Legendary Watergate journalist Bob Woodward has a book coming out next month that details the first year and a half of Donald Trump’s presidency, and excerpts published by the Washington Post and CNN on Tuesday depict a White House in the midst of a “nervous breakdown,” sparked by a man who top aides have referred to as “an idiot,” a “fucking moron,” a “professional liar,” and “a goddamn dumbbell” who has the understanding of “a fifth- or sixth-grader.”
“He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown.” —John Kelly, White House chief of staffAccording to the Post—where Woodward has worked as a reporter and editor for decades—the “thrust” of Fear: Trump in the White House “mostly focuses on substantive decisions and internal disagreements, including tensions with North Korea as well as the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan.”
But these substantive decisions and disagreements often produced startling moments in which the president revealed his total ignorance and lack of fitness for office.
“He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything,” White House Chief of Staff John Kelly reportedly complained during a small group meeting. “He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”
Here are some of the most revealing and disturbing excerpts from Woodward’s book, which will be published on Sept. 11.
“Let’s fucking kill him!”
After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was accused of carrying out a chemical attack against civilians last April, Trump told Defense Secretary James Mattis that he wanted to invade Syria and assassinate Assad, Woodward writes.
“Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump reportedly told Mattis in a phone call.
According to Woodward’s account—which he says is based on hundreds of hours of interviews with top White House officials—Mattis told Trump he would get right on it, but then hung up the phone and told a senior aide, “We’re not going to do any of that.”
“You don’t need a strategy to kill people.”
During a meeting last July, Trump’s national security advisers attempted to “educate” the president on foreign policy.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
The gathering quickly went awry, however, when Trump decided to unload on his generals for attempting to discuss Afghanistan strategy.
“You should be killing guys. You don’t need a strategy to kill people,” Trump said, according to Woodward.
“Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”
Despite Trump’s reported insistence that he would be “a real good witness” in an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the president’s former lawyer John Dowd—who resigned in March—firmly believed that Trump would commit perjury if he talked to Mueller.
According to Woodward, Dowd explained to Mueller in January that he did not want the president to do an interview because he didn’t want to “sit there and let him look like an idiot.”
The president’s attorney also worried that if a transcript of the interview leaked, as it inevitably would, people would say, “I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?”
Dowd later pleaded with Trump directly: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”
“He’s this dumb Southerner”
Trump has a well-known habit of berating Attorney General Jeff Sessions in public, but according to Woodward, Trump uses far more abrasive and offensive language to ridicule Sessions behind closed doors.
“This guy is mentally retarded,” Trump said of the former Alabama senator he picked to lead the Justice Department. “He’s this dumb Southerner… He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”
“An administrative coup d’etat”
Reportedly alarmed by Trump’s volatile combination of ignorance and impulsiveness, Woodward reports that top White House aides devised a strategy of stealing documents from the president’s desk so he wouldn’t see or sign them.
In Woodward’s account, last spring former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn swiped “a letter off Trump’s desk” the president planned to sign that would have withdrawn the U.S. from a trade agreement with South Korea.
Cohn later told an associate that Trump never noticed the letter was missing.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
After meeting with “men’s rights” groups and scrapping an Obama-era guidance for how colleges and universities should handle sexual harassment and assault allegations last year, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is reportedly set to release new rules that will “bolster the due process rights of the accused.”
“This is horrific,” declared Planned Parenthood. “[DeVos] is determined to make it harder than ever for survivors of sexual assault to seek justice on campus.”
“The new rules would reduce liability for universities, tighten the definition of sexual harassment, and allow schools to use a higher standard in evaluating claims of sexual harassment and assault,” reported the Washington Post. “The most significant change would guarantee the accused the right to cross-examine their accusers, though it would have to be conducted by advisers or attorneys for the people involved, rather than by the person accused of misconduct.”
While the Obama guidance defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” unnamed sources told the newspaper that DeVos’ proposal describes it as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.”
