Over 1100 Former DOJ Officials Ask For Barr's Resignation

(Cartoon image is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

Traditionally, the Attorney General is the people's lawyer. He is to see that government officials follow the Constitution, and that justice in the United States is meted out equally and without prejudice.

William "Whitewash Willie" Barr is different. He sees himself as Donald Trump's lawyer (even though Trump already has both White House and personal lawyers). He acts to cover-up Trump's misdeeds and attack his perceived enemies. He is the antithesis of a good Attorney General.

That is why more than 1,100 former prosecutors and other Department of Justice officials (from both political parties) have signed a petition demanding the resignation of Barr, and urging current officials to refuse to carry out his illegal demands.

Here is that petition:

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

As former DOJ officials, we each proudly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of our offices. The very first of these duties is to apply the law equally to all Americans. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution, and it is embedded in countless rules and laws governing the conduct of DOJ lawyers. The Justice Manual — the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers — states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.”

All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.

And yet, President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle, most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes. The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here — after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.

Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

We welcome Attorney General Barr’s belated acknowledgment that the DOJ’s law enforcement decisions must be independent of politics; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters, either to punish his opponents or to help his friends; and that the President’s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department’s credibility. But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.

For these reasons, we support and commend the four career prosecutors who upheld their oaths and stood up for the Department’s independence by withdrawing from the Stone case and/or resigning from the Department. Our simple message to them is that we — and millions of other Americans — stand with them. And we call on every DOJ employee to follow their heroic example and be prepared to report future abuses to the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct; and, if necessary, to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation. We likewise call on the other branches of government to protect from retaliation those employees who uphold their oaths in the face of unlawful directives. The rule of law and the survival of our Republic demand nothing less.

350 Mental Health Professionals Say Trump's "Deteriorating"

(This caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

There are signs that Donald Trump is coming unglued over the prospect of his impeachment. The tweets and the lies are coming fast and furious -- and many mental health professionals believe this could pose a danger to the country.

About 350 psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have signed a petition and submitted it to Congress. Here is what they wrote in that petition:

We are among several mental health experts making ourselves available for consultation with Congress in accordance with our ethics guideline, which states: “Psychiatrists are encouraged to serve society by advising and consulting with the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the government.”  We are also in keeping with the Goldwater principle that encourages psychiatrists to educate the public when asked about a public figure, so that we may improve the community and better public health.  We appreciate the momentous task Congress has with the impeachment proceedings and present ourselves as recognized experts who can answer critical questions relating to mental health.  We are among thousands of mental health professionals who have felt obligated to speak up because of the exceptional psychological dangers of this presidency.  In medicine, safety supersedes all other concerns, and we are acting in accordance with our professional responsibility to society and the humanitarian goals of medicine.

We are speaking out at this time because we are convinced that, as the time of possible impeachment approaches, Donald Trump has the real potential to become ever more dangerous, a threat to the safety of our nation.  We bear in mind that Donald Trump, as President, has the unfettered authority to launch nuclear weapons at any time for any reason.  There is no formalized way of preventing this unless his order is disobeyed by the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who has been given the order to launch.  Short of this calamity, there are many other dangers he can pose by the use, fueled by rage, of his assumed absolute executive authority, and by the loyalists who serve him.

There are many things we can say about the psychology of Donald Trump.  He is remarkably transparent through his Twitter stream of comments, real-time video displays and newspaper accounts, past and present, as well as testimonies of persons who know or have known him.  He has shown that his sense of worth is entirely dependent on the admiration from others, such as at the rallies of his base.  Without this external affirmation, President Trump has revealed that he feels, deep down, like a loser, a failure, weak, dumb, fat, ugly, fake, “crooked”.  We know this because these self-denigrating pictures of himself, President Trump projects onto others, whom he transforms into enemies, and compensates consciously by creating a grandiose image of himself as unique, a stable genius, entitled to special treatment, and better at everything than everyone else.

