Nel's New Day

May 1, 2019

U.S. AG Barr Defends Cover-up of DDT

Special investigator Robert Mueller joins people disturbed about AG Bill Barr’s misrepresentation of Mueller’s final report. A timeline of the report from its release to Barr’s testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his protection of Dictator Donald Trump (DDT).

March 22: Robert Mueller delivered his 448-page report to the DOJ.

March 24: Bill Barr released his personal four-page interpretation of Mueller’s report that attempted to exonerate DDT of all blame by announcing that Mueller found no collusion between the DDT campaign and Russia and that Mueller had absolved DDT of obstruction of justice.

March 25: Mueller sent first letter to Barr, expressing “concern” about Barr’s misrepresentation of his findings with an introduction and executive summary to Barr that day.

March 27: Mueller sent a second letter to Barr and the DOJ leadership about Barr’s summary:

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Muller requested the release of the report’s introduction and executive summaries. DOJ officials said that they believed Mueller agreed with them about the process of releasing the report until they saw the letter. The complete letter is here.

March 28: Mueller told Barr on the phone that Barr’s summary was misleading about the report and said that Barr did not reveal how DDT’s campaign interacted inappropriately with Russians. Examples: Campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates regularly provided polling to a Russian national believed by Gates to be a “spy”; Mueller outlined 10 “episodes” in which DDT may have obstructed justice. In addition, Barr didn’t mention that DDT’s mostly unsuccessful “to incluence the investigation” were “largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

March 29: Barr wrote Congress claiming that his March 24 communication was intended as Mueller’s principal conclusions, not a summary. He volunteered to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1 and 2.

April 10: Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. Asked if Mueller supported “your conclusion,” Barr answered:

I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”

The questioner, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), called Barr “the chief propagandist” for DDT and that Barr lied to the people after learning about Mueller’s prior communication with Barr.

April 18: Barr gave a press release before he made public a heavily redacted Mueller report and repeated “no collusion” as his boss DDT has. Asked if it was improper for him to spin the unreleased report, Barr walked off the stage.

April 30: The Washington Post released information about Mueller’s criticism to Barr about the Barr’s misrepresentation and publicity prior to Barr’s congressional testimony.  Both Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and House Judiciary Committee chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) demanded Mueller’s letter to Barr. Nadler also asked that Mueller testify before his committee, but the DOJ, where Mueller is employed, can’t find a time when Mueller would be available. Barr threatened to not appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 2 because he might be questioned by staff counsel instead of House members. Members of Congress called for Barr’s resignation.

