LIAR LIAR PANTS on FIRE

December 16, 2015

©2015 jbjd

I ‘get’ Donald Trump; and in the same way I learned how to interpret Obama-speak, I also developed an ear for his lies. It just took some listening.

Obviously, Trump knows how to tap into Americans’ fear of imminent annihilation at the hands of her enemies, real or imagined; but he is woefully ignorant about foreign affairs and national security. Here’s how you can tell.

Trump lied about having said in advance of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, that the war would be a mistake and de-stabilize the Middle East. In fact, he said that in 2004, along with everyone else, pre-Surge. Interviewer Howard Kurtz caught him in the lie, in this in-person exchange on October 11: ‘You said that in 2004; by then, everyone knew the occupation was a mess. But I can find no evidence that you spoke earlier than that. Did you say that in 2003, before the invasion?’ Trump’s reply: “Yes!”

At the end of that part of the interview with Kurtz, Trump repeated the ‘lie’ indirectly, now fudging the truth. ‘You saw my statement, I was against the war,’ as if Kurtz had actually corroborated his earlier lie instead of calling him on it.

Last night, December 15, during the Republican debate on CNN, Trump repeated the lie Kurtz caught him in more than two months earlier. Only, having failed to pull the wool over Kurtz’s eyes, this time he fudged the lie by changing the date of his anti-war statement so as to ‘cover’ the date of the invasion. ‘I came out against the war in Iraq in 2003/2004, I said it would de-stabilize the Middle East, and I was right.’ After the debate, he was interviewed by Chris Matthews. Now, without being asked a direct question, on point, he re-fudged the lie to counter Kurtz’s previous concerns; by surrounding the newly fudged date – 2003/2004 – with words that now would likely be misinterpreted by the lay listener, as indicating a pre-invasion prediction. ‘I predicted going to war with Iraq would de-stabilize the Middle East, back in 2003/2004!’

You Say Quds Forces, I Say Kurds

Then, there was the radio interview with Hugh Hewitt on September 3. But first, a little context.

Immediately after the U.S. completed negotiations with Iran for that horrendous nuclear agreement in July; Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite military Quds Force, went to Russia to meet officials there in violation of a U.N. travel ban. It was in all the papers.

The U.S. will also raise its concerns at the United Nations and pursue the matter through the Security Council. U.S. officials said they believe Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite military Qods Force, went to Russia in late July to meet officials there in violation of U.N. travel ban.

“We’ve raised this travel (concern) with senior Russian foreign ministry officials and we’re going to raise it and address it further in New York,” Mr. Toner said Wednesday.

The complaint, and Gen. Soleimani’s trip, come at a sensitive time for the Obama administration. It is working to sell skeptical lawmakers on a nuclear agreement it reached with Iran and several other countries that it has said will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from numerous sanctions. Many critics of the White House’s agreement have said Iranian officials cannot be trusted, and Gen. Soleimani’s trip to Russia despite his travel ban could further inflame critics.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-complains-to-russia-about-iranian-generals-visit-143941266

Weeks later, Hugh Hewett conducted a radio interview with Donald Trump, Republican candidate for President.

Here is the video of the pertinent segment of the interview, followed by the transcript of the exchange.

HH: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?

DT: (after a long pause) Yeeees… I… but go ahead, give me a little… tell me…

HH: He runs the Quds forces.

DT: Yes, okay, right.

HH: Do you expect…

DT: And I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by us…

HH: No, not the Kurds, the Quds forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Quds Forces the bad guys.

DT: Right.

HH: Do you expect his behavior to change as a result…

DT: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said Kurds, because I think the Kurds have been poorly treated by us, Hugh. Go ahead.

HH: Agreed. So Soleimani runs the Quds Forces. Do you expect his behavior is going to change as a result of this deal with Iran?

DT: I think that Iran right now is in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want to do. I think what’s happening with Iran is, I think it’s one of the, and I covered it very well. I assume you saw the news conference. I think Iran is, it’s one of the great deals ever made for them. I think it’s one of the most incompetent contracts I’ve even seen. I’m not just talking about defense. I’m not talking about a contract with another country. I’ve never seen more of a one-sided deal, I think, in my life, absolutely.

HH: Well, Soleimani is to terrorism sort of what Trump is to real estate.

DT: Okay.

HH: Many people would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world, and he runs the Quds Forces, which is their Navy SEALs.

