Un giudice federale ha respinto la causa per diffamazione della star del cinema per adulti Stormy Daniels contro il presidente Donald Trump.
Daniels ha citato in giudizio Trump dopo aver detto in un tweet che la sua storia di un uomo che la minaccia di non procedere con la sua versione della sua presunta relazione con Trump era “una contraffazione totale“.
«A federal judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump»
«Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual relationship Mr Trump in 2006.
She filed the case after the president tweeted that she had invented a story about being threatened for speaking out about the alleged affair»
«Daniels sued Trump after he said in a tweet that her story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was “a total con job.”»
«But the judge ruled that the tweet was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech»
«Stormy Daniels was also ordered to pay Mr Trump’s legal fees, although the amount is yet to be determined. Her lawyer said she would appeal against the decision»
«Daniels argued Trump’s tweet, posted April 18, “attacks the veracity of her account” of the incident and that Trump’s statement was “false and defamatory, and that the tweet was defamation … because it charged her with committing a serious crime,” District Judge S. James Otero wrote in his opinion Monday»
«”The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement,” Otero wrote»
* * * * * * * *
Negli ultimi decenni gli Stati Uniti di America hanno tracollato sotto un vero e proprio delirio schizofrenico sessuale.
Il caso più eclatante è stato quello dell’esame svolto dal Senato per votare la conferma della nomina presidenziale di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh. Autore di 2,300 sentenze emesse in Corti Federali, ci si sarebbe aspettati un approfondito vaglio delle sue capacità di sintesi giuridica. Al contrario, l’intero dibattito ha trattato esclusivamente su di un’accusa fatta dopo trenta anni ai media di aver guardato troppo intensamente la scollatura di una ragazza quando Kavanaugh aveva 17 anni.
– Le accuse si fanno alle autorità competenti a riceverle, Magistratura in primis;
– Le accuse non comprovate da prove sono semplici calunnie;
– Che guardar dentro una scollatura sia reato, e di tale gravità da non disporre di prescrizione, è una visione del tutto molto particolare dei problemi giuridici.
– Il tempo di prescrizione nella maggior parte dei sistemi giuridici eguaglia quello della pena massima comminabile.
Mrs Stephanie Clifford è balzata agli onori della cronaca per aver accusato ai media di essere stata molestata da Mr Trump molti anni addietro. A quanto dice la signora, Mr Trump le avrebbe fatto avere una cospicua somma di denaro, resta incerto se a compenso di aver congiaciuto con lui o per altri motivi. Anche per questa circostanza deciderà alla fine un giudice togato.
L’aspetto nuovo di questa sentenza del Giudice Distrettuale S. James Otero è che il Magistrato è andato immediatamente a sentenza, emettendo anche un provvedimento tranchant.
«If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President. Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process».
“Se questa Corte impedisse al signor Trump di impegnarsi in questo tipo di ‘iperbole retorica’ contro un avversario politico, ostacolerebbe in modo significativo la carica di Presidente. Qualsiasi risposta con parole forti da parte di un presidente ad un altro politico o personaggio pubblico potrebbe costituire il substrato per un’azione per diffamazione. Questo priverebbe questo paese del ” linguaggio” comune al processo politico”.
«Otero was a judge on the Los Angeles Municipal Court from 1988 to 1990 and then a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court from 1990 to 2003.
On January 7, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Otero to a seat on the Central District vacated by Richard Paez. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 10, 2003, and received his commission two days later.»
Siamo franchi, serve davvero un grande coraggio emettere una simile sentenza in un Tribunale del 9th Circuit, ove la grande maggioranza dei giudici sono liberal democratici.
A US judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.
Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual relationship Mr Trump in 2006.
She filed the case after the president tweeted that she had invented a story about being threatened for speaking out about the alleged affair.
But the judge ruled that the tweet was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech.
Stormy Daniels was also ordered to pay Mr Trump’s legal fees, although the amount is yet to be determined. Her lawyer said she would appeal against the decision.
Mr Trump has denied any relationship with the actress.
In an interview with CBS News earlier this year, Stormy Daniels said a stranger approached her while she was with her young daughter and threatened her.
She later issued an image of the man.
Mr Trump responded to her account on Twitter, saying: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”
The ruling does not affect a separate lawsuit the actress has filed against the president over money she says she was paid by Mr Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, to keep quiet about the alleged affair.
In August, Mr Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws during the 2016 presidential election over payments to two women who said they had sexual relationships with Mr Trump. He said he made the payments at Mr Trump’s request.
A federal judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.
Daniels sued Trump after he said in a tweet that her story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was “a total con job.”
Daniels argued Trump’s tweet, posted April 18, “attacks the veracity of her account” of the incident and that Trump’s statement was “false and defamatory, and that the tweet was defamation … because it charged her with committing a serious crime,” District Judge S. James Otero wrote in his opinion Monday.
Trump had asked Otero to dismiss the lawsuit.
“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement,” Otero wrote.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she and Trump had an affair in 2006, after he married first lady Melania Trump and she gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.
Daniels is also suing Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen over the $130,000 payment made to her to keep silent about the alleged affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The ruling on Monday plays no role in that case, which continues to work its way through the court system.
In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Trump’s attorney Charles J. Harder said in a statement to CNN, “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.”
“The amount of the award for President Trump’s attorneys’ fees will be determined at a later date,” Harder added.
Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, responded to the ruling on Twitter and said: “Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.”
Avenatti filed a notice of appeal Monday evening in Daniels’ defamation case against Trump.
«UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Civil Case No. 14-1242.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant..
Civil Case No. 14-1242
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State continues to keep this Cour busy. Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiffs request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceedings before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceedings have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.
The Court ORDERS the parties to appear for a status conference on October 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM.
‘Time to Set a plan for further proceedings in the case’
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court ordered a hearing for Friday, October 12, regarding a request for testimony under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and several other State Department officials about Clinton email searches in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the Benghazi terrorist attack. The hearing was set by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Hearing Date: Friday, October 12, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 15
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
In his October 4, 2018, order setting the hearing date, Judge Lamberth said:
Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceeding before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceeding have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.
– Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
– Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
This is the lawsuit that forced the Clinton email system issue into the public eye in early 2015.
In 2014, a related Judicial Watch case brought to light the fact that the “Internet video” talking points regarding the Benghazi attack were orchestrated in the Obama White House.
In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch, ruling that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.
In its filing Judicial Watch informed the court that despite repeated conferences with the State Department they had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “[the State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.” Judicial Watch’s discovery proposal focuses on two main areas:
– Evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for records related to the talking points provided to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice following the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack; and
– Potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken.
