Trump. Corte Suprema, aborto e controllo dell’Occidente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-13.

Questa estate si combatterà la battaglia decisiva per il controllo dell’Occidente nei decenni successivi. Non a caso il Corriere, come tutti peraltro, dice che “sono in gioco prospettive epocali“.

«Nello scontro che potrebbe durare fino all’autunno inoltrato sono in gioco prospettive epocali per il Paese, ma anche gli equilibri politici nel breve periodo»

*

«A novembre ci sono le elezioni di mid-term: rinnovo completo della Camera dei rappresentanti e di un terzo del Senato»

*

«E la conferma del nuovo giudice rappresenta un rischio da una parte e dell’altra. »

*

«È uno dei passaggi più importanti per la politica e la società americana. L’alto collegio ha l’ultima parola su temi cruciali come l’aborto, l’ambiente, i diritti civili, le misure sull’immigrazione.»

*

«Con le dimissioni di Kennedy, effettive dal prossimo 31 luglio, l’equilibrio interno torna in parità: quattro toghe nominate da presidenti democratici e quattro da repubblicani.»

*

«Il nuovo arrivato, il nono, potrebbe risultare decisivo per forgiare la giurisprudenza negli anni a venire, capovolgendo, per esempio, la sentenza Roe contro Wade che, nel 1973, riconobbe alle donne il diritto di decidere liberamente l’interruzione della gravidanza.»

*

«Sul versante democratico Heidi Heitkamp, del North Dakota, Joe Donnelly dell’Indiana e Joe Manchin della West Virginia vengono da Stati ora controllati dai trumpiani: temono di perdere il seggio a novembre se bloccheranno la nomina del presidente»

* * * * * * * *

Negli ultimi due secoli l’Occidente si è cullato su di una grandiosa ipocrisia: che l’ordine giudiziario possa essere una realtà staccata ed indipendente da quello politico. Alla fine si arriva ad una delle due possibilità: o il potere politico governa la magistratura, oppure essa governa la politica. Alterum non datur.

I liberal democratici hanno da sempre dato grande importanza al governo tramite la magistratura, inventandosi anche la teoria giuridica per la quale i giudici possono ‘interpretare‘ le leggi invece che applicarle: ne consegue che le relative sentenze siano soggettive invece che oggettive. In parole povere, con i liberal al governo il giudice fa ciò che più gli aggrada, ossequioso servo del partito.

Se nel 2016 fosse stata eletta Mrs Hillary Clinton, il mondo sarebbe stato liberal per i prossimi decenni: la storia ha disposto però in modo differente. Se si riuscisse a comprendere la crucialità dell’evento sarebbe immediatamente comprensibile la reazione scomposta dei liberal democratici alla sconfitta alle presidenziali.

*

A rigor di logica, il problema dell’aborto pertiene l’etica e la morale e, di conseguenza, secondariamente la politica, ed etica e morale condannano la pratica abortiva come omicidio premeditato. Una cosa è la giustizia ed una completamente differente la legalità., come bene ha puntualizzato il Processo di Norimberga.

I liberal risolsero il problema sui generis: asserendo che non esiste l’etica, bensì esistono le etiche, ammettono cioè la liceità di differenti giudizi. Ma se tutti i giudizi siano equivalenti significa che alla fine prevale solo ed esclusivamente la visione di chi detiene il potere e può quindi imporsi.

I liberal democratici hanno fatto dell’aborto la loro bandiera portante, asserendo che tale pratica sarebbe stata un diritto fondamentale della femmina, la decisione della quale non necessitava neppure del parere del padre. Similmente, nel periodo in cui hanno avuto il controllo dell’apparato giudiziario, hanno patrocinato sentenze che elevavano al rango di diritti fondamentali situazioni altamente opinabili. Avevano il potere e lo hanno esercitato, imponendo de facto le proprie visioni. Il governo passava a funzionari statali, saltando i rappresentanti eletti.

Adesso i liberal mal sopportano che il vento sia cambiato.

Basta dare tempo al tempo, e tutto l’impianto giuridico faticosamente costruito dai liberal sentenza su sentenza sarà sistematicamente smantellato.

Aborto, ambiente, ‘diritti civili’, immigrazione, etc.: tutto dovrà essere riassettato sia per debito di giustizia sia per rovesciare i simboli liberal.

---

→ Corriere. 2018-07-09. Corte suprema, l’aborto sarà decisivo

Quattro candidati e ancora molti dubbi per Donald Trump. Il presidente svelerà stasera, in diretta televisiva alle 21 (le 3 di notte di martedì 10 in Italia), il nome del giudice scelto per sostituire Anthony Kennedy alla Corte Suprema. Fino a ieri la lista di Trump, ritiratosi a meditare nel campo di golf di Bedminster nel New Jersey, appariva fluida, senza un vero favorito. Le indiscrezioni dei giornali americani danno in buona posizione Thomas Hardiman, 53 anni, del Massachusetts, già in ballottaggio con Neil Gorsuch, poi preferito, nel gennaio del 2017 per prendere il posto di Antonin Scalia. Hardiman, tra l’altro, ha prestato servizio nel tribunale di Philadelphia con una sorella di «The Donald», la giudice Maryanne Trump Barry.

Leggermente più indietro Raymond Kethledge, 51 anni del New Jersey; Brett Kavanaugh, 53 anni di Washington e Amy Coney Barrett, 46 anni, della Louisiana. Sono tutti solidi conservatori. La più tetragona è Amy, cattolica militante, 7 figli, l’unica donna nella selezione finale che inizialmente prevedeva 25 magistrati.

L’indicazione di Trump dovrà poi essere ratificata dal Senato. Bastano 50 voti, la metà del totale: a quel punto il vice presidente Mike Pence può intervenire per dare la maggioranza ai repubblicani.

È uno dei passaggi più importanti per la politica e la società americana. L’alto collegio ha l’ultima parola su temi cruciali come l’aborto, l’ambiente, i diritti civili, le misure sull’immigrazione. Con le dimissioni di Kennedy, effettive dal prossimo 31 luglio, l’equilibrio interno torna in parità: quattro toghe nominate da presidenti democratici e quattro da repubblicani.

Il nuovo arrivato, il nono, potrebbe risultare decisivo per forgiare la giurisprudenza negli anni a venire, capovolgendo, per esempio, la sentenza Roe contro Wade che, nel 1973, riconobbe alle donne il diritto di decidere liberamente l’interruzione della gravidanza.

Nello scontro che potrebbe durare fino all’autunno inoltrato sono in gioco prospettive epocali per il Paese, ma anche gli equilibri politici nel breve periodo. A novembre ci sono le elezioni di mid-term: rinnovo completo della Camera dei rappresentanti e di un terzo del Senato. E la conferma del nuovo giudice rappresenta un rischio da una parte e dell’altra.

Ieri il senatore repubblicano Lindsay Graham, spesso critico con Trump, ha dichiarato che «nessuno dei quattro nomi avrebbe la possibilità di superare il vaglio parlamentare». Ecco una breve mappa del disagio tra i repubblicani: il senatore Rand Paul detesta l’epoca dei Bush e quindi boccerebbe Kavanaugh, che è stato tra l’altro consigliere di George W. Bush e assistente del super procuratore Kenneth Starr nell’inchiesta su Bill Clinton.

Le repubblicane moderate Lisa Murkowski e Susan Collins, invece, si opporrebbero alla designazione dell’anti-abortista Barrett e chiederebbero ampie garanzie agli altri pretendenti.

Sul versante democratico Heidi Heitkamp, del North Dakota, Joe Donnelly dell’Indiana e Joe Manchin della West Virginia vengono da Stati ora controllati dai trumpiani: temono di perdere il seggio a novembre se bloccheranno la nomina del presidente. E sono solo pochi esempi: è in arrivo un’altra stagione dall’esito imprevedibile.

Trump. Una sua accusatrice arrestata in flagranza di reato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-12.

Cerchiamo di esporre materia complessa con un certo quale ordine.