What makes Donald Trump so dangerous is the brittleness of his sense of worth.  Any slight or criticism is experienced as a humiliation and degradation.  To cope with the resultant hollow and empty feeling, he reacts with what is referred to as narcissistic rage.  He is unable to take responsibility for any error, mistake, or failing.  His default in that situation is to blame others and to attack the perceived source of his humiliation.  These attacks of narcissistic rage can be brutal and destructive.  A striking but not unusual example of his lack of caring and empathy is his policy of separating children from their parents at the Southern border.  Additionally, he has made the reckless decision to allow an attack of our Kurdish allies, against all advice, shortly after announcement of the impeachment inquiry.  These events are closely related and betray his extreme inability to tolerate any challenges against him.

We have come to the conclusion that there is an ethical obligation to warn of the danger that President Trump poses.  We believe that there is a possibility of our stumbling into a war, should, for example, the adventurous Kim Jong-un have further flights of missiles over Japan or another nuclear test.  President Trump’s need to demonstrate his strength as commander-in-chief and the praise that would come from taking strong actions could lead to a very unfortunate situation.

Impeachment is the ultimate rebuke of a president, which President Trump has intensely feared, at least since the appointment of the special counsel.  Failing to monitor or to understand the psychological aspects, or discounting them, could lead to catastrophic outcomes.  For these reasons, we implore Congress to take these danger signs seriously and to constrain his destructive impulses.  We and many others are available to give important relevant recommendations as well as to educate the public so that we can maximize our collective safety.

DACA Bill Has A Slim Chance Of Passing In The House

The charts above reflect information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 6th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

It shows that a clear majority of Americans supported the DACA program (which protected from deportation those brought to this country as children). They know these "Dreamers" have grown up in this country, obeyed the law, paid their taxes, and got an education or served in the U.S. military (or bot). They think it's wrong and downright mean to deport these people to a country they don't know.

The public also knows which political party agrees with them on DACA. About 60% say the congressional Democrats care about the Dreamers and wants to save DACA. But 61% say the congressional Republicans don't care, and 63% say Donald Trump doesn't care. This is just one more issue on which Republicans disagree with the majority of Americans, and one more reason to vote against them in November.

A few congressional moderate Republicans are beginning to realize that. They don't like being labeled as mean and uncaring about these immigrant Americans. And they don't want to have to defend the refusal to help the Dreamers on the campaign trail.

They have started an effort to get a discharge petition in the House of Representatives (led by Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of California). That discharge petition would force the House to debate and vote on a bill -- in this case a bill to make the DACA program legal. The petition would need a majority of representatives to sign it to be effective. That means at least 28 Republicans would have to sign it, assuming that all 193 Democrats sign. If some Democrats don't sign, then more Republicans will be needed.

Can they get enough votes on the petition? Probably. But that doesn't mean the bill would easily become law. The House Speaker (Paul Ryan, who opposes the effort) could still pull some legislative tricks to block a vote. And if the bill does pass the House, it is likely that some anti-immigrant GOP senator (like Ted Cruz) will filibuster it to death.

The odds of success are long, but at least something is being done. That's more than we have seen for quite a while.

Arizona Will Vote On Marijuana Legalization In November

(This image is from inquisitor.com.)

There are already four states that have legalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use -- Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. And I've already reported that a measure to do the same has been approved in two more states -- California and Maine.

Now it looks like a third state will be voting on marijuana legalization in the November election. Arizona required 150,642 signatures on a petition to get the measure on the November ballot. On June 30th, petitions with 258,582 signatures were submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State -- more than 100,000 signatures than are needed. The signatures will have to be vetted, but with that many, it is likely the measure will be approved and put on the November ballot.

Petition-drive president J.P. Holyoak said:

“We are very encouraged by the strong levels of support and enthusiasm we found among voters during the petition drive. Arizonans are ready to end the antiquated policy of marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol. We look forward to continuing the public conversation about the initiative, and we think most will agree it is a sensible step forward for our state.”

Legalizing marijuana is expected to raise $82 million a year in tax revenues (and about $55 million each year will go to help fund K-12 education).

Two States Will Vote On Marijuana Legalization In November

 So far, four states have legalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use -- Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon. Now it looks like two more states are poised to join them.

The two states, located at opposite ends of the country, are California and Maine. If passed, the petitions in the two states would legalize small amounts of marijuana for the recreational use of adults, and it would tax the sale of that legal marijuana.