Judicial Watch seeks both documents and depositions. The documents requested include:
– All documents that concern or relate to the processing of any and all searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath …
– 2. All communications that concern or relate to the processing of all searches referenced in Document Request No. 1 above, including directions or guidance about how and where to conduct the searches …
– All records that concern or relate to the State Department’s policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records…
– Plaintiff requests copies of the attached records [previously obtained by Judicial Watch] with the Exemption 5 redactions removed …
In addition to documents, Judicial Watch seeks depositions, including a deposition of Hillary Clinton that would include Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on:
[the] identification of individuals (whether State Department officials, other government officials, or third-parties, including but not limited to Sidney Blumenthal) with whom Secretary Clinton may have communicated by email.
“It is frankly unbelievable that the State Department is still protecting Hillary Clinton and her aides from being asked basic questions about her illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The courts were misled and obstructed by Hillary Clinton’s email scheme and we hope to get some more answers about this scandal.”
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2018 is 4.2 percent on October 10, up from 4.1 percent on October 5. After this morning’s wholesale trade report from the U.S. Census Bureau and this morning’s Producer Price Index release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nowcast of the contribution of inventory investment to third-quarter real GDP growth increased from 2.09 percentage points to 2.20 percentage points.»
La disoccupazione totale ammonta al 3.7% rispetto al 4.8 del gennaio 2017, la disoccupazione ispano – latina è 4.5% rispetto al 5.9 del gennaio 2017, la disoccupazione dei negri ed afroamericani vale 6.0%, sempre contro il 7.8% del gennaio 2017.
Il sei novembre l’America si recherà alle urne per il rinnovo della Camera bassa ed il rinnovo parziale del Senato.
Chi si fosse illuso che ai liberal democratici fossero stati a cuore i problemi etici oppure quelli dei diritti umani sarebbe bene che andasse in psicoterapia.
Tutto il bataclan fatto dai liberal contro Sud Giustizia Kavanaugh verte ben altro. Questo che segue è solo uno dei tanti casi che sono arrivati alla Corte Suprema.
«Under federal immigration law, immigrants who are convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their criminal sentences. »
«The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with another immigration dispute involving the Trump administration that focused on the U.S. government’s ability to detain people awaiting deportation after they complete prison sentences for criminal convictions»
«The nine justices, including the court’s newest member Brett Kavanaugh, heard an hour of arguments in the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of immigrants that the government has said undermines its ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes»
«The case’s outcome could hinge on the two justices President Donald Trump has appointed to the court: conservatives Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh asked questions of lawyers from both sides, at one point appearing skeptical toward arguments made by immigration advocates who are opposing the Trump administration»
«the justices in February curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for their release, overturning another 9th Circuit ruling»
«The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences cannot later be placed into indefinite detention awaiting possible deportation.»
«The 9th Circuit decided that immigrants who were later detained after completing their prison time – sometimes years later – could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.»
La quasi totalità degli Executive Order emanati dal Presidente Trump fin dal suo insediamento sono stati impugnati nanti la United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, i cui giudici sono per la quasi totalità liberal democratici, che ne hanno sentenziato il blocco, paralizzando in questo modo ogni possibile azione governativa.
L’Amministrazione Trump ha ovviamente fatto ricorso alla Suprema Corte, che adesso inizia ad esaminare questo cumulo di ricorsi.
L’esito delle sentenze finali sarebbe stato scontato se i liberal democratici avessero potuto piazzare alla Suprema Corte uomini propri, ossia prima liberal democratici e poi, ma proprio poi, anche giudici.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with another immigration dispute involving the Trump administration that focused on the U.S. government’s ability to detain people awaiting deportation after they complete prison sentences for criminal convictions.
The nine justices, including the court’s newest member Brett Kavanaugh, heard an hour of arguments in the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of immigrants that the government has said undermines its ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes.
The case’s outcome could hinge on the two justices President Donald Trump has appointed to the court: conservatives Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh asked questions of lawyers from both sides, at one point appearing skeptical toward arguments made by immigration advocates who are opposing the Trump administration. There is the possibility of a compromise ruling.
The plaintiffs include two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.
Trump’s administration has taken a hard line toward immigration. While some of the court’s five conservatives seemed sympathetic to the administration, the court’s liberal justices appeared to lean toward the plaintiffs.
The case came before the court on Kavanaugh’s second day on the bench following his Senate confirmation on Saturday after a fierce political fight.
Under federal immigration law, immigrants who are convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their criminal sentences.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences cannot later be placed into indefinite detention awaiting possible deportation.
The 9th Circuit decided that immigrants who were later detained after completing their prison time – sometimes years later – could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.
In another case, the justices in February curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for their release, overturning another 9th Circuit ruling.
A majority of justices, including Gorsuch, appeared concerned about immigrants being detained without a hearing years after they committed criminal offenses. But the sticking point appeared to be how to define what would be a reasonable period of time for immigration agents to detain a person whose criminal sentence is completed.
In April, Gorsuch joined with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling in another immigration case that could hinder the Trump administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records.
The law at issue in Wednesday’s case states that the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers for two groups of plaintiffs argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants at any time.
Cecilia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the immigrants, said that the detention should occur within 24 hours. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned such a tight deadline.
“I don’t know what is reasonable here. A month?” Roberts asked.
Kavanaugh generally seemed sympathetic to the government’s argument, saying the court should be wary of “superimposing a time limit” on the law Congress wrote. But he later asked the administration’s lawyer, Zachary Tripp, what the government considered to be a reasonable amount of time. Tripp said that any time limit would be “profoundly problematic.”
With the administration’s intensified immigration enforcement, growing numbers of people likely will be detained awaiting deportation. The administration also is locked in a fight with so-called sanctuary states and cities that limit cooperation with efforts by federal authorities to detain immigrants.
«Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem » Ulpiano, Digesta, I, 4, 1 pr.
«CNN’s ‘Reality Check’ aired a segment this morning that clearly shows the Trump administration lied when they said a controversial census question was requested by the DOJ.
When Wilbur Ross was asked why the Trump administration tried to twist the U.S. census for its own redistricting purposes, he said it was a request initiated by the Department of Justice.
Ross told the House Ways and Means Committee that the Justice Department “initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question.” Speaking in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee he said that the Commerce Department was “responding solely to the Department of Justice’s request” and that the Justice Department was “the one who made the request.”
Reality Check host John Avlon was quick to show the “new evidence” that clearly shows Ross’ lie.
“Newly revealed documents show that Wilbur Ross was trying to pull that off. When the Trump administration proposed adding a question about citizenship, the controversy was as swift as it was predictable,” he said.
