“You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Those words are likely to outlive him. Classy and to the point.
“You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Those words are likely to outlive him. Classy and to the point.
We have a system that essentially requires those running for office to “beg for money.” Anyone can opt out of receiving them by replying “STOP” to the text. But this time, I believe I’ll send a few bucks as a token of my gratitude for Schiff’s integrity and service. He warned us all about the dangers of the cult of Trump.
I wish we could make “campaigning” illegal. No 💵💵 spent to get elected. Rather, a resume distributed and interviews and debates. Same as for any other job. No dark money, no lies, no glitzy ritzy coded language to brainwash the masses. Just a simple, this is what I’ve done, this is what I would do “for the people” and how I would do it. Stop spoon feeding people garbage.
Schiff? Integrity? I've never heard those words in the same sentence?
Schiff pedaled the Steele Dossier as proof of Russian collusion when he knew it was untrue. He accused the President of being a Russian agent and claimed he had proof, which he never produced.
I scroll on by and if by chance, he answers a post of mine and then it appears in my email, it goes directly to trash where it can find company with other dreck.
Thanks, Jennifer. No, he did not read the conclusion Durham stated at the hearing in regards to his own investigation and report, namely, "Nothing came of it." James A is clearly a "selective reader," at best. Talk about integrity, jeezh!
3) Christopher Steele was a offered a 1MM by the FBI to verify anything in the dossier and couldn't
4) Danchenko was Steele's source for the dossier was paid $300K by the FBI yet couldn't
confirm anything in the dossier
5) The FBI used a unverified dossier as the basis to get A FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump campaign).
6) Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application,
7) Michael Sussman, A DNC lawyer claims alleges that the Trump campaign is colluding
with the Russians through a secret communications with Alpha Bank.
8) FBI Analyst Hellman testified said the allegations claimed there was a “secret communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank, were rejected within a day.
James I’m not going to ridicule you but I find pragmatism and intellectualism sometimes at odds with each other. Perhaps you might research an awareness of the dark side of pragmatism and find a reconciliation with intellectual argument. You might become less belligerent and more persuasive hence buy more traction.
I can’t teach you this. You actually have to learn it. I simply provided a key going forward. An example would be that any one learning to walk must take their own steps. I hope that helps.
Adam Schiff is a man of such high integrity that he can claimed being censured by the craven wing of the Republican Party is actually a badge of honor. There, now you have seen these words together in a sentence. Hope it helps. Re-reading Schiff’s work on the extent of corruption the Republicans in Congress participate in, might also help you understand it.
He lied about Russian collusion. He Repeatedly received 4 Pinocchio's from the Washington Post for lying about Russia-gate. He lied about having evidence regarding Russian collusion, he lied about speaking to witnesses in advance, and he lied about Trump's role in Russian collusion.
He is a political HACK. He would say anything to advance his politics. Its disgraceful and embarrassing.
As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took $1 million from a left-wing group. It's important to critically evaluate the sources and information you come across, especially when it comes to controversial or potentially false claims. Without verifiable evidence, it is advisable to approach such assertions with skepticism. If any new information has emerged since September 2021, I may not be aware of it.
I'm starting to think so. It appears that everything posted by this account is vacuous anti-intellectual content that could easily be coming from a rudimentary generative AI trained on talking points from Gateway Pundit
he deserves our support and the money for being brave and doing his job...how would you like to have to be re-elected every 2 years to do your job ? Calling it "begging" just demeans what he has done. It sounds like he's on a corner with a cardboard sign.
I do not disapprove of Adam Schiff, I admire him and have since he was leading the impeachment trial of Trump. I disapprove of the amount of money given to Corporate Media for campaigns. I object to 24/7/365 days of "begging" for money. Politicians have accepted donations since day 1, That is expected. But I do not believe we need the ceaseless campaigning we have seen in the 21st Century. Part of this is probably my age (90). When I was actively working on campaign in my 20's through my 60's campaigns didn't start the day after election day and never end. Politicians did not run for office in order to increase their wealth, they ran because it was their civic duty.
Times have changed, and strategies along with it. Schiff's fundraising may seem in poor taste, but it is no different from anything that all the others must do to simply stay in office. If Schiff doesn't use every possible opportunity for fundraising, his political career will die. This is especially true of those who scrutinize the sources of campaign donations.
Let's advocate for laws that change this broken system rather than attacking one of the good guys trying to operate effectively within that system.
I don't see any legislation coming up to combat Citizens United. Even if Corporations equal a person (with which logic would disagree) there was a law limiting the amount of the donation to $2500 per year per person. Greed is what changed it to "sky's the limit"
I agree times have changed - but not for the better. I should not have been picking on Adam Schiff, whom I actually like. I'm just fed up with this system. No they don't have to beg for money nationwide. No they don't have to pour billions into Corporate media. They can spend that time and energy meeting with their own constituents like they used to. They can have phone banks 6 weeks prior to the election. They can have scores of volunteers knocking on doors. All the politicians coast to coast have fallen into line, foisted on them by their National Campaign Committees. We keep urging voters to think for themselves, to critically analyze positions, platforms, and make decisions based on that. Well, the same thing applies to candidates. Instead of angering their constituents with 24/7 emails and texts, try talking to those in your own State, in your own district, most of us are willing to listen.
The times they are a changing- always, every day. One constant is that Fay Reid is on top of it. Still. Always. I am a tough unabashed old codger but I am comforted somehow by knowing she is here. Her voice and others today quiet a tension I didn’t even know was there. I am awash somewhat in admiration that came on unexpectedly. I’m gonna quit with awed.
Bless you Fay. I agree with your point of view. I'm 70 and I walked away from active involvement in political campaigns 20 years ago. Things have changed and first TV and now social media is to blame for the change. I produce TV and now social media content. I don't support either party with my $$. I do support candidates and causes. Adam & Raskin need our support. They are are the tip of the spear fighting against big, dark money...that just never rests. I really dislike what this has become...but it's here. I just don't want to see Adam characterized as a "begger". He's just doing what he has to do...for our survival...not his.
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I honestly don't know how he survives there and certainly will support him with a donation (not a loan).
I am only 83 (or will be within a month), but I can still remember from my student days the complaints of members of Congress about the amount of time they had to devote to the raising of funds for re-election. That is why there has been talk about pub public funding of campaigns, There are rules against use of campaign donations for non election purposes -- rules that the unethical violate. A problem is the development of the internet which allows those appeals to have become so intrusive. I spend an awful lot of time hitting the delete button. My biggest gripe is those "surveys" which are appeals in disguise!
Dave, you provided my first smile of the day with your opening statement that you are "only" 83. Long may you live with energy and enthusiasm and this perspective of not being old.
Those surveys are also often a way to sow disinformation. I received one the other day from extreme-rightwing Hillsdale College, which I decided to answer in order to see what they were peddling, but I had to stop halfway through because the questions were presented in such a way that every answer would damn progressive issues. There was no option for a different point of view.
