#false and misleading gop statements | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year ago

Text

By: Christina Buttons

Published: Feb 21, 2024

The Arizona Mirror published an article earlier this month titled "The latest GOP anti-trans strategy: Requiring ‘detransition’ services," arguing that legislation aimed at providing healthcare and insurance coverage for detransitioners is unnecessary—it is merely a tactic by Republicans to hassle people who currently identify as transgender. The article was republished under the same title in the Phoenix New Times.

The article focuses on an Arizona senate bill that would make the pathway of detransition easier for those who are struggling to get the healthcare they need. Currently, there are no billing codes for detransitioning, nor is there anything resembling a standard of care for this growing population. Additionally, some insurance companies explicitly exclude gender-reversal procedures.

But you wouldn’t learn any of this from reading the Arizona Mirror. It appears that the author, Gloria Gomez, only writes about the bill in an attempt to discredit it. The articles’ premise is that detransitioners face no difficulties in accessing healthcare and this bill is merely a scheme designed to inconvenience people who currently identify as transgender.

Gomez does not speak to a single detransitioner, opting instead to quote gender activists who argue the bill is “unnecessary” and not a “real issue” because detransitioners’ “medical needs are already covered by insurance.”

The first half of this article will debunk these misleading claims and clarify the purpose and necessity of detransition healthcare bills, offering a new contribution to the discourse. The latter half will counter several common misleading claims about detransition and "gender-affirming care" made by Gomez. For those familiar with my work, I often address these claims, so some of the content may be drawn from earlier writings.

Gomez quotes two representatives from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest LGBTQ political lobbying organization in the United States, which received $50 million in donations in 2023. The HRC regularly protests the New York Times' coverage of detransitioners and the inadequacies of the "gender affirming" model of care.

Misleading Claim #1: Detransitioners’ medical needs are “already covered by health insurance”

An emailed statement by Cathryn Oakley, the senior director of legal policy for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) said:

“This bill is an unnecessary and gratuitous excuse to talk about detransition in an effort to shift the focus from the actual health care that transgender people receive, which is supported by every mainstream American medical health organization, to the care of a very small number of folks whose medical needs are already covered by health insurance.”

For many detransitioners, this is false.

There is significant variability among insurance policies regarding what is covered, leading to disparities in access to care. While some insurers may cover detransition care under certain conditions, others may not, deeming the care not medically necessary.

Had Gomez done any research she’d know some insurance companies explicitly exclude detransition healthcare—like Capital Blue, which has a stipulation in its plans stating gender-reversal surgery is “considered not medically necessary and, therefore, not covered.”

[ Capital Blue ]

…or United Healthcare Community Plan, which excludes “reversal of genital surgery or reversal of surgery to revise secondary sex characteristics.”

[ United Health Community Plan ]

Others evaluate on a case-by-case basis (California Health & Wellness) or if certain criteria are met (Wellmark), and thankfully, some health insurance companies do cover detransition healthcare (Aetna). These are just a few examples and by no means an exhaustive list. I plan to conduct a much larger overview of insurance providers’ coverage of detransition care in a future investigative article.

Misleading Claim #2: Detransitioners receive the same care as those seeking to transition

Bridget Sharpe, the director of HRC's Arizona branch, who responded to the Arizona Mirror's request for comment, said:

“The care for people who detransition is the same as the care for transgender people. Any medical service that affirms someone’s gender includes someone who decides to detransition. If they decide to detransition they are affirming their gender.”

This is not accurate.

Under the current system, when someone transitions, they receive a diagnosis code indicating gender dysphoria. When someone detransitions, they no longer meet the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Without a specific diagnosis like gender dysphoria to justify “medical necessity,” obtaining coverage for detransition procedures can be complicated, demonstrating the need for legislation that ensures detransition is covered.

Legislation like SB 1511, which mandates that doctors, health care institutions, or any other licensed health care providers in Arizona offering gender transition procedures must also provide gender detransition procedures. Furthermore, if an insurance policy covers gender transition, it will be required to "provide or pay" for detransition procedures.

A third provision aims to collect information on how many people are requesting detransition procedures by requiring insurance companies to submit a report. Currently, there is no method for tracking detransition, so we don't know how many people are detransitioning.

Gathering more data on detransitioners would aid in the process of acquiring new billing codes from coding authorities. Nine months ago, FAIR in Medicine submitted an application to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis codes specific to detransition. This application is currently under review. The process to review and approve new ICD diagnosis codes can take over a year and involves several steps, including gathering data, public comment, and revision.

The absence of dedicated medical billing codes for detransition procedures creates a significant barrier for healthcare providers seeking reimbursement for these services. Consequently, they may resort to using inaccurate billing codes.

In practice, healthcare professionals apply their discretion to navigate these challenges. For example, a detransitioned woman who underwent a hysterectomy as part of her transgender experience might be classified similarly to a postmenopausal woman for the purposes of accessing hormone replacement therapy.

An important article by Drs. Aida Cerundolo and Carrie Mendoza on detransition billing codes highlights a case like this: A woman named Katie began taking testosterone at 19, underwent a double mastectomy at 20, and had a hysterectomy at 24. Shortly after, she realized transitioning was a mistake.

Now at 25, Katie is experiencing early menopause and has had significant difficulty obtaining the correct hormone dosage. Even after numerous phone calls, she was prescribed estrogen at a dose typically given to males seeking to become transgender women, which was not suitable for her needs. For obvious reasons, this is not a sustainable solution. We need detransition billing codes.

Misleading Claim #3: Detransition healthcare is not a “real issue”

The director of HRC's Arizona branch, Bridget Sharpe, continued her statement by saying:

Instead of resolving a real issue, Sharpe said, the Republican legislation instead seeks to weaponize detransitioning against transgender health care.

It is insulting to dismiss detransitioners’ healthcare needs as not a “real issue.”

Had Gomez interviewed any detransitioners or reviewed research on them, she would understand that many encounter challenges in finding information on detransition or healthcare professionals equipped to address their specific needs.

A 2021 international survey of 237 detransitioners found the support available to detransitioners to meet their medical needs is currently inadequate.

49% seek accurate information on stopping or changing hormonal treatment.

24% require assistance for complications from surgeries or hormonal treatments.

15% need information on and access to reversal surgeries or procedures.

7% provided other responses not listed, such as the need for tests to assess current reproductive health, information on the long-term effects of cross-sex hormones, the health consequences of undergoing a full hysterectomy, and issues related to pain from chest binding.

My preliminary survey of 94 detransitioners and desisters (pending publication) revealed that 72% of those seeking medical assistance faced significant challenges, and 78% of those who sought insurance coverage for detransition services had difficulty accessing it.

I've interviewed several detransitioners who have had immense difficulty in getting insurance coverage for detransition-related needs. One male detransitioner had to wait a full year to have his breast implants removed. Others have turned to crowdfunding to finance their detransition-related procedures.

However, one detransitioner I recently spoke with had no issues in getting insurance coverage for breast reconstruction surgery, which I believe is due to a growing awareness of detransitioners' needs in the last year.

Activist-journalism

In the last decade, influential activist organizations, including HRC, GLAAD, ACLU, and SPLC, have collaborated closely to shape the narrative on transgender issues. They provide news outlets with a range of media reference guides, stylebooks, fact sheets, and other resources, equipping mainstream journalists—most of whom are not well-informed on the debate surrounding youth medical transition—with the materials needed to present a biased perspective and label any valid concerns as bigotry. This approach effectively transforms journalists into activists.

Activists rely on propaganda tactics like the illusory truth effect—the tendency for people to believe things that are false after repeated exposure. This strategy of creating a semblance of public agreement benefits from the support of progressive platforms like the Arizona Mirror, which claims to be “an independent, nonprofit news organization” yet serves as an example of political activism masquerading as journalism. Their reporting standards neglect objectivity and thorough research, delivering a skewed narrative that deceives the public.

It seems ironic that progressives who champion “healthcare for all” would try to undermine bills aimed at ensuring a vulnerable group has access to healthcare. And like Pamela Paul pointed out in her recent New York Times op-ed, “These are people who were once the trans-identified kids that so many organizations say they’re trying to protect.”

Activist organizations frequently ignore or downplay the experiences of individuals who have detransitioned, despite these being the same individuals they pledge to support. This neglect is a significant departure from their stated principles. For many, a transgender identity is not a lifelong experience — they need support too.

Additional reading:

Misleading Claim #4: Detransition is rare

Gomez states that people who detransition "represent an extreme minority of the transgender experience." To support this statement, she cites the U.S. Transgender Survey of 2015, which is a deeply flawed sample consisting primarily of older adults who transitioned under a medical model vastly different from the current gender-affirmation model concerning youth and young adults.

The study included only those who identified as transgender at the time they took the survey, which, by definition, excludes detransitioners. Gomez overlooks more recent, robust, and representative studies that challenge the notion that detransition is rare, such as a 2022 comprehensive review of medical records that found 30% of teens and young adults discontinued cross-sex hormones after 4 years.

A 2021 study found that 75% of detransitioners did not inform their doctors about their decision to detransition. The rate of detransition remains unknown and is difficult to track, partly due to the absence of specific medical billing codes for detransition procedures.

