit decision, have taken the more moderate route of rescinding work authorization from dreamers but not deporting them. In essence, he held that the Trump administration had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to justify its policy decision to rescind the program entirely and push for deportation.

I admit to having been a skeptic of this line of argument when it was first being pressed in the lower courts by DACA supporters. It seemed to me that if Barack Obama had the discretion to initiate DACA, then Donald Trump must have the discretion to rescind it. But colleagues like Cass Sunstein, who urged me to take more seriously the administrative law doctrine that requires a complete and adequate explanation for government decisions, were right. And Roberts fully embraced the administrative law angle.

In response to the ruling, Trump tweeted, “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” He’s not totally wrong. Roberts, having sat through the impeachment proceedings in the Senate, has had plenty of opportunities to reflect on Trump’s utter unwillingness to respect legal procedures and the rule of law itself.

It’s not personal from Roberts’s perspective. It’s business. Roberts’s business is defending the judicial branch and its role as guarantor of the rule of law. Trump has demonstrated his contempt for judges, the judiciary, and law itself.

None of this means that Roberts has become some sort of a liberal. It remains entirely possible that he will join the conservatives in future high-profile cases, as he has often done in the past.

But when it comes to cases during the Trump presidency that involve the court’s role as supervisor of the legality of executive action, it’s fair to say that Roberts’s vote is now reliably against the Trump administration. Trump has earned his distrust, if not his dislike.

[hrothgar]

https://twitter.com/...740271214227456

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2020-June-18, 15:24, said:

Millions Of Hydroxychloroquine Pills That Trump Touted For COVID-19 Are Now In Limbo


"What do we have to lose?" I couldn't agree more. These pills should be put to good use. Lets put out giant tubs of these pills at the Republican convention in August to protect the delegates that will be risking their lives by attending. The organizers could put out signs like "If one pill is good, 10 pills is great", "Take a pill for your President", "Trump friends are losing millions, do your part and take a handful of pills".

Quote

CBS News reporter Paula Reid asked President Donald Trump a hard question on Thursday, one that more journalists should ask him.

At the end of a roundtable discussion with governors on the reopening of America’s small businesses, Reid tried to get the president to answer one more very pertinent question: “Why do you keep hiring people that you believe are wackos and liars?”

Another lousy reporter, I'm sure.

[y66]

J. Scott Thomson, the police chief in Camden, N.J., from 2008-2019 said:

Camden’s transformation wasn’t about getting rid of police or reducing their authority. It was about increasing our legitimacy by convincing citizens that we understood our role.

https://wapo.st/37SFM41

[y66]

Dan Friedman at Mother Jones to John Bolton said:

Say it under oath, asshole.

https://bit.ly/2Br2lAj

[Winstonm]

Incredible that we have reached the point where media is writing about high government officials declaring the violation of Trump's personal Omerta is treason.

Quote

Dan Scavino Jr., the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications, took to his official Twitter account in the early hours of Friday morning to claim: "John Bolton is undoubtedly a traitor who revealed classified information to the world… He has betrayed his Country. Treasonous!" Scavino's nocturnal outburst followed an intervention by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who also used Twitter to air his grievances. "It is both sad and dangerous that John Bolton's final public role is that of a traitor who damaged America by violating his sacred trust with its people," Pompeo wrote Thursday night. "I've not read the book, but from the excerpts I've seen published, John Bolton is spreading a number of lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."

To be clear, The Secretary of State is claiming that making up stories about the president is treason - so the West Wing writers are in deep doo doo.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The day before his scheduled rally in Tulsa, Okla., President Trump warned "any protesters" that they can expect rough treatment at the hands of law enforcement, in a tweet that lumped demonstrators in with criminals.

"Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis," wrote Trump on Twitter Friday morning. "It will be a much different scene!"

Seeing how he is trapped inside, what he'd better hope is that there are no Inglourius Basterds (sic) mingling with the crowd.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2020-June-19, 07:32, said:

To be clear, The Secretary of State is claiming that making up stories about the president is treason - so the West Wing writers are in deep doo doo.

By extension, the Liar in Chief is guilty of treason.