DT: Is he the gentleman that was going back and forth with Russia and meeting with Putin? I read something, and that seems to be also where he’s at.

HH: That’s the guy.

DT: He’s going back and forth meeting with other countries, etc., etc.

HH: That’s the guy.

DT: Not good.

HH: And so do you think…

DT: Not good for us. And what it shows is a total lack of respect, I mean, that the other countries would even be entertaining him, and they’re entertaining him big league, big league.

(Note: this last line of that segment of the interview only makes sense to me if Trump, having no idea what Hewitt was talking about; looked up the name “Soleimani” while on the phone, and came up with a headline about the general’s visit to Russia. Now, everyone else already familiar with that situation opined, Soleimani was visiting Russia to arrange weapons sales. But with no time to bone up on the transaction; Trump appears to have inferred from the headline that the ‘bad’ man from Iran is being welcomed by world leaders, which visits he – Trump – finds disrespectful to the U.S., ignorant of both the implications of the general’s visit to Russia viz-a-viz the newly negotiated (arms) agreement with Iran; and the travel ban violated by that visit.)

Beginning the day after Hewitt exposed Trump’s ignorance of foreign policy, Trump sought to re-cast what had occurred, expanding his criticism now to encompass the incompetence of his host. “I thought he said Kurds, this third-rate radio announcer that I did the show – it was like got you, got you – every question was do I know this one and that one?  It was like he worked hard on that. But I thought he said Kurds.”

Trumptweets

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-says-middle-east-can-wait-hell-learn-it-later

A full two weeks later, at the September 15 Republican debate on CNN, Trump blamed his confusing for “Kurds” Hewitt’s use of the words “Soleimani” and “Quds Forces”; on the fact, “Hugh was giving me name after name, Arab name, Arab name, and few people anywhere, anywhere that would have known those names.”

Only, as the audio of that earlier Hewitt interview, posted above, clearly evidences, no such “Arab names” were cast, until several minutes after Hewitt asked Trump about “General Soleimani,” who “runs the Quds Forces,” and Trump screwed that up with “Kurds.”

In other words; once Trump is caught in a lie about an issue central to the campaign, here, national security and foreign policy; listen for his follow-up references to that lie, woven into subsequent conversations, each time re-cast in a not-so-veiled attempt to make his telling the original lie seem to portray him as being less dishonest.

And why does he care so much about these particular lies? Because even Trump is smart enough to be scared to death the truth will be revealed: he is woefully ignorant about foreign affairs and national security.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

October 17, 2015

©2015 jbjd

I am Jewish. After much searching, I found the perfect Star of David necklace on-line. It was sold by a military supplier, and is made of stainless steel. I purchased two, one for me, one for my son. He tucks his in; I wear mine outside of my clothing. This bothers him, especially when I am riding the train to school, and even more so once I’m there. He worries that one of my Muslim students will hurt me. I told him, sometimes, I am concerned about advertising my Jewishness, too. But I explained, if I am not brave enough to wear my Jewish Star in public, here, now; would I have lifted a finger in Nazi Germany, to try to forestall the Holocaust?

My landlady, also Jewish, drove me to the store today. She brought up the subject of her grandson Joey, who is spending a college semester abroad studying in Israel. Given the current turmoil there, she lamented she  constantly fears for his safety. I did not bite my tongue.

You voted for Barack Obama, twice. Elections have consequences.’

I recounted that during the 2008 primaries, I investigated the candidates. Inasmuch as my most important consideration for the Commander in Chief is foreign policy; I began by focusing on their foreign policy advisers. That’s when I found this pronouncement by Samantha Power, now U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., who advised the Obama campaign (emphasis provided by jbjd):

I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation there’s an abundance of information and what we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing, or investing I think more than sacrificing, really billions of dollars not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine; investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.

Because it seems to me at this stage–and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there–but you have to go in as if you’re serious. You have to put something on the line. And unfortunately imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful, it’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy–or they’re meant to anyway. And there, it’s essential that the same set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally, politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat.”

I mean, I do think in that sense that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately it does require external intervention which–very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early–any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

And that was a couple of months before the Rev. Wright fiasco. I pointed out, if I put my arm around Adolph Hitler and call him my spiritual adviser for 20 years, it’s safe for you to conclude, I  am not too crazy about the Jews.

