Its hard to remember now, but as recently as last week, most people didnt consider Iran an imminent threat. Iranian saboteurs were not committing acts of terror in our cities. Oh, but our leaders tell us they were about to any second and thats why we struck first.

That was Tucker Carlson last night on Fox News talking about President Trumps assassination of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

Whats so striking is how many people appear to accept this uncritically, Carlson said. Just the other day, youll remember, our intel agencies were considered politically tainted and suspect. Certainly, on this show, they are were and will be for quite some time.

Keep in mind, these are the people who invented excuses to spy on the Trump campaign purely because they didnt like Donald Trumps foreign policy views, and theyre the ones who pretended he was a Russian agent in order to keep him from governing.

Remember that? Russia-gate? Our friends at the intel community did that.

And by the way, these are the same people who lied about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction way back in 2002, and by doing that, got us into an utterly pointless war that dramatically weakened our country. The people pushing conflict with Iran are the same people who did that.

It seems like about 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the Deep State and pledging never to trust them again without verification. But now, for some reason, we do seem to trust them implicitly and completely.

In fact, we believe whatever they tell us, no matter how outlandish. Iran did 9/11, they are telling us. Oh, okay. I didnt know that. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Sunni Saudi Arabia; none were from Shiite Iran.

But if you say so, Mr. Unnamed CIA Official, Im happy to send my kid to the Middle East a week after Christmas, on the basis of your anonymous and unverified leak to the New York Times. Youve earned my trust through years of lying to me.

That appears to be our position now. And maybe all of this will turn out fine in the end. Were certainly praying for it. We love this country. But in the meantime, pardon the skepticism.

In 2016, Donald Trump ran on a promise of fewer foreign adventures considering the ones wed embarked upon didnt work very well, Carlson said on Friday. He vowed instead to focus on our problems here at home, which are growing. Against the odds he won that election, probably because of that promise, but ever since, Washington, including some around the President, have been committed to ignoring the results of that election and its implications. Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades. Theyve been working toward it. They may have finally gotten it.

Carlson is expressing a rising strain of Republican revulsion against the neocon project of imperial war.

West Virginia House of Delegates Republican and Afghan war veteran Patrick McGeehan (R-Hancock) took to the radio waves this morning to denounce the neocon project of regime change.

John Bolton, even though hes no longer the National Security Advisor, hes definitely cheering and (Secretary of State) Mike Pompeo and all their neoconservative friends in Washington are probably cheering right now and celebrating, McGeehan told WRNRs Eastern Panhandle Talk with Rob and Dave. Its funny how these guys even have jobs anymore. Theyve been wrong about everything. This has just emboldened the hardliners in Iran. And I think its just going to result in an escalation of hostilities.

For some reason these guys have had an obsession with regime change in Tehran for decades and thats really their ultimate goal make no mistake about it. Anyone who spent any time in the intelligence arena over in the Middle East likely knew who this guy was Soleimani. He had much to do with Iranian foreign policy. He was a charismatic leader, not just a military leader but you know in many respects, a political one as well. Hes had a checkered past. He was very much involved with talking and coordinating with American diplomats in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He actually helped on a number of fronts in Afghanistan he provided Intel and advice.

Soleimani was directly responsible for giving the nod basically to the Iraqi government in 2014, to allow the United States back into Iraq to establish air bases in the country. Iran felt they needed the aid of American airpower to defeat the radical Sunni fundamentalist ISIS out in western Iraq.

The assassination was a wrongheaded move. Id like to know who actually presented the President with this option, because I think the President got bad advice. The top intelligence leaders from the various agencies who actually advise and brief the President, just filter what they want the President to hear.

Pompeo, whos supposed to be the Secretary of State, the countrys chief diplomat, but he acts more like the Secretary of War for whatever reason. I think there was an article yesterday that Pompeo has been wanting to kill Soleimani for months. Any public official who does not go into these foreign policy situations like this with a very healthy dose of skepticism, especially in the post Iraq War era, they are either just a fool or a liar.

Theyre the same people with same institutions who have routinely lied to the American public. For three years they told the American public that the President was basically some sort of Russian asset and spy who was nothing more than the Russian Presidents puppet. And they lied about the Afghanistan war over and over again you can read about that in the Afghanistan papers.

They lied about Assad in Syria gassing his own people. Theres all sorts of information out there now that says that, that never happened it was staged or maybe the rebels did it, if it did go forward. They lied about Benghazi, I mean they lied about the NSA spying on American citizens. That was done by James Clapper under oath by the way.

So now they tell us without a shred of evidence mind you that there were imminent attacks that were about to take place against Americans in the region. And they had to assassinate Soleimani because he was the evil mastermind behind them? And were going to take that at face value?

Pompeo is the guy leading this narrative about these imminent attacks. And this is the same man who stood in front of a college hall full of college students at Texas A&M I believe it was early last year, and told them that as the former director of the CIA he was an excellent liar and cheater. And his honor code that he took during his own college days there at West Point didnt matter. So, yeah, lets believe that guy, you know.

McGeehan was asked but wasnt Soleimani an evil guy?

Lets just say this the evil guy argument is dumb, McGeehan said. Thats the argument a grade schooler would make. Heres why its such a poor argument that reflects the thinking of a child. If thats the standard for the federal government to carry out hits killings and assassinations, then the federal government sure has a whole lot of work to do around the planet killing evildoers. So Im not going to be lectured to by politicians about who deserves to die because anyone that tries to imply that killing people is a simple thing is a fool or a liar. Im just gonna put it out there because hardly anything in life is really that simple.

I believe Soleimani was not a good person. He did have American blood on his hands. He was anti American between 2004 and in the surge. But the individuals within the CIA and other American covert institutions also have blood on their hands through the many proxy wars theyve carried out throughout the Middle East.

So in the end, you know, sometimes we have to sit down with our adversaries. I mean FDR sat down with Stalin for crying out loud. Kennedy sat down with Khrushchev. So to sit here and say well this guy was a bad person he was an evil person. Okay. You can make that argument but mind you this is ten years after the fact. And that was not the argument thats being made, officially from the presidents cabinet and the administration. The argument is there were imminent attacks that this guy was plotting and we need to take him out.

