"Case Closed?" How About Contempt And A Constitutional Crisis? This Battle Is Just Getting Started

What the scene ought to be after Dotard leaves office- given over 800 former prosecutors have now stated he ought to have been indicted on the basis of Mueller's findings.

"People don't read a 448 page report, not all of that. But they will watch the movie. And the movie will make a powerful difference, especially after Trump has made such a big deal out of keeping it all secret.  He said falsely the report exonerated him. Of course, if it did, he would want all of it out and want Mueller to testify.

What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way.  That was with ten instances of felonious obstruction of justice. that over seven hundred former prosecutors - Republicans and Democrats alike- say established obstruction.

I trust the American people will understand that which is why I stand with Elizabeth Warren when when she says the time has come for people to stand up for principle. I don't favor voting articles of impeachment tomorrow, we have to have the hearings. But they are clearly impeachment hearings.  Which, among other things, will increase the power of the House of Representatives to get all the evidence that it needs."  Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, Tuesday night on MSNBC.

"It may seem like there are a hundred different battles going on. In fact, there is just one: Trump versus the Mueller investigation."  Rachel Maddow, Wednesday night

That House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler yesterday announced the Committee had voted to charge Attorney William Barr with contempt should come as no surprise to any alert and aware citizen.  That he also announced we are in a "constitutional crisis" was inevitable given the totality of actions over the past month by perhaps the most lawless administration in U.S.  history.  Indeed, the previous evening the die had been cast when Trump toady Barr fired off a letter in which he wrote in part:

"In the face of the committee's threatened contempt vote the attorney general will be compelled to request that the president invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to the subpoena. I hereby request the committee hold the subpoena in abeyance and delay any vote on whether to recommend a citation of contempt.for non-compliance with the subpoena pending the president's determination of this question."


Basically asserting if there can be no delay in the  vote for contempt citation  he would recommend Trump invoke "executive privilege" on everything that the Judiciary committee is subpoenaing.

This elicited a comment Tuesday night by 'Last Word' guest  and political analyst Jason Johnson:

"This is it. The Democrats basically have to decide if they are actually the party of resistance and oversight or if they're simply going to comply with the dictatorial tendencies of this administration."   Adding:

"If the report, the full report, cannot actually be seen by the committee then what was the point of the report to begin with? And the idea that Barr, who has basically worked as a personal attorney for the president, is threatening 'I will take my ball, your ball and five other people's balls home with me if you don't play by my rules' is the clearest sign the Democrats have to stop pussy footing around and start with impeachment proceedings."


Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson's reaction to Barr's threat was even more colorful:

"Barr threw a gauntlet down and the middle finger of that gauntlet is extended.  This is a Watergate level of contempt for congress. This guy makes John Mitchell look like Mother Theresa. He's basically saying to them, I will go the full nuclear option if you do that.  I will blow it all up if you do this.... If I was the committee I would just hold the vote and find him in contempt. This guy has nothing but contempt and should be held in contempt."

And this is exactly why the House Dems need to bring the hammer down, to avoid what Prof. Lawrence Tribe also warned about: allowing caution to become cowardice.  Tribe's warning was timely given that thus far the House Dems appear to be overly tepid and holding back using the full force of what they can do including: demanding emergency court decisions, and dispatching the sergeant - at -arms with an accompanying team of Capitol police backups to arrest the scofflaw SOB Barr.  Also enjoin the sergeant-at-arm Paul Irving to arrest McGahn,  Mnuchin, Don. Jr. and any others who've blow off subpoenas.  I understand there is a special Capitol jail which was last used during the Bush Jr. administration to put a Dem who failed to respond to a House GOP subpoena. So it's not like this is totally new territory as the media would have you believe.

Enough of this BS already!  No more talking Dems, time to fish or cut bait!

The WSJ editorial enablers and protectors of the traitor Trump meanwhile seem to like the idea of the latter as if it will trigger a kind of Mexican standoff favoring Barr. I.e. writing yesterday (''The Pseudo-Impeachment',  p. A14):

"Perhaps Mr. Nadler will send the sergeant -at-arms  to arrest Mr. Barr, which would make for an interesting showdown with the federal marshals who protect the AG."

Except, you deluded lunkheads, the sergeant -at -arms enforces the LEGISLATIVE branch and its subpoenas,  and so has priority over any other law enforcement, including federal marshals. In any case, if that's what it takes to finally bring this smoldering constitutional crisis to a head, I say 'bring it on'.

