Trump And Kushner Committed A "Crime Against Humanity"

Donald Trump has broken American laws, and committed actions that were both unconstitutional and hurtful to many American citizens.

But in conjunction with his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, he has done something that is far worse than his other crimes. It is a crime against humanity, and demands his removal from office -- and his arrest and conviction after that.

Here's just a part of an op-ed in the Washington Monthly by David Atkins about the atrocious crime:

Last month, I wrote that president Trump had admitted to a crime against humanity. It was true. The president had openly bragged about deliberately slowing down COVID-19 testing for political gain, thereby causing the deaths of untold numbers of Americans to make himself look better. It is a monstrous crime for which he has not yet been held accountable.

But a new report from Vanity Fair implicates both Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner of an unspeakable horror orders of magnitude greater. Instead of implementing a comprehensive and aggressive national testing plan as originally recommended by the White House coronavirus task force, Kushner scuttled it. The president and his son-in-law were instead content to allow tens of thousands of Americans die as long as they were mostly people of color, and hailing from Democratic states and counties. Not only that, they saw it as a political opportunity to both cull the numbers of opposing voters and lay blame on Democratic governors at the same time. . . .

If this is true–and there is very little reason to doubt its veracity, despite the White House press secretary’s denials–it would constitute perhaps the greatest crime against humanity of any president in American history. Andrew Jackson’s Trail of Tears was more deliberately vicious and murderous; George W. Bush’s immoral war of choice in Iraq killed more people overall.

But no American president has ever betrayed his oath of office more profoundly than in deliberately allowing the deaths of more than 150,000 of his own fellow citizens and counting for partisan political gain.

We even lack the vocabulary to describe it. “Gross negligence” doesn’t reach the level of the crime. “Murder” is lurid, but frankly not comprehensive enough in scope to describe the death of 150,000. “Treason” comes to mind when considering that the President of the United States knowingly allowed 150,000 Americans to die because they were mostly his political opponents–but despite his Russia entanglements, there is no direct evidence he did so on behalf of a foreign power.

But there’s another option: “genocide.” The known racial bias of the deaths overlaps with the political bias–black and brown Americans tend to be Democrats and live in Democratic areas, and are disproportionately falling victim to the virus–which in turn would make “genocide” the most compelling way to describe what Trump and Kushner have done.

Genocide. Yes, it sounds preposterous. It sounds like the hyperbole of the deeply unserious. But what else can you call it? No word is perfect, but the crime must have a name that fits the enormous scope of its evil. It must describe what actually happened. And what happened is that the president and his son-in-law deliberately allowed 150,000 (and counting) Americans to die of a pandemic, because it would mostly kill off their political opponents. Because it would kill off mostly poor people of color. Because they thought they could gain an upper hand by blaming opposing governors. But they thought it would advantage them politically. It’s like a plot out of a bad action movie with a comic book villain, except it’s real life and those villains are still governing and making decisions. . . .

The majority of Americans, the ones not enthralled by conservative infotainment and the Trump propaganda machine, are suffering from years of collective trauma and looking forward to the November election as a means of escape. One can hardly blame them. Nor would many be to blame for wanting to put this entire era behind us and never look back.

But assuming democracy remains intact and Trump is driven from office, this enormous crime cannot be forgotten. It cannot be ignored. There must be accountability for this genocide, the greatest crime in American history.

Trump And Congressional GOP Are Doing Putin's Bidding

Putin has to be a very happy man these days. He has convinced Donald Trump that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And Trump is now repeating that Russian propaganda to his base.

In the past, the Republicans would have been horrified by any president, especially a Gap one, doing the bidding of Russia. But Republicans have changed. They have decided that Donald Trump can do no wrong, even if he is spreading Russian propaganda -- and they are destroying their party's future and reputation to protect him.

Here is how Jennifer Rubin describes this GOP treachery in The Washington Post:

Republicans are not “merely” violating their oaths of office for failing to support impeachment of a president who arguably has committed more serious “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and acts of bribery than all his predecessors combined. None of them sacrificed national security to obtain a political advantage. President Trump has been disloyal to the United States, not only in giving Russia a leg up in its war against Ukraine, but also in broadcasting his propaganda. And for that, Republicans are just as guilty.

The New York Times reports that “Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating ‘a fictional narrative.’ She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.” While that did not slow Republicans one bit, we now know that they are neither dupes nor Fox News pawns; they are deliberately assisting in a Russian propaganda operation.

If congressional Republicans have evidence our intelligence community is wrong, they need to present it. Otherwise, they need to be called out for deliberately assisting a hostile foreign power. It is up to mainstream media interviewers and every Democrat on the ballot in 2020 to directly challenge Republicans who, yes, engage in un-American activity.