Misleading Claim #5: Youth medical transition is backed by major medical organizations

Gomez relies on an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors are “backed by major medical associations as safe and necessary for the well-being of transgender people.” But these US-based medical organizations are not basing their recommendations on the best available evidence.

Systematic evidence reviews—widely recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine (EBM)—have found that the risks of youth medical transition outweigh any purported benefits.

Public health agencies in Finland, Sweden, England, Denmark and soon Norway have aligned their guidelines with systematic evidence reviews, and have adopted a far more restrictive and cautious approach, one that prioritizes psychotherapy.

Medical authorities in several other countries including France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand, have begun expressing concerns or are in the process of reevaluating their stance on transitioning minors.

US-based medical organizations in favor of youth medical transition have not aligned their guidelines with systematic evidence reviews, actively resisting such calls for many years. However, just last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) finally announced it will be conducting its own systematic evidence review.

The unfortunate reality is that a small, ideologically-motivated group of individuals in charge of US-based medical organizations are acting as political entities that represent specific interest groups and invest heavily in lobbying.

Last year, international experts publicly weighed in on the American debate over "gender-affirming care" for the first time. 21 leading experts on pediatric gender medicine from eight countries wrote a letter expressing disagreement with US-based medical organizations over the treatment of gender dysphoria in youth, urging them to align their recommendations with unbiased evidence “rather than exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the risks.”

Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University and founder of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement, who is a highly respected figure in the field of medical research methods and evidence evaluation, has stated that the current guidelines in the US for managing gender dysphoria in adolescents are "untrustworthy" and should not be considered evidence-based.

Guyatt adds that the guidelines fail to offer cautious and conditional recommendations appropriate for the low-quality evidence, highlighting that European policies are ”much more aligned with the evidence than are the Americans.”

Misleading Claim #6: Bills aimed at safeguarding youth and vulnerable adults are “anti trans”

Gomez refers to detransitioner Chloe Cole, who transitioned as a minor and spoke in favor of SB 1511, as “a frequent supporter of anti trans legislation.”

Activists and activist-journalists rely heavily on the label “anti-trans,” a strategy referred to as poisoning the well. By branding anyone or anything critical of youth medical transition as motivated by bigotry, they skew the audience’s perception, making them less receptive to other viewpoints.

Legislation aimed at protecting youth (and sometimes vulnerable young adults with psychiatric comorbidities) from a reckless model of care is not “anti-trans,” it is pro-safeguarding. Gender activists have spent years lobbying to remove these protective measures, which they call “gatekeeping.”

Many states that have placed restrictions on medical transition services have not included provisions for detransition or gender-reversal procedures, which is why some are doing so now. Earlier this month, the Tennessee House filed a bill requiring gender clinics to perform detransition procedures.

Do No Harm, an organization dedicated to scientific integrity and ethics in medicine, introduced model legislation last year called the Detransitioner Bill of Rights, which has already been used in several states.

Misleading Claim #7: Republicans are the sole proponents of age restrictions on medical transition services

Throughout the article, Gomez repeatedly identifies Republican lawmakers as proponents of "anti-trans legislation," stating, "far-right politicians have latched onto detransitioners to justify their calls to curtail gender-affirming care."

This perspective overlooks the broader context and the international consensus among European countries, arguably more progressive than the United States, that have drastically scaled back on youth medical transition. It also ignores the bipartisan support that opposition to youth transition policies is now receiving in the United States, as groups of Democrats in four states (Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Texas) have voted against them.

There's also a new organization called Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG), which seeks to organize initiatives for left-leaning individuals that oppose youth transition. Additionally, organizations like Genspect, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the LGBT Courage Coalition, the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, and others are non-partisan but primarily consist of healthcare professionals and researchers who identify as liberal or left-leaning, or at least did at some point in time.

Age restrictions on youth medical transition reflect broader public opinion across the political spectrum. A 2023 Washington Post-KFF poll found a majority of adults (nearly 7 out of 10) oppose allowing children aged 10 to 14 access to puberty-blocking drugs, and a similar majority (6 out of 10) opposes cross-sex hormones for 15- to 17-year-olds.

It's regrettable that legislative intervention has become necessary, but as medical organizations continue to let ideologues dictate policies and silence more moderate voices within the profession, lawmakers are left with little choice but to step in.

If you haven't already spotted the moral-religious overtones in this ideology, I don't know what more to show you.

The people who insist that "Gender Affirming Treatment" is "healthcare" and "not about you, it's about us and our survival," also want you to believe that care for detransitioners is all about them and attacking them. The narcissism and sociopathy are completely off the charts.

What they're actually afraid of is the scale of this medical scandal. At present, there's no insurance coverage, no billing codes, and limited doctor accountability, which will change as lawsuits proceed. Activists can claim that detransition is "rare" because the medical system doesn't track it. Detransitioners frequently do not return to the same doctor-activist who drugged or carved them up in the first place and are forced to simply "make do." Legal coverage of detransition isn't just a recognition of the phenomenon of detransition and the flaws of simply "affirming" everyone but will also reveal in fine grain detail the extent of it, in a way activists will be unable to continue lie about.

Meanwhile...

#Christina Buttons #detrans #detransition #gender ideology #gender identity ideology #queer theory #medical corruption #medical malpractice #medical scandal #gender affirming care #gender affirming healthcare #gender affirmation #affirmation model #religion is a mental illness

12 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 years ago

Text

"Keep calm and carry on!"

August 17, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

As Trump is inundated with unwanted publicity over his fourth indictment, President Biden is making the rounds to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. But Biden’s efforts are buried so far down in the news feed that it is difficult to find his remarks. See, e.g., MSN/The Messenger, Biden Celebrates One Year of Inflation Reduction Act, but Stresses There’s ‘More Work to Do’ on the Economy.

In the major media, the “story” is whether the Inflation Reduction Act is “working” by delivering on the promises made when it was passed. Major media outlets are skeptical. See Washington Post, One year in, climate law tests Biden’s environmental justice pledge, and NYTimes, For Biden, Celebrating What a Law Did Rather Than What It Did Not. (Both articles should be accessible to all.)

The disparity in coverage is unfair. Biden is celebrating one of the most significant environmental bills ever passed by Congress, and the media treats it as an afterthought or a punching bag. Trump is dealing with his fourth indictment based on facts that have been in the public domain since January 2021 and the media can talk of nothing else. Oh, well! In this instance, “No news is good news.” If a candidate for president could pick which side of the news cycle to be on, “Not getting sufficient credit for legislative achievements” is preferable to “Defending his fourth indictment.”

The Georgia indictment continues to dominate the news—as does a false news narrative that Americans are evenly split in their support for Trump despite four indictments. The persistence of that false meme is illustrated by the headline published by the Associated Press after it conducted a poll with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research regarding attitudes toward Trump in light of his indictment. As the AP News headline tells it, “Donald Trump's actions has divided Americans along party lines, AP-NORC poll says.”

The AP headline is misleading. While it is true that Americans are “divided” in a literal sense, it is more accurate to say that “A strong majority of Americans oppose Trump because of J6 and Georgia election interference,” which is what the AP/NORC polling data shows. You can check out the AP data for yourself, or read this analysis in Slate, Donald Trump: Americans are really not that "divided" about the former president's conduct in 2020.

The Slate article takes a close look at the AP/NORC data to show that Americans are not evenly “divided” about Trump's criminality—even within the GOP. As explained by Slate, the AP/NORC poll gave respondents various gradations for opposing or supporting Trump. The AP headline focuses on only one of the five choices in the poll for its headline. But if you group the responses as “support, oppose, or don’t know,” Americans strongly disapprove of Trump's actions on J6 and in Georgia. Per Slate,

If you boil things down to “what he did was bad” or “what he did was OK,” Trump is a loser by margins of 64–21 and 64–15.

Trump is in trouble even among Republicans:

A combined 42 percent of Republicans told the AP that Trump’s conduct in Georgia was illegal or unethical, while only 31 percent said he’d done nothing wrong. Regarding January 6th, 38 percent of Republicans said Trump behaved illegally or unethically, with 46 percent coming down on the side of “nothing wrong.”

The Hill engaged in the same type of “accurate but misleading” cherry-picking from the AP/NORC poll with its headline, 53 percent in new poll say they would not support Trump if he is GOP nominee. Again, that statement is literally true, but the more relevant fact is that 64% of respondents say they “definitely” or “probably” would not support Trump, while only 36% of respondents say that they “definitely” or “probably” would support Trump for president in 2024.

In citing the AP/NORC poll, I am not making the point that 64% of voters say they would not support Trump. (It is too early for polls to be meaningful predictors of election outcomes.) Instead, I am making the point that the media seems intent on understating opposition to Trump based on the indictments and overstating the notion of an evenly divided electorate that does not care about the indictments. They do.

As always, we must not conflate the indictments and the election. Beating Trump at the ballot box is the only path forward. But Americans are paying attention to Trump's increasing legal jeopardy. Don’t let headline writers tell you differently.