La lettura degli allegati è parte integrante di questo articolo.

Durante l’Amministrazione liberal democratica molti stati americani hanno recepito nel codice penale il sexual harassment, punendolo con pene detentive di lunga durata e refusioni al limite della solvibilità. Era, ed è, considerato allo stesso livello dello stupro con efferata violenza. Non solo. In molti stati tale reato non era soggetto a prescrizione, e la testimonianza della femmina era, ed è tuttora, ritenuta essere prova probante: documentazione e testimoni erano ritenuti essere roba da Ancien Régime.

Si scatenò una mattanza: oltre un terzo delle cause erano fatte da femmine che denunciavano aver subito tale oltraggio. Poi, come costumanza negli Stati Uniti, la maggior parte terminava con un accordo stragiudiziario.

Se era stato montato un business imponente, era anche stata messa a punto un’arma micidiale per eliminare gli avversari politici. Nell’Unione Sovietica la denuncia di socialdemocrazia, sotto il nazionalsocialismo di essere un ‘ebreo bianco’ era trattata come il sexual harassment negli Stati Uniti.

*

Sexual harassment. L’ultima arma per neutralizzare i nemici.

Silicon Valley. La pronta risposta al sexual harassment.

Essere femmina garantisce immunità totale. Fintanto che durerà ….

Mafioso con 59 omicidi. Libero. Non erano sexual harassment.

*

Ma come recita il proverbio, il diavolo fa le pentole e non i coperchi.

I liberal democratici avevano scavato una profonda buca ove seppellire i repubblicani e, nelle loro attese, anche Mr Trump, ma hanno incominciato a caderci loro stessi.

Nessuno si è chiesto il cui prodest dei sexual harassment.

Matt Lauer. Un altro liberal democratico licenziato in tronco.

Trump. Sen. Al Franken, democratico, accusato di sexual harassment.

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

Justin Trudeau, premier canadese, si era palpeggiato Mrs. Rose Knight.

* * * * * * *

L’obbiettivo finale di tutto questo polveroso marchingegno era uno dei tanti tentativi democratici di incastrare in una qualche maniera quel Mr Trump che li aveva asfaltati alle elezioni presidenziali.

Nugoli di femmine non più nel fior degli anni iniziò a denunciare di essere state oggetto di sexual harassment da parte del Presidente Trump.

Molto cautamente, però, queste denunzie erano fatte a mezzo stampa, ma, tranne una, nessuna era stata formalizzata in un atto legale esposto a polizia o magistratura. Senza elementi probanti in mano, sarebbe stato ben difficile aver un sia pur minimo appiglio.

Mrs Stephanie Clifford, nome d’arte Stormy Daniels, ha accusato il Presidente Trump

«Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who has made headlines for an alleged affair with Donald Trump»

*

«Stephanie Clifford, claims she had sex with Trump in 2006»

*

«Ms. Clifford, who performs under the name Stormy Daniels, had been scheduled to appear at Sirens Gentlemen’s Club in northeastern Columbus on Wednesday and Thursday, according to the club’s website»

*

«She was arrested for allowing a customer to touch her “in a non sexual manner” while she was on stage, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote on Twitter. He wrote that she was expected to be charged with a misdemeanor “for allowing ‘touching.’”»

*

Questo è l’annuncio twitter dato dall’avvocato Michael Avenatti:

«Just rcvd word that my client @StormyDaniels was arrested in Columbus Ohio whole performing the same act she has performed across the nation at nearly a hundred strip clubs. This was a setup & politically motivated. It reeks of desperation. We will fight all bogus charges. #Basta»

* * * * * * * *

Per cercare di capirci, fare l’attrice per “adult films” significa la piena, conscia e volontaria determinazione ad essere ripresa mentre maschi vigorosi la penetrano per ogni dove, mentre succhia voluttuosamente uno dei tanti membri maschili disponibili sul set, senza disdegnare l’uso di sexual toy, da quelli di uso domestico a quelli ad alta potenza. Come corollario, le pornostar danno al produttore ampio mandato a far circolare i relativi filmati ove compare il loro volto e la loro figura in tali condizioni. Si noti come  gli “adult films” spesso hanno contenuti aberranti per soddisfare ele esigenze particolari di molti clienti paganti: sono disponibile depravazioni di ogni tipo.

Diciamo che le femmine che fanno le pornostar non sono propriamente delle Suore Orsoline.

*

Come riporta il suo avvocato, Mr Michael Avenatti, Mrs Stephanie Clifford, alias Stormy Daniels, aveva lavorato in oltre un centinaio di club come spogliarellista e, nello stile di quei locali, caldeggiava che i clienti la palpeggiassero per ogni dove, specie nei punti ove la femminilità è meglio rappresentata, dietro modico compenso. Ma il numero annienta, e Mrs Clifford ci si faceva la giornata. Più la palpeggiavano, più guadagnava.

Ma è caduta male, molto male.

Infatti, una legge dell’Ohio vieta a chiunque non sia un membro di famiglia di toccare una ballerina nuda o seminuda, e così Mrs Stephanie Clifford é stata arrestata per avere permesso ed incoraggiato i clienti a toccarla, in violazione delle leggi statali.

*

Da detenuta, e con un simile encomiabile curriculum, Mrs Stephanie Clifford avrà adesso molte difficoltà a continuare a sostenere le proprie accuse a Mr. Trump.

Ed intanto le elezioni di midterm si stanno avvicinando.

---

→ Cnbc. 2018-07-12. Stormy Daniels arrested in Ohio while performing, her attorney says

Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who has made headlines for an alleged affair with Donald Trump, was arrested in Columbus, Ohio, according to her attorney.

*

Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who has made headlines for an alleged affair with Donald Trump, was arrested in Columbus, Ohio, according to her attorney.

Michael Avenatti, who has represented Daniels, delivered the message in a Twitter post in the earlier hours of Thursday ET. In that tweet, the attorney claimed the arrest was politically motivated, and said “it reeks of desperation.”

CNBC has not independently confirmed the arrest.

In a subsequent Twitter post, Aventatti said Daniels had been arrested for “allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner.”

The attorney added in a follow-up post that he expected the adult film actress to be released on bail “shortly” and that she would be charged “with a misdemeanor for allowing ‘touching.'”

“We will vehemently contest all charges,” Avenatti said.

Avenatti told NBC News that he was of the understanding that there were multiple undercover vice officers in the club during Daniels’ show. After the customer touched her, according to the attorney, those officers got up and arrested the performer on the spot.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, claims she had sex with Trump in 2006, while he was married to Melania Trump.

In October 2016, on the eve of the presidential election, Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump’s personal attorney, used a shell company he had set up to pay Daniels $130,000 in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement.

Daniels has said the agreement barred her from speaking publicly about her tryst with Trump.

---

→ The New York Times. 2018-07-12. Stormy Daniels Arrested at Strip Club in Columbus, Her Lawyer Says.

Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film actress who said she had an affair with Donald J. Trump before he became president, was arrested at a strip club in Columbus, Ohio, her lawyer said early Thursday.

Ms. Clifford, who performs under the name Stormy Daniels, had been scheduled to appear at Sirens Gentlemen’s Club in northeastern Columbus on Wednesday and Thursday, according to the club’s website.

She was arrested for allowing a customer to touch her “in a non sexual manner” while she was on stage, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote on Twitter. He wrote that she was expected to be charged with a misdemeanor “for allowing ‘touching.’”

A man who answered the phone at Sirens early Thursday morning said, “We have no comment on that.” He declined to provide his name. The Columbus Police Department did not immediately return a phone call.

Since gaining nationwide prominence for her accusation against President Trump — and the $130,000 payment she received to originally keep quiet — Ms. Clifford has drawn crowds at strip clubs across the country, including in Greenville, S.C., Salem, Ore., and Des Moines, Iowa. They were mostly curiosities until her trip to Columbus.

Mr. Avenatti, an outspoken lawyer who has become a sharp critic of Mr. Trump, saw political machinations behind the arrest.