They finally stopped sending their surverys to me but it took awhile. I actually sent one back with all of their questions revised to eliminate the bias; perhaps that's what did it. I'm sure they tout their survey results as if the heavily skewed data is relevant.
No, Fay, you are quite correct, the 24/7/365 began with Citizens United decision wherein SCOTUS considered corporations and PACS to be citizens and money a form of free speech.
Fay Reid. I'm a year and a half away from 90. I'm an American citizen (actually, dual) living in Canada, voting for the last 36 years through Colorado (my last US residence). I never gave to a political candidate until Donald Trump entered the scene via that elevator. Now I do, to whomever needs it the most. Notably, Senators Warnock and Ossoff, and various Democratic Representatives wherever they're from. I've been a huge fan of Adam Schiff for many years, so he will get some donations from me. I don't need reminders from his campaign to to this, so will "unsubscribe" from everything as it hits my email In Box! Good luck to all of us!
Fay, please keep in mind that Citizens United changed the entire landscape, sponsored by the right wing, and pushed through by Republicans. It is now a sad reality, and galling as it is, we now have Koch, Walton, and a plethora of oligarchs, most of whom head huge industries and possess unlimited resources. Look at the havoc that news outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and others have unleashed to assist the oligarchs.
I didn't really understand politics until last year. The current owner of the local radio station told me the story about his run for the US House of Representives. He was excited about being on the various committees. He was informed that his staff would do the work while he would be out campaigning for the next election. He was not elected which was our loss.
Mike, what adds insult to injury is that dollars donated simply go right back into sending ever more requests for money. To respond with money seems to guarantee that one will be targeted by all who "need" more money; all of them.
Surely, this can't be what our founding fathers intended.
I learned that awhile back. Once you send $2 to Move on, or the Dem party or anything, you are on the list forever. I've limited my $ contributions to a very few candidates who I feel make a real difference, or causes that really need it in the moment. I'm more prone to do some video work for something I believe in and post it around, so that folks can share it.
I think the two-year term for House members is a, maybe the, major factor in this need to be constantly asking for money. I would like to see representatives’ terms expanded to four years but with term limits, perhaps three or four maximum. As for senators, keep the six-year terms but limit them to perhaps three terms. I believe many polls show the population wants term limits, too bad none of our representatives, left or right, will bring a bill forward to consider them.
Agreed, Mary. 4 year House terms, and 24 years of service (this would be either four six year terms, or six four year terms.) If they've completed 3 terms and switch chambers they'd qualify for a second "new chamber" term.
I don't, yet. Substack started it for me to entice me to their platform. I had been thinking about starting one, but I really don't have the time to prepare decent essays these days. I hope to write about some of the law enforcement issues as they come up, or impacts of legislation on the LGBTQ+ community--stuff I know about.
Substack told me I wrote "Ally's Substack". I change the name to "Views From the Back Row" for a couple reasons. One, that is where the tubas sit, and another is that is where the cops sit (any training class, the back of the room fills up first. EVERY TIME).
Gee, I'm hoping to keep representative's to two and term limits for both rep's and Senators to two. They treat this like it's a job. It isn't. It's civic duty. Maybe then we could get people that really look out for our interests instead of lining their pockets.
Good lord, Mary, think of MTG, Lauren Boebert, Paul "bullseye on AOC" Gosar, Andrew "normal tourist visit" Clyde, Matt "let them entertain me" Gaetz, Anna "Give us MORE, Kevin" Luna, Mary "Hitler was right about the youth" Miller and no doubt, the pack grows. I shudder to think of them settling in with a longer tenure and the damage they could do if they weren't peddling constantly.
Fair point, but there also are many representatives who are reasonable people (and I’ll include some of those on the right in that characterization) trying to do a complex job. I don’t think two years, with at least a third of it dedicated to fund raising, is enough time to learn the in and outs of it.
Yes from me too. But this bit of using censure to ask for more reeks of Trump. Right now I'm supporting Katie Porter, but Adam will be my second choice.
THAT choice between two bastions of integrity and clear speaking for the same seat since redistricting seems one of the toughest choices voters face this next cycle!
Congresswoman Barbara Lee is also running for Feinstein's seat. She's also a smart, honest person. I still will continue to support Adam Schiff for his brave patriotism and hope that Katie Porter and Barbara Lee get into the Senate in the future.
Fay, the number of solicitations I receive each day - from politicians I admire - provides me with a part time job. Delete, delete, delete. Have a slug of coffee, then delete, delete...
I think it is worth considering that all these emails are sent to lowly citizens like us who have supported someone or some party in the past. Small donations should be the only donations, IMO. But I also find it really intrusive and irritating. My other part time job is to "unsubscribe".
Consider the amount of dark money that is fueling the lies from Oligarchs like Koch, Mercer, Leo, Crow and Singer, etc. Maybe in our small way we can try to counter balance that evil, selfish, autocratic influence.
But I share your irritation. I feel the same way when I open our mailbox. Every day I throw out envelopes w/o opening them - from organizations I love and support. I donate to them every November. And the irony of non-profits cutting down trees to send endless streams requests for more money shouldn't be lost on us. I wish they had been emails. Save a tree.
It is a torturous process. We at at an income level that requires vigorous stewardship of expenses and controlled purchasing. By writing to various public entities and causes I support, the recycled mail w/o opening is incredible but realistic. I don’t even glance at the daily AARP Insurance envelopes.
But I see no way out of it as long as the Evil Empire of wealth insists on making money the basis of controlling their agendas.
But to me our most spectacular failure we demonstrate is the billionaires of the fossil fuel industries who pour money into products that guarantee our developing human self destruction.
As I mentioned before, with texts, you can reply "STOP" one time to end the solicitations from that candidate. With emails, scroll down to the very bottom to find "unsubscribe." There is no need to take on this particular part time job ; - )
Quite true. And that is part of the project. But here's the thing. Once you donate via "Act Blue", for instance, it generates a sharing of email addresses.
For instance, I have unsubscribed to Sherrod Brown, Gavin Newsom and and Tammy Duckworth. Then after awhile they reappear. The sharing of donor lists and potential donors is just life in the good old US of A.
Don't get me wrong. I love what these three stand for. I admire them.
But we should have more to say about how our email addresses are shared.
I go through the same process of frustration but I think we are bound by a common interest with those we support to use their recommended fund sources.
I can’t imagine anyone managing millions of separate individual donations. Any system is better.
What bothers me is we the people with incomes less than $250k compete with the money of the billionaire set especially the super profitable fossil fuel industries when our focus is human good and their’s is profit at any cost to humanity.
Here’s a fundraising gambit (from politicians and good nonprofits) that always frosts me. I struggle a bit to send $100 (or occasional even more) to a cause. I quickly receive mail asking for more donations and the lowest “suggested donation” is more than I just gave. This happens far to often; it’s not an accident. And I find it demeaning and ungrateful. (We all have our triggers.) oh, and if the envelope says “please send your donation by (date)” or “deadline date” that envelope goes into the trash.