[Robert B. Hubbell]

#Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #Inflation Reduction act #RICO indictment #TFG #Georgia #polls #the economy

7 notes · View notes

pashterlengkap · 1 year ago

Text

Gay Dem candidate sues his own aunt for running against him under almost the same name

Florida state House District 106 candidate Joe Saunders (D) has filed a lawsuit against his aunt after she announced she would be running against him under the name “Moe Saunders.” “Moe Saunders” – whose full name is Maureen Saunders Scott – will appear immediately under Joe Saunders�� name on the ballot in the general election, which Saunders says will “siphon votes away.” Related I fled DeSantis’s Florida to escape homophobia but it followed me all the way to Spain The GOP’s vicious rhetoric has spread to other countries that were once shining examples of equality. Saunders also sued Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd (R) and Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections Christina White in their official capacities in an attempt to get his aunt disqualified from the ballot. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today Saunders and his husband live in the Miami Beach neighborhood. Saunders says he is one of Florida’s first openly LGBTQ+ lawmakers. He is the only Democratic candidate who filed in the district and is running against incumbent state Rep. Fabian Basabe, a Republican who won by only 242 votes in the last election. “Maureen Saunders Scott is propping up and those propping up her candidacy are attempting to violate Florida law, fool local voters, and siphon votes away from Democratic candidate Joe Saunders by using the fake moniker ‘Moe Saunders,'” Saunders posted in a statement to his X account. Saunders Scott filed as an independent. She alleges that she filed under “Moe” because it is her nickname. “A ‘Fake’ nickname of over 40 yrs?” she wrote on X. “Is Joe suggesting that is not what he has called me his whole life?” The lawsuit also says that Saunders Scott should be barred from running because of other misrepresentations on her paperwork, such as the fact that she lives in St. Johns County, far from House District 106. State law only requires a candidate to live in the district at the point they take office, but Saunders Scott said that she was an elector in Miami-Dade County. Saunders says that Saunders Scott used the name “Mo,” not “Moe,” until she filed as a candidate. The lawsuit points out that on social media, Saunders Scott calls herself “Aunt Mo.” The name “Moe Saunders” only started appearing after she filed her candidacy. “I know my nephew and I know he is bad for Florida. I have seen the incumbent’s record and believe he is also a bad choice for Florida,” Saunders Scott posted on X. Kendall Coffey, an attorney for Joe Saunders’ campaign, said, “This is a clear violation of Florida law, and the facts speak for themselves: Maureen Saunders Scott is attempting to deceive, mislead, and confuse voters supporting Joe Saunders by using a false nickname on the ballot.” “She has not acted in good faith or with honest purpose and has therefore failed to properly qualify as a candidate. In defense of our democracy, this kind of conduct must not be allowed, and ‘Moe Saunders’ must not appear on the ballot in November.” http://dlvr.it/T8qRx0

0 notes

coinnewz · 2 years ago

Text

Binance slashes costs, Ripple ready for US banks and crypto VCs return

The crackdown on crypto firms by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) appears to have severely affected Binance’s business. During the past few weeks, the crypto exchange reportedly fired over 1,000 employees and slashed some benefits. According to Binance, the “current market environment and regulatory climate” have caused a decline in profits, suggesting more cuts may be in the works. A spokesperson told Cointelegraph the firm would consider scaling back on “certain products, business units, staff benefits and policies” in response to business and regulatory concerns. Binance has yet to face the courts and the 13 charges brought against it by the SEC, as well as the outcome of an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department targeting its activities and executives. Despite cloudy prospects ahead, Binance is still comfortably the most popular centralized crypto exchange in the world, holding assets worth over $63 billion. A token breakdown by DefiLlama shows that the majority of assets held in Binance include Tether (USDT) (27.55%), Bitcoin (BTC) (26.95%), BNB (BNB) (12.82%), and wrapped Ether (10.08%). In remarks on Binance’s anniversary on July 14, the exchange’s CEO Changpeng Zhao recalled that the company’s journey was “never all smooth sailing.” This week’s Crypto Biz looks at Binance’s ongoing efforts to curb declining profits, Ripple’s expectation that U.S. banks may soon adopt XRP (XRP) and the first signs of venture capital returning to crypto. Ripple CLO says court ruling could encourage banks to adopt XRP Stu Alderoty, chief legal officer of Ripple Labs, believes that U.S.-based banks may turn to XRP for cross-border transactions following a recent court ruling. “Hopefully, this quarter will generate a lot of conversations in the United States with customers, and hopefully, some of those conversations will actually turn into real business,” he said during an interview. With the label of “security” seemingly no longer hanging over XRP, partnerships between Ripple and banks dampened by the SEC lawsuit could find new life. Bank of America had been eyeing the blockchain firm in 2019, and American Express first partnered with Ripple in 2017. #NEW: Chairmen @PatrickMcHenry and @CongressmanGT issue a statement regarding the court ruling in SEC v. Ripple and the need for legislative clarity in the digital asset ecosystem to prevent further uncertainty in our financial markets. Read more https://t.co/y1nITVmHvh pic.twitter.com/tn0dn0BDHd — Financial Services GOP (@FinancialCmte) July 14, 2023 Binance cuts back on employee benefits, citing ‘decline in profit’ Global cryptocurrency exchange Binance is cutting back on certain employee benefits amid reevaluation efforts at the firm. The company reportedly stopped offering reimbursement to employees for certain expenses, including using mobile phones, fitness and working from home. Binance cited the “current market environment and regulatory climate,” which led to a decline in profit, suggesting more cost-cutting measures may be needed. The report follows a massive layoff in June that affected over 1,000 employees in the exchange. Binance and Zhao were both targeted in suits by the SEC for allegedly offering unregistered securities in the United States. Marathon shareholders file lawsuit against company’s top management Crypto mining company Marathon Digital is heading to court over allegations that its CEO Fred Thiel, alongside other top executives, breached fiduciary duties, unjustly enriched themselves and wasted corporate assets. According to the complaint, the company’s management has been downplaying its problems, artificially inflating Marathon’s valuation, receiving excessive compensation, making lucrative insider sales, and receiving unjustifiably elevated bonuses based on false and misleading statements. Polychain Capital, Coinfund raise $350 million for new crypto funds Web3 venture firms are gearing up for new investments in crypto projects as Polychain Capital raised $200 million for a new investment fund and Coinfund secured $152 million for a seed fund. Polychain still intends to raise $400 million in total for the new fund. It currently operates three funds with approximately $2.6 billion in assets under management. As for Coinfund, its CEO Jake Brukhman said the company set a goal of raising $125 million but managed to rake in an additional $27 million due to a resurgence of interest in the industry. The total volume of venture funding for crypto startups has declined by 76% from year-over-year due to the bear market and turbulence in the industry. July is CoinFund’s 8th anniversary, celebrating the journey of @jbrukh @flexthought and team from kitchen table to cap table. We’re thrilled to bolster this milestone with the announcement that CoinFund has closed its $158M Seed IV Fund to back the leaders of the new internet pic.twitter.com/6kwBFuIHiy — CoinFund (@coinfund_io) July 18, 2023 Before you go: Bitcoin rally will lead to “speculative blow-off top” in 2024, Mark Yusko predicts BlackRock’s application for a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund has sparked the beginning of a new crypto bull market, which will go parabolic at some point closer to the halving scheduled for April 2024, according to Mark Yusko, the chief investment officer and founder of Morgan Creek Capital. Crypto Biz is your weekly pulse of the business behind blockchain and crypto, delivered directly to your inbox every Thursday. Source link Read the full article

0 notes

ericleo108 · 2 years ago

Video

youtube

Lupe Fiasco & Chris Webby vaccine Twitter debate summary NOTES by Eric Leo 108

Wed Jan 11th 2023 2 hour twitter convo

youtube

These are my thoughts and summary of what I heard. The timestamps in the description

Samson reaction video, Webby Tweet

Most of These rappers have no idea what they’re talking about.

Lupe is actually quite intelligent and defining his terms.

The definition of government and establishment is not the same.

As Voltaire would say, if you wish to quarrel with me, define your terms.

It seem Chris it’s getting his thoughts and feelings from his tribe, but when he’s analyzed he can’t definitively express those feelings which makes him adjust his opinion because it’s not thought out

Like how Chris says Lupe shifted his stance without ever being able to articulate what he was talking about

Chris seems like a well intentioned decent gentleman but really needs too educate himself and not listen to the news.

24:15 from 2 hr

Chris is talking about how he doesn’t trust the world economic forum but doesn’t see how that relates although what Lupe is saying is their not an authority

“The people who control the official narrative on the vaccine are the people that research and make the vaccines”

You get the gist that Chris Webby really just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It seems rand Paul’s anti-Fauci product campaign has infiltrated the mind of Chris Webby.

35:10 Robert malone

This is indicative of other people, but

I love how Chris has no common sense

He doesn’t understand the vaccine

And instead of taking the recommendation of the overwhelming majority of doctors

Chris webby is clinging to the one scientist that regrets it

Like 99 out of 100 doctors are telling you to get the vaccine and can prove its effectiveness and you cling to the minuscule 1 after never understanding how vaccines work, how they made, or who stands to benefit correctly.

Again, he can’t find his terms he thinks secondhand information is first hand.