“This was a setup & politically motivated,” Mr. Avenatti wrote. “It reeks of desperation. We will fight all bogus charges.”

She was arrested for allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner! Are you kidding me? They are devoting law enforcement resources to sting operations for this? There has to be higher priorities!!! #SetUp #Basta

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) July 12, 2018

In Ohio, it is illegal for an employee who is “nude or seminude” at a sexually oriented business to be touched by a patron or to touch a patron, with the exception of an immediate family member. Depending on what body part is touched, the charge can be a first- or fourth-degree misdemeanor.

---

→ Bbc. 2018-07-12. Stormy Daniels arrested in Ohio – lawyer

US porn star Stormy Daniels has been arrested in a strip club in Columbus, Ohio, according to her lawyer.

Ms Daniels was arrested for allegedly letting a customer touch her on stage “in a non sexual manner”, lawyer Michael Avenatti tweeted.

Ms Daniels became embroiled in a row with President Donald Trump after saying she slept with him in 2006, an allegation which he denies.

Her lawyer called the arrest “a setup” and “politically motivated”.

– The president and the porn star: Why this matters

– The conflicting statements in the Stormy Daniels saga

A Columbus police spokesperson has yet to respond to requests for confirmation about the arrest at the Sirens club in the north of the city.

Mr Avenatti tweeted that Ms Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, had been performing “the same act she has performed across the nation at nearly a hundred strip clubs”.

He said he expected her to be released on bail shortly and charged with a misdemeanour and vowed to “vehemently contest all charges”.

An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act proscribes anyone touching a nude or semi-nude dancer, unless they are related.

Sirens tweeted last month to say Ms Daniels would make two “exclusive appearances” at the venue on the nights of 11 and 12 July.

A person who answered the phone at Sirens declined to comment.

Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£98,000) shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about her alleged sexual encounter with Mr Trump.

She is trying to free herself from a non-disclosure agreement signed before the election, and suing over a “defamatory” tweet by the US president earlier this year. Mr Trump denies all allegations.

Trump ha chiuso i democratici nella tonnara. – The New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-10.

Siamo debitori ad Aulo Irzio, compilatore delle ultime parti dell’ottavo libro del De Bello Gallico, di una scultorea sentenza sulla vittoria ottenuta in Gallia da Giulio Cesare.

“Come ha fatto Giulio Cesare con sessantamila soldati romani a vincere in modo definitivo un popolo di quasi venti milioni di persone? Sicuramente i romani erano un esercito disciplinato e ben addestrato, altrettanto sicuramente erano meglio armati ed esperti sia nell’arte degli assedi sia in quella dei combattimenti campali. Sicuramente avevano una possente volontà di vincere ed altrettanto sicuramente erano guidati da un generale di rara intelligenza. Ma questo non basta a dare una spiegazione logica.

Fatto è che Cesare vedeva e percepiva la realtà per quello che era, mentre i galli amavano credere fosse vero ciò che a loro avrebbe fatto piace che lo fosse.”

*

Questa ultima considerazione eleva Giulio Cesare nel ristretto novero dei grandi generali e statisti.

* * * * * * *

Da due anni a questa parte i liberal democratici hanno riversato su Mr Trump ogni sorta di nequizia, omettendo forse l’aggiotaggio ed il pascolo abusivo. È stata la più grandiosa campagna denigratoria mai vista nella storia umana.

Nessuno si sogna di trarne un giudizio morale, che non compete al cronista, ma salta agli occhi che i liberal democratici americani ed i loro sodali sparsi per il mondo alla fine si sono illusi a credere che ciò che dicevano fosse vero.

Dapprima illusione certa, ma spesso pura e semplice allucinazione.

Il Presidente Trump è un essere razionale ed anche molto scaltro, molto più astuto di quanto i liberal vogliano ammettere.

Ha capito più che bene come i liberal socialisti fossero entrati in fase devolutiva perché non erano più in grado di ascoltare con cura ciò che il popolo cercava loro di dire. Ma non votano solo le élite auto referenziali: votano tutti gli Elettori, anche la povera gente.

Sua Giustizia Antony Kennedy si ritira. Altra vittoria di Trump.

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

Trump. La Suprema Corte gli rende giustizia sulla immigrazione.

Trump. Disoccupazione al 3.8%. Anche negri e latino-americani votano.

Trump. Median Household Income e risultati elettorali.

*

Questo è l’incipit di un articolo di un noto giornale liberal.

«US President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a tumultuous confirmation battle over the future direction of the nation’s highest court.»

*

«”Throughout legal circles he’s considered a judge’s judge, a true thought leader among his peers,” Trump said at the White House. “He’s a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”»

*

«The confirmation of Trump’s pick would move the Supreme Court to the right for decades. A heated confirmation is set to dominate politics ahead of November’s mid-term elections.»

«for decades»: l’illusione liberal è morta, uccisa proprio dal marchingegno che aveva congeniato.

* * *

Midterm. Repubblicani apparentemente in testa.- New York Times.

Nessuno fa il negromante, per cui nessuno può dare sicure previsioni su come andranno le elezioni di midterm.

Sappiamo solo che in questa tornata elettorale da duecentotrenta anni solo tre volte gli Elettori non hanno eletto un senato ed una camera del partito avverso a quello del presidente in carica. Bilanciano i poteri, obbligano agli accordi.

Per il presidente Trump sarebbe già un grande successo se riuscisse a mantenere la maggioranza in senato, fatto che gli consentirebbe di terminare le nomine dei giudici federali ancora pendenti.

Le corti federali hanno infatti il potere di interferire con le decisioni politiche del presidente, ed i liberal democratici le hanno colonizzate con loro strenui sostenitori. Ingordigia e presunzione hanno fato loro fallire il controllo della Suprema Corte, inappellabile, ed adesso le dimissioni di Sua Giustizia Kennedy rendono obbligatoria la votazione in senato per convalidare la nomina che il presidente Trump si appresta a fare: sarà una personalità repubblicana, religiosa, che applicherà le leggi testualmente e non inventandosele di sana pianta, e sarà anche molto giovane.

Con la Corte Suprema a maggioranza repubblicana i liberal democratici saranno ingabbiati per decenni: saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.

*

I democratici dovranno in breve fare una scelta, quanto mai dolorosa.

O appoggiano il nome stabilito da Mr Trump e consegnano ai repubblicani la Corte Suprema per almeno quaranta anni, oppure fanno ostruzionismo, come lo fecero avverso Sua Giustizia Gorsuch, tagliando così le gambe ai democratici che si presentano a midterm negli stati a forte percentuale repubblicana. L’ostruzionismo è sempre stato penalizzante se fatto a ridosso delle elezioni americane: “It could not come at a worse time”.

* * * * * * *

«Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.»

*

«The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.»

*

«A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity»

*

«And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.»

*

«But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans»

* * * * * * * *

Bene.

Per due anni i liberal democratici si sono sbizzarriti nell’arte della calunnia e dell’insulto, senza ottenere alcunché.

Con il loro comportamento grottesco hanno sottominato il prestigio mondiale del Presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Ma adesso siamo arrivati al momento del redde rationem.

Con le nomine alla Corte Suprema Mr Trump ha ottenuto una vittoria strabiliante: se anche adesso lo assassinassero, la Suprema Corte resterebbe repubblicana per altri lunghi decenni.

È facile pagare otto dollari l’ora quattro ragazzotti che andassero a dimostrare con i cartelli “not my president”.

Ma convincere gli Elettori è ben altra cosa.

Ci si ricordi bene: la società civile non sono le ngo, bensì il Corpo Elettorale. La politica la si fa in Congresso ed al Senato, non sulle piazze.

---

→ The New York Times. 2018-07-07. ‘It’s a Terrible Vote’: Red-State Democrats Face an Agonizing Supreme Court Choice.

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.

The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.

A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.