[Winstonm]

https://twitter.com/...080729186566152

Quote

This is 18 USC 1343 wire fraud by Trump campaign No way the other 99 really replied, so all elements are met 1) scheme to defraud 2) with intent to defraud & 3) foreseeable & actual use of interstate wire comms. Barr won't investigate, but states can under analogous state crimes

[Winstonm]

What a Friday night. First, William Barr tries to claim the head of the SDNY, Berman, has resigned, and a few minutes later Berman shot back that he was appointed and cannot be fired and he is not resigning.

For those unaware, SDNY is the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, and Berman was in charge of criminal investigations of....oh, let's just say...EVERYONE in Trump's orbit.

https://twitter.com/...6553479/photo/1

Note: This is a big deal. Here is what atttorney Watler Shaub tweeted:

[shyams]

Wow, the Clown President is resembling a despot. And the much vaunted checks-and-balances are nowhere to be seen.

[Winstonm]

 shyams, on 2020-June-20, 17:05, said:

Wow, the Clown President is resembling a despot. And the much vaunted checks-and-balances are nowhere to be seen.

You are right - this is getting close to full-blown banana republic territory. Today, a women in Tulsa who claimed she had a ticket for Trumps rally was arrested for wearing an "I can't breathe" t-shirt. She was seated and causing no scene. Still, she was hauled off for expressing her first amendment right of free speech. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-told-police-remove-204110240.html

And now Barr and Trump are trying to consolidate their loyalists inside the DOJ. Bad times for sure.

[johnu]

After Weeks Of Anticipation, Trump Rally Crowd Underwhelms

Quote

Trump’s aides previously claimed that more than 1 million people wanted tickets to the main rally inside the BOK Center. But the actual turnout fell well short of expectations.

The president was scheduled to address supporters outside the arena, which has a capacity of 19,000 people, earlier in the evening before heading inside. But Trump’s campaign canceled the outdoor remarks at the last minute.

At the time the cancellation was announced, only a few dozen people were reportedly gathered in the overflow area outside the venue. Inside, the upper stands were empty, and there was plenty of room in the standing-only area in front of the stage.

I don't know what these reporters are talking about. It looked to me like there were more people at the Tulsa rally than showed up for the 2016 Manchurian President inauguration. Easily 40-50000 rabid Grifter in Chief marks. I have been assured that the empty seats were because many of the crowd were in line for the bathrooms after drinking too much Kool-Aid.

[y66]

Sha-na, na, na, ...

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

The list of prominent people who have publicly defied President Trump — including onetime allies — keeps growing. Consider what has happened in just the past few weeks:

• Senate Republicans over the weekend refused to support Trump’s firing of a federal prosecutor who had investigated two of the president’s personal lawyers. As a result, the prosecutor’s deputy, rather than the administration’s choice, replaced him.
  
• A federal judge on Saturday rejected Trump’s request to block the release of a book critical of him.
  
• The author of that book — John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser — said in an interview with ABC News on Sunday that Trump posed a “danger for the republic.”
  
• Another former administration official — Jim Mattis, a retired Marine general who served as defense secretary — said Trump was trying to divide the country and “make a mockery of our Constitution.”
  
• Trump’s top military adviser, Gen. Mark Milley, publicly apologized for participating in a photo op with him that followed the use of tear gas against peaceful protesters.
  
• The Supreme Court blocked Trump’s effort to end a signature Obama administration immigration policy. (And, yes, the court is influenced by public opinion, as The Times’s Adam Liptak has explained.)
  
• Several Trump-friendly commentators — at The Wall Street Journal, Breitbart and elsewhere — have said his responses to the coronavirus and police violence are hurting his chances of re-election.
  
• The commissioner of the N.F.L. switched his position on player protests about racial injustice, which angered Trump.

These acts of defiance are both a sign of Trump’s current weakness and a further cause of it, as Matt Glassman, a Georgetown University political scientist, told me. People feel more comfortable opposing Trump because they think he is on the wrong side of public opinion on several major issues.

And the more people who defy Trump, the less difficult it becomes for others to do so. It was especially striking to see Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Trump defender, decline to support the Trump administration’s choice of a new federal prosecutor. “It’s not a random, rogue action,” Glassman said. “It’s a calculated move based on the weakness of the president.”

None of this means Trump is doomed to lose in November. Past presidential candidates, like George H.W. Bush and Harry Truman, overcame polling deficits bigger than the one Trump currently has against Joe Biden. But sustained weakness is very dangerous for a politician.

The way things are going, Mike Pence's wife will probably tell him to start wearing a mask.