“They are supposed to count everybody that lives in our country, regardless of their status, and critics say the goal was to undercount non-citizens. They have a clear record of taking hardline positions against undocumented residents and their children. Not so, said Team Trump. They said it was being added back to the Census for the first time since 1950 because the Justice Department needed it to help the Voting Rights Act.”» [Hill Reporter]
* * * * * * *
Vediamo un po’ se riuscite ad individuare quale potrebbe essere una delle prime pratiche costituzionali che sarà giudicata da Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh, nell’attesa che i liberal democratici vincano midterm, lo mettano sotto impeachment ed infine lo brucino sulla spianata del Campigoglio.
Sommarizziamo il problema in modo molto drastico, non se ne vogliano i giuristi, ma qui il problema è solo quello di farsi capire bene. Poi, quanti vorranno, troveranno letteratura a iosa.
Sostanzialmente negli Stati Uniti non esiste un documento di riconoscimento equivalente alla nostra carta di identità. Non solo, ogni stato componente la federazione ha delle sue proprie leggi ed anche una sua costituzione.
In linea generale, per poter votare è necessario registrarsi di volta in volta presso un apposito ufficio, dichiarando il proprio nome e cognome. È la registrazione che permette di accedere all’urna elettorale.
Sul problema del voter Id è incorso da decenni una bega galattica, che richiede una laurea apposita in tale materia.
Se tutti a parole convengono che il voter Id sarebbe cosa utile. Ben pochi lo vogliono. I liberal democratici lo aborriscono: dicono sia incostituzionale, discriminerebbe le femmine e farebbe venire la podagra.
Il motivo è semplice.
Il numero dei deputati al Congresso spettanti ad ogni stato sono computati sul numero dei registrati. In realtà il meccanismo è più complesso, ma così si capisce meglio. Maggiore è il loro numero, maggiore è il numero dei deputati da eleggere.
Stati come la California, rigorosamente liberal, hanno quindi proceduto all’importazione su scala industriale di immigrati clandestini ed illegali, che tutelano e proteggono come la pupilla degli occhi, perché vanno a farsi registrare, magari diverse volte con nome fantasia, e votano uniti e compatti i propri benefattori. Tanto, a mantenerli ci pensa il Governo federale.
Al momento attuale il problema non è risolvibile da un punto di vista legale, ma i repubblicani hanno aguzzato l’ingegno.
Vorrebbero inserire nel prossimo modulo per il censimento la domanda se si sia o meno cittadini americani. Y/N. Apparentemente sembrerebbe essere una domanda non indiscreta.
Ufficialmente infatti alle votazioni dovrebbero poter partecipare solo i cittadini americani.
In questa evenienza, la cittadinanza di ogni individuo resterebbe scritta di suo proprio pugno, per gli ulteriori controlli.
Dalla elaborazione di questi dati emergerebbe alla fine un dato quasi certo sul numero dei deputati che spetterebbero ad ogni singolo stato.
Gran brutto scherzo per i liberal democratici californiani, e non solo californiani, che si vedrebbero dimezzato il numero di seggi disponibili nei distretti ove regnano sovrani.
Stime fatte allo spannometro, data la carenza di dati ufficiali, indicherebbero ad oltre una decina di milioni i votanti taroccati. Tutti rigorosamente liberal.
Adesso vi sono gli elementi per poter meglio comprendere l’articolo allegato.
«Il primo caso che Brett Kavanaugh potrebbe trovarsi ad affrontare alla Corte Suprema potrebbe riguardare l’amministrazione Trump»
«Secondo quanto riportato dai media americani, il Dipartimento di Giustizia si appresta a rivolgersi alla Corte per chiedere che vengano bloccate le deposizioni del segretario al commercio Wilbur Ross e del responsabile dei diritti civili del Dipartimento guidato da Jeff Sessions»
«Deposizioni che sono state richieste da un giudice federale di New York nell’ambito dell’azione legale contro la decisione di Ross di inserire una domanda sulla cittadinanza nel censimento per il 2020»
Manco a dirlo, Mr Schneiderman è un liberal democratico, strenuo difensore di tutte le verginelle conturbate dal fatto che qualcuno aveva ammirato i loro glutei, cosa terrificante specie poi se non fossero stati ricchi da ricattare, mentre poi Mr. Schneiderman usava la sua posizione di procuratore generale per degustarsi in santa pace tutte le pulzelle che gli fossero capitate tra le grinfie. Ma aveva anche un abile procacciatore di carnina fresca.
NEW YORK, 8 OTT – Il primo caso che Brett Kavanaugh potrebbe trovarsi ad affrontare alla Corte Suprema potrebbe riguardare l’amministrazione Trump. Secondo quanto riportato dai media americani, il Dipartimento di Giustizia si appresta a rivolgersi alla Corte per chiedere che vengano bloccate le deposizioni del segretario al commercio Wilbur Ross e del responsabile dei diritti civili del Dipartimento guidato da Jeff Sessions. Deposizioni che sono state richieste da un giudice federale di New York nell’ambito dell’azione legale contro la decisione di Ross di inserire una domanda sulla cittadinanza nel censimento per il 2002. Il Dipartimento di Giustizia ritiene le deposizioni un’intrusione nell’autorità esecutiva in grado di distrarre l’attenzione dei funzionari dell’amministrazione dai loro compiti.
Chi avesse mai pensato che le elezioni in Hessen ed in Baviera fossero solo elezioni locali si sarebbe sbagliato, ed anche di molto. Quello che accade in Germania condiziona immediatamente tutta la Unione Europea e, di riflesso, tutto il mondo.
Se è vero che uno scoglio tosto è la ingombrante presenza di Frau Merkel, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare come un governo tedesco impantanato, litigioso e frammentato riduca in modo molto sensibile potere ed autorevolezza della Bundeskanzlerin. Da un punto di vista funzionale è come se se ne fosse andata via spontaneamente.
Frau Merkel è stata per oltre un decennio il bastione liberal in Europa. Tutta tesa alla costruzione di uno Stato Europeo a guida liberal, santa protettrice dei lgbt, nume tutelare dei migranti richiamati a frotte per essere poi distribuiti altrove come golosi cioccolatini, irridente il retaggio religioso, storico, sociale e culturale tedesco, acerrima nemica di Polonia ed Ungheria, ree di voler affermare la propria sovranità nazionale. Paladina del diritto, purché a matrice liberal ed amministrato da giudici altrettanto liberal.