“It is a terrible vote,” Jennifer Duffy, a longtime nonpartisan analyst of Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said about the showdown, which will escalate on Monday with the scheduled official announcement of the nominee.

It could not come at a worse time. A final confirmation vote will probably be called just weeks before an election in which Democrats are defending a sprawling battleground, including 10 states carried by Mr. Trump, with Democratic pickup opportunities in only a handful of states. A failure to hang on to nearly all of the 10 would make a Senate takeover very difficult.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Republicans last year denied Democrats the ability to filibuster a Supreme Court candidate, a tool that would have previously enabled the most vulnerable Democrats to side with the president even as the rest of the party held the line against the nominee and satisfied anxious liberal voters.

In the run-up to his announcement, Mr. Trump has sought to intensify the pressure on Democrats who are on the ballot in Republican-leaning states.

“You deserve a senator who doesn’t just talk like he’s from Montana,” Mr. Trump said Thursday night during a combative stop in Great Falls, Mont., as he assailed Jon Tester, the conservative state’s two-term Democrat. “You deserve a senator who actually votes like he’s from Montana.”

The president delivered a nearly identical attack on Ms. Heitkamp a week earlier in Fargo, N.D., in what appears destined to become a stock line as Mr. Trump visits Senate battlegrounds.

Much of the attention has been focused on Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin and Mr. Donnelly because they broke with their party last year and backed Neil M. Gorsuch, Mr. Trump’s first nominee to the court, showing their willingness to get behind the president’s choices. Mr. Trump racked up huge margins in their states and still draws enthusiastic crowds.

But other Democratic incumbents need to be wary as well, including Senator Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who is in a difficult re-election fight with Rick Scott, the Republican governor. Mr. Nelson will need the support of Republican and independent voters to prevail, but also that of Democratic voters in Florida’s urban centers.

Another endangered Democratic incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, is viewed as highly unlikely to back any Trump nominee despite the political risk. And if Mr. Trump selects Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan, it could present difficulties for Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is seeking her fourth term in a state carried narrowly by Mr. Trump two years ago though she has so far escaped formidable competition.

As they plot strategy for the coming weeks, top Democrats and their allies are focused initially on holding Senate Democrats together to put most of the court pressure on two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who are centrist abortion-rights advocates. Democrats believe that quick signs of any defections in their party could relieve that pressure on the two Republicans while simultaneously frustrating Democratic voters.

“It is very important that we send a signal out of the gate that this is a winnable fight,” said Brian Fallon, the head of a new Democratic judicial advocacy group called Demand Justice. “By throwing in the towel before there was an opportunity to really pressure the pro-choice Republicans, you would have a sense of deflation among progressives that is the last thing you should want going into the midterms.”

The Democratic leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, is facing calls from activist groups to keep his party in line, and he and his team are intent on doing so. But that does not mean he will want embattled incumbents to yield their seats if the nominee is ultimately going to be confirmed with Republican votes.

At the same time, Republican and conservative groups have initiated campaigns in select states trying to establish the president’s coming choice as unobjectionable, while urging supportive calls to Senate offices. They will also try to make any resistance seem the work of far-left activists.

“Radical Left Takes the Reins,” shouted a headline over a release from the office of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader. “Radical Groups Demand Absolute Resistance Against Yet-to-Be-Named SCOTUS Nominee, Senate Democrats Comply With ‘Unwavering Opposition.’”

The Democrats under scrutiny have had little to say so far about their intentions as they await the identity of the nominee.

“Like my colleagues, I’ll wait to see who he nominates for the position — and then get to work exhaustively reviewing and vetting the nominee and their record to meet my constitutional duty as a U.S. senator to provide advice and consent for filling this vacancy,” Ms. Heitkamp said after a White House meeting with the president the day after he had attacked her back home in Fargo.

Mr. Tester chose to ignore the president’s assault and instead emphasized his bipartisan credentials.

“Jon’s record is clear — if it’s good for Montana, Jon works with anyone from either party to get things done,” his campaign said in a statement following the Trump rally.

That approach reflects what Democrats believe is a potential backstop for the embattled red-state Democrats. Politicians like Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin and Mr. Tester have well-established identities in their home states and remain popular with voters of both parties. They hope that relationship, built over years of campaigns, could sustain them should they break with the president.

Other issues are also at work. The new trade war could have negative consequences for agriculture in a farm state like North Dakota, driving down allegiance to Mr. Trump. It was no coincidence that Ms. Heitkamp in the past week held multiple meetings across her state on trade and a new farm bill — two issues with direct impact on voters.

In addition, Democrats proved they could remain united against the president on the tax bill and on repealing the Affordable Care Act, two past instances that were also seen as carrying big political risks. Party strategists say that if they can make health care a cornerstone of the Supreme Court fight, it could embolden the red-state Democrats to push back against the White House.

But Republicans have a history of elevating the Supreme Court above all else, given its influence on major social policy such as abortion, immigration, education, voting rights and the environment.

“For Republicans, the Supreme Court is their biggest voting issue,” said Ms. Duffy, the Senate elections analyst. “What this does is it wakes up the base.”

For Democrats, the test will be whether they can mount a strong challenge to the nominee that satisfies their voters without exacting too high a cost from their most endangered lawmakers.

La fine dei liberal socialisti. Sono battuti strategicamente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-09.

Tra il quattro ed il sei giugno millenovecentoquarantadue si combatté la battaglia di Midway, un isolotto sperduto nel bel mezzo dell’Oceano Pacifico. Gli americani affondarono quattro grandi portaerei di squadra nemiche e segnarono in tal modo un punto di svolta nella guerra del Pacifico con l’arresto dell’avanzata nipponica. Con le portaerei di assalto il Giappone perse 248 aeroplani della marina e relativi piloti. Da quel momento l’iniziativa strategica passò agli americani: ci vollero altri tre anni di guerra e milioni di morti, ma era evidente che a Midway il Giappone aveva perso non una battaglia bensì la guerra.

Nulla da stupirsi se all’epoca solo l’ammiraglio Nimitz ed il generale MacArthur avessero capito la portata storica di quell’evento.

* * * * * * *

Il sette novembre 2016 l’elezione di Mr Trump alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti ha segnato non solo la sconfitta dei liberal democratici americani in una usuale tornata elettorale: ne ha segnato la sconfitta strategica che alla fine porterà al loro annientamento totale. Come dopo Midway, serviranno molti anni, ma il destino dei liberal democratici è stato determinato in modo irreversibile.

Ma con la fine di questa componente di pensiero e politica viene a crollare tutta quella che era stata la sinistra europea.

Il fenomeno era nell’aria da tempo, preannunciato con n secolo di anticipo da Spengler ne Il Tramonto dell’Occidente.

Tramonto non dell’Occidente ma della dottrina illuminista.

Unione Europea si disgrega per devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal. – Spiegel.

Devoluzione del socialismo ideologico. – Eu Observer.

Devoluzione dell’idealismo liberal e socialista. Cahiers de doléances.

Unione Europea. Non stiamo arrivando. Siamo arrivati.

*

Ma per comprendere appieno la portata di quanto stia accadendo, sarebbe necessario valutare un altro elemento, caratteristico degli Stati Uniti, ma di portata mondiale.

Trump. Supreme Court. Il chiodo nella carne dei democratici.

Trump ed il nodo della Supreme Court.

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

Sua Giustizia Antony Kennedy si ritira. Altra vittoria di Trump.

*

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti funge, come in molti altri stati occidentali, da supremo ed inappellabile censore sulla costituzionalità delle leggi e dei provvedimenti emanati dal Governo Federale.

I problemi hanno iniziato ad emergere da qualche decina di anni, da quando i liberal democratici sono riusciti a far nominare Giudici persone loro fedeli. La Suprema Corte era transitata da organo giuridico ad organo politico non elettivo, fedele esecutore degli ordini di partito.

Per poter conseguire i loro risultati politici, le loro Giustizie Federali avevano anche congegnato una sottile teorica in accordo alla quale le leggi non si applicano, bensì si interpretano: se ogni interpretazione è soggettiva, quella delle Corte Suprema diventa ipso facto sentenza non appellabile, e quindi ineludibile.