May 1: Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

  • Barr testified he had not reviewed the underlying evidence in Mueller’s report although he wrote in his first summary that the evidence failed to establish that DDT committed obstruction of justice.
  • Barr said he doesn’t know anything about the internal polling data that Manafort and Gates regularly sent to Russian national Kilimnik to share with others in Ukraine and with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The Mueller report described over 200 connections between DDT’s campaign and a foreign adversary.
  • Barr sat in silence for six seconds when asked if campaigns should contact the FBI if foreign governments offer them damaging information on their political opponents. When prompted, he specified a narrow yes, “if a foreign intelligence service.” Barr did suggest it would be possible for an employee of a foreign adversary to work for a U.S. campaign if that person were not paid.
  • Asked about lies from DDT and other people in Mueller’s report, Barr said that he’s “not in the business of determining when lies are told to the American people.” [Internet response was not positive.]
  • Barr falsely claimed that he “didn’t exonerate” DDT and that he wasn’t hiding Mueller’s information. [Sen. Richard Blumenthal used a color-coded chart for 14 claims connected with DDT’s obstruction of justice, showing that Mueller found substantial evidence regarding this obstruction of “crime, intent, interference with an ongoing investigation, and the obstructive act.”]
  • Barr called Mueller’s letter to him “snitty” and refused to share notes from their telephone call. Also, Barr accused Mueller of not writing the letter to him although Mueller signed the letter.
  • Barr told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that he will “work with you to enhance the security of our election.” Asked if he would help get the Secure Elections Act passed, he said he would “take a look” at it. [Klobuchar had far more questions.]
  • Barr said that DDT “fully cooperated” with the investigation although the Mueller report shows differently.
  • Barr asserted that Mueller didn’t intend his report for Congress although Mueller stated that intent in his report.
  • Barr admitted under oath that a case for obstruction of justice can be pursued without an underlying crime if people concerned about crimes “take an inherently malignant act, such as destroying documents.” The statement was to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), DDT’s cheerleader, who was sure that his original question would keep DDT from being accused of obstruction. [Asked earlier this week about DDT’s obstruction of justice, Graham said, “I don’t care.”]
  • Barr said that DDT was “falsely accused” of coordinating with Russia.
  • Barr declared that he is in charge of summaries, redactions, and times of releases because a special investigator works.
  • The worst: Barr said that the president had the right to fire any independent special counsel if he disagreed with the investigation.
  • Barr refused to testify at the House Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow. Members may subpoena him, landing the situation in court If Barr continues his refusal. Barr could be sued for civil contempt, leaving the decision to a judge. This solution was used in 2007 when George W. Bush’s counsel Harriet Miers refused to testify about her removal of several U.S. attorneys; a court ruled that Miers had to comply with the subpoena, and the case was appealed. The case was dropped when the 110th Congress was over. An unlikely option not used for 100 years is to hold Barr in contempt, meaning the House’s security force could arrest and detain him. In 1973, Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC) threatened to jail people who failed to appear for the Watergate hearings after then President Nixon tried to prevent key aides from testifying.  Permitting Barr his own way sets a precedent for the DOJ’s total control of Congress—a separate branch of government.

When “Poppy” Bush, George W.’s father, named Barr attorney general in the early 1990s, NYT writer William Safire, a staunch Republican, used the nickname “Coverup-General” because of Barr’s concealing evidence about George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iran-Contra.” Christmas 1992 headlines told of Barr’s Christmas gift to Bush and Ronald Reagan—hiding their crimes in the Iran-Contra scandal. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, named six years earlier to investigate Reagan’s Iran-Contra activities, found the documents of Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s former defense secretary, who had been in on the deal, and Bush’s diary that would corroborate Walsh’s findings. Elliott Abrams was already convicted of withholding evidence from Congress and might have more information. Abrams was silent, hoping for a pardon.

In April 2001—almost ten years later—Barr said in an interview for oral presidential histories:

“There were some people arguing just for [a pardon for] Weinberger, and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound.’ I went over and told the President I thought he should not only pardon Caspar Weinberger, but while he was at it, he should pardon about five others.”

Bush followed Barr’s advice, destroying years of investigation. Walsh had already gotten one conviction and three guilty pleas with two other people lined up for prosecution. Bush was in Walsh’s sights. The pardons closed down the investigation and protected himself as well as the others involved in the crimes. After the pardons, Walsh stated that the diary and notes for Weinberger’s public trial were “evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public.” Officials includes Reagan, Bush, and Barr. Coverup-General Barr is the go-to guy, and Republican senators confirmed him. Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against his party, but Barr got three Democratic senators: Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WV), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ).

Even Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano, who DDT once considered for a personal lawyer, claims that Mueller’s report shows DDT’s pattern of obstruction that was “unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.” He made his opinion well-known through both an op-ed and a video.

A must-read about Barr is a NYT op-ed from former FBI director James Comey who tells Barr that “[DDT] has eaten your soul.”

And a must-watch about Barr comes from Rachel Maddow’s interview with Hillary Clinton immediately before Minute 17. Clinton’s best one-liner about DDT’s inviting foreign countries to support her 2016 election:

“China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns? I’m sure the media would richly reward you.”

According to Barr, this approach would not be illegal because it’s done out in the open.

[Note: Those who wish to read more about the news above and/or factcheck the material may wish to use the links.]