I agree with Lupe, Chris is a good guy but has no idea what he’s talking about.

The reason Chris can’t get out his whole statement is because it’s so demonstrably false, misleading, or vague Lupe forces him to clarify which triggers webby.

This is a true example of how to negate your opponent.

You have the premise and subject. What most people have is the subject based off a false premise, that’s how propaganda works. Lupes tactic here is to attack their premise with its fundamental in making a cogent argument.

41:50

Missing details

That creates a false equivalency

Chris thinks adverse effects means terrible repercussions when it really just means regular procedural affect and mistakes.

Chris says there’s a lot of things he does know, but this discussion was evidence that when pressed he can’t articulate facts.

He’s getting this false information from the right.

Vaccines are like global warming in that there is no reason to deny the science, it’s clearly happening & shots are clearly effective

Basically the best way to tell if you deny global warming is to ask their political association.

The reason people don’t believe is gop political affiliation which represents faith & “freedom” (ie recklessness) & investments in carbon fuel

I did this whole thing to show how stupid the average person is.

Just because You have a bunch of followers and can regurgitate incorrect Republican talking points doesn’t mean your right.

We need better education. Debunking conspiracies and formal logic in schools

And reinstate the fairness in reporting doctrine

48:00

Sudden adult death syndrome conspiracy

Scientists rarely change the fundamentals

The details, methods, and understanding get updated

When people say, the Earth is overpopulated, it’s not that the Earth is overpopulated, it’s that the resources we consume, aren’t renewable and contribute to the decline of the biosphere.

We’re bad bacteria on the earth that adversely affects other life the larger our population.

Chris Webby gets caught multiple time saying he doesn’t know to pivotal questions and interprets this as Lupe not letting him talk.

The fact that Chris says he’s not an anti-Vaxter, but just had a problem with particular vaccine coraborates my point that he’s not representing the science and facts but rather a wrong political ideology

This is what I’m talking about with the political stance. Chris trusts vaccines but not the one that republicans have made talking points for people to think their right about.

1:25:00

Chris wants a black and white answer when he needs to be making a risk management analysis.

The chances of you getting COVID and the repercussions are higher than the possible side effects you might experience from the vaccine.

1:32:00

I’m glad they finally got into the weeds on affects.

Again Chris clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he doesn’t understand the words and their meaning.

Lupe Is literally asking Chris to define a word that he is using in the premise of his argument. Who’s subject is the vaccine is dangerous. And Chris says it’s a loaded question.

It’s clear Chris isn’t highly educated or even been to a debate.

Unlike MaDonald, who I think does this for clout

Chris just believes his own ignorance

The line of questioning that Lupe presented was required to extract the truth and Chris misidentifies his ignorance as not allowing his side to talk.

Chris didn’t bring anything credible to the table to argue, and then they did argue, Then Chris can’t define his own words and accuses Lupe of not addressing which I’m also addressing here.

Ignorance reigns which is why almost half America is republican

I’ll tell you what doesn’t make sense Chris

Sudden adult Death syndrome makes about as much sense as spontaneous human combustion and probably happens just as often.

The risk assessment you did for getting the vaccine

That you don’t understand basic medical words but have to the audacity to condemn fauci

Lupe handled himself like an adult and did what he was supposed to do while Chris felt attacked for not defining his argument.

Chris is an example of how ignorance and the republican agenda hurts America

In Summary

Lupe: you’re either trusting COVID or your trusting a vaccine which is safe and effective

Thank you donating to that wildlife foundation Chris.

News recommendations

Mother jones Democracy now Philip DeFranco

#lupe fiasco #chris webby #hiphop #rap #rappper #sociologist

2 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 6 years ago

Text

Mueller Rejects Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ Label and Warns of Russian Meddling

https://nyti.ms/2YiERaF

"There is one incontrovertible truth about the Mueller Report. It establishes, together with the FBI and CIA investigations, that your President was elected, in part, by Russia. That, together with the fact that three million more Americans preferred his opponent, will forever taint this President. His legitimacy is, and should always be, a massive question mark."

JOHN DAVID JAMES, CANADA 🍁

"Has anyone reported on why Senator MCConnell refuses to allow any legislation that would safeguard the 2020 election to even come up for a vote?" JOANNA SMITH, SANTA FE, NM

"Robert Mueller is an old-style, patrician Republican who devoted much of his life to serving the interests of the United States. People such as him have been driven out of today's Republican Party. But what he did was impart damaging information about this President and his actions. There was obstruction and there was no exoneration. Perhaps more significant, he elicited responses from Republican Members of Congress that highlighted how the Republican Party has devolved into a Trump Cult that cares little about truth, integrity or foreign attacks on our Democracy." PAT CHOATE, TUSCON AZ

"Mueller did not say Russia would attack our election again, he said they were attacking us "as we speak." Meanwhile, Democrats have already passed the Election Security Act and have sent it to the Senate, which would help states defend their election systems from attack and require a paper ballot back-up. But McConnell refuses take it up in the Senate. The outcome of the 2020 election hinges on battleground states like Michigan, Ohio and Florida, which Russia targeted last time (with help from the Trump campaign). It appears that McConnell does not care to prevent Russian hacking in these states, perhaps because he knows they will help Trump win." SHERRY, WASHINGTON

"My takeaway from today’s hearings is that impeachment can wait. Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate. Democrats should focus on defeating him at the ballot box. Mueller and everyone else in this country knows that the Russians will be back to to help Trump win again. That is why Mitch McConnell, the traitor of the Senate, one of many Republicans who put party over patriotism, is refusing to allow a bipartisan bill to shore up and protect our election machinery. No paper trails will tell us if the count in closely contested states or any other state is accurate. Should the results be close , particularly if the Democrat loses, who but Republicans will believe it. Democrats should start demanding this bill be passed. Mitch has gotten away with enough obstruction. Put the pressure on him every day. That includes during his month vacation in August." MARY BETH, MA

"Several GOP panelists derided the Mueller investigation as prolonged and costly. Cost of Mueller investigation? ... through seizures of ill-begotten assets (eg Manafort forfeitures), it has more than paid for itself! Contrast the GOP Benghazi investigation on Clinton that went on for 4 years! ... with no indictments and no counts ... none (and no asset seizures)! Mueller’s investigation wasn't even 2 years, and already with 37 indictments and 199 counts and several in trump’s inner circle charged and in prison with more imminent." JOHN TOWNSEND, MEXICO

"In much the same way Trump demeaned, denigrated a former First Lady and Secretary of State; today the Republican Party did the same to another public servant. No 74 year old, War Veteran, public servant deserved to be spoken to the way Mueller was by the Republicans who questioned him. But then again, we saw with McCain how much this administration respects veterans. Never wandering far from the low moral bar their POTUS has set, Republicans today once more demonstrated how much they respect what were once established values."

DENISE, NM

"Today, it was reiterated that the sitting US President, Donald Trump, is guilty of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of colluding with the Russians to attain the US Presidency in 2016, and of committing and continuing to commit the obstruction of justice in covering up his collusion. What we also learned today is that the rump GOP that remains, after all this Trump carnage, of what used to be the proud party of Lincoln, is willing to lie, to shill and to defend this narcissistic Russian owned clown to their bitter end. Sad. Humiliating. Depressing." JOE MIKSIS, SAN FRANCISCO

"That Special Counsel Robert Mueller III made a very grave statement about Russian tampering in the 2016 election for President and Vice President of the United States should be a very loud, resounding alarm to every citizen of this country demanding the assurance from every Board of Election in each state that their vote casting system is tamper-proof. And if there is not a very vocal public outcry to demand free and safe elections in this country, we are sunk as a democracy. There is no democracy of one person - one (tamper-proof) vote in the United States if we have Russian or any other outside interference. And yes, I continue to believe Donald Trump's tax returns will see a direct link between Russian interference - in many forms - vote tampering, money schemes, loans, and potentially blackmail that will bring this house of cards down. I think Trump knows this and continues his daily and relentless twittering directed toward whomever is disturbing his house of cards at the moment . All of his twittering behavior is simply to distract from the truth - which will be found in his taxes. And finally, Special Counsel Mueller, in his 11 minute televised address two weeks ago stated:, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." Another shocking statement that should be sounding very loud alarms. That statement is yet another reason to issue court orders to subpoena Trump’s taxes." KKM, NYC

"Some of the media coverage of Mueller’s testimony today bothers me as a person who appreciates the American Constitution. The idea that the testimony was ineffective is ludicrous. The house majority did an excellent job of refuting Trump’s claim that there was “no collusion”. They also did an excellent job of meticulously outlining the actions that constituted that collusion. When Republican representatives pushed Mueller on making a political statement with his report, he pushed back vehemently. The American people who watched this testimony now have the truth as opposed to the spin that came from the White House. Hopefully citizens who love this country will uphold our democracy in the next election and today’s testimony gives us all some truths to take to the ballot box as we make our individual decisions." RMWARD, CONNECTICUT

"This is the best account I've read about what I witnessed on the live stream today. The one thing that no news articles have mentioned — I am not seeing hard core critique of the questions that were asked and statements made. The Republicans have so intimidated news media by attacking everything as "partisan" and "political" that the media posit a false equivalency between what one party does versus another, so as to refer to the parties equally. Thus there is not one word spoken about the odiously misleading and false statements and questions by the Republicans, oftentimes loaded with conspiracy theories. It is a disgrace that legislators feed these accusations to the public, and the press says nothing. Nunes telling Mueller to his face that the investigation was a hoax??? These guys are out front with Trump feeding delusions to the public. Many media are making the big news that Mueller seemed indecisive or shaky in his answers, all the while this public disgrace of Republican accusations that are completely disconnected from reality parades before the cameras and goes unmentioned — or else portrayed as equal to the serious and studential questions and comments of the Democrats. There are dangers headed towards U.S. democracy like a freight train. Please do more to wake everyone up to the dangers of claims that flagrantly violate known facts."

