TRUMP AS PRESIDENT - I WILL NOT CRITICIZE (MEXICO DEAL):
I WILL PRAY FOR PRES TRUMP BUT I WON’T PUBLICLY CRITICIZE HIM.
NO MAN IS PERFECT; ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY.
OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM WAS VERY BROKEN & CONGRESS REFUSED TO FIX IT.
HAVE WE BECOME SO POLITICALLY CORRECT, MEDIA DRIVEN AND DIVISIVE THAT WE NO LONGER CARE ABOUT WHAT IS LEGALLY & MORALLY CORRECT ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW??
WHY CRITICIZE A LEADER WHO IS ONLY TRYING TO LEGALLY HELP BOTH AMERICAN CITIZENS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS EXPERIENCE THE AMERICAN DREAM?
GOD BLESS OUR NATION
GOD BLESS THE U.S. MILITARY
GOD BLESS MEXICO FOR AGREEING TO SIGN THIS DEAL.
Post Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Reuters, Washington Post
**** Trump’s big win leaves critics sputtering
Because President Trump emerges as a clear winner from his week-long confrontation with Mexico over our neighbor’s lax enforcement of its southern border, reflexive Trump critics will scramble to find some way of containing what is a clear Trump triumph, which came with assists by Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who conducted the key negotiations.
Already we have heard about long-term damage to trust between the North American allies, about investor nervousness and Trump’s unpredictability.
This sort of flailing-about to deny the obvious says nothing about Trump and much about those critics who can no more admit he played high-stakes poker and won a round on border security than they can admit that the president delivered a magnificent tribute to the heroes of Normandy on Thursday.
Much of the media has overheated now and, like an engine that has run too long without an oil change, has begun to seize up, stall, even melt.
That Trump has contributed to the slow wreck of American media is undeniable.
It’s a feature, not a bug, of his presidency to attack, attack, attack the media elites. And no matter how often center-right journalists counsel him to abandon the Stalinist “enemy of the people” rhetoric, he hasn’t because it triggers a flaming hatred among the ideologies of the left, with platforms and elites eager to signal each other that they are part of the tribe menaced by this Godzilla from Trump Tower.
Voters, though — not just the “Twitter Democrats” but voters of all ages and ideologies — are a pretty smart bunch. Assume for a moment that they know, generally, that tariffs are a lousy idea in terms of economic growth. Assume as well that they know that tariffs can be an instrument of national power in confrontations unrelated to economic growth.
Assume that voters know our competition with China is far more than an economic race, but rather a complex geopolitical rivalry that both sides wish to keep contained short of open conflict and that is waged through proxies, cyber-confrontations, intellectual-property battles, freedom-of-the-seas disputes and the relative size and power of our armed forces and those of our allies.
In that context, tariffs on Chinese goods are just part of an overall negotiation toward a new normal that is in everyone’s interest.
So “tariffs bad, free trade good” is simplistic. “Free trade is good and agreed-upon international conventions are required for genuinely free trade and tariffs may be necessary to achieve those conventions” is accurate. And widely understood.
“Alliances are good” is simplistic. “Alliances in which allies actually do what they promise with regard to percentage of GDP spent on national defense while not increasing dependence on Russian natural gas” is complex but accurate.
Hard as it is for the Manhattan-Beltway echo chamber to believe, sounding sophisticated isn’t actually being sophisticated. Trump’s record is mixed, but not this week.
This week, even as Joe Biden began to melt (the headline in Saturday’s Times of London online edition was “Democrats raise doubts over Joe Biden’s stamina for presidential nomination race” — never a good sign when the neighbors notice these things), Trump put together back-to-back big successes. Historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson speculates that Trump’s enemies are so addicted to hating him that, in a classic addict pattern, all behaviors are bent in service of the addiction.
This weekend and next week will separate the outrage addicts from the serious journalists. Trump would be very well advised to take this tariff weapon off the table with regard to Mexico.
It probably wouldn’t work a second time unless the Mexicans failed to deliver even a halfhearted effort.
It’s not the sort of threat you can use twice, and doing so would undo the enormous win he can rightfully paint this to be at rally after rally as Campaign 2020 gets underway.
If Trump invited Democrats back to the White House for immigration reform and border security talks right now, urging them to be as serious as the Mexican government has been about the border crisis, it might actually work.
House Democrats passed an immigration bill last week. Senate Republicans could quickly pass their own version to get a joint House-Senate conference with White House participation.
Everyone could win: the United States and Mexico, the president and the House speaker, both parties, the undocumented in this country seeking regularization, and the desperate and easily exploited poor of Central America.
JOHN MCCAIN IS DEAD - POLITICAL BATTLE FOR HIS SEAT BEGINS BEFORE HE IS EVEN BURIED:
AUGUST 29, 1936 - AUGUST 25, 2018
MCCAIN LEFT BEHIND MIXED POLITICAL LEGACY, HOWEVER HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REST IN PEACE AND STILL HONORED FOR HIS U.S. MILITARY SERVICE.
I SEND MY PRAYERS AND CONDOLENCES TO HIS FAMILY.
Post Sources: ABC News, BBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube
****** John McCain's death means potential legal battle to fill his Senate seat
With the news that Arizona Senator John McCainhas passed away due to complications from brain cancer, the speculation over who will succeed him in the position he has held since 1987 has begun in earnest.
The timing of McCain’s death results in a complicated process that could end up in a court battle in a state that will be key to determining the balance of power in the U.S. Senate this midterm cycle.
According to Arizona state law, the governor appoints a replacement for any vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat who will hold it until the "next eligible general election."
That person must belong to the same political party of the person who held the seat.
That means Doug Ducey, Arizona's Republican governor, would appoint a Republican to fill McCain's seat until the next general election or until the governor decided to call a special election.
However, the most relevant piece of election code in this situation is that the candidate filing deadline for the election cannot be fewer than 90 days before a primary for that special election.
The State of Arizona Election Procedures Manualstipulates that the vacancy "must occur sufficiently before" that deadline to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot.
Since the Arizona primaries will be held this Tuesday, the filing deadline for candidates would have had to have been May 30 for a special election to comply with state law.
So even though the next general election in Arizona is in November, the timing of McCain’s passing likely ensures that whomever Ducey appoints to replace him will serve until 2020, the next general election year.
Matt Roberts, the communications director for the Arizona Secretary of State, confirmed to ABC News that under state election regulations, Ducey can appoint a replacement that will serve in McCain’s seat until 2020.
Democrats could challenge that relevant portion of state election guidance to try and force a special election in 2018, which would put both of the state's Senate seats up this cycle since retiring Sen. Jeff Flake's seat is also up.
When asked about potential plans to pursue legal action to force a special election in 2018, a spokesperson for the Arizona Democratic Party declined to comment on the subject, instead telling ABC News, "John McCain is an American hero and our thoughts are with him and his family at this difficult time."
A special election this year would force Republicans to defend two Senate seats this cycle in a state Donald Trump won by just four percentage points in the 2016 presidential election.
JEMELE RUINED A GREAT JOB WITH ESPN TO HELP DEMOCRATS IN 2020.
SHE WAS HIRED AS A SPORTS COMMENTATOR NOT A POLITICAL ACTIVIST.
WILL DEMOCRAT LEADERS WHO HATE TRUMP NOW OFFER JEMELE A $10 MILLION CONTRACT??
IT’S NOT ABOUT VIOLATING FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
EVEN IF YOU DON’T LIKE TRUMP, HE IS STILL THE ELECTED U.S. PRESIDENT JUST AS OBAMA WAS.
THINK SMARTER BLACK YOUNG PEOPLE.
IF YOU WANT TO BE AN ACTIVIST, SAVE MONEY AND THEN LEAVE YOUR JOB AMICABLY FIRST.