Operando in tal fatta, la Suprema Corte per molto tempo ha operato come vero e proprio sommo centro decisionale politico, indipendentemente da maggioranze parlamentari e dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, instaurando de facto una vera e propria tirannide. Adesso essa sta passando di mano, dai liberal ai repubblicani, sta ritornando alla normalità legale.

*

Non a caso Sua Giustizia Kennedy era designato essere

“most powerful man in America”

*

Bene. Con la nomina del successore di Sua Giustizia Kennedy Mr Trump piazzerà un repubblicano cattolico di solide convinzioni alla Corte Suprema e, se le previsioni di confermassero, sceglierà per questa carica a vita un uomo quarantenne. Come risultato finale la Suprema Corte resterà saldamente in mano repubblicana per molte decine di anni.

«Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court»

*

«A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights»

*

«He [Kennedy] also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.»

*

«The replacement of Justice Kennedy with a reliable conservative would be far more consequential and would move the court markedly to the right »

* * * * * * * * * * *

«The “most powerful man in America” has announced his retirement at the age of 81. Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” among the justices and his depature will allow Trump to nominate a more conservative judge»

*

«Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the court between the liberal and conservative justices»

*

«His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come»

*

«He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.»

* * * * * * * * * * *

«Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections»

*

«This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions»

*

«People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over»

*

«True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues»

*

«But not enough attention has been placed on the crucial question of whether the Supreme Court in the Trump era will provide an effective bulwark against autocratic lawless rule»

*

«Can the president be compelled to testify before a grand jury? Can a sitting president be criminally indicted?»

*

«It is no exaggeration to say that never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the president’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge he can count on to protect him.»

*

«Mr. Trump’s possible crimes are inextricable from his desire for unilateral control of the federal government»

*

«Otherwise, there will be a stain on the legitimacy of this nomination, on the performance of whomever is confirmed and, even, on the Supreme Court itself»

* * *

La reazione dei liberal democratica è scomposta come quella dei cinghiali feriti.

Tutto il ragionamento, si fa per dire, è basato su di un assunto che l’articolista del NYT riporta alquanto ingenuamente.

«Mr. Trump’s possible crimes».

Per i democratici Mr Trump avrebbe perpetrato dei crimini. Nulla da eccepire: ogni cittadini può, e spesso dovrebbe anche, sporgere delle denuncie. Ma nei paesi civili i fatti denunciati sono considerati essere ‘crimini’ solo dopo che un Tribunale legalmente costituito emette sentenza, dopo l’usuale dibattito giudiziale. Non solo, come per la costituzione italiana, anche quella americana prevede che un cittadino incriminato sia da ritenersi essere innocente fino a sentenza cassata.

Notiamo come dopo oltre due anni e mezzo di assordanti tentativi, Mr Trump non abbia nemmeno una notifica giudiziaria. Ma se i liberal democratici non lo denunciano alla magistratura sarà invero molto difficile che Mr Trump sia condannato.

Le denuncie si fanno alla magistratura competente, non dalle testate dei giornali: queste ultime sono solo calunnie.

Nota.

Nessuno sa o può predire il futuro. Ma se Mr Trump riuscisse a sostituire Sua Giustizia Kennedy con un Giudice cattolico e repubblicano per quaranta anni la Suprema Corte sarebbe preclusa alle istanze dei liberal democratici. Se così fosse, i repubblicani dovrebbero fare un monumento a cavallo a Mrs Hillary Clinton, la candidata presidenziale più arrogante e sprovvida della storia.

---

→ The New York Times. 2018-06-30. A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

Much of the conversation since Justice Kennedy announced his retirement has been focused on whether a more conservative replacement might lead to the overthrow of landmark decisions on abortion rights, gay marriage and other issues. These are undoubtedly important concerns. But not enough attention has been placed on the crucial question of whether the Supreme Court in the Trump era will provide an effective bulwark against autocratic lawless rule.

Indeed, legal experts are already debating several knotty constitutional questions that involve the president and may one day soon have to be decided by the court. Can the president pardon himself or others specifically to extricate himself from criminal investigation? Can the president be compelled to testify before a grand jury? Can a sitting president be criminally indicted?

Did the appointment of the special counsel somehow violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, as some conservatives implausibly insist? Can a president ever obstruct justice? What is the proper legal remedy for Mr. Trump’s repeated violations of the Emoluments Clause? It is no exaggeration to say that never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the president’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge he can count on to protect him.

While we cannot know how Justice Kennedy would have ruled on these questions, we do know that at least at times he was willing to stand up to assertions of power by the executive branch, most notably in Boumediene v. Bush, when he wrote a 5-4 decision defying the president and extending the constitutional right of habeas corpus to wartime detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

Mr. Trump’s possible crimes are inextricable from his desire for unilateral control of the federal government. It is no secret that the power of the executive branch has grown over the past several decades, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Our executive now has surveillance capacities never before seen, vast power to conduct drone strikes and conduct lethal military operations abroad, broad authority to set immigration and law enforcement priorities and the ability to regulate enormous areas of economic and personal life.

Add to this sweeping institutional power a president who refuses to acknowledge any checks on his power as legitimate, whether those checks come from the courts, the legislature, the media, the government bureaucracy or his political opponents. This is the perfect recipe for autocracy. In such a world, the importance of checks and balances has never been greater.

This would be dangerous regardless of Mr. Trump’s legal shortcomings. But this president has, by his own admission, already taken steps to thwart an investigation into his own potential criminality. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate should therefore resist calls for a quick confirmation process.

Otherwise, there will be a stain on the legitimacy of this nomination, on the performance of whomever is confirmed and, even, on the Supreme Court itself. The fact that the president has every motive to ensure that happens — to promote his political agenda and to protect him personally — makes the present moment all the more frightening.

---

→ Deutsche Welle. 2018-06-27. US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy retiring, giving Trump a second pick

The “most powerful man in America” has announced his retirement at the age of 81. Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” among the justices and his depature will allow Trump to nominate a more conservative judge.

*

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced he is retiring at the age of 81. Although not the oldest, he is the most senior member of the court, having been nominated by former President Ronald Reagan.

“It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years on the Supreme Court,” Kennedy said in a statement. He added that his decision was motivated by the desire to spend more time with his family.

‘The most powerful man in America’

Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the court between the liberal and conservative justices. His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come. Conservative activists have already announced their intention to use a more conservative court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

In response to the news, the president praised Justice Kennedy’s vision and heart.

Speaking in the Oval Office during a meeting with Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Trump said that when considering the next nomination he would draw from a list of 25 candidates that his campaign collected during his presidential run.

Kennedy’s career on the Supreme Court earned him the nickname “the most powerful man in America,” because he was often the deciding vote between the conservative and liberal wings of the nine-member court. He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.

---

→ The New York Times. 2018-06-27. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court.

A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights.

Justice Kennedy’s voting record was moderately conservative. He wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, and he joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, which handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.

But Justice Kennedy was the court’s leading champion of gay rights, and he joined the court’s liberals in cases on abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

In April 2017, Mr. Trump formally appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, replacing one conservative justice with another and maintaining the basic balance of power on the court.

The replacement of Justice Kennedy with a reliable conservative would be far more consequential and would move the court markedly to the right.

The bitter 14-month battle over Justice Scalia’s seat, during which Republican senators refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, will most likely pale in comparison to the coming fight over Justice Kennedy’s seat.

Trump. I fatti sono l’unica vera propaganda elettorale. – White House.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-05.

Il 29 giugno il Presidente Trump, la White House, ha rilasciato il seguente Fact Sheets:

Six Months Later: Tax Reform Delivers An Economic Resurgence.

* * * * * * *

Mr Trump riassume in poche sintetiche righe i risultati pratici ottenuti a sei mesi dal taglio delle tasse.

