One wonders at all the efforts of Trump to impede the special counsel investigation, all the suggestions that he might fire people. These are ongoing. They haven't stopped. Could not each and all of these lead to obstruction of justice charges? We wonder about why the investigation is taking so long, and Congressman Chris Stewart says he hopes it concludes soon. Well, for one thing, it becomes problematic to end an investigation while the crime is still being committed.
Are we seeing regular and on-going offenses being committed by Trump and yet we are so jaded we don't even recognize them as they play out right in front of our eyes? Oh, it does't go unnoticed on us that Trump toys with the idea of firing people, but do we consider that each of these attempts could be an obstruction of justice charge?
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Teams with most Patriotic Names made it to Super Bowl
How interesting it is, that in the season of the flag controversy, the two teams with the most patriotic names made it to the Super Bowl, the Eagles and the Patriots.
The Patriots hail from the Boston area, site of so many scenes from the Revolutionary War -- the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston. The Eagles hail from Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was signed as the city served as a meeting place for the founding fathers and as one of the capitals at the time of the Revolution. The battle of Germantown and the Siege of Fort Mifflin took place in that area.
The Patriots hail from the Boston area, site of so many scenes from the Revolutionary War -- the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston. The Eagles hail from Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was signed as the city served as a meeting place for the founding fathers and as one of the capitals at the time of the Revolution. The battle of Germantown and the Siege of Fort Mifflin took place in that area.
Monday, February 5, 2018
More Die Trying to Cross Mexican Border than died at Berlin Wall
Three hundred people a year die trying to cross the Mexican border, notes Sven Haynes, who is on the immigration sanctuary steering committee at the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City.
"That's more people than died trying to cross the Berlin Wall," says Haynes, who himself is an immigrant from Germany, and who has therefore had cause to reflect on the numbers from the two locations.
I word search, and find he is right. Wikipedia says 294 people died trying to cross from Mexico in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2017. And, how many people died trying to escape East Germany along the Berlin Wall? Well, the wall was in effect from 1961 to 1989 and during all those years, only an estimated 239 died.
"That's more people than died trying to cross the Berlin Wall," says Haynes, who himself is an immigrant from Germany, and who has therefore had cause to reflect on the numbers from the two locations.
I word search, and find he is right. Wikipedia says 294 people died trying to cross from Mexico in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2017. And, how many people died trying to escape East Germany along the Berlin Wall? Well, the wall was in effect from 1961 to 1989 and during all those years, only an estimated 239 died.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Has Trump used the Power of His Office to Shift the Investigation?
One wonders if obstruction of justice is a concern, then should any pressuring of the House committee by Trump be investigated? I would be somewhat certain the House investigation, not being a criminal investigation, does not warrant charges of obstruction of justice.
Still, one wonders if it is appropriate for Trump to use his weight as president to persuade the Committee to come to one conclusion or another, or to go one direction or another with what they are investigating. If the investigation from the inception was about Russian influence and possible collusion by him or his workers, and he sought to turn it from investigating that to investigating matters involving Hillary, isn't that obstructing the process? Isn't that interjecting the power of your high office to shift an investigation from you to somebody else? Has President Trump done this, or has he been hands-off, not asking them to take the investigation one direction or another? If this is not a criminal investigation, no obstruction of justice charges can result, but the wrongness of such pressuring remains the same. You are seeking to obstruct and divert the process from reaching a certain conclusion.
Still, one wonders if it is appropriate for Trump to use his weight as president to persuade the Committee to come to one conclusion or another, or to go one direction or another with what they are investigating. If the investigation from the inception was about Russian influence and possible collusion by him or his workers, and he sought to turn it from investigating that to investigating matters involving Hillary, isn't that obstructing the process? Isn't that interjecting the power of your high office to shift an investigation from you to somebody else? Has President Trump done this, or has he been hands-off, not asking them to take the investigation one direction or another? If this is not a criminal investigation, no obstruction of justice charges can result, but the wrongness of such pressuring remains the same. You are seeking to obstruct and divert the process from reaching a certain conclusion.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
If Speech is Free, Others should not Dictate how it is Expressed
Most likely, all the players will stand for the National Anthem during the Super Bowl. Some of the Philadelphia Eagle players raised their fists during the anthem during the season, but stopped with the playoffs. Some New England Patriot players participated in the protests early in the season, but have since stopped.
Any final thoughts on the flag controversy? I have some.
I guess I feel people should not only have the freedom to speak and the freedom to protest, but the freedom to choose when and how they do it. I feel we are wrong to judge them by suggesting they are not patriotic. To me, they clearly love this country, clearly love the flag, and clearly appreciate the soldiers who died in war. To judge them otherwise is calumny. To cast aspersions on other people is wrong. To falsely accuse another person is wrong.
When doing something hurts people, those are wrongful actions. Sometimes, though, no hurt results and none was intended, so why make a big deal of it? Why take offense when no offense was intended?
I would that we were not so judgmental of these protesters. I would that we allowed them to have their opinions, and allowed them to express their opinions in the manner of their choice. If speech is free, another person should not be dictating how you express it. We are not allowing them to have their opinion and not allowing them to express their opinion in their own chosen way when we demand they stand for the anthem.
We are curtailing free speech. We are being judgmental. And, we are taking offense when no offense is intended. Yes, we are manufacturing a crime when no crime is being committed.
We might suggest it is only our opinion that they should stand, and we should be allowed to have our opinion. True. But, when we say they should be required to stand, or when we require them to stand at threat of boycotting the NFL, we are taking away their right to have an opinion. We are practicing coercion.
And, when we have a president who calls on team owners to fire players who express their freedom in a manner he does not approve of, we have a president who is literally taking away a little freedom of speech from a little segment of our population.
Any final thoughts on the flag controversy? I have some.
I guess I feel people should not only have the freedom to speak and the freedom to protest, but the freedom to choose when and how they do it. I feel we are wrong to judge them by suggesting they are not patriotic. To me, they clearly love this country, clearly love the flag, and clearly appreciate the soldiers who died in war. To judge them otherwise is calumny. To cast aspersions on other people is wrong. To falsely accuse another person is wrong.
When doing something hurts people, those are wrongful actions. Sometimes, though, no hurt results and none was intended, so why make a big deal of it? Why take offense when no offense was intended?
I would that we were not so judgmental of these protesters. I would that we allowed them to have their opinions, and allowed them to express their opinions in the manner of their choice. If speech is free, another person should not be dictating how you express it. We are not allowing them to have their opinion and not allowing them to express their opinion in their own chosen way when we demand they stand for the anthem.
We are curtailing free speech. We are being judgmental. And, we are taking offense when no offense is intended. Yes, we are manufacturing a crime when no crime is being committed.
We might suggest it is only our opinion that they should stand, and we should be allowed to have our opinion. True. But, when we say they should be required to stand, or when we require them to stand at threat of boycotting the NFL, we are taking away their right to have an opinion. We are practicing coercion.
And, when we have a president who calls on team owners to fire players who express their freedom in a manner he does not approve of, we have a president who is literally taking away a little freedom of speech from a little segment of our population.
Friday, February 2, 2018
That's it?
I'm with James Comey, who reads the Memo the Republicans released today and responds, "That's it?"
The memo revealed that Christopher Steele was paid by Hillary's campaign during much of his project? Didn't we already know that? Is that all you've got, Devin Nunes? That's it? Hey, if you are a private investigator, you need a client to pay the bill. So, Steele got Hillary's campaign to pay. So what.
I wonder if anyone is calling for Nunes to to step down from chairing and being a member of the House committee. If he was on the Trump transition team, doesn't he have quite a built-in bias in favor of Trump? In the Memo, he worries about those having biases against Trump being actors in the FBI probe, yet Nunes is not just an actor in the House probe, he is the committee chairman. Ironic, to be more guilty of the crime than those you are accusing.
Much of the committee's effort has been spent trying to discredit the FBI investigation instead of looking into possible Trump collusion. One wonders if the House committee has placed any serious effort into the Russian investigation, or if they have turned the investigation on its heels and are more interested in investigating the investigation and more interested in investigating Hillary instead of Trump.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
What can be done for the Mother Fleeing from Immigration Officials?
What can be done for Vicky Chavez, the mother of two holed up in the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City as she seeks protection from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, who seek to deport her?
It is said she will attempt to reopen her case. Is that even possible? I believe the appeals process has been completed. Or, should this be a case that could be appealed outside the immigration courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary? Do immigration cases even have that option?
Could she be pardoned? We must doubt President Trump would do that.
Could a law be passed granting residency to those fleeing the prospect of being murdered in their home countries? That would open a wide door, allowing in more immigrants than many believe we can handle. We must doubt Congress will pass such a law.
Could she be sent to another country? Since it is in her homeland of Honduras that she reportedly could be killed, if she returns, why not send her to Iceland or France or Australia? Perhaps the immigration laws of many countries are such that she could not go there, but it would seem some country might offer her asylum.
Or, is remaining at the First Unitarian Church the best option for her and her two young children?
It is said she will attempt to reopen her case. Is that even possible? I believe the appeals process has been completed. Or, should this be a case that could be appealed outside the immigration courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary? Do immigration cases even have that option?
Could she be pardoned? We must doubt President Trump would do that.
Could a law be passed granting residency to those fleeing the prospect of being murdered in their home countries? That would open a wide door, allowing in more immigrants than many believe we can handle. We must doubt Congress will pass such a law.
Could she be sent to another country? Since it is in her homeland of Honduras that she reportedly could be killed, if she returns, why not send her to Iceland or France or Australia? Perhaps the immigration laws of many countries are such that she could not go there, but it would seem some country might offer her asylum.
Or, is remaining at the First Unitarian Church the best option for her and her two young children?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)