P.S. In general, I am not a fan of Henry Kissinger. For me, the Nobel Peace Prize lost most of its  luster when it was awarded to him. But he wrote a brilliant article about the current Middle East mess: A Path out of the Middle East Collapse. One of the ‘talking points’ in the piece is his rejection of the favorable comparison between the nuclear deal with Iran, and President Nixon’s opening diplomatic relations with China. (Kissinger was then Nixon’s National Security Adviser, later his Secretary of State.) In short, for reasons stated, he declares these two are ‘applies and oranges.’ And, at least on this account, he would know.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

 

 


SUCKER PUNCHED by TRUMP, REDUX

September 16, 2015

©2015 jbjd

Donald Trump obviously knows a little about federal election law. After all, he finally managed to file papers with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) to begin collecting money and run for President of the United States on June 22, 2015. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. But he was talking about running for President back in 2011. As a Republican. He even hinted back then, if he lost the Republican primary, he might run as a 3rd party candidate. Is Donald Trump Serious About a 2012 Run for President?  Ultimately, he decided not to run in 2012. Or in 2000, or 1988.

Point is, if Mr. Trump is intellectually (and fiscally) competent to be our President, surely he understands the connection between filing papers with the FEC and conducting a campaign. It’s simple: in order to accept donations and turn them into campaign expenditures, including paid political advertisements; a candidate for President must first file papers with the FEC, which monitors the financial transactions. Sounds simple to me. Then, when President Obama filed his nomination papers on April 4, 2012, and began collecting and spending money for his renomination; why did Trump insist the timing of those campaign expenditures resulted from his – Trump’s – ongoing prodding, and were not just run-of-the-mill paid political advertisements? Why didn’t he take advantage of the opportunity he had, by virtue of his ‘bully pulpit,’ to educate the general public about some of the inner workings of the political process?

A few years ago, I wrote a column entitled TRUMP to LEMMINGS: DO NOT LOOK BEFORE you LEAP! (copied below, for your convenience) in which I detailed support for my opinion, Trump is just another snake-oil salesman, distinguished from Obama only by the color of his skin (and whatever is his latest party designation).

I haven’t changed my mind. Donald Trump is either too stupid to be President; or too sinister. Take your pick.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

TRUMP to LEMMINGS: DO NOT LOOK BEFORE you LEAP!

©2012 jbjd

Today, in a calculated display of hubris rivaled only by a production spawned from President Obama’s re-election campaign, Donald Trump has unveiled his much touted October “bombshell“: a “deal” to entice Mr. Obama to produce both his college and passport applications and records. Trump promises that jumping through this hoop “by October 31,” and “to my satisfaction,” and “if it’s complete,” will yield a check for $5,000,000 to Obama’s designated ‘charity.’ (I put the word ‘charity’ in single quotes because in addition to listing a well known outfit like “American Cancer Society”; he lists not only the umbrella enterprise of “AIDS research”; but also the generalized category “inner city children in Chicago.”) He couches his request in terms of acting on behalf of the people, to end their “questions” and “anger.” Yes, he knows that the President will be doing a “great service for the country” by allowing them to “know something about their President.” In short, by releasing the documents Trump mentioned, the President suddenly will “become transparent.”

Of course, some of us know, no “thing” coming out of this dog-and-pony show will inform anyone where Barack Obama was born.

For starters, notice that Trump qualified his reference to Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” by adding (after an obvious pause) “or whatever it may be.” It’s the “whatever it may be” which should have been the tip-off, Trump is wearing his circus barker hat. Why do you suppose he is ‘hedging his bets’ as to the ‘document’s’ authenticity?

As I explained in SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE back on April 1, 2012 (and other articles linked therein), what was released on April 27 was the political ad campaign conceived, executed, and launched by the President’s re-election campaign, the contents of which were fully protected by the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on restrictions on political speech. Featuring the image of the mock-up of a long-form birth certificate, the ads ran on internet sites such as WhiteHouse.gov/blog. (Emphasis added.)

Do you suppose that Mr. Trump, in April 2011 still a possible contender for the Presidency; doesn’t recognize a political ad campaign when he sees one?