The new rules supposedly strongly resemble a draft leaked earlier this year. As the Post detailed:
With the proposal “set for release before Thanksgiving, possibly this week,” according to the Post, some expressed concern that the timing could be a strategic ploy to stay off the public’s radar and avoid criticism. Sabrina Joy Stevens wrote for the National Women’s Law Center on Wednesday:
In addition to Stevens’ call to action—”We can’t let them get away with this,” she concluded—the Post article provoked immediate outrage on social media, with critics tweeting: “Re-victimizing the victims seems to be the plan here. Horrible.” “Shame on you, Betsy DeVos.” “[DeVos] is an enemy to women. #BelieveSurvivors.” And simply, “WTF?”
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon tweeted that if President Donald Trump—who has been accused of harassing and assaulting multiple women—and DeVos “actually cared about the well-being of survivors, this is the last thing they would do. We should be empowering survivors to speak up, not stifling them.”
DeVos’ proposal “encourages victim blaming and blatantly ignores the painful stories of #MeToo,” said Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California. “It takes us backward.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s public standing sags after Floyd protests GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police MORE (R-Texas) missed votes this week as he spent time campaigning back in Texas, where he is running in a closer-than-anticipated Senate race.
The Senate cut its work week short, but before they did so the chamber held seven roll call votes to clear nominees for President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE.
But the GOP senator skipped the votes. On Monday night Cruz had campaign stops scheduled into the evening, making him unable to make the Senate’s Monday night bed check votes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cruz also had a string of stops scheduled for Tuesday, missing votes and a closed-door caucus lunch in D.C. A Judiciary subcommittee hearing that was scheduled to take place on Tuesday afternoon and would have been overseen by Cruz was also postponed.
Cruz was also one of 15 senators who missed votes earlier this month, after Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote GOP senator to try to reverse requirement that Pentagon remove Confederate names from bases No, ‘blue states’ do not bail out ‘red states’ MORE (R-Ky.) lectured senators about showing up for the rare August session.
A spokesperson for Cruz didn’t respond to a request for comment on Wednesday about the decision.
Cruz wasn’t the only senator absent for the votes and his decision to stay in Texas to campaign didn’t change the outcome of the votes.
GOP Sen. John CornynJohn CornynSenate headed for late night vote amid standoff over lands bill Koch-backed group launches ad campaign to support four vulnerable GOP senators Tim Scott to introduce GOP police reform bill next week MORE (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, downplayed Cruz’s absence, noting that it hadn’t resulted in any nominations falling short of the support needed.
“We really haven’t had any close votes that have turned on a single senator’s absence or presence. I trust [Cruz] to make decisions in the best interest of his campaign and his service,” Cornyn told Texas reporters.
But the missed votes comes as Cruz’s November fight against Rep. Beto O’RourkeBeto O’RourkeBiden will help close out Texas Democrats’ virtual convention: report O’Rourke on Texas reopening: ‘Dangerous, dumb and weak’ Parties gear up for battle over Texas state House MORE (D-Texas) has remained closer than expected despite Texas’s status as a solidly red state.
The race has gained national attention and donations have poured in from around the country.
O’Rourke is nearly even with Cruz in fundraising. He has raised $23.33 million compared to Cruz’s $23.36 million so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Cruz also led O’Rourke by just 1 point, well within the margin of error, in a recent poll from Emerson College.
Cruz is leading by an average of 5.5 percentage points, according to a Real Clear Politics average.
An adviser to President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE reportedly told GOP donors on Saturday that it was a possibility that Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s public standing sags after Floyd protests GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police MORE (R-Texas) could lose his Senate race to Democratic challenger Rep. Beto O’RourkeBeto O’RourkeBiden will help close out Texas Democrats’ virtual convention: report O’Rourke on Texas reopening: ‘Dangerous, dumb and weak’ Parties gear up for battle over Texas state House MORE (Texas), citing likability.
White House budget chief Mick MulvaneyMick MulvaneyTrump names new acting director of legislative affairs 12 things to know today about coronavirus Mulvaney: ‘We’ve overreacted a little bit’ to coronavirus MORE told Republicans at a closed-door meeting that it was a “possibility” that Cruz could lose his Senate race while Republicans such as Florida Gov. Rick Scott could win, The New York Times reports.
“There’s a very real possibility we will win a race for Senate in Florida and lose a race in Texas for Senate, OK?” Mulvaney said, according to audio obtained by the Times.
“I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s a possibility. How likable is a candidate? That still counts.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Mulvaney reportedly made the comments during an event alongside Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.