Frau Merkel ha una lunghissima serie di nemici interni, ma quanto a nemici esterni non scherza affatto. È invisa alla maggior parte degli stati dell’Unione Europea, lei e la Germania, e negli ultimi due anni è riuscita a conquistarsi la inimicizia del Presidente Trump. Orbene, se il peso politico dell’Ungheria esiste ma non svetta, prima di litigare con gli Stati Uniti sarebbe stato forse meglio pensarci un pochino sopra, cosa che è aliena a Frau Merkel, che è una viscerale con i paraocchi della ideologia.
* * * * * * *
Nessuno quindi si scandalizzi se Mr Trump stia seguendo con freddo distacco la situazione tedesca e cerchi, nei limiti dei suoi poteri, di indirizzarla secondo i suoi desiderata.
La nomina di Mr Richard Grenell ad Ambasciatore americano a Berlino è stato per la Cancelliera e per i suoi soci un gran boccale di olio di ricino, da bersi tutto di un fiato.
«In an interview last June with Breitbart News, the ambassador said he was eager to “empower European conservatives,” a comment that was seen by some as a populist affront to Ms. Merkel’s centrist government.»
«“No country is as close to us culturally, historically and economically.” That would normally be a welcome statement if it wasn’t coming from the draft conclusion of a meeting between the CSU, the Bavarian sister party to the ruling Christian Democrats, and Richard Grenell, Washington’s ambassador to Germany.»
«Mr. Grenell is among the star guests at the Christian Social Union»
«Ever since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Ms. Merkel and Heiko Maas, her foreign minister, have gradually, and more or less explicitly, been distancing themselves from Washington and emphasizing the growing need for European independence»
«Mr. Maas’ clarion call for Europe to be more independent»
«his call last week to build a “sovereign, strong Europe” and a “balanced partnership” with the US is a historic step»
«Europe shouldn’t become a counterweight to the US; rather, the US and Europe should together be a counterweight to those who undermine our Western values»
«The Bavarians’ decision to hold their political retreat outside their home state in an indicator of the party’s greater ambitions. While the agenda covers everything from pensions for moms to refugees, the emphasis on trans-Atlantic ties and the choice of guests are a poke in the eye for the chancellor»
«Recent polls suggest the populist AfD will enter Bavarian parliament for the first time in October and the CSU will lose its absolute majority»
«The CSU’s conservatism, and desire to lure right-wing supporters away from the AfD, matches the conservative agenda of Mr. Grenell and the Republican administration in the US»
«the ambassador said he was eager to “empower European conservatives,” a comment that was seen by some as a populist affront to Ms. Merkel’s centrist government»
«Bilateral meetings like the one in Neuhardenberg, and Mr. Grenell’s growing relationship with the CSU, appear to be part of a policy of reaching out to other conservatives in Europe.»
«Mr. Rasmussen, like many right-wing leaders, wants to create an “axis of the willing” to challenge liberal migration policies in Europe.»
* * * * * * *
Tutto è fluido.
Se è vero che le elezioni porranno un punto fermo, sarebbe altrettanto vero ritenere che Mr Grenell continuerà imperterrito la sua azione in Germania, ma da buon politico quale è non è assolutamente detto che continui a sostenere una Csu che avesse perso troppi consensi elettorali.
Germany’s government is seeking greater independence from Washington. But the CSU and Richard Grenell, Trump’s man in Berlin, are pledging stronger ties.
“No country is as close to us culturally, historically and economically.” That would normally be a welcome statement if it wasn’t coming from the draft conclusion of a meeting between the CSU, the Bavarian sister party to the ruling Christian Democrats, and Richard Grenell, Washington’s ambassador to Germany.
Mr. Grenell is among the star guests at the Christian Social Union’s two-day summit in the town of Neuhardenberg outside Berlin.
Yet as the rift between Washington and Berlin wides, the draft statement, a tribute to the United States from Germany, is viewed by many as a challenge to Chancellor Angela Merkel and her government’s search for greater independence from their traditionally close trans-Atlantic relationship.
Ever since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Ms. Merkel and Heiko Maas, her foreign minister, have gradually, and more or less explicitly, been distancing themselves from Washington and emphasizing the growing need for European independence.
Those comments span acknowledgments of the need for greater defense spending, after repeated nudges by the US administration, to Mr. Maas’ clarion call for Europe to be more independent. While this may prove difficult to realize in practice, these moves are a tectonic shift in German-US relations. And his call last week to build a “sovereign, strong Europe” and a “balanced partnership” with the US is a historic step.
The draft closing statement for the CSU retreat openly challenges Mr. Maas’ proposal. “Europe shouldn’t become a counterweight to the US; rather, the US and Europe should together be a counterweight to those who undermine our Western values,” it said.
Bavaria under pressure
Domestically, the CSU’s relationship to the CDU is strained and the Bavarian party is under pressure ahead of an election just five weeks away. The CSU pursues a harder line on migration and Horst Seehofer, the nation’s interior minister, challenged Ms. Merkel on the issue earlier this summer, nearly triggering a governmental collapse.
The Bavarians’ decision to hold their political retreat outside their home state in an indicator of the party’s greater ambitions. While the agenda covers everything from pensions for moms to refugees, the emphasis on trans-Atlantic ties and the choice of guests are a poke in the eye for the chancellor.
Right now, the CSU desperately needs to win back constituents: The party’s ratings are falling and support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party of the far right and now the second-most popular in the country, keeps growing. Recent polls suggest the populist AfD will enter Bavarian parliament for the first time in October and the CSU will lose its absolute majority. However, German elections are hard to predict.“German voters are as shy as deer,” said Gero Neugebauer, a former politics professor from Berlin’s Free University. “We don’t know how they’re going to vote.”
An advantageous relationship
The CSU’s conservatism, and desire to lure right-wing supporters away from the AfD, matches the conservative agenda of Mr. Grenell and the Republican administration in the US. In an interview last June with Breitbart News, the ambassador said he was eager to “empower European conservatives,” a comment that was seen by some as a populist affront to Ms. Merkel’s centrist government.
Mr. Grenell, once described as a “right-wing flamethrower,” is a loyalist to Mr. Trump, who has made his disdain for Europe clear. Bilateral meetings like the one in Neuhardenberg, and Mr. Grenell’s growing relationship with the CSU, appear to be part of a policy of reaching out to other conservatives in Europe.
In June, Mr. Grenell was set to meet with Austria’s Sebastian Kurz, whom he called a “rock star,” but the meeting was called off at the last minute. Mr. Grenell denied that he was endorsing particular parties or candidates in his role as ambassador, although he noted on Twitter: “I stand by my comments that we are experiencing an awakening from the silent majority – those who reject the elites & their bubble. Led by Trump.”