ANNE SHERROD

"The fact is, there is no law to say you can't indict a sitting president, neither is there anything in the constitution to that effect. It is simply a DOJ opinion that has been passed down over the years. It is not a high bar to expect that your president has not committed a crime. The simple answer: render the president accountable to criminal justice just as every American is."

YesIKnowTheMuffinMan, NEW HOPE PA

"If Russia can do it to Clinton, China will do it to Trump (and I expect they will). The GOP are unbelievably naive. China is much more experienced and skilled."

CHARACTER COUNTS, USA

"Putin is grinning ear to ear." CINDY, SAN DIEGO CA

"The best we can do is gather a great Democratic Party strategy, pick a candidate that can stand up to trump and beat him solidly in the 2020 election. Muellers report should provide plenty of reasons why trump and his cronies must go. The Democratic Party must insure that the Russians or any foreign country does not hack our election again." DR B, BERKLEY, CA

"Most questions were long winded, hard to follow and self served, aimed to impress the electorate base and embarrass Mueller. Republicans in particular excelled in irrelevancy, ranging form brash accusations to white noise generators. To his credit, Mueller chose not to play along and stayed within the scope of even the least cohesive question. Posterity will remember, hopefully, Mueller for his uncompromising and professional stance, focus on the job and carelessness for his public image. Picture him side by side with the president, and try to take in the difference." MIROCAL, SEATTLE WA

"They’re doing it as we sit here,” Facebook knows more about you than your parents. And they package that knowledge as a target for the highest bidder. As a Target. You and I are Targets. Cambridge Analytica leveraged those Targets to help Trump win. The Russian Government leveraged those Targets to help Trump win. Dear regulators, as a part of the Facebook settlement, how about banning Targeted political ads? Sure, the Supreme Court has ruled, in Burson v Freeman, that blackout periods for political ads are unconstitutional. But, it says nothing about Targeted ads. When I'm shown an ad for or against a candidate, I want to see what everybody else sees. I want to see everybody's response to that ad. Is it fake? Is it fair? One of the worse policies for political speech was the removal of the fairness doctrine -- where broadcasters were required to give free time to opposing views. Well, at the very least, it should be a requirement that ads for public office are truly public. Not some kind of guided missive keyed to my private data. Regulators, are you listening?"

IKO, HERE

"I believed Mueller. I wouldn't believe Trump if my life depended on it. Indeed, I would depend on this fact: Trump will always lie. He THINKS his lies are a "force of nature." I suppose we will found out just how strong they are. Because they are now exposed. Anyone who believes them now has no more excuses. Whoever believes Trump belongs to Trump. They are bought and paid for." PAUL GLASSON, GA

"I am frankly beyond being disgusted with these shameful Republican congresspeople. While they may believe the best defense is a good offense, and are aggressively trying to steamroll and invalidate a legitimate investigative process, I am not buying what they are selling. No amount of money or power could make me behave in such a despicable fashion, and the fact that they seem to be immune from self loathing for their behavior indicates what type of people they are to their cores. They dishonor this country."

GMR, ATLANTA

Mueller Rejects Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ Label and Warns of Russian Meddling

By Mark Mazzetti | Published July 24, 2019 | New York Times | Posted July 24, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III on Wednesday publicly rejected President Trump’s criticism that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt” and defended his conclusions about the sweeping Russian interference campaign in 2016, warning that Moscow will again try to sabotage American democracy.

The partisan war over his inquiry reached a heated climax during hours of long-awaited testimony by Mr. Mueller before two congressional committees. Lawmakers hunted for viral sound bites and tried to score political points, but Mr. Mueller refused to engage on those fronts, returning over and over in sometimes halting delivery to his damning and voluminous report.

Mr. Mueller remained a spectral presence in Washington over the past two years as the president and his allies subjected the special counsel and his team of lawyers to withering attacks. Speaking in detail for the first time about his conclusions produced occasionally dramatic moments where he ventured beyond his report to offer insights about Mr. Trump’s behavior.

When asked whether Mr. Trump “wasn’t always being truthful” in his written answers to the special counsel’s questions, Mr. Mueller responded, “I would say generally.” He called Mr. Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign “problematic” and said it “gave a boost to what is and should be illegal activity.” He said that he and his team chose not to subpoena Mr. Trump out of concern that a battle over a presidential interview might needlessly prolong the investigation.

Democratic lawmakers had hoped that Mr. Mueller’s nationally televised testimony would provide a dramatic culmination to a yearslong saga: the special counsel translating the dense jargon of his report into a bleak portrait of the Russian interference operation and the president’s behavior since winning the election. The testimony would, in their minds, make the report both more authoritative and more vivid for Americans who had skipped reading it.

Some television pundits built up the drama by comparing Mr. Mueller’s appearance to some of the most galvanizing moments of the Watergate era.

For the most part, Mr. Mueller did not play along. He gave clipped answers to lengthy questions, and forced lawmakers to give their own dramatic readings of parts of his report rather than reciting the conclusions himself. He sometimes gave a forceful defense of his investigation and his team in the face of the Republican fusillade, but his answers were at times faltering. Throughout, he was careful to avoid straying from his report’s conclusions.

Mr. Trump has spent months characterizing the special counsel’s report as a “total exoneration,” though Mr. Mueller was careful on Wednesday to state that he and his team had drawn no such conclusion. The special counsel’s 448-page report, released in April, laid bare that Mr. Trump was elected with the help of a foreign power, and on Wednesday, Mr. Mueller was most impassioned when describing the contours of the Russian interference playbook.

“They’re doing it as we sit here,” he said of Russia’s tampering in American elections.

Looming over the hearing was the question of whether Mr. Mueller’s testimony might shift the ground in Congress and propel more lawmakers to push for Mr. Trump’s impeachment. Only one new call emerged for impeachment hearings by late afternoon Wednesday, from Representative Lori Trahan, Democrat of Massachusetts, and lawmakers will soon depart Washington for a summer recess. It was too soon to say whether the spectacle would change Americans’ opinions about Mr. Mueller and his work that have only hardened over time, and whether Democrats would return to their districts and encounter more vigorous calls for Mr. Trump’s removal.

The questioning on Wednesday reflected a bitter philosophical divide, both on the committees and in the country as a whole: whether it was Mr. Trump, or those investigating him, who committed crimes. Throughout the day, the Democrats hit the high points from Mr. Mueller’s report: the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the efforts by Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller, the discussions between Michael T. Flynn and a Russian ambassador about Obama-era sanctions, the strategy by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to sow chaos before the election.

The Mueller report cataloged numerous meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians seeking to influence the campaign and the presidential transition team — encounters set up in pursuit of business deals, policy initiatives and political dirt about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s 2016 Democratic opponent.

Mr. Mueller concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his aides had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, even though the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort and “expected it would benefit electorally” from the hackings and leaks of Democratic emails.

On Wednesday, Mr. Mueller was asked about the Trump Tower meeting, WikiLeaks and the decision by Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, to share campaign information with a Russian oligarch, and whether these episodes were a new normal for political campaigns.

“I hope this is not the new normal,” Mr. Mueller said, “but I fear it is.”

Republicans tried to flip the lens, peppering Mr. Mueller with questions about what they have long argued, with little evidence: that the F.B.I. opened a politically motivated investigation in 2016 with the aim of preventing Mr. Trump from becoming president. They focused on the research firm that commissioned the dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer. They focused on Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic identified by the special counsel as linked to Russian intelligence, and advanced unsubstantiated claims that Mr. Mifsud was actually under the sway of Western spy services.

Mr. Mueller mostly deflected those questions, saying the origins of the F.B.I. investigation predated his time as special counsel and was outside his purview.

Mr. Mueller was a reluctant witness and had tried to avoid the spectacle of a congressional hearing. In a brief public statement in May, he urged the public — and, by extension, members of Congress — to read his report, which he said “speaks for itself.” “The report is my testimony,” he said.

House Democrats were unmoved and chose to take the aggressive step of compelling Mr. Mueller’s testimony under subpoena.

