Showing posts with label Joe Conason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Conason. Show all posts

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Pelosi's House Bill - Thanks To Repub Extortion To Change It- Puts Millions More Americans At Risk

Image result for Brane space, Pelosi
The despicable, congenital asshole Dotard demanded no "goodies" (universal paid leave for workers) otherwise he'd sign no coronavirus aid package.


On Friday evening - seeing the just passed House aid package for this COVID-19 crisis - Janice and I felt confident the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) has done "God's justice" in getting the best aid deal she could for American workers.  (HR 6201:   'Families First Coronavirus Response Act') Included in the original bill were:  expanded food stamps security, expanded unemployment insurance, free COVID-19 testing  and paid leave for all American workers . The last including all those in low paid jobs, as well as part timers, who get sick - or need to stay at home with kids.  It turned out to be a  mirage - given she and the Dems ended up in a disgusting shakedown "compromise" i.e.  to get a revised version passed, more like "Families Last". . In fact, given this is a national emergency I call a spade a spade and say outright the Dems surrendered to Repuke extortion.

Here's a head scratcher and also heads up:  After a Waffle House employee tested positive for the coronavirus earlier this month, the company refused to promise it would pay other sick workers to stay home.  Perverse? A moral atrocity?  Risking many dozens more Americans being made sick by unpaid sick workers?  Not under this rejiggered, extorted  House bill, whereby Waffle House would qualify for a big-company exemption.  In other words, American workers who may have to take off work to stay home with shuttered kids- or are sick themselves- are being kneecapped.  The big "benefit" package we all believed the House Dems were getting through was just a mirage.  The Repukes ended up taking House Dems' lunch money and getting way with it.  What happened to fighting for a broad paid leave package to get to all workers  for at least 2 weeks if they need it?

As usual, when the rubber hit the road the Dems turned tail and ran like frightened rabbits, so intent on getting any bill passed, to show they are paying attention as the COVID-19 outbreak spreads.  As a NY Times editorial properly asked:

"Would Ms. Pelosi please explain why the House decided not to require Waffle House to protect its workers and customers by paying for sick leave?"

The editors were referring to the fact the bill guarantees sick leave only to about 20 percent of workers. Big employers like McDonald’s and Amazon are not required to provide any paid sick leave, while companies with fewer than 50 employees can seek hardship exemptions from the Trump administration.  Sure the bill does require some employers to provide full-time workers with up to 10 days of paid leave, but this does not apply to the nation’s largest employers — companies with 500 or more workers.(Note: As per a WSJ report, (Mar. 12, p. B2)  Amazon will now voluntarily provide paid leave to both full and part time workers, as announced last Wednesday.). This lot together employs roughly 54 percent of all workers.So much for Trump asslicker Mike Pence's lie:

“If you are sick, stay home.  You’re not going to miss a pay check.”

Never mind Pence's lie, we know he lies just about like his master, Dotard.  We expected more from Pelosi as opposed to a pathetic, half- hearted  bill that shows a lack of will to fight on workers' behalf .  This is especially when we know this is the very time each American family needs: a) A straight, no strings, tax free check for $1,000 to cover costs, and b) paid leave for at least 2 weeks if they are sick or need to tend to their at home kids. Not to have these provisions discloses Pelosi too easily sold out to the 'pukes and their austerity assholes.  We also know the price in increased infections and not flattening the curve- allowing hospitals nationwide to be overrun -could be the price finally paid. A price about 100 times greater than the niggardly Repubs are trying to save.

Our own  (Colorado) Sen. Ken Buck, even with these exemptions, called the hollow bill a "boondoggle" (Denver Post, Saturday)  prompting a good friend to wish for him to get sick with the virus and have to stay home with wife, or kids. Oh, but wait! He's in the U.S. Senate so can take off any fucking time he wants and has gold standard health care. Excuse the hell out of me for calling out this asswipe.

As the Times editors put it, "Sick workers should stay home, but there is no guarantee in the emergency legislation that most of them will get paid."