Trump asserts he forced the President’s April 27 release of this advertising image: “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate…” Presumably, he means, in a desperate attempt to quell doubts as to the President’s birth status which have swirled unabated for more than 3 years, since the primary in 2008; it was his – Trump’s – many references to concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, uttered as a (pseudo) Presidential candidate in the spring of 2011 which compelled the release of the document at this particular time. (Again, crediting the release of the certificate – “or whatever it may be” – to the President, as opposed to correctly attributing the release to the President’s re-election campaign, cannot have been an innocent oversight.) But, of course, Trump had no more to do with either the substance or the timing of the April 27 appearance of the long form image; than any of the other millions of Americans challenging the narrative of Obama’s birth and demanding some sort of documentation. In fact, its release was triggered by the formal announcement of the President’s re-election campaign 3 weeks earlier, on April 4, and the accompanying mandatory filing with the FEC which then allowed the solicitation of funds in his name by the newly formed re-election campaign, funds which the campaign immediately translated into expenditures on political advertising such as the long-form ad. In other words, it was the official (read, legal) kick-off of the President’s re-election campaign which provided the first opportunity to address what were ongoing eligibility issues that could jeopardize his re-election. (The formal kick-off of the President’s campaign was also accompanied by previously scheduled events associated with the re-election campaign, including a stint on Oprah and a major NY fundraiser, also on the 27th. Id.)

SHE SAID / HE SAID contains not only a lucid (albeit lengthy) explanation of the long-form image as a campaign expenditure; but also references several other articles on the “jbjd” blog, dispelling the long-form myth, including  HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard), which points to the lethal problems associated with allowing candidate ‘self-authentication.’ Indeed, did you notice that Trump’s deal for Obama’s records never specifies who must transmit these records, or to whom these records must be submitted? And while he says, the documents must be “complete” and to his “satisfaction”; he never specifies, who will determine whether these criteria are met. Because he knows better.

For example, during the recent Presidential debates; Obama verified the authenticity of some of his ‘facts’ by citing their source was “reporters.” What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document authentication confirmed, the mock-up of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; Reporter Soledad O’Brien is only one of millions of Americans who still wrongly believe, what APFC says must be true.

UPDATE 09.17.15: The original video is no longer available. In its stead, here is a link to a page explaining what happened between Ms. Soledad and Mr. Sununu on CNN; and points to the recent metamorphosis to the ‘factcheck’ URL. http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/soledad-o-brien-political-hack-constantly-getting-caught-in-the

In sum, Donald Trump knows better than to contend that any ‘documents’ forthcoming through this publicity stunt will increase the knowledge of the American people about the circumstances of our President’s birth; or diminish our ire at what many of us feel is a con. On the contrary; by failing to take advantage of media opportunities like this, to educate the public that, legally, the April 11, 2011 long-form release by the Obama re-election campaign was only part of a political ad launch; and worse, by cynically encouraging the Obama campaign this opportunity to repeat that ploy; Trump only broadens the con, and exacerbates our ire.

Obviously, Mr. Trump thinks most Americans are as foolish as does President Obama.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


KNOW YOUR GOVERNMENT

September 5, 2015

©2015 jbjd

I don’t have time to write my usual tome but, I just watched yet another ‘talking head’ make a fool of herself, unchallenged, bemoaning the fact, the judge in KY sent Clerk Kim Davis to jail for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple; and I have to vent. The Pulitzer Prize winning pundit suggested the court’s action only engenders sympathy for Ms. Davis, when the correct move would be to fire her for not doing her job by carrying out what is now settled law.

Whatever happened to intellectual curiosity? Hasn’t anyone rationalizing the woman should be fired instead of imprisoned, stopped to ask the next question, namely, who would fire her?

NEWS FLASH: MS. DAVIS WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AND CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THROUGH IMPEACHMENT.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-kim-davis-cant-be-fired-marriage-licenses-368902

 


TRUMP DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE of COUNSEL

August 19, 2015

©2015 jbjd

When it comes to his ‘idea’ that one way to begin fixing current immigration problems is to re-define ‘birthright citizenship’; Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump proves, once again, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he doesn’t think people born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are American citizens.

“I don’t think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some will disagree — but many of them agree with me and you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship.

Donald Trump: Birthright babies not citizens.

I am guessing that one of those “very, very good lawyers” he refers to, is Ann Coulter, who hypes the same drivel in her book Adios, America and, at least when it comes to Trump’s forays into immigration ‘policy,’ is an unabashed fan. First, a little background.