Attached at the hip
Although the CSU never shied away from creating its own ties abroad, from Russia to Austria, there is only so far the party can go in creating an alternative to Ms. Merkel’s foreign policies. Yes, the CSU tends rightwards on migration but the Bavarians support Europe, “as long as they get money for agriculture and industry,” Mr. Neugebauer told Handelsblatt Global. Their support, however, does not extend as far as EU expansion, or closer integration. It is even likely the CSU will likely face further divisions over Europe as it proposes Manfred Weber for the post of European Commission president.
Overall, those divisions and contradictions are given limited voice in the coalition government. It’s ultimately Ms. Merkel who determines the country’s foreign policy, with the minister’s support. And though she agrees with the analysis of a changing relationship to the US, she stopped short of supporting Mr. Maas’ call for an alternative payment system to help uphold the Iran deal.
Still, it is likely Ms. Merkel is watching the meeting near Berlin with concern, as well as Mr. Grenell’s invitation to Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen, a migration hard-liner, to attend the CSU meeting. Mr. Rasmussen, like many right-wing leaders, wants to create an “axis of the willing” to challenge liberal migration policies in Europe.
While it is unclear how far the CSU will succeed in Bavaria’s election – and whether Mr. Seehofer will be able to retain his post as the country’s interior minister – the meeting could still have far-reaching consequences for Europe’s fragmenting migration policy.
«Il Senato Usa conferma Brett Kavanaugh alla Corte Suprema e regala a Donald Trump la vittoria più importante della sua presidenza a un mese dalle cruciali elezioni di medio termine»
È cambiata un’era.
Per decenni la Corte Suprema è stata a maggioranza democratica, ed adesso sarà a maggioranza repubblicana, per almeno un trentina di anni.
La Corte Suprema ha negli Stati Uniti un immenso potere politico, avendo la potestà di bloccare qualsivoglia iniziativa legislativa presa dal Congresso oppure anche dal Presidente stesso. Per di più, il suo giudizio è inappellabile.
A questo punto diventa ininfluente che i democratici continuino ad avere la maggioranza in Corti di livello inferiore, che pure hanno la potestà di bloccare anche se temporaneamente le iniziative politiche del Presidente: la loro azione può solo far prendere un po’ di tempo. Poi la Suprema Corte può ribaltare in via definitiva le sentenze emesse da livelli inferiori.
L’ira furibonda dei liberal democratici è comprensibile: sono finiti sia a livello americano sia, di conseguenza, a livello mondiale.
Se anche adesso assassinassero Mr Trump, come è stato tentato in Brasile ai danni di Bolsonaro, non sarebbe mutato l’orientamento della Suprema Corte, i cui Giudici dovranno girare sotto scorta adeguata.
«WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Saturday by one of the slimmest margins in American history, locking in a solid conservative majority on the court and capping a rancorous battle that began as a debate over judicial ideology and concluded with a national reckoning over sexual misconduct.
As a chorus of women in the Senate’s public galleries repeatedly interrupted the proceedings with cries of “Shame!,” somber-looking senators voted 50 to 48 — almost entirely along party lines — to elevate Judge Kavanaugh. He was promptly sworn in by both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — the court’s longtime swing vote, whom he will replace — in a private ceremony.
For President Trump and Senate Republican leaders, who have made stocking the federal judiciary with conservative judges a signature issue, the Senate vote was a validation of a hard-edge strategy to stick with Judge Kavanaugh, even after his nomination was gravely imperiled by allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that he had tried to rape her when they were teenagers.
The president was exultant. “He’s going to go down as a totally brilliant Supreme Court justice for many years,” he told reporters, whom he had invited to join him in watching the vote on television aboard Air Force One.
But Mr. Trump also derided the sizable protests against Judge Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court and the Capitol as “phony stuff,” and said it was a misnomer to imply that women were upset at his confirmation. ….
Republicans are now painting Democrats and their activist allies as angry mobs. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, delivered a speech on Saturday assailing what he called “mob rule,” while the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told reporters that “the virtual mob that has assaulted all of us in this process has turned our base on fire.” ….
Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation fulfills a long-held dream of conservatives, who have waged a decades-long campaign to remake the high court. In replacing Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, he will give the court a reliably conservative bloc. At 53, he is young enough to serve for decades, shaping American jurisprudence for a generation, if not more. »
«WASHINGTON — For President Trump and for Senate Republicans, confirming Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice was a hard-won political victory. But for the conservative legal movement, it is a signal triumph, the culmination of a decades-long project that began in the Reagan era with the heady goal of capturing a solid majority on the nation’s highest court.
With Judge Kavanaugh’s swearing-in, that goal has been accomplished, and the Supreme Court will be more conservative than at any other time in modern history. By some measures, “we might be heading into the most conservative era since at least 1937,” said Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.
The new majority is sure to move the law to the right on countless deeply contested issues, including abortion, affirmative action, voting and gun rights. And the victory will very likely be a lasting one. Judge Kavanaugh, now 53, could serve for decades, and the other conservative justices are young by Supreme Court standards. The court’s senior liberals are not. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer is 80. ….»
«With the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court would have a conservative majority that would most likely sustain sharp restrictions on access to abortion in the United States.
But it is not clear that the court would take the drastic step of overruling Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that guarantees a constitutional right to abortion. The court may instead opt for a more incremental strategy, upholding increasingly severe restrictions in much of the country but stopping short of saying that the Constitution has nothing to say about a right to abortion.
Assuming that there are five justices ready to limit abortion rights, how could that happen? Here are some of the possible scenarios, each of which entails a different degree of legal upheaval.»
* * * * * * * *
La Suprema Corte ha decenni di tempo per demolire sistematicamente tutta la costruzione giuridica fatta dai liberal democratici. L’era della spensierata ‘interpretazione’ delle leggi è finita.
Ma si faccia grande attenzione.
Come di abitudine, i democratici fanno un gran parlare dei problemi legati ad aborto, divorzi, separazioni, controllo delle nascite, quasi che questi siano i veri problemi americani.
Con il tempo l’aborto tornerà ad essere considerato essere quello che è, ossia un assassinio premeditato. Quindi sentenze pregresse quali “1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut”, “Roe v. Wade”, “1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey” dovranno essere riviste, e lo saranno.
Ma non sono questi i veri nodi politici.
La Suprema Corte ha pendenti cause sulla definizione delle circoscrizioni elettorali, su chi debba e possa essere considerato ‘elettore‘, sui bilanci degli stati, sul contenzioso circa molti trattati commerciali internazionali, solo per citare alcuni problemi.
Sarà difficile che la Suprema Corte nell’emettere sentenze su questi argomenti favorisca i liberal democratici.