In the case of Trump, he not only picks up the propaganda from domestic sources carrying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s water, which “worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump”; he was duped right from the source speaking “with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference.” Whether the president is being blackmailed is unknown; what we do know is that he is a malleable puppet whose strings are pulled in the Kremlin.

Ironically, it was Republicans during the Cold War who routinely and falsely accused every liberal of aiding communists. Now, we have a case in which the “useful idiots” are in the White House and Congress, spreading Putin’s lies far more effectively than the Russian leader could do on his own. . . .

Republicans must bear full responsibility for raising a specious defense of Trump that aids Russia, and the president should be held responsible for his inability to defend our national security by virtue of his susceptibility to Russian propaganda. The former, presumably, have not lost their powers of reason, and therefore, must be denounced and voted out of office for perpetuating known propaganda from a hostile power. As for Trump, there are plenty of grounds for impeachment, but let’s not forget a big one: He is intellectually incapable of recognizing reality. He cannot carry out the responsibilities of commander in chief.

It's Not Just Trump - GOP Congress Is Also Aiding Russia

It is now beyond doubt that Russia attacked this country's electoral process in 2016, and they are still doing it. Our intelligence and justice systems have provided incontrovertible evidence of it. In spite of that Trump continues to downplay it, and after attacking our real allies, has embraced Putin. Much has been written about Trump's possibly treasonous behavior, but Trump is not alone. In their effort to protect Trump, the congressional Republicans have also acted to protect Russia.

Consider the following. It is part of an op-ed by Paul Waldman at msn.com:

The truth is that the entire GOP is well on its way to becoming a Russian asset.

Are there a few Republican dissenters? Sure. But perhaps we’re having difficulty viewing that whole picture because what’s happening is so utterly bonkers that we can’t quite bring ourselves to see it clearly. So let’s review just some of the things we know:

• In 2016, the campaign of the Republican nominee for president was approached multiple times by representatives of the Russian government offering to help them win the election. These offers were welcomed with enthusiasm. The campaign was also led for a time by a political consultant with deep financial and personal ties to a Russian oligarch and a Kremlin puppet in Ukraine. 
• Multiple members of the Trump team had contacts with the Russian government that they later lied to conceal. 
• As part of its attack on the American electoral system, Russian intelligence hacked into Democratic Party systems. Some of the information it found there was released publicly and promoted gleefully by Republicans at all levels in order to help the Trump campaign; information relating to down-ballot campaigns was passed to Republicans, who used it in order to maintain their hold on the House of Representatives. 
• Amid the insistence from the intelligence community that in 2018 Russia will likely attempt to once again penetrate the computer systems of state election agencies, Republicans this week killed an effort to provide funding to states to bolster the security of their election systems. 
• As part of a lengthy effort to infiltrate the National Rifle Association, an important Republican interest group, an alleged Russian spy began a romance with a Republican activist, met multiple Republican leaders and fostered a relationship between American gun advocates and Russians. On the night of Trump’s victory, she messaged “I am ready for further orders” to her handler, a Russian banker named Alexander Torshin who is close to Putin. 
• The NRA dramatically increased its spending on the 2016 presidential campaign from past years, pouring $30 million into their effort to elect Trump. The FBI is investigatingwhether that money may have illegally come from Russia, funneled to the organization by Torshin. 
• The Trump administration has announced a change to IRS rules so that groups like the NRA will no longer have to identify their donors on their tax forms, making such money almost impossible to trace in the future. 
• Over the last few years, the Christian right, another key part of the GOP coalition, has grown increasingly close to Putin, whom they see as an ally in a global clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam. 
• In Congress, Republicans have undertaken an aggressive campaign to discredit and, many of them plainly hope, shut down the probe into the Russian attack on America. Though they mounted seven separate investigations of Benghazi, they are nearly united in their position that no further investigation into a hostile foreign power’s attempt to manipulate the American electoral system is necessary. 
• Fox News, which functions as the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, has aired relentless attacks on the Russia investigation and calls for it to be shut down. 
• Despite the mountain of unambiguous evidence of the Russian attack in 2016, the overwhelming majority of Republican voters continue to say no such attack occurred. 
• Hard-core Trump supporters are beginning to argue that even if Russia did attack the American electoral system, it was actually a good thing because it helped Donald Trump get elected. 

That last argument has not yet filtered up to more mainstream Republican figures, but give it some time. When Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III closes his investigation and presents all his evidence (and more indictments, surely), no one will really be surprised to hear Republican members of Congress and prominent conservative media figures saying that it all worked out for the best because Hillary Clinton isn’t president, and we should just move on.

