13 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

1. Elizabeth Warren debuts ambitious plan to tackle environmental racism

   Democratic presidential frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has unveiled an ambitious climate and environmental justice plan that places poor communities of color at the centre of a sweeping reform package aimed at bolstering environmental protection, curbing pollution and preserving clean water and air.

   Warren’s plan states: “We didn’t get here by accident. Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long. It is the result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.”

   Log in to Reply

   1. Does she have a plan for how to get 60 votes for it in the Senate?

      Log in to Reply

      1. Executive Order
         or
         she could change parties- apparently the Senate will roll over on anything as long as there is an R

         Log in to Reply

      2. Elizabeth Warren is right: Abolish the filibuster

         Log in to Reply

2. Well, great and unmatched wisdom is getting it’s workout this morning . . .

   Log in to Reply

3. This . . . 

   What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem

   (We need a Washington Corrupt Practices Act to stop political families from self-dealing.)

   In 2016, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay$264 million as part of a settlement with the federal government. The reason? An Asian subsidiary of the company had hired the children of Chinese government officials in the hopes of currying favor with their powerful parents — a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

   Had the same thing happened with a foreign company and an American politician’s family, however, no violation would have occurred — because no equivalent American law prevents a foreign company or government from hiring the family members of American politicians.

   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html

   . . . and real campaign finance reform!

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. Joe Biden’s Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to Acknowledge That.

      Investigative reporters and GOP operatives have dived deep into the question of whether Joe Biden ever used his official power to do favors for special interests shoveling money to his family and found no proof of this. In the case of Ukraine, it’s likely that Biden’s actions as vice president, in demanding the firing of the country’s top prosecutor, did more to hurt his son’s company than anything else. As far as the impeachment inquiry is concerned, that’s an important point: There was no illegal behavior for Trump to hang his desired corruption investigation into Joe Biden on. His entire goal was to use the power of the American empire to pressure a client state into ginning up bad press for his Democratic rival. Nobody seriously believes that Trump has any serious commitment to eradicating corruption in Ukraine, or any genuine opposition to nepotism. A member of his own family has used the power of the White House to shake down Gulf autocrats for a real-estate bailout, after all.

      But that doesn’t mean the Bidens’ behavior isn’t a legitimate problem for Democrats. Indeed, Biden has been taking political hits over of the intersection of his family’s financial dealings and his own political career for some four decades. Yet he has done nothing publicly to inoculate himself from the charge that his career is corruptly enriching his family, and now that is a serious liability.

      Log in to Reply

4. With apologies to Honest Abe, Trump and his lawyers have decided that it's better to stonewall and be thought a crook, than to cooperate with the House and remove all doubt.

   Log in to Reply

   1. “Our long, national nightmare is . . .

      

      . . . over only just begun.”

      Log in to Reply

5. Yet another week of cognitive dissonance in our local paper.  The guest editorial is calling for citizens to take back our country (thems code words out here) and learn how to compromise.  In the column right next to it is a guest editorial by Sonnenberg yapping about liburals and spending, yada, yada and how proud he was to oppose CC in the legislature and calling for all SD-1 patriots to do the same at the ballot box.  All this with the most recent round of Electoral College hostage payments safely in the accounts at our local bank and pictures of the ground breaking activities for the $34 million renovation of our K-12 school, thanks to BEST (thank you Andrew Romanoff). 

   On the plus side at least we didn’t have to suffer through another effing reprint of a CoSprings Gazette editorial in this edition.

   Seriously.  You couldn't make this stuff up. 

   

    

   Log in to Reply

6. I think the Dems should hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote next week.  Not to expect Trump to comply with subpoenas, but to increase public support for an impeachment inquiry.  Increased public support for an impeachment inquiry, now already over 50%, will put more pressure on Repug politicians to accede to the investigation.

   Log in to Reply

7. 🚨 NEW Fox News Poll shows a new high of 51% want Trump impeached & removed from office, another 4% want him impeached but not removed, & 40% oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42% favored impeachment removal, 5% said impeach but don’t remove him, & 45% opposed impeachment. pic.twitter.com/Atv2aVbfjw

   — Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) October 9, 2019

   Log in to Reply

8. This legal analysis essentially concludes that Trump is an existential threat to our republic

   The term “constitutional crisis” has been thrown around often during the Trump presidency, usually in relation to problematic actions by Trump that don’t quite fit the definition of that term. But we have reached a constitutional crisis when the president of the United States does not recognize the House’s authority to exercise the “sole Power of Impeachment” granted to it by the Constitution, ignoring its subpoenas because he knows he won’t face any consequence for doing so. That precedent is dangerous. One can easily imagine a situation in which a future president’s refusal to provide evidence to Congress prevents a legitimate impeachment inquiry from proceeding. What would have happened if Trump had stonewalled from the beginning and didn’t release the summary of the phone call or whistleblower complaint?

   If Trump evades removal from office and convinces Republicans that he can ignore impeachment by delegitimizing the process, one wonders what other constitutional provisions he will decide to ignore next. A Trump second term, unconstrained by congressional appropriations or oversight, could alter the scope of presidential power forever.

   Log in to Reply