On Monday, August 17, responding to questions about talk of ending ‘birthright citizenship,’ Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell

 “It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It’s part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/where-gop-2016-candidates-stand-birthright-citizenship-n411946

Ms. Coulter was interviewed by syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher the next day:

“I have turned against her [Carly Fiorina) as of yesterday with the hot, hot hate of a 1000 suns.

…yesterday among the attacks I saw on the magnificent Donald Trump immigration plan was, you know, everybody wants to get rid of anchor babies.

You can read the section of my book. It’s very short. It’s not from the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, you’ll all remember, came after the Civil War, remember what the Civil War was about? That was freeing the slaves. It wasn’t about allowing illegal aliens to run across the border, drop a baby and say, “Ha ha, you missed me, I’m a citizen now.”

Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment, that’s what they were hoping to do? She [again referencing Ms. Fiorina] said both she and Chris Christie, I saw, saying on TV yesterday, “Well, of course you’d need a Constitutional amendment to do that, that’s crazy.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/18/coulter_on_carly_fiorina_i_have_turned_against_her_with_the_hot_hot_hate_of_a_thousand_suns-comments.html

And I would bet Mr. Trump paid dearly for Ms. Coulter’s advice. But neither knows what he or she is talking about.

As I have tried to explain – see, for example, SENSE and non-SENSE, AGAIN with the 14th AMENDMENT!, jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST – the 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not confer U.S. citizenship on anyone; under the Constitution, only Congress may define what constitutes ‘citizenship’ (Art. I, sec. 8. Clause 4). Thus, any attempt to define who is a citizen, through the Amendment process first would have to specifically modify that delineated power in Art. I

Rather, the 14th Amendment, implicitly assuming the fact that slaves, whether natural born or naturalized, were citizens of the U.S., merely re-stated that fact. For effect, it also clarified that, by definition being a citizen of the U.S. also means, being a citizen of the state in which one resides. (Prior to the 14th Amendment, some states and the District of Columbia denied the status of ‘citizenship’ to slaves.) But the sole purpose of mentioning the citizenship status of natural born and naturalized people was to serve as a preamble to the heart of the Amendment: all citizens of the U.S. (and therefore, the states and D.C.) are entitled to equal protection and due process.

In so doing, the 14th Amendment now extended the Due Process entitlement already found in the 5th Amendment, which had applied to the federal government; to the states and D.C. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Thus, inasmuch as Congress defines all people born in the U.S. as citizens under the law; then, any newly initiated program, whether Executive or Legislative in origin, which calls for the involuntary deportation of these citizens requires due process. This means, even if the ‘plan’ floated by Mr. Trump was implemented, the Judicial branch would be inundated with and drowned to a halt by the petitions of citizens facing such deportation.

(There’s also this: Art. I, sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution already prohibit Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, laws which criminalize conduct after the fact. Thus, criminalizing being in this country, having been born here, would first require amending the Constitution so as to eliminate the prohibition against ex post fact laws.)

So much for taking ‘legal’ advice on immigration, from someone with a vested financial interest in selling her books.

UPDATED 08.19.15: Here is an interesting treatise on the subject, produced with our taxpayer money by the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”). http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf An interesting finding is that, the common law definition of the disputed terms, as incorporated into the 14th Amendment, prevailed until ‘codified’ in 1898, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That is, whoever is born here – with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats – and subject to the jurisdiction thereof – this excluded native Americans not ‘citizenized’ by treaties with the U.S. – is a citizen of the U.S. and the state of residence. Subsequent laws extended citizenship to all Indian tribes, regardless of treaty status. ADMINISTRATOR

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


I AM CHARLIE HEBDO

January 7, 2015

©2015 jbjd

On September 19, 2012 French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a series of images described by the Christian Science Monitor as “raunchy cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.”  Here, in an interview with al Jazeera, Stephane Charbonnier, editorial director of Charlie Hebdo, explains he timed the images to coincide with current events, namely, press accounts of world-wide demonstrations of “radical Muslims” against the “Fascist American film” (the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”).

The timing of the 2012 images was widely criticized by everyone from the French prime minister to church officials, having come only days after “about 200 (emphasis added) people” demonstrated in front of the U.S. embassy in Paris, against the “Innocence” video, on September 15 (emphasis added). Id. (France’s population is 66 million, of which 5-10% is Muslim. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html)

The publication even attracted the attention of Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who posted this cartoon of Mr. Charbonnier on the same day. (Note,Charbonnier is wearing the same jersey worn during the al Jazeera interview.)