This Iranian obsession is just foolish and dangerous. To make matters worse, Soleimani had been on diplomatic papers. The Iraqi Government invited him in to advise them constantly. So we essentially broke the most basic diplomatic protocols, because we also killed an Iraqi official who was responsible for leading and coordinating the official militia organizations in Iraq. And because Soleimani was on diplomatic protocols its very likely thats the whole reason. They didnt expect to be openly assassinated at the public airport. So these guys werent in the shadows. They were openly managing Iraqi militias trying to make sure that ISIS in the West was indeed ended.

McGeehan has introduced legislation that would prohibit West Virginias governor from sending National Guard troops into action overseas when no federal declaration of war exists.

McGeehan says the best way to reduce high suicide rates among veterans is to not send them into unconstitutional wars in the first place.

Here is the original post:
Tucker Carlson Patrick McGeehan and Rising Deep Red State Revulsion Against the Neocons - Morgan County USA

Marketing the Surveillance State

Distrust in the government is as American as apple pie, and there's a long tradition of the public railing against efforts to surveil them. The most recent, of course, are the Snowden leaks, which led to the termination of NSA spying programs and (supposed) reforms to the FISA courts. But while we were all so worried about the government building a massive surveillance apparatus in secret, we've allowed it to grow on our phones and in our consumer electronics. The close ties between Amazon's Ring products and a program that encourage customers to voluntarily turn over footage to local police, is just one example of how consumer products are being used to let Big Brother keep an eye on us. Companies need to put privacy first, and consumers need to be as suspicious of friendly corporations as they are of their own government. Max Eddy, Senior Software and Security Analyst

People buy Ring doorbells for all sorts of reasonsa sense of security, a way to deter porch pirates, the novelty of seeing who's at the door without even being home. But connected doorbells with a direct tie to Amazon's facial-recognition technology and partnerships with police departments and ICE are turning consumers into modern-day Stasi informants. Ring has partnerships with over 400 local police departments, and its Neighbors app lets users share footage of anybody who comes to their doorstep. People distributing leaflets or campaigning for a candidate can be subject to scrutiny and suspicion by those in the surrounding area on the app orif footage is put on social mediamuch worse. And undocumented family members, friends, delivery people, or domestic help are subject to facial recognition which is shared with local police departments and ICE.Chandra Steele, Senior Features Writer

Read the original:
11 Tech Trends We Need to Dump in 2020 - PCMag AU

The Justice Department Inspector General's report is now out, and it details some wrongdoing on the part of the FBI. Whether that wrongdoing was done deliberately or due to just overall sloppiness and carelessness is left to be seen. So now what?

The IG "identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications" and found a Justice Department attorney altered documents. In other words, it revealed a mess that requires serious cleanup and not from within the department.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

If Rep. Devin Nunes wants to refer to the FBI and other members of the Justice Department as "dirty cops" who are creating "spy rings" from within to help take down a president he'd better be prepared to start looking at how the House can begin to take back its oversight role particularly since he's the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

The same goes for Democrats, long considered the party that abhors the surveillance state. They shed a lot of credibility during the Obama administration when they refused to rise and condemn the administration's drone war and NSA spying, as well as government-sanctioned spying on the Associated Press and the surveillance of then-Fox News reporter, James Rosen.

The Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) still has some value. Unfortunately, it was another example of Congress relinquishing its power and putting it in the hands of the judiciary. That presents a situation in which it becomes easier for law enforcement agencies to make mistakes and abuse their authority.

After all, if it's a judiciary decision, it becomes easy to excuse wrongdoing by saying, "Well, a court gave us the OK to do it, so it's fine." People who defend the current structure argue, "Shouldn't someone be checking to make sure the process isn't getting abused?" No one is claiming it should not; however, the proper venue for that oversight is not in courts who settle legal disputes but in Congress, which has the power of oversight for the bills it passes and the president signs into law.

Republican Devin Nunes lists off conspiracy theories in opening remarks of Trump impeachment hearing

Neither party is willing to make that jump without a push, and why should they? After all, Congress is happy to abdicate its oversight role when the party in the White House matches the party in control of the legislative chamber. Republicans who tore their hair out over Obama flexing executive muscle found themselves laughably defending President Trump's power-grab for funding for his border wall.

Where national security is concerned, a willingness to defer such matters to the law enforcement agencies and the courts makes it easier for them to sound righteously angry during Congressional testimony while studiously avoiding offering any solutions at all

Two Republicans, Reps. Chris Stewart of Utah, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, recently introduced the FISA Improvements Act. The purpose of the bill is to restore power to Congress where FISA is concerned. Whether the proposal aims for real reform, or is more a partisan political tool, remains to be seen.

There's no doubt the actions by a small group of FBI agents and other Justice Department officials did a lot of harm to the agencies involved through their conduct during the Russia investigation. Just as the public wants a fair but dutiful action to take place in the wake of police department scandals, the same should go for the federal government.

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it unusual because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.

Getty Images

The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraines reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.

Getty Images

An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake.

Getty Images

In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: Was there a quid pro quo? Yes, said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the presidents political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a great American a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him.

AP

A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August undermining a Republican argument that there cant have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didnt know that aid was being withheld.

Getty Images

The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.

EPA

Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was being involved in a domestic political errand.She said: I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up. And here we are.

AP

The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line because his voice was so loud and distinctive and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear asking about the investigations and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate.

REUTERS

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

More here:
If Devin Nunes wants to call the FBI 'dirty cops', he better be ready to propose a solution - The Independent

Anthony Joshua produced one of the best performances of his career to defeat Andy Ruiz Jr in Saudi Arabia on Saturday night.

The 30-year-old is the heavyweight champion of the world once more following his unanimous points victory over the Mexican.

Joshua knew he could ill-afford to suffer another defeat against Ruiz, who pulled off a huge upset back in June, and he came back and produced a tactical masterclass to silence his doubters.

"I have got a long way to go, Joshua told BBC Radio 5 Live after the fight. It's not about me, it's about Britain. We have taken boxing to the world and I'm always here to support grassroots boxing.

I don't want to talk too much because I have done that a lot in the past, and a big mouth is not what people respect.

While Joshua was the bookies favourite to win the fight, the outcome was far from a foregone conclusion.

Ruiz Jr had already beaten AJ once and many fancied him to end his opponents career.

But did The Simpsons correctly predict that Joshua would be too strong for Ruiz?

As youre probably already aware, The Simpsons boasts a remarkable track record when it comes to predicting future events.

