Day: September 26, 2018

UA Conference on Redistricting on October 5 & 6

by

A Multidisciplinary Public Forum “​Congressional and legislative district boundaries are being hotly debated in many states, with three cases before the US Supreme Court this term and more likely on the horizon. Arizona is at the forefront of this debate, establishing an Independent Redistricting Commission, AIRC, in 2000—one of the first states to do so. … Read more

Protecting the Special Counsel from a ‘slow-motion Saturday night massacre’

by

Neal Katyal, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the rule book for the office of Special Counsel, offers his advice to what may be the next step in the “slow-motion Saturday night massacre” on Thursday, when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein meets with President Trump. How Rosenstein can protect the Mueller investigation — even if he’s fired:

Thursday’s meeting between Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and President Trump carries the highest of stakes: Besides special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Rosenstein is the most important person involved in the investigation of the Trump administration’s possible ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election. That is by design. The special counsel regulations, which I had the privilege of drafting in 1999, make Rosenstein what corporate mavens call a “key man.” If Rosenstein is removed, Trump could very easily cripple the investigation.

The president knows it. Trump’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, this week called for Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who would probably replace Rosenstein in overseeing Mueller’s work if Rosenstein leaves office, to “pause” the investigation and to take “a step back.”

Which is why Rosenstein should prepare for Thursday by sending Congress, through appropriate channels, a description of the evidence of wrongdoing Mueller has already turned up. There’s no way to know what a meeting with the volatile president might bring. And the search for the truth might depend on what steps Rosenstein takes beforehand.

Read more

Do This If You’re Upset that InvestInEd and Outlaw Dirty Money were Kicked off the Ballot

by

Are you upset because Invest In Ed & Outlaw Dirty Money were kicked off the Nov 6 ballot by right-wing, activist judges?

Here’s what you can do about it…

If you believe in these ideas:

  • Ensuring transparency in campaign finance reporting,
  • Getting big and dirty money out of politics,
  • Finding sustainable funding for public education,
  • Stopping the tax giveaways and, instead, raising revenue for education,
  • Stopping vouchers for private and religious schools,

There are three important NO votes you can make:

  • No on Prop 126
  • No on Prop 305
  • No on Prop 306

According to state Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley:

Read more

Michael Avenatti drops a bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh

by

True to his word, attorney Michael Avenatti dropped a bombshell on Judge Brett Kavanaugh this morning. Talking Points Memo reports, Avenatti Client Emerges With New Allegations Against Kavanaugh:

Another woman has come forward with new sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, detailing his alleged inappropriate behavior toward women at high school parties in a sworn declaration released by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti.

The client, Julie Swetnick (above), alleges in a sworn declaration that in 1980 and 1981 she attended house parties with Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s accused accomplice in the alleged attack of Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s.

Swetnick paints a picture of heavy alcohol consumption and non-consensual sexual activity at the parties, alleging that Kavanaugh drank heavily and acted aggressively towards women present, both in word and action. She claimed that male party attendees participated in “gang rapes,” where they would, in turns, violate a woman who had been incapacitated with spiked drinks. Swetnick said that she herself was a victim of this specific crime, and that Judge and Kavanaugh were “present” when the alleged attack took place.

These dramatic allegations have surfaced just a day before Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford are due to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her sexual assault allegation.

Read more

(Update) A sham hearing and a denial of due process

by

This. Is. Not. Normal.

This is unprecedented for a confirmation hearing.

The eleven privileged white male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to hide behind the skirts of a hired gun female prosecutor to question Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh because they cannot contain their obvious contempt for a woman who is the victim of a sexual assault and express their view that the real victim here is privileged white male Brett Kavanaugh.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) concedes that GOP men can’t be trusted to treat Dr. Ford appropriately during hearing:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is praising the move by GOP Judiciary Committee members to use outside counsel to question the accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during Thursday’s hearing. It’s pure genius, he said, because, frankly, GOP men simply can’t be trusted to act culturally appropriate toward a woman.

“I think it’s really smart of them to get outside counsel,” Corker told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday. When asked why he thought the all-male Republican members of the panel shouldn’t handle the questioning of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford themselves, Corker responded:

“Somebody will do something that you guys will run 24/7 and inadvertently somebody will do something that’s insensitive.”

Gee, “insensitive” like calling Dr. Blasey Ford “mixed up” such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) did or saying her sexual assault claims have been a “drive-by shooting” of Kavanaugh like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did? Both are members of the Judiciary Committee but, really, how could any man be expected to know that dismissing a PhD and trauma victim as “this woman” or “that lady” is sexist? C’mon, give the fellas a break—people are so touchy touchy these days about basic human decency.

“Gee, what could possibly be more sexist than hiring a woman to do the dirty work while the men ultimately continue to retain all the power?”

Read more