Il Senato Usa conferma Brett Kavanaugh alla Corte Suprema e regala a Donald Trump la vittoria più importante della sua presidenza a un mese dalle cruciali elezioni di medio termine.
Il tycoon loda il Senato ed esulta: “e’ un grande giorno per l’America”.
I democratici sconfitti però non mollano la presa e assicurano che continueranno a dare battaglia: se al voto di novembre prenderanno il controllo della Camera, come appare possibile, l’apertura di un’indagine seria su Kavanaugh è data per scontata.E non è esclusa neanche una procedura per impeachment.
Con una maggioranza risicata, 50 voti a favore e 48 contrari, il Senato dice sì al giudice scelto da Trump, che si appresta a sostituire Anthony Kennedy alla Corte Suprema. A presiedere lo storico voto il vice presidente Mike Pence, costretto a sospendere le operazioni di voto in seguito alle proteste dei manifestanti in aula, allontanati rapidamente dalle forze dell’ordine. Mentre fuori dal Senato decine di dimostranti venivano arrestati.
Brett Kavanaugh diventa il nono saggio della Corte Suprema americana, rendendola la più conservatrice da decenni. Il suo ingresso rafforza infatti l’ala dei giudici ‘di destra’, mettendo a rischio alcune sentenze storiche, dall’aborto alle nozze gay, passando per il diritto alla sanità sancito dall’Obamacare.
Donald Trump loda e si congratula con il Senato americano per aver confermato il giudice Brett Kavanaugh alla Corte Suprema. Il presidente americano twitta il suo plauso ai senatori dall’Air Force One, da dove ha seguito le operazioni di voto. Trump e’ diretto in Kansas, dove nelle prossime ore terra’ un comizio.
Ora il rischio maggiore è che, dopo settimane di scontri furiosi tra democratici e repubblicani, l’alta corte – le cui decisioni possono cambiare il Paese quanto o forse più di quelle di un presidente – venga ora percepita come un’estensione della politica, perdendo così la sua autorevolezza. Elena Kagan e Sonia Sotomayor, i due giudici nominati da Barack Obama, lo hanno detto chiaramente: “La Corte Suprema rischia di perdere la sua legittimità se non viene considerata imparziale. Dobbiamo essere sopra le parti”.
La forza della Corte, hanno spiegato Kagana e Sotomayor, sta infatti nel non essere considerata politicamente divisa, nell’essere (e anche sembrare) “giusta, imparziale e neutrale”. Considerato in modo bipartisan fino a non molto tempo fa uno dei migliori giuristi americani, su Kavanaugh pesano le accuse di molestie e l’etichetta di giudice scelto da Trump per mantenere una delle sue promesse elettorali: nominare alla Corte un conservatore contrario all’aborto. Un tema, quest’ultimo, sul quale lo stesso Kavanaugh non è riuscito a dare garanzie precise: durante le audizioni per la sua conferma, si è limitato a dire che la ‘Roe vs Wade’, la storica sentenza che ha legalizzato l’aborto negli Stati Uniti, è ormai “una norma decisa” e che “il rispetto dei precedenti è importante”. Parole vaghe, che non hanno rassicurato i democratici e le donne. Kavanaugh è più conservatore del giudice che va a sostituire alla Corte Suprema, il defunto e rispettatissimo Anthony Kennedy, considerato per anni l’ago della bilancia fra i saggi: la sua ascesa attribuisce così una maggioranza di 5 a 4 ai giudici di nomina repubblicana. Kavanaugh si va infatti ad aggiungere a Neil Gorsuch (Donald Trump), John Roberts e Samuel Anthony Alito (George W. Bush) e Clarence Thomas (George W. H. Bush). I saggi ‘democratici’ sono invece Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton) e Sonia Sotomayor e Elena Kagan (Barack Obama).
Mr Kavanaugh’s appointment is for life and he will strengthen conservative control of the nine-judge court, which has the final say on US law.
The 53 year old was sworn in on Saturday evening in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the constitutional oath and retired justice Anthony Kennedy – whom Mr Kavanaugh is replacing – administered the judicial oath.
Protesters had gathered outside the court and at one point some ran up the steps and banged on its ornate doors. Other demonstrators climbed on the nearby statue of justice.
What has Mr Trump said?
He sent out a tweet of congratulations:
Later he spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One, saying Mr Kavanaugh had withstood a “horrible attack by the Democrats” and that women were “outraged” at what had happened to the nominee.
Mr Trump also said he was “100% certain” that the woman who had accused Mr Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, had named the wrong person.
So what were the numbers in the Senate?
The upper house is split 51-49 in favour of the Republicans and the vote was largely along party lines. In the end, there was indeed a two-vote margin, the closest nomination vote since 1881.
The only party dissenters were Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who had intended to vote no, and Democrat Joe Manchin, who voted yes.
That should have meant a 51-49 tally, but the absence of Republican Steve Daines, a yes voter who was at his daughter’s wedding, altered the final figures.
What was said in the Senate?
In their final summations, the two Senate party leaders reflected how bitter the divide had become.
Minority Democrat leader Chuck Schumer said Mr Kavanaugh did not belong on the bench as he had “obscured his views to the American people”, “repeatedly misled the Senate” and delivered one of the “bitterest and most partisan testimonies ever presented by a nominee”.
He also said Mr Trump had “stooped to new depths” in mocking the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.
Mr Schumer said that for all those who opposed the nomination, “there is one answer – vote” in the November mid-term elections.
Majority Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Mr Kavanaugh was a “serious scholar, a brilliant student of the law and a meticulous and dedicated public servant”.
He said events had “strained our basic principles of fairness and justice” and that the vote showed the Senate was “an institution where evidence and facts matter”.
He spoke of “intimidation by the mob” and said the Senate vote should be one “to turn away from darkness”.
Ms Murkowski had earlier said that although Mr Kavanaugh was a “good man”, he was “not the right person for the court at this time” and his “appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable”.
Joe Manchin is facing a difficult re-election campaign in West Virginia, a traditionally Republican state that Mr Trump won by a landslide. He said he “found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist”.
There were shouts of “shame” from the public gallery as he voted yes.
Two Republican waverers, Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, finally decided to back the judge.
Washington (CNN)Thursday was a very good day for Brett Kavanaugh — maybe his best day since being chosen as Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee back in July. Friday was even better, as his confirmation to the court appeared to be sealed with three key senators deciding he’s worthy of being confirmed.
Yes, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) announced Thursday she would vote against his nomination. On that same day, two of the three swing Republican senators — Maine’s Susan Collins and Arizona’s Jeff Flake — praised the thoroughness of the recently concluded FBI investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.
