Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.
This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.
What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
Sunday, February 19, 2017
" Alexander Acosta was once accused of undermining the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Now he could become secretary of labor."
Trump’s Labor Pick Has a History of Attacking Voting Rights | The Nation
"Americans have been watching the Trump administration unfold for almost a month now, in all its malevolent incompetence. From morning tweets to daytime news to late-night comedy, many watch and fret and mock, and then sleep, sometimes fitfully.
Others, a large minority, lie awake, thinking about losing their families, jobs and homes. They have been vilified by the president as criminals, though they are not. They have tried to build honest lives here and suddenly are as fearful as fugitives. They await the fists pounding on the door, the agents in black, the cuffs, the van ride, the cell. They are terrified that the United States government will find them, or their parents or their children, demand their papers, and take them away.
About 11 million people are living in this country outside the law. Suddenly, by presidential decree, all are deportation priorities, all are supposed criminals, all are threatened with broken lives, along with members of their families. The end could come for them any time.
This is not an abstract or fanciful depiction. It is not fake news. It’s the United States of today, this month, this morning..."
Breaking the Anti-Immigrant Fever - The New York Times
"A lot of people seem to be questioning President Trump’s mental health. This month, Representative Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, went so far as to say he was considering proposing legislation that would require a White House psychiatrist.
More controversial is the number of mental health experts who are joining the chorus. In December, a Huffington Post article featured a letter written by three prominent psychiatry professors that cited President Trump’s “grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality” as evidence of his mental instability. While stopping short of giving the president a formal psychiatric diagnosis, the experts called for him to submit to a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by impartial investigators.
A practicing psychologist went further in late January. He was quoted in a U.S. News and World Report article titled “Temperament Tantrum,” saying that President Trump has malignant narcissism, which is characterized by grandiosity, sad
Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill? - The New York Times
"MELBOURNE, Fla. — During President Trump’s transition to power, his team reached out to Elliott Abrams for help building a new administration. Mr. Abrams, a seasoned Republican foreign policy official, sent lists of possible candidates for national security jobs.
One by one, the answer from the Trump team came back no. The reason was consistent: This one had said disparaging things about Mr. Trump during the campaign; that one had signed a letter opposing him. Finally, the White House asked Mr. Abrams himself to meet with the president about becoming deputy secretary of state, only to have the same thing happen — vetoed because of past criticism.
Trump, an Outsider Demanding Loyalty, Struggles to Fill Top Posts - The New York Times
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Friday, February 17, 2017
Thursday, February 16, 2017
"The resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn raises deep, unresolved questions about President Donald Trump's relationship with Russia and whether America's longtime adversary tried to tilt the election in his favor.
The leap from Flynn's actions to some broader conspiracy remains huge. But the lingering concerns could develop into a legal minefield for the White House, as congressional inquiries unfold and calls mount for an independent criminal probe, lawyers and scholars say.
Michael Flynn Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA Other officials from the Trump campaign or White House could potentially be swept into the scandal, which has fed suspicions of Trump's relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his business ties with Russia and reports of Russian hackers' leaking information that damaged Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton.
'The problem isn't what already has happened. It's what will happen now, as the Senate investigations ramp up,' said Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the House of Representatives who has represented high-profile government officials in public corruption cases."
Dumb, dumb and dumber. Trump: 'I Was Given The Information' on Incorrect Electoral College Margin - NBC News
"Donald Trump said Thursday that his victory in the 2016 election was "the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan."
It's a claim that Trump has repeated numerous times since November. And by any measure, it is flatly and demonstrably false.
Trump officially received 304 electoral college votes when all the counting was over; he would have notched 306 from his performance on Election Day, but two "faithless" electors did not vote for him when the Electoral College met in December.
In comparison, in 2012, Barack Obama received 332 electoral votes. And that was significantly less than Obama's 2008 showing, when he won 365 electoral votes.
Trump's 304 total does not even mark the highest tally for just a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era. Republican George H.W. Bush won 426 electoral votes in 1988.
In fact, since Nixon's election in 1972, only two presidents - George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter - have received fewer electoral votes than Trump in a general election.
Presented with that set of facts during his Thursday press conference, Trump demurred, saying only that he "was given" the data citing his historic victory.
"I don't know, I was given that information. I actually, I've seen that information around," he told NBC News. "But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that?"
The president declined to answer NBC's question about why Americans should trust him after he repeated the untrue figure
"Two things bear repeating ad infinitum:
In July, at a televised campaign event, Trump said: ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.’
Then in October, an hour after the release of the ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, WikiLeaks began to dump the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s hacked emails on the internet.
Coincidence? Maybe. But that would be one hell of a coincidence, considering all the other reinforcing ‘coincidences’: Trump’s inexplicable, inexhaustible praise of Russia and Vladimir Putin; Putin’s failure to respond to Obama’s sanctions; an explosive report last week from CNN that read: ‘For the first time, U.S. investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent.’"
During the Watergate scandal, until now the most outrageous political scandal in American history, the crucial question was drawled by Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
Today the question is the same.
This is not about Mike Flynn. It is about the president who appointed him, who earlier considered Flynn for vice president. The latest revelation of frequent contacts between the Trump team and Russian intelligence should be a wake-up call to Republicans as well as Democrats.
When Vice President Mike Pence was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News on Jan. 15 if there had been any contacts between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, he answered: “Of course not. Why would there be any contacts?”
Great question, Mr. Vice President.