In California, the coalition for legalization has collected more than 600,000 signatures. It only needed to submit 365,880 signatures to get on the ballot. I think there's a very good chance that the petition will be passed by California voters in November.

In Maine, 61,123 signatures were needed, and more than enough were submitted. But officials rejected about 17,000 signatures without vetting each one to make sure they were valid. The legalization initiative went to court, and the state court ordered the Maine Secretary of State to check all of the rejected signatures. The Secretary of State has now announced that enough signatures were gathered, and the legalization petition will be on the November ballot. A recent MPRC Poll in Maine showed that 54% of voters favored legalization.

Is An Apology Needed? - Absolutely Not!

Many people have been demonstrating against the police killings of far too many unarmed Black men (and children), and the police aren't happy about that (even though they know there is nothing they can do about it). But they are even more upset when it is a celebrity making the same statement as the demonstrators. Why? Because they think that celebrities (like star athletes) taking a stand on something can influence a lot of other people to do the same -- and they are probably right about that.

That's why the St. Louis Police Officer's Association (SLPOA) hit the roof when some St. Louis Rams players entered the stadium before a recent game with their arms up (imitating the pose of those demonstrating against the shooting of Michael Brown). The SLPOA demanded an apology from those players and the team. And they went even further by demanding the players be punished.

It's also why the union for Cleveland police officers is demanding an apology from Cleveland Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins. Hawkins entered the stadium wearing a t-shirt demanding justice for 12 year-old Tamir Rice and John Crawford, both of whom were killed by police -- Rice because he was holding a toy gun in a public park.

Do the St. Louis and Cleveland police officers deserve an apology from these celebrities (i.e., NFL players)? In a word, NO! And both of these police organizations should be deeply ashamed of themselves for even asking for an apology.

They seem to have forgotten that they represent government employees, and any citizen has the right to criticize his/her government if he/she feels they are not living up to the hig standards they have sworn to uphold (and are indeed paid to uphold). In fact, this right is so important that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution (in the First Amendment). If any of these officers can't stand to be criticized when some of their fellow officers fail to uphold those high standards, then they should find another line of work outside of government service.

If an apology is needed, it is not from either the demonstrators or the celebrities offering their opinion. It should come from the police, who sprang to the defense of those killing unarmed Blacks and refuse to institute policies that would prevent those incidents from happening in the future.

Will Nevada Be The Next State To Legalize Marijuana ?

(This image of marijuana is from shoutout.com.)

There are now four state (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska) and the District of Columbia that have legalized the possession and use of marijuana for adults and taxed its sale (although the Republican Congress could still nullify the vote in D.C.). And since several polls have shown a majority of Americans favor marijuana legalization, the only question seems to be which state will be the next to do it.

That state could well be Nevada. There has been an effort in that state to get a minimum of 101,667 valid signatures to force the state to act on marijuana legalization. On Wednesday, that effort submitted petitions bearing over 145,000 signatures -- and those are just from Clark County (Las Vegas). The petitions from Washoe County (Reno) and rural Nevada are yet to be turned in, but will assuredly boost that total by quite a bit.

This means there will undoubtably be enough signatures, and that the legislature will have to take up the issue of legalization -- perhaps as early as next Spring. Since the measure involves taxing marijuana, it will require a two-thirds majority of both legislative bodies (and the governor's signature). That may be difficult to accomplish, even though the petition effort is a bipartisan one.

The good news though is that failure by the legislature to pass the measure does not kill it -- but just means it will be presented to the voters of Nevada on the 2016 ballot (where it would have a much better chance of being passed).

Will Nevada be the next state to legalize marijuana, or will another state beat them to the punch? We'll have to wait and see. But the die has been cast, and soon, other states will follow the current four.

A Humorous (?) Petition

(The image above is from the right-wing website thecommonsenseshow.com.)

The White House has a website (petitions.whitehouse.gov) where any citizen can create a petition, and if that petition gets 100,000 signatures, the White House has promised to respond to the petition. It is an effort by the Obama administration to give citizens a voice in their government, and allow the White House to know what citizens think is important.

