Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Persona Umana, Stati Uniti

Midterm. Si preannuncia una lotta serrata. Qui alcune competizioni critiche.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-01-18.

Elezioni 001

«The 2022 midterm elections are fast approaching and could be a major test of both voter approval of President Joe Biden and the strength of former President Donald Trump’s influence within the Republican party»

«Republicans are looking to regain control of both the Senate and the House in 2022 as Democrats try to preserve and build on a razor-thin majority»

«here are some key races to watch in 2022»

* * * * * * *


The midterms are coming. Here are some key races to watch.

The 2022 midterm elections are fast approaching and could be a major test of both voter approval of President Joe Biden and the strength of former President Donald Trump’s influence within the Republican party.

Republicans are looking to regain control of both the Senate and the House in 2022 as Democrats try to preserve and build on a razor-thin majority.

While many swing states are still working to finalize their congressional districts, here are some key races to watch in 2022:

                         Pennsylvania Senate race

With Republican Sen. Pat Toomey not seeking reelection, Pennsylvania is one state Democrats are hoping to pick up in 2022. Rep. Conor Lamb, a moderate, is facing Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and progressive state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta in the Democratic primary. In late November, Dr. Mehmet Oz announced his candidacy, joining a crowded Republican primary field.

                         Ohio Senate race

With the retirement of Republican Sen. Rob Portman, former presidential candidate Rep. Tim Ryan is looking to pick up this seat for Democrats. In the GOP primary, Ohio treasurer Josh Mandel — considered the front-runner — faces “Hillbilly Elegy” author JD Vance, who was once a vocal critic of Trump but is now running on an anti-elitism message that embraces Trumpism.

                         North Carolina Senate race

Republicans are hoping to hold the seat of retiring Sen. Richard Burr. In the Republican primary, Trump has thrown his support behind Rep. Ted Budd, who faces a tough battle against former Rep. Mark Walker and former Gov. Pat McCrory. Democratic state Sen. Jeff Jackson suspended his campaign in mid-December and threw his support behind former state Supreme Court Justice Chari Beasley, who is the leading Democrat and could become the only Black woman in the Senate and the first ever to represent North Carolina.

                         Georgia Senate race

Only two years after being elected as the first Black Senator from Georgia and delivering Democrats control of the Senate in 2020, Sen. Raphael Warnock is back in the national spotlight defending his seat. On the GOP side, former football star Herschel Walker is seen as the front-runner to challenge Warnock and has Trump’s endorsement. But Walker’s lack of political experience and a troubled history has some Republicans worried.

                         Arizona Senate race

Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly is running for reelection after winning a special election in 2020, giving Arizona two Democrats in the Senate for the first time in over 50 years. Arizona has moved into solidly purple territory and a crowded Republican primary field has lined up in an attempt to unseat Kelly. Current Attorney General Mark Brnovich is in the running, as is Blake Masters, who has backing from prominent Silicon Valley executive Peter Thiel and businessman Jim Lamon. The 2020 election is playing a central role in the wake of Arizona’s so-called “audit” and Trump’s lies that the election in the state was stolen. The former president has yet to endorse in the race.

                         Wisconsin Senate race

Incumbent Republican Sen. Ron Johnson still has not announced whether he will run for reelection in Wisconsin, which Biden flipped with a roughly 20,000-vote lead over Trump in 2020. Current Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes is the top Democrat in the race and has netted endorsements from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and House Majority Whip James Clyburn. Johnson has received pushback on some of his responses to the pandemic, including frequent anti-vaccine rhetoric.

                         Alaska Senate race

After incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted to convict Trump on charges of inciting an insurrection, state official Kelly Tshibaka jumped into the all-party primary to unseat her. Tshibaka netted an early endorsement from the former president and has mirrored his attacks on Murkowski and others in Washington throughout her campaign. She recently said she would not support Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to lead the GOP — whether or not the party controls the Senate — joining a small group of far-right Republican hopefuls who have said the same.

                         Georgia governor race

It feels like 2018 all over again, with a possible rematch between Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams and Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for his seat in Georgia. It’s been nearly four years since Kemp narrowly defeated Abrams, pushing her to mobilize voters and fight voter suppression. However, Kemp has to get through a tough primary in which he is facing off against former Republican Sen. David Perdue, who lost his Senate seat in 2020. Perdue has secured Trump’s endorsement and is echoing the former president’s false claim of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

                         Michigan governor race

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is pursuing a reelection bid after Biden flipped the state in 2020. Whitmer has received national recognition for her handling of the coronavirus pandemic and became a prominent figure before the 2020 election during Biden’s hunt for a running mate. She was subject to a kidnapping plot in late 2020 after an extremist group in the state became angry with her over coronavirus restrictions. Former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who was once a Democrat, is a top contender in the crowded Republican primary.