However, Mulvaney attempted to assuage fears of widespread Democratic victories in the November midterm elections, insisting that no “blue wave” was coming to elect Democrats to office.
Democrats are hoping for a net gain of at least 23 seats to take back a majority in the House, while Republicans are defending their slim 51-49 seat majority in the Senate.
“They want you to think there’s a blue wave when there’s not,” Mulvaney said Saturday, while acknowledging that House Republicans face a challenging map with a number of GOP-held seats considered toss-ups.
“I don’t know how many seats we’ve got this year, but there’s got to be, how many?” Mulvaney said. “Twenty? Thirty? Forty?”
His remarks are some of the most candid on Cruz’s race from the White House, which threw its support behind Cruz’s reelection bid last month amid polls showing a tightening race.
Cruz, a one-term Republican senator who first took office in 2013, currently leads his opponent by single digits, according to several recent polls.
Spokespeople for Mulvaney and McDaniel did not immediately respond to the Times’s request for comment.
Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith (D) holds a 7-point lead over Republican challenger and state Sen. Karin Housley ahead of November’s midterms, according to a new poll publishing Monday.
The Star Tribune/MPR News Minnesota poll found that Smith, who replaced former Sen. Al FrankenAlan (Al) Stuart FrankenPolitical world mourns loss of comedian Jerry Stiller Maher to Tara Reade on timing of sexual assault allegation: ‘Why wait until Biden is our only hope?’ Democrats begin to confront Biden allegations MORE (D) following his resignation in January, has the support of 44 percent of the likely voters polled. Another 37 percent support Housley, while 15 percent of those surveyed say they remain undecided, according to the poll.
ADVERTISEMENT
Smith, the former Minnesota lieutenant governor, was tapped to replace Franken after he resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct.
Smith now faces Housley in a special election to fill the remainder of Franken’s term, which expires in January 2021. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates Smith’s race as leaning Democrat. FiveThirtyEight gives Smith about a 90 percent chance to keep the seat.
Minnesota Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Democrats demand Republican leaders examine election challenges after Georgia voting chaos Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk MORE (D) is also on the ballot, but she holds a far more significant lead over Republican challenger Jim Newberger, according to the poll. The poll found that 60 percent of likely voters support Klobuchar and 30 percent support Newberger. Cook rates Klobuchar’s seat as “solid” Democrat.
The poll’s results were based on interviews with 800 likely voters in Minnesota conducted from Sept. 10-12. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The British have departed, but their language grows ever more dominant in European Union circles. Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech was an unabashed declaration that English now reigns supreme among the 24 languages of the European Union.
Von der Leyen used three languages in her speech: in order of appearance, French, English and German. So far, so normal: Those three are the traditional internal working languages of the European Commission. Her presidential predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker also used those three languages in his annual State of the European Union speeches. What was striking about the 2020 version was that any pretense of balance between the languages was abandoned.
Measuring von der Leyen’s speech by its wordcount, 81 percent was in English, 12 percent in German and just 7 percent in French.
Put another way: She spoke in French for 80 seconds at the beginning of her speech and for two and a half minutes at the end; she spoke in German for nine and a half minutes in the middle; and she spoke in English for 63 minutes — two chunks of half an hour on either side of the German section. By this measure, taking into account the time lost to applause, English actually took up even more of her speech — approaching 85 percent — because she reads German (her mother tongue) more fluently than English.
What amplified von der Leyen’s slavish attachment to English still further was that the first MEP to respond to her also used English. Manfred Weber spoke first because he is the leader of the biggest contingent of MEPs, the center-right European People’s Party. Weber is from Bavaria’s conservative Christian Social Union and yet he too opted to read stilted English.
To give that some context: There are 96 MEPs from Germany, plus 19 from Austria and one from Belgium’s German-speaking community. My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the number of MEPs whose mother tongue is English is now probably below 20: there are 13 MEPs from Ireland, but for some of them English will be a second language behind Irish; English is widely spoken in Malta and Cyprus, but those countries boast only six MEPs each.
So the triumph of English in the European Parliament is very much what successive French governments have fought against: the triumph of English as a second language, as widely used by the Nordic countries, the Baltic states and the once-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Only in the countries of Latin/Romance languages can French hope to compete with English as a second language.
It took Iratxe García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group, to put a stop to the speeches in English. She was right to do so. In the European Parliament, nobody needs to speak anything other than their mother tongue, since the principle underlying the language regime is that voters need not subject would-be MEPs to a language test before electing them.
So, for plenary sessions, MEPs should have interpretation available into and out of the 24 languages. (One anomaly is that Luxembourg, a founder member of the EU, never opted to make Luxembourgish an official language of the EU. It was content, back in 1957, with the initial choice between German, French, Dutch and Italian. Ireland, which joined the European Economic Community in 1973, was similarly content not to make Irish an EU language, but went back on that decision in 2004.)
What this year’s State of the Union address shows is that the flight to English has been transformed by Brexit into a value-free, pragmatic choice. The likes of Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan are gone. Post-Brexit, speaking English can be excused as expediency.
Or so it might seem. Beneath the surface, however, the retreat from plurilingualism is potentially damaging for the European Parliament, albeit that Weber cannot see the danger. Listening to him speaking English, it is hard not to detect the undertone of thwarted ambition. This is the man who two years ago was campaigning to become the president of the European Commission. He became the EPP’s lead candidate; the EPP became the largest group in the Parliament; yet he was not chosen as Commission president. Instead the European Council opted for a different German Christian Democrat: von der Leyen. If Weber were not attempting to re-visit that contest, he might see that an English-speaking monoculture is not in the best interests of the European Parliament.
The plurality of languages is one of the things that makes the European Parliament distinctively different from the Commission and the Council of the EU — which conduct the bulk of their internal business using a much more restricted palette of languages. The generous language regime is costly, but it is part of the identity of the Parliament.
When the State of the European Union address was introduced in 2010, it was to a large extent an act of aggrandizement by the European Commission and its then-president José Manuel Barroso. But there was also an element of obeisance to the Parliament: in yet another form the Commission president was presenting the work of the Commission to MEPs for approval. The deliberate aping of the American president’s State of the Union address was hubristic, but the event took root in the EU’s annual calendar nonetheless and the Parliament benefited.
Ten years on, however, the Parliament is in danger of being reduced to a theatrical backdrop and MEPs are being cut out of the action. In 2020, the State of the European Union speech is a social media production: The Commission president’s speech is to be parceled up and redistributed digitally in byte-sized portions. The switching between languages that was once a traditional feature of such speeches in the Parliament doesn’t work on social media.
What’s flattering and inclusive in the confines of a parliamentary chamber — where the audience is linguistically diverse but everyone has simultaneous interpretation — is just irritating on Facebook or Twitter. Hence the dominance of English: It’s the language of robots. If MEPs were only alive to the signs, they would kick against the straight-to-YouTube choreography.
And there is another reason why the hegemony of English is to be regretted: Globish isn’t conducive to intellectual rigor. Von der Leyen’s speech came with lots of graphics and film clips, which did their best to distract from the words. But the glossy presentation could not obscure the woolly thinking — the tendency to resort to the passive mood, the reluctance to say who was responsible for action or inaction. “I will ensure that [NextGenerationEU] takes green financing to the next level” and “We flexibilized our European funds and state aid rules” are easy to mock as business-school jargon. But the language of diplomacy has its own empty phrases: “If we are all ready to make compromises — without compromising on our principles — we can find that solution.”
Traditionally, the French language was celebrated as the language of diplomacy and for the first 40 years of the European Union’s existence, French was indeed the dominant language. Diplomats and bureaucrats developed a jargon-filled langue de bois with a distinctly European identity. But the tide turned against French with the 1995 enlargement of the EU and accelerated in 2004.
As the State of the Union debate showed, the victory of the English language over French is almost complete. Jargon’s second victory — over English — is only a matter of time.
As other previously “confidential” documents released this week added to “serious and concerning” evidence that Brett Kavanaugh previously committed perjury during earlier confirmation hearings in his career, new reporting out Friday provides details about the contents of a constituent letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) referred to the FBI about the controversial Supreme Court nominee.
In that letter, according to reporting by investigative journalists Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer at the New Yorker, a woman accuses Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her in the early 1980s when they were both high school students. From the New Yorker:
The New York Times also reported on the letter Friday, citing “three people familiar with [its] contents.”
Kavanaugh, for his part, said in a statement to the New Yorker that he “categorically and unequivocally” denies the allegation.
In response to the new reporting, Shaunna Thomas, executive director and co-founder of women’s group UltraViolet, said Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“The accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious, troubling, and totally disqualifying. He should withdraw his nomination immediately. Violence against women should have no place in our society, and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation,” she said.
Though she refused to disclose what it contained, Feinstein confirmed existence of the letter on Thursday and said in a statement that she had referred the matter to the FBI. Initially the woman brought her concerns to both Feinsten and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif) in July after Kavanaugh’s nomination triggered the painful memory of the event.
Both the New Yorker and The Intercept reported that Feinstein had rebuffed calls for fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to share the letter.
In addition to concerns about possible perjury in his 2006 confirmation hearing for his seat on a federal appeals court, democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have pushed back against Kavanaugh’s nomination given his record of siding with corporate power over public interest and his potential threat to Roe v. Wade.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Kavanaugh has been pushed back to Sept. 20; the full Senate could vote by the end of the month.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sparking immediate outrage among LGBTQ Americans and allies on Sunday, the New York Times reported on a memo revealing that “the Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.”
“This administration is willing to disregard the established medical and legal view of our rights and ourselves to solidify an archaic, dogmatic, and frightening view of the world.” —Mara Keisling, NCTE
In a move that “would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves—surgically or otherwise—as a gender other than the one they were born into,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently considering a legal definition that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with,” according to the Times.
The memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since the spring, claims that “sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” and notes that under the proposed definition, “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
Advocates for LGBTQ rights, while infuriated by the proposal, were quick to point to the administration’s lengthy record of attacks on trans individuals the and ongoing legal battles to challenge such attacks.
“Not only is this insulting, inhumane, and unacceptable, but it also flies in the face of THE LAW,” Lambda Legal, a civil rights group that focuses on the LGBTQ community, responded in a series of tweets. “This decision by HHS to attempt to erase transgender people disregards and flouts the overwhelming case law that protects transgender people under federal law, as well as the vast consensus of medical authority.”
“This is clearly another ideologically-driven attempt by the Trump/Pence administration to marginalize transgender people and force them into the shadows,” the group added. “This will not stand because we will not let it stand.”
“Singling out and stigmatizing your transgender constituents isn’t just the antithesis of constituent service; it’s dangerous and gets us killed.” —Danica Roem, Virginia state delegate
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), also denounced steps by the administration to deny trans Americans full recognition of their identities.
“This proposal is an attempt to put heartless restraints on the lives of two million people, effectively abandoning our right to equal access to healthcare, to housing, to education, or to fair treatment under the law,” she warned. “This administration is willing to disregard the established medical and legal view of our rights and ourselves to solidify an archaic, dogmatic, and frightening view of the world.”
Planned Parenthood Action declared, “These inhumane, cruel, and discriminatory policies are dangerous and do not represent the needs of our diverse communities.”
“The cruelty and bigotry of this administration truly has no limit,” observed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Danica Roem—who, last November, became Virginia’s first openly transgender state House member by defeating the anti-trans Republican incumbent—noted: “Singling out and stigmatizing your transgender constituents isn’t just the antithesis of constituent service; it’s dangerous and gets us killed.”
Since Trump took office, hate-inspired murders of LGBTQ Americans have skyrocketed as his administration has taken steps to strip away their rights—often in the name of defending “religious freedom.” Such steps have included the Education Department’s refusal to protect trans students; the Justice Department’s efforts to enable discrimination; the State Department’s denial of visas to diplomats’ same-sex partners; and Trump’s moves to ban trans individuals from serving in the military and dismiss his entire advisory council for HIV/AIDS.
From hate-fueled murders to the Trump administration’s discriminatory policies, trans Americans often have been specifically targeted. As Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the Times, “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”
While some critics characterized the Times report as “a terrifying wake-up call,” Evan Greer of Fight for the Future said, “Exactly zero trans people are surprised by the Trump administration’s latest attack.”
“No one should have to suffer just to be true to themselves,” Keisling charged Sunday. “And yet transgender people are still often forced from their homes, fired from their jobs, harassed at their schools, and denied the most basic level of dignity by a broken system.”
Addressing the transgender community directly, she said: “I know you are frightened. I know you are horrified to see your existence treated in such an inhumane and flippant manner. What this administration is trying to do is an abomination, a reckless attack on your life and mine.”
“Remember that there is an entire human rights community that not only stands with us but will always fight back—and fight hard,” she concluded. “Thousands of us have devoted our lives to protecting you and your families, and our ability to do so is nothing short of a privilege. And we will not lay down now.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Surging towards it goal of 200,000 signatures since it was launched over the weekend, a petition calling for the impeachment of newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh —just one among others circulating—has already garnered nearly 80 percent of its goal in just over two days.
“No one is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Justice.” —John Bonifaz, Free Speech for People”Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault and lying under oath in 2004, 2006 and at least 30 times during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings,” reads the CREDO Action petition. “Perjury is an impeachable offense. The House Judiciary Committee should immediately investigate these accusations and work to remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.”
As of this writing, the CREDO petition had gathered 158,887 signatures, but that number was quickly climbing.
“A majority of Americans opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and we believe a majority will ultimately support his impeachment as well,” Heidi Hess, the group’s co-director told NBC News in an interview.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
And CREDO isn’t alone. Another citizen action group, Free Speech for People, is also pushing a petition—part of its ImpeachBrett.org campaign—in the wake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Saturday and calling on the House of Representatives to immediately begin hearings to further explore the allegations of sexual assault, perjury, and Kavanaugh’s bringing of “disrepute” onto the judiciary.
“This shouldn’t be controversial, but U.S. Supreme Court justices should not be sexual assailants or perjurers,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People, in a statement on Monday. “The evidence suggests that Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault in his youth, and continues to lie about it today—just as the White House emails reveal that he lied in his first confirmation process about receiving stolen documents. The Senate rushed through this process without taking the opportunity to conduct a real investigation of the serious charges against Kavanaugh. It’s not too late for the House of Representatives to demand answers, and if warranted after a full investigation, to impeach Kavanaugh.”
John Bonifaz, FSFP’s co-founder and president, added, “No one is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Justice.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The nation’s top court on Friday turned down the Trump administration’s latest attempt to put the brakes on a landmark lawsuit brought by a group of young people who charge that the federal government has violated their constitutional rights by actively causing climate instability.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision,” said Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs. She said the finding by the U.S. Supreme Court “shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy.”
The plaintiffs, aged 11-22, assert (pdf) that the government “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” despite knowing, for 50 years, that doing so “would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their well-being and survival.”
The trial did not begin on October 29 at the United States District Court in Oregon as they’d hoped because the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay while it weighed the federal government’s request for dismissal. In denying an extension of the temporary stay, the new order says the “government’s petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a ‘fair prospect’ of success in this Court because adequate relief may be available in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” The three-page order also states that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have extended the stay.
While that appeals court previously rejected the government’s requests for a stay, its basis for doing so rested “in large part, on the early stage of the litigation, the likelihood that plaintiffs’ claims would narrow as the case progressed, and the possibility of attaining relief through ordinary dispositive motions. Those reasons are, to a large extent, no longer pertinent,” the order adds.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Still, for the plaintiffs, Friday marked “an important date,” said Philip Gregory, co-counsel for the youth in Juliana v. United States, which first starting winding its way through the courts three years ago. “We just filed a request with [U.S. District Court ] Judge Aiken, hoping the Court sets an immediate pre-trial conference and a prompt trial date. We are extremely pleased that the courthouse doors are re-opened. Plaintiffs are ready to start trial right away.”
Twenty-two-year-old plaintiff Kelsey Juliana says she wants “to trust that we are truly on track for trial without having further delays, but these defendants are treating this case, our democracy, and the security of mine and future generations like it’s a game. I’m tired of playing this game. These petitions for stay and dismissal are exhausting.”
“To everyone who has invested in this case, to those who’ve followed along our journey for the past three years and counting,” she added, “stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice.”
According to Thanu Yakupitiyage, communications manager for climate group 350.org, “All of us have a responsibility to double down in supporting the young people holding the U.S. government responsible for perpetuating climate change and threatening our collective future.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.