«More than 6 million American workers have received a bonus as a result of the tax cuts»

*

«In the first 3 months of 2018, nominal hourly compensation for workers grew at its fastest rate in at least a decade»

*

«The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8 percent, matching the lowest level in nearly 50 years»

*

«Job openings reached a record high of 6.7 million in April 2018, topping the number of job seekers for the first time on record»

*

«In the first quarter of 2018, more than $300 billion was repatriated back to the United States, setting a new record high»

* * * * * * *

Mr Trump si toglie anche qualche sassolino dalle scarpe.

«House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to the bill to “Armageddon.”»

*

«Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed, “what has been sold as a job creator and wage booster will, of course, do little of either»

*

«The day after President Trump’s election, the liberal columnist and economist Paul Krugman said, “we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”»

* * * * * * *

La sconcertante impreparazione economica di Mrs Nancy Pelosi e di Mr Chuck Schumer è proverbiale. Ma tanto sono gente che ha occhi ma non vede, ha orecchi ma non sente. L’ideologia liberal ha ingabbiato le loro menti in un’ideazione coatta subalterna ed ossequiente le teorie che professano. Ricordano da vicino la dirigenza dell’Unione Sovietica nei tempi di Leonìd Il’ìč Brèžnev.

Diverso è il discorso sul prof. Krugman.

Fino a tanto che fece il ricercatore in campo economico scrisse articoli acuti e penetranti, dalla lettura dei quali vi è molto da imparare.

Poi fu assunto come portavoce economico dei liberal democratici, dodici milioni l’anno, è mutò radicalmente.

Il suo compito era di tirar fuori un qualche ragionamento che avvallasse le decisioni prese dai liberal.

Nulla quindi da stupirsi se le sue previsioni non si avverino con una sconcertante regolarità.

«we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight»

In fondo, un’utilità ce la ha anche il prof. Krugman. Lo si legge e quindi si fa l’opposto di ciò che dice, sicuri di essere nel giusto.

---

→ White House. 2018-06-29. Six Months Later: Tax Reform Delivers An Economic Resurgence

There’s never been a better time to hire in America, to invest in America, and to start living the American Dream.

President Donald J. Trump

A BOOMING ECONOMY: Just 6 months after President Donald J. Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law, the American economy is booming and confidence is soaring.

– President Trump’s tax cuts have revitalized the American economy, with 54 percent of Americans now rating the economy as good or excellent, the highest ever recorded by CNBC.

– Businesses are bringing money held overseas back to the United States.

– – In the first quarter of 2018, more than $300 billion was repatriated back to the United States, setting a new record high, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

– Optimism among employers has reached historic highs in the 6 months since the tax cuts.

– – Manufacturer optimism has reached its highest level in the 20-year history of the National Association of Manufacturers survey.

– – Small business optimism stands at its second-highest level on record since the National Federation of Independent Business began its survey 45 years ago.

– -The economy looks poised to continue its winning streak, with many economists expecting second quarter GDP growth to exceed 4 percent.

A WIN FOR AMERICAN WORKERS AND FAMILIES: American workers and families have seen some of the biggest benefits from President Trump’s tax cuts.

– Americans are seeing more money in their paychecks following President Trump’s cuts.

– – More than 6 million American workers have received a bonus as a result of the tax cuts.

– – In the first 3 months of 2018, nominal hourly compensation for workers grew at its fastest rate in at least a decade.

– Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe now is a good time to find a quality job, according to Gallup.

– The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8 percent, matching the lowest level in nearly 50 years.

– Job openings reached a record high of 6.7 million in April 2018, topping the number of job seekers for the first time on record.

– Families are benefiting from lower utility bills, as 30 million Americans in at least 30 states have had their utility bills cut as a result of the tax cuts.

– American workers can expect to see even more gains moving forward, as employers plan to hire more workers and boost compensation according to recent surveys.

CRITICS’ PREDICTIONS FALL FLAT: The positive results of President Trump’s tax cuts are proving the alarmist opponents flat-out wrong.

– The dire predictions by critics of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act simply do not match up with the incredible results seen over the last 6 months.

– House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to the bill to “Armageddon.”

– Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed, “what has been sold as a job creator and wage booster will, of course, do little of either.”

– The day after President Trump’s election, the liberal columnist and economist Paul Krugman said, “we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”

Sua Giustizia Antony Kennedy si ritira. Altra vittoria di Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-28.

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti funge, come in molti altri stati occidentali, da supremo ed inappellabile censore sulla costituzionalità delle leggi e dei provvedimenti emanati dal Governo Federale.

Fin qui nulla da eccepire.

I problemi hanno iniziato ad emergere da qualche decina di anni, da quando i liberal democratici sono riusciti a far nominare Giudici persone loro fedeli. La Suprema Corte era transitata da organo giuridico ad organo politico non elettivo, fedele esecutore degli ordini di partito.

Per poter conseguire i loro risultati politici, le loro Giustizie Federali avevano anche congegnato una sottile teorica in accordo alla quale le leggi non si applicano, bensì si interpretano: se ogni interpretazione è soggettiva, quella delle Corte Suprema diventa ipso facto sentenza non appellabile, e quindi ineludibile.

Operando in tal fatta, la Suprema Corte per molto tempo ha operato come vero e proprio sommo centro decisionale politico, indipendentemente da maggioranze parlamentari e dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, instaurando de facto una vera e propria tirannide.

Ai primi del 2017, essendo stato eletto Presidente Mr Trump, si provvide a nominare Sua Giustizia Mr Neil M. Gorsuch al posto di Sua Giustizia Antonin Scalia. Fu nomina travagliata da un ostruzionismo senza precedenti dei senatori democratici, ben consci della posta in gioco.

La nomina di Neil M. Gorsuch riportava dopo anni a 5 : 4 il numero di giudici che avevano la concezione che la legge avesse dovuto essere applicata, non inventata ad libitum.

Gli effetti si videro in breve tempo.

Nella sola ultima settimana la Suprema Corte ha clamorosamente bocciato tre iniziative politiche democratiche, portate avanti dagli immaginifici giudici federali del Nono e del Settimo distretto, tutti liberal democratici di chiara osservanza. Tre sentenze che pongono la parola fine a degli iter giuridici “orripilanti“.

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees (16-1466)

«The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled.»

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Trump v. Hawaii

* * * * * * *

Di questi giorni la notizia.

«US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced he is retiring at the age of 81»

Sua Giustizia Kennedy è il decano della Suprema Corte, formalmente repubblicano ma nella pratica di ideologia liberal democratica. Molto bizzoso ed imprevedibile nelle sentenze.

Non a caso Sua Giustizia Kennedy era, ed è fino a quando resterà ancora in carica, il

“most powerful man in America”.

Era nei fatti colui che alla fine decideva quale linea politica avesse dovuto essere adottata dagli Stati Uniti di America.

*

«His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come»

*

I liberal democratici sono precipitati nel panico prima, nel terrore dopo.

Una Suprema Corte formata da una maggioranza di giudici onesti sarà per i liberal un ostacolo che bloccherà in modo definitivo le loro mire di potere.

«He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.»

*

«Conservative activists have already announced their intention to use a more conservative court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion»

*

Già. La sentenza Roe v. Wade aveva stabilito che i feti semplicemente non sono esseri umani.

---

→ Deutsche Welle. 2018-06-27. US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy retiring, giving Trump a second pick

The “most powerful man in America” has announced his retirement at the age of 81. Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” among the justices and his depature will allow Trump to nominate a more conservative judge.

*

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced he is retiring at the age of 81. Although not the oldest, he is the most senior member of the court, having been nominated by former President Ronald Reagan.

“It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years on the Supreme Court,” Kennedy said in a statement. He added that his decision was motivated by the desire to spend more time with his family.

‘The most powerful man in America’

Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the court between the liberal and conservative justices. His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come. Conservative activists have already announced their intention to use a more conservative court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

In response to the news, the president praised Justice Kennedy’s vision and heart.