Look, there’s a great deal we don’t know, but Russian interference in our election is potentially a bigger scandal than Watergate ever was. Watergate didn’t change an election’s result — President Richard Nixon would have won anyway in 1972 — while the 2016 election was close enough that Russian interference might have tipped the balance.
Mike Flynn and Donald Trump at a campaign event in New Hampshire in September. Credit Damon Winter/The New York TimesWe don’t know whether the Russians had domestic help in their effort to steal the U.S. election, but here are a few dots that are begging to be connected:
First, the American intelligence community agrees that the Kremlin interfered during the campaign in an attempt to help Donald Trump. This isn’t a single agency’s conclusion, but reportedly a “strong consensus” among the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the director of national intelligence.
The Trump Administration is imploding. The level of fear and mistrust is so high that open war has broken out between the intelligence...Paul W. Case Sr. Well stated, but this goes even deeper. Since intelligence agencies were aware of these contacts during the campaign, Comey must have been...stone 1 hour agoI believe Trump did not win because the Russians tried to influence the election.Trump did not win the election.He lost.He won where it. Second, the dossier prepared by a former MI6 Russia expert outlines collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. CNN reports that American intelligence has communications intercepts corroborating elements of the dossier, and the latest revelation of repeated and constant contacts between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign give additional weight to the dossier’s allegations — although it’s also important to note that officials told The Times that they had seen no evidence of such cooperation in election manipulation.
Third, President Trump has been mystifyingly friendly toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. As Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel to the C.I.A., puts it: “The bigger issue here is why Trump and people around him take such a radically different view of Russia than has been the case for decades. We don’t know the answer to that.”
Fourth, Flynn, before taking office, discussed Obama administration sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador. Flynn has now resigned, but he was steeped in the principle of a chain of command; I doubt he made these calls completely on his own. Daniel Benjamin, a former counterterrorism coordinator at the State Department who has known Flynn for years, says it would have been out of character for Flynn to do so. So who told Flynn to make these calls? Steve Bannon? Trump himself?
We’re back to our question: What did the president know, and when did he know it?
The White House hasn’t responded to my inquiries, and Trump lashes out wildly at “the fake news media” without answering questions. He reminds me of Nixon, who in 1974 said Watergate “would have been a blip” if it weren’t for journalists “who hate my guts.” Soon afterward, Nixon resigned.
Trump supporters say that the real scandal here is leaks that make the administration look bad. A bit hypocritical? It’s dizzying to see a president who celebrated the hacking of his rival’s campaign emails suddenly evince alarm about leaks.
Sure, leaks are always a concern, but they pale beside the larger issues of the integrity of our leaders and our elections. Published reports have quoted people in the intelligence community as fearing that information given to the White House will end up in Russian hands, even that the “Kremlin has ears” in the White House Situation Room.
I referred to Trump last year as “the Russian poodle,” and we’ve known for years of Trump’s financial ties to Russia, with his son Donald Jr. saying in 2008, “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” It’s all the more important now that Trump release his tax returns so that we can understand any financial leverage Russia has over him. Yet the same Republicans who oversaw eight investigations of Benghazi shrug at far greater concerns involving Trump and Russia.
I’m just appalled at how little people seem to care about the fact that Russians interfered in our presidential election, clearly, unequivocally, on the part of one candidate,” Michael McFaul, a former ambassador to Russia, told me. “What’s more important than that?” To which I add: Only one thing could be more important — if the Russians had help from within the U.S.
As I said, there’s a great deal we don’t know. But we urgently need a bipartisan investigation, ideally an independent panel modeled on the 9/11 Commission. It must address what is now the central question: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
"In history, this is where Congress steps in. During the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran-contra scandal, when a president’s actions or policies crossed the line, Congress investigated and held the White House to account. The time has come for it to do so again.
In the last week alone, Americans have witnessed the firing of President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and learned with shock and incredulity that members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and inner circle were in repeated contact with Russian intelligence officials.
Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.
Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.
Hence the urgent need for high-level congressional intervention. The ideal vehicle would be an investigative committee of senior senators from both parties as well as members of the House. Some Senate Republicans are beginning to step up. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has already said his committee will investigate the election hacking. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, the panel’s top-ranking Democrat, are asking for a briefing and transcripts of Mr. Flynn’s calls to the Russian ambassador.
Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Pat Roberts favor a broader investigation. John Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, has also raised the possibility of an investigation by Senate committees with jurisdiction over the intelligence community.
The Democrats would obviously be on board — Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, has also called for the Senate Intelligence Committee to lead a bipartisan inquiry. The person who needs to make this happen is Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader. Whatever form the committee takes, as Mr. Schumer said on Wednesday, all members must be granted equal access to ‘intelligence officials, transcripts and documents that they need to answer critical questions, and they must be permitted to make their findings public to the maximum extent possible.’
245 COMMENTS Admittedly, this is hoping for a lot from a Republican leadership whose natural inclination is to protect the president. This week, for instance, congressional Republicans closed off one avenue to forcing the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to divulge and which could help prove to Americans that he is not indebted to Russian financial entities. (It bears repeating, in this regard, that Mr. Trump didn’t fire Mr. Flynn this week for chummily discussing American sanctions on Russia with Moscow’s ambassador, or for lying about it. Mr. Trump knew all that for weeks. He fired Mr. Flynn after both of them got caught.)
With or without the administration’s cooperation, Congress’s plain and urgent duty, lest it be judged complicit, is to get to the bottom of this crisis."