The WSJ, Rupert Murdoch- backed stooges are also out of it when they write this fulsome codswallop(ibid.):

"The real offense against the Constitution here is by the Democrats. Oversight of the executive branch is an important Congressional power.  But the Supreme Court has said it should be related to congress' legislative function or constitutional duty.  It can't merely be a trawling exercise to see what nasty details they can find to score political points and discredit a president before the 2020 election."

Failing to note that Trump has discredited himself. It is indeed all in the existing version of the 448 page Mueller report which readers can access here:

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf


You will see Trump's own lawless actions revealed and which amount to a discrediting and full incrimination of himself.  These were summed up well by Lawrence Tribe (see top quote) and in Mueller's 10 cited episodes of obstruction. These  now have seen - at latest tally-  over 800 former prosecutors (Dem and Reep) sign a letter attesting to the fact they meet an indictment standard. In other words, if this sorry turd wasn't president he'd be in an orange jumpsuit already!  Don't take my word, read the relevant section in the report, and while you're at it, the part relating to the attack on our democracy as well. Don't take Barr's words or Trump's either!  Don't be deluded for one second into believing this is "all settled, all over".   No it is not.

Those with the time and temperament - as well as patience - to read the report (from the link given) will also find that it establishes beyond a doubt that a hostile foreign power engaged in a systematic effort to subvert our democracy and Trump egged them on ("If you're listening, Russia....")   Mueller's explosive report shows clearly - when you READ it (and not Barr's crib note) that Trump's only concern was for his own fat, orange skin not for American democracy.

Also, we learned why former White House Counsel Don McGahn must be a key witness in hearings which hopefully will begin soon. That is, Mueller reveals that Trump directed McGhan to fire Mueller based on the accusation of "conflict of interest" that Trump knew to be groundless.. Worse, Trump instructed McGahn to lie about it.  As one former associate DOJ prosecutor put it last night on 'All In' "That nails it. Obstruction!"

All this, especially with Barr's contempt and the effort to neuter congress, means impeachment proceedings must start sooner than later. The Dems have no choice, especially if the Trumptards continue to refuse to respond to subpoenas. Thus, the only way to obtain the evidence needed is to take the crisis to the next level - of impeachment. The House Dems then become the lawful prosecutors and must be given the evidence, including the unredacted full report and all ancillary evidence.  Could there be political, blowback? Yes, as Lawrence Tribe noted, but at the same time "no one has a crystal ball" to foretell exactly how things will unfold, adding:

"As you note I take a cautioned view of impeachment in my book but there is a point where caution becomes cowardice and cowardice becomes betrayal of the Constitution."

This is an important warning to sound as Trump more and more leaves congressional investigators little choice. It's either impeach the imp or send the signal an impious criminal  WH resident who flouts every subpoena is A-ok,  and send the country to perdition.

 Also as Prof. Tribe noted may well be that failure to act in a courageous manner will cost the Democrats votes - millions of them.

So the WSJ editors can sputter about "pseudo-impeachment" all they want, but the Reeps and the mutt they're protecting are leaving the Democrats with no other choices. By their obstinate and obstructive tactics to try to nullify the Article 1 powers of congress, they have made their traitor boy the target of impeachment.

Will he try to use it to play to his forlorn loser base? Of course! But that can't be used as an excuse to refrain from holding this criminal and his whole embedded enterprise to account. It's either that, or  set a dangerous precedent for any future executive who fancies himself a dictator. 

Now it is true that in a culture in which most people have the attention span of gnats too many voters appear "unmoved by Mueller's conclusions" - according to one TIME magazine take (May 13, p. 33).  However, I would say this is only insofar as they've been exposed to Barr's truncated, skewed, 4 page version of the report. If they could instead bestir their brains (and attention) to read the WHOLE report - as I've provided the link to it above - they would find it not only damning - but agree with the 800 former prosecutors who maintain if it were anyone else he'd be wearing an orange jump suit.

By the same token, the claim of one Trump imbecile (2020 campaign secretary Kayleigh McEnany, ibid.) that "the report creates a massive credibility for the left"  is easily skewered. Again, once one reads the actual report, or just the key sections that give away Trump's actions as manifestly criminal.   Why didn't Mueller then "pin the tail on the Dotard?"  My take and that of many other observers is that he was a victim of overthinking his role, in particular the 'need' to err on the side of caution:  bending over too far backwards so as not to appear unfair. But also to hold to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel trope that "no president can be indicted". Faced with the OLC opinion, which is what it was, and Trump's refusal to show up to answer questions in person, he reasoned he had no choice other than to punt.  Despite all that, as the 800 plus former prosecutors attest - his report was an indictment in all but name.   Read it and you will agree as well!

Especially when you note that when Mueller said clearly in Vol.II he found evidence to support every element of the offense of obstruction of justice committed by the president and\he found it over and over. As one MSNBC legal specialist put it this morning:   "That is case open not case closed."