The hugely-successful animated series correctly predicted that Donald Trump would become the US President, the NSA spying scandal, various Super Bowls, FIFAs corruption scandal, future technology and much more.

Theres loads of evidence on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet and, to be honest, its a bit spooky.

Now, this latest prediction is a bit more light-hearted than others.

A still from the fight between Drederick Tatum and Homer Simpson looks extremely similar to a punch that Joshua landed on Ruiz Jr.

And many people on social media were quick to make the same joke

You have to admit, the two shots side-by-side are almost identical. Weird, huh?

The Simpsons episode in question first aired back on November 10, 1996. So the creators were 23 years ahead of their time on this occasion.

Ruiz probably wont be overly pleased at being compared to Homer, although he has admitted that he came into the Joshua rematch in poor shape.

I gained too much weight, he told reporters. I dont want to give excuses, he won. He boxed me around. If we do a third fight you best believe Im going to get in shape. Ill be in the best shape of my life.

Continue reading here:
The Simpsons even predicted the Anthony Joshua v Andy Ruiz Jr rematch - GIVEMESPORT

The people get no respect

On Nov. 5, Washington voters passed Initiative 976, which may lower car licenses to $30.

On Nov. 6, King County Executive Dow Constantine asked King Countys prosecuting attorney ... to prepare a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of I-976. King County will charge the attorneys fees to taxpayers.

King County effectively spat in the faces of We the People.

The King County connivers the KCC may be using license fees to support illegal aliens in sanctuary Seattle. If Washington residents commit illegalities, Washington authorities fine and/or jail them. But when the perps are illegal aliens, the KCC coddles them.

Also last week, President Donald Trump caved to the National Security Agency and agreed to make NSA spying and surveillance permanently legal hand me a towel, will ya, senator violating the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

The entire establishment not just Hillary Clinton despises us deplorables.

Tymothy Park (Oct. 11) wants a rewrite of the Second Amendment and twice references ... the right to keep and bear arms ... both times omitting the words of the people.

The right recognized in this amendment is the right of each individual, just as the rights listed in the First and Fourth amendments are also identified with the words the right of the people.

The arms cited were understood to be more than tools for hunting, sport or personal defense. Please consider these words from Andrew Jackson in his first Inaugural Address in 1829: ... but a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe.

At the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, more than half the cannons aimed at the British were privately owned; well in keeping with the original intent of the founders and well remembered by President Jackson.

The militia meant the ordinary armed citizens willing to stand with their neighbors in defense of liberty.

The founders did not want a select militia, as a standing army was then called, and only grudgingly authorized creation of a navy because the specialized needs of coastal defense required it. We are more than allowed to keep and bear arms. The founders considered it our duty as citizens.

Break free from corruption

Where are the Jeff Smiths of our Congress? In a time such as these, we desperately need those individuals who are naive yet fully committed to liberty to stand up to those who have commandeered our nation for their own personal wealth and power.

Our Founding Fathers guided our nation in its infancy to break free from the tyranny that shackled it. Their foresight allowed this nation to endure many trials in its history. Once again we are in a significant challenge to unite together and free ourselves from the corruption that fosters divisiveness in order to maintain its designated status quo.

Political agendas of some have battered our Constitution during the decades. Currently, there is a belief among business and political interests that they should rule over our nation and control its destiny.

To them and others who follow, I say: Our nation is not for sale.

We are afforded the ability to choose which direction our nation pursues due to the sacrifices of so many who militarily defended this country and those who defended the social freedoms of our citizens.

From that, we can choose using our voting rights, regardless of race or gender, that were labored for by many.

We need to comprehend fully the words inscribed in the Lincoln Memorial from the Gettysburg Address: That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

Read the rest here:
Nov. 21 Letters to the Editor | Opinion - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Writing about the National Security Agency myths is a tough task because the rules are always changing and whole agency is shrouded in secrecythough in the case of the latter, a good deal less than it once was, thanks in part to its empowerment after 9/11, and because of revelations by Edward Snowden. Anecdotally, when I was in high school (very pre-9/11), I wanted to write a report on the NSA, and when I asked the librarian about it, he ridiculed me, saying scornfully that the NSA was a fake spy agency on TV, and that it didnt exist in real life. I think the NSA would have approved, but any organization that secret is bound to gather a few urban legends along the way. Here are five myths about the National Security Agency.

Compared to the Central Intelligence Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency, no, the NSA doesnt have that many field agents. Most of its thirty thousand or so employees work at Ft. Meade, MD. (There are 18,000 parking spaces at its headquarters, and enough office space that four U.S. Capitols could fit inside of it.) Still, the agency does have men and women who work in the field. They belong to the NSAs Special Collection Service, a group of signals intelligence spies who work jointly with the CIA abroad to penetrate foreign communications networks.

Because the SCS is so secretive, what, precisely they do in the field is likely a moving target. When a hard drive needs to be stolen, that assignment is probably going to go to the CIAs National Clandestine Service. But things like plugging into embassies overseas, planting antennas to intercept communications, and using state-of-the-art technology in the field to acquire signals are almost certainly jobs for the SCS. Though techniques and procedures change, as of a few years ago, small teams called Special Collection Elements, made up of two-to-five members of the Special Collection Service and National Clandestine Service, rotated into foreign embassies and operated abroad under the guise of business persons.

As a matter of technology, yes, most likely. And if you encrypt your messages, it can hang onto those emails forever, or until the encryption is cracked (see below). NSA software is integrated tightly with telecommunications switches for AT&T and, most likely, other such companies. When the companies arent knowingly doing the integration, the NSA does the integration themselves, surreptitiously intercepting routers to targeted facilities and implanting surveillance devices and firmware.

But legally, the NSA needs a lot more than simple ability if they want to start reading your letters to grandma. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to surveil non-U.S. persons abroad. Each year, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence submit certifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court stating the types of intelligence they would like to collect, and the way they will do it that is consistent with the law (i.e., heres how we will make sure we dont target Americans). Once the certifications are approved, the government goes to industry and compels them to assist with the surveillance. The court reviews these certifications annually.

Thats the basic legal process at work. In practice, if a non-U.S. person abroad fits the certified surveillance standard (e.g. he likes to make bombs for ISIS), and his communications are found to have foreign intelligence (e.g. hes corresponding with ISIS about where to send the bombs), his communications can be collected.