1 note · View note

cksmart-world · 2 years ago

Text

SMART BOMB

The completely unnecessary news analysis

by Christopher Smart

January 17, 2023

GOODBYE JOE, YOU SHOULD'A KNOWN, ME-OH MY-OH

Classified documents discovered over the MLK holiday weekend in a birdcage at President Biden's beach house has thrown the White House into a tizzy. The top secret papers were promptly delivered to the National Archives, bird poop and all, along with Biden's vintage 1967 Corvette convertible that had been employed to spirit them away. Spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said the president is cooperating fully with authorities in hopes he can get the car back quickly. “It's kind of like a security blanket,” she told reporters, adding, “they can keep the birdcage.” Upon hearing the news, former president Donald Trump said, “Hypocrite, hypocrite, na, na, na, na, na.” The controversy is bad news for Attorney General Merrick Garland, who can't very well prosecute Trump without investigating Biden, too. It all adds up to one political cluster (expletive deleted). So it's King's X for Trump — that's the good news. The bad news is it will rob him of a lot of publicity — the kind he needs to rile up the red-hatted MAGA militias who have gone to ground since Trump disciple Kari Lake vanished in Arizona. Meanwhile, Biden continues to whistle past the graveyard repeating the same old tune: “I'm not Trump.” But maybe something else would be more apropos, like “Knockin' On Heavens Door.”

“AS ST. GEORGE TURNS,” THE ROM-COM OF DRAG

The atmosphere may be burning up, there's horrendous flooding, endless drought and fires beyond control. But in St. George they've got real problems — drag shows. This could get dicey. There are F-bombs and C-bombs and who knows what all. It all started last fall when HBO staged “We're Here,” a drag show in Town Square Park that drew some 1,400 onlookers. KABOOM! Satanic worship, cried some. Grooming children, cried others. Cute outfits, whispered some. The dust devil turned into a whirlwind that became a tempest in a teapot. Then the LGBT Student Association at Utah Tech hosted a drag show of its own. What is the world coming to. This isn't New York City where sin is like a plague. This is St. George, Utah, founded by nice, Mormon people who believe women have a special place under God's heaven and they didn't mean hairy men in fishnet stockings and sparkly heels. Who are you going to call — a crisis manager, of course. He will give perverted progressives a taste of their own medicine, with F-bombs and C-bombs and nastiness. Oops! Backfire! Maybe fighting drag shows with profanity isn't exactly the best way to go. After all, one of Brigham Young's sons was a drag queen, Madame Patterini. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “As St. George Turns.”

LYING IS NOT ILLEGAL — MAYBE

Hey Wilson, what's the big deal with George Santos, anyway. Everyone wants him to resign from Congress. So what if he told a few lies when running for a House seat from Long Island. No big thing, everyone on Long Island lies. Kevin McCarthy, the new speaker of the House, doesn't care if Santos fibbed about where he went to college and grad school. Getting an education can be a hindrance when trying to think. Kevin McCarthy knows that all too well. Santos may have prevaricated a little about being the grandson of Holocaust refugees. But he didn't say he is a Jew, Santos said he is “Jew-ish.” Get it. He's actually Catholic. But who cares and besides Kevin McCarthy needs his vote: without it he wouldn't be speaker and going forward the GOP holds only a nine-vote majority in the House. And hey, Lying isn't illegal. Is a Burger King Whopper really as big as it is in the ads? Did Bill Clinton have sex with that woman? Did Saddam Hussein have “weapons of mass destruction.” The Washington Post counted 30,573 false or misleading statements by Trump during his presidency. George Santos has got a lot of prevaricating to do to catch up or even be seen as a decent liar. But as long as Kevin McCarthy and the GOP need him the country will be better off. And that's not the truth, either.

Post script — That's a wrap for another wet week here at Smart Bomb where we keep track of the Utah Legislature so you don't have to. Na, we try not to pay attention to those people —.not good for mental health. But hark, they may adopt a new state flag this session. Very important! And then there's the culture war stuff: get down on transgenders, get down on abortion, get down on restricting guns and bring in ice from the North Pole to fill The Great Salt Lake. We can't come up for air until March 3 — or maybe ever. Republicans in Congress are playing the old “we're going to save taxpayers” ploy by making sure the IRS doesn't have needed manpower. The House GOP just stripped $71 billion in funding from the agency. In 2010 more than 21 percent of tax returns reporting more than $10 million in income were audited, according to the GAO — that dropped to 3.9 percent by 2019. In the coming decade the federal deficit will grow by $100 billion in lost tax revenue. And finally this from our “News You Can Use” file — The Deseret News reports when it comes to bagels, Utah doesn't cut it. According to Lawn Love, Salt Lake City is ranked 122 and West Valley is 190th. Lawn Love, it turns out, is a lawn care service. Is this a great country, or what.

Well Wilson, poor old Joe Biden is up to his ankles in quick sand. What's up with the way the White House deals with classified documents. Now, it's the Republicans who are licking their chops. Christmas may have come late, but boy did it come. So get the band to put down their 1040s and play something for Old Joe that he can hum past the graveyard.

Twas in another lifetime one of toil and blood When blackness was a virtue, the road was full of mud I came in from the wilderness a creature void of form "Come in," she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm" I was burned out from exhaustion buried in the hail Poisoned in the bushes and blown out on the trail Hunted like a crocodile ravaged in the corn "Come in," she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm" Well the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount But nothing really matters much it's doom alone that counts And the one-eyed undertaker he blows a futile horn "Come in," she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm" In a little hilltop village they gambled for my clothes I bargained for salvation and she gave me a lethal dose I offered up my innocence, I got repaid with scorn "Come in," she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm" Well I'm living in a foreign country but I'm bound to cross the line Beauty walks a razor's edge someday I'll make it mine If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born "Come in," she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm"

(Shelter From the Storm — Bob Dylan)

0 notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 years ago

Photo

[The Daily Don] :: If GOP polling means anything, I guess being an inadequate sex pest is a feature not a flaw.

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 10, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 11, 2023

This morning, federal prosecutors charged Representative George Santos (R-NY) with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives, and one count of stealing public funds. The charges are tied to his campaign fundraising and unemployment fraud; prosecutors say he received about $25,000 in unemployment insurance benefits during 2020 and 2021, during the worst of the pandemic, when he was, in fact, making about $120,000 a year.

Santos pleaded not guilty and was released on $500,000 bail and immediately began to fundraise off his arrest.

This is another embarrassment for the Republicans. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, the third-ranking Republican in the House, has championed Santos in ads as “the next generation of Republican leadership.” And today, while the House Republicans were in the midst of a press conference about their plan to crack down on unemployment fraud, news broke that one of their own has been charged with it. Ironically, Santos is a co-sponsor of the bill.

With the news about Santos this morning and the news last night of former president Trump’s liability for sexual abuse and defamation, the release this morning of a report from the House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), looked as if it was designed to be a distraction.

The report insisted that “that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails were real”—by which the Republicans meant to say that the idea there was something incriminating on them was real—rather than possibly Russian disinformation, as a letter from former intelligence officials said when the story first broke. The report promised to prove that “senior intelligence community officials and the Biden campaign worked to mislead American voters.”

But the report was a bizarre effort. Despite the breathless allegations in it, the 65-page document seems to prove that the former intelligence officials who said the news story about the laptop had the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation effort believed what they were saying and went through the proper channels at the Central Intelligence Agency to clear their statement. The person who did appear to be trying to make a political statement was Trump’s loyalist director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe.

Journalist Marcy Wheeler carefully broke the report down piece by piece on Twitter (linked below if anyone’s interested), but she was one of the few media figures even to bother to mention it. Jordan is well known for crafting propaganda for right-wing media; perhaps that was his intention here.

A press conference the House Oversight Committee also held this morning got more attention than Jordan’s report, but it, too, was a fizzle. The committee announced the conference on Monday, May 8, when committee chair Representative James Comer (R-KY) promised supporters to unleash “judgment day” on the Biden White House. Republican members of the committee have made much of what they call “the Biden family’s influence peddling enterprise,” but today’s conference revealed nothing new: Biden’s son and brother and their associates worked with private companies that received about $10 million in investment from China and Romania. There is no evidence that those payments were illegal.

The “Biden family” is the term the right-wing Republicans are using to make it sound as if the president was part of the business dealings of his son Hunter and brother James, but they have turned up no evidence that President Joe Biden was part of their businesses or received any money in relation to them. Further, without evidence that the payments were illegal—and the Republicans have not charged that they were—they are relying on innuendo to smear the president.

The top Democrat on the committee, Jamie Raskin (D-MD), said that “there’s a lot of innuendo and a lot of gossip taking place and much of it is recycled from prior claims.”

When asked about the lack of evidence tying President Biden to corruption, Oversight Committee chair Representative James Comer (R-KY) said, “I don’t think anyone in America…would think that it’s just a coincidence that nine Biden family members have received money…. We believe that the president has been involved in this from the very beginning.” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was clearer. He told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo, "You have to infer what's happening here...you're not gonna get necessarily hard proof."

The headline on a New York Times story about the report was hardly what Comer had hoped. It read: “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.”

Indeed, in the Washington Post, Philip Bump wrote, “The wider House Oversight’s net, the more often it catches Trump.” He noted that the Biden family doesn’t, in fact, have a family business. But, of course, the Trump family does have a business, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) estimates that Trump’s businesses made as much as $160 million when he was president. That doesn’t include the money his children—who, unlike Hunter Biden, were members of the administration—raked in both during his term and afterward, like the $2 billion investment a Saudi fund overseen by Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman made in Jared Kushner’s new private equity firm shortly after he left the White House.