Rick Wilson is correct that there is no way a 2/3 majority in the Senate will vote to evict Trump - not with Repukes in control. And yes, it is possible Trump could jump on any positive result as an excuse to brag "Look now I'm really exonerated" and get $250 mil for his campaign.  But Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a larger point for impeachment Tuesday night in her Chris Hayes interview.  This was hours after Bitch McConnell whined earlier that the Dems "were trying to undo the 2016 election" and it's "case closed". You wish, Bitch. But you damned well know that the if tables were turned and your bunch was running the House during a Hillary admin probe there is no way in hell you'd pack it in and run. So STFU, you Guppy -mouthed asshole!

Anyway, Sen. Warren's point was irrespective of the Senate not voting to indict, ALL Senators will still have to go on record - historical record - with their votes.. Twenty years from now when the final history of this abominable administration and its traitorous instincts is written - they will have to then take ownership (including their spawn) for enabling and protecting a criminal and traitor  - as well as attempting to destroy the American Republic.

Can they live with that? Probably, because as JFK once said, these "circus elephants" only see as far as the tail of the one in front.  They will truly only see the temporary advantage they hold now, but be unable to parse how it plays out in destroying any positive posterity.  But this is part and parcel of what the author of the book 'Irrationality' has written, that they are an integral part of the :structural irrationality that "allowed Trump to end up where he never should have ended up".

But part of the blame for that also goes to those who helped put him there, who voted for this fraud and con man believing he'd somehow make their lives better, when his tariffs have made them much worse.  In other words, there is the irrationality of individual members of society with which we must also contend, and which is likely to persist even if we finally clean house of Trump next year.

Ultimately, this battle will determine whether the U.S. remains a constitutional Republic, i.e. as Ben Franklin put it "You have a Republic IF you can keep it", or a one party state autocracy.  The choice is ours and it begins with reading the Mueller report and ascertaining just how despicable a leader we have in power and why he merits sanction - and certainly no re-election!  Personally, it is possible the one-sided impeachment "dam" could break if just one Reep House rep found the time to read the actual Mueller report then come forth to side with impeachment of the scum in the White House.

See Also:

• Mueller reportedly about to leave DOJ in 'coming days,' derailing efforts to derail his testimony 

And:

Nancy Pelosi

When It Comes to Trump, Nancy Pelosi May Be Too Clever for Our Own Good

AND:

William Rivers Pitt

Article Tools E-mail | Print
Comments (0)

Donald Trump

Over 600 Federal Prosecutors Say Trump Should Be Charged With Obstruction

Don't Be Deceived: There Is No Such Thing As A Photo Of A "Black Hole"

The much circulated image above - purported to be of a black hole in the center of the galaxy M87- is nothing of the sort.

As usual, the mainstream media - in an effort to grab clicks or reads- has misrepresented the recently circulated image claimed to be of a "black hole" in the Virgo galaxy M87.   Of course, this is impossible. One cannot get a photo or other image of a black hole itself.  That is invisible - or better "un-seeable" - at any wavelength, including radio..   What one has in the image, is not the black hole per se, but its event horizon which is somewhat different.

TO fix ideas, the image in question was captured by a global network of 8 radio telescopes, appropriately called the "Event Horizon Telescope" or  EHT.  The effective aperture essentially formed one giant radio telescope "dish" stretching from Spain in the north to Antarctica in the south.  The mass associated with the M87 black hole  is the equivalent of 6.5 billion Suns.  That implies its event horizon would have quite a significant scale.

What is this event horizon? It is basically an "infinite redshift" surface from which no signal, no light or radiation of any kind, can escape. The key cut off occurs at what's called the Schwarzschild radius or:

R(s) = 2GM/c²

where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, c is the speed of light in vacuo, and M is the gravitating mass.   In this case - and for a "Schwarzschild solution" all observers will agree that the surface r = R(s) is an "event horizon".  It defines the boundary or edge at which all outgoing signals are cut off so they cannot have any external manifestation - whether as radio waves or optical ones.  