                         Wyoming House race

Rep. Liz Cheney has a target on her back this midterm election cycle. As one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 for inciting an insurrection, she was censured by the Wyoming GOP, and many Republicans are looking to kick her out of office. Trump has gotten involved in Wyoming’s lone House race by throwing his endorsement behind Cheney’s primary challenger, Harriet Hageman.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

US. Midterm. Rinunce alla candidatura. I topi abbandonano la nave. I rinunciatari.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-01-01.

Topi abbandonano la nave 001

Quando i topi abbandonano la nave non è mai un buon segno.

Ecco un primo elenco di congressisti e senatori che hanno annunciato di non volersi ricandidare alle elezioni di mezzo termine. Un minimo numero di rinunce è del tutto fisiologico, ma qui stiamo assistendo ad un esodo.

Questo elenco, e gli stati ove sono avvenute le rinunce, sono robusti indicatori di come stiano andando le cose.

* * * * * * *


                         2022 House Retirements.

District                 Incumbent           Party     Since      Term     Margin of Victory

                                                                                              House(a) President(b)

AL-5                      Mo Brooks                           2011      6th          *              27.0%

                               Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

AZ-2                      Ann Kirkpatrick                  2019      2nd         10.2%    10.6%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

CA-14                   Jackie Speier                        2008      8th          58.6%    57.2%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

CA-37                   Karen Bass                          2011      6th          71.8%    70.5%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for Los Angeles Mayor

FL-10                    Val Demings                        2017      3rd          27.2%    25.0%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

FL-13                    Charlie Crist                         2017      3rd          6.0%      4.1%                                                                                                    Retiring to run for Governor

GA-10                   Jody Hice                             2015      4th          24.6%    20.4%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for Secretary of State

IL-16                     Adam Kinzinger                  2011      6th          29.4%    16.0%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

IL-17                     Cheri Bustos                        2013      5th          4.0%      1.6%                                                                                                    Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

KY-3                      John Yarmuth                     2007      8th          25.3%    21.9%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

MD-4                     Anthony Brown                  2017      3rd          59.3%    59.9%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for Attorney General

MO-4                     Vicky Hartzler                     2011      6th          37.9%    34.1%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

MO-7                     Billy Long                            2011      6th          42.3%    41.9%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

NC-1                      G. K. Butterfield                  2004      10th       8.3%      8.6%                                                                                                   Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

NC-4                      David Price                          1997      13th       34.6%    34.4%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

NC-13                   Ted Budd                             2017      3rd          36.3%    35.3%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

NY-1                      Lee Zeldin                            2015      4th          9.7%      4.2%                                                                                                    Retiring to run for Governor

NY-3                      Thomas Suozzi                   2017      3rd          12.5%    10.4%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for Governor

NY-23                   Tom Reed                            2010      7th          16.5%    11.2%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

OH-13                   Tim Ryan                             2003      10th       7.5%      3.4%                                                                                                    Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

OH-16                   Anthony Gonzalez             2019      2nd         26.3%    14.3%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

OR-4                      Peter DeFazio                      1987      18th       5.3%      4.0%                                                                                                    Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

PA-17                    Conor Lamb                        2018      3rd          2.2%      2.7%                                                                                                    Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

PA-18                    Michael Doyle                     1995      14th       38.6%    30.1%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

TX-1                      Louie Gohmert                    2005      9th          45.1%    44.4%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for Attorney General

TX-8                      Kevin Brady                        1997      13th       47.0%    42.5%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

TX-30                    Eddie Johnson                     1993      15th       59.0%    60.9%                                                                                                  Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

TX-34                    Filemon Vela                       2013      5th          13.5%    4.0%                                                                                                    Incumbent not running for re-election in 2022.

VT-AL                   Peter Welch                          2007      8th          40.2%    35.6%                                                                                                  Retiring to run for U.S. Senate

WI-3                      Ron Kind                              1997      13th       2.6%      4.7%     

 
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Usa. Midterm. Nei sondaggi i Repubblicani superano i Democratici per 13 punti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-11-24.

Giulio Romano. Palazzo Gonzaga. Sala dei giganti. 004

«Voters now favor GOP by 13 points for House, Senate»

«With the midterms elections now less than a year away, Republicans have a double-digit lead in their bid to recapture control of Congress»

«→→ if the elections for Congress were held today, 51% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican candidate, while 38% would vote for the Democrat ←»

«In January 2018, before voters handed Democrats their first House majority in eight years, Democrats held an eight-point advantage (45% to 37%) in the generic ballot question»

«The 13-point edge for Republicans in the latest poll is larger than Democrats enjoyed at any time during the 2018 midterm campaign»

«While 89% of Republican voters say they would vote for their own party’s candidate, only 77% of Democrats would vote for the Democratic candidate»

«Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% would vote Republican and 26% would vote Democrats»

«Fifty-six percent (56%) of whites, 30% of black voters and 47% of other minorities would vote Republican if the election were held today»

«Voters under 40 favor Democrats by a margin of 49% to 40%, but majorities of older voters – 56% of those ages 40-64 and 57% of those 65 and older – would vote Republican»

«The sagging popularity of President Joe Biden has political consequences, as more than half of voters say they would vote against Biden-endorsed candidates in their state»

* * * * * * *

Virtualmente tutti i sondaggi sull’esito di midterm sono concordi nel ritenere che il partito repubblicano abbia ottime possibilità di aggiudicarsi sia il Congresso sia il Senato. Ricordiamo però che a midterm manca ancora un anno.