YOU CAN NOT BE AN POLITICAL ACTIVIST AT WORK IN CORPORATE AMERICA UNLESS YOU WERE HIRED UPFRONT TO BE A PAID POLITICAL COMMENTATOR.
PERIOD.
Post Sources: NY Daily Post, Bleacher Report, ESPN, Fox News, Sports Illustrated, Your Black World, Youtube
***** Jemele Hill is out at ESPN
Jemele Hill needed to be out at ESPN. Hill knew it. ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro knew it. And, now, Jemele Hill is out at ESPN.
The marriage between ESPN and Hill — the controversial sports commentator who waded into politics and sparred with President Donald Trump — has long been stuck in irreconcilable differences. Since leaving “SportsCenter” earlier this year, she has barely worked, making a divorce the obvious conclusion.
A buyout of her reported $2.5 million per year contract has been completed and her last day will be Friday, according to sources.
On Saturday night, the author James Miller, who wrote a book about ESPN, first tweeted the newsof the breakup, calling it “amicable.” The timing, on a Saturday evening, was fortunate for Hill and ESPN in an attempt to lessen the news coverage of what had been a huge national story, both in politics and in sports. There had been rumblings last week of buyout talks between the two sides.
It is quite simple as to why the buyout happened: Hill wants to continue her involvement in politics, and ESPN wants out of politics.
Pitaro has made it clear ESPN is a sports network and does not want to be associated with politics, so he agreed to a buyout with Hill, according to sources. ESPN had no use for Hill on any of its programs after her ill-fated 6 p.m. “SportsCenter”with her former partner, Michael Smith, failed to deliver ratings. She first left Smith behind by quitting the show before the executive in charge of the program, Norby Williamson, had a chance to replace her. She would have been removed.
Nearly one year ago, on Sept. 11, 2017, Hill called Trump “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself [with] other white supremacists.” Though it broke ESPN’s social media rules about commenting on politics unrelated to sports, then-network president John Skipper failed to suspend Hill. The White House called for Hill to be fired.
A little more than a month later, Skipper decided to suspend Hill after she criticized Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ anthem stance by tweeting, “Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ’s statement, boycott his advertisers.” She was off television for two weeks. ESPN called it a second offense. Hill said she regretted that she had “painted ESPN in an unfair light.”
Pitaro recently said he thinks the biggest misperception of ESPN is that it is political, and now he is putting action behind his words. Though the network’s on-air programming is mostly apolitical, it is hard to ask viewers to disassociate stances they read on social media when ESPN personalities are on TV, radio or writing for its website.
Nearly one year ago, on Sept. 11, 2017, Hill called Trump “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself [with] other white supremacists.” Though it broke ESPN’s social media rules about commenting on politics unrelated to sports, then-network president John Skipper failed to suspend Hill. The White House called for Hill to be fired.
A little more than a month later, Skipper decided to suspend Hill after she criticized Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ anthem stance by tweeting, “Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ’s statement, boycott his advertisers.” She was off television for two weeks. ESPN called it a second offense. Hill said she regretted that she had “painted ESPN in an unfair light.”
Pitaro recently said he thinks the biggest misperception of ESPN is that it is political, and now he is putting action behind his words. Though the network’s on-air programming is mostly apolitical, it is hard to ask viewers to disassociate stances they read on social media when ESPN personalities are on TV, radio or writing for its website.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. And, perhaps, your potential leakers closer yet.
President Donald Trump's political operation has made a regular practice of providing soft landing-pads for discarded staffers, offering nebulous jobs at big salaries to aides who have been pushed out of his West Wing.
The revelation this week that former White Houseassistant Omarosa Manigault Newman was offered a high-paying job on Trump's re-election campaign in return for signing a non-disclosure agreement was the clearest demonstration yet of how a slot in the Trump orbit is being used to take care of loyalists — and protect against potential liabilities.
Manigault Newman, who contends in her new book that she was offered a hush-money contract with the Trump campaign paying $15,000 a month, is hardly the first erstwhile staffer to find a lucrative off-ramp in the expanse of pro-Trump political organizations. The former staff members have found a wide range of rehabilitation within Trump's orbit: his re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee, and outside groups that support both him and Vice President Mike Pence.
Keith Schiller, the president's former bodyguard who served for eight months as director of Oval Office operations, has been paid the same $15,000 by the Republican National Committee as a security consultant for its national convention — in 2020 in Charlotte.
John McEntee, Trump's former personal aide, is paid 14,000 a month by the Trump re-election campaign.
One-time Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski joined Pence's Great America PAC in May, and former press secretary Sean Spicer was announced in June to replace him as the "senior advisor and spokesman" for pro-Trump super PAC America First Action.
Manigault Newman told MSNBC's "Hardball" on Monday, "They told me I could work from home, I didn't have to come in if I didn't want to. ... I could choose between the RNC, America First or the Trump campaign." She says she said no.
Now she has released a book filled with unsavory White House inside stories — Trump says the ones about him are false — and has been playing recordings of the president and others on TV.
That's exactly what he wanted to avoid, and his presidential campaign filed an arbitration action against her on Wednesday, alleging she had breached a confidentiality agreement she had signed.
The outside groups have also become magnets for Trump backers who were not brought into the administration, like Katrina Pierson and Trump daughter-in-law Lara Trump.
The all-in the-family approach to taking care of stalwarts is nothing new. But the systematic approach with which Trump White House veterans have been offered plush gigs is.
According to aides, it reflects a reality that for some the lucrative private sector jobs that are typically available to exiting White House officials never materialized, while for others, it serves as a way keep them nearby and quiet.
Some current and former staffers have struggled to find post-White House jobs — given the conflicted feelings on the Trump administration in Washington — making the campaign or a super PAC an attractive paycheck.
And Trump, despite his reality-television catch-phrase, is loath to fire anyone from his inner circle, preferring to keep receiving their public and private adoration.
"When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems," Trump tweeted about Manigault Newman on Monday. "I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me - until she got fired!"
SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED vs FAKE RUSSIA RUINED 2016 ELECTION THEORIES:
WHY DO YOU STILL NEED A TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE IF YOU ARE NO LONGER A DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE OR NO LONGER AN FBI DIRECTOR??
WHY DO FORMER FED GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ARE NOW PRIVATE CITIZENS, STILL NEED TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCES?
SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON POLITICIANS, PRIVATE CITIZENS OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
SECURITY CLEARANCE PRIVILEGES SHOULD NOT BE SOLD FOR PARTISAN POLITICS.
SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO CORRUPT THE U.S. GOVT VIA FALSE INFORMATION.
REVOKING SECURITY CLEARANCES DOES NOT VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT’S PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
EACH ELECTED U.S. PRESIDENT HAS LEGAL DISCRETION TO GRANT OR REVOKE SECURITY CLEARANCES.
Post Sources: Washington Times, Politico, Fox News, Youtube
****** Trump threatens to revoke Obama officials' security clearances
President Trump threatened Monday to revoke security clearance from top Obama administration officials who have fanned the flames of Russian collusion conspiracy theories, a retaliation by the White House that legal scholars said would be unprecedented but not illegal.
On the president’s security clearance hit list are former CIA Director John O. Brennan, former Director of National Security James R. Clapper, former FBI Director James B. Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice and National Security Agency Director Michael V. Hayden, said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
“They’ve politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service security clearances,” she said. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russiaagainst the president is extremely inappropriate.”
Former intelligence officials typically keep their high-level security clearances after leaving government jobs and sometimes provide informal advice to current officials.
These six officials publicly leveled accusations of criminal wrongdoing — including treason — against Mr. Trump in frequent TV news appearances.
Several also pocket paychecks for doing it.
Mr. Brennan is a paid analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. Mr. Clapper and Mr. Hayden are paid analysts for CNN.
Mr. Clapper also is suspected of leaking to CNN in January 2017 information about the anti-Trump dossier that helped spur the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation.
Mr. Brennan took several jabs at the president last week after his meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???” he tweeted.
Mrs. Sanders said the president thinks top-security clearance for former officials who make “these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”
Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer specializing in security clearance cases, said the president was in uncharted territory but as commander in chief had carte blanche authority to revoke security clearances.
“There is nothing legally that would preclude the president from taking that action,” he said.
What’s more, the only recourse to challenge a security clearance revocation is through an administrative appeal process that the president could deny, said Mr. Bigley.
The president’s opponents in Washington quickly accused him of politicizing security clearances.
Mr. Clapper responded on CNN, “It’s kind of a sad commentary, where for political reasons, this is kind of a petty way of retribution, I suppose, for speaking out against the president.”
He said all of the former officials have been speaking “out of genuine concerns about President Trump.”
Others called it an attack on free speech.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has spearheaded accusations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, said the president had set “a terrible new precedent.”
“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. Is there no length Trump will not go to stifle opposition? Wake up GOP,” Mr. Schiff tweeted.
“This is what totalitarianism looks like,” tweeted Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat.
Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, raised the idea of targeting Mr. Brennan’s security clearance in a tweet early Monday and later presented the suggestion to Mr. Trump in a meeting at the White House.
Mr. Paul has been one of the most vocal defenders of Mr. Trump’s performance at the Helsinki meeting, and Mr. Brennan has been one of the loudest critics.
“Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees,” Mr. Paul tweeted.
The White House announcement followed Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Paul.
The unusual circumstances engulfing Mr. Trump’s presidency made the scrutiny clearance threat “very appropriate,” said David K. Rehr, a scholar of Washington politics at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.
He said that all of the Obama intelligence officials on the list had their fingers in the Trump collusion conspiracy and now had a financial incentive to promote the conspiracy theories.
“People need to know that if they are public servants that they are public servants and not servants of political campaigns,” he said.
Mrs. Sanders rejected the accusation that the president was seeking to punish the former officials for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
“The president doesn’t like the fact that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearances,” she said. “When you’re the person that holds the nation’s deepest, most-sacred secrets at your hands, and you go out and you make false accusations against the president of the United States, he thinks that is something to be very concerned with, and we’re exploring what those options are and what that looks like.”
The politicizing of security clearances and the security clearance process is not entirely new to Washington.
Democrats pounced on the Trump White House for the slow pace of security clearance approval for top aides such as Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation to strip Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton of her security clearance over use of a secret email account and email server for official business as secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton also came under fire from Republicans for arranging top-secret security clearance for her attorney David Kendall amid the email scandal.
Mr. McCabe lost his security clearance when he was fired as FBI deputy director in January.
“You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps,” said McCabe spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz.
Mr. Comey has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Mr. Trumpsince the president fired him in May 2017.
Ms. Rice said Sunday on a talk show that she didn’t know Mr. Trump’s motivations for seeking a better relationship with Russia, but “I think that’s a legitimate question.”
She called Mr. Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin “a historic mistake.”
As national security adviser under Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice was widely criticized for initially explaining the terrorist attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The performance prevented her from being nominated as secretary of state.
Mr. Clapper raised questions last August on CNN about Mr. Trump’s “ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office. I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.”
Mr. Hayden has published a book this year titled “The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies.” He said on CBS this spring of Mr. Trump, “We’ve had presidents who disagree with us; we’ve had presidents who lie. We’ve not had presidents for whom objective reality doesn’t seem to be compelling.”
Former House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, called Mr. Trump’s action petty.
“It’s certainly below the stature of the office of the president of the United States,” he said on CNN. “I just wish that the president would be bigger than that.”
He said of Mr. Brennan, “It’s also not customary for the former CIA director to be off the reservation where he is, either. I don’t think John Brennan should do it.”
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at making it easier for churches to participate in politics, seeking to deliver on a campaign pledge to a community that overwhelmingly backed in him in last year’s election.
The order, which Trump unveiled with great fanfare in a Rose Garden ceremony, was cheered by some conservative Christians but seen as a disappointment by others, who said it fell short of the broader changes they wanted as part of a highly anticipated measure on religious liberties.
The order, Trump said, removes the financial threat faced by tax-exempt churches from the Internal Revenue Service when pastors speak out on behalf of political candidates. But some experts said it amounts to a mostly symbolic gesture with little likelihood of changing how the agency polices the issue.
Trump’s order — unveiled on a National Day of Prayer celebrated with religious leaders — also directs his administration to consider developing regulations related to religious objectors to an Obama administration mandate, scaled back by the courts, that required contraception services as part of health plans.
“For too long the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs,” Trump said, later telling those gathered for the event that “you’re now in a position to say what you want to say . . . No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.”
The sweep of the order was considerably narrower than a leaked February draft, which alarmed civil libertarians and gay rights and other liberal advocacy groups.
Among other things, that version included a provision that could have allowed federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees or single mothers on the basis of faith.
The order released Thursday instead included a blanket statement that “it shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom.” Trump said he would direct the Justice Department to develop rules to guide that process.
Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel for the faith group Alliance Defending Freedom, was among the Christian conservatives to criticize the order, calling it “disappointingly vague” and questioning whether the IRS would follow through with Trump’s directive.
“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion,” Baylor said.
Even the scaled-back version prompted threats of lawsuits, although some groups said that after reviewing the order they would hold fire on any legal action, arguing that it will have little impact.
“Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome,” American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process.”
As a candidate and shortly after taking office, Trump declared that he would “totally destroy” what is known as the Johnson Amendment, the long-standing ban on churches and other tax-exempt organizations supporting political candidates.
The provision applies to all tax-exempt organizations, including many colleges and foundations. But Christian groups have complained most vociferously about its use.
The provision is written in the tax code and would require an act of Congress to repeal fully. An administration official said Trump was instead directing the IRS to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion of the prohibition.”
The language in the order is less robust: It merely instructs the administration not to take “adverse action” against churches or religious figures for political speech that has “not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign” for or against a candidate for office.
Rabbi David Saperstein, former ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, said that as crafted, Trump’s order isn’t likely to make a significant difference in enforcement practices.
“People committed to the Johnson Amendment will be troubled he’s continuing down a path toward changing existing law,” Saperstein said. “Those who are advocating for a significant change are going to be disappointed.”
Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a leading advocate of repealing the prohibition, called Trump’s order a good first step, saying that it removed “a sword of Damocles that has hung over the faith community for decades.” But he added that his group would still like to see congressional action.
Violations of the Johnson Amendment are infrequently pursued by the IRS, but evangelicals say it has been used selectively against them, preventing Christian leaders from speaking freely in church.
The amendment is named for Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced it in the Senate in 1954, nine years before he became president.
Under current law, churches are free to promote political candidates but must forgo such activity to obtain tax-exempt status.
The repeal of the Johnson Amendment is also being written into the tax legislation being developed in the House of Representatives, according to congressional aides. But both the provision and the broader legislation face substantial hurdles.
In a letter Wednesday to Republican leaders of Congress, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and other Democrats expressed concern that repealing the amendment would allow tax-exempt churches and other nonprofits to be used to skirt campaign finance laws.
“Using charitable causes as shell companies to evade campaign finance transparency and contribution limits would increase the flow of dark money in politics,” the letter said.
How far-reaching the order should be has been the subject of internal White House debate for weeks, with Vice President Pence actively engaged in the deliberations and advocating for a more conservative posture, while Ivanka Trump and some other advisers arguing that the administration’s actions should be more moderate.
“There definitely was internal debate over what would be in the final draft,” a White House official said.
The president’s advisers agreed that Trump must live up to his campaign promise — repeated in the early days of his presidency — that he would destroy the Johnson Amendment. But Ivanka Trump and other advisers appealed to the president that he should resist taking further hard-line action, arguing that simply easing federal enforcement of the amendment would be enough to satisfy conservative activists.
“I don’t think it comes as any surprise that Ivanka wanted to be involved in the process,” the White House official said. “There wasn’t an intense debate internally, a showdown, and Ivanka and Jared were pitted against Pence. It really wasn’t like that. I think that Ivanka did a good job — not as first daughter but as assistant to the president — for making the case for what she thought was in the best interest of this presidency with regard to this executive order. Others made the case for what they thought was best. The president made the decision. And there has not been any dissent or backbiting in the wake of that.”
Andrew Bremberg, head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, played a lead role in drafting the executive order and overseeing the policy process.
Exit polls in November showed Trump defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 80 percent to 16 percent among white evangelical Christians, and he has been eager to please a key part of his base.
“It’s great to be doing it in the Rose Garden,” Trump said at the outset of Thursday’s ceremony. “How beautiful is that?”
Trump received a standing ovation from the audience, which included leaders from an array of faiths, when he said, “It was looking like you never get here, but folks, you got here.”
Pence and more than a half-dozen Cabinet secretaries also attended the event, which kicked off with music by Steven Curtis Chapman, a Grammy Award-winning Christian singer.
In recent years, conservative Christian churches have become increasingly concerned that the federal government could come after their tax-exempt status if they profess opposition to gay rights and same-sex marriage. But even some pastors have endorsed the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it protects what is supposed to be a spiritual haven from the pernicious intrusion of politics.
In February, 89 percent of evangelical leaders said in a National Association of Evangelicals poll that they do not think pastors should endorse politicians from the pulpit.
Until Trump elevated it during his campaign, the Johnson Amendment was rarely a top priority for advocates of religious liberty. In fact, some faith groups have said they strongly support the amendment that Trump is weakening. Requiring churches to stay out of politics, they say, is key to separating church and state.
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a leading faith-based group focused on religious freedom, has said it supports the Johnson Amendment because keeping politics and religion separate is best for religion.
Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, criticized the executive order in a statement.
“For decades, the Johnson Amendment has prevented houses of worship from being turned into partisan political tools. A majority of clergy — and Americans — support the status quo and oppose political endorsements from the pulpit.”
Nonreligious groups also support the Johnson Amendment, which applies broadly to charities, not just churches. The Secular Coalition for America called the executive order Thursday “an unprecedented attack on the separation of church and state by a sitting president.”
Another provision included in the order was intended as a response to the issue raised in the prominent Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases before the Supreme Court: whether employers must comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance cover contraception for women.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the court said some employers can opt out of paying for their employees’ birth control coverage for religious reasons. Afterward, the Obama administration announced new rules to allow for the insurance company to pay for the contraception instead.
Trump’s order calls for “regulatory relief” for those parties but does not spell out what that might entail.
In a statement, Tom Price, Trump’s health and human services secretary, said his department would “be taking action in short order” to follow up on Trump’s direction.
Stacey Abrams will win the Democratic primary in Georgia's gubernatorial race Tuesday, CNN projects, becoming the first black woman in the nation to hold a major party's nomination for governor.
If she wins in November, she will become the country's first Black female governor.
The former state House minority leader defeated former state Rep. Stacey Evans, who ran a campaign that tried to appeal to moderates and independent voters.
Abrams, who grew up in Gulfport, Mississippi, as one of six children, told CNN's Kyung Lah in an interview before the election she was aware that "as an African-American woman, I will be doing something no one else has done."
In the interview, Abrams also recounted a story about being rejected as a high school student at the gates of the Georgia Governor's Mansion at an event honoring the state's top students.
"In front of the most powerful place in Georgia, telling me I don't belong there, that's resonated for me for the last 20 years. The reality is having a right to be places does not always mean that you'll gain admission," she said.
Abrams' status as an African-American with strong progressive support, as well as Georgia's status as an early primary and marquee general election state, made her campaign a major draw for national Democratic figures.
Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Abrams, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris went to Georgia to campaign for her.
The Republican race, meanwhile, could be headed to a runoff, with none of the six candidates -- including Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and secretary of state Brian Kemp -- currently holding a majority of the vote.
If no candidate tops 50%, the top two will advance to a one-on-one runoff on July 24 to decide who will take on Abrams.
The head of the state's Republican Party said Friday that he has been told the competition to host the 2020 Republican National Convention is down to about three cities, with Charlotte one of the strongest bids.
N.C. GOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse, who is attending the Republican National Committee meeting in Miami, said he has been told by numerous national Republicans that they were impressed by the city's Democratic leadership teaming up with statewide Republicans.
Woodhouse said he believed Las Vegas is a strong competitor.
CNN reported that Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald made a presentation this week to a site selection committee.
Woodhouse said Las Vegas appears to have placed a late bid to host the RNC.
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the city of Las Vegas said they weren't aware of a bid.
A spokesperson for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority said Thursday that Republicans asked the city to bid, but it had to decline because it "doesn't have the facilities to accommodate the event."
On Friday, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority said it was surprised by the story that Las Vegas was bidding.
It said it turned down the GOP with a letter earlier this year.
Las Vegas considered bidding for the 2016 RNC, but dropped out.
But the state Republican party appears to be moving forward with a bid, even if tourism officials aren't on board yet.
On Thursday, the San Antonio City Council decided in a closed session meeting not to bid.
"There's a reason that San Antonio has not pursued a political convention for the past 20 years and why so few cities seem interested in this convention," San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said, citing disruptions to traffic and neighborhoods.
As San Antonio council members prepared to consider a late bid, some Democratic activists said the city shouldn't seek the RNC.
They said the Trump administration's push for a border wall would damage the city's close ties with Mexico.
The bids for the RNC were originally due Feb. 28, but that deadline was pushed back.
In past years, cities have been vocal about wanting to land a political convention, which are said to be worth tens of millions in dollars in economic impact.
But this year only Charlotte and Las Vegas have said publicly they want it.
Charlotte hosted the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
Woodhouse said he was told that as many as seven cities had expressed interested to the RNC, but some dropped out.
He doesn't know what the other city is, though he said he has heard Texas.
A tourism official in Dallas said the RNC approached the city about bidding, but the city declined.
A spokesperson for the Houston mayor's office declined to comment, but a City Council member said it had not been discussed.
"They were really impressed that a Democratic city and Democratic leaders have come together with Republicans to host the RNC," Woodhouse said.
He said the RNC will meet again in August. A decision could be made then, he said.
JOHN CONYERS IGNORED CLUES IT WAS TIME TO LEAVE OFFICE GRACEFULLY:
GOOD POLITICIANS KNOW HOW TO GET ELECTED & KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO LEAVE.
JOHN CONYERS' CONGRESS SEAT IS NOT A MONARCHY:
HIS SEAT BELONGS TO ALL MICHIGAN VOTERS NOT THE CONYERS' FAMILY.
TERM LIMITS
TERM LIMITS
TERM LIMITS
Sources: Politico, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, YouTube
***** John Conyers Was An Icon. Then He Lost His Way.
It’s time to reckon with the legacy of a man who saw so much and stayed too long.
When, in that brief pillow of time between the Kennedy assassination and the escalation of the war in Vietnam, a 35-year-old John Conyers first ran for Congress, he had a method of connecting with voters—“a pet theory of personality projection,” Simeon Baker wrote in a 1965 profile in Ebony magazine: “Using his good looks as bait and charm as the sticking power, [Conyers] wooed women to support him.” “Sex appeal,” oozed a photo caption in the accompanying spread, was the bachelor’s “greatest asset in winning women’s votes.”
It’s indicative of the era in which the piece was written that Ebony framed Conyers’ political support among women this way despite the fact that the few women Baker includes in the story don’t seem to agree with the depiction. “Sure, he’s good-looking,” said one female supporter, but “what converted him into a winning candidate was his ability to make people feel important.”
“He became a symbol of the new middle-class Negro,” Baker wrote. “He vowed to represent people who are caught between the VIP class of Negro life and the lower class which is dependent on relief, low-income housing, and welfare.”
That John Conyers burned out a long time ago. And this week, any hope that something of the steady glow of a pilot light remained has been extinguished. On Tuesday morning, on the friendly airwaves of a Detroit radio station, Conyers resigned in disgrace following accusations from half a dozen women alleging various forms of sexual harassment, unwanted touching, assault—and the revelation, first reported by BuzzFeed, that his office used taxpayer money to try and cover it up.
It is an ignoble and overdue end to what has been, by any measure, a momentous public life. Conyers’ service in Congress has spanned 10 presidencies and 52 years—he’s been in the House for more than one-fifth of the entire existence of the U.S. Congress. In 1964, he went to Jim Crow Mississippi during Freedom Summer and offered legal representation to black voting-rights activists; one year later, he supported the Voting Rights Act as a member of House of Representatives. He was the only congressman ever endorsed by Martin Luther King Jr., and was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rosa Parks worked as an aide to him for 23 years. He introduced single-payer health-care legislation long before Bernie Sanders claimed “Medicare for All” as his own. He served on the Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, and was one of the original 20 names on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” He was the top Democrat on the committee two decades later, when a president was impeached for the first time since Reconstruction. He was still on the committee a decade after that, when the nation elected its first black president—another young black attorney whose appeal was, in no small part, his ability to make people feel like they too were part of something larger than themselves. All of this is why House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called him an “icon” even as she was trying to nudge him into retirement.
Yet even as many black Detroiters saw Conyers as their champion against the elite and powerful few, Conyers—or, perhaps more accurately, those he surrounded himself with—sought to entrench themselves in the VIP class he once scorned. There can be no doubt that Conyers’ ordeal is of his own making—the accusations against him are serious and profoundly disturbing. But the political fallout from his surprising, bizarre nosedive off the national stage this week throws new light on the actions of those he’s depended on for decades, and whose influence has skyrocketed as old age has ravaged him. And in their slipshod attempts to build a Conyers dynasty, they’ve diminished the man who would be its patriarch.
The highlights of Conyers’ long career are, by now, somewhat familiar. But less known, at least nationally, are the lows.
There are, at age 88, natural questions about his mental state; he sometimes seemed confused in House proceedings, and even when he joined Mildred Gaddis’ morning show to resign on Tuesday, the host essentially had to remind him why he’d called in. For decades, the non compos mentis question has hung over Conyers—there was an incident in the early 1990s when he was supposedly found in the very early morning standing in the middle of Livernois Avenue in Detroit, barefoot and waving at cars. It was reportedly routine for staff members to find him in various states of undress—“his closet is in his office,” his former communications director explained to CNN—and at least one former staffer has alleged he showed up to a meeting clad only in underwear. Knowing this, there’s the inevitable question of why his inner circle wouldn’t step in as stewards. The answer, perhaps, is that they were too invested in his success.
There’s his bizarre relationship with his decades-younger wife, Monica, a roving tempest prone to Trumpian outbursts. The couple married in 1990—she’d been an intern in his office a year earlier—when the congressman was 61 and his bride was 25. From the beginning, the couple were dogged by rumors that their's was a marriage of convenience, or that one party was simply taking advantage of the other. Initially, at least, nobody seemed sure who was taking advantage of whom.
In 2005, Monica Conyers was elected to Detroit’s city council largely on the strength of her husband’s name. Her tenure in public office was memorable for its volatility. There was the time she threatened to shoot an aide to the mayor of Detroit; the time she had to be restrained during a city council meeting after an argument broke out and she made fun of another council member’s need for a hearing aid; the time she petulantly addressed city council president Ken Cockrel Jr. as “Shrek,” a “Li'l Marco”-esque jab at Cockrel’s gleaming bald pate and prominent ears; and her encore, a televised argument with an eighth-graderover whether this was or was not an appropriate way for a role model to act.
More damning were her crimes. In 2009, she pleaded guilty to federal charges that she’d accepted bribes from a wastewater-treatment contractor—making her the first Conyers forced from office. Though she’d later try, unsuccessfully, to withdraw her guilty plea, she was sentenced to three years in federal prison. After serving two, she was released into a halfway house, and in 2015, filed for divorce from the congressman, which apparently didn’t take; the couple renewed their vowsin 2016.
Last week, amid a glut of reporting on the assault and harassment allegations against her husband, Monica, once a mainstay of metro Detroit’s nighttime news broadcasts, emerged from the couple’s family home in the city’s University District/Palmer Park neighborhood to ask, angrily and rhetorically, whether the reporters outside would “go and stalk white people’s houses,” or whether “you just come to the black neighborhoods and stalk our houses?”
As the public face of her embattled husband over the past few weeks, she was joined by Sam Riddle, a Detroit political consultant and huckster known throughout the metro region for his attention-grabbing stints on local news shows—and of course, for his role as a top aide to Monica Conyers, where he helped facilitate bribes that landed Conyers in prison. For years, Riddle “seemed to play the role of Clyde Barrow to Monica Conyers’ Bonnie Parker,” Pulitzer-winning journalist Charlie Le Duff wrote in his book, “Detroit: An Autopsy.” In Riddle’s own trial on the bribery charges, federal prosecutors offered a wiretapped 2007 call in which Councilwoman Conyers told Riddle, “You’d better get my loot.” Faced with prosecution in 2009, Monica said she regretted working with Riddle: “If I was smart, I would have listened to my husband, and he never would have worked for me.”
To Michigan politicos, there’s another reason why Riddle’s re-emergence amid the sad coda of Conyers’ career is a flummoxing twist of events, especially given the very specific accusations the congressman has faced: In 2010, Riddle was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of felonious assault and a gun crime after pulling a shotgun on his girlfriend during a domestic dispute. The mind strains to imagine a rationale for hiring someone with such a background to act as your “family spokesperson” under any circumstance, let alone when you’re facing allegations that you’ve assaulted women.
Across Detroit, there are still a great many people who see in Conyers a man who fights for them, a lion in winter. At a hastily organized rally on Monday, a cavalcade of black Detroit’s leaders came out to voice their unwavering support for him. The Rev. Wendell Anthony, the longtime head of Detroit’s chapter of the NAACP, spoke for many when he questioned why Conyers was being held to a different standard than other national politicians accused of sex crimes: “[I]f we’re going to raise this unholy and unlawful guillotine, calling for the head of John Conyers, then in fairness we must begin with the president of the United States.” “For those in the U.S. Congress to call for his resignation is shameful,” thundered Wayne County Executive Warren Evans as Riddle stood behind him. “Until we know what happened, I can’t fathom why a [Nancy] Pelosi or a [Michigan Congressman Dan] Kildee would ask for the resignation of a man who has not been given due process.”
It wasn’t all supposed to end this way. For more than a year, it was an open secret that when Conyers left office, he would be replaced by his great-nephew Ian, a sitting state senator from Detroit. In recent weeks, as the elder Conyers first voiced his intent to retire at the end of his current term, Ian’s candidacy became a surer and surer thing, culminating in the younger Conyers telling the New York Times in a Tuesday morning scoop that the congressman was going to announce his retirement and that he, Ian, was launching a congressional campaign.
The news jolted Detroit. And it led an irate Monica Conyers, the self-appointed carrier of the torch, to hatch a sloppily arranged change to the succession plan—one in which she would play a central role instead of being pushed aside.
On Tuesday, as John Conyers resigned, he stunned observers by endorsing his and Monica’s son, John Conyers III, as his successor. Conyers III, a 27-year-old who has never held elected office, is no stranger to controversy and comes pre-loaded with his own political scandal.
In 2010, he reported two laptops and $27,000 in concert tickets were stolen from a Cadillac Escalade he’d apparently been using for personal purposes despite the fact that its lease was registered to his father’s congressional office and was being paid with taxpayer money. Other photos online showed Conyers III, then 20, seated behind the wheel of the Cadillac while holding a bottle of Moët. More recently, NBC News reports that on Feb. 15, 2017, Conyers III was arrested in Los Angeles on suspicion of domestic violence; his girlfriend called law enforcement after he, in the words of the police report, “body slammed her on the bed and then on the floor where he pinned her down and spit on her,” before allegedly swinging a knife at her and cutting her arm.
His mother’s intervention sets up the spectacle of a free-for-all primary in which at least two members of the Conyers family seem intent to run.
In a since-deleted tweet, Ian Conyers suggested that Conyers III’s candidacy wasn’t the former congressman’s true wish, and, by name, pinned the credit/blame for the endorsement as someone else’s preference: “Monica - I spoke to my great uncle Thursday night via phone from hospital. His advice Run!”
The fight over John Conyers’ legacy will not end soon, perhaps not even in our lifetimes. But to some degree, its demise comes from the liberalism Conyers championed over more than a half-century—the belief that we can use our collective power to repair the wrongs of the past.
Conservatism has long had a posture that favors standing athwart history yelling stop, a belief in preserving the old way of doing things, standing up for tradition, living up to the nation’s past glories, working to make America great again. Liberalism isn’t so much about restoring the way things used to be as it is about overcoming history. And it’s because of this—and the forward march of progress—that what is acceptable to one generation of Democrats is no longer acceptable to another.
The present always stands in judgment of the past, and one generation’s liberal heroes become another’s problematic figures. Woodrow Wilson was a visionary idealist who sought to make the world safe for democracy—until he was remembered as a racist reactionary with Lost Cause sympathies.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the man who lifted the nation from the depths of the Great Depression, fought the powerful and moneyed, and expanded the scope of what we believed government could and should do—until the exclusion of black Americans from the New Deal and the internment of Japanese-Americans became stains on his legacy.
We now find ourselves in the middle of such a reckoning, as the sins of the past catch up to the reputations of the present.
Al Franken was the progressive intellectual with a scathing wit, the left’s answer to bloviating talk radio on the right—and he’s also a man accused of forcing himself on at least seven women.
Bill Clinton was The Natural, the man from Hope who charted a course for a new type of Democrat, oversaw an economy that gained 23 million new jobs, balanced the budget and built a bridge to the 21st century—and he’s also preyed on women, with errant sexual behavior ranging from the consensual-but-inappropriate (as with the Lewinsky affair) to charges of harassment (as with Paula Jones) and accusations of rape (as with Juanita Broaddrick).
John Conyers was a civil-rights hero, a voice in the wilderness who advocated far-left positions before they were fashionable, a champion for Detroiters—especially black Detroiters—who felt and still feel locked out of the room where decisions get made.
But whatever else he was, Conyers is also the man Courtney Morse says propositioned her when she was an intern, who after his advances were rebuffed, raised the specter of Chandra Levy; the man Elissa Grubbs says groped her in a church and regularly undressed in front of female staff; the man Marion Brown saysstroked her legs, propositioned her in a hotel room and “violated” her body.
And where once those abuses wouldn’t have been career-ending, today, people are starting to listen to what women are saying.
“He made people … believe in their own strength,” a Conyers campaign aide told Ebony in 1965. “He … showed them the value of sticking together.”
And that’s exactly what his accusers have done.
-----------------------------------------------
****** John Conyers could be replaced by his son — who has his dad's name but not his political resume
The son of Rep. John Conyers Jr. — the embattled congressman who announced his sudden retirement Tuesday — may be headed for his father’s seat, carrying on a decades-long political dynasty in Michigan.
Conyers (D-Mich.) resigned Tuesday amid allegations of sexual harassment.
In doing so, the erstwhile dean of the House endorsed his eldest son, John Conyers III, to take his place representing Michigan’s 13th Congressional District — even though the 27-year-old has never run for political office.
Tuesday evening in a statement posted on Twitter the younger Conyers said that he had not decided whether to enter the race but hoped “to come to a decision by the new year — once I have taken the time to thoroughly listen to our community.”
Conyers was one of his father’s fiercest defenders as the 88-year-old faced increasing pressure from Democratic leaders to step aside when a growing number of female former aides accused him of mistreatment and unwanted advances.
“It’s very unfortunate to see him fight so long for so many people and to automatically have the allegations assumed to be true,” John Conyers III told reporters last week, according to NBC affiliate WDIV. “And of course, with sexual assault, women are to be believed. But in this instance, he has no history of this.
“And I think that if we’re not going to make [Sen.] Al Franken resign when we have evidence of him groping a woman while she was asleep … it’s disconcerting to me to see the way my father is being treated after he’s given so much to this country, not just for black people but for people alike.”
Of his father, he added: “He fights for everyone.”
Here’s what we know about John Conyers III.
He lacks political experience
Steve Hood, a political consultant in Detroit, told the Detroit Free Press that not much is known about Conyers, at least in political circles.
Conyers is from Detroit and attended Morehouse College as well as New York University, according to his contributor bio on HuffPost.
That bio, whose details The Washington Post has not yet confirmed, identifies Conyers as “a partner at Detroit’s first minority run hedge fund” and “a seasoned multi-discipline consultant who has provided fundraising and social media services to both political and business clients.” It also says he served as an intern in the Department of Community Outreach in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. “John is committed to melding community engagement, entertainment and politics,” the bio states.
According to his Facebook page, Conyers is a managing partner at the Detroit hedge fund EIA Alpha Partners Fund Management and an owner/partner at Palette Agency in Los Angeles.
He caused public headaches for his father in 2010
In 2010, MLive.com reported that John Conyers III was cited for speeding in his father’s Cadillac Escalade — or rather, the government-leased vehicle his father used as a member of Congress.
There were also reports that year that the younger Conyers had driven the vehicle to a rap concert and that it was broken into, according to the news site. The then-20-year-old reported to policethat two laptops had been stolen from the Escalade, along with tens of thousands of dollars worth of concert tickets.
After the incident, the elder Conyers apologized.
“I have just learned about the inappropriate use of a congressional vehicle by my son over the Thanksgiving holiday,” he said in a statement at the time, according MLive.com. “I am sorry it happened and will make sure that it does not happen again.”
The Detroit Free Press reported that the congressman said he reimbursed the Treasury Department more than $5,600 for his son’s unofficial use of taxpayer money.
A photo on social media at the time showed his son in a Cadillac with a bottle of French champagne, according to an MLive.com article. The story’s headline: “The fabulous online life of John Conyers III, or why his family needs to do damage control immediately.”
He’s an opinionated writer
In a HuffPost op-ed, under the headline “Orange Watergate: The Inevitable Impeachment of the 45th President,” Conyers wrote that the “reactionary and cavalier nature of the president will ultimately be his down fall.
“As his approval ratings tumble and confidence wanes, expect the weight of possible impeachment to make his already poor decision making worse. Self-preservation is ultimately the downfall of the narcissist.”
In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Conyers wrote that the national debate should be about gun control, not mental illness, explaining: “I have dealt with Major Depressive Disorder since I was 15 years-old. I’ve not once thought about murder. I know right from wrong.
“My friends with bi-polar and depression and multiple personality disorder don’t think about hurting others, if anything we think about hurting ourselves.”
“So if you grapple with mental illness do not let the medias stigmatization of our ailments make you self-conscious,” he wrote in his October op-ed. “As much as they love to make us their scapegoats, It’s not our fault. You, as well as I, know we know right from wrong. When they need someone to blame they look to us first, when it’s time to lend their hand to help us they’re nowhere to be found.”
He’s a rapper
In a 2013 song, “Rich Glorious,” Conyers talked about his battles with the media amid his mother’s 2012 bribery conviction, as well as the Cadillac mishap, according to Roll Call.
“Hey f— making a living, boy, I’m trying to make history. So picture me letting the news nitpick at me,” Conyers said in the rap video, which showed an image from a news story about the incident.
He’s not the only Conyers vying for the congressional seat
State Sen. Ian Conyers, John Conyers Jr.’s great-nephew, has declared his intention to run in the special election.
Ian Conyers, who represents the 4th district in the state senate, graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor’s degree in government and a master’s in urban and regional planning, according to his biography.
He worked for then-District Mayor Adrian Fenty, who appointed Conyers as a community outreach and service specialist in Ward 6, according to his LinkedIn profile.
In 2012, Conyers served as a regional field director for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, according to his online resume.
Four years later, the political operative became a politician, winning a special election to replace former state Sen. Virgil Smith. He later told Georgetown’s alumni newsletter: “We dispelled the myth that seniors and middle-aged voters don’t believe in young people.”
After John Conyers Jr. endorsed his own son for his seat, Ian Conyers told the Free Press he was surprised, saying: “I didn’t expect him to make an endorsement.”
Hood, the political consultant, described it as “a family in disarray.”
“You have the potential for two Conyers to go for the seat,” he told the newspaper.
He isn’t guaranteed the seat
Political insiders say the seat does not belong to anyone — a Conyers or not.
“There’s no guarantee that anyone named Conyers is going to be the next congressman representing Detroit,” said Sam Riddle, political director for the Michigan branch of the National Action Network. “We are on the verge of the biggest free-for-all politically you’ve ever seen in Detroit. There should not be an automatic ascension to that congressional seat because your last name is Conyers. The people in Detroit deserve the best candidate possible be elected to that seat represents poorest and blackest city.”
America is in the midst of a reckoning about sexual misconduct, as a steady stream of men in the public eye have resigned or been fired from their jobs over sexual harassment and assault allegations.
Politicians have been no exception, with allegations coming against Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore for allegedly harassing and assaulting teenagers — but also against Democratic members of Congress: Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) and Rep. John Conyers (Mich.).
As has become glaringly obvious, while the allegations against Moore are categorically worse than anything Franken or Conyers is accused of, harassment has no particular political affiliation.
Democrats need to find some honor and address their side of the sexual harassment problem, by forcing out Conyers and Franken. Not only do harassment victims deserve a measure of justice, Democrats' political reputation is on the line. These two — and I would guess probably a few others — need to go.
So far Democrats are only beginning to find their spines on this. When the first Franken allegations came out — from radio host Leeann Tweeden, that he had harassed, forcibly kissed, and then taken a shocking picture groping or nearly groping her while she was sleeping — Democratic Party hacks like Kate Harding wrote that he should not resignbecause Democrats are better on women's issues than Republicans. (Garrison Keillor said the idea of firing Franken was "absurd" before being firedover his own sexual harassment allegation.)
But as has also become very clear over the past few weeks, where there is one allegation, there are generally many. Some six different women in total have since come out with stories about Franken harassing, kissing, or groping them — most recently allegations of groping a veteran's breast in a photo-op, and a former elected official in New Hampshire who said he tried to give her an unwanted "wet, open-mouthed kiss."
When the allegations against Conyers came out (that he had exposed himself to his staff, as well as harassed, groped, and verbally abused them), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi first hemmed and hawed, suggesting on Meet the Press that because he is an "icon," he would do the "right thing" — not saying what that would be. Later, she finally joined several of her colleagues in saying he should resign. This might be because Conyers is 88 years old, and was recently hospitalized reportedly due to stress over the story. It seems likely he'll be gone soon in any case — though his lawyer recently said that "Nancy Pelosi did not elect the congressman, and she sure as hell won't be the one that tells the congressman to leave."
But as yet, there has been no sustained pressure from the rest of the Democratic caucus to actually force him out, and almost no pressure of any kind for Franken to leave.
The first and most important reason for these two men to go is that sexually harassing and assaulting women is a grotesque crime and anyone who does it is unfit to hold high office (or any office). As Justin Charity argues, even a new partial standard that senators are not allowed to get away with it would be a large political victory in itself against sexism and harassment. Arguing that the occasional sexual assault is simply the price to pay to keep Democrats in power (so they can pass stuff like 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave for some employees, I guess?) overlooks this enormous benefit.
Furthermore, axing these two would probably help Democrats politically, on net. They had the moral high ground against Roy Moore at first, but Franken and Conyers failing to resign make Democrats look like hypocrites, because they are. It muddles the case against Moore, and allows Republicans to excuse themselves for voting for him. Moore's Democratic opponent Doug Jones might well lose because of this cowardice.
Indeed, defending them is almost certainly not even the smart move in the narrowly cynical political sense. Minnesota has a Democratic governor, and so a replacement senator to serve out Franken's term would be of the same party. Conyers won his most recent election by over 60 points, so any replacement would certainly be a Democrat.
On the other hand, if these abusive men try to hang on to their seats, then they might well lose them in their upcoming elections. Conyers has so far promised not to run for re-election, but Hillary Clinton only won Minnesota by less than 2 points. Since the allegations, Franken's popularity has collapsed, falling from 53 percent to 36 percent. The opening for a Republican to win in 2020 would be a large one. The smartest move from a purely tactical standpoint would be for Franken to step aside and allow, say, Keith Ellison to step up. That way the incumbent can be a popular Democrat, and the party avoids a bitter primary battle.
One of the biggest problems with American politics is the distrust the population holds for elite politicians — perceiving them as a pack of amoral, dishonest, wagon-circling, featherbedding, logrolling, favor-trading, corrupt scumbags. This distrust is, to a great extent, deserved. One absolute necessity in rebuilding a measure of trust is for Democrats to behave honorably, and hold themselves to the standards they espouse. They can start by getting rid of the sexual predators in their midst.
PELOSI vs CONYERS - SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST WOMEN WHEN MEN ARE IN POWER:
DENIAL OF GUILT DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE INNOCENT........JUST VERY CUNNING.
IN MOST INSTANCES I DISAGREE WITH NANCY PELOSI BUT THIS TIME I DO AGREE WITH HER DECISION TO INVESTIGATE CONYERS.
IF CONYERS IS 100% INNOCENT WHY DID HE AGREE TO PAY HIS COMPLAINANTS $$$??
OPRAH DIDN'T SETTLE WHEN SHE WAS SUED BY WEALTHY CATTLE RANCHERS.
WATCH OUT DEMOCRATS; TRUMP IS FIGHTING BACK.
"HE WHO COMMITS ADULTERY IS SENSELESS. DOING SO, HE DESTROYS HIMSELF"
PROVERBS 6:32
"FOR WHAT PROFITS A MAN TO GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD YET LOSE HIS SOUL?"
MATTHEW 8:36
Sources: Washington Post, The Hill, YouTube
***** Pelosi calls for ethics investigation into alleged Conyers sexual harassment
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called for a formal ethics investigation into Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) following allegations he sexually harassed female staff and reached a settlement with an aide who claimed she was fired for rejecting his advances.
"As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the House of Representatives and to ensure a climate of dignity and respect, with zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination, bullying or abuse," Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday.
"As I have said before, any credible allegation of sexual harassment must be investigated by the Ethics Committee," she said.
Pelosi is the most senior lawmaker yet to call for an ethics probe into Conyers's behavior. She did not address whether Conyers, the ranking member of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, should step down from that position.
"I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so," Conyers stated Tuesday.
"My office resolved the allegations — with an express denial of liability — to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative," he stated.
A growing chorus of Democrats has called for an ethics investigation into the matter.
"The allegations against Ranking Member Conyers are extremely serious and deeply troubling," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Judiciary's second most senior Democrat, in a statement.
"Obviously, these allegations must be investigated promptly by the Ethics Committee. There can be no tolerance for behavior that subjects women to the kind of conduct alleged," Nadler stated.
A growing chorus of Democrats has called for an ethics investigation into the matter.
"The allegations against Ranking Member Conyers are extremely serious and deeply troubling," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Judiciary's second most senior Democrat, in a statement.
"Obviously, these allegations must be investigated promptly by the Ethics Committee. There can be no tolerance for behavior that subjects women to the kind of conduct alleged," Nadler stated.
"Beyond the sexual harassment allegations are allegations that call into question the amount of money that is used to settle sexual harassment cases, and whether some Members are using their tax payer-funded office budgets to make settlements under the guise of severance payments," Speier said in a statement, also calling for an ethics investigation.
Citing documents from the case, BuzzFeed News reported late Monday that Conyers settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with an unidentified woman who alleged that he "repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts." The report included other allegations of harassment by Conyers.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) called the report "extremely troubling" in a statement. He noted a recent rules change requiring members and staff to undergo anti-harassment training and said the House Administration Committee is reviewing congressional workplace policies.
"Additional reforms to the system are under consideration as the committee continues its review," Ryan stated Tuesday. "People who work in the House deserve and are entitled to a workplace without harassment or discrimination."
Pelosi denied knowledge of the alleged settlement in a statement first shared with BuzzFeed, citing the requirement that the parties keep their agreement confidential.
GOP 2017 TAX BILL PROVES REPUBLICAN PARTY STILL CONTROLS MOST OF THE MONEY IN POLITICS: (BILL HIGHLIGHTS)
WHAT CAN DEMOCRATS DO BEFORE 2020 TO PUT SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK INTO HANDS OF "AVERAGE, HARDWORKING JOE" VOTERS??
TRUMP CALLED FOR CHANGES TO THE HOUSE TAX BILL BEFORE IT PASSED.
13 HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THIS OMNIBUS "RICH GET RICHER" TAX BILL.
Sources: AP, Fox News, MSN, NY TIMES, Youtube
**** The House just passed its big tax bill. Here's what is in it.
President Trump and GOP House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) won a major victory as the House passed the tax bill Thursday, the central piece of the Republican plan to boost the U.S. economy.
No Democrats voted for the bill. Ryan could lose 22 GOP votes, but in the end, he only lost 13.
The legislation would affect every American household and business owner.
The bill was first introduced Nov. 2 and was voted on just two weeks later, leaving little time for analysis or debate on the 440-page legislation.
The next step is for the Senate to pass its version and then for both chambers to reconcile their substantial differences.
The main goal of the House's “Tax Cut and Jobs Act” is to lower taxes on companies in an effort to make them more competitive and discourage them from moving abroad.
The bill reduces the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and the rate for pass-through businesses down to 25 percent (with some restrictions).
Many families would also pay less, although Ryan has admitted that won't be the case for everyone. Here's a rundown of what is actually in the final version of the bill that passed.
It keeps the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
The House voted on a tax bill only.
The Senate bill includes a provision to scrap the legal requirement that almost all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
The House isn't touching that, which may lead to a showdown between the two chambers if they have to resolve their very different versions of the bill
Big businesses win.
The House bill cuts the top rate that large corporations pay from 35 percent to 20 percent, the biggest one-time drop in the big-business tax rate ever. It is a permanent change that does not expire.
On top of that, companies would get some new tax breaks to help lower their bills, such as the ability to deduct all the costs of purchasing new equipment for five years, as well as a special low rate on any money they bring back to the United States from low-tax countries such as Ireland.
Many businesses have been holding cash overseas to avoid 35 percent U.S. taxes.
Now they would get to bring the money home at a tax rate of 12 percent.
The entire business tax system would also change from a worldwide system, in which money anywhere around the globe is taxed, to a territorial system in which it's mostly money made in the United States that is taxed.
Businesses have long lobbied for this change.
Small businesses get a mini-win.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the largest small business lobby, initially was against the House bill, but Republicans made some changes and now the NFIB is giving its blessing.
95 percent of American businesses are organized as pass through companies (LLCs, S-Corps, partnerships), and they “pass through” the business income to the owner's individual tax rate.
The House plan lowers the top rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent for small businesses (excluding “service companies” like consultants and lawyers) and requires a complex formula where the 25 percent rate only applies to about 30 percent of the business income.
But the reality is most small businesses — 85 percent — already pay taxes at rates of 25 percent or less.
To help out the small “mom and pops,” the final bill has a 9 percent rate on the first $75,000 in income for business owners making $150,000 or less.
But that tax break phases in, meaning it isn't fully available until 2022.
<<<<< The rich do very well. The wealthy get a lot of benefits in the bill.
The estate tax, which is paid only when property and other assets worth over $5.5 million are passed on to heirs, doubles to about $11 million in 2018 (around $22 million for couples), meaning a lot fewer people have to pay it.
And the estate tax goes away entirely in 2024.
The mega-wealthy also would get to keep charitable deductions, a popular way that lowers their tax bills, and they no longer would have to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a safeguard against excessive tax dodging that's been in place since 1969.
Some wealthy business owners would be able to take advantage of the lower pass-through rate as well.
Overall, the Tax Policy Center found that half the benefits of the bill go to the top 1 percent by 2027.
Donald Trump would probably benefit a lot.
As The Washington Post explains, many parts of the bill help Trump.
One of the interesting ones is that the lower 25 percent pass-through rate would apply to all income for passive real estate investors like Trump, a much better deal than most active pass-through business owners get.
Most Americans pay the same — or lower — taxes until 2023. For the next five years, the vast majority of Americans (92 percent) would either pay less or see little change, according to the official estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
But that shifts sharply after five years. In 2023, only 40 percent of Americans would pay less. Twenty-two percent would pay more (the rest see little change), JCT found
Taxes will get simpler for many. The House bill collapses the seven tax brackets the country has down to just four (12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent).
The top rate becomes a “millionaire rate” applying to income of $1 million or more a year for couples (and of $500,000 or more for individuals).
In an effort to simplify, the House bill also does away with many of the credits and deductions and replaces them with a larger standard deduction, a slightly larger child tax credit ($1,600 per kid versus $1,000 now) and a new Family Flexibility Credit worth $300 a year for individuals and $600 for couples.
The larger standard deduction means the first $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples is tax-free
Say goodbye to most deductions. Almost all itemized deductions are going away, except for three.
The final House bill keeps the deductions for charitable donations, property taxes up to $10,000 a year and the mortgage interest deduction.
The mortgage interest deduction would be capped at $500,000 for mortgages (down from $1 million now).
About 30 percent of filers itemize. Most of the people who itemize claim the state and local tax deduction (SALT) where they deduct their state and local sales, income and property taxes.
Under the House bill, only the property deduction would remain. This hurts people living in high-tax (and often blue) states like New Jersey, New York and California. Several GOP representatives from these states plan to vote no on the bill in protest.
The adoption credit stays. The 401(k) exemption stays.
But . . .
Say goodbye to the tax credits for plug-in motor vehicles. It gets repealed in 2018.
Say goodbye to the deduction for medical expenses. It goes away in 2018.
Say goodbye to being able to write off the costs of your tax preparer. That goes away in 2018.
Say goodbye to the deduction for moving expenses. It goes away in 2018, except for members of the military.
Say goodbye to most tax benefits for college.
At the moment, low and middle income Americans can deduct up to $2,500 a year in student loan interest.
That benefit would go away in 2018.
In addition, grad students who get tuition waivers because they teach or do research would now have to pay income tax on the waiver, a big change.
For students currently in school, the American Opportunity Tax Credit would remain, which allows a $2,000 credit for higher education expenses.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