A good algebraic way to show how signals are cut off  at the r = R(s) Schwarzschild event horizon has been given by Ohanian and Ruffini ('Gravitation & Spacetime', p. 445).  Thus, one considers a radio signal propagating in the radial or r direction. Then the velocity of this signal, say with respect to r, t (radius, time) coordinates can be expressed:

dr/ dt =  + {1  -   r/ R(s)}

Now note what happens when the signal approaches the critical boundary, i.e. r = R(s).  Then we see:

dr/ dt =   + {1  -   r/ R(s)}   =   + {1  -   R(s) / R(s)} =  1 - 1   =  0

The graph shown in the same text (op. cit, p. 446, Fig. 8.3) can also help to illuminate the situation vis-a-vis interior and exterior to the black hole.   We see that in the exterior of the black hole (r > R(s))  the axis of the light cones is parallel to the time (t) axis.  But in the interior of the black hole (r < R(s)) the axis of the light cones is parallel to the r- axis.  The reversal is a direct result of r being a "time-like coordinate" and t space -like.   The existence of an event horizon at r = R(s) is "obvious from the inspection of the light cones in Fig. 8.3."  as noted by the authors. (Ibid.)  Hence, any kind of signal must travel in a spacetime direction that lies within a light cone. And "since the light cones in the black hole region are oriented toward r = 0 any signal in this region is unavoidably pulled toward decreasing values of r."

Thus, all such signals can never leave the black hole, hence we cannot obtain them from outside . This is no matter how many radio telescopes we assemble in a global network, as in the case of the EHT.

Bottom line, the EHT captured exactly what its title designated: the event horizon of a monster black hole in galaxy M87.  But not the black hole itself! Think of what we are seeing as an impenetrable 'cosmic curtain' impeding our accessing the actual black hole.

Sadly, Ousting Trump In 2020 Probably Requires The Collapse Of The Economy

Yes, it's an extreme viewpoint to take, but examining all that's transpired in the past few weeks it appears to be the only logical conclusion, as I will show. That is, that no Democratic presidential candidate alone will be sufficient to knock Trump out of office no matter what policy proposals are put forward - so long as the economy continues chugging along - bestowing an unwarranted advantage on the Dotard.

There is little dispute that since Robert Mueller punted on his Report, it's been a case of Trump Unchained.  He's now been emboldened to go all out on his plan to turn the U.S. into his own autocracy, even as he stonewalls all efforts of the House Dems to check him at every turn.  Worse, the soaring economy  - as reported in The Denver Post Saturday - is almost ensuring that he will get re-elected, unless.....well, unless the economy collapses before the 2020 general election.  This means a stock market crash, recession or both.

Extreme medicine? Not at all,  What the Post indicates is robustly reinforced by a Financial Times piece yesterday ('US Economic Strength Poses Challenge For Democrats In 2020'), noting:

"With unemployment at a half -century low and steady wage growth, Democratic contenders in the 2020 race face a conundrum: how to challenge Donald Trump on the economy"

Adding:

"I'll be running on the economy", Trump told reporters on Friday."

Then we beheld the ominous note sounded (ibid.) by Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a center left think tank: "The only issue where Trump is remotely competitive with the Democrats is on the economy."

Swiping away all nebulous fantasies of finally removing this orange fungus from the White House, it means unless the economy tanks - and badly - the same putrid essence is in like Flynn for another 4 years.  And it won't matter much how much charisma any Dem candidate has, or what his or her remedy for the country may be. Because at the end of the day all most voters will care about is the share value of their mutual funds or stocks.

Bill Maher's hysterical Friday night Real Time New Rules rant about being in a "fetal position":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPi2QcQVCuY

Echoed Janice's own hopeless feelings that "Trump seems to be winning at every turn" and this is basically spot on.   Not surprisingly also, nearly a year ago Maher had openly hoped for the economic crash to finally mark Trump's end, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIp5DYf8Lc

As  expected, at the time most of the red state yahoos (offering youtube versions)  and mainstream corporate media went into a tailspin at the "outrageous" suggestion - perhaps believing then (a year ago) there was still a chance to oust Trump normally.  And hey, Bob Mueller was still on it! But no more. That mask, that veneer, has been ripped off once and for all. Only an extreme solution will save this nation from the likes of Trump and his traitorous enablers.  It is true the Great Recession WAS a "terrible event" to quote the Daily Beast, but it was also "a survivable one"  to use Maher's words. A Fascist dictatorship is not.  Ask the Germans who lived in 1933, friends.

Why has this desire intensified now?  The bad guys and fascists are in the ascendant and feel empowered to treat congress like errant school boys rather than a co-equal branch of gov't according to Article I of the Constitution.   Mueller, bless his heart and pardon his lack of testicular fortitude, basically blew it and handed these reptiles a loaded weapon which they will use with impunity over the next 18 months.  Beyond that the plan is simple: to utterly eviscerate all the post-Watergate checks since enacted on the rise of executive power. Paving the way for a proto-dictatorship, by you guessed it -Trump.

Scared? If you're not you're already brain dead or nearly so, unaware that the takeover of a nation happens in increments like the proverbial (but erroneous) trope of the frog being slowly boiled in water.