Joe Biden è il migliore alleato di Mr Trump, ma anche l’inflazione è fattore di massimo pungolo. La gente è sempre più inferocita.

* * * * * * *


Generic Congressional Ballot. Voters Now Favor GOP By 13 Points for House, Senate.

With the midterms elections now less than a year away, Republicans have a double-digit lead in their bid to recapture control of Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the elections for Congress were held today, 51% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican candidate, while 38% would vote for the Democrat. Just three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate, but another eight percent (8%) are not sure.

In January 2018, before voters handed Democrats their first House majority in eight years, Democrats held an eight-point advantage (45% to 37%) in the generic ballot question. That margin narrowed as the November 2018 midterms neared, and was a statistical dead heat – Republicans 46%, Democrats 45% – in the final poll before Democrats won a slim House majority while Republicans maintained control of the Senate.

The 13-point edge for Republicans in the latest poll is larger than Democrats enjoyed at any time during the 2018 midterm campaign, due both to greater GOP partisan intensity and a wide advantage among independents. While 89% of Republican voters say they would vote for their own party’s candidate, only 77% of Democrats would vote for the Democratic candidate. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% would vote Republican and 26% would vote Democrats, with another 17% undecided.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 2,500 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on November 8-11, 2021 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of whites, 30% of black voters and 47% of other minorities would vote Republican if the election were held today. Sixty-three percent (63%) of black voters, 33% of whites and 38% of other minorities would vote Democrat.

Slightly more women voters than men favor Republican control of Congress.

Voters under 40 favor Democrats by a margin of 49% to 40%, but majorities of older voters – 56% of those ages 40-64 and 57% of those 65 and older – would vote Republican.

Breaking down the electorate by income brackets, Republicans enjoy their largest advantage – 55% to 37% – among voters earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year.

The Republican advantage is smaller among voters who attended college, and Democrats have a narrow edge – 46% to 44% – among those with postgraduate degrees.

Entrepreneurs and retirees strongly favor the GOP, and most private sector workers would vote Republican, while government employees slightly favor Democrats.

Voters increasingly distrust reporting about politics, and most think the media are less aggressive in questioning President Joe Biden than they were with former President Donald Trump.

The sagging popularity of President Joe Biden has political consequences, as more than half of voters say they would vote against Biden-endorsed candidates in their state. An endorsement by former President Donald Trump would be more valuable, particularly with independent voters.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Persona Umana, Stati Uniti

Usa. Il senato bloccherà la legge sull’aborto, richiedendo il voto con soglia 60 per cento.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-09-08.

Biden 001

Torniamo a malincuore sul problema dell’aborto, che adesso è materia di acerrima lotta politica.

Esso infatti è parte integrante dell’ideologia liberal, ed i democratici ne fanno bandiera di combattimento.

Combattere l’aborto significa combattere i liberal.

Precisiamo subito un aspetto lessicologico, su cui i democratici giocano ambiguamente.

Il famoso provvedimento Roe v, Wand sentenzia che in quella particolare situazione l’aborto non trovava contrasto nella Costituzione.

Travisandone i termini, mentendo, i liberal democratici sostengono invece che l’aborto sia un ‘diritto costituzionale’, cosa che non è. Non è un «constitutional rights».

A riprova, se esistesse un ‘diritto costituzionale’ all’aborto, la Suprema Corte avrebbe immediatamente annullato questi provvedimenti statali che lo regolamentano.

Pollo allo Spiedo 001

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Senate’s filibuster rule likely imperils a bill intended to protect abortion rights that Democrats are readying following the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a strict new Texas ban»

«the chamber’s rule requiring 60 of its 100 members to agree on most legislation»

«The nation’s 6-3 conservative top court this week allowed Texas’ six-week abortion ban to go into effect»

«That decision led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to declare that the Democratic-controlled chamber will soon debate and vote on legislation aimed at stopping similar state anti-abortion regulations»

«that bill faces little to no chance of passing the Senate»

«Non credo che una regola arcaica dovrebbe essere usata per permetterci di mettere la testa sotto la sabbia … e non agire su queste questioni importanti … Non andremo da nessuna parte se manteniamo questo ostruzionismo»

«Progressive Democrats have repeatedly over the past year suggested doing away with the filibuster to allow other Democratic priorities to pass, including a voting rights bill intended to counteract a wave of new voting restrictions passed by Republican-governed states»

* * * * * * *

Usa. Corte Suprema rifiuta di bloccare la legge del Texas che limita l’aborto.