In the last few days a new petition has appeared on the website. It is a petition asking that Alaskans be allowed to vote on whether to secede from the United States and rejoin Russia. I don't know whether this petition is an inventive demonstration against Russia's seizure of Crimea, a misguided teabagger effort to embarrass the president, or just an example of an eccentric and slightly malevolent sense of humor. I suspect it is the latter.

And thousands of people are signing the petition. As I write this post, over 24,000 people have signed the petition. I assume that many Americans like this kind of off-the-wall humor, because Alaska (like the other 49 states) isn't going anywhere.

Alaska Will Vote On Marijuana Legalization

(The image above is from Cannabis Culture Magazine.)

I posted recently about the effort to get a marijuana legalization proposition on the 2014 ballot in California. Proponents are currently trying to get enough signatures to force that to happen. But it looks like Alaska may beat them to the punch, and become the next state to legalize the gentle herb in an August 2014 election. They already have more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.

A "Campaign To Regulate Marijuana" representative says they have already collected 44,845 signatures. They only needed to get 31,169 to get the matter on the ballot. That means they have over 15,000 signatures more than they needed -- giving them a substantial bit of padding when those signatures are examined for validity. They hope to get 45,000 signatures before submitting their petition, and they probably will. KTUU in Anchorage reports:

The legalization effort proposes far more than simply flipping the switch on marijuana from illegal to legal: the petition includes a seven-page, near-complete package of legislation that lays out a suite of comprehensive new laws that would regulate the growing, processing, selling, and use of the drug in Alaska.

In addition to creating licensing and oversight for the cultivation and sale of the drug, the petition also suggests a tax of $50 per ounce at the retail level. . .

The Alaska petition also allows communities to forbid the sale of marijuana locally, a “local option” akin to towns forbidding the sale of alcohol.

The legal framework offered by the petition could be tweaked by legislators down the road, but first, petitioners looking to legalize marijuana will have to submit their signatures booklets for state approval by Jan. 21. If the 30,000 signatures are authenticated, the initiative will go before voters on the August 2014 ballot.

Texas Secessionists

The map above shows the counties in Texas that had people who signed the petition to let Texas secede from the United States. On the whole, only a very tiny percentage of Texans signed the petition -- only the craziest teabaggers in the state. But the map does have one use. It shows you where those crazy people are located in the Lone Star State. The darker the color, the more people in that county signed the petition.

Regular readers will have heard me say many times that I live in one of the reddest areas of a red state. I think this map shows I was telling the truth. Note that the Panhandle has 5 of the 9 darkest purple counties, showing they have a lot of crazy teabaggers. If you will note, three of those dark purple counties are in a row. They are Oldham, Potter, and Carson counties (from left to right). I live in Potter County, the one in the middle. It just goes to show that I'm surrounded by a lot of crazy and truly scary people.

NOTE -- For another interesting and very entertaining take on the Texas secessionists, I urge you to go over and read the post by Glenn W. Smith at firedoglake.

The Undemocratic Presidential Debates

The graphic above lists the dates, times, and subjects of the presidential (and vice-presidential) debates for this election year. I don't know whether debates actually change anyone's mind about who they will vote for, but it's possible it could help some undecideds make up their mind. Anyway, I think it's a good idea to let the citizens that are interested see the candidates on stage together, making it much easier to make a comparison.

But there is one thing about the debates that bothers me quite a bit. While there are four parties who nominated a presidential candidate, are on enough state ballots to mathematically have a chance to win 270 electoral votes, and qualified for federal matching funds, only two of those party's candidates will be allowed to participate in the debates. This seems wrong, and very undemocratic to me. Why are the debates restricted only to candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties? Why are the candidates of the Libertarian and Green parties not allowed to participate?

The media will tell us that it is because those two parties don't poll high enough to warrant inviting them. That is rather disingenuous, because the media itself has set up a "catch-22" situation designed to favor the two "major" parties. They say the Greens and Libertarians don't warrant media coverage because they aren't popular enough, but the only way to get popular enough is to have campaign coverage by the media. Maybe those two parties would be more popular if they received the same kind of media coverage as the Republicans and Democrats do, but we'll never know because the media totally ignores them.