We ignore pleas and support those candidates we like and organizations we feel we want to help. I confess that a big part of our donations go to All Classical, the wonderful radio station in Portland, Oregon, who have made it part of their goals to be inclusive and they celebrate all the special months and days. The range of music is way beyond Bach, Mozart, etc. Even their fund raising times are fun. They can be accessed on line and I encourage people to listen.
Fay, well, as little citizens, we cannot write the huge dark money checks our representatives need to stay elected in the face of JD Vance type support. We need Schiff, he needs us. Money is an equalizer
I know money is the equalizer, but it doesn't have to be. We don't need 20 lobbyists, for every legislator. And we can go back to maximum donations of $2500 per donor per year. The billions spent on campaigns now goes into the greedy maws of Corporate Media. That is not ok with me.
Dave I respectfully disagree. Should it not be votes rather than money which decides our elections. It would appear that having more money than the other guy allows one to peddle what are essentially lies, distortions and half-truths into votes. That seems a great problem in our democracy.
when is he up for reelection? How is the case the young plaintiffs are in, suing state of Montana for climate related damages, going? Not much about it in national news.
Currently, pragmatic acknowledgement of our current election system is required to elect the people we believe can fulfill your more idealized worldview imo
Fay, this money-begging represents THE main crack in the checks and balances of our democracy ever since the Citizens United decision by our newly activated SCOTUS. This decision, especially when accompanied by the system of anonymous donation has turned bribery into an essential ingredient in current politics, bribery now endemic in all 3 branches of our government.
He had been asking for money even before the vote was taken. Actually he started asking for money when it became evident that the GQP was going to go ahead with the censure vote.
Not Schiff himself but his campaign. I never respond to those emails, but this time I donated. And will again. In this political world in which we find ourselves, that is how our voices are heard.
Problem is, Rick, that was the way we used to be heard. Before this endless need to collect money, when I emailed by Congressman or Senators, I received a personal answer to my question. Now I receive a standard form letter that addresses nothing close to what I asked or commented. So although I continue to support my own Congressman and Senator I don't feel I'm being represented. They, and their assistants, are far more interested in collecting money than in serving their constituency.
Adam Schiff hasn't left Congress. Are you thinking of Adam Kinzinger? Adam Schiff is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. senator from California. As others have noted, running for office, especially statewide office in a state the size of California, costs money. A lot of money.
The request for money I got from Adam Schiff was that he was being threatened by a $16 million dollar fine. No one thinks Adam Schiff is taking money under the table from anyone, which is why he is hated by the shifty grifters. You are working awfully hard to find something to criticize him for. He is not independently wealthy, is he? What would you do in these circumstances, Fay? This is a rare time where I don’t agree with you. A request for help with a groundless waste of time and money attack was very reasonable, from my point of view.
The first text I received was the only one I read and it didn't mention a 16 million dollar fine. I admit I was angry and just deleted the next 3 texts unread. If Adam Schiff is fined any amount one of the Democratic Committees should defend him and pay the fine if he loses the suit. Frankly I have never heard of one political party successfully suing the other parties elected members. The Congress itself can only get money back from Legislators if they have been convicted of theft of Congressional funds or fraud. I would think George Santos would be more in danger of that than Adam Schiff, who is clean as a whistle. The attack on him by whatever her name, was groundless, vindictive, and only passed because the MAGA dumdums control the house by 7 or 8 votes. I am not criticizing Adam Schiff. (I admit it appeared that way) I am criticizing the whole damn Congress, both houses. While people like Adam do accomplish much, most of them are so busy begging for money (and many of them, are feeding from the same trough as the Republicans - namely Wall Street, Corporate American and persons of obscene wealth. If they are not begging for themselves they are begging for the DCCC, DNC, and DSCC. Those untrustworthy committees have been conning or forcing the Members of the Senate and House to collect large sums for them, since a lot of us former card carrying members were so disgusted by them supporting Trump MAGA candidates that we will no longer give them a dime.
He needs the bucks. He has formidable challengers in the primary for Feinstein’s Senate seat, and both are unwilling to step aside.the primary will be very costly, in a high campaign cost state.
Interesting. I never saw 'I'm begging you' for funds.. Listing of his projects, ie. law enforcement, senior housing, homeless youth, etc can be found here...
Yesterday was a very sad day for the Congress of the United States. The Republicans demonstrated that even though many people who have worked directly with Trump, and many who had been in elected office but have left, have come out and have clearly stated that Trump is a threat to national security and a threat to the world. However, none of the elected Republicans in the House of Representatives had the nerve or integrity to stand up for the truth.
Some of the crazies, such as Matt Gaetz, attacked John Durham for not using his office to do a hit job when he had the chance but not proof. But then they went on to site his report as evidence that Adam Schiff lied and misled the American public. They attacked Schiff for the second time because Donald Trump ordered it. It has become clear that the Republicans in the House have been trained to act like the Supreme Soviet. They will rubber stamp anything Trump proposes. The work that Kevin McCarthy attempted to show them how to legislate has all been washed away. They are all in for lies and vengeance. This is very frightening and it shows how much control Trump still has over the Republican Party, despite all of his lies and lunacy.
It is cool to keep your cool, especially when shouldering critical adult responsibilities, but emotion is not necessarily bad when not out of control or fake. Check out recent video of Jackie Goldberg commenting on demagoguery against gays. She is very passionate and pushes the edge, but remains logical and civil. Adult, focused and factual anger can be powerful, as we have seen in some of the passionate speech of Greta Thunberg. The is also hyped-up hate speech and tantrums, that we are wise to reject. Some of the most memorable and laudable speeches have been very passionate, but in a good way.
Is this a joke. The title of the column should be how I cherry pick events and then spin them with sanctimony.
Here are the facts from the Oregon Chronicle:
"Thomas (& Alito) have been far from alone on the court in enjoying the largesse of the uber-wealthy.
Late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.
Late Justice Antonin Scalia took at least 258 subsidized trips while he was on the court and he was on one when he suddenly died in 2016.
Scalia’s more-liberal colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, took at least 225 subsidized trips between 2004 and 2016. They include a 2013 trip to the exclusive island of Nantucket compliments of private-equity billionaire David Rubenstein, Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court, reported.
Those were some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019, according to a list compiled by the watchdog group Open Secrets. That’s nine trips per justice, per year, and it’s unlikely they stayed at the Holiday Inn on most of them.
AGAIN BEYER TOOK 225 trips? Not a word about that.
An omission is just as dishonest as a lie. As a historian that's even more disgraceful.
But when you are the Leni Riefenstahl of Democratic politics, context and history don't matter.