Tea leaf readers saw the broadly supportive comments from that duo as a sign that the FBI’s supplemental check on Kavanaugh had a) turned up no corroboration of claims made by Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez and b) provided Kavanaugh with something very close to the 50 senators’ votes he needs to make it to the court.
And on Friday morning, what was once a fluid situation became much more solid: Flake and Collins both voted in favor of Kavanaugh on Friday’s key procedural vote, and announced they would vote to confirm him as well. Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted against Kavanaugh on Friday’s vote, but her vote was canceled out by Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin crossing party lines to give Republicans a 51-49 win.
It appears Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed Saturday by the same vote, putting him on the precipice of the court.
Kavanaugh on the Court would fundamentally reshape it in a more conservative direction for potentially decades to come. Lost amid the massive political fight occasioned by the allegations by Ford and Ramirez is the fact that Kavanaugh is without question more conservative than the man he is replacing — Anthony Kennedy. Whereas Kennedy was regarded as the swing vote on the court for many years, Kavanaugh’s ascension would change all that. There would likely be a relatively reliable 5-4 conservative majority on the court.
Trump would be a big winner. Circumstances have conspired to hand Trump a major opportunity: To put two justices on the Supreme Court within his first two years in office. The bet that just something like this would happen is why so many conservatives held their noses and voted for Trump. And while he has been deeply unpredictable on all sorts of things, he has been remarkably steady on court picks — nominating people, in Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, who are regarded by conservatives as the right choices. Putting Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) on the bench would buy Trump a whole lot of goodwill among conservatives as he heads into his 2020 re-election bid.
The Point: There are no asterisks next to the names of the members of the Supreme Court. Whether you got there on a unanimous Senate vote or barely survived, your vote still counts the same. And when that vote is one of only nine on the most important court in the country, with no term limits, it counts a whole hell of a lot.
* * * * * * *
Si vorrebbe sottolineare soltanto una frase.
«Trump would be a big winner»
Colpisce l’uso del verbo ausiliare.
Il termine “would” è «used to talk about a situation that you can imagine happening», ossia, per esprimere una situazione che si immagina possa accadere.
È da due anni che i liberal democratici gridano a tutti i venti la loro gioia perché alle elezioni di midterm i repubblicani raggranelleranno solo qualche sparuto deputato al Congresso, uno o forse due senatori in senato, e, che vada loro più che bene, non più di due governatori. Ne sono certi come sono certi delle virtù della loro mamma.
Prospettano maggioranze bulgare: a conti fatti, almeno il 90%.
Verificheremo quanto ci sia stato di vero il 7 novembre, dopo che saranno scrutinate le schede.
«President Trump’s approval ratings have risen since the beginning of the year, and the Democrats’ polling advantage for the midterm elections has shrunk. It’s enough to create major anxiety for anyone who’s alarmed by the Trump presidency.
But Rachel Bitecofer, a political scientist with a historical bent, has some advice: Calm down. The Democrats’ chances to retake the House remain extremely high, she writes in a new piece, and those chances haven’t fallen much in recent months.»
«With a commander in chief who is as divisive and polarizing as our current President, Democrats already have the issue around which every candidate and voter can rally — namely the need to stop President Trump and his rightward agenda. ….
Democrats could diminish their chances for achieving the so-called wave election that the party is desperately hoping for.»
* * * * * * *
Sinceramente, saremmo propensi ad usare una maggiore prudenza.
Se è vero che in oltre due secoli solo tre volte un presidente in carica abbia ottenuto a midterm il controllo delle camere, nessuno si potrebbe stupire se alla fine Mr Trump mantenesse una maggioranza, sia pur risicata, in Senato: sarebbe già una grande vittoria.
Constatiamo che, per quanto riguarda gli ispano – americani, nel giro di un anno il tasso di disoccupazione sia sceso dal 5.2% al 4.4/%, e che la disoccupazione giovanile sia anche essa scesa dal 15.4% al 13.0%.
Una volta chiariti questi numeri, la lettura dell’allegato articolo resta piacevole.
They don’t like Trump or Republicans. The question is how many will turn out in November.
Democrats see their fortunes rising with constituencies they’ll need to run up big victories in the midterm elections. They expect to do especially well with suburban women, even non-college-educated women, and are optimistic about millennials and a decent turnout by African-Americans.
They’re concerned, however, about Latinos, especially men. Latinos are likely to vote Democratic, but the issue is whether they’ll turn out in sufficient numbers for Democrats to win key races.
“I think there will be a modest uptick in the Latino vote,” said Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, a political scientist at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas who studies immigration and Latino political influence. That would be good news for Democrats, but not the great news they hope for.
That vote will be critical in the uphill battle to win control of the Senate. Of the 10 states with the most competitive Senate races, four — Florida, Texas, Arizona and Nevada — have sizable but quite different Hispanic populations. There’s a large Cuban-American community in Florida that has tended to favor Republicans, while Democratic-leaning unions play a bigger role with Nevada’s Latino voters, who are mostly of Mexican descent.
There also are up to a dozen competitive races in those four states for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a few tightly contested ones, for example in Dallas and Houston, Latino voters could provide the margin to unseat veteran Republican legislators.
In California, a half-dozen Republican House seats are under challenge. In three of these districts — in the Central Valley, San Fernando Valley and Fullerton — Latinos comprise about a quarter of the voting-age population, a concern to Republicans. Around the country there are a few other districts — such as one around Aurora, Colorado and another in the suburbs of Chicago — where a smaller Latino vote could nonetheless be decisive. In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried all these Republican-held districts.
To be sure, there are several heavily Latino districts where incumbent Republicans are faring well. These include San Antonio, Texas and Miami, Florida, where Representatives Will Hurd and Carlos Curbelo respectively are considered slightly ahead. Unlike most House Republicans, both have selectively broken with President Donald Trump.
Clinton won two-thirds of the Latino vote nationally in 2016, exit polls showed, and Trump’s attacks on immigrants keep him strikingly unpopular with this constituency, according to many polls, including a September survey of Latino voters by Hart Research Associates.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to that poll said they disapproved of Trump’s presidency. They wanted Democrats to win control of Congress by a three-to-one margin over Republicans. They overwhelmingly preferred candidates who side with the Dreamers, young adults who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and were allowed to stay under President Barack Obama, and those who oppose building a wall along the Mexican border. Obama was viewed positively by 67 percent of respondents and negatively by only 14 percent. Republicans hope that the strong economy will keep more Latino voters in their corner on Nov. 6, and are also appealing to the cultural conservatives among them.
“Latinos align with Republicans on some issues,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll. “But the Trump brand causes such problems for them.”