Is this because the two major parties are afraid of the Green and Libertarian parties? I thin that has a lot to do with it. They are both afraid that people might find the stances on the issues taken by the Libertarian Party and the Green Party to be more attractive than the corporate-centered beliefs of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Democrats are afraid they will lose votes to the Green Party, and Republicans are afraid they will lose votes to the Libertarian Party.

And their fears might be justified, but that doesn't matter. A truly democratic republic would give coverage and opportunities to debate to all parties -- even minor parties. Other countries do this, and it works just fine for them. In fact, some of the stances of the minor parties are adopted by bigger parties because they received public exposure and the people liked those ideas. Imagine that -- a democratic nation where all political ideas are given a chance to be heard and judged by the public!

That's what America should be, but isn't. There should be at least four political parties invited to all of the presidential debates this year. If you agree with that, then I ask you to sign this online petition demanding it. I have. Here is what the petition says:

We, the undersigned, demand presidential debates that include the real choices before the voters this November. The debates must include every candidate who is on enough ballots to win the White House and who has demonstrated a minimal level of support -- meaning either 1% of the vote in a credible national poll, or qualification for federal matching funds, or both. In 2012, the Green and Libertarian party candidates both meet all of these criteria.

We call on the national news media, the League of Women Voters, and every other civic organization that speaks up for the rights of regular people to organize a 2012 presidential debate that includes all the qualified candidates.

We call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to change its arbitrary rules to include all the qualified contenders. And we urge our fellow Americans to rise up and demand democracy in our presidential elections, beginning today with the presidential debates. These debates belong to the people, not the politicians or Wall Street.

An Appeal To Texas Residents

As you may know, the Texas House of Representatives has just passed a budget bill that would be disastrous for most of the state's citizens. The bill would cut $8 billion from education funds -- meaning that 80,000 to 100,000 teachers and education employees would lose their jobs. Overall the bill is expected to cost the state about 335,000 (which is a lot considering the state already has over 8% unemployment).

There are also massive and indefensible cuts to Medicaid and other social service programs. This would result in many being thrown off the Medicaid rolls -- a travesty in a state where 27% of the citizens already are without any kind of health insurance). It would also mean that many nursing homes for the elderly would have to be closed.

We may not be able to stop this terrible bill since both the House and Senate in Texas are controlled by large majorities of Republicans -- and they have shown that they only care for the rich and the corporations. But we don't have to take it laying down. I urge any Texan reading this blog to let the state government know that you oppose this disastrous bill. And a good way to do that is to sign the online petition of the state Democratic Party.

You can go to this site to sign the petition. Please do it.

Petition Submitted For Vote On Anti-Immigrant Ordinance

A few weeks ago, the city of Farmers Branch passed an anti-immigrant ordinance targeted at the Hispanics living in the city. The ordinance has come under fire from Hispanic and civil rights groups, and at least one lawsuit has been filed to overturn the ordinance.

Residents of Farmers Branch have also been trying another way to get rid of the ordinance. They have been collecting signatures on a petition calling for a vote by the citizens on whether to overturn the ordinance or not.

The anti-ordinance citizens needed 700 signatures to force the city council to call the election. The group has now turned in the petition to the city council. The petition has over 1400 signatures. Now the city has 15 days to verify that at least 700 of the signatues are from registered voters living in the city.

Of course some of the ordinance supporters are claiming that many illegal immigrants may have signed the petition. But William Brewer, a petition organizer, answered that charge saying, "That was all a bunch of silliness. The petition was signed by registered voters."

According to City Attorney Matthew Boyle, if the petition is found to have 700 valid signatures, the city council will have to choose between repealing the ordinance or scheduling a city-wide vote for May 12th.

I seriously doubt the city council will repeal the ordinance, so it looks like the voters will get their chance to speak on the matter next May. I hope the decent citizens of Farmers Branch will overturn this bigoted ordinance. The city council has given their city a lot of bad publicity by passing it, and set them up to spend thousands of dollars trying to defend this obnoxious ordinance.

It's up to the voters now. The election next May will tell the nation just what kind of city Farmers Branch is -- bigoted or progressive and accepting. It will be interesting to see what choice they make.