You failed to mention that the article you cited in the Oregon Capitol Chronicle also said this:, referring to the
"... some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019..." :
'And those are just the ones that justices have disclosed. It’s unclear how many — like decades of Thomas’ travels — have been unreported, or whether the justices will suffer any consequences for not reporting them.'
The problem with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Gorsuch is that they failed to disclose their trips, spouse commissions, favorable real estate deals and other gifts, such as the Crowe donation to Thomas' grand nephew's private school. So apparently context doesn't matter to you, either .
Comparing Prof. Richardson to Leni Riefenstahl puts you in the troll class. Goodbye.
I'm not here to support the largesse ALL public officials enjoy.
On the other hand its completely dishonest to OMIT the fact that liberal judges have enjoyed the same benefits. FURTHERMORE Alito didn't violate any law when he didn't report his TRIP in 2008.
Ginsburg took a $1MM gift from a leftwing group and expensive trips. Breyer went on 225 trips.
YES you become Leni Riefenstahl when you OMIT major facts to SPIN the narrative.
She cherry picked a single trip and tried to frame it as "CONSERVATIVE" problem.
This is my last reply to you: no, Alito *didn't* violate any law in failing to disclose gifts. The SC is self-regulated, and depends upon the willingness of the justices to be transparent in their financial affairs, and certainly to recuse themselves if they have certain relationships with people or entities who may come before the Court. Thomas and Alito, especially, flout their duty to disclose benefits they have received, (and other justices have misled through their disclosures) and have caused a smell of rot to emanate from the hallowed halls. If you can't smell that, shame on you. (Though I suspect if the donor were George Soros giving undisclosed largesse to say, Sotomayor, you'd be indignant.)
I don't care which justice -- D- or R-appointed, receives benefits and neither discloses nor recuses -- the stink is the same, and clings to all their robes. Congress should indeed require greater transparency, in order to restore some dignity to the Court. Roberts appears to have no interest.
Alito reported none of this on his required disclosures. Additionally, after the lavish trips, Paul Singer or his companies appeared before the Supreme Court “at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media.” That is the issue. You are being purposefully obtuse, cherry picking, and using false equivalencies. If you put this much effort into holding those in power accountable then you'd find that more people would agree with you. You come here every day to troll it seems like.
I'm not a "Leftist" you throw that word around but I don't think you know what that means....
Again, I think all the Justices shouldn't be allowed to take trips from billionaire donors. I think they should be truly separate. We as private citizens are held to higher standards than those in power. That should be the real issue. Prof. Richardson is commenting on the reporting on Pro Publica... It wasn't the other way around.
Again, whether something is legally required by law vs what is ethical or moral is 2 different things. Additionally, you keep missing the point, Ginsburg and Breyer weren't accepting gifts and not reporting them where they had billionaires bringing cases before the Court and not recusing themselves.
For your information in Canon 2A of the Judicial Code of Conduct, it states; "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”
So like most normal people who hold positions of power, we cannot even have the appearance of impropriety. Maybe we can start to try and find something we both agree on, that all Supreme Court Justices should by law be required to disclose any gifts and that if they don't they should recuse and step down. Or better yet, no gifts from billionaires who appear before the court. That should be easy no? You keep making everything a partisan issue but it doesn't have to be? Why is that? Alito and Thomas are clearly corrupt and you trying to defend their behavior is just putting party before country in my opinion.
“You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Those words are likely to outlive him. Classy and to the point.
Very Patrick Henry-ish!
Oh, I do agree. Cicero.
A Pillar of Iron
It deserves large print on front page of any news organization that stands for democracy and is conscientious of their duty and responsibility.
My only problem J L, is when Adam left Congress he immediately sent texts begging for money.
We have a system that essentially requires those running for office to “beg for money.” Anyone can opt out of receiving them by replying “STOP” to the text. But this time, I believe I’ll send a few bucks as a token of my gratitude for Schiff’s integrity and service. He warned us all about the dangers of the cult of Trump.
I wish we could make “campaigning” illegal. No 💵💵 spent to get elected. Rather, a resume distributed and interviews and debates. Same as for any other job. No dark money, no lies, no glitzy ritzy coded language to brainwash the masses. Just a simple, this is what I’ve done, this is what I would do “for the people” and how I would do it. Stop spoon feeding people garbage.
I am with you 100%!
Amen. Adam Schiff is a hero
Yes, I hate these repeated requests for money pinging my text in box but, I agree, this time I’ll send in some support money. Then I’ll text STOP.
Schiff? Integrity? I've never heard those words in the same sentence?
Schiff pedaled the Steele Dossier as proof of Russian collusion when he knew it was untrue. He accused the President of being a Russian agent and claimed he had proof, which he never produced.
The word you are looking for is “peddled”. And I still trust the Steele dossier more than the lame Durham report.
Keep drinking the faux nooz koolaid, it will eventually rot your brain.
Don’t reply to this guy and he’ll eventually go away. No likes or replies.
I report him.
Pro tip—don’t feed the trolls
Yes, he is a crazy troll...forget him!
You are either a troll or you did not actually read the article that includes more damning info that Trump's campaign DID collude with Russia.
He’s been on here a few times, lately. Just a troll.
I scroll on by and if by chance, he answers a post of mine and then it appears in my email, it goes directly to trash where it can find company with other dreck.
Thanks, Jennifer. No, he did not read the conclusion Durham stated at the hearing in regards to his own investigation and report, namely, "Nothing came of it." James A is clearly a "selective reader," at best. Talk about integrity, jeezh!
Jennifer. No he is just a garden variety troll looking for "likes". Don't feed him.
Evidence?
1) Brennan briefed Obama in 2016 that the Clinton campaign was planned to create a scandal
tying Trump to Russia
https://www.chathamstartribune.com/state_and_national/article_c83744d0-0968-11eb-9354-bf4878aae96b.html
2) Clinton campaign paid $1MM for the Steele dossier. (Which they later paid a fine for not reporting)
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93
3) Christopher Steele was a offered a 1MM by the FBI to verify anything in the dossier and couldn't
4) Danchenko was Steele's source for the dossier was paid $300K by the FBI yet couldn't
confirm anything in the dossier
5) The FBI used a unverified dossier as the basis to get A FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump campaign).
6) Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application,
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane
7) Michael Sussman, A DNC lawyer claims alleges that the Trump campaign is colluding
with the Russians through a secret communications with Alpha Bank.
8) FBI Analyst Hellman testified said the allegations claimed there was a “secret communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank, were rejected within a day.
https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-jury-indicts-dc-attorney-making-false-statements-fbi-2016-regarding-alleged
What do we know? The Clinton campaign cooked up the scandal, paid for a dossier THAT WAS FALSE.
BTW The Mueller Report concluded the Steele Dossier was false
https://apnews.com/article/3f857308c462aded650b1c8b7799ea58
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON the planet who believes the Steele Dossier was true.
Author - Christopher Steele didn't believe it was true
Source - Danchenko didn't believe it was true.