So if he happens to email yousay hes a fan of Game of Thrones, and you begin a robust correspondence on that seriess awful endingthen your email can only be searched in pursuit of foreign intelligence information, or, if the FBI gets involved looking for evidence of a crime. Only the attorney general can authorize the use of information collected under Section 702 in criminal proceedings against U.S. persons.

The upshot is that the NSA doesnt just type bomb into SpyGoogle and start vacuuming up anyones emails describing Solo: A Star Wars Story. (Which was mostly a pretty good movie, but dont get me started on The Force Awakens.) The whole thing is monitored by the court, senior analysts at the agency, and the Department of Justice.

Under Presidential Policy Directive 28 and its supplemental guidelines, information gathered from the bulk collection of non-U.S. person data must be related to foreign espionage, terrorism, threats to U.S. military forces, cyber warfare, and transnational criminal threats. In other words, if Cuervo Jones of Guadalajara is caught in the net, but isnt doing evil, his communications arent being used against him for other purposes. Moreover, information collected can only be held for five years. If, however, Cuervo has encrypted his correspondence, that can be held indefinitely. Its worth noting that the NSA is not allowed to collect trade secrets from foreign companies in order to give U.S. firms a competitive advantage.

Pretty Good Privacy is a popular encryption standard that uses hashing, compression, and public and private keys for encryption and authentication. (ClearanceJobs previously described how hashing works here.) As of 2014, leaked documents reveal that the NSA was unable to break PGP. A lot has changed in five years, and look, anything is possible, but not that much. As the PGP frequently asked questions document states for a PGP 128-bit encryption: Lets say that you had developed a special purpose chip that could try a billion keys per second. This is far beyond anything that could really be developed today. Lets also say that you could afford to throw a billion such chips at the problem at the same time. It would still require over 10,000,000,000,000 years to try all of the possible 128 bit keys. That is something like a thousand times the age of the known universe!

Well maybe. But probably not. Under Section 215 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA is allowed to build contact chains of telecommunications metadata. Not the calls/emails/etc. themselvesbut call detail recordsinformation about the contact in question. This year, the NSA stated that it has ended the CDR program. In the old days of building those CDR chains, however, the agency used a method called hops. If I am John Terrorist and I appear on the NSAs radar, the agency can use my call detail records to start looking at the people I call (hop one), and the people they call (hop two). So if I call 10 people, those ten people are now in the NSAs metadata surveillance crosshairs. Moreover, the people those ten people call are now in the NSAs web of watchers as well. If each of those people contacted ten people, youve now got 101 people being monitored. The NSA is limited to two hops, though previously could go out as far as three hops, which meant that one person could lead to the monitoring of 1001.

So is the NSA spying on you? Even if the agency has secretly restarted the program, its still highly unlikely, though if you were an Uber driver and John Terrorist called you to give you directions, its possible that you might be in the system. And if you hired a local landscaper to mow your lawn, he or she might be in the net as well. There is no way for you to find out, and nothing you can do if you are. But as a matter of numbers, youre probably safe. Last year fewer than ten thousand queries of American communications stemmed from this program.

See the rest here:
5 Myths About the National Security Agency - ClearanceJobs

Photograph Source: Shealah Craighead, The White House Public Domain

The impeachment theater on display today in the House, bracketed by Speaker Nancy Pelosis maudlin reading of Article I of the Constitution, and by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys ludicrous evocation of the Stalin purge trials to characterize the full House vote to establish impeachment rules and procedures, is increasingly looking like the first act of an almost certain impeachment of President Trump.

Unfortunately, if Democrats impeaching Trump on just the effort to extort an investigation of the Bidens by Ukraines government their goal, theyll get their impeachment vote, but it will end up like the Clinton impeachment as a farcical trial in the Senate, perhaps even strengthening President Trump in next years presidential election contest.

The Democrats, that is to say, are following the Republicans disastrous impeachment model, set in 1998-99 when they sought to oust President Clinton over a blow-job in the Oval Office, and ended up making him one of the most popular presidents in the history of the job.

Democrats should be looking instead to the Nixon impeachment, which obtained the desired result removing a criminal president from office without even having to go to a full vote of the House following passage of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee.

When one looks back at that impeachment effort, it almost seems incredible that Nixon was forced out of office. This was a president, remember, who in 1972 was re-elected to a second term by a landslide 60.7 percent of the popular vote to just 37.5 percent for his Democratic opponent Sen. George McGovern. Nixon won the electoral votes of 49 states, with only Massachusetts going for McGovern.

Congressional investigation into Nixons crimes began with the establishment of the so-called Watergate Committee, headed by Senator Sam Ervin. That committees public hearings into that scandal started on May 17, 1973, just six months after Nixons electoral triumph.

At the time, while Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress, Nixon was still hugely popular, even as the early details of the Watergate break-in and of the cover-up of that tip-of-the-iceberg corruption in the Nixon White House and re-election campaign were starting to come out. At the time of his inauguration, Nixons popularity was at a peak of 67% in a Gallup poll.

By the time the Watergate Committee started its hearings, four months into his second term, his popularity had slumped to the mid-40s, about equal to his disapproval rating. As those hearings continued, his support continued to sink.By October 30, 1973, just short of a year after Nixon won re-election, when the House Judiciary Committee beganinvestigating possible impeachable crimes by the president, his support had slumped to 27 percent. (Contrary to assertions by todays CongressionalRepublicans, who claim that an impeachment must start with a full vote by the House,it wasnt until February 6, 1974, more than three months after its investigations began, that the Judiciary Committee went to the full House for a vote designating it as an Impeachment Committee.)

More importantly, though, even after the empowered Judiciary Committee began its work, and began issuing subpoenas for documents, tapes and testimony, it wasnt until late July that it finally voted out three articles of impeachment. Those articles were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, but they each included a number of examples of the presidents impeachable (though perhaps not all criminal) behavior. Along the way, the committee also investigated and considered other impeachable offenses, drawing up but rejecting two other articles of impeachment.