Speaking in the Oval Office during a meeting with Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Trump said that when considering the next nomination he would draw from a list of 25 candidates that his campaign collected during his presidential run.

Kennedy’s career on the Supreme Court earned him the nickname “the most powerful man in America,” because he was often the deciding vote between the conservative and liberal wings of the nine-member court. He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.

---

→ The New York Times. 2018-06-27. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court.

A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights.

Justice Kennedy’s voting record was moderately conservative. He wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, and he joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, which handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.

But Justice Kennedy was the court’s leading champion of gay rights, and he joined the court’s liberals in cases on abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

In April 2017, Mr. Trump formally appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, replacing one conservative justice with another and maintaining the basic balance of power on the court.

The replacement of Justice Kennedy with a reliable conservative would be far more consequential and would move the court markedly to the right.

The bitter 14-month battle over Justice Scalia’s seat, during which Republican senators refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, will most likely pale in comparison to the coming fight over Justice Kennedy’s seat.

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-28.

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America ha rilasciato la sentenza 16-1466.

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees

«The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled.»

*

«Illinois law permits public employees to unionize. If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, even those who do not join. Only the union may engagein collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented by another agent or negotiate directly with their employer. Non­members are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” i.e., a percentage of the full union dues. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235–236, this fee may cover union expenditures attributable to those activities “germane” to the union’s collective-bargaining activities (chargeable expenditures), but may not cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures). The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non­members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown of expenditures. Here it was 78.06% of full union dues.»

* * * * * * *

I sindacati americani avevano imposto a tutti i dipendenti, non solo agli iscritti, il pagamento di una tassa a loro favore. Questa decisione era stata giudicata legale e costituzionale dalle Corti di livello inferiore, per cui la questione è stata alla fine sottoposta al giudizio della Suprema Corte, che ha rigettato simile procedura, giudicandola non costituzionale, oltre che ‘iniqua’.

I liberal democratici sono impazziti di rabbia impotente.

Il motivo è semplice, semplicissimo, e ben poco ha a che fare con ideali altisonanti.

«Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop»

In poche parole, i sindacati leveranno circa tre miliardi in meno.

Ma questa cifra rappresenta il 78.06% delle entrate sindacali.

«Here it was 78.06% of full union dues»

Ma allora, per quale motivo un così assordante urlo di dolore dei liberal democratici?

Semplice, elementare.

I sindacati si spendevano allegramente quelle cifre per finanziare i loro piani politici, che coincidevano con quelli dei liberal democratici, trattenendo non poco per finanziare le loro misere tasche.

«[to] cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures).»

Il fatto che la sentenza scriva

“to cover the union’s political and ideological projects”

è una mazzata nei denti dei voraci liberal.

*

«Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay»

* * * * * * *

Quanto il colpo sia arrivato diritto e secco al mento dei liberal è testimoniato dallo scomposto quanto irato editoriale del The New York Times.

«If you wanted to measure just how different the Supreme Court is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland — who should be sitting in Justice Gorsuch’s seat but for the outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans — read the court’s Monday ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

The case involved claims by workers at three companies that their employers underpaid them. The companies’ employment contracts required their workers to pursue any pay disputes in arbitration rather than in a regular court, and to do so individually — which is prohibitively expensive for most workers.

Following a line of business-friendly decisions involving arbitration, the court ruled 5 to 4 for the employers and their bars against class actions even in arbitration. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by the four other conservatives.»

Denominare:

«outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans»

l’operato del Senato degli Stati Uniti, liberamente eletto in libere elezioni, condensa tutto l’ideologia liberal, rivoluzionaria, sovversiva, tirannica, di giacobina ascendenza. Sono una stirpe da estirpare.

*

Mr Trump sta ottenendo una serie impressionante di successi.

Anche i lavoratori derubati dai sindacati vanno a votare.

The Supreme Court Did Workers a Favor. [Bloomberg]

«On its surface, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, handed down Monday, looks like a significant defeat for workers. In ruling that companies can require employees to resolve contract disputes through arbitration, rather than class-action lawsuits, the Court limited the ability of workers to band together in court to pursue overtime and other statutory claims. Yet Epic Systems may well prove beneficial to workers, a qualified blessing in disguise.

Class actions enable lawyers to bring suits on behalf of large numbers of similarly situated claimants. The Epic Systems decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, rejects a 2010 attempt by the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency dealing with union organization and collective bargaining, to prohibit non-union employers from using so-called “class action waivers” in employment contracts»

*

The Supreme Court Sticks It to Workers, Again [The New York Times]

«If you wanted to measure just how different the Supreme Court is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland — who should be sitting in Justice Gorsuch’s seat but for the outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans — read the court’s Monday ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

The case involved claims by workers at three companies that their employers underpaid them. The companies’ employment contracts required their workers to pursue any pay disputes in arbitration rather than in a regular court, and to do so individually — which is prohibitively expensive for most workers.

Following a line of business-friendly decisions involving arbitration, the court ruled 5 to 4 for the employers and their bars against class actions even in arbitration. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by the four other conservatives.»

*

Supreme Court delivers blow to organized labor in fees dispute [Reuters]

«WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source. ….

The 5-4 ruling, with the conservative justices prevailing and the liberal justices dissenting, overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay these fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

“This case was nothing more than a blatant political attack to further rig our economy and democracy against everyday Americans in favor of the wealthy and powerful,” public-sector unions including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the union directly involved in the case, said in a statement.

Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop. Agency fees do not involve federal employees or private-sector workers.»

Trump. La Suprema Corte gli rende giustizia sulla immigrazione.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-26.

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America ha emesso sentenza Trump v. Hawaii (17-965).

«The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States; respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause.»

Questa sentenza pone la parola ‘fine‘ alla diatriba legale portata avanti dei giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito, che con argomenti ‘capziosi e faziosamente politici‘ si erano arrogati il diritto di bloccare la legittima opera legislativa del Presidente degli Stati Uniti.

* * * * * * *

«The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries»

*

«Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday»

*

«The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US»

*

«The court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration»

*

«The Supreme Court has been issuing a number of decisions this week, including a ruling against a California law that required clinics to inform women of the availability of abortions paid for by the state …. The Court ruled that the law violated the free speech rights of Christian facilities»

*

«The ruling has reversed the decision of a lower court that put the travel ban on hold»

* * * * * * * *

Nei paesi che si dicono essere democratici la maggioranza governa e la minoranza si adegua.

Se è vero che la maggioranza deve esercitare le sue mansioni nell’alveo costituzionale, sarebbe altrettanto vero come anche la minoranza debba attenersi alla legalità.

Quando la Suprema Corte sentenzia, l’unica cosa da fare e prenderne atto e rispettarne il dettame.

La ‘società civile‘ sono gli elettori che si sono espressi nelle urne, non gruppi privati che si ergono a rappresentare la volontà popolare. La democrazia si fonda sulle votazioni, non sui tumulti di piazza ove una minoranza ritanga lecito fare il diavolo a quattro per prevaricare la maggioranza.

Queste ngo, ong, possono far sentire la loro voce in campagna elettorale ed infine contarsi nelle urne. Ma le elezioni presidenziali del 2016 hanno evidenziato che erano minoranza: vincano le elezioni, e quindi comandino, se ne abbiano i numeri.

Dobbiamo purtroppo constatare come i liberal democratici abbiano assorbito pienamente i dettami totalitari e rivoluzionari insiti nelle teorie socialista, comunista e nazionalsocialista.

Se in maggioranza, esercitano il potere con rara superbia ed arroganza, se in minoranza cercano di ribaltare il governo legalmente costituito con sommovimenti di piazza, che i media loro collegati magnificano quasi fossero atti eroici e di giustizia.

Ma ciò che più li rende repellenti è l’uso sofistico, strumentale, della giustizia quando siedono quali giudici in tribunale.