Mueller Report didn't believe it was true
Durham Report didn't believe it was true
YET YOU BELIEVE IT WAS TRUE. That is embarassing
YOU MAYBE THE ONLY person on planet earth who believes its TRUE.
"Russia, if you're listening..."
It rings in my eeats from time to time unfortunately 🙄
James I’m not going to ridicule you but I find pragmatism and intellectualism sometimes at odds with each other. Perhaps you might research an awareness of the dark side of pragmatism and find a reconciliation with intellectual argument. You might become less belligerent and more persuasive hence buy more traction.
Your comments are EMPTY unless you provide examples.
I can’t teach you this. You actually have to learn it. I simply provided a key going forward. An example would be that any one learning to walk must take their own steps. I hope that helps.
He has his own newsletter. No one reads it so he has to go seeking attention elsewhere. Ignore.
Deflection?
Ever word I wrote is true. That must be unsettling for you.
😂😂😂
Adam Schiff is a man of such high integrity that he can claimed being censured by the craven wing of the Republican Party is actually a badge of honor. There, now you have seen these words together in a sentence. Hope it helps. Re-reading Schiff’s work on the extent of corruption the Republicans in Congress participate in, might also help you understand it.
He lied about Russian collusion. He Repeatedly received 4 Pinocchio's from the Washington Post for lying about Russia-gate. He lied about having evidence regarding Russian collusion, he lied about speaking to witnesses in advance, and he lied about Trump's role in Russian collusion.
He is a political HACK. He would say anything to advance his politics. Its disgraceful and embarrassing.
Shame on you for peddling a lie!
This troll is *such* an ass - like all MAGAt pricks, every accusation he makes is a confession
This maybe the dumbest post I've ever seen.
I just listed facts. The truth is always a lie to a leftist. Its an inverted world.
But the truth has never been a left wing value. Power is all that matters.
AGAIN Breyer took 225 trips. Ginsburg took $1MM from a left wing group and expensive trips YET NOT A WORD.
As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took $1 million from a left-wing group. It's important to critically evaluate the sources and information you come across, especially when it comes to controversial or potentially false claims. Without verifiable evidence, it is advisable to approach such assertions with skepticism. If any new information has emerged since September 2021, I may not be aware of it.
Bot much, James?
I'm starting to think so. It appears that everything posted by this account is vacuous anti-intellectual content that could easily be coming from a rudimentary generative AI trained on talking points from Gateway Pundit
Do you call bullshit where I see it? Yes.
Does that offend your snowflake sensibilities?
You again? Butthurt, much, sad little troll?
To make an argument requires brain power. Since that's in such little supply on your part,
congratulations another stupid rant. To speak in anything other than cliches?
I chipped in! Trump raises millions. Schiff needs to raise funds to compete
I did
$1000 bottles of wine?
My Three Buck Chuck tastes fine and leaves me beholden to no one.
I'm a Katie Porter supporter but I'm also sending some money to Schiff because he's a mensch.
he deserves our support and the money for being brave and doing his job...how would you like to have to be re-elected every 2 years to do your job ? Calling it "begging" just demeans what he has done. It sounds like he's on a corner with a cardboard sign.
I do not disapprove of Adam Schiff, I admire him and have since he was leading the impeachment trial of Trump. I disapprove of the amount of money given to Corporate Media for campaigns. I object to 24/7/365 days of "begging" for money. Politicians have accepted donations since day 1, That is expected. But I do not believe we need the ceaseless campaigning we have seen in the 21st Century. Part of this is probably my age (90). When I was actively working on campaign in my 20's through my 60's campaigns didn't start the day after election day and never end. Politicians did not run for office in order to increase their wealth, they ran because it was their civic duty.
Times have changed, and strategies along with it. Schiff's fundraising may seem in poor taste, but it is no different from anything that all the others must do to simply stay in office. If Schiff doesn't use every possible opportunity for fundraising, his political career will die. This is especially true of those who scrutinize the sources of campaign donations.
Let's advocate for laws that change this broken system rather than attacking one of the good guys trying to operate effectively within that system.
Helga, I agree. They all ask for money because they have to. I don't think any less of Katie Porter because she asks.
Times have changed = Citizens United
I don't see any legislation coming up to combat Citizens United. Even if Corporations equal a person (with which logic would disagree) there was a law limiting the amount of the donation to $2500 per year per person. Greed is what changed it to "sky's the limit"
Boom.
Exactly. REPEAL Citizens United
I agree times have changed - but not for the better. I should not have been picking on Adam Schiff, whom I actually like. I'm just fed up with this system. No they don't have to beg for money nationwide. No they don't have to pour billions into Corporate media. They can spend that time and energy meeting with their own constituents like they used to. They can have phone banks 6 weeks prior to the election. They can have scores of volunteers knocking on doors. All the politicians coast to coast have fallen into line, foisted on them by their National Campaign Committees. We keep urging voters to think for themselves, to critically analyze positions, platforms, and make decisions based on that. Well, the same thing applies to candidates. Instead of angering their constituents with 24/7 emails and texts, try talking to those in your own State, in your own district, most of us are willing to listen.
The times they are a changing- always, every day. One constant is that Fay Reid is on top of it. Still. Always. I am a tough unabashed old codger but I am comforted somehow by knowing she is here. Her voice and others today quiet a tension I didn’t even know was there. I am awash somewhat in admiration that came on unexpectedly. I’m gonna quit with awed.
Bless you Fay. I agree with your point of view. I'm 70 and I walked away from active involvement in political campaigns 20 years ago. Things have changed and first TV and now social media is to blame for the change. I produce TV and now social media content. I don't support either party with my $$. I do support candidates and causes. Adam & Raskin need our support. They are are the tip of the spear fighting against big, dark money...that just never rests. I really dislike what this has become...but it's here. I just don't want to see Adam characterized as a "begger". He's just doing what he has to do...for our survival...not his.
Jon Tester is the loan democrat in MT where the Republican Party has vowed to take him out & make MT a super red majority.
I agree, but the word is lone, as in alone, not loan.
Carole,
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I honestly don't know how he survives there and certainly will support him with a donation (not a loan).
We also donate directly to campaigns and causes and not parties. We would love to see change in this, but right now it is what it is.
Good. Always donate to the candidates directly. They can purchase media time more cheaply than the national orgs. Plus the DNC is….
I am only 83 (or will be within a month), but I can still remember from my student days the complaints of members of Congress about the amount of time they had to devote to the raising of funds for re-election. That is why there has been talk about pub public funding of campaigns, There are rules against use of campaign donations for non election purposes -- rules that the unethical violate. A problem is the development of the internet which allows those appeals to have become so intrusive. I spend an awful lot of time hitting the delete button. My biggest gripe is those "surveys" which are appeals in disguise!
Dave, you provided my first smile of the day with your opening statement that you are "only" 83. Long may you live with energy and enthusiasm and this perspective of not being old.