The   fact those sick workers - say at Burger King or MickeyD's- may have to show up to flip burgers to get paid (and spread the virus to customers), shows  the Trump White House and congressional Republicans will have to bear primary responsibility. Say if the outbreak overwhelms U.S. hospitals and we see what's happening in Italy happen here. Also, they will bear responsibility for the increased deaths - which could run in the hundreds of thousands.

It is true that some big companies do provide voluntary paid leave, for example Walmart allows up to two weeks of paid leave for workers who fall ill or are quarantined because of a confirmed exposure to the virus.  Other large employers, including Target, Gap and Wawa, have made similar announcements. But such voluntary policies are not enough because the bulk of America's lowest paid workers - often those in retail and fast food (hence with the most public contact) are excluded.

So pardon me, but his party of  red state cockroaches bears  the primary responsibility for the abomination of prioritizing corporate profits in the midst of a public health emergency.  It is especially execrable as these vermin  insisted on the exemptions as the price of bipartisan support for the legislation,   But make no mistake Pelosi is not totally off the hook, as she didn't fight hard enough.  As the Times put it:

"Why not pass a bill that required all employers to provide paid sick leave and then force Republicans to explain their objections to the public?"

This would have at least put the Reeps on the defensive, and having multiple pressers could have pushed the case to show they were the ones holding up action. But Nancy didn't do this for whatever reason, perhaps sensing time wasn't her friend and some kind of action - any action, even only delivering a half loaf (or in this case, one fifth)  -  was needed.  As for the small (50 or fewer employee businesses) a rational solution to their fretting over giving paid leave is for the gov't to provide each with an emergency subsidy - say $1- 2 m each - to cover the cost of paid leave for their workers.  As one economist noted on CNN Saturday, "$50-60 billion stimulus for the scale of employment dislocation we face is absurd. We're gonna need at least $1 trillion and even that may not be enough."

But if that pathetic bill full of loopholes translates into 20 million more Americans infected, and 1 million dying what was the point?    To appease a bunch of reprobates who wish to destroy the whole basis of functioning government anyway?  As Joe Conason spelled it out in a recent smirkingchimp.com blog post ('Conservatism Is Going To Kill Us All'):

"For the past three years, Trump and the Republicans have busied themselves with attacks on our government’s intelligence capabilities, our health systems, even the health coverage that would enable Americans to cope with an epidemic like coronavirus might become. They railed against “the deep state”; they sabotaged fundamental services; they behaved as if society needs no sentinels or guard posts; and now they pretend to be able to protect us."

That says it all and I don't need to add more. Suffice it to say Pelosi and the House Dems dropped the ball big time and this could come back to bite them in November.  Before signing off let me note that Charlie Crist (D, FLA) was more optimistic on AM Joy today,  forecasting a "come to Jesus"  moment for the pukes to agree to change the bill back- or at least award more paid leave. According to Charlie, who put on his Pollyanna garb instead of big boy pants (imho):

"Well, I think you're gonna see this thing expand. The Speaker wanted to get something passed, Very smart of her!  She wanted to have something ready for  the Senate to vote on, hopefully on Monday. I think that was responsible.  It was an amazing bill. You have paid leave, sick leave, for the poor. It's very comprehensive and I think an important first step.  The longest journey begins with one step and I am sure we can improve it. I am confident of it!"

Well, Mr Crist, I would be as well IF there were a Dem president instead of Trump and a Dem Senate, as opposed to a bunch of spinelsss Republican whelps who pant to kiss Trump's ass every second of every day.  Just saying.   But if that  political wishful thinking of yours doesn't manifest then millions more American workers are shafted and many times more trusting citizens will be put at risk for getting this illness  - including seniors.


See also:



And:



Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Thank Trump's Lawyers - Especially Dershowitz- For Paving The Path To A Fascist Dictatorship



Related image
Trumpie lawyers Ken Starr (left) and Alan Dershowitz.  Hitler himself would have been proud of their Constitution -debasing  arguments.