In more substantive news, data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that inflation is continuing to slow down. April marked the tenth month in a row of slower price increases for an annual pace slightly under 5%. Housing prices were the biggest contributor to that inflation.

Biden was in a Republican-held New York state district today, at SUNY Westchester Community College, to warn about the dangers of the Republican threats to crash the economy by refusing to lift the debt ceiling. He had won that district in 2020, and the Republican who took the seat there in 2022, Mike Lawler, won by less than a percentage point. Biden made it a point to distinguish, yet again, between extremist MAGA Republicans and reasonable Republicans, calling Lawler one of the latter.

As Jonathan Lemire, Lauren Egan, and Danielle Muoio Dunn wrote in Politico, it seems Biden is hoping to break the Republican phalanx against raising the debt ceiling by reaching out to Republicans whose reelection is in doubt, although Lawler said Biden told him he was not there to pressure him. The journalists noted that the White House recently called out the toll that McCarthy’s recent bill would take on the 18 congressional districts that Biden won and where Republicans were elected in 2022.

Today, Biden emphasized the enormous costs of the cuts the Republicans insist they require before they will permit a raising of the debt ceiling, including, Biden emphasized, 30,000 federal law enforcement officers: “11,000 FBI agents, 2,000 Border agents, DEA agents, and so on.”

He warned that the Republican plan will also cut veterans’ benefits and noted that the Republicans keep calling him a liar when he identifies cuts they are demanding. While the vagueness in their language enables them to insist they would not cut particular programs, Biden pointed out that the math doesn’t add up without huge cuts. Anything they intend to protect, they would have identified in writing. Until that happens, the necessary math says that we should assume everything is on the table.

If they don’t get those cuts, they say, they will crash the economy, costing 8 million Americans their jobs, according to Moody’s Analytics.

“This is a manufactured crisis,” Biden said. “And there’s no question about America’s ability to pay its bills. America has the strongest economy in the world, and we should be cutting spending and lowering the deficit without a needless crisis, in a responsible way.”

In contrast, former president Trump tonight pushed the country toward default, ignoring that his own massive tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations sent the deficit skyrocketing and that Congress raised the debt ceiling without conditions three times during his term to cover those shortfalls. “I say to the Republicans out there, Congressmen, Senators: if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default...Democrats will absolutely cave,” he said.

Trump was speaking at what CNN billed as a “Town Hall” in front of a crowd of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents, but the event quickly turned into a Trump rally. Trump played to the audience, which laughed at his attacks on E. Jean Carroll and cheered on the constant stream of lies that are by now a set performance. He steamrolled journalist Kaitlan Collins, who tried but could not counter his stream of lies. When he finished, the audience gave him a standing ovation.

A CNN media personality told Daily Beast media reporter Justin Baragona, “It is so bad. I was cautiously optimistic despite the criticism. It is awful. It’s a Trump infomercial. We’re going to get crushed.” A senior Trump advisor told senior NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake that the campaign team ��is thrilled with how the night went.” The person called the event a “home run” and said “when the lefts melting down, we know it was a good day.”

Maybe. But according to legal analyst Andrew Weissman, Trump’s embrace of the January 6 rioters and promise to pardon them if he’s reelected feeds a potential case against him. He made similarly revealing comments about his theft and retention of documents marked classified. It was that very kind of indiscretion that enabled Carroll’s lawyers to beat him in court.

More important, though, while Trump’s base will love his performance, watching his lies and cruelty while his supporters laugh and cheer him on will remind voters of exactly what they worked so hard to reject in 2020. A Biden campaign advisor told NBC News White House correspondent Mike Memoli: “Weeks worth of damning content in one hour…. It was quite efficient." It might turn out that, as journalist Ana Navarro-Cárdenas tweeted, “[Joe Biden] is the winner of tonight’s town-hall.”

As Biden tweeted after the performance: “It’s simple, folks. Do you want four more years of that?”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#The Daily Don #Jesse Duquette #Letters From an American #Heather Cox Richardson #Trump cult #CNN #TFG #Debt Ceiling #Santos

8 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

How Many Republicans Will Vote For Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-will-vote-for-impeachment/

How Many Republicans Will Vote For Impeachment

Republicans Cant Impeach Joe Biden At Least Not Yet

Rep. Schiff: Only Question Is How Many In GOP Will Support Impeachment | Morning Joe | MSNBC

The ongoing chaos in Afghanistan has led many Republicans to, understandably, criticize President Joe Biden. But at the same time, some have decided to go a step further and call for his impeachment.

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene filed three articles of impeachment last week against Mr Biden, while Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his former friend, has called for his impeachment as well.

But if the idea of impeaching Mr Biden sounds ludicrous and politically unfeasible, thats because it is. While Mr Graham, who went from being one of former president Donald Trumps biggest critics to his biggest apologist in the Senate, and Ms Greene, who has done nothing but promote absurd conspiracy theories and antagonize her fellow members, may want to take advantage of the crisis, there is little to no feasible way for it to begin, at least for now.

First and foremost, the major reason is that Republicans are in the minority in the House and the Senate. While some Democrats may not be happy with how Mr Biden managed Afghanistan, immigration or the eviction moratorium, all of which Ms Greene cited, they arent going to collaborate with Republicans to impeach him.

The remote chance of this passing the House aside, if it makes it to the Senate, Republicans would again have to contend with the fact they are in the minority and two-thirds of all Senators need to vote for a conviction. In the last impeachment earlier this year, only seven Republican Senators broke rank.

Pelosi On Impeachment Votes: ‘we Are Not Whipping This Legislation’

Rep. Anthony Brindisi, another Democrat from a red district in upstate New York, said hes not feeling pressure from Democratic leadership but is hearing from constituents.

The phone is ringing off the hook both people calling pro-impeachment and people calling against impeachment, he told NBC News. And so, we take all of that into consideration and I’m going to take some time this weekend and go back and look at all these transcripts and make sure all the evidence fits the articles of impeachment.

Two critical swing district Democrats have announced their support for impeachment articles. Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., told reporters Thursday that she is going to support both articles of impeachment regardless of the lasting political impacts.

I think it’s equally important today as it will be six months from now to say that I stood up against the President when he did something wrong, Luria said.

And Rep. Conor Lamb , D-Pa., told Pittsburgh affiliate WTAE that hell also vote for the articles.

For Democrats in districts Trump carried in 2016, the decision is fraught with political peril for next November’s elections, especially because the president’s supporters remain mostly united behind him.

A small group of moderate Democrats floated a last-minute proposal of censure instead of impeachment but abandoned the idea when it quickly became clear that such a move would not garner support among the broader Democratic caucus, according to an aide for one of those members.

Republicans Join Democrats In Vote To Push Trump Impeachment Trial Forward

WASHINGTON – Most Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday against holding an impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump on whether he incited insurrection in the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, signaling that he likely has enough votes to secure an acquittal.

The vote was 55-45 in favor of proceeding with a trial, but only five Republicans joined all 50 Democrats. A two-thirds vote is required for conviction, which would require 17 Republicans to turn against Trump, assuming the Democrats vote as a bloc after hearing the case against him when the trial starts in earnest February 9.

A Trump supporter, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, forced the vote on whether to proceed with the trial, calling it an unconstitutional sham.

Paul contended that the Senate cannot hold a trial of a private citizen, which Trump now is after his term ended last Wednesday and Democrat Joe Biden was inaugurated as the countrys 46th president. The Senate, in fact, has held trials for private citizens in the past.

All 100 senators were sworn in as jurors for the upcoming trial.

The Republican lawmakers hold Trumps fate in their hands, even though the former presidents four-year term in the White House ended January 20 with Bidens inauguration.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Voted To Impeach

Numerous Gop Primary Challengers Could Split Anti

As they prepare to face primary challengers, the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump after his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 raised significantly more money during the first quarter of 2021 than they did two years earlier.

The group, leveraging the power of incumbency, also swamped their GOP primary opponents in almost every instance during the first round of fundraising since angering Mr. Trump with their votes, new Federal Election Commission filings show.

While all the incumbents outraised challengers who filed campaign finance reports, it is still early in the two-year election cycle and money is just one factor in typically low-turnout primaries.

Mr. Trumps political-action committees could also weigh in financially on some of the contests, and his endorsements could carry significant weight with the partys base. The PACs arent required to report their latest totals until July, but one of them, Save America PAC, started the year with $31 million in the bank and has continued to raise money since then.

In a speech earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he called out all 10 by name, Mr. Trump told his supporters to get rid of them all in next years elections.

House Impeachment Managers Request Trump To Testify Under Oath Next Week

Democrats requested that Trump testify in person, an offer his attorneys declined. Inside his orbit, there has been disagreement about whether to repeat his groundless claims that the election was stolen or whether to push the procedural argument that appeals to GOP senators.

His attorneys, David Schoen and Bruce Castor Jr., have indicated that they will do the latter, saying in their brief that the impeachment is “unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice.”