Even worse, these crypto-fascists have mounted a deadly serious program of co-opting or controlling every branch of government, now including the DOJ - as well as Supreme Court and Senate - even as they render the Demo congress toothless in terms of oversight power. Perhaps one of the best perspectives on what's happening was offered by former House Oversight Committee adviser Kurt Bardella in a recent NBC Think piece ('Trump's Obstruction Has Fractured The Constitution's System of Checks and Balances') As he notes:

"Thursday, May 2nd, 2019, felt like the end of checks and balances in America. It was a day that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee stood by and supported the executive branch's decision to ignore a lawful subpoena issued by the legislative branch. At this moment in time we no longer have co-equal branches of government. And without this system created with care by the Founding Fathers we edge ever closer to a dictatorship.

This executive branch is flagrantly undermining the legislative branch and it clearly thinks it can get away with it."

In a discussion on the piece this a.m. ('Morning Joe') Bardella emphasized this is "no longer a theoretical - if an executive decided to ignore congress- it's happening".

Bardella went on to say that when he served (during the Obama years) on the GOP House Oversight committed he always "believed that we were co equal. We didn't believe that he (Obama) didn't respect the authority, the autonomy on what the oversight powers were - even if we disagreed. At the end of the day they would show up for hearings and produce documents because they respected that authority.  That's no longer the case and now meets the situation described in The Washington Post where 'democracy dies in daylight'"

However, Post columnist  Ruth Marcus responded that it was "too early to declare the end of checks and balances" and Bardella's take was "too dire".  This is given the Dems are "asserting themselves" and the issues will eventually go before the courts. However, as Bardella pointed out to her, if the court decisions are made a year or more down the road and not in real time, they are of no use - and Trump wins by running out the clock.  This is exactly what's going on now and the source of Maher's and others' frustrations and rage that he could even get away with it.

This is why the collapse of the economy may be our democracy's only salvation.

Note that although the Post story (see image clip) focused on how Trump's fortunes (tied to the economy) are currently rolling along they don't mention how he's also attempting to push the Federal Reserve into lowering rates to jazz up the markets even more   Let us carefully note here the Fed is not part of the federal government per se but was founded as an act of congress in 1913 and as 12 separate private banking corporations. (James Livingstone ('Origins of the Federal Reserve System- Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 ).

In Friday's WSJ one read ('White House Escalates Row With Fed', p. A1):

"It isn't unprecedented for politicians to lean on the Fed to cut interest rates and give the economy the kind of jolt that voters reward at the polls...But it is rare for the White House to take on the Fed so openly analysts said.

'It not only breaks the norms, it shatters them', said Laurence Meyer a former Fed governor. 'It's just amazing."

Amazing indeed, and worrying. Because if at any point the Fed does cave in to Trump's ravings it will mean the need for an economic crash is amplified. Any boost, especially artificial - which acts like a coke hit for a junkie - will require a powerful antidote.  We need that antidote by next year to ensure Trump is not re-elected, especially if he keeps winning these political battles.

The latest is running out the clock to keep the Dems locked up in court challenges as they issue subpoenas and try to make headway with oversight (cf. 'Trump Team Resists Oversight; Dems Dig In',  Denver Post, May 5, p. 4A).   Thus:

"They're talking about jailing people at the Capitol. Imposing steep fines. All sorts of extraordinary, if longshot, measures to force the White House to comply with lawmakers' requests for information about President Donald J. Trump stemming from the special counsel's Russia investigation."

And we learn the reason for these extreme proposals, see e.g.

Congress Should Be Ready to Arrest Attorney General Barr if He Defies Subpoena

Is that congressional Democrats have been "stunned by the administration's refusal to allow officials to testify or to respond to document requests."

Again, go back to Kurt Bardella's NBC Think piece on these continuing refusals and ongoing obstructions and what they mean for constitutional checks and balances.

Truly, everyone who knows an ounce about the U.S. Constitution or who has ever taken a high school Government class, ought to be stunned, if not shocked. Because what is happening is that one sector of government is maliciously obstructing another co-equal branch from fulfilling its oversight role. In other words, the entire thrust of checks and balances at the core of our system of governance is being spat on and turned on its head. Indeed, recent news releases indicate the Nazi Trumpers are no so emboldened by Mueller's punt they are prepared to "investigate the investigators".  The vermin Trump bunch has also dispatched Nosferatu Giuliani to the  Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on Joe Biden's deceased son, Beau  - to use against Biden if he becomes the nominee.

And this is just the beginning.  If indeed Trump gets another four years the lawless, renegade behavior and flouting of norms and laws we see now will be like a walk in the park compared to what will then unfold.