"This is a president who already has few constraints on his behavior and now there will be even fewer with these crazy arguments, and he will be running around saying he's exonerated.  He's being let off the hook by the Republicans but he is not going to be set free by the American people, I hope.  Because they get this was  not a fair trial with no witnesses, no documents - a total stonewall.".- Sen. Maisie Hirono, on Rachel Maddow, Thursday  night,

"This is the dawn of American authoritarianism, and Republicans are not only not trying to stop it, many are openly cheering it. The rest of us — many of us, anyway — are aghast, overcome and exhausted."  - Charles M. Blow, NY Times today


"Say goodbye to the rule of law.  Thanks to the Republicans we now have a dictatorship."    Bill Maher, Friday night, 'Real Time' 

Americans ought to thank Alan Dershowitz for his scintillating defense of President Donald Trump. Carried away on a crescendo of bluster, the retired Harvard law professor broadcast the true meaning of the acquittal preordained by crooked Senate Republicans: This president is exempt from any legal consequences, even if he seeks foreign assistance to rig his own election.

While the Dershowitz defense provoked an eruption of astonished guffaws and jeers — with “preposterous” the most frequent term of derision — it is significant precisely because it is so absurd and so blatantly disdainful of American constitutional values. "- Joe Conason

"The state of the union is upside down and inside out and sauerkraut. Trump has changed literally everything in the last three years, transforming and coarsening the game. On Friday night, he became, arguably, the most brutishly powerful Republican of all time. Never has a leader had such a stranglehold on his party, subsuming it with one gulp." -  Maureen Dowd, NY Times, Sunday, Feb. 2,  'Trump- Unrepentant and Unleashed'


We learned yesterday  (Denver Post, p. 5A)  Trump is ecstatic that the "Senate is on schedule to  acquit him by Wednesday".  Well, it's terrific for this criminal and reprobate but a sad day for the rest of the nation.    Now, Trump's cult of lawless vipers - especially the lawyers who concocted  this BS of  "mixed motives" justifying anything, can brag "there was nothing there" and certainly nothing impeachable.  Leave the poor little wannabe dictator alone, do.

Those with IQs over room temperature digits and a basic sense of morality and constitutional insight know better.

The consensus of pundits on MSNBC  following the Thursday Senate trial on Trump's impeachment  is that we are in "a very scary moment"  and (in Chris Hayes' words) "in a time of great national peril if Trump's lawyers arguments for acquittal are codified".  This is no exaggeration and the most radical exponent of the destruction of constitutional law was Alan Dershowitz. He basically argued that a president like Trump can be anything he wishes (presumably even shooting someone on 5th avenue) if he "believes it's in his own political interest and the  national interest."  In effect, a mixed motive delivers absolute power effectively putting any scumbag beyond the law and accountability.  

Tony Schwartz, co-author of the book, The Art of the Deal, agreed with the panel's takes and also warned if Trump is re-elected he will carry out a personal  "pogrom" on all 200 odd figures who appeared on MSNBC and criticized him in any way.   Indeed, he conjectured Trump may even sic his pet toady Barr on any who attacked him.  He then noted that Lev Parnas - one of Rudy Giuliani's tools "had good reason to be afraid of William Barr."

I  tend to agree and also with former Republican Charlie Sykes who argued that after the coming vote for acquittal- and especially after refusing to accept witnesses- the Reep Senators in swing states (including Martha McSally (AZ) and Cory Gardner (CO))  will face a backlash and the Dems could well retake the Senate.

Back to Dershowitz:  Blogger Joe Conason has perhaps given one of the best takes on his "performance" last Thursday,  regarding the nonsense that Trump is basically above the law.  Now, to be fair, in a tweet Thursday night Dershowitz insisted his arguments were "mischaracterized", writing:

"I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything  to reassure his reelection, only that asking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said not to create strawmen to attack.

But are those really straw men?   Of course not, given Dershowitz is condoning extortion - bribery to get help, so indeed it is a case of   "anything goes." As I pointed out in my Sept.. 25th post, 'Don't Be Misled By Overthinking': 

"As FOX's own judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano  informed  anchor Shepherd Smith yesterday afternoon, Trump basically openly admitted to committing bribery which is an impeachable offense.   To jog memories, recall this all began when Trump pressured the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in a July phone call to investigate the son of Joe Biden, the former vice-president and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to compete for the White House in the 2020 presidential election.