This is important. When talk of impeaching Nixon first began, Republicans were up in arms defending the president, and even many Democrats were nervous and unconvinced. They had, after all, been trounced in the last election, and Nixon had won re-election decisively. But the hearings, with their dramatic testimony from Nixon White House andcampaign staff, both in the Watergate and in the impeachment committees, provided a steady stream of disturbing information and criminality on the part of the president and his acolytes and appointees. It was a process that led to a steady decline in his popular (and Congressional) support until by the time those three impeachment articles were voted for by the Judiciary Committee, his approval ratings were down in the mid-20 percent range. Not surprisingly, those articles won the backing of even some Republicans on the committee.

There was no further action on Nixons impeachment because Republican leaders did some head-counting and went to the president with word that he would be impeached by the full House on those articles, with significant Republican support, and that he would lose a trial in the Senate, after which he would likely be indicted and likely convicted and sentenced to jail for his crimes.

It was an agonizing political process, though also gripping not just for those who wanted Nixon gone, but even for his backers, or former backers among the electorate.

It is precisely this process which Democrats need to copy in pursuing the eminently impeachment-deserving President Donald Trump.

It would be an historic mistake of epic proportions to go after this congenitally criminal and morally appalling president for just one issue one which many Americans who have backed him will readily excuse him for. Indeed Trumps withholding of Congressionally approved military aid to extort a foreign criminal investigation of a potential political opponent pales in comparison Nixons interference with the Vietnam peace talks or Reagans successful effort as a candidate to get Iran to delay release of the US embassy hostages until after the 1980 election, neither of which led to any impeachment hearings.

Thats not to say that Trump is not a uniquely dangerous threat to Constitutional government.

What the now fully empowered House Judiciary Committee needs to do, though, is to significantly expand its hearings to examineall the myriad impeachable crimeswhich this president is known or strongly suspected of having committed. That would include everything from lying to the American public, cheating on his taxes, obstructing justice on myriad occasions, suborning perjury from witnesses, paying bribes, profiting personally from his powers of office, violating election laws, and perhaps rape and assault as well.

The American people need all these impeachable deeds and misbehavior laid bare in all their gory detail over the next six-12 months. Trumps support, currently languishing around 40 percent, will sink as time goes on, as the shameful behavior gets continuous exposure. As the evidence of his crimes mounts, the risk of his ending up in the clink, at least after he leaves office, will grows. Meanwhile, the likelihood of his winning re-election and escaping that fate will fades. The odds will then grow that he will choose the same option that Nixon chose: resignation with a pardon.

I obviously would like to see Trump removed from the White House, either by impeachment and conviction in the Senate, or by resignation. But I also believe, as I did in the case of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that even if he survives impeachment, it is crucial for US democracy that impeachable crimes be called out for what they are, even if the perpetrator cannot be convicted by the Senate. (It is my contention, for example, that Obama committed serious impeachable crimes such as refusing to prosecute known the war criminals Bush and VP Dick Cheney, as well as violating the First and Fourth Amendments with his expanded use of NSA spying on Americans, as well as his illegal war on Libya. For these actions or non actions, he should have been impeached by the House.)

So far, it looks like the House, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who single-handedly stymied efforts to impeach G.W. Bush (as well as crushing the sales of my 2006 bookThe Case for Impeachment!) by declaring in May 2006 that impeachment is off the table, is keeping a lid on any widening of the impeachment case against Trump.

If she persists in this wrong-headed strategy, she must take the blame for the disaster that will likely ensue, of a triumphal Trump declaring that he had been cleared by the Senate, and campaigning through next summer and fall against a Democratic Party he will accuse of being obsessed with overturning the results of the last election.

See original here:
Democrats Make a Huge Mistake If They Just Focus Impeachment on the Ukraine Scandal - CounterPunch

The impeachment theater on display today in the House, bracketed by Speaker Nancy Pelosis maudlin reading of Article I of the Constitution, and by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys ludicrous evocation of the Stalin purge trials to characterize the full House vote to establish impeachment rules and procedures, is increasingly looking like the first act of an almost certain impeachment of President Trump.

Unfortunately, if Democrats impeaching Trump on just the effort to extort an investigation of the Bidens by Ukraines government their goal, theyll get their impeachment vote, but it will end up like the Clinton impeachment as a farcical trial in the Senate, perhaps even strengthening President Trump in next years presidential election contest.

The Democrats, that is to say, are following the Republicans disastrous impeachment model, set in 1998-99 when they sought to oust President Clinton over a blow-job in the Oval Office, and ended up making him one of the most popular presidents in the history of the job.

Democrats should be looking instead to the Nixon impeachment, which obtained the desired result removing a criminal president from office without even having to go to a full vote of the House following passage of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee.

When one looks back at that impeachment effort, it almost seems incredible that Nixon was forced out of office. This was a president, remember, who in 1972 was re-elected to a second term by a landslide 60.7 percent of the popular vote to just 37.5 percent for his Democratic opponent Sen. George McGovern. Nixon won the electoral votes of 49 states, with only Massachusetts going for McGovern.

Congressional investigation into Nixons crimes began with the establishment of the so-called Watergate Committee, headed by Senator Sam Ervin. That committees public hearings into that scandal started on May 17, 1973, just six months after Nixons electoral triumph.

At the time, while Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress, Nixon was still hugely popular, even as the early details of the Watergate break-in and of the cover-up of that tip-of-the-iceberg corruption in the Nixon White House and re-election campaign were starting to come out. At the time of his inauguration, Nixons popularity was at a peak of 67% in a Gallup poll.

By the time the Watergate Committee started its hearings, four months into his second term, Nixons popularity had slumped to the mid-40s, about equal to his disapproval rating. As those hearings continued, his support continued to sink. By October 30, 1973, just short of a year after Nixon won re-election, when the House Judiciary Committee beganinvestigating possible impeachable crimes by the president, his support had slumped to 27 percent. (Contrary to assertions by todays CongressionalRepublicans, who claim that an impeachment must start with a full vote by the House,it wasnt until February 6, 1974, more than three months after its investigations began, that the Judiciary Committee went to the full House for a vote designating it as an Impeachment Committee.)

More importantly, though, even after the empowered Judiciary Committee began its work, and began issuing subpoenas for documents, tapes and testimony, it wasnt until late July that it finally voted out three articles of impeachment. Those articles were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, but they each included a number of examples of the presidents impeachable (though perhaps not all criminal) behavior. Along the way, the committee also investigated and considered other impeachable offenses, drawing up but rejecting two other articles of impeachment.