Thank you. The old vaudeville line was "always leave them laughing!"
Those surveys are also often a way to sow disinformation. I received one the other day from extreme-rightwing Hillsdale College, which I decided to answer in order to see what they were peddling, but I had to stop halfway through because the questions were presented in such a way that every answer would damn progressive issues. There was no option for a different point of view.
They finally stopped sending their surverys to me but it took awhile. I actually sent one back with all of their questions revised to eliminate the bias; perhaps that's what did it. I'm sure they tout their survey results as if the heavily skewed data is relevant.
Happy birthday Dave. Those surveys not me too!
No, Fay, you are quite correct, the 24/7/365 began with Citizens United decision wherein SCOTUS considered corporations and PACS to be citizens and money a form of free speech.
Talk to John Roberts about reversing Citizens United.
As if ...
35 Senate candidates won in 2018 spending an average of 15.7 million to do so. The price of victory is steep.
Fay Reid. I'm a year and a half away from 90. I'm an American citizen (actually, dual) living in Canada, voting for the last 36 years through Colorado (my last US residence). I never gave to a political candidate until Donald Trump entered the scene via that elevator. Now I do, to whomever needs it the most. Notably, Senators Warnock and Ossoff, and various Democratic Representatives wherever they're from. I've been a huge fan of Adam Schiff for many years, so he will get some donations from me. I don't need reminders from his campaign to to this, so will "unsubscribe" from everything as it hits my email In Box! Good luck to all of us!
Fay, please keep in mind that Citizens United changed the entire landscape, sponsored by the right wing, and pushed through by Republicans. It is now a sad reality, and galling as it is, we now have Koch, Walton, and a plethora of oligarchs, most of whom head huge industries and possess unlimited resources. Look at the havoc that news outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and others have unleashed to assist the oligarchs.
I didn't really understand politics until last year. The current owner of the local radio station told me the story about his run for the US House of Representives. He was excited about being on the various committees. He was informed that his staff would do the work while he would be out campaigning for the next election. He was not elected which was our loss.
Mike, what adds insult to injury is that dollars donated simply go right back into sending ever more requests for money. To respond with money seems to guarantee that one will be targeted by all who "need" more money; all of them.
Surely, this can't be what our founding fathers intended.
I learned that awhile back. Once you send $2 to Move on, or the Dem party or anything, you are on the list forever. I've limited my $ contributions to a very few candidates who I feel make a real difference, or causes that really need it in the moment. I'm more prone to do some video work for something I believe in and post it around, so that folks can share it.
I think the two-year term for House members is a, maybe the, major factor in this need to be constantly asking for money. I would like to see representatives’ terms expanded to four years but with term limits, perhaps three or four maximum. As for senators, keep the six-year terms but limit them to perhaps three terms. I believe many polls show the population wants term limits, too bad none of our representatives, left or right, will bring a bill forward to consider them.
Agreed, Mary. 4 year House terms, and 24 years of service (this would be either four six year terms, or six four year terms.) If they've completed 3 terms and switch chambers they'd qualify for a second "new chamber" term.
So Ally, I am going to check out View From the Back Row. I didn't know that you did this.
I don't, yet. Substack started it for me to entice me to their platform. I had been thinking about starting one, but I really don't have the time to prepare decent essays these days. I hope to write about some of the law enforcement issues as they come up, or impacts of legislation on the LGBTQ+ community--stuff I know about.
Substack told me I wrote "Ally's Substack". I change the name to "Views From the Back Row" for a couple reasons. One, that is where the tubas sit, and another is that is where the cops sit (any training class, the back of the room fills up first. EVERY TIME).
18 years of service
Gee, I'm hoping to keep representative's to two and term limits for both rep's and Senators to two. They treat this like it's a job. It isn't. It's civic duty. Maybe then we could get people that really look out for our interests instead of lining their pockets.
Good lord, Mary, think of MTG, Lauren Boebert, Paul "bullseye on AOC" Gosar, Andrew "normal tourist visit" Clyde, Matt "let them entertain me" Gaetz, Anna "Give us MORE, Kevin" Luna, Mary "Hitler was right about the youth" Miller and no doubt, the pack grows. I shudder to think of them settling in with a longer tenure and the damage they could do if they weren't peddling constantly.
Fair point, but there also are many representatives who are reasonable people (and I’ll include some of those on the right in that characterization) trying to do a complex job. I don’t think two years, with at least a third of it dedicated to fund raising, is enough time to learn the in and outs of it.
Congressional Representatives all must spend more time out of the Capitol begging for bucks than getting anything done.
He had been fundraising in my feed long before yesterday, for his Senate campaign. He is terrific.
Schiff is integrity incarnate. Period.
Yes, Frank, Schiff is a man with integrity within a corrupted system.
Yes from me too. But this bit of using censure to ask for more reeks of Trump. Right now I'm supporting Katie Porter, but Adam will be my second choice.
I like Porter too, sort of wish they would stay in the House - i sent $ to Schiff today.
THAT choice between two bastions of integrity and clear speaking for the same seat since redistricting seems one of the toughest choices voters face this next cycle!
And yet, shouldn't that be our dilemma in EVERY election - two incredibly honest, smart, in touch, wise and energetic candidates to choose from?
But, yes, we cannot afford to lose either one in federal office.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee is also running for Feinstein's seat. She's also a smart, honest person. I still will continue to support Adam Schiff for his brave patriotism and hope that Katie Porter and Barbara Lee get into the Senate in the future.
Fay, the number of solicitations I receive each day - from politicians I admire - provides me with a part time job. Delete, delete, delete. Have a slug of coffee, then delete, delete...
I think it is worth considering that all these emails are sent to lowly citizens like us who have supported someone or some party in the past. Small donations should be the only donations, IMO. But I also find it really intrusive and irritating. My other part time job is to "unsubscribe".
Consider the amount of dark money that is fueling the lies from Oligarchs like Koch, Mercer, Leo, Crow and Singer, etc. Maybe in our small way we can try to counter balance that evil, selfish, autocratic influence.
But I share your irritation. I feel the same way when I open our mailbox. Every day I throw out envelopes w/o opening them - from organizations I love and support. I donate to them every November. And the irony of non-profits cutting down trees to send endless streams requests for more money shouldn't be lost on us. I wish they had been emails. Save a tree.
It is a torturous process. We at at an income level that requires vigorous stewardship of expenses and controlled purchasing. By writing to various public entities and causes I support, the recycled mail w/o opening is incredible but realistic. I don’t even glance at the daily AARP Insurance envelopes.
But I see no way out of it as long as the Evil Empire of wealth insists on making money the basis of controlling their agendas.
But to me our most spectacular failure we demonstrate is the billionaires of the fossil fuel industries who pour money into products that guarantee our developing human self destruction.
As I have often said, they think their money will save them, but it won't on an unlivable planet which is where we are heading.