Se dal punto di vista giuridico uno studente del primo anno del corso di laurea in giurisprudenza avrebbe subito risposto che l’operato del Presidente Trump era perfettamente legale, in accordo ai dettami costituzionali, i loro giudici delle corti inferiori, specialmente quelle del Nono Circuito, hanno ‘interpretato‘ la Costituzione ed i relativi Emendamenti utilizzando tutti gli strumenti logici a suo tempo usati da Andrej Januar’evič Vyšinskij durante il terrore staliniano oppure da Franz Schlegelberger.

*

Troviamo disdicevole che una testata come la Bbc, nel dare la notizia, dia ampio risalto alle posizioni illiberali delle ngo: le sentenze di una Corte Costituzionale dovrebbero meritare rispetto.

Se è lecito non condividerle, non lo è l’avversarle, né tanto meno riportarle in modo distorto.

Poi non ci si stupisca che gli Elettori in America ed in Europa abbiano voltato le spalle ai liberal: questa genia è costituzionalmente menzognera.

---

→ Bbc. 2018-06-26. US Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday.

The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

The court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.

But the travel ban has been widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority”.

The Supreme Court has been issuing a number of decisions this week, including a ruling against a California law that required clinics to inform women of the availability of abortions paid for by the state.

The Court ruled that the law violated the free speech rights of Christian facilities.

What does this ruling mean?

The ruling has reversed the decision of a lower court that put the travel ban on hold.

The current version of the ban prevents most immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – as well as North Korea and Venezuela from entering the US. The ban also states:

– North Korean and Syrian nationals are barred from the US unless they receive a waiver

– People from Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Yemen with certain non-immigrant visas will be allowed

– Waivers are permitted if applicants demonstrate that a denial of entry would cause “undue hardship”, would not pose a national security threat, and that their entry is in “national interest”

– Lawful permanent residents of the US are not affected

– Dual citizens or those already undergoing the visa process are also not affected

The Supreme Court’s decision also cements the fact that such a ban is within the president’s authority to put in place – and the dissenting opinions do not contradict this.

Third time’s a charm

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News – at the scene

Despite the controversial nature of Donald Trump’s travel ban, there were more abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning than immigration protesters.

Perhaps it’s because abortion has been a contentious legal battle for decades, while the president’s travel directive had been in effect, and out of the headlines, for months.

Attention in recent weeks has been on migrants coming across the southern US border, not visitors and prospective residents from countries like Libya, Iran, Yemen and Syria.

Nevertheless, this marks a significant victory for Mr Trump – and for presidential power to set immigration policy in general – albeit by the narrowest of margins.

The five court justices said they took the president’s order on its face, and separated it from his more bombastic anti-Muslim comments made on the presidential campaign trail and via Twitter.

The travel ban was implemented haphazardly at the start of the Trump administration and faced repeated setbacks from the US legal system. In the end, however, the president got his way – or at least enough of his way to claim success.

The third time turned out to be the charm.

What’s the reaction?

Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision, President Donald Trump shared the news from his Twitter account.

In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she states that the Court has failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns.”

The dissent also states that “a reasonably observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus”.

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrant Rights Project said in a statement that the ruling was one of the Court’s “great failures”.

“The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking action to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”

What’s the context?

The administration says that the countries on the ban “remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory”.

Mr Trump’s ban has seen several iterations. Iraq and Chad were banned in previous versions, but have since been removed.

Iraq was removed for having “a close co-operative relationship with the US” and Chad for having “sufficiently improved its practices”.

The state of Hawaii had challenged the ban and a federal judge blocked its implementation.

For months, the question has been whether Mr Trump’s campaign promise for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” was a motive for the ban.

The administration said that the ban was the result of carefully considering national security interests.

 

Trump, Fbi, Corney ed Hillary Clinton. Punto di vista cinese. – China Org.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-19.

«China.org.cn
China Internet Information Center

China.org.cn offers broad access to up-to-date news about China, with searchable texts of government position papers and a wealth of basic information about Chinese history, politics, economics and culture.

The authorized government portal site to China, China.org.cn is published under the auspices of the State Council Information Office and the China International Publishing Group (CIPG) in Beijing.»

* * *

«Errors found in handling of Clinton email probe»

*

«Ex-FBI Director James Comey deviated from norms of the agency and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in handling the probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server»

*

«Comey’s decisions during the 2016 U.S. presidential election race were not driven by political bias to help either side»

*

«report found that Comey was insubordinate when making some key decisions with regard to the probe of Clinton’s email use while she was secretary of state, including his public announcement in July 2016 that there would be no charges against Clinton»

*

«The former FBI chief was accused of violating DOJ policy by revealing days before the election that the agency was examining new materials possible relevant to the Clinton probe»

*

«Comey tweeted that he respects the Inspector General’s office and the “conclusions are reasonable”»

* * * * * * *

Come da consolidata abitudine, China Org usa parole misurate e pacate, riportando i fatti senza commento alcuno.

Ma il fatto stesso che abbia riportato la notizia nella finestra destra ed il titolo come articolo di spalla rende bene l’idea dell’importanza annessa alla notiza.

---

→ China Org. 2018-06-15. Errors found in handling of Clinton email probe

Ex-FBI Director James Comey deviated from norms of the agency and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in handling the probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server, according to an internal report released on Thursday.

The report, conducted by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, also concluded that Comey’s decisions during the 2016 U.S. presidential election race were not driven by political bias to help either side.

The highly-anticipated report found that Comey was insubordinate when making some key decisions with regard to the probe of Clinton’s email use while she was secretary of state, including his public announcement in July 2016 that there would be no charges against Clinton.

The former FBI chief was accused of violating DOJ policy by revealing days before the election that the agency was examining new materials possible relevant to the Clinton probe, a decision that, as Clinton has argued, contributed to her loss in the race.

In addition, the report was highly critical of two FBI staff members who exchanged highly charged political messages, finding that their texts created the appearance of bias and cast cloud over the FBI.

“While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department,” the report read.

In response to the report, Comey tweeted that he respects the Inspector General’s office and the “conclusions are reasonable,” even though he disagreed with some of them. He said that “people of good faith” can see the “unprecedented situation differently.”

Comey was fired by President Donald Trump in May 2017, which led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into whether the president obstructed justice in the Russia probe, among other things.

Trump has repeatedly criticized Comey for his handling of the Clinton probe and also targeted the FBI and the DOJ, which analysts say were intended to undermine the Mueller probe.

At the White House briefing Thursday, press secretary Sarah Sanders said the report is reaffirming Trump’s suspicions about the “political bias among some of the members of the FBI.”

Trump. Statement by the President Regarding Trade with China. – White House

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-16.

«My great friendship with President Xi of China and our country’s relationship with China are both very important to me»

*

«Trade between our nations, however, has been very unfair, for a very long time»

*

«This situation is no longer sustainable»

*

«China has, for example, long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology.  These practices, documented in an extensive report published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on March 22, 2018, harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China.»

*

«In light of China’s theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices, the United States will implement a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies.»

*

«This includes goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries»

*

«The United States can no longer tolerate losing our technology and intellectual property through unfair economic practices.»

*

Sicuramente un provvedimento che lascerà il segno.

---

→ White House. 2018-06-15. Statement by the President Regarding Trade with China

My great friendship with President Xi of China and our country’s relationship with China are both very important to me.  Trade between our nations, however, has been very unfair, for a very long time.  This situation is no longer sustainable.  China has, for example, long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology.  These practices, documented in an extensive report published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on March 22, 2018, harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China.

In light of China’s theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices, the United States will implement a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies.  This includes goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries.  The United States can no longer tolerate losing our technology and intellectual property through unfair economic practices.

These tariffs are essential to preventing further unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China, which will protect American jobs.  In addition, they will serve as an initial step toward bringing balance to the trade relationship between the United States and China.

The United States will pursue additional tariffs if China engages in retaliatory measures, such as imposing new tariffs on United States goods, services, or agricultural products; raising non-tariff barriers; or taking punitive actions against American exporters or American companies operating in China.

---

---

---

---