 

April 16, 2019

Bill Barr’s History May Show Future Position

On the day of the 1989 “Black Friday” market crash, almost exactly 30 years ago, a legal memo by then head of DOJ’s office of Legal Counsel Bill Barr was leaked to the media. Issued in “unusual secrecy,” the missive determined that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries with no consent from those countries. A newspaper headline indicated that Barr could use his personal decision to abduct Panama’s leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega. When Congress requested the full legal opinion, Barr refused. He promised to provide them a statement that “summarizes the principal conclusions,” the same term he used for the Mueller report.

Barr’s action began 20 years earlier, in 1979, when the U.S. signed a treaty to turn over control of the Panama Canal zone to Panama. In 1989, the U.S. government wanted to get rid of Panama’s leader, Noriega. As DOJ’s head legal counsel, Barr was told to find a legal way to go into a sovereign country, dispose its leader, kidnap him, and bring him to the U.S. to stand trial. Barr followed orders and then tried to hide how he had accomplished the task by claiming that it was based on the entire DOJ legal opinion from the department’s study.

Because his “legal opinion” was so flimsy, Barr couldn’t release his opinion’s principal conclusions. Instead, he gave Congress 13 pages of written testimony with quotes from court cases, legal citations, and language excerpted from the full opinion. The memo, however, left out substantial and provocative conclusions from the full opinion with no justifiable reason for blocking the information from Congress.

Initially, Barr refused to discuss the opinion’s content that reversed a previous opinion from his office that had been released four years earlier. A reporter asked President George H.W. Bush, “The FBI can go into Panama now?” H.W. said he was “embarrassed” about his not knowing about Barr’s memo and promised to get back to the reporter. Secretary of State James Baker soon tried to cover for H.W. by a false claim:

“This is a very narrow legal opinion based on consideration only of domestic United States law. It did not take into account international law, nor did it weigh the President’s constitutional responsibility to carry out the foreign policy of the United States.”

An assistant AG told Rep. Don Edwards, chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, that “current legal advice by the Office of Legal Counsel is confidential.” With her response, however, she reversed her statement by noting that the DOJ had released the 1980 opinion to the public in 1985. Later Barr himself testified to Congress that the DOJ has no prohibition on the release of his memo.

Barr’s response to the congressional request for his 1989 memo, was like his treatment of the Mueller report thus far. He first falsely avowed the history of Internal Justice Department rules as a basis for his refusal. Edwards pointed out the 1980 memo precedent so Barr shifted his position from his testimony and letter sent to Edwards, claiming that “it has been the long established policy of OLC that except in very exceptional circumstances, the opinions must remain confidential.” Historical examination shows that Barr was mistaken—or lied. When Barr referred to his misleading 13-page written testimony, Edwards told him that he had violated House rules by submitting the document only the morning of the hearing instead of the required advance of 48 hours.

The written testimony asserted that domestic law allows a president to authorize FBI actions in foreign countries that violate international law. Yale law school professor Harold Koh explained that, without the full opinion, Congress could not determine whether Barr’s assertion was based on fact, what parts of the earlier opinion were overturned, and whether his full opinion contained nuances, subtleties, or exceptions that Barr’s testimony didn’t include. Barr’s testimony did indeed skip parts of his opinion, that Ryan Goodman described, “would have earned the Justice Department scorn from the halls of Congress, legal experts, and the public.”

Congress received the 1989 Barr opinion 21 months later after waiting a year and a half to issue a subpoena. But that was after the U.S. had invaded Panama, captured Noriega, and brought him back to the U.S. for a trial.

Award-winning investigative journalist Michael Isikoff gave this analysis of Barr’s full opinion:

Omission 1: President’s authority to violate the UN Charter

Barr’s opinion stated that a president could violate the United Nations Charter because such actions are “fundamentally political questions.” Barr was wrong. He ignored a president’s constitutional duty to “take care” that U.S. laws, including ratified treaties, be faithfully executed. He also combined this political question issue—whether courts can review an action taken by the executive branch—and the question of whether this action is legal or authorized. Professor Jeanne Woods wrote: “Barr’s congressional testimony attempted to gloss over the broad legal and policy changes that his written opinion advocated.… A careful analysis of the published opinion, and the reasoning underlying it, however, reveals the depth of its deviation from accepted norms.”