This is why in my opinion there is no issue or question on it: We need this economy to crash - utterly and completely - to spare the nation and its people from an even more terrible fate. No, an economic crash would not "guarantee" an end to radical Trumpism and his efforts to subvert our nation  - but it would enhance the probability of disinfecting the country immensely.  These are desperate times and desperate measures are needed if the USA is to be in even recognizable form in 4 years.


See also:
Trump’s Diabolical Plan to Blow up Democracy, Get Reelected and Avoid Jail Just Might Work

And:

Donald Trump

Creeping Toward Tyranny

by Chris Hedges | May 6, 2019 - 6:04am | permalink

— from Truthdig

And:

Economic Policy

The Untold Story of Trump’s ‘Booming’ Economy

Another Scientist Snookered By Supernaturalism? What's The Lowdown On Marcelo Gleiser?

Marcelo Gleiser: Worthy scientist, or pseudo-scientific dupe?

For those unaware, Marcelo Gleiser is  a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College.  He's also a prolific science popularizer who  has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” 

But is that a scientific achievement, or a pseudo-scientific one? Say like being awarded astrology's top prize for casting the most accurate horoscopes in a given year.   One also has to express some dismay at the spectacle of all that money being awarded for a spurious prize, i.e.  for "affirming a dimension" whose existence remains unproven.  To provide some perspective we can turn to physicist Jerry Coyne in his book,  'Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science And Religion Are Incompatible', p. 18:

"The Templeton Foundation distributes $70 million yearly in grants and fellowships. To put that in perspective, that's five times the amount dispensed annually by the U.S. National Science Foundation for evolutionary biology, one of Templeton's  areas of focus.  Given Templeton's deep pockets and  not overly stringent criteria for dispensing money, it's the wonder that - in a time of reduced financial support - scientists line up for Templeton grants."

Well, perhaps it's because they're that desperate for grant money - from any source- to support even marginal research, and thereby gain more name recognition.  Noteworthy also is Prof. Coyne's observation (ibid.) that " this support flows from a constant stream of conferences, books, papers and magazine articles, many arguing for the harmony between faith and  science ."  A trope I've already skewered in a letter appearing in Physics Today, i.e.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

What about Gleiser himself? In a recent interview he knocked atheism, as one might expect from a Templeton prize recipient.  He said in response to one question:

"I consider myself an agnostic.I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations."

But the  basis of the Atheist-Materialist worldview is not denial   ('I don't believe even if there's no evidence for or against') but rather the essential redundancy of invoking supernatural artifacts and constructs.  This is important to grasp if one is going to debate or discuss Atheism in any kind of intelligent context.  In other words, the acceptance or belief in such artifacts does not help me make scientific predictions, say the occurrence of the next  auroral substorm or coronal mass ejection, so they end up being superfluous to the scientific process, not part of it.  But again we must not be surprised that Gleiser here parrots the twaddle of so many other supernatural apologists, i.e.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831



This bunkum was published in the January, 2018 letters section of PT, and thankfully, Jerry Coyne again delivered a timely response (as I had), e.g.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/tom-mcleish-continues-his-accommodationism-in-physics-today/

Fortunately, most hard science practitioners are like  Coyne and me, and have no use for this nonsense. See e.g.  cosmologist Sean Carroll's take here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/i_won_t_take_money_from_templeton_science_and_religion_can_t_be_reconciled.html

But  another beef I have with Gleiser is his adoption of the generic  "agnostic" brand as if that confers on him some rational, objective, superior position. In fact it doesn't.   The reason is that the basis for agnosticism is epistemological - to do with knowledge- not belief or lack thereof.

To fix ideas here, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of mental affect. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence (withholding) of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. Since the agnostic posits an impossibility of knowledge he then justifies his recusing himself from any belief based on it.

Further, the term 'agnostic' does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism predicated on the "impossibility of knowledge" can be either theistic or atheistic in manifestation. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god but maintains the nature of god is unknowable. The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural realm, (e.g. "Hell") unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well.

So, we have these initial distinctions:

1) The pure agnostic disdains any belief in a deity based on an absolute impossiblity of knowledge.

2) The agnostic theist BELIEVES in the existence of God, but argues it's useless to attempt to elaborate any divine nature (e.g. all-powerful, all loving, all knowing etc.) because the knowledge basis isn't there to permit such assumptions.

3) The agnostic atheist asserts all transcendents are unknowable and hence their existence is as well, so belief is impossible since it requires a leap of faith not warranted by reason alone.

So one may conclude that Gleiser is likely of agnostic category (2), an agnostic theist - but not a pure agnostic.    One of the other most telling parts of his interview is when he stated:

"I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."