As I mentioned before, with texts, you can reply "STOP" one time to end the solicitations from that candidate. With emails, scroll down to the very bottom to find "unsubscribe." There is no need to take on this particular part time job ; - )
Quite true. And that is part of the project. But here's the thing. Once you donate via "Act Blue", for instance, it generates a sharing of email addresses.
For instance, I have unsubscribed to Sherrod Brown, Gavin Newsom and and Tammy Duckworth. Then after awhile they reappear. The sharing of donor lists and potential donors is just life in the good old US of A.
Don't get me wrong. I love what these three stand for. I admire them.
But we should have more to say about how our email addresses are shared.
I go through the same process of frustration but I think we are bound by a common interest with those we support to use their recommended fund sources.
I can’t imagine anyone managing millions of separate individual donations. Any system is better.
What bothers me is we the people with incomes less than $250k compete with the money of the billionaire set especially the super profitable fossil fuel industries when our focus is human good and their’s is profit at any cost to humanity.
I wonder if there is a way to contribute to an individual person's campaign without having it go through Act Blue.
I believe there is that option. But they still share donor lists. And I suspect some of it happens via the DNC.
It's an irritation, but not as big as the weather forecast for the next couple of weeks. Yikes!
Here’s a fundraising gambit (from politicians and good nonprofits) that always frosts me. I struggle a bit to send $100 (or occasional even more) to a cause. I quickly receive mail asking for more donations and the lowest “suggested donation” is more than I just gave. This happens far to often; it’s not an accident. And I find it demeaning and ungrateful. (We all have our triggers.) oh, and if the envelope says “please send your donation by (date)” or “deadline date” that envelope goes into the trash.
We ignore pleas and support those candidates we like and organizations we feel we want to help. I confess that a big part of our donations go to All Classical, the wonderful radio station in Portland, Oregon, who have made it part of their goals to be inclusive and they celebrate all the special months and days. The range of music is way beyond Bach, Mozart, etc. Even their fund raising times are fun. They can be accessed on line and I encourage people to listen.
Fay, well, as little citizens, we cannot write the huge dark money checks our representatives need to stay elected in the face of JD Vance type support. We need Schiff, he needs us. Money is an equalizer
I know money is the equalizer, but it doesn't have to be. We don't need 20 lobbyists, for every legislator. And we can go back to maximum donations of $2500 per donor per year. The billions spent on campaigns now goes into the greedy maws of Corporate Media. That is not ok with me.
The voting rights legislation that was defeated has a clause in it to stop dark $$$. I suspect that was the reason it was defeated.
I thought your complaint above was that the funds were used to enrich the candidates.
Right now money is required to elect those who want what you stated
Disdaining the current situation is admirable but not pragmatic
Many adjustments to Media required to remove financial incentives to propaganda. Can’t do that until we finance our beliefs
I agree and I especially hate the times just before elections when all the ads are on TV and the mute button works overtime.
Dave I respectfully disagree. Should it not be votes rather than money which decides our elections. It would appear that having more money than the other guy allows one to peddle what are essentially lies, distortions and half-truths into votes. That seems a great problem in our democracy.
It is why Zinke won barely, in MT over a strong Woman Dem. Zinke had more $$$$$
when is he up for reelection? How is the case the young plaintiffs are in, suing state of Montana for climate related damages, going? Not much about it in national news.
I dont know how accessible the newspaper The Missoulian is on line but they have reported on it as well as the Montana Free Press also online.
Currently, pragmatic acknowledgement of our current election system is required to elect the people we believe can fulfill your more idealized worldview imo
So what! He’s running for senate. I support him with a monthly donation. Would you have him accept dark money?
Fay, this money-begging represents THE main crack in the checks and balances of our democracy ever since the Citizens United decision by our newly activated SCOTUS. This decision, especially when accompanied by the system of anonymous donation has turned bribery into an essential ingredient in current politics, bribery now endemic in all 3 branches of our government.
He needs it. There are those who will consider the censure a reason not to vote for him. We need him in Congress!
Thank you for reminding me to make a donation this morning!
Thanks for reminding me that I need to send him more.
Oh, and House Republicans elected him to the Senate yesterday.
He had been asking for money even before the vote was taken. Actually he started asking for money when it became evident that the GQP was going to go ahead with the censure vote.
Not Schiff himself but his campaign. I never respond to those emails, but this time I donated. And will again. In this political world in which we find ourselves, that is how our voices are heard.
Problem is, Rick, that was the way we used to be heard. Before this endless need to collect money, when I emailed by Congressman or Senators, I received a personal answer to my question. Now I receive a standard form letter that addresses nothing close to what I asked or commented. So although I continue to support my own Congressman and Senator I don't feel I'm being represented. They, and their assistants, are far more interested in collecting money than in serving their constituency.
Adam Schiff hasn't left Congress. Are you thinking of Adam Kinzinger? Adam Schiff is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. senator from California. As others have noted, running for office, especially statewide office in a state the size of California, costs money. A lot of money.
The request for money I got from Adam Schiff was that he was being threatened by a $16 million dollar fine. No one thinks Adam Schiff is taking money under the table from anyone, which is why he is hated by the shifty grifters. You are working awfully hard to find something to criticize him for. He is not independently wealthy, is he? What would you do in these circumstances, Fay? This is a rare time where I don’t agree with you. A request for help with a groundless waste of time and money attack was very reasonable, from my point of view.
The first text I received was the only one I read and it didn't mention a 16 million dollar fine. I admit I was angry and just deleted the next 3 texts unread. If Adam Schiff is fined any amount one of the Democratic Committees should defend him and pay the fine if he loses the suit. Frankly I have never heard of one political party successfully suing the other parties elected members. The Congress itself can only get money back from Legislators if they have been convicted of theft of Congressional funds or fraud. I would think George Santos would be more in danger of that than Adam Schiff, who is clean as a whistle. The attack on him by whatever her name, was groundless, vindictive, and only passed because the MAGA dumdums control the house by 7 or 8 votes. I am not criticizing Adam Schiff. (I admit it appeared that way) I am criticizing the whole damn Congress, both houses. While people like Adam do accomplish much, most of them are so busy begging for money (and many of them, are feeding from the same trough as the Republicans - namely Wall Street, Corporate American and persons of obscene wealth. If they are not begging for themselves they are begging for the DCCC, DNC, and DSCC. Those untrustworthy committees have been conning or forcing the Members of the Senate and House to collect large sums for them, since a lot of us former card carrying members were so disgusted by them supporting Trump MAGA candidates that we will no longer give them a dime.
He needs the bucks. He has formidable challengers in the primary for Feinstein’s Senate seat, and both are unwilling to step aside.the primary will be very costly, in a high campaign cost state.
Interesting. I never saw 'I'm begging you' for funds.. Listing of his projects, ie. law enforcement, senior housing, homeless youth, etc can be found here...
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-announces-over-229-million-in-requests-for-ca-30-community-projects
Like his classy words @ the end of the 1st impeachment," RIGHT MATTERS. TRUTH MATERS . DECENCY MATTERS. I will wear this Tshirt with his words today
We love him for the enemies he’s made, as was said of another great American.
Yesterday was a very sad day for the Congress of the United States. The Republicans demonstrated that even though many people who have worked directly with Trump, and many who had been in elected office but have left, have come out and have clearly stated that Trump is a threat to national security and a threat to the world. However, none of the elected Republicans in the House of Representatives had the nerve or integrity to stand up for the truth.
Some of the crazies, such as Matt Gaetz, attacked John Durham for not using his office to do a hit job when he had the chance but not proof. But then they went on to site his report as evidence that Adam Schiff lied and misled the American public. They attacked Schiff for the second time because Donald Trump ordered it. It has become clear that the Republicans in the House have been trained to act like the Supreme Soviet. They will rubber stamp anything Trump proposes. The work that Kevin McCarthy attempted to show them how to legislate has all been washed away. They are all in for lies and vengeance. This is very frightening and it shows how much control Trump still has over the Republican Party, despite all of his lies and lunacy.
Yes, it is frightening. The need to retain power and the fear of blackmail motivate the House Republicans.
Exactly.
As will his heroic and unrelenting defense of Democracy, at great personal cost. History will remember him as a true patriot.
Love Adam and so happy to be in his district!
We are blessed to have Adam in our corner!
The next Senator from the state of California!
Absolutely agree! Democrats lead with calm and facts while the current Republicans lead with emotion.
It is cool to keep your cool, especially when shouldering critical adult responsibilities, but emotion is not necessarily bad when not out of control or fake. Check out recent video of Jackie Goldberg commenting on demagoguery against gays. She is very passionate and pushes the edge, but remains logical and civil. Adult, focused and factual anger can be powerful, as we have seen in some of the passionate speech of Greta Thunberg. The is also hyped-up hate speech and tantrums, that we are wise to reject. Some of the most memorable and laudable speeches have been very passionate, but in a good way.
Is this a joke. The title of the column should be how I cherry pick events and then spin them with sanctimony.
Here are the facts from the Oregon Chronicle:
"Thomas (& Alito) have been far from alone on the court in enjoying the largesse of the uber-wealthy.
Late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.
Late Justice Antonin Scalia took at least 258 subsidized trips while he was on the court and he was on one when he suddenly died in 2016.
Scalia’s more-liberal colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, took at least 225 subsidized trips between 2004 and 2016. They include a 2013 trip to the exclusive island of Nantucket compliments of private-equity billionaire David Rubenstein, Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court, reported.
Those were some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019, according to a list compiled by the watchdog group Open Secrets. That’s nine trips per justice, per year, and it’s unlikely they stayed at the Holiday Inn on most of them.
AGAIN BEYER TOOK 225 trips? Not a word about that.
An omission is just as dishonest as a lie. As a historian that's even more disgraceful.
But when you are the Leni Riefenstahl of Democratic politics, context and history don't matter.
You failed to mention that the article you cited in the Oregon Capitol Chronicle also said this:, referring to the
"... some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019..." :
'And those are just the ones that justices have disclosed. It’s unclear how many — like decades of Thomas’ travels — have been unreported, or whether the justices will suffer any consequences for not reporting them.'
The problem with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Gorsuch is that they failed to disclose their trips, spouse commissions, favorable real estate deals and other gifts, such as the Crowe donation to Thomas' grand nephew's private school. So apparently context doesn't matter to you, either .
Comparing Prof. Richardson to Leni Riefenstahl puts you in the troll class. Goodbye.
I'm not here to support the largesse ALL public officials enjoy.
On the other hand its completely dishonest to OMIT the fact that liberal judges have enjoyed the same benefits. FURTHERMORE Alito didn't violate any law when he didn't report his TRIP in 2008.
Ginsburg took a $1MM gift from a leftwing group and expensive trips. Breyer went on 225 trips.
YES you become Leni Riefenstahl when you OMIT major facts to SPIN the narrative.
She cherry picked a single trip and tried to frame it as "CONSERVATIVE" problem.
THAT IS A LIE
This is my last reply to you: no, Alito *didn't* violate any law in failing to disclose gifts. The SC is self-regulated, and depends upon the willingness of the justices to be transparent in their financial affairs, and certainly to recuse themselves if they have certain relationships with people or entities who may come before the Court. Thomas and Alito, especially, flout their duty to disclose benefits they have received, (and other justices have misled through their disclosures) and have caused a smell of rot to emanate from the hallowed halls. If you can't smell that, shame on you. (Though I suspect if the donor were George Soros giving undisclosed largesse to say, Sotomayor, you'd be indignant.)
I don't care which justice -- D- or R-appointed, receives benefits and neither discloses nor recuses -- the stink is the same, and clings to all their robes. Congress should indeed require greater transparency, in order to restore some dignity to the Court. Roberts appears to have no interest.
I'm defending the truth.
It was dishonest of Heather to spin this problem as partisan. THEY ALL have enjoyed the perks of public life.
Alito reported none of this on his required disclosures. Additionally, after the lavish trips, Paul Singer or his companies appeared before the Supreme Court “at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media.” That is the issue. You are being purposefully obtuse, cherry picking, and using false equivalencies. If you put this much effort into holding those in power accountable then you'd find that more people would agree with you. You come here every day to troll it seems like.
Let me help you out here since Heather refuses to be intellectually honest.
Alito wasn't required by law to report the TRIP!
The sanctimony is disgraceful. AGAIN Breyer took 225 trips, NOT A WORD. Ginsburg received $1MM dollars from a leftwing group, and took expense trips.
I'm sorry the TRUTH is inconvenient to your leftist sensibilities.
I'm not a "Leftist" you throw that word around but I don't think you know what that means....
Again, I think all the Justices shouldn't be allowed to take trips from billionaire donors. I think they should be truly separate. We as private citizens are held to higher standards than those in power. That should be the real issue. Prof. Richardson is commenting on the reporting on Pro Publica... It wasn't the other way around.
Again, whether something is legally required by law vs what is ethical or moral is 2 different things. Additionally, you keep missing the point, Ginsburg and Breyer weren't accepting gifts and not reporting them where they had billionaires bringing cases before the Court and not recusing themselves.
For your information in Canon 2A of the Judicial Code of Conduct, it states; "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”
So like most normal people who hold positions of power, we cannot even have the appearance of impropriety. Maybe we can start to try and find something we both agree on, that all Supreme Court Justices should by law be required to disclose any gifts and that if they don't they should recuse and step down. Or better yet, no gifts from billionaires who appear before the court. That should be easy no? You keep making everything a partisan issue but it doesn't have to be? Why is that? Alito and Thomas are clearly corrupt and you trying to defend their behavior is just putting party before country in my opinion.