Sunday, October 6, 2019

AL Project Veritas - Impeachment

Impeachment threatening to tear United States apart
Political civil war has been brewing since the election of Trump.

The impeachment of Trump is threatening all out political war, with no off ramp in sight.

Trump has tweeted about an actual civil war if he is impeached and removed from office.

In this fraught situation, Alabamians are being bombarded by extreme, one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations coming from the pro-Trump and anti-Trump sides related to impeachment.

Many Alabamians don't know what to believe and have questions and doubts about whether there should be an impeachment or not.

Sources of conflicting information
Alabama's members of Congress are guilty of putting forth one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations that contribute to Alabamians not knowing what to believe.

The Alabama Republican party is guilty of the same of putting out to their constituency one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations, which are impairing the rationality of that constituency.

The TV advertising related to impeachment exacerbates the distorted and slanted characterizations about what is happening and further impairs the ability of Alabamians to know what to believe.

Most of Alabama's radio talk shows and online political news media are cheerleaders for the two political sides and only throw out to their respective bases slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations. This is done to help the standing of the politicians in their political parties and for the radio shows and online political news media to have engaged audiences who support the existence of the radio shows and online political news media.

The listeners listen only to their side's facts (or purported facts) and their side's distorted and misleading interpretations and characterizations.

In the foregoing situation, there is little or no constructive conversation between the two political sides.

If there is no constructive conversation between the two sides, the political civil war about impeachment will get worse.

In the escalation that is happening, I see little or no sign of influencers in the Alabama political landscape who are trying to tamp down the erupting war, and all seem keen on building the escalation.

For two years I have pushed strenuously to get the two sides to talk to each other, with no success. See Can the two sides talk?

I have decided to try a new tack, which is to try to produce a statement of agreed facts that representatives of the two side are willing to sign off on. I propose to try to do this with the assistance of Alabama political commentators who more seek "fair and balanced" but don't draw audience from the bases on the two sides because the bases want to be riled and don't want "fair and balanced" because they can't get riled with "fair and balanced."

If no representatives of the two sides are willing to participate, I will infer they are more keen on raging and ratcheting up the impeachment political civil war.

I will see what I can accomplish.

I will start by sending solicitations to the two political sides in Alabama and also to more "fair and balanced" persons in the middle in Alabama, which solicitations will include a link to this webpage, where I will report my progress.

[to be continued]

Alabama TV news
Alabama TV news is different from the impeachment messaging done by the members of Congress, the Alabama Republican party, and the aforesaid radio shows and online political news media, which are cheerleaders for the two political sides.

Alabama TV news has much news to report of interest to their viewers and is limited in its reporting of impeachment news.

Its Trump news reporting seems to come off as straightforwardly factual (albeit the reporting may include video clips of persons saying extreme things), and Alabama TV news seems to do little editorializing (spinning) about Trump.

One staple of Alabama TV news is interviewing Alabama's members of Congress about legislation and other matters happening in Washington that are of interest to Alabamians, and that should go heavy on impeachment now.

Alabama TV news should endeavor to provide correction to the bombardment  that Alabamians are getting of one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations related to impeachment.

Whether Alabama TV news can provide a meaningful correction to the foregoing deplorable situation is uncertain.

The greatest potential for providing correction would seem to be TV news reporters putting hard questions to Alabama's members of Congress and do what they can to force answers, including by somehow informing viewers when there is refusal to answer questions that are clearly deserving of answers.

The impeachment story is sprawling, with many, many elements that are arguably relevant to Alabamians deciding what they believe and what they ultimately think about impeachment.

This calls for TV news directors and TV news reporters having a good grasp and understanding of the potentially relevant elements related to the impeachment and to sort through them to determine what is more at the core of whether there should be impeachment and what has less bearing on whether there should be impeachment.

This will aid in developing what should be hard questions to put to Alabama members of Congress and to try to force them to answer.

Participation in "Project Veritas- Impeachment" by Alabama TV news reporters and staff would be welcome, but it may not be realistic to get that.

Even if there is not participation in composing a "fair and balanced" statement of impeachment facts, TV news directors, reporters and staff might be able to improve their impeachment reporting and particularly their interviewing of Alabama's members of Congress.


OUTLINE 
(commenced 10/13/19)
Numerous persons have been solicited to participate in this "Project Veritas- Impeachment". None have replied.

This outlines what I think Alabamians should consider in their deciding what they think about impeachment and suggests questions the Alabama's members of Congress should be forced to answer.


A. Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements

The Washington Post has compiled a list of 12,019 false or misleading statements that Trump has made since becoming President (list is through August 5, 2019). See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/.

These 12.019 false or misleading statements are indicative that Trump does not believe he has an obligation to be truthful to the American people, and are indicative that Trump cannot be trusted by the American people in what Trump says.

It is also the case that millions of Trump supporters believe false things that Trump says, or they don't care whether the things are true or false. This seems to carry over to their beliefs about whether Trump should be impeached or not, and they believe Trump should not be impeached regardless of what the truth and facts are.

Question for AL members of Congress
Please respond to the above and, in particular, do you think Trump should not be impeached regardless of what the truth and facts are?

B. Trump's motives and intentions to serve self and not country

I think Trump's motives and intentions are relevant to whether he should be impeached or not.

As to any particular act, there can be a mixture of motives, with one motive being more dominant than another motive as reason for the act. Also, there can be plausible or possible motives for an act that are not the actual motive.

Only the actor has direct knowledge of his or her motive for an act. Other persons are relegated to inferring motive from a combination of the act, the surrounding circumstances, any statement the actor makes about the actor's motive, and the actor's nature and history.

Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements evidence that Trump cannot be relied on to be truthful about his motives.

Also Trump's character and history of dedicating his life to a selfish pursuit of wealth, glamour and notoriety colors inferences about his motives while President.

There are numerous instances that may be in the articles of impeachment against Trump in which Trump's motive is relevant.

At the moment, Trump's says his motive in asking the Ukraine President to investigate the Bidens was to fight corruption generally. Others think that was not Trump's motive, and his motive was to help himself and hurt Biden in the 2020 election.

If the firing of Comey is in the articles of impeachment, there will be the question of Trump's motive.

Question for AL members of Congress:
Do you think Trump's motives are relevant to whether he should be impeached or not?

C. Trump's conflicts of interest; abuse of power; obstruction of justice

The way Trump, after he became President, dealt with his conflicts of interest created special risks for the United States as to whether Trump, as President, was serving his personal interests or serving the country's interests.

This handling of Trump's conflicts of interest called for Congress to do oversight to try to make sure Trump was not serving his personal interests over the country's interests.

During the first two years of Trump's presidency, the Republicans, who were in control of the House, failed to do oversight concerning Trump's conflicts of interest. I believe this emboldened Trump generally in a belief that as President he could do whatever he wanted and not be held accountable.

Apart from the special situation of Trump's business interests, abuse of power generally is a conflict of interest situation in which powers are used for other than public purposes and are wrongfully used for private purposes.

For example, Trump has not ruled out using his pardon power to induce witnesses not to cooperate with investigations of Trump. In articles of impeachment, there may be included an abuse of power by Trump of his offering to pardon witnesses if they hold off from cooperating.


D. Russia

In the time since Trump announced in 2015 he was running for President, and continuing to the present, many questions have surrounded Trump's connections to and relationships with Russia and Putin.

For 2-1/2 years Trump and his supporters have been calling the Mueller investigation a hoax and a witch hunt and a waste of taxpayer money.

Further, Trump and his supporters say the Mueller report exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing.

The scope of the Mueller investigation was limited to whether there was "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign related to Russia's interference in the 2016 election to help Trump.

In doing his investigation, Mueller was limited by not being able to interview Russians or obtain documents and other evidence from Russians. Also, Mueller was limited in not interviewing Trump himself.

A detailed timeline of Trump-Russia events running from 2013 to March 2018 is set out at https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events

Millions of Trump supporters may have no doubts or questions about Trump's connections to and relations with Russia and Putin and are fully trusting in Trump protecting U.S. interests against Russia.

Equal millions of other Americans continue deeply suspicious about whether Trump is properly protecting U.S. interests against Russia.


E. Ukraine (added 11/18/19)

Edit 2/29/2020
See also the following blog entries:
Appeal to AL news directors, October 1, 2019
WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020

Edit 7/3/2020
Further see
Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020

Posted by at No comments:

Email to AL chambers of commerce

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:33 AM
Subject: I normally communicate via Twitter
To: director <director@homewoodchamber.org>, lcooper <lcooper@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, info <info@shelbychamber.org>, <mlewis@montgomerychamber.com>, <info@mobilechamber.com>

TO: Homewood Chamber of Commerce, Mountain Brook Chamber of Commerce, Hoover Chamber of Commerce, Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, Montgomery Chamber of Commerce, Mobile Chamber of Commerce, Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce, Vestavia Hills Chamber of Commerce, Birmingham Business of Alliance, Business Council of Alabama [Sent via email or via online contacts or by other means]

Dear Sir or Madam,
I believe I make a constructive contribution to the political discourse in Alabama.
I am, however, getting tripped up by Twitter's shadow banning algorithms.
This morning Twitter shadow banned me again immediately after I sent the below tweet.
I am taking the opportunity to inform you of my shadow banned tweet, (for which I don't believe you will receive a Twitter notification) by means of copying and pasting the tweet into this email below.
Thank you for your forbearance in my contacting you by email.
I hope your chambers of commerce will consider what I say in my tweets and their links
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck





Rob Shattuck
@RobShattuckAL06
AL business needs to react to Trump absolutism. #alpolitics @HomewoodChamber @TheShelbyCC @shopmtnbrook @hooverchamber @huntsvillealcoc @MGMChamber @MobileChamber @DothanAreaChamb @vhchamber @BHMBizAlliance
trumptweet.blogspot.com/2019/10/absolu
Quote Tweet
Rob Shattuck
@RobShattuckAL06
·
Corporations have taken a lead on guns. Maybe corporations need to take a lead on impeachment. @HomewoodChamber @TheShelbyCC @shopmtnbrook @hooverchamber @huntsvillealcoc @MGMChamber @MobileChamber @DothanAreaChamb @vhchamber @BHMBizAlliance #alpolitics congdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/10/appeal
5:35 AM · Oct 6, 2019Twitter Web App

File info
Below message has been submitted via contact form to:
Hoover Chamber of Commerce
Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce
Huntsville Chamber of Commerce
Vestavia Hills Chamber of Commerce
Business Council of Alabama
"Please see email to you and other Alabama chambers of commerce that is set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/10/email-
to-al-chambers-of-commerce.html. Thank you."

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Appeal to AL news directors

To: News directors at Alabama TV, radio and online news outlets


The United States is in political crisis
Millions of Americans believe a traitorous legislative coup d'etat is happening against the President of the United States.

Other millions believe the President is dangerously violating the constitution and threatening national security, and must be removed from office.

The political crisis has been building for 2-1/2 years.

The move towards impeachment has now made it dire.

Just how dire is revealed by the President of the United States tweeting about civil war if he is removed from office.

Congress is profoundly divided, incapacitated to legislate about the country's important business, and now consumed by impeachment.

The extreme bases of the two political parties are in growing rage against each other.

Supreme damage has been done to the credibility of reputable news organizations and to belief of people there can be commonly agreed truth and facts on which politics can operate .

The trust of the American people in the intelligence community, the Justice Department, and the FBI is severely damaged.

The two political parties and their media outlets have power and make money by appealing to the extreme political bases, who want to be angered against the other side. Facts and characterizations are slanted and distorted to keep their extreme bases angry. The extreme bases won't think about what the other side is saying, and political discourse between the extreme bases is non-existent.

Most Americans are caught in the middle 
Most Americans are not extreme and are caught in the middle.

They are caught by the stark divide of a paralyzed Congress that cannot tend to the country's business.

They are caught by one sided spewings of distortions and slanted characterizations by the  vociferous extremes in the political parties and their media outlets,which dominate the political discourse and exclude moderation,

They are caught up in the middle of raging anger and hatred between the extreme bases of the two political parties.

These Americans have suffered passively in the middle because they are sidelined and powerless to get the two sides to moderate themselves, reasonably talk to each other, and reach agreements. These Americans are disgusted by the extremes that are in control of the politics and that create stalemate in the country's governance.

Now these Americans are being sucked into the vortex of the political crisis of impeachment, and they are fearful about what will happen.

Alabama politics is appalling in the political crisis
Most Alabamians are shut out of the political process.

There is impenetrable group think in the Alabama Republican Party, which is not open to critical thinking and different ideas and which is unwilling to talk to the other side about agreeing on things.

To gain and keep office, the Alabama Congressional delegation does not need to think critically or endeavor to educate their constituents about important national policies to be decided and acted on by Congress. Further, the Alabama Congressional delegation does not need to and does not talk to the other side in order to show their willingness to reach compromises and agreements that most Alabamians would be willing to live with.

The political media outlets in Alabama accept and willingly promote the one sided spewings of the Alabama Congressional delegation, and these political media outlets do not want anything to do with critical thinking, different ideas, and informing their Alabama audiences about important national policies to be decided and acted on by Congress. The political media outlets want nothing to do with promoting moderation and the two political sides talking to each other.

The foregoing "political business as usual" has been around in Alabama for years, is deplorable, and would not be expected to change.

In the current national political crisis about impeachment, that "political business as usual" in Alabama will contribute to the direness of the national crisis.

None of the Congressional delegation is willing to answer hard questions about impeachment, and their survival depends on Alabamians not understanding.

What Alabama news directors should do
First, Alabama news directors should do everything they can to ask the Alabama Congressional delegation hard questions about impeachment and to try to force them to answer.

Additional blog entries
See also the following blog entries:
AL Project Veritas - Impeachment, October 6, 2019
WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020
Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020
What AL can do about Big Tech, January 17, 2021
The Dang Truth, April 4, 2021

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 27, 2019

Argument against Gary Palmer

DRAFT

My representative in Congress, Gary Palmer, has announced as follows:
I wish to argue against Rep. Palmer.

I contend that Trump has wrongfully served his personal interests ahead of the public interest and has failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," for which he should be impeached and removed from office.

This contention has come to a crescendo with the Ukraine matter.

The Ukraine matter, however, comes from a build over 2-1/2 years of Trump in office, and that build needs tracing through.


I voted for Trump because of Clinton corruption
I explain my voting for Trump because of Clinton corruption in my below blog entry:

I had questions about Trump's honesty and motive
In the first Republican debate in August 2015, Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me." (Here's video.)

In the 2016 election, questions were raised about a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, allegedly to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Since Trump had publicly said he gave to politicians to get them do what he wants, I was suspicious of Trump and Bondi's denials of anything untoward happening. (Here's video.)

In the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.

Candidate Trump had a large business empire, and there was an obvious question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest and whether this would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.

An important factor relating to the above question was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether Trump's motive was for the good he wanted to do for the United States and the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, even if he did not win, running for President would be a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").

If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would contribute to Trump, if he won, putting personal interests ahead of the country's interest, and of Trump failing to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."

Motive can be very hard to know. If Trump's motive for the running for President was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden and mislead the voters about his motive.

Trump's nature, and past history and conduct, did not provide confidence about his motive in running for President.

Accordingly, Trump's voters in 2016 trusted that Trump had a "good motive" and not a "bad motive" in running for President.

While Trump's motive was opague in the 2016 election, if Trump won, Trump's actions and conduct after he became President would shed light on his motive in running for President and whether he would put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.

Besides the foregoing concern about Trump's honesty and motive, Trump, in his 30 year history as an international businessman, may have not done everything on the "up and up." Trump had fame in his previous life, and there were voluminous news stories over 30 years about Trump's business and personal life.To the extent there were bad things about Trump's past that were not in the public record, Trump knew what those bad things were, and some Trump associates also possibly knew. To the voters, these were unknowns. If unknown bad things from Trump's past became, or threatened to become, public if he became President, there could adverse consequences for the country, and particularly for Trump's supporters, resulting from Trump not telling the voters all they needed to know. Bad things from Trump's from Trump's past would be particularly prone to Trump putting his personal interests ahead of the country's interests in doing things to prevent the bad things in question from coming to light.  For more discussion of this risk, see Reckoning with Trump's past.

Early tell of Trump's conflicts of interest
Given how Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption, an early tell of whether Trump's motive was to serve the country and the American people or to serve his own personal interests, was Trump's own conflicts of interest and how Trump chose to deal with them.

Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine  whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out. (For more discussion, read Trump's conflicts of interest problem.)

Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous morality for the public official to separate in his mind the private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.

Trump's business empire presented an extreme case of conflicts of interest after he was elected, and his conflicts of interest should have been a priority consideration for Trump and Congress.

My sense at the end of 2016 was that Trump would choose to put his private interests ahead of the country's interests. I expressed this in the below blog entry I composed on January 1, 2017:

Rep. Palmer was on the House Oversight Committee, and I endeavored to call the importance of Trump's conflicts of interest to his attention, starting in November 2016. See

For me, it was significant that, after Trump won the election, Trump decided that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). Such an initiative by Trump concerning conflicts of interest might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation. 

My conclusion about why Trump chose not to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington DC was that Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.

When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.

This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight.

The record of the past 2-1/2 years presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.

Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats are making up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.

After eight months of Democratic control of the House, Trump seems adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses, and there is no sign that Trump will back off. In the face of this, it should not be thought inconceivable that Congress could conclude that Trump has failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," and should be impeached and removed from office. 

Other signs of Trump's motive to serve (indulge) himself and not country
1. Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements that he has made to the American people since he becoming President and that he has not corrected. https://washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/…

2. Trump's countless mean, vicious insults and attacks on individuals and institutions with no reasonable, objective basis other than the targets were in opposition to or disagree with Trump, and for the psychological gratification which making the vicious insults and attacks gives to Trump.

3. Trump's attitude that he is always right and only others are wrong; Trump's excessive claims for credit belonging to him for favorable events and circumstances; and Trump putting all blame on someone else for any bad events or circumstances. 

4. His deliberate dividing of the country.

Trump does not want to be bound by the rule of law
Trump has pushed strenuously for 2-1/2 years on the boundaries of the rule of law, including in ways previously no one would think a President would actually think about doing.
By words and actions, Trump has given the impression that he believes he has the power and right to shut down any investigation of him, to offer and give pardons to persons who may give testimony against him, to pardon himself and members of his family for any crimes of which they may be convicted, to order investigations of political opponents, and to tell lies to the American people.
Trump took advantage that, for 2 years, the Republicans in Congress would not do and did not do proper oversight to keep Trump from encroaching further and further on the boundaries of the rule of law.
With each encroachment that was not challenged by the Republicans, Trump was emboldened to push further on the norms, which increased Trump's power and made resisting Trump harder to do.
After the 2018 elections, the Democrats got control of the House of Representatives and proceeded to initiate and proceed with proper oversight of Trump.
Trump has not accepted the Democrats doing proper oversight to keep Trump within the bounds of rule of law, and 2019 has been filled with Democrats trying to do proper oversight and Trump obstructing the Democrats in their trying to do proper oversight.

Russia; Mueller investigation, etc.
First, notwithstanding 2 years of Trump's non-stop bombast of  "hoax, witch hunt, waste," the Mueller investigation did undeniable service to the country in investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election, irrespective of the component of the investigation of whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
On the "collusion" front, there were legitimate questions associated with Trump publicly asking Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help him, and why Trump alone questioned what the intelligence community was saying in 2016 about Russia's interference in the election, and then Trump's ensuing, seemingly inexplicable, deference to Putin.
Notwithstanding Trump's bombast of "hoax, witch hunt, waste," the foregoing questions still have not been adequately answered. The Mueller investigation revealed that Trump lied to the country in 2016 about his Trump Organization pursuing the Trump Tower project while Trump was running for President, and further Trump, while President, probably influenced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about that.
With Trump's desire for Trump Tower Moscow, our country still does not know the extent to which Trump endeavored to curry favor with Putin to advance his Moscow project, whether Trump did not want to agree with U.S. intelligence calling out Russia for interfering in 2016 election because of adverse impact on Trump's business aspiration (particularly taking into account that Trump likely did not believe he would win and would immediately renew his pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow), and how all of same compromised Trump in how Trump would deal with Putin after Trump won the 2016 election and became President.

Ukraine is "smoking gun"
Before the Ukraine development, the 2-1/2 year record of Trump's words and actions presents a credible basis for Congress to conclude that Trump has been wrongfully motivated to serve his personal interests over the country's interest (including satisfying vainglorious desires for power, wealth and being the ultimate center of attention, that Trump believes he has the right to do so, and he has egregiously put his personal interests ahead of the country's interest. 
Ukraine is now a "smoking gun" reveaing the foregoing about Trump.
With such "smoking gun" evidence, Gary Palmer is doing the wrong thing for his constituents and for the country if he votes against impeachment of Trump.

Rep. Palmer needs to rebut the above 
Rep. Palmer needs to
1. State his view whether there are any limitations under the constitution and the laws of the United States on the President using his office to obtain personal financial gain, and whether the Congress has any constitutional duty to oversee that the President does not exceed any such limitation.
2. Either acknowledge that the Republicans, while in control of the House of Representatives, failed to do proper constitutional oversight over Trump using his office to obtain personal financial gain, or else justify that the Republicans properly fulfilled their constitutional oversight duty to assure that Trump did not use his office for personal financial gain.
3. State whether, under the constitution and the rule of law, there are limitations on the President shutting down investigations of the President, offering or giving pardons to persons who may give testimony against President, pardoning himself and members of his family for crimes of which they may be convicted, ordering investigations of political opponents, and lying to the American people.
4. State whether Trump, by his words and actions, has evidenced any belief or agreement that the President is subject to the limitations that Rep. Palmer has indicated in number 3.
5. Rep. Palmer should state whether he believes Trump has an obligation to be truthful to the American people and state his evaluation of whether Trump has fulfilled that obligation.
6. State whether Rep. Palmer thinks it was wrongful for Trump to ask Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump; whether Rep. Palmer believed what the intelligence community was saying in 2016 about Russia's interference in the election and wondered why Trump alone disagreed with what the intelligence community was saying; and whether Rep. Palmer thought Trump's ensuing, deference to Putin was inexplicable.
7. Comment on the Mueller investigation revealing that Trump lied to the country in 2016 about his Trump Organization pursuing the Trump Tower project while Trump was running for President, and on whether Trump, as  President, probably influenced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about that.
8. As to each of the possible instances of obstruction of justice set out in the Mueller report, make a recitation of the facts and at the end of the recitation say whether he thinks Trump did or did not do anything wrong for which Trump should be called into account by Congress. 
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 22, 2019

Climate change

I have done zero blogging and tweeting about climate change.

To me, climate change is the hardest issue for our country to decide what to do.

At the same time, I believe there is reprehensible failure of helpful political discourse by candidates and politicians, who exploit the hardest issue of climate change to keep their bases riled against each other, in order to help their candidates maintain or obtain the power of elective office.

With the failure of the candidates and politicians to have helpful political discourse, it is up to others to try to force helpful political discourse.

 Currently, Rep. Mo Brooks and 1st Congressional district candidate Kiani Gardner (a scientist) can be focused on.

On September 19, Rep. Brooks had the following tweet interchange:


 Kiani Gardner tweeted the following video:


Reporter Brian Lyman of the Montgomery Advertiser has several articles about the impact of climate change on Alabama. See the below article and articles linked at the end of the below article:


I think Rep. Mo Brooks and Kiani Gardner should go face to face on Capitol Journal for a one hour debate, with a goal of helping Alabamians understand better the climate change issue.

Update 9/29/19
Email sent to Dr. John Christy
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: christy <christy@nsstc.uah.edu>
Cc: DDailey <DDailey@aptv.org>
Sent: Sun, Sep 29, 2019 6:29 pm
Subject: Importuning by non-scientist interloper re climate change
Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL
Dear Dr. Christy,
I am an Alabamian who is endeavoring to get the Alabama Public Television political news show Capitol Journal to have a TV debate about climate change, such debate to be between Rep. Mo Brooks (who represents the Congressional district in which UAH is located), and Kiani Gardner, who is a scientist running for Congress in the Alabama 1st Congressional district (Mobile area).
I initiated this effort with the following blog entry of mine https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/09/climate-change.html.
Capitol Journal and Kiani Gardner have expressed interest in such a TV debate. I don't know about the willingness of Rep. Brooks.
I am contacting you because one Mike Oakley urged that you would be a good person to be involved in the debate.
In addition to the tweets of Rep. Brooks that are embedded in my above blog entry, Rep. Brooks has tweeted as appended below.
I think, if the requested debate takes place, the points of debate should be refined, and that you might be help for that.
Don Dailey, who is copied on this email, is the host of Capitol Journal.
I don't have email addresses for Rep. Brooks or Kiani Gardner for copying this email to them, but I will notify them of this email by using online email contact forms.
Also, after I send this email, I will copy and paste the email into the above blog entry, where it will be publicly visible. If you wish your email address not to appear, please let me know by reply email, and I will delete your email address from my blog entry.
I hope sending you this email will move forward the object of getting a TV debate about climate change on Capitol Journal and that you may be of help.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham

A further Mo Brooks thread re climate change

ADDENDUM 1/25/2020

Below is from Mobile Real-Time News
5 Takeaways from Alabama Congressional District 1 forum
Posted Jan 24, 2020, by John Sharp
Varying views on climate change
The Republicans and Democratic challengers in the congressional race have starkly different views about climate change.
Republicans, during recent forums, have suggested that much of the issue is a “hoax.” Hightower said there needs to be a better understanding of the sciences behind global warming from all sides of the issue.
“I have a professor friend and he dared said, ‘we need to cool it about this global climate change,’” said Hightower. "He was tarred and feathered and almost tossed out of the university. We have to have free speech. We have to be able to dissent and talk about these issues and sit down and reach and understanding because they affect us broadly.
Gardner is advocating for America to be “100% renewable energy" within the next 15 years.
“We need to protect what we have,” she said. “So much of our properties and businesses are subject to climate change.”
8/2/22 Are we screwed on the climate?
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: algop@algop.org <algop@algop.org>
Cc: comments@abc3340.com, programming@abc3340.com, Susana.Schuler@hearst.com, blong@hearst.com, wcromwell@cbs42.com, rmartin@cbs42.com, collin.gaston@wbrc.com, jama.killingsworth@waff.com, julie@waff.com, paul.caron@whnt.com, mwright@waaytv.com, sgallien@waaytv.com, eric.duncan@fox10tv.com, Randy.Merrow@fox10tv.com, news@mynbc15.com, dsingleton@mynbc15.com, PAlbrecht@wkrg.com, clombard@wkrg.com, robby.thomas@wtvy.com, stephen.crews@wtvy.com, TCole@wdhn.com, RWare@wdhn.com, mbunting@wsfa.com, sduff@wsfa.com, ghalbrooks@alabamanews.net, jrainey@alabamanews.net, sdiorio@wvua23.com, knorred@wvua23.com, dsutter@troy.edu, christy@nsstc.uah.edu
Sent: Tue, Aug 2, 2022 9:16 am
Subject: For Gov. Kristi Noem & Mr. Herschel Walker: Are we screwed on the climate?
Dear Gov. Noem and Mr. Walker (c/o ALGOP),
At the ALGOP Summer Dinner on August 12th at which you are speakers, please address this question:
Are we screwed on the climate?
I hope Alabama TV stations will editorialize about the foregoing very important question and report to their viewers whatever you might say about the same.
I have copied Professor Daniel Sutter of Troy University on this email due to the publication yesterday of his opinion piece In Defense of Fossil Fuels.
I have copied UAH Professor John Christy on this email because of his standing as a climate scientist (and with whom I have previously communicated). Prof.Christy and Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg have argued against climate alarmism (see https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-and-john-christy-shred-climate-alarmism/). Recently Bjorn Lomborg had the following appearance on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Report: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6309914996112?playlist_id=930909810001#sp=show-clips.
Thank you very much.
[To be filed in https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/09/climate-change.html; https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/07/local-tv-failure-calling-on-other.html and https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/08/to-gov-kristi-noem-mr-herschel-walker.html]
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)