Yes, so he's gratified there are these continuing "emerging conversations" which, of course, fuel more and more yen to spread the science and spirituality  cum supernatural mythology and grafting for the Templeton Foundation grants and prize.  But my take, and Coyne's as well as Carroll's, is that such claptrap fuels the diversion of ever more money to codswallop and pseudo-science.  If astronomers, for example, could net just one half of what Templeton gives away in a year to peddlers of nonsense, it could support the word of dozens of tenure track researchers.  In other words, monetary prizes such as awarded to Gleiser, including the whole  framework for giving them, is funneling support from truly worthy research in genuine science.  I do agree with Gleiser when he avers:  

"Right now what we know is that we have this world, and we are these amazing molecular machines capable of self-awareness, and all that makes us very special indeed. And we know for a fact that there will be no other humans in the universe; there may be some humanoids somewhere out there, but we are unique products of our single, small planet’s long history.

So we have the moral duty to preserve this planet and its life with everything that we’ve got, because we understand how rare this whole game is and that for all practical purposes we are alone. For now, anyways."

A sentiment with which any Atheist-Materialist would certainly concur!

The Public's "Exhaustion" Is Irrelevant: House Dems Must Proceed With Hearings And Impeach Barr

"Gee, I'm just doin' my job sittin' on the real Mueller report for the Donald!"

"You had Harvard and Yale educated Republican lawyers on the U,S, Senate Judiciary committee. And they sat there and listened to the attorney general of the United States say that any president, if he feels an investigation is unfair, can shut it down.  That is banana republic stuff! That is North Korea. That is Russia! That is China!  What separates us from those countries - and those guys know it - is respect for the rule of law."  - Claire McKaskill, on 'Morning Joe' today.

"Yours is a Republic, if you can keep it!"  - Benjamin Franklin

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Patrick Henry

" The attorney general is corrupt. The congress is dysfunctional.  What good is leaving a road map for impeachment if you know a tribal, party-before-country Republican Senate will never remove the president?  Bob, your trail of bread crumbs just isn't good enough. We're just not that smart anymore! America is now an aging shortstop.  You have to hit it right at us."  Bill Maher on Real Time Friday, April 26,telling Mueller his report revelations and conclusions were too indirect.too

It is inconceivable that while we are currently in one of the most critical pivot points in American history, a seeming majority of the American public is screaming 'Enough of Mueller already!"  This according to a recently released NBC-WSJ poll that showed 56 percent are "exhausted" and want no more to do with Mueller, his report or the Democrats' efforts to hold hearings,  or subpoena Trump tax files and other documents.  This sorry state - if true - elicits the question: Are Americans still prepared to exercise eternal vigilance to preserve their liberty, constitution and Republic, or are they too lazy and distracted? So much so they just want to punt it away?

The attitude now, in the wake of unprecedented contempt of congress and Trump stonewalling, appears to be "It's just Trump, that's how he is. Enough already!"  Not that his actions, orders and toadies - like Barr - are setting a slew of dangerous templates that don't bode well for the future of this country or the existence of democratic principles - far less respect for the constitution. (Which, btw, both Barr and Trump swore to uphold.)

Take the case of the office of attorney general now defiled almost beyond recognition thanks to Barr's lies, cover-ups and other mischief. Let's understand here this office is a unique one in American government. To briefly review: The Department of Justice (DOJ) though it is part of the executive branch is supposed to be wholly independent of the president and hence the arbiter of fairness.

By contrast, the Toad Barr has worked feverishly as an apologist for Trump, starting with a 19 page memo he released, had published some months ago. In that screed, this toad averred a president cannot be held guilty of obstruction of justice, especially if he was "falsely accused" and it "negatively affects his ability to govern" .  Worse, as legal specialist and attorney Rikki Klieman pointed out on CBS this morning, Barr under separate testimony has insisted if any president believes he is being falsely accused he "has the right to get rid of that accuser."  In Klieman's take: "That is a very dangerous precedent indeed."

In fact, it turns on its head the whole constitutional notion of checks and balances and the legislative branch having oversight over an executive. Or as former Watergate reporter Bob Woodward so aptly put it this a.m. ('Morning Joe'):  "I feel innocent, so the investigation has to go away."

Thus, if the executive doesn't cotton to the "accusations" of the legislators he has the "right" to ditch them, or in Trump's case negate their powers by refusing to allow aides to testify or documents to be released. Even to the point of ignoring subpoenas!  This is serious shit, folks, not some parlor game. Our nation's integrity and future as a constitutional Republic is at stake - and yet 56 % in a poll want us all to just "move on"  like brain dead zombies or imbeciles.