But, the “Innocence of Muslims” video was not a factor in world de-stabilization on September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked us in Benghazi, Libya. No; it only became a weapon in global terror after the Benghazi attack, when President Obama conspired with Secretary Clinton to make it one. THE MOHAMMAD VIDEO SLEIGHT-of-HAND.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


PROFESSOR BARBARA JORDAN (D-TX) SCHOOLS on IMPEACHMENT 101

January 3, 2015

©2015 jbjd

If the House of Representatives (“accusers”)  of the U.S. Congress finds that President Obama attempted to subvert the Constitution by directing the IRS to exercise its power to stifle political speech that was otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution; or was connected in any suspicious manner with any person engaged in such conduct and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person; or made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false or designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors then, they must vote for Impeachment. And let the Senate “judge” whether to convict.

In 1974, the late great Representative Barbara Jordan, Democrat from Texas and member of the House Judiciary Committee discusses Impeachment with respect to President Nixon. (Note, the YouTube video incorrectly dates her statement as taking place in 1971.)

Of all the ‘material’ statements made by Ms. Jordan, I found this passage to be the most salient.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers — and the judges the same person.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

(Note: I intentionally linked to the American Rhetoric site because it provides a true transcript of Ms. Jordan’s remarks. As regular readers of “jbjd” know, I usually link to C-Span for original source material. However, while C-Span lists Ms. Jordan’s video on its site; it cannot be played due to “rights restrictions.” And, while it provides a written transcript of her speech, the transcript contains errors, at least one of which is what we would call a ‘material’ error.

For example, the transcript reads,

BEGINNING SHORTLY AFTER THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN AND CONTINUING TO THE PRESENT TIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS DESIGNED TO FOR THE LAWFUL INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS.

But the speaker said,

BEGINNING SHORTLY AFTER THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN AND CONTINUING TO THE PRESENT TIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS DESIGNED TO THWART THE LAWFUL INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS.

American Rhetoric got it right; I have contacted C-Span to make the corrections.)

Ms. Jordan proposed the Committee should “juxtapose” some of the activities the President (Nixon) had engaged in (with respect to events surrounding ‘Watergate,’ misuse of the IRS for political purposes, and defiance of Congressional subpoenas (contempt of Congress)), against Impeachment criteria enunciated by contemporaneous Constitutional experts including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and participants at state ratifying conventions. She argued, therefore, the record supported a recommendation of Impeachment. And, after considerable analysis and debate; ultimately, her fellow Committee members on a bi-partisan basis approved 3 (three) articles of Impeachment. (The Congressional Quarterly Press is a member site. But you can reach the source page by searching, House Judiciary Committee Articles of Impeachment Nixon CQPress.) However, before a vote on Impeachment by the full House, President Nixon resigned. Id.

Having reviewed the applicable standards of Impeachment, let’s adapt Ms. Jordan’s exercise, to President Obama, with respect to the IRS. I’ll start.

In the category of ‘made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false’ or were designed to thwart investigation by government prosecutors: “Not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS (accompanied by derisive sneering and snickering), with accompanying evidence.

Here is the interview conducted with Bill O’Reilly from FOX News, on February 2, 2014.

Here is the transcript of that interview, provided by FOX. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/02/transcript-bill-oreilly-interviews-president-obama/

But Mr. Obama knew in February 2014 his assertion there was not a “smidgen” of corruption, was false because on May 13, 2013 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) issued a report confirming the IRS had been unlawfully targeting conservative-sounding applicants for tax-exempt status, at least as far back as 2010. (For a summary of the TIGTA report, see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-conservatives-in-2010/) And since May 2013, public reports had chronicled that on May 9, Lois Lerner, then Director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, had planted a question to be asked the next day, May 10, at a meeting of the American Bar Association, which would provide an opportunity for her to admit to this unlawful targeting, just 3 (three) days in advance of the publication of that damning TIGTA report.

“I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the [American Bar Association] Tax Section’s Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks,” Roady said in a statement to U.S. News and World Report. “I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day. We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/17/exclusive-woman-who-asked-irss-lois-lerner-scandal-breaking-question-details-plant

Here is an audio of Ms. Lerner’s response to that planted question.

Your turn.

 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


%d bloggers like this: