That candidate with the mo$t $$$ and the greatest influence will always drive the direction and who that party anoints…

…That candidate with the mo$t $$$ and the greatest influence will always drive the direction and who that party anoints…

DNC tells court: Who says life is fair?….

 

POSTED AT 8:41 AM ON MAY 2, 2017 BY ED MORRISSEY …..Give the DNC full marks for honesty about their dishonesty. In response to a lawsuit brought by supporters of Bernie Sanders, the DNC argued in court last week that they have no responsibility to remain neutral in primaries. In fact, the Democratic Party’s attorneys said, they’d be well within their rights to return to the proverbial smoke-filled back rooms to choose their nominee — even though their own rules state that the DNC chair and staff have to remain neutral in primaries:

Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.

The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: “The Court would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.”

In other words, it’s not a fraud if no one acted differently than they otherwise would have. That’s a dangerous argument, however; there may well be thousands of people who wouldn’t have bothered contributing at all if they knew the DNC had its thumbs on the scale for Hillary Clinton. Those supporters might have pushed Sanders to abandon the Democratic primary and shift over to the Green Party had voters known of the efforts at the DNC to crown Hillary over Bernie.

On the other hand, wasn’t the DNC’s tilt to Hillary rather obvious all along? Then-chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz did everything she could to limit viewership of the Democratic debates short of having them shown exclusively on Public Access Channel D at midnight on a North Dakota cable system. The superdelegates almost immediately lined up behind Hillary, all but guaranteeing Sanders of a defeat. Anyone under the impression that the DNC had set up a fair and impartial primary system simply wasn’t paying attention. And that might be the DNC’s best defense: they made their corruption too obvious to ignore in their obsession with Hillary’s coronation, despite all the evidence possible that she was a terrible candidate. The later exposures of internal DNC e-mails only confirmed the undeniable.

As David Freddoso notes, the DNC’s legal team didn’t put it as baldly as that, but it’s not too far off:

[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I’m gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that’s different. But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.

Freddoso also points out that the DNC will likely win this one anyway:

This lawsuit’s merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.

It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders’ supporters arguments that the party has a “fiduciary duty” to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we’re going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.

There’s also the question of accessibility. Did the DNC have a duty to provide completely impartial access to a primary candidate who did not identify as a member of the party until after he jumped into the race, and who abandoned the party after he lost? The Democratic Party is in the business of promoting Democrats, not independents, and not (necessarily) self-professed Socialists. Shouldn’t non-Democrats vying for a Democratic nomination while criticizing the leadership of the Democratic Party expect a little pushback from the party establishment? If independents and Socialists don’t like that, they can find their own way to the general-election ballot, along with their own cash and organization. The DNC and RNC are not public utilities — they are private associations, and can certainly focus their resources on their own people if they so choose.

Sanders’ contributors should have understood all of this before backing his play in the Democratic primaries. In this case, caveat emptor applies.

Expecting to receive more than easily digestible pabulum from any of the major

…Expecting to receive more than easily digestible pabulum from any of the major corporate news media is foolish as they report the good stuff … our drones bombing of innocent citizens … police beating protesting citizens … our politicians playing golf on our nickel … politicians making sweet-heart- deals for private stadiums fiancé on our nickel … full disclosure and transparency we just ain’t going to get…

There Are 3 Major Famines on Our Planet Right Now—Can You Even Name Them? The Media Is Virtually Blacking Out Human Tragedy

 

By Jack Healey / Huffington Post …..To be an American in the world today is to be a citizen of a country rapidly losing its place as a global leader in foreign aid, foreign assistance and even what we once might have considered the moral high ground. There are crises, it seems, in every corner of the globe, including refugee camps in the center of Paris and immigrant detention centers on our own borders. Our leaders are telling us these crises are impossible to solve diplomatically, complex in nature and beyond the scope of what we can or should handle.

is Trump not accountable for what he says…???

clip_image001…Inasmuch as it is almost impossible to accurately determine what is “real” news opposed to Trump sanctioned “alternative news” providing there is substantively independent verification then it appears to me that Mr. Trump lied to the American people when he placed his hand and the bible and swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States … Or is Trump not accountable for what he says…???

Donald Trump Admits He Has No Use for the Constitution     President calls the country’s founding document "archaic" and "bad for the American people."

 

By Matthew Rozsa / Salon  President Donald Trump has already made it clear that he’s upset about how the job of being president isn’t as easy as he thought it would be. Now the president and his chief of staff are outright blaming the Constitution on their remarkably unproductive first 100 days — and if President Barack Obama had behaved in a similar fashion, it’s easy to imagine them pitching a fit over it.

During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”

“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told ABC on Sunday that the president is thinking about amending or even abolishing the First Amendment to stifle what they consider to be unfair media criticism. When asked by Jonathan Karl whether they had considered a constitutional amendment so that the president can sue his critics, Priebus responded: “I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.”

When pressed for details, Priebus merely reiterated, “I said this is something that is being looked at. But it’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.”

The recent remarks by Trump and Priebus call to mind an observation made by Obama before the 2016 presidential election, one that was widely ridiculed by the conservative press at the time:

“If you disrespect the Constitution by threatening to shut down the press when it doesn’t say things you like or threaten to throw your opponent in jail or discriminate against people of different faiths. If you do that before you are elected, then what are you gonna do when you have actual power to do those things?”

Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and his work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

Prove to me that Senator Warren is wrong and that nearly every politician in DC serves lure of the lure of the “dark$$$ and Wall $treet…???

…Prove to me that Senator Warren is wrong and that nearly every politician in DC serves lure of the lure of the “dark$$$ and Wall $treet…???

…Elizabeth Warren Rips Obama and the Democrats for Selling Out to Wealthy Elites

…The Massachusetts senator believes her party has lost its way on the economy….

 

By David Smith / The Guardian ….Elizabeth Warren, one of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate, has broken ranks to criticize Barack Obama for misreading the economy and a swath of Democrats for selling out to wealthy elites.

 

In an interview with the Guardian, the Massachusetts senator, tipped as potential presidential candidate in 2020, also spoke of her optimism about grassroots resistance to Donald Trump and how it has changed American democracy.

Obama left office in January, touting an economy 11.5% bigger than at its peak before the 2007-08 financial crisis that preceded the start of his time in the White House. The figures said that economy generated almost 15 million new jobs over 75 consecutive months, the longest streak on record, with the national unemployment rate falling to 4.7%. It is a record that seems at odds with the frustration of voters who chose Trump.

Nonetheless, Warren has become the most senior Democrat to challenge the former president’s halo.

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

The senator went on take a swipe at members of her own party while describing the collapse of old distinctions between left and right. “I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States,” she said. “The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats.”

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, sat on the fence during last year’s grueling Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, an old friend. Once she took up the cudgels for Clinton, she gave fiery speeches in which she memorably embraced the term “nasty women” and warned Trump: “We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever.”

It did not turn out that way but now Warren has been heartened by the anti-Trump movement dubbed “the resistance”. She said: “I think that when the history of this time period is written it will be about Donald Trump’s election, no doubt, but it will be about the women’s march the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. Democracy changed in America on that day.

“We are no longer a country that believes we can do politics only once every four years, or even once every two years, no longer a country that says the democracy is only about elections and that it will tend to itself in the time periods between elections.”

Warren has never met Trump but she has clashed with him on social media. She has called him a loser, an authoritarian, a liar, a racist, a sexist and a thin-skinned bully. He has called her “goofy” and “Pocahontas” – a reference to her claim to Native American ancestry, based on what she has been told by her family. He revived the racially charged insult in a speech to the National Rifle Association on Friday.

Promoting a new book, This Fight is Our Fight, which charts the rise and fall of the American middle class, Warren brushed off questions over whether she would have won if she ran in 2016 – and whether she intends to run in 2020.

 

But in critiquing the new president after his first 100 days, she called for an independent special prosecutor to investigate his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia – advocating a “nonpartisan … full, transparent get-to-the-bottom-of-it investigation” – and seemed to be spoiling for a fight.

“I think what Donald Trump did was he said, ‘The system is rigged and I will be out there for working people every single day; that is my first priority,’” she said. “He got elected and did a 180-degree turn, headed in the exactly the opposite direction.

“He put millionaires and billionaires in charge of his government; he has signed off on one law after another to make it easier for government contractors to steal people’s wages, to make it easier for corporations to hide it when they kill or maim their employees, to make it easier for investment advisers to cheat retirees.”

The prime example, she said, was Trump’s attempt to repeal and replace Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

“It was like in a microcosm,” she said. “If you want one emblematic what does he really stand for, who does he really work for? It was take away healthcare coverage for 24m people, raise costs for a lot of working families. Why? So that he could produce tax cuts for a handful of millionaires and billionaires.”

David Smith is the Guardian’s Washington correspondent.

stupid to count your chicken before they hatch

…It is stupid to count your chicken before they hatch …And ignorance is bliss…

The party is exploiting Republican divisions to take control of the budget process.

By Kelsey Snell and John Wagner  •  PowerPost  •  Read more »

Remind you of anything or anyone…???

…Another “older” politician touching into and resonating with millennials not all whom are angry … but sincerely disenchanted with our current political process…   Remind you of anything or anyone…???

‘Auntie Maxine’ and the quest for impeachment

By Vanessa Williams May 1 at 2:38 PM  …The overflow crowd at Busboys and Poets was black and white and shades in between, yuppies in chinos and activists in message T-shirts, bubbling with excitement to hear from the special guest at the restaurant’s open mic night.

 

Instead of a poet or a musician, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) stepped onto the stage, showered with applause and cheers. Not many members of Congress could draw this kind of crowd — diverse and yet united behind a single goal. After taking a moment to thank the crowd for its greeting, Waters got right to the point.

 

“Donald Trump is someone that found his way to the presidency of the United States of America — I still don’t know how,” she said, drawing boos at the mention of the president’s name. “But he’s someone that I’m committed to getting impeached!”