Texas. Corte di Appello federale approva la nuova legge sull’aborto.

Usa. Suprema Corte ammette il Mississippi sulle restrizioni all’aborto.

Usa. Corte Suprema. Rivaluterà la sentenza Roe v. Wade sull’aborto.

America dissennata. I Dem antepongono l’aborto alla cura dell’epidemia.

Stati Uniti. Suprema Corte. Schedulate per febbraio le cause sull’aborto.

Alabama. Aborto. Se crollasse quel mito crollerebbero i liberal democratici.

* * * * * * *

E così la Harris-Biden Administration e la Nancy Pelosi possono dire e fare ciò che vogliono, che tanto il Senato non approverà quanto da loro disposto.

Si stanno rodendo il fegato di rabbia ed odio impotente, incapaci, nella loro nullità politica, di proporre un accordo politico. Stanno lentamente capendo che hanno perso anche questa battaglia. E, se si occupassero di più della economia, non sarebbe poi un male, dato che gli Stati Uniti sono adesso in stagflazione, e se la terranno per un bel pezzo.

*


Filibuster imperils Pelosi’s abortion bill in U.S. Senate – Klobuchar

Washington, Sept 5 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate’s filibuster rule likely imperils a bill intended to protect abortion rights that Democrats are readying following the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a strict new Texas ban, a leading Democratic senator said on Sunday.

Senator Amy Klobuchar told CNN’s “State of the Union” that some Senate Republicans support abortion rights but not enough to overcome the chamber’s rule requiring 60 of its 100 members to agree on most legislation.

The nation’s 6-3 conservative top court this week allowed Texas’ six-week abortion ban to go into effect, which observers said showed the justices may be ready to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a national right to abortion.

That decision led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to declare that the Democratic-controlled chamber will soon debate and vote on legislation aimed at stopping similar state anti-abortion regulations. But Klobuchar said that bill faces little to no chance of passing the Senate.

“My solution to this … I believe we should abolish the filibuster,” Klobuchar, chair of the Senate Rules Committee, told CNN. “I do not believe an archaic rule should be used to allow us to put our heads in the sand … and not take action on these important issues … We just will get nowhere if we keep this filibuster in place.”

Progressive Democrats have repeatedly over the past year suggested doing away with the filibuster to allow other Democratic priorities to pass, including a voting rights bill intended to counteract a wave of new voting restrictions passed by Republican-governed states.

Senate moderates, including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, have rejected that idea, however.

Klobuchar said one way to discourage the frequency of filibusters would be to make senators who object to ending debate actually stay on the floor debating. This “talking filibuster” was the tradition until the 1970s.

She said another approach would be a “carveout” that would only change the filibuster for legislation directly tied to one subject, such as abortion rights.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Texas. Elezioni suppletive senato. Vittoria repubblicana dopo 139 anni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-20.

Texas 001

Si sono svolte ieri le elezioni suppletive senato nel diciannovesimo distretto, vinte con il 52.99% dei consensi dal sen. Pete Flores, repubblicano.

Premettiamo immediatamente come i risultati di elezioni in un singolo collegio, per di più statale, non federale, dipendano molto dalle condizioni locali e dalla personalità dei candidati. Il tentativo di generalizzare a tutti gli Stati Uniti sarebbe destituito di buon senso.

Tuttavia questo caso ha una particolarità degna di nota.


Huge Upset for GOP in Texas: State Senate Seat Flips Red for First Time in 139 Years

«In a major upset Tuesday night, voters elected a conservative political newcomer to the Texas Senate, flipping a Democratic district red for the first time in 139 years.

Retired game warden Pete Flores defeated former state and U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego in the runoff election for the Senate District 19 seat in San Antonio, further increasing the Republicans’ supermajority in the chamber ahead of the November elections. Flores will replace Democrat state Sen. Carlos Uresti, who was forced to step down in June after being sentenced to 12 years in prison on federal fraud and money laundering charges.

This seat wasn’t supposed to be competitive. It went 54-42 for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and 55-44 for Barack Obama in 2012.»

* * *


How Texas Democrats lost a state Senate seat amid talk of a blue wave

«Republican Pete Flores defeated Democrat Pete Gallego on Tuesday in a state Senate district that Hillary Clinton won by 12 points, prompting Democratic soul-searching less than two months before the midterms.

Republican Pete Flores’ upset victory in a Democratic-friendly Texas Senate