Omission 2: Presumption that acts of Congress comply with international law

Woods wrote that Barr failed to correctly apply the so-called “Charming Betsy” method when interpreting statutes. In the 1804 decision, Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, the Supreme Court ruled that “an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.” Even more, in a “reverse Charming Betsy” Barr asserted that “in the absence of an explicit restriction” concerning international law, the congressional statute must be interpreted as authorizing the executive branch to violate international law. He wrote that Congress has to grant the right to a president to break international law “because, as part of his law enforcement powers, the President has the inherent authority to override customary international law.” It’s a false analogy based on a false assertion.

Omission 3: International law on abductions in foreign countries

Barr’s testimony about his opinion didn’t even mention international law. He claimed that the full memo “is strictly a legal analysis of the FBI’s authority, as a matter of domestic law, to conduct extraterritorial arrests of individuals for violations of U.S. law.” His State Department legal adviser sidekick reinforced Barr’s testimony by claiming:

“Mr. Barr has summarized its conclusions for you. As Mr. Barr has indicated, that opinion addressed a narrow question-the domestic legal authority to make such arrests…. My role today is to address issues not discussed in the OLC opinion — the international law and foreign policy implications of a nonconsensual arrest in a foreign country.”

The full memo, however, included international law and the way that the UN Charter—a specific treaty—could apply. The 1980 memo, which Barr reversed, opposed abductions in other countries without their consent. It quoted a condemnation of Israel’s abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina as an example of prohibition by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Barr said the opposite of the 1980 DOJ memo. Barr also used personal “logic” in the memo instead of legality:

“Because sovereignty over territory derives not from the possession of legal title, but from the reality of effective control, logic would suggest there would be no violation of international law in exercising law enforcement activity in foreign territory over which no state exercises effective control.”

These pieces are a few of those uncovered in Congress after it subpoenaed the full opinion. By that time, however, Barr had become deputy AG on his way to being peacefully confirmed for AG. He said that the constitution didn’t permit abortion, that Roe v. Wade was wrong decided, and then Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), now considering a run for president, praised his honesty. At about the same time, Biden helped put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court for perpetuity. Not long after becoming AG, Barr helped H.W. pardon indicted and convicted officials from the Iran-Contra Affair to protect H.W. from being investigated about his own illegal conduct.

Almost 30 years later, Barr told Congress that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the Robert Mueller’s report for the public. He can obfuscate and hide information in Muller’s report. If that doesn’t work, Barr can help with more pardons to hide illegal actions by Dictator Donald Trump (DDT). And as a bonus, Barr can authorize the FBI to arrest the head of any country DDT wishes—like Venezuela maybe? It’s a pattern for Barr.

The vote to confirm followed party lines except for one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul (KY), who voted against confirmation and three Democrats—Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WY), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) voting for confirmation. Barr violated the Posse Comitatus Act that requires congressional approval for using military for law enforcement. Thanks to his confirmation, the nation may be subjected to his approach of doing whatever he wants and then claiming that what’s done is done. [In the above photo, Bill Barr may be demonstrating how much he will let the public see of Mueller’s report.]

With the release of the heavily-redacted Mueller report less than two days away, White House staffers are suffering a “breakdown-level anxiety” among cooperating staff who fear “the wrath” of Dictator Donald Trump (DDT) and his allies. Look for a whole new level of fury in DDT’s tweets.

 

December 17, 2018

The Dark Side of George H.W. Bush

Filed under: Executive action — trp2011 @ 11:03 PM
Tags: , , , ,

The tributes to George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, keep pouring out as the media showered accolades on him after his death at age 94. They called him a man “of the highest character”; said that he “served with character, class, and integrity”; and “did tremendous good along the journey.” The picture of H.W. included his ending the Cold War without “firing a shot,” his life as a beloved husband, grandfather, and great-grandfather. The media also described his brave military career. All this praise blurs H.W.’s history.

Early Career:

Denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act while running for senator.

Defended Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate and criticized the press for asking the president questions.

Helped facilitate Operation Condor as CIA director, a collaboration between South American military dictatorships that kidnapped, tortured, murdered, or disappeared thousands of political dissidents including former Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Orlando Letelier, assassinated on U.S. soil during H.W.’s directorship.

Campaign:

Hired Roger Ailes, later head of Fox, to run one of the most racist campaigns in modern history—until Dictator Donald Trump (DDT)—as he falsified the part that his opponent Mike Dukakis played in releasing Willie Horton, who raped a woman while on prison furlough. The law letting Horton out for a short time had been passed by a GOP governor before Dukakis became governor. Even H.W.’s campaign director Lee Atwater apologized for his part in the advertising, but H.W. never did.

Decried Dukakis’ “Americanism” because he was the son of Greek immigrants.

Set up the Gary Hart scandal which forced Hart out of the running.

Flipped his policies—i.e., from pro-choice to anti-choice—to be elected.

Vice Presidency, loyalist to Ronald Reagan:

Backed dictatorships and death squads throughout Latin America.

Crushed unions.

Made racist attacks on welfare.

Displayed callous indifference to the AIDS crisis.

Supported apartheid South Africa.

Empowered the religious right.

Set the stage for continued actions during his presidency.

Presidency: 

Lied about his history in the CIA dating back to the ’50s.

Appointed incompetent sexual harasser Clarence Thomas to replace civil rights hero Thurgood Marshall for a life-time term on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lied about Iraqi troops yanking Kuwaiti infants from incubators and massing on the Saudi Arabian border in order to start a war that killed thousands of civilians by dropping 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait.

Used fabricated satellite images about a fictional Iraqi buildup that just didn’t exist to attack Iraq in 1990.

Imposed never before seen restrictions and censorship on media coverage of his war, forcing media into supporting extreme warring patriotism.

Promoted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s jihad, continued the U.S. pattern of violating international military law, and used brain-damaging chemicals responsible for illness in at least one-third of that war’s veterans.

Committed other war crimes including the deliberate destruction of essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure that couldn’t be repaired without foreign assistance.

Vetoed the 1990 Civil Rights Act.

Sent 24,000 military members into Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega, once a U.S. ally on the CIA payroll and considered an asset in Iran-Contra, an action that killed at least 3,000 Panamanians and set the scene for continuing wars.

Refused to cooperate with a special counsel for the Iran-Contra affair by concealing information about his involvement as vice president during the investigation of Ronald Reagan who illegally traded missiles for U.S. hostages in Iran and used the proceeds of arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Reagan sales were payback to Iran for keeping hostages in 1980 so that Jimmy Carter would lose the presidential election. The money was used to support “Contra” terrorists because Congress cut off funds to assassinate Nicaraguan elected officials and bomb civilians.

Pardoned six people to block a trial about the Iran-Contra affair because he might have been called as a witness.

Escalated the racist war on drugs and pushed greater spending for the “war” when federal agents lured a drug dealer to a park across from the White House, a war that failed to reduce drug abuse.

Groped women when they were being photographed with him.

Set the tone for opposition to reversing climate change, positively viewed during the 1980s.

Ignored the AIDS crisis killing hundreds of thousands of people through ignorance and lack of funding.

Opened Guantánamo to keep Haitian refugees escaping violence in their country from entering the United States.

Bailed out the savings and loan industry with $124.6 billion in taxpayer money that gave over $4 million to pay off his son Jeb’s loan.

Opposed raising the minimum wage and vetoed a bill to increase it to $4.55 an hour.

Hired people in 1992 to investigate passport files for proof that his opponent, Bill Clinton, had become a secret Communist while in Russia and went through the files of Clinton’s mother.

H.W. has been called a “patrician,” a descendant of a distinguished family. This family has a long career of creating and profiting from war crimes. H.W.’s father, Prescott, a Yale member of the secretive Skull and Bones Society like H.W., helped give financial assistance to the Nazi movement and Adolf Hitler, even after the U.S. entered World War II, and profited from slave labor at Auschwitz. H.W. continued the family tradition of amassing wealth by generating military enemies and then profiting from his covert business dealings connected to them.

Through the Carlyle Group, rebranded as an investment company but owners of companies with military and security contracts, H.W. was also connected with the Bin Ladin family during the Middle East wars. H.W. became actively involved with the Carlyle Group after he lost his second run for president and increased his wealth through advising his son, George W., while he was president. Saudi royalty made a sizable profit from Carlyle investments with the Carlyle Group but pulled out after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade towers.

Three-fourths of the perpetrators who crashed four commercial airplanes to kill thousands of people on 9/11/01 were Saudi Arabians, but both H.W. and his son George W. Bush protected their Saudi royal friends. Shafiq bin Laden was meeting with the Carlyle Group, including H.W., at the same time that his brother Osama destroyed the twin towers. Seventeen years later, many people associate the 9/11 attack with Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.

Judicial Watch called on H.W. to resign from the Carlyle Group, owning at least 164 companies at that time, after George W. became president. H.W. stayed, and made a tidy profit from the 9/11 attack and George W.’s ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when Carlyle’s businesses considerably picked up. Vought Aircraft, for example, received over $1 billion in defense contracts after laying off 20 percent of its workforce before 9/11.

James Baker, H.W.’s Secretary of State who extolled H.W.’s virtues after he died, also joined the Carlyle Group to manage relationships with Saudi clients and to defend Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz in a trillion-dollar lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims. They accused him of using Islamic charities to funnel millions of dollars to terrorist groups connected to al-Qaeda. The sultan died in 2011, the lawsuit has continued for 17 years, and Baker went on to make his son, James Baker IV, also wealthy.

The media glorification is a prime example of revisionist history, depicting H.W. as a perfect gentleman without reporting any of his flaws. His lasting legacy will be Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. H.W. never wavered from his “total confidence” in Thomas that he first declared on October 9, 1991, despite charges of sexual misconduct against Thomas. On the high court, Thomas has opposed Roe v. Wade, claiming that the Constitution does not address abortion, and dissented to the majority of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

When Thomas spoke before the court in 2016, it was the first time in ten years. Until Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a justice, Thomas took the most conservative position. In a term with only 59 signed opinions, Thomas would have erased six vital precedents because they didn’t fit his personal understanding of what the Founding Fathers wrote. Thomas supported racial discrimination in Texas redistricting because, according to his opinion, the Constitution did not mention districting. In another case, Thomas ruled for a Muslim ban: he stated that the Constitution doesn’t advocate injunctions. Ironically, he had upheld an injunction against President Obama’s DAPA, granting temporary deferral of deportation to the parents of the young “Dreamers” protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, DACA. Thomas voted for Citizens United v. FEC which permits almost unlimited dark money in elections and put H.W.’s son into the Oval Office in Bush v. Gore.

Twenty percent of appeals court judges appointed in the past two years clerked for Thomas. At the age of 70, Thomas is the longest-serving justice with the possibility of becoming Chief Justice. He is H.W.’s gift to the United States.

Rest in peace, H.W.

 

 

 

 

Civil Rights Advocacy

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

AGR Daily 60 Second News

Transformational News; What Works For Seven Future Generations Without Causing Harm?

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Jennifer Hofmann

Inspiration for soul-divers, seekers, and activists.

Occupy Democrats

Progressive political commentary/book reviews for youth and adults

V e t P o l i t i c s

politics from a liberal veteran's perspective

Margaret and Helen

Best Friends for Sixty Years and Counting...

GLBT News

Official news outlet for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table of ALA

The Extinction Protocol

Geologic and Earthchange News events

Central Oregon Coast NOW

The Central Oregon Coast Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)

Social Justice For All

Working towards global equity and equality

Over the Rainbow Books

A Book List from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table of the American Library Association

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: