Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Romney. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Romney. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Mitt Romney Seduced By Child Abuse Propaganda

Mitt, my love, do you have any idea what would happen, fiscally that is?

Just about the only mothers collecting assistance are caring for a disabled child which means you are tapping into Social Supplemental Income (SSI).  There is a cap on life time benefits on a state level.  It is 5 years but Michigan is in the process of making it 2 years.

If you cut these mothers off the SSI program, you will have a major surge of children being placed in child welfare.  And right now, not mentioning the level of fraud, waste and abuse in child welfare, you have a system in which the likelihood of your child will end up raped, drugged and tortured is significant.

My precious, do you even know how much the 2013 budget is for the Administration for Children and Families?  It is at $34.1 billion and that does not include Medicaid Targeted Case Management funding.

Now, let's do some basic math.  Cut off SSI which stands at about $700 a month and put a child in a child welfare system, which can be reasonably estimated at 4 times that amount, $2800.  Also keep in mind that the influx of children entering the system will cause for increase of staffing, services, programs and antitrust contracts riddled with fraud, waste and abuse.

With all said, this takes the budget to put mothers back to work to about $156 billion.  Mind you, if you incorporate future costs such as the poor track record of children exiting the system who will more than likely end up back in the same system, you are looking serious problem.

Do you know anything about childhood disabilities?

U.S. HHS Budget for Administration for Children and Families FY 2012


Mitt Romney: Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits





WASHINGTON -- Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes," and aired during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.

Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.

On Sunday, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told The Huffington Post in an email, "Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5 percent in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration's economic policies have been devastating to women and families."

Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.

Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.

"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"

Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits. As HuffPost reported Thursday:

As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, if you're poor, deciding to stay at home and rear your children is not an option. Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.
Raising children is not among them.

According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:

(1) unsubsidized employment
(2) subsidized private sector employment
(3) subsidized public sector employment
(4) work experience
(5) on-the-job training
(6) job search and job readiness assistance
(7) community services programs
(8) vocational educational training
(9) job skills training directly related to employment
(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)
(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school
(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering. But it does not apply to married couples in some states. Connecticut, for instance, specifically prevents counting as "work" an instance in which one parent watches a child while the other parent volunteers.

The federal government does at least implicitly acknowledge the value of child care, though not for married couples. According to a 2012 Urban Institute study, a single mother is required to work 30 hours a week, but the requirement drops to 20 hours if she has a child under 6. A married woman, such as Romney, would not be entitled to such a reduction in the requirement. If a married couple receives federally funded child care, the work requirement increases by 20 hours, from 35 hours to 55 hours between the two of them, another implicit acknowledgment of the value of stay-at-home work.
Romney's January view echoes a remark he made in 1994 during his failed Senate campaign. "This is a different world than it was in the 1960s when I was growing up, when you used to have Mom at home and Dad at work," Romney said, as shown in a video posted by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski. "Now Mom and Dad both have to work whether they want to or not, and usually one of them has two jobs."

This article has been updated to reflect comment from the Romney campaign.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, September 29, 2019

The Tale Of Burisma, Hunter Biden, Taggart Romney, Their Daddies, Deutsche Bank & Trafficking Tiny Human Trust Funds With Catholic Charities

This is the tale of Joe Biden, running trafficking tiny human ops out the White House, with the assistance of his brother James and his son. 

Tagg Romney
Mitt Romney's eldest son, Tagg, made a surprise announcement today: He and his wife, Jen, are the new parents of twin boys delivered by a surrogate.

"Happy 2 announce birth of twin boys David Mitt and William Ryder. Big thanks to our surrogate. Life is a miracle," Tagg Romney said via Twitter at 3:17 p.m.

Ten minutes later, his mother, Ann Romney, said in her own tweet: "Grandchildren 17 and 18 are here – congratulations @TRomney and Jen! We can't wait to meet David and William."

Tagg Romney is one of five children of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his wife. Tagg and Jen Romney had four children previously.

The Associated Press reported it was the second time the couple had used a surrogate. Their son Jonathan was born in 2010 by a surrogate.

Tagg Romney said on his Facebook page that the latest surrogancy was gestational, meaning the new boys are the biological product of him and his wife.

"Everyone is healthy and happy," Tagg Romney wrote. "They weighed in at 5 pounds 13 ounces and 19-3/4 inches, and 6 pounds 13 ounces and 19 inches. A special thanks to our gestational surrogate who made this possible for us. Life truly is a miracle, and we feel so blessed to be able to celebrate the arrival of these precious boys into our family."

His Facebook homepage features a group photo at Fenway Park of him and three of his four brothers.
Both Tagg and Jen Romney are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which encourages its members to have large families and places a premium on genealogical research.

Nonetheless, "The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood," says an LDS handbook.

As for adopted children, the handbook says: "Questions regarding the exchange of information and contact between adopted children and their biological parents should be handled with sensitivity. The legal rights and emotional needs of all relevant parties should be considered."

I believe this tale is self explanatory.

They all were stealin' the children, the land and the votes.


As Democrats and the media remain fanatically obsessed with assembling some form of a “quid pro quo” from the infamous Trump-Zelensky phone call, new details have emerged regarding Burisma, the company for which Hunter Biden worked and the company that Ukraine’s top prosecutor had been investigating before Vice President Joe Biden had the prosecutor fired via a months-long pressure campaign. According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes by “Cofer Black,” joined Burisma’s board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board.

According to The New Yorker, Hunter joined Burisma’s board in April of 2014 and remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to Burisma’s website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and indeed, web archives from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board.

Black joined the CIA in 1974 and eventually climbed the ranks to become director of the National Counterterrorism Center from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed him ambassador at large and coordinator for counterterrorism. He later worked at Blackwater as a vice chairman before joining Romney’s campaign as a “special adviser” on Romney’s Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team in October of 2011. In 2017, Black joined the board of Burisma.

It’s looking increasingly probable that Burisma, the subject of a series of corruption allegations in the past, has been smartly buying Western complacency by slapping a few famous names on its board. In addition to the son of a vice president and a special adviser to a GOP presidential candidate, the board also boasts the former president of Poland from 1995 to 2005, Aleksander Kwaśniewski.

Hunter Biden

Appointed: April 2014
Hunter Biden
He serves as Counsel to Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, a US national law firm based in New York. Mr. Biden is also an Adjunct Professor on Georgetown University’s Masters Program, in the School of Foreign Service. He currently serves as Member of the World Food Program USA Board of Directors and as a Director on the not-for-profit Board of the Center for National Policy, the Truman National Security Project and the US Global Leadership Coalition. Mr. Biden is Member of the CSIS Executive Council on Development, the Chairman’s Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute, and the President’s Advisory Board for Catholic Charities in Washington D.C.

Catholic Charities in Washington D.C.
Mission
Catholic Charities Foundation of the Archdiocese of Washington invests endowment assets and provides financial support to Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, an affiliated organization, which is the leading provider of comprehensive human services, serving people in need.
 
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington helps people in need to strengthen and rebuild their lives. Focused on prevention when possible, intervention when needed and advocacy when resources are inadequate. Helping those we serve to develop skills and abilities that enable them to move from crisis and isolation to stability and growth. Serving those in need without regard for race, religion or national origin.
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=catholic+charities#axzz60vKhibbr

Image result for beau biden foundation
https://www.beaubidenfoundation.org/
Image result for National Democratic Institute
https://www.ndi.org/
Madeline Albright, Chairman

https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2017/521/338/2017-521338892-0fb49675-9.pdf

Киевский международный институт социологии (КМИС).jpg
Kiev International Institute for Sociology
World Food Program USA
https://www.wfpusa.org/
Consistent with the mission of the United Nations World Food Programme, World Food Program USA works with U.S. policymakers, corporations, foundations and individuals to help provide financial resources and develop policies needed to alleviate global hunger.
From 2006 to 2009 Mr. Biden served on the Board of Directors of Amtrak, serving as Vice Chairman from 2007 to 2009. Mr. Biden was honored to serve as an Honorary Co-Chair of the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee and to have served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. Previously, Mr. Biden was a founding member of the law firm Oldaker, Biden and Belair, LLP, was appointed by President Clinton to serve as Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy Coordination under Secretary of Commerce William Daley and was a Senior Vice President at MBNA America Bank. He is also a Member of the Bar in the State of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Biden received a Bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

BSF Achieves Dismissal of Claims Against Family Members of Vice President Biden

BSF won a major victory when New York Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried granted in its entirety the Firm's motion to dismiss all claims filed against BSF's clients, including James and Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s brother and son, respectively, for alleged breach of contract, conversion and fraud arising from a failed acquisition of portions of a hedge fund.

Fund manager sues son and brother of U.S. Senator Biden

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Deutsche Bank executive is suing a son and a brother of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for at least $10 million over a deal they had to buy into a hedge fund, according to court documents. Stephane Farouze, who is global head of fund derivatives for Deutsche Bank and lives in London, claimed that Biden’s son Hunter and brother James broke a May 2006 contract and defrauded him after agreeing to buy his membership interests in New York-based Paradigm Companies LLC.

The lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in June names Washington lobbyist Hunter Biden, James Biden, and James’s former business partner Anthony Lotito as defendants. On Wednesday, Farouze’s lawyer Marlen Kruzhkov said that the Bidens “never had any intention of carrying out the agreement with my client”.

He said the Bidens and their lawyers have not responded to the complaint. Representatives for the Bidens could not immediately be reached for comment. The lawsuit said that while the Bidens took control of the company, they never paid Farouze the cash they had agreed to pay.

Sen. Biden is a Delaware Democrat who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate on Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential ticket. The lawsuit is the second accusing Biden’s relatives of irregularities in their deal to buy hedge fund firm Paradigm. An earlier lawsuit was filed by Lotito in January 2007.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Have His Back: Why You Should Support Barack Obama



By John Conyers, Jr.
In a few weeks, the American people will be presented with a stark choice in the polling booth. This November 6th, Election Day, has become more than just a contest to determine which man will sit in the White House for the next four years. In effect, the outcome of this presidential race will determine which vision for our country's future we pursue for the next generation.
The challenger, Mitt Romney, has put forward a vision that is cobbled together with antiquated ideas and failed policies of the past. As David Axelrod suggested in May, Mr. Romney has the, "foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s." In constructing his plan for the future, Mr. Romney looks backward towards the top down policies that crashed the American economy and diminished our stature in the global community. On everything from women's healthcare issues, to LGBT rights, to protections afforded to immigrants, Mr. Romney seeks to get in the way of progress.
In contrast, President Obama offers a forward thinking vision that builds on the historic accomplishments achieved in his first term. President Obama's competing plan envisions an inclusive economy built to last, with a thriving middle class and a level playing field. Rather than provide millionaires and billionaires at the top with another budget busting tax cut, President Obama envisions a balanced growth plan that strengthens our social programs and fosters innovation in fields such as advanced manufacturing. And, rather than turn the clock back on women, gay and lesbian individuals, or the underprivileged, President Obama seeks to embolden and advance their hard fought rights.
Indeed, a Romney presidency would do much more than just look backwards for guidance. His presidency would actively undo most of the historic reforms that President Obama worked tirelessly for. Specifically, here is what is most at stake this election:
  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Commonly called "Obamacare," Mr. Romney has repeatedly pledged to repeal this near-universal health care legislation on the first day of his presidency. In doing so, Mr. Romney would rid tens of millions of people of their health insurance, revert to the broken status quo wherein preexisting conditions are not covered, and young adults up to age 26 would not be able to stay on their parent's health care plan.
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - Mr. Romney has also vowed to repeal this critical reform legislation, returning Wall Street back to the Wild West era of too-big-to-fail instability and reckless speculation on the taxpayer's dime.
  • DREAM Act Executive Order - Granting relief for children and young adults who were brought into the country illegally as children. Mr. Romney has vowed to put these young people, American in every way but name, back into the shadows.

The list goes on, but in the end Mr. Romney's vision for the future all boils down to the same failed approaches of the Bush years. President Obama has spent four years fighting for the middle class, and rescuing our economy from the worst malaise since the Great Depression. Too much progress has been made to turn our backs on a president who has delivered historic changes to our social, economic, and foreign policies. Join me in standing with President Obama at www.HaveHisBack.com to keep marching forward.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Romney Demanded Mom Give Up Baby


Romney Demanded Mom Give Up Baby

The conservative evangelicals in South Carolina are sure to be leery of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, but after this, they may not be the only ones. The Real Romney, a new biography written by a pair of Boston Globe reporters, reveals that as a Mormon bishop in the 1980s, the GOP frontrunner demanded a single mom give up her baby for adoption or face excommunication from the church. “This is not playing around,” the woman said. “This is not like, ‘You don’t get to take Communion.’ This is like ‘You will not be saved. You will never see the face of God.’” The authors say that people are not often excommunicated from the LDS Church over such matters, and the woman had positive things to say about Romney outside his role in church leadership. But the woman left the church, and Romney denies the threats took place.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Romney-Bachmann Ticket Would Have Foster Child


Romney-Bachmann Ticket Would Have Foster Child


I apologize for this but the issues surrounding Medicaid fraud in child welfare is at times gruesome and its spokesperson horrifyingly unsophisticated in economics, so I thought it only appropriate to let you take a moment to sit back and laugh.

You understand that a 2012 Romney-Bachmann Ticket would be forced to have a bloody lil’ foster child, right? If you wanna clutch the carnage, you must click it.
It’s Back To The Future Friday, kids, and you know what that means— supercilious speculations are in order.  The latest Quttapadlock Poll says serial loser Mittens Romney is leading Stepford bot Michele Bachmann by a mere eleven points, which, according to our crystal balls, means they may as well be joined at the junk… or whatever they have down there.
No, this isn’t an ad for the Ban Republican Marriage Coalition, it’s from the Hypnotic Wallpaper Association, who, I know it’s crazy, support theBachmannish-Romneyesgue 2012 Ticket.
And that disgusting visual forces us to take a moment to speculate on just what would happen when Mittens’ magic Mormon underoos are politically wedded to the homophobic ex-Lutheran straightjacket of Michele Bachmann. These garments are generally considered orthodox raiment by casual observers such as ourselves, but putting them together on a political ticket could produce a volatile ensemble clash that will surely incense gay fashionistas all across America.
But.  Let’s move on to more frivolous stuff.  Like, just yesterday, when only the quick-of-eye caught the subtle hip-twitch by Romney when he was asked, “Is Homosexuality a sin?”  Clearly the magic undergarment was at work, as Romney reflexively responded, “Nice try.”  Which is magic Mormon underwear-speak for “Fuck off.”
But enough about Mittens. Once these two get ticketed up, he’ll be even more irrelevant than McCain was after he got his first Palin chubby.
And you must remember the protracted and outraged tarring of then candidateBarack Obama the Repugs indulged in over his pew time at Rev. Jeramiah Wright‘s church— well now word comes from Joshua Greenat The Atlanticabout candidate Bachmann‘s recent termination ( in writing) of her membership in the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church of Stillwater, Minnasoda, [sic] which hates the sin of homosexuality, and oh yeah, that guy in the red shoes that they call the Pope is the Anti-Christ.  Now that’s some pre-emptive political sagacity.
Bachmann, who has a gay stepsister, has spent most of her adult life fibrillating over TEH GAY.  Now Bachmann is just a Christian wife who happens to be running for “the President,” a woman who is subservient to her Christian husband, Marcus Bachmann, who claims his words were altered on this interview where he infers that gays are sinful “barbarians” that need to be educated.

And she’ll need lots more sagacity too, when the Lamestream Mediarrhoids ask her if, like her hubby-wubby, she believes you can pray away teh gay. But like all good tail-wagging the head Christians, she believes she is obligated to rule, and it will take all the obligates she can pray her hands on to rule her precious little Tea Baby, the reckless mutant spawn of 2010.
As the self-appointed foster mother of this little anti-tax monster, she will find out just how much God loves her when it starts to bite her in the ass, which should be right after someone asks her how she plans to keep it from running all over the national mall devouring gays and and anti-American Congressmen.
Let the foster parenting begin!
Awwww… terrifyingly cute… and gay!  And all cleaned up for a new election cycle.
Now that you are done laughing, let's get back on task and end Medicaid fraud in child welfare, now, dammit!!!

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

IMPEACHMENT: Final Day - Senators Have Voting Rights



48 to 52 - Not guilty.
Article One.

47 to 53 - Not Guilty.
Article Two.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00033

"Impeach Trump!" Proclaimed Emperor Pence.

Trump acquitted; Romney only Republican to vote guilty

President Donald Trump won impeachment acquittal Wednesday in the U.S. Senate, bringing to a close only the third presidential trial in American history with votes that split the country, tested civic norms and fed the tumultuous 2020 race for the White House.

With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, senators sworn to do “impartial justice” stood and stated their votes for the roll call – “guilty” or “not guilty” – in a swift tally almost exclusively along party lines. Trump, the chief justice then declared, shall “be, and is hereby, acquitted of the charges.”

The outcome followed months of remarkable impeachment proceedings, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House to Mitch McConnell’s Senate, reflecting the nation’s unrelenting partisan divide three years into the Trump presidency.

What started as Trump’s request for Ukraine to “do us a favor” spun into a far-reaching, 28,000-page report compiled by House investigators accusing an American president of engaging in shadow diplomacy that threatened U.S. foreign relations for personal, political gain as he pressured the ally to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden ahead of the next election.

No president has ever been removed by the Senate.

A politically emboldened Trump had eagerly predicted vindication, deploying the verdict as a political anthem in his reelection bid. The president claims he did nothing wrong, decrying the “witch hunt” as an extension of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian 2016 campaign interference by those out to get him from the start of his presidency.

Trump’s political campaign tweeted videos, statements and a cartoon dance celebration, while the president himself tweeted that he would speak Thursday from the White House about “our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax.”

However, the Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said there will always be “a giant asterisk next to the president’s acquittal” because of the Senate’s quick trial and Republicans’ unprecedented rejection of witnesses.

A majority of senators expressed unease with Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine that resulted in the two articles of impeachment. But two-thirds of them would have had to vote “guilty” to reach the Constitution’s bar of high crimes and misdemeanors to convict and remove Trump from office. The final tallies in the GOP-held Senate fell far short.

On the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, the vote was 52-48 favoring acquittal. The second, obstruction of Congress, also produced a not guilty verdict, 53-47.

Only one Republican, Mitt Romney of Utah, the party’s defeated 2012 presidential nominee, broke with the GOP.

Romney choked up as he said he drew on his faith and “oath before God” to vote guilty on the first charge, abuse of power. He voted to acquit on the second.

All Democrats found the president guilty on the two charges.

Both Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 drew cross-party support when they were left in office after impeachment trials. Richard Nixon resigned rather than face sure impeachment, expecting members of his own party to vote to remove him.

Ahead of Wednesday’s voting, some of the most closely watched senators took to the Senate floor to tell their constituents, and the nation, what they had decided.

Influential GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee worried a guilty verdict would “pour gasoline on the fire” of the nation’s culture wars over Trump and “rip the country apart.’’ He said the House proved its case but it just didn’t rise to the level of impeachment.

Other Republicans siding with Trump said it was time to end what McConnell called the “circus” and move on.

Most Democrats, though, echoed the House managers’ warnings that Trump, if left unchecked, would continue to abuse the power of his office for personal political gain and try to cheat again ahead of the the 2020 election.

Even key Democrats from states where Trump is popular – Doug Jones in Alabama and Joe Manchin in West Virginia – risked backlash and voted to convict.

“Senators are elected to make tough choices,” Jones said.

Several senators trying to win the Democratic Party’s nomination to face Trump – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar – dashed back from early primary state New Hampshire to vote.

During the nearly three-week trial, House Democrats prosecuting the case argued that Trump abused power like no other president in history when he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, ahead of the 2020 election.

They detailed an extraordinary effort by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that set off alarms at the highest levels of government. After Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine, the White House temporarily halted U.S. aid to the struggling ally battling hostile Russia at its border. The money was eventually released in September as Congress intervened.

When the House probed Trump’s actions, the president instructed White House aides to defy congressional subpoenas, leading to the obstruction charge.

Questions from the Ukraine matter continue to swirl. House Democrats may yet summon former national security adviser John Bolton to testify about revelations from his forthcoming book that offer a fresh account of Trump’s actions. Other eyewitnesses and documents are almost sure to surface.

In closing arguments for the trial, the lead prosecutor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., appealed to senators’ sense of decency, insisting “right matters” and “truth matters” and Trump “is not who you are.’’

Schiff told The Associated Press he hoped the votes to convict “will serve as a constraint on the president’s wrongdoing.”

“But we’re going to have to be vigilant,” he said.

Pelosi was initially reluctant to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump when she took control of the House after the 2018 election, warning against a partisan vote.

But a whistleblower complaint of his conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy set off alarms. The president’s call was placed the day after Mueller announced the findings of his Russia probe.

When Trump told Pelosi in September that the call was perfect, she was stunned. Days later, the speaker announced the formal impeachment inquiry.

The result was the quickest, most partisan impeachment in U.S. history, with no Republicans joining the House Democrats to vote for the charges. The Republican Senate kept up the pace with the fastest trial ever, and the first with no witnesses. Seventeen ambassadors, national security officials and others had testified in the House.

Trump’s star attorney Alan Dershowitz made the sweeping, if stunning, assertion that even if the president engaged in the quid pro quo as described, it is not impeachable, because politicians often equate their own political interest with the national interest.

McConnell braced for dissent, but with a 53-47 Republican majority he refuted efforts to prolong the trial with more witnesses, arguing the House should have done a better job.

Roberts, as the rare court of impeachment came to a close, wished senators well in “our common commitment to the Constitution,” and hoped to meet again “under happier circumstances.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, September 21, 2012

Conyers Calls Committee Hearing A Veiled Campaign Event




(WASHINGTON) – This morning, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following opening statement during a House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled, “Regulation Nation: The Obama Administration’s Regulatory Expansion vs. Jobs and Economic Recovery”:

“As we begin this hearing, it is important that we note and appreciate the backgrounds of our witnesses.

“One of our witnesses is an economic advisor for Mitt Romney campaign. He also co-founded a group called ‘Economists for Romney.’ Welcome.

“Another witness has contributed $50,000 to Restore our Future, a Romney campaign PAC.

“The final witness is the chair of the North Carolina Catholics for Romney Committee.

“Today’s hearing is premised on certain assumptions that are simply false. First, the Majority makes the false assumption that regulations inhibit job creation even though there is absolutely no credible evidence establishing the fact that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation.

“And, that is not just me saying this.  Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations, explains:

‘Republicans have a problem.  People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.  The G.O.P. opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government[.]

‘These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment.  They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

‘No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.’

“The Majority’s own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation at a legislative hearing held last year. Christopher DeMuth, with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ‘focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates,’ and that, ‘the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.’

Another unsubstantiated claim that the Majority makes in support of its anti-regulatory agenda is that ‘regulatory uncertainty is hurting the business community.’

Once again, Bruce Bartlett, the senior economic official from the Reagan and Bush Administrations, responds:

‘[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out.  In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.’

“So make no mistake, today’s hearing is yet another example of that political opportunism recognized by Mr. Bartlett. 

“And, perhaps the biggest canard in the Majority’s arguments for so-called regulatory reform is the purported $1.75 trillion cost of regulations based on a single study. This figure is utterly unreliable and meaningless.  Again, don’t take my word for this. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service conducted an extensive examination of the study and found much of its methodology to be flawed. Moreover, CRS noted that the study’s authors themselves acknowledged that their analysis was ‘not meant to be a decision-making tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the ‘right’ level of regulation.’ Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the Minority witness for today’s hearing, has just published a well-researched academic analysis of this study which  outlines the numerous methodological flaws in that study. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will listen very closely to her testimony.

“Another reason to reject this meaningless figure:  it completely and blatantly ignores the overwhelming benefits of regulations. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the net benefits of regulations through the third fiscal year of the Obama Administration exceeded $91 billion, which is 25 times more than the net benefits during the first three years of the George W. Bush Administration. OMB also reports that for fiscal year 2010, federal regulations cost between $6.5 billion and $12.5 billion, but generated between $18.8 billion and $86.1 billion in benefits.

“Another concern that I have about this hearing is that it is the 16th time that the Committee has considered what is essentially the same topic:  federal agencies and rulemaking. I know regulations play a major role in ensuring the safety of the food we eat, the cars we drive, the air we breathe, and the medicine we consume. And that the Nation’s Great Recession was the result of too little, not too much regulation. Major financial distress in American history has often been triggered by a regulatory failure of some type.  The Great Depression largely resulted from the failure of severely undercapitalized banks that engaged in imprudent lending practices and other speculative activities.  The current Great Recession was largely fueled by an unregulated home mortgage industry and securitization market. 

“But come on now.  During the 112th Congress, this Committee has not held a single hearing on:

Ø  the ongoing foreclosure crisis and its crippling effect on the Nation’s ability to recover its financial stability as well as that of millions of Americans in communities across the Nation;

Ø  the nearly lifelong peonage that millions of young Americans must endure to repay private student loan debt, that even bankruptcy will not alleviate; and

Ø  the extremely deleterious effects of mandatory minimums and the resultant over-incarceration particularly has on African Americans in our Nation.

“I could go on and on listing the critical issues that this Committee – over the past 20 months – has failed to consider.

“Finally, if we were really serious about creating jobs, then we should be focusing on those measures that will actually result in creating jobs. Just over a year ago, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress at which he presented his American Jobs Act, a comprehensive bill that would have:

Ø  cut payroll taxes for qualifying employers,

Ø  fund a work program to provide employment opportunities for low-income youths and adults;

Ø  fund various infrastructure construction projects, including the modernization of public schools; and

Ø  start a program to rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
               
“Unfortunately, Congress chose to ignore this worthy initiative.               

“As many of you know, I have a measure – H.R. 4277, the ‘Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act’ – which aims to provide a job to any American who seeks work. My bill would create a funding mechanism to pay for job creation and training programs. These jobs would be located in the public sector, community not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses that provide community benefits. But, like the President’s proposal, my legislation has not received any consideration during this Congress, which is unfortunate because both of these measures would have, in fact, created jobs and helped our Nation’s economic recovery.

“It’s time we legislate based on facts, not rhetoric.  Unfortunately, I fear today’s hearing will not enable us to accomplish that goal.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©