There is no more intense battle than the Senate race in Florida, where Senator Bill Nelson, the Democratic incumbent, faces a strong challenge from Republican Governor Rick Scott. Republicans were cheered last week by an AARP-Univision poll showing Scott with a large lead among Latinos over 50 years old.
Democrats countered with other surveys suggesting that Nelson, after an onslaught of negative ads against him this summer, has bounced back into the lead, but only by a narrow margin.
In Texas, Latinos are central in Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke’s surprising campaign to upset the incumbent Republican, Senator Ted Cruz. Most polls show the candidates nearly neck and neck as O’Rourke travels back roads campaigning in each of the state’s 254 counties.
DeFrancesco Soto said that O’Rourke was slow to energize Latinos, but that she’s now hearing a lot of Spanish-language radio commercials for the Democrat along with stories of stepped-up grassroots activity.
But to win, she said, O’Rourke has to do better among Latinos; one survey showed Cruz, who’s campaigning as a close Trump ally, lagging O’Rourke among Latino voters by just 9 percentage points.
Democratic strategists said that it’s a challenge for any new candidate like O’Rourke to introduce himself to constituencies with a history of low voter participation.
“It takes time for new candidates to break through, and we are investing record amounts in outreach,” said Dan Sena, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “There will be very few Hispanics in the country who won’t get multiple messages.”
«After the FBI was instructed by the White House to interview two of the women who claim Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them – ignoring a third accuser represented by lawyer Michael Avenatti, The Wall Street Journal attempted to independently corroborate the 3rd accuser’s story»
«To try and corroborate the story, the Wall Street Journal contacted “dozens of former classmates and colleagues,” yet couldn’t find anyone who knew about the rape parties»
«The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but couldn’t reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims»
«Richard Vinneccy – a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she’s lying»
Nessuna prova. La accusa che la signora abbia mentito.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been instructed by the White House to interview two of the women who have alleged sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh, according to people familiar with the matter.
The parameters of the FBI probe don’t include interviewing Julie Swetnick, who said this week the Supreme Court nominee attended a party decades ago where she was gang-raped, according to one of the people.
After the FBI was instructed by the White House to interview two of the women who claim Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them – ignoring a third accuser represented by lawyer Michael Avenatti, The Wall Street Journal attempted to independently corroborate the 3rd accuser’s story.
Julie Swetnick – whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape “gang bang” operation at 10 high school parties she attended as an adult (yet never reported to the authorities).
The allegations were posted by Avenatti over Twitter, which assert that Kavanaugh and Judge made efforts to cause girls “to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be “gang raped” in a side room or bedroom by a “train” of numerous boys.”
To try and corroborate the story, the Wall Street Journal contacted “dozens of former classmates and colleagues,” yet couldn’t find anyone who knew about the rape parties.
The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but couldn’t reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. –WSJ
Soon after Swetnick’s story went public, her character immediately fell under scrutiny – after Politico reports that Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy – a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she’s lying.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.” –Politico
“I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more.” Avenatti called the claims “outrageous” and hilariously accused the press of “digging into the past” of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.
Swetnick will appear Sunday night in a TV interview with Showtime’s The Circus – the first woman to levy claims against the Supreme Court nominee to do so. NBC’s Morning Joe teased a clip of the interview Thursday, in which Swetnick calls for an investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
On Saturday, Mr. Avenatti, Ms. Swetnick’s lawyer, said on Twitter that he and his client hadn’t yet heard from the FBI, despite their repeated requests for an interview. Ms. Swetnick alleged earlier this week that Judge Kavanaugh attended a party in the early 1980s where she was gang-raped and that he tried to get women drunk at several gatherings so they could be targeted for sexual assault. –WSJ
“It is critically important that the public be informed of any hidden effort to limit the scope of the FBI investigation,” said Avenatti. “The scope should be unlimited and the FBI should be tasked with determining whether an allegation is credible—as they do every day in this country.”
Still waiting for a response to this. Still waiting for the FBI to contact me or my client. https://t.co/flU6U0O2Yz
Kavanaugh’s first two accusers, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, have accused Kavanugh of groping and exposing himself respectively.
On Friday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake attempted to stall a Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh pending an FBI investigation, only to have Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) cut him off and call a snap vote, advancing the nomination to the full Senate floor. Flake then vowed to vote no on the full floor decision, and was joined by GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, just one day after Dianne Feinstein cornered her in a hallway for an apparent “talking to.”
While walking into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a key vote, said “yes,” when asked if she supports Sen. Jeff Flake’s proposal for a delay.
CNN asked: And do you think it should be limited to Ford’s accusations or should it include an investigation into other allegations?
Murkowski responded: “I support the FBI having an opportunity to bring some closure to this.” –CNN
An official with the Trump administration said the reopening of Kavanaugh’s FBI background check was being handled “as any update to a background investigation would be handled if new, derogatory information is introduced.”
“The FBI field agents will investigate this as they typically do under the constraints of there being new, derogatory information,” the official said. “They’re not going to go on a fishing expedition.”
Trump told reporders on Saturday that the White House gave the FBI “free reign” in the Kavanaugh inquiry to “do whatever they had to do, whatever it is that they do.”
“Having them do a thorough investigation, I actually think it will be a blessing in disguise,” Trump said. “It will be a good thing.”
This would contradict Trump’s claims today that “they,” the FBI, “have free reign” to do a “thorough investigation” https://t.co/wavytPaPGi
“The White House is not micromanaging this process,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in an interview with Fox News Sunday.
.@PressSec claims Kavanaugh’s testimony was “equally heartbreaking” to Ford’s. Sanders then says the most “disgraceful and disgusting” thing about Ford’s sexual story isn’t the sexual assault, but is “the way the Democrats have allowed this process to play out.” pic.twitter.com/8z3Mb8O19t
That said, the Journal notes that just because the FBI wasn’t granted the authority to interview Swetnick doesn’t mean they can’t ask other witnesses about her allegations.
Former FBI officials say they are confident an investgation can be conducted by next Friday, according to the Journal, which adds that background checks for presidential appointees or judicial nominees often need to be done within a matter of weeks. That said, “background investigations are different from criminal investigations in that they are done at the request of a “client”—in this case the White House—and investigators are unable to deploy search warrants or grand jury subpoenas. Potential witnesses are allowed to decline requests to be interviewed,” the Journal adds.
The limitations on what the FBI will be able to investigate differed from what former officials said would be the best approach, given the level of public scrutiny and likelihood that the bureau could be accused of not chasing down every lead. –WSJ
“If I was in charge of this, I would tell [FBI] Director [Chris] Wray, we need to call up every single person on this,” Mr. Danik said. “You don’t want anyone out there who can say in a week or two, ‘They never talked to us, they never heard from us.’”