Don’t Miss: Did Any Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump

Republicans Who Voted To Acquit Trump Used Questions Of Constitutionality As A Cover

Following the vote, McConnell gave a scathing speech condemning Trumps lies about election fraud as well as his actions on January 6, only moments after he supported acquittal.

That speech was emblematic of how many Republican senators approached the impeachment vote: Although GOP lawmakers were critical of the attack on January 6, they used a process argument about constitutionality in order to evade confronting Trump on his actual actions.

Effectively, because Trump is no longer in office, Republicans say the Senate doesnt have jurisdiction to convict him of the article of impeachment. As Voxs Ian Millhiser explained, theres some debate over that, but most legal scholars maintain that it is constitutional for the Senate to try a former president.

If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge, McConnell said. McConnell, however, played an integral role in delaying the start of the trial until after Trump was no longer president.

His statement on Saturday was simply a continuation of how Republicans had previously approached Trumps presidency: Theres been an overwhelming hesitation to hold him accountable while he was in office, and that still appears to be the case for many lawmakers.

Articles Referred To Senate

Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;

prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;

prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and

his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:

Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills. Clinton’s counsel staff included Charles Ruff, David E. Kendall, Dale Bumpers, Bruce Lindsey, Nicole Seligman, Lanny A. Breuer and Gregory B. Craig.

Don’t Miss: What Are The Basic Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

Michigan Rep Fred Upton

Upton, an 18-term lawmaker who previously held the gavel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is something of an endangered species on Capitol Hill: a relatively moderate Republican who isnt afraid to cross the aisle to vote with Democrats. Fellow lawmakers and outsiders who lobby Upton say hes a pragmatist. Hes part of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group working to build consensus on legislation.

The former committee chairmans 6th District, nestled in the states touristy southwestern corner that includes Lake Michigan shoreline as well as Kalamazoo, voted 51 percent for Trump in 2020, according to Daily Kos Elections. Upton won reelection with 56 percent of the vote last year. Since 2017, the longtime congressman voted in line with Trumps position on legislation 78 percent of the time, according to CQ Vote Watch.

Bringing Trauma Back To Life

10 Republicans Cross Party Lines To Vote For Trump’s Second Impeachment

The terrifying invasion of the Capitol was illuminated through never before heard audio of police screaming that a riot had broken out, fresh security video of the armed, violent insurrectionists pouring in and then-Vice President Mike Pence and others fleeing, and parallel maps showing just how close Trump’s minions came to capturing and injuring or killing Pence, Sen. Mitt Romney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The managers finished by hammering home the ex-president’s response once the rioting began: protracted inaction, repetition of the election lies that led to the violence,;and telling the insurrectionists he loved them. ; ; ; ; ; ;

The managers poured a surprising degree of emotion into their arguments. Whether it was Rep. Madeleine Dean choking up as she recalled her terror, or Rep. Eric Swalwell reading what he thought might be his farewell text to his family, it hit home.;Most powerful of all was lead manager Rep. Jamie Raskin’s closing;Tuesday. He brought the trauma back to life for the jurors, who were also present on that horrible day, in recounting;his and his family’s experiences.;His genuine tears flowed for them ;and for all;the tragedies that unfolded Jan. 6.

You May Like: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Why Is Trump On Trial

Trumps second impeachment stems from his involvement in whipping up a mob on 6 January that went on to assault the Capitol building while a joint session of Congress was convened to certify Joe Bidenâs Electoral College win. The invasion of the Capitol led to five deaths and the temporary suspension of the vote certification until the assailants could be removed. The House voted to impeach him for a second time a week after the events and just a little over a week from him leaving office.

GOP Sen. Mitt Romney says his impeachment vote will be âbased upon the facts and the evidence as is presented.âRomney also says he believes âthat what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not? what is?â

Illinois Rep Adam Kinzinger

Kinzinger, first elected to Congress in 2010 when voters swept House Republicans into power, has relied on his military background in crafting his legislative priorities, especially on foreign policy. The veteran of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan serves on the House Foreign Affairs panel, as well as Energy and Commerce. Kinzinger initially defended Trumps foreign policy and national security posture, but by 2018 he had become a critic of the commander in chief.;

He voted in line with the president on legislation 90 percent of the time during the Trump years, according to CQ Vote Watch. Kinzinger voted with Trump 85 percent of the time in 2019. Trump carried Kinzingers 16th District, which stretches from Illinois Wisconsin border north of Rockford to its line with Indiana, in 2020. Trump got 57 percent of the vote in the district, according to Daily Kos Elections, while Kinzinger got 65 percent.

He immediately condemned Trump in a video statement on Jan. 6. The storming of the Capitol was a coup attempt, with the purpose of overturning the election of a duly elected president, he said. The current president incited this coup, encouraged it, and did little to protect the Capitol and the Constitution.

Also Check: How Many Democratic Presidents Have Republicans Tried To Impeach

How The Impeachment Vote Could Benefit Trump Gop

Final votes on the articles are expected in the full House next week after they were passed in a party-line vote by the House Judiciary Committee Friday morning.

Slotkin said shes been lobbied by Republicans on the House floor.

I had a Republican colleague who Ive worked with before on a bunch of issues come up and give me a very detailed, thoughtful explanation of why I should vote against articles of impeachment, Slotkin told NBC News last week.

And the across-the-aisle personal lobbying in the Capitol is being reinforced with an aggressive, multi-million dollar political effort in their home districts.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

For example, the American Action Network, an outside political group that works to elect Republicans to the House, has spent more than $1.5 million on campaign ads focused on impeachment since December 10 in those districts as well as the districts represented by Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Susie Lee of Nevada and Xochitl Torres Small of New Mexico. Those ads are slated to run through the votes in the full House of Representatives next week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is a vote of conscience and maintains that Democrats aren’t pressuring their members on which way to vote.

“We are not whipping this legislation,” Pelosi told reporters on Thursday. “People have to come to their own conclusions.”

Donald Trump: Impeached In 2019 And 2021

On October 9, 2019 in Washington, D.C., President Trump answers questions on a pending impeachment inquiry.

On September 24, 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump regarding his alleged efforts to pressure the President of Ukraine to investigate possible wrongdoings by his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The decision to authorize the impeachment inquiry came after a leaked whistleblower complaint detailed a July phone conversation between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump allegedly tied Ukrainian military aid to personal political favors. The White House later released a reconstructed of the phone call, which many Democrats argued demonstrated that Trump had violated the Constitution.

On December 18, 2019, President Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached as the House of Representatives voted nearly along party lines to impeach him over abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. No Republicans voted in favor of either article of impeachment, while three Democrats voted against one or both.On February 5, 2020, the Senate largely along party lines to acquit Trump on both charges.

Read Also: Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The House

What To Watch For

While Trumps impeachment in the House is a foregone conclusion, conviction in the Senate is a far murkier question. A handful of senators have advocated Trumps resignation or removal without explicitly voicing support for impeachment, but Democrats may struggle to muster the 17 GOP votes needed to get the necessary two-thirds majority. Additionally, McConnell has signaled a Senate impeachment trial likely wouldnt occur until after Trump has left office.

How Many Senators Will Vote To Convict Donald Trump

Now that Donald Trump has been impeached for an historic second time, attention turns to the Senate where, according to the Constitution, a trial will begin. The big question isunlike last year when only one Republican Senator voted to convict Trump on charges resulting from his phone call with the President of Ukrainewill there be 17 Republican senators willing to vote to convict Trump?

Lets start with what we know. Senator Ben Sasse is the only senator who has said clearly that he is open to convicting Trump. Senator Mitt Romney voted to convict last year when Trump was impeached over his phone call with the Ukrainian president. The charges in this impeachment are equally if not more serious, so it seems likely that he too may vote to convict. Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Patrick Toomey have also made statements signaling that theyve had enough of Trump. Murkowski just wants him out, saying He has caused enough damage, and Toomey thinks he committed impeachable offenses but is unsure whether impeachment makes sense this close to the end of the Trump presidency.

Also Check: Do Republicans Want To Cut Social Security And Medicare

Trump Impeachment Odds: How Many Senators Will Vote To Convict

The Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins today, February 9, 2021. Accused of incitement of insurrection, the 100 senators will hear arguments from Democratic House Managers and a Republican Congessional defense, with a brand new team of lawyers to defend Trump. How many senators will vote to convict?

The trial itself is interesting in a way, because nearly everyone involved would have been in the Capitol when insurrectionists stormed the building on January 6; the crime that led to this impeachment. So the senators being asked to pass judgement are victims of the crime. But the popular debate has not so much been around whether Trump is guilty, but rather whether America should heal and move on.

To convince Republicans, Democrats are expected to show plenty of video evidence, reminding the senate of what it felt like on that tumultuous day. Trumps defense is expected to argue that, with Trump already out of office, the impeachment is unconstitutional. However, its been rumored that Trump fired his first legal team for refusing to push the 2020 election hoax angle he preferred.

In Trumps first impeachment trial, Utah Senator Mitt Romney was the sole Republican to vote to convict, and hes likely to do the same again, making the 50 or fewer betting option such a long shot. But who will join him?

How Many Senators Will Vote To Convict Donald Trump On Incitement By Apr. 29?

50 Or Fewer+1600

0 notes

statetalks · 4 years ago