Back to Barr:  As the second most corrupt attorney general in American history (after John Mitchell) continues his display of contempt and obstruction of justice - by refusing to appear today before the House Judiciary Committee- it is time to bring the hammer down. That means not only citing this execrable toad for contempt of congress but moving to impeach him as well.   This is especially now in the wake of Bob Mueller's letter after William Barr released his brief summary or as he likes to call it "conclusions in a nutshell."  Mueller, not too happy about Barr's degenerate presentation, wrote in the wake of its release: "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel to assure public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

The letter in its totality was described as laying out Mueller's concerns "in stark terms that shocked Justice Department officials".

Worse, in the wake of letter's release the Toad Barr lied shamelessly, insisting that when he pressed Mueller on whether the memo to congress was inaccurate, Mueller replied "he did not".  Instead "he felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation."

Which was total "bull pockey" in the parlance of Rachel Maddow last night, and more colorful choice of terms for Janice and myself. But this is now why the House Democrats need to have Mueller appear and testify in open hearings, in public.  As Ms. Klieman said:

"There is no doubt that if we didn't think we needed to hear from Robert Mueller before yesterday's testimony, by the end of yesterday we certainly know we do. 

And it is for good reason. William Barr is abundantly clear that he and Rod Rosenstein came to a conclusion about approximately ten episodes of obstruction of justice using a standard for criminal cases of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He claims not to now why Mueller instead came to a conclusion of equal poise, 'there is evidence of obstruction, yet there isn't evidence of obstruction'  enough to convict in a criminal case.

So who has the primary evidence? Well Robert Mueller!"

When CBS co -anchor John Dickerson tried to play Devil's advocate and defend Barr ('Well Mueller left it in Barr's lap, so Barr made the call') Klieman shot back:  "But it certainly could be said Robert Mueller intended to leave it in congress' hands. Don't you think that congress has the right to ask that question? "  Dickerson then asked:  "Well the special counsel's handed it all off, why does he have to do any more?"  To which Klieman replied:

"Because we don't know and congress doesn't know.  When he looked at approximately ten episodes with sub episodes beneath them, Don McGahn - legal counsel for the president - gave the most egregious example we can lay our hands on."

So there's no issue that Mueller has to appear, speak for himself  with no more filters- to congress and the American people -  to better educate them on the facts as opposed to Barr's omissions woven into a false narrative.

As a pundit also observed on 'Morning Joe', "this has now fired up again the Russia investigation, and Bob Mueller will be in the chair for hearings, so this will go on and on and on."

And so let it be. And any people without the minds or degree of attention to learn more and demand justice can go off and play Kandy Crush, Fortnite or whatever other mindrot now passes for entertainment.   We don't need unthinking parasites or pseudo- citizens, who likely won't have the interest (self or national) to vote anyway,

As for the Democrats, more aggressive options to deal with the Trump admin's refusal to cooperate are now being sought.  These include the impeachment of Barr, as well as fines imposed on all aides who don't acknowledge or adhere to subpoenas - and even jail time for assorted scofflaws - high and low.  The rule of law must be adhered to and not based on whim, preference or fancy.   Oh, and it has to start at the top.

Time to bring the hammer! And start with the Toad called Barr!  As for the wimps who claim to have had their fill and "can't take any more", they deserve neither liberty, security or to live in a democracy. Let them take their sorry ass hides to a real autocracy - say like Russia or Turkey. I'm sure they'd be a lot happier just living under a strong man like Putin or Erdogan, and not having to lift a finger or work their brains toward exercising any vigilance.

See also:

William Barr

Congress Should Be Ready to Arrest Attorney General Barr if He Defies Subpoena

Excerpt:

What could the Committee do? Hold Barr in contempt of Congress—under Congress’s inherent power to get the information it needs to carry out its constitutional duties. Congress cannot function without this power.

Under this inherent power, the House can order its own sergeant-at-arms to arrest the offender, subject him to a trial before the full House, and, if judged to be in contempt, jail that person until he appears before the House and brings whatever documentation the House has subpoenaed.

When President Richard Nixon tried to stop key aides from testifying in the Senate Watergate hearings, in 1973, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate select committee, threatened to jail anyone who refused to appear.

Congress hasn’t actually carried through on the threat since 1935—but it could.

Would America really be subject to the wild spectacle of the sergeant-at-arms of the House arresting an Attorney General and possibly placing him in jail?

Probably not. Before that ever occurred, the Trump administration would take the matter to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis.

Sadly, there seems no other way to get Trump to move.

And:

Here Are 7 Lies and Wild Moments from Bill Barr’s Heated Senate Testimony

by Cody Fenwick | May 2, 2019 - 6:51am | permalink