Evidence Is Emerging That Trump Colluded With Russia

“There’s a smell of treason in the air.” -- Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

The Trump administration has based their defense against allegations of collusion with Russian officials to subvert the 2016 election on the excuse that there is no evidence of such collusion. That is now changing. The FBI now has circumstantial evidence that collusion did indeed take place. The only word for such collusion is TREASON!

Consider the following story from CNN News:

The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.

The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power." . . .

One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.

The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.

One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.

Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. 

The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.

The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.

FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.

Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.

US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

Apology Needed

I was born and raised in a state that abandoned the Union for a treasonous attempt to form a different nation, and I wouldn't mind hearing an apology either. And I'm sick of hearing about the "war of northern aggression", or that the war was over "state's rights". The South left the Union because they wanted to justify and continue the institution of slavery. Any attempt to deny that is just a lie.

3 Out Of 10 Considering Armed Rebellion ?

We have known for a while that there are certain elements in this country, like the armed militias in many states, that are on the verge of stepping over the line of patriotism and into treason. Some of them are already over that line. In fact, these people are more dangerous than islamic fundamentalists (and that has been verified by government studies). The only thing that has made me feel better about these nuts is the thought that they are a very tiny minority of our population.

But a new poll shows that might not be true. People considering a treasonous armed rebellion against our government may comprise a much larger percentage of the population than previously believed. At least that's what a new Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll (conducted between April 22nd and 28th of a nationwide sample of registered voters -- with a 3.4 point margin of error) seems to show.

The poll results said about 29% of Americans believed an "armed rebellion" might be needed in "the next few years" to "protect our liberties". I'm not sure just what liberties these people are worried about, since the poll didn't go into specifics about that (and the truth is that we are more equal now than at any time in our history -- except in economic terms). I suspect these liberties involve the right to discriminate against other Americans they disagree with, since the percentage who think armed rebellion might be necessary goes up significantly when only Republicans are considered. Almost half of Republicans (44%) believe this.

Here are the poll's numbers, with those agreeing being the first number given (and those disagreeing being in parentheses):

IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS AN ARMED REBELLION MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES.

General public...............29% (47%)

Democrats...............18% (61%)
Independents...............27% (45%)
Republicans...............44% (31%)

Men...............30% (50%)
Women...............29% (45%)

High school...............36% (35%)
Some college...............31% (44%)
College grad...............22% (60%)

And it might be even worse than those numbers show. About 5% of the general public was unsure, and another 19% refused to either agree or disagree. As a loyal American, I have to admit that these are very disappointing numbers.

Confederacy Not Deserving Of Honor

Recently, there has been a big hullabaloo made about Southern politicians honoring those who fought for the Confederate States of America in the Civil War. This is really nothing new in the South. For years there have been Confederate apologists who don't mind re-writing history to fit their own viewpoint.

These people always overlook the real reason the Confederacy was created and the Civil War was fought. They will tell you it was to protect Southern "heritage and values" or to defend "states' rights". But none of them, including the recent proclamations by Southern politicians, will mention slavery. They'd like for people to think their ancestors weren't traitors (as they really were), but defenders of the South.

Frankly, that's a gross and ridiculous misrepresentation of history. Here in Texas, the people of the state voted on whether to secede from the Union or not. At that time, there were 604,215 people in the state (30% of whom were slaves). The vote to secede was won by a 76% majority of Texas voters.

To learn the reason the people voted to secede, just look at this direct quote from a document the state published in 1861. It's called "A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union":

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

I don't see anything there about "states' rights". But it clearly states that Texas is leaving the Union because it believes that white men are the only ones that should have equal rights and the institution of slavery needed to be continued and protected. In fact, they even try to claim this is the "revealed will" of christianity's god, and slavery is good for both the slaves and slave-owners.

In my mind, the only saving grace is that not all Texans in 1861 (or now) wanted to defend slavery or leave the Union. The governor, Texas hero Sam Houston, resigned his office and left the state when the people voted to secede and join the Confederacy. There were also 24% of the voters who voted to stay in the United States. They did not support slavery or the traitorous actions of the secessionists. In four counties, a majority of voters voted against secession, and dozens of Union supporters were hanged by secessionists in one of those counties (Cooke county).

But the majority of Texans at that time voted to join the other Southern states in committing treason by seceding from and fighting against the United States. None of these states did this to protect their heritage or defend states' rights. They committed this treason for only one reason -- to continue enslaving and abusing their fellow humans.

Where is the honor in that? How can there be any honor in slavery or treason?