Indeed, Judge Napolitano noted the Founders ranked  bribery right up there with treason - which crime Trump is also likely guilty of. Napolitano was referring to the fact that Trump sought the help of a foreign country (Ukraine)  to gain leverage to destroy his potential political opponent - Joe Biden. And worse, he used the withholding of over $450m in already taxpayer- allocated foreign aid as an extortion tool.  

 As Napolitano put it, in an earlier historical time "beheading was the punishment" - though he would "hesitate to prescribe such for Trump". Well, I wouldn't. But I would hang him first, or maybe electrocute him in an old electric chair- as he earlier insisted ought to be done to Joe Biden. .

My point?  If this FOX- based judge  Andrew Napolitano could recognize the objective evidence for bribery  and an impeachable offense, then any other sentient person could as well, including the daft Derswhowitz - who as wifey put it, "has shattered whatever Harvard creds and dignity he once had".


   Back to  Joe Conason - who writes in his recent blog post, first directly quoting Dershowitz:

 “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” He suggested that such a deal would only be impeachable if motivated by financial gain.

Could “something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest” mean literally anything? Would shooting someone on Fifth Avenue be excused, too, or only “something” like extorting a hit job by a foreign power on a political opponent?

Eminent legal minds and Democratic senators pounced on the absurdity of Dershowitz’s statement — which blithely erased Trump’s corrupt abuse of power by attributing a pure motive to him. 

Dershowitz shot back, saying that the critics had willfully misinterpreted his words. But there is no way to parse them that is constitutionally palatable. They reek of a poison that would kill our system of free government."


Dershowitz'  argument that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense is, as Dersh himself admitted,  one with which nearly ever law school academic and constitutional scholar would disagree. Even Harvard  Constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe skewered Dersh's nonsense in a memorable segment on All In a week ago .   This hasn't stopped the irrepressible Dersh from trying - again today (WSJ, p. A17, 'Democrats Are Lying About My Arguments')   from once more attempting to achieve some salvage operation.  But again it's all transparent, sophomoric sophistry and propaganda.  

 It's little wonder Prof. Tribe took him to task for trying to peddle such  farcical codswallop, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCUGx9wHhE  
Averring:

"I almost don't know where to start. My colleague has it upside down. I knew the Trump defense was going to rely on to a large extent on alternative facts,  but I didn't know they were also going to use alternative law.


There is no legal principle that says something has to violate a federal criminal statute to be impeachable.  When the impeachment power was put in the Constitution there were no federal criminal statutes.  As the House report accompanying these articles of impeachment says, what is being charged against the president happens to be a federal crime: felony bribery.  And on top of that yesterday we learned from the accountability office that the president is indeed breaking the law, the impoundment control act.


So that's why I don't know where to start since Alan is completely wacko on this.  So I don't understand why the president thinks it will help him to have this kind of bizarro defense."


However, we can be sure Adolf Hitler would have admired and applauded the effort as one he'd have used to justify his 'Enabling Act' - a perverse law that destroyed the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic and paved the way for one party Nazi rule.   Think this is hyper -reaction and exaggeration?  Then you're not paying attention as there's already been a threat on Adam Schiff's life.


Threat on Adam Schiff's life, weeks after Trump incited violence in tweet

This is one of the ways Nazi domination began with fear and threats, as well as attacks - on Jews, socialists (real ones not the National Socialists) in Germany in the 1930s.  People had better damned well wake up or they won't recognize the nation they wake up to.

And no, folks, there is no way in hell I will be tuning in tonight to see 'BLOTUS'  boasting in his 'State of the Union'  as being "exonerated" from the "hoax impeachment."  I will be watching a pay per view movie with wifey instead.


See also:


Excerpt:

"While it may be too late to debunk Alan Dershowitz’s “mixed-motives” theory of impeachment for the purposes of Trump’s impeachment trial, it is still important to debunk it before the election in November. Otherwise, Trump and the Republicans will successfully use this desperate bullshit over the next nine months to rationalize their refusal to call witnesses."

And:


And: