Archive for December, 2019

Republicans are refusing to give Trump even a slap on the wrist and they may live to regret it – AlterNet

Back in late September, conservative commentator Bill WhalenarguedinForbesthat the House Democrats should seek to censure President Trump rather than impeach and remove him from office. I found his reasoning flawed, primarily because Trump stands accused of a political crime and cant be trusted to run an honest and legal presidential campaign. This wasnt a concern in 1998 when Bill Clinton was accused of lying about a personal matter and had already won a second and final term.

Nonetheless, Whalen offered an important reminder about the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The Democrats were firmly opposed to impeaching Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, but they were very supportive of offering an official congressional rebuke of his behavior. Minority Whip David Bonior of Michigan spoke for the party leadership when he went to the floor of the House and said he wasnt interested in sweeping Clintons behavior under the rug. He wanted to censure the president, but the Republicans would not allow a vote on anything less severe than impeachment.

This House is out of touch. It is out of control. And it is so consumed that they have denied us a chance to vote on one option the only option that commands the support of the American people, and that is censure.

What Bonior was alluding to: for weeks, Democrats in the minority had pushed for a floor vote censuring Bill Clinton for his behavior and substituting a censure resolution for impeachment articles by sending the latter back to the House Judiciary Committee. The parliamentary tactic was rejected as non-germane; an appeal vote failed and House Democrats briefly exited the chamber in protest.

The Republicans did not want give the Democrats the comfort of condemning Clintons behavior without supporting his removal from office, but that doesnt mean that most Democrats were unwilling to go on the record as disapproving of a president having furtive Oval Office trysts with an young intern and then lying about it under oath.

I think its important to remember this in light of how the Republicans are responding to the far more serious charges that are being drawn up against President Trump. One reason the Democrats wanted to censure Clinton was that they acknowledged that lying under oath is not acceptable behavior. Another was that they wanted to support something that would have a deterrent effect on Clinton and any future president who might consider repeating his poor decisions.

I dont know if people were concerned that Clinton would simply continue to have extramarital sexual relationships in the backroom of the Oval Office. I think most people figured he had been adequately shamed and chastened in that respect, but the Democrats werent arguing that he had been within his rights or that his conduct had been perfect. They certainly would not have appreciated it if Clinton had suggested this and then tried tomonetizethe witch-hunt with merchandizing stunts.

Impeachment is bringing out President Trumps instincts as marketer in chief, as he seeks to turn a perilous, shame-inducing inquiry into an aggressive fundraising and mobilization tool,Axiosreports

Recent additions to the Trump campaigns merchandise store include Bull-Schiff t-shirts demonizing House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and Wheres Hunter? t-shirts mocking former Vice President Joe Bidens son.

The Republicans may or may not privately believe that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense, but I can guarantee that exactly none of them would see it as legal or fair play if a Democratic president withheld a White House visit and military aid from a foreign ally until they agreed to announce an investigation of a likely GOP nominee. For deterrence reasons alone, they ought to be looking for ways to signal their disapproval of Trumps Ukraine scheme so that no future president believes they can get away with doing something similar.

So far, however, they have been unwilling to even acknowledge that Trump deserves to be censured, let alone request the opportunity to vote on such an alternative measure.

For me, this shows why censure was never really an option. Even if it were offered as a solution, the Republicans wouldnt take it.

It's that time of year when we all give thanks, and we want to extend that thanks to you. All of us at AlterNet are honored by your readership and support. We hope you and your family enjoy a cozy, joyful Thanksgiving.

AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Link:
Republicans are refusing to give Trump even a slap on the wrist and they may live to regret it - AlterNet

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt – Techdirt

from the double-double dept

I'm not sure when or if this has happened before: this week we've got cross-category winners in both the first and second place spots, both in response to the latest example of a SLAPP suit filed by a supposed free speech supporter. Norahc won first place for both insightful and funny by putting a name to this increasingly common hypocritical phenomenon:

Hereafter, this should be referred to as the Nunes Effect.

Meanwhile an anonymous comment took second place for both insightful and funny with a response to someone misusing the notion of "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences" as though it was meant to include lawsuits:

Interesting theory. Then for the US, I propose a new civil law that allows people to sue others for owning guns. Like, if you are unhappy that someone owns a gun, you can sue them for up to a million dollars. Thankfully this would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment, since they are still free to own guns, just not free from the consequences.

And since that's all the winners right there, we now move straight on to editor's choice for both categories! On the insightful side, we've got a pair of comments about the ongoing privacy wars on multiple fronts. First it's That One Guy responding to the states that argued against the Pennsylvania ruling that compelled password production violates the 5th amendment:

A telling, and worrying, argument

"In a joint amicus brief in support of the Commonwealth, various states provide an interesting history of modern encryption, press the troubling consequences of Appellants position including the altering of the balance of power, rendering law enforcement incapable of accessing large amounts of relevant evidence and warn that adopting Appellants position could result in less privacy, not more, in the form of draconian anti-privacy legislation."

'If you don't let us violate constitutional rights we'll pass unconstitutional laws in order to let us do so' is really not the sort of thing you want multiple states arguing, as that shows a mindset that considers constitutional protections and privacy of the public not limits to be respected and something to uphold respectively, but obstacles to be worked around and/or undermined.

Law enforcement has never had access to all of the evidence they've wanted, and the fact that there are more ways for people to protect their privacy, even if that includes really terrible people, is not grounds to start giving them that which they have never had and never will have, especially when it will come at such a great cost to the general public.

Next, it's Bergman responding to our post about the EU telling the US to ban strong encryption:

Nerding Harder

The US government has over a hundred times greater access to people's communications, personal papers and everything else now than it did when the Fourth Amendment was written. The US government has surveillance capabilities beyond the worst nightmares of our founders.

Our law enforcement has never had a problem finding anyone from petty thieves to traitors, from illegal immigrants to foreign spies. But they're saying now that their incredible wealth of information is insufficient, that we are at risk of them being unable to catch all these bad people if we return to a level of government surveillance that persisted for most of our history, that they had zero problems with then.

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. The tech sector is not the group that needs to nerd harder. They people who need to nerd harder are the government agencies that are apparently slacking off, because with greater capacity to find bad guys they are claiming a reduced ability to actually pursue them.

Giving them more tools when they aren't fully utilizing the ones they already have is silly, they just won't fully utilize those either.

They just need to nerd harder at the NSA, DOJ and ICE.

On the funny side, we start out with allengarvin responding to our post about the court that tossed 82 pounds of marijuana because of the deputy's pretextual traffic stop:

"The rental car was only doing 60 mph in a 70-mph speed zone"

That crime is far worse than carrying 82 lbs of marijuana. If you're not passing someone, GET OUT OF THE DAMN PASSING LANE!!

And finally, we've got an anonymous response to our post about cord-cutting in which we accused cable execs of sticking their heads in the ground:

Pretty sure that is NOT where they are sticking their heads...

That's all for this week, folks!

See the original post:
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt - Techdirt

READ: Trump White House says no to participating in Wednesday impeachment hearing – Sharyl Attkisson

You are here: Home / News / READ: Trump White House says no to participating in Wednesday impeachment hearing

December 1, 2019 by Sharyl Attkisson Leave a Comment

The Trump administration has sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee stating that the White House will not accept the invitation to take part in Wednesdays highly partisan impeachment hearing.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings.

Read the letter below:

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkissons work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Filed Under: News, US Tagged With: rep. jerry nadler, Trump impeachment

Emmy-Award Winning Investigative Journalist, New York Times Best Selling Author, Host of Sinclair's Full Measure

Go here to see the original:
READ: Trump White House says no to participating in Wednesday impeachment hearing - Sharyl Attkisson

Why Should Drivers Get Online Quotes Before Switching The Car Insurance Provider – Yahoo Finance

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / December 2, 2019 / Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com has launched a new blog post that explains why drivers should comparing multiple car insurance quotes before they decide to switch their current carriers.

For more info and free quotes, please visit https://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com/why-getting-quotes-is-the-smart-thing-to-do-before-switching-carriers/

There are many insurance carriers that can offer better insurance deals. Although there are many policyholders that can be tempted to accept these better offers, in some cases they will have to pay more if they decide to switch their insurance providers. Before switching the insurance carriers, drivers are advised to get insurance quotes and see what they will gain and what they lose if they decide to switch their current insurance providers.

Before switching carriers, drivers should consider the following steps:

For additional info, money-saving tips and free car insurance quotes, visit https://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com/

Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

"Switching the current insurance provider is not an easy task for many policyholders. Before making any decisions, drivers should analyze the advantages and the disadvantages of this important move", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company.

CONTACT:

Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: cgurgu@internetmarketingcompany.bizWebsite: https://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com/

SOURCE: Internet Marketing Company

View source version on accesswire.com: https://www.accesswire.com/568666/Why-Should-Drivers-Get-Online-Quotes-Before-Switching-The-Car-Insurance-Provider

Follow this link:
Why Should Drivers Get Online Quotes Before Switching The Car Insurance Provider - Yahoo Finance

Online Car Insurance Quotes Will Help Drivers Find the Best Rates – Yahoo Finance

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / December 1, 2019 / Compare-autoinsurance.org has released a new blog post that explains how to use online car insurance quotes and find the best rates!

Making car insurance cheaper is something that all drivers want. The best way to track companies that offer fair prices is by shopping around. Websites like http://compare-autoinsurance.org were designed to help drivers get price estimates and make an educated choice.

Car insurance companies have different algorithms for determining rates. That makes prices vary a lot between carriers and increases the necessity of using online quotes. Online quotes provide price estimates, allowing users to select a coverage plan that will not financially ruin him.

Compare-autoinsurance.org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

For more information, please visit http://compare-autoinsurance.org

"Use online car insurance quotes to track all the companies selling insurance in your areas and compare prices," said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company.

CONTACT:

Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: cgurgu@internetmarketingcompany.bizWebsite: http://compare-autoinsurance.org

SOURCE: Internet Marketing Company

View source version on accesswire.com: https://www.accesswire.com/568610/Online-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Will-Help-Drivers-Find-the-Best-Rates

Read more here:
Online Car Insurance Quotes Will Help Drivers Find the Best Rates - Yahoo Finance