This is important. When talk of impeaching Nixon first began, Republicans were all up in arms defending the president, and even many Democrats were nervous and unconvinced. They had, after all, been trounced in the last election, and Nixon had won re-election decisively. But the hearings, with their dramatic testimony from Nixon White House and campaign staff, both in the Watergate and in the impeachment committees, provided a steady stream of disturbing information and criminality on the part of the president and his acolytes and appointees. It was a process that led to a steady decline in his popular (and Congressional) support until by the time those three impeachment articles were voted for by the Judiciary Committee, his approval ratings were down in the mid-20 percent range. Not surprisingly, those articles won the backing of even some Republicans on the committee.

There was no further action on Nixons impeachment because Republican leaders did some head-counting and went to the president with word that he would be impeached by the full House on those articles, with significant Republican support, and that he would lose a trial in the Senate, after which he would likely be indicted and likely convicted and sentenced to jail for his crimes.

It was an agonizing political process, though also gripping not just for those who wanted Nixon gone, but even for his backers, or former backers among the electorate.

It is precisely this process which Democrats need to copy in pursuing the eminently impeachment-deserving President Donald Trump.

It would be a historic mistake of epic proportions to go after this congenitally criminal and morally appalling president for just one issue one which many Americans who have backed him will readily excuse him for. Indeed Trumps withholding of Congressionally approved military aid to extort a foreign criminal investigation of a potential political opponent pales in comparison Nixons interference with the Vietnam peace talks or Reagans successful effort as a candidate to get Iran to delay release of the US embassy hostages until after the 1980 election, neither of which led to any impeachment hearings.

Thats not to say that Trump is not a uniquely dangerous threat to Constitutional government.

What the now fully empowered House Judiciary Committee needs to do, though, is to significantly expand its hearings to examineall the myriad impeachable crimeswhich this president is known or strongly suspected of having committed. That would include everything from lying to the American public, cheating on his taxes, obstructing justice on myriad occasions, suborning perjury from witnesses, paying bribes, profiting personally from his powers of office, violating election laws, and perhaps rape and assault as well.

The American people need all these impeachable deeds and misbehavior laid bare in all their gory detail over the next six-12 months. Trumps support, currently languishing around 40 percent, will sink as time goes on, as the shameful behavior gets continuous exposure. As the evidence of his crimes mounts, the risk of his ending up in the clink, at least after he leaves office, will grows. Meanwhile, the likelihood of his winning re-election and escaping that fate will fades. The odds will then grow that he will choose the same option that Nixon chose: resignation with a pardon.

I obviously would like to see Trump removed from the White House, either by impeachment and conviction in the Senate, or by resignation. But I also believe, as I did in the case of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that even if he survives impeachment, it is crucial for US democracy that impeachable crimes be called out for what they are, even if the perpetrator cannot be convicted by the Senate. (It is my contention, for example, that Obama committed serious impeachable crimes such as refusing to prosecute known the war criminals Bush and VP Dick Cheney, as well as violating the First and Fourth Amendments with his expanded use of NSA spying on Americans, as well as his illegal war on Libya. For these actions or nonactions, he should have been impeached by the House.)

So far, it looks like the House, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who single-handedly stymied efforts to impeach G.W. Bush (as well as crushing the sales of my 2006 bookThe Case for Impeachment!) by declaring in May 2006 that impeachment is off the table, is keeping a lid on any widening of the impeachment case against Trump.

If she persists in this wrong-headed strategy, Pelosi must take the blame for the disaster that will likely ensue, of a triumphal Trump declaring that he had been cleared by the Senate, and campaigning through next summer and fall against a Democratic Party he will accuse of being obsessed with overturning the results of the last election.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Read more:
Democrats make a huge mistake if they just focus impeachment on the Ukraine scandal - NationofChange

To impeach and remove Trump, Democrats need to repeat what they did in impeaching Trump, not copy the Republicans Clinton impeachment p.laybook

The impeachment theater on display today in the House, bracketed by Speaker Nancy Pelosis maudlin reading of Article I of the Constitution, and by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys ludicrous evocation of the Stalin purge trials to characterize the full House vote to establish impeachment rules and procedures, is increasingly looking like the first act of an almost certain impeachment of President Trump.

Unfortunately, if Democrats impeaching Trump on just the effort to extort an investigation of the Bidens by Ukraines government their goal, theyll get their impeachment vote, but it will end up like the Clinton impeachment as a farcical trial in the Senate, perhaps even strengthening President Trump in next years presidential election contest.

The Democrats, that is to say, are following the Republicans disastrous impeachment model, set in 1998-99 when they sought to oust President Clinton over a blow-job in the Oval Office, and ended up making him one of the most popular presidents in the history of the job.

Democrats should be looking instead to the Nixon impeachment, which obtained the desired result removing a criminal president from office without even having to go to a full vote of the House following passage of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee.

When one looks back at that impeachment effort, it almost seems incredible that Nixon was forced out of office. This was a president, remember, who in 1972 was re-elected to a second term by a landslide 60.7 percent of the popular vote to just 37.5 percent for his Democratic opponent Sen. George McGovern. Nixon won the electoral votes of 49 states, with only Massachusetts going for McGovern.

Congressional investigation into Nixons crimes began with the establishment of the so-called Watergate Committee, headed by Senator Sam Ervin. That committees public hearings into that scandal started on May 17, 1973, just six months after Nixons electoral triumph.

At the time, while Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress, Nixon was still hugely popular, even as the early details of the Watergate break-in and of the cover-up of that tip-of-the-iceberg corruption in the Nixon White House and re-election campaign were starting to come out. At the time of his inauguration, Nixons popularity was at a peak of 67% in a Gallup poll.

By the time the Watergate Committee started its hearings, four months into his second term, Nixons popularity had slumped to the mid-40s, about equal to his disapproval rating. As those hearings continued, his support continued to sink. By October 30, 1973, just short of a year after Nixon won re-election, when the House Judiciary Committee beganinvestigating possible impeachable crimes by the president, his support had slumped to 27 percent. (Contrary to assertions by todays CongressionalRepublicans, who claim that an impeachment must start with a full vote by the House,it wasnt until February 6, 1974, more than three months after its investigations began, that the Judiciary Committee went to the full House for a vote designating it as an Impeachment Committee.)

More importantly, though, even after the empowered Judiciary Committee began its work, and began issuing subpoenas for documents, tapes and testimony, it wasnt until late July that it finally voted out three articles of impeachment. Those articles were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, but they each included a number of examples of the presidents impeachable (though perhaps not all criminal) behavior. Along the way, the committee also investigated and considered other impeachable offenses, drawing up but rejecting two other articles of impeachment.

This is important. When talk of impeaching Nixon first began, Republicans were all up in arms defending the president, and even many Democrats were nervous and unconvinced. They had, after all, been trounced in the last election, and Nixon had won re-election decisively. But the hearings, with their dramatic testimony from Nixon White House and campaign staff, both in the Watergate and in the impeachment committees, provided a steady stream of disturbing information and criminality on the part of the president and his acolytes and appointees. It was a process that led to a steady decline in his popular (and Congressional) support until by the time those three impeachment articles were voted for by the Judiciary Committee, his approval ratings were down in the mid-20 percent range. Not surprisingly, those articles won the backing of even some Republicans on the committee.

There was no further action on Nixons impeachment because Republican leaders did some head-counting and went to the president with word that he would be impeached by the full House on those articles, with significant Republican support, and that he would lose a trial in the Senate, after which he would likely be indicted and likely convicted and sentenced to jail for his crimes.

It was an agonizing political process, though also gripping not just for those who wanted Nixon gone, but even for his backers, or former backers among the electorate.

It is precisely this process which Democrats need to copy in pursuing the eminently impeachment-deserving President Donald Trump.

It would be an historic mistake of epic proportions to go after this congenitally criminal and morally appalling president for just one issue one which many Americans who have backed him will readily excuse him for. Indeed Trumps withholding of Congressionally approved military aid to extort a foreign criminal investigation of a potential political opponent pales in comparison Nixons interference with the Vietnam peace talks or Reagans successful effort as a candidate to get Iran to delay release of the US embassy hostages until after the 1980 election, neither of which led to any impeachment hearings.

Thats not to say that Trump is not a uniquely dangerous threat to Constitutional government.

What the now fully empowered House Judiciary Committee needs to do, though, is to significantly expand its hearings to examine all the myriad impeachable crimes which this president is known or strongly suspected of having committed. That would include everything from lying to the American public, cheating on his taxes, obstructing justice on myriad occasions, suborning perjury from witnesses, paying bribes, profiting personally from his powers of office, violating election laws, and perhaps rape and assault as well.

The American people need all these impeachable deeds and misbehavior laid bare in all their gory detail over the next six-12 months. Trumps support, currently languishing around 40 percent, will sink as time goes on, as the shameful behavior gets continuous exposure. As the evidence of his crimes mounts, the risk of his ending up in the clink, at least after he leaves office, will grows. Meanwhile, the likelihood of his winning re-election and escaping that fate will fades. The odds will then grow that he will choose the same option that Nixon chose: resignation with a pardon.

I obviously would like to see Trump removed from the White House, either by impeachment and conviction in the Senate, or by resignation. But I also believe, as I did in the case of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that even if he survives impeachment, it is crucial for US democracy that impeachable crimes be called out for what they are, even if the perpetrator cannot be convicted by the Senate. (It is my contention, for example, that Obama committed serious impeachable crimes such as refusing to prosecute known the war criminals Bush and VP Dick Cheney, as well as violating the First and Fourth Amendments with his expanded use of NSA spying on Americans, as well as his illegal war on Libya. For these actions or non actions, he should have been impeached by the House.)

So far, it looks like the House, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who single-handedly stymied efforts to impeach G.W. Bush (as well as crushing the sales of my 2006 book The Case for Impeachment!) by declaring in May 2006 that impeachment is off the table, is keeping a lid on any widening of the impeachment case against Trump.

If she persists in this wrong-headed strategy, Pelosi must take the blame for the disaster that will likely ensue, of a triumphal Trump declaring that he had been cleared by the Senate, and campaigning through next summer and fall against a Democratic Party he will accuse of being obsessed with overturning the results of the last election.

Read more here:
Democrats are Making a Huge Mistake on Impeachment if They Focus on the Ukraine Scandal - ThisCantBeHappening!

Click here for more on NSA Surveillance

What if it emerged that the President of the United States was flagrantly violating the Constitution and a law passed by the Congress to protect Americans against abuses by a super-secret spy agency? What if, instead of apologizing, he said, in essence, "I have the power to do that, because I say I can." That frightening scenario is exactly what we are now witnessing in the case of the warrantless NSA spying ordered by President Bush that was reported December 16, 2005 by the New York Times.

According to the Times, Bush signed a presidential order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to monitor without a warrant the international (and sometimes domestic) telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds or thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. The program eventually came to include some purely internal controls - but no requirement that warrants be obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and the foreign intelligence surveillance laws require.

In other words, no independent review or judicial oversight.

That kind of surveillance is illegal. Period.

The day after this shocking abuse of power became public, President Bush admitted that he had authorized it, but argued that he had the authority to do so. But the law governing government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear. President Bush's claim that he is not bound by that law is simply astounding. It is a Presidential power grab that poses a challenge in the deepest sense to the integrity of the American system of government - the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, the concept of checks and balances on executive power, the notion that the president is subject to the law like everyone else, and the general respect for the "rule of law" on which our democratic system depends.

The ACLU ran the following advertisement in the December 29, 2005 edition of The New York Times:

The tensions between the need for intelligence agencies to protect the nation and the danger that they would become a domestic spy agency have been explicitly and repeatedly fought out in American history. The National Security Act of 1947 contained a specific ban on intelligence operatives from operating domestically. In the 1970s, America learned about the extensive domestic political spying carried out by the FBI, the military, the CIA, and the NSA, and Congress passed new laws to prevent a repeat of those abuses. Surveillance laws were debated and modified under presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

But, President Bush would sweep aside this entire body of democratically debated and painstakingly crafted restrictions on domestic surveillance by the executive branch with his extraordinary assertion that he can simply ignore this law because he is the Commander-in-Chief. In a December 17 radio address, for example, Bush asserted that the spying was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." But his constitutional duty is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 3); the law here clearly establishes well-defined procedures for eavesdropping on U.S. persons, and the fact is, Bush ordered that those procedures not be followed.

Government eavesdropping on Americans is an extremely serious matter; the ability to intrude on the private realm is a tremendous power that can be used to monitor, embarass, control, disgrace, or ruin an individual. Because it is so invasive, the technology of wiretapping has been subject to carefully crafted statutory controls almost since it was invented. Ignoring those controls and wiretapping without a court order is a crime that carries a significant prison sentence (in fact, criminal violations of the wiretap statute were among the articles of impeachment that were drafted against President Nixon shortly before his resignation).

Unfortunately, although the law in this matter is crystal clear, many Americans, faced with President Bush's bold assertions of "inherent" authority for these actions, will not know what to believe. There are only 5 points they need to understand:

The law on surveillance begins with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states clearly that Americans' privacy may not be invaded without a warrant based on probable cause.

United States ConstitutionFourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court (US v. Katz 389 US 347) has made it clear that this core privacy protection does cover government eavesdropping. As a result, all electronic surveillance by the government in the United States is illegal, unless it falls under one of a small number of precise exceptions specifically carved out in the law.

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activitiesA person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute

In other words, the NSA can only spy where it is explicitly granted permission to do so by statute. Citizens concerned about surveillance do not have to answer the question, "what law restricts the NSA's spying?" Rather, the government is required to supply an answer to the question "what law permits the NSA to spy?"

There are only three laws that authorize any exceptions to the ban on electronic eavesdropping by the government. Congress has explicitly stated that these three laws are the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance can be carried out (18 USC, Section 2511(2)(f)). They are:

Title III and ECPA govern domestic criminal wiretaps and are not relevant to the NSA's spying. FISA is the law under which the NSA should have operated. It authorizes the government to conduct surveillance in certain situations without meeting all of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment that apply under criminal law, but requires that an independent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court oversee that surveillance to make sure that Americans who have no ties to foreign terrorist organizations or other "foreign powers" are not spied upon.

FISA was significantly loosened by the Patriot Act (which, for example, allowed it to be used for some criminal investigations), and parts of it now stand in clear violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment in the view of the ACLU and many others. However, even the post-Patriot Act version of FISA does not authorize the president to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents in the U.S. without an order from the FISA Court. Yet it is that very court order requirement - imposed to protect innocent Americans - that the President has ignored.

In fact, one member of the FISA Court, Judge James Roberston, has apparently resigned from the court in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of this program. And the New York Times reported that the court's chief judge complained about the program when she was (belatedly) notified of it, and refused to allow information gathered under the program to be used as the basis for FISA wiretap orders.

Congress after 9/11 approved an Authorization to Use Military Force against those responsible for the attacks in order to authorize the president to conduct foreign military operations such as the invasion of Afghanistan.

But that resolution contains no language changing, overriding or repealing any laws passed by Congress. Congress does not repeal legislation through hints and innuendos, and the Authorization to Use Military Force does not authorize the president to violate the law against surveillance without a warrant any more than it authorizes him to carry out an armed robbery or seize control of Citibank in order to pay for operations against terrorists. In fact, when President Truman tried to seize control of steel mills that were gripped by strikes in 1952, the Supreme Court decisively rejected his authority to make such a seizure, even in the face of arguments that the strike would interfere with the supply of weapons and ammunition to American troops then under fire on the battlefields of the Korean War.

U.S. Supreme CourtYOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

"The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. . . .

"Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. . . . The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. . . .

"The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times."

The Supreme Court also rejected similar assertions of inherent executive power by Richard Nixon.

In fact, FISA contains explicit language describing the president's powers "during time of war" and provides that "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. 1811 (emphasis added). So even if we accept the argument that the use-of-force resolution places us on a war footing, warrantless surveillance would have been legal for only 15 days after the resolution was passed on September 18, 2001.

Point #5: The need for quick action does not justify an end-run around the courtsThe FISA law takes account of the need for emergency surveillance, and the need for quick action cannot be used as a rationale for going outside the law. FISA allows wiretapping without a court order in an emergency; the court must simply be notified within 72 hours. The government is aware of this emergency power and has used it repeatedly. In addition, the Foreign Intelligence court is physically located in the Justice Department building, and the FISA law requires that at least two of the FISA judges reside in the Washington, DC area, for precisely the reason that rapid action is sometimes needed.

If President Bush still for some reason finds these provisions to be inadequate, he must take his case to Congress and ask for the law to be changed, not simply ignore it.

President Bush's claim that he has "inherent authority" as Commander-in-Chief to use our spy agencies to eavesdrop on Americans is astonishing, and such spying is clearly illegal. It must be halted immediately, and its origins must be thoroughly investigated by Congress and by a special counsel. (See letter from the ACLU to Attorney General Gonzales calling for a special counsel).

Given the extensive (indeed, excessive) surveillance powers that the government already possesses, the Administration's blatantly illegal use of warrantless surveillance raises an important question: why? One possibility, raised by the New York Times in a Dec. 24, 2005 story ("Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report"), is that the NSA is relying on assistance from several unnamed telecommunications companies to "trace and analyze large volumes of communications" and is "much larger than the White House has acknowledged."

This, as security expert Bruce Schneier has noted, suggests the Bush Administration has developed a "a whole new surveillance paradigm" - exploiting the NSA's well known capabilities to spy on individuals not one at a time, as FISA permits, but to run communications en masse through computers in the search for suspicious individuals or patterns. This "new paradigm" may well be connected to the NSA program sometimes known as "Echelon," which carries out just that kind of mass collection of communications (see http://www.nsawatch.org). This "wholesale" surveillance, as Schneier calls it, would constitute an illegal invasion of Americans' privacy on a scale that has never before been seen. (See Schneier, "NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping," Salon.com)

According to the Times, several telecommunications companies provided the NSA with direct access to streams of communications over their networks. In other words, the NSA appears to have direct access to a large volume of Americans' communications - with not simply the assent, but the cooperation of the companies handling those communications.

We do not know from the report which companies are involved or precisely how or what the NSA can access. But this revelation raises questions about both the legal authority of the NSA to request and receive this data, and whether these companies may have violated either the Federal laws protecting these communications or their own stated privacy polices (which may, for example, provide that they will only turn over their customers' data with their consent or in response to a proper order).

Regardless of the scale of this spying, we are facing a historic moment: the President of the United States has claimed a sweeping wartime power to brush aside the clear limits on his power set by our Constitution and laws - a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since Richard Nixon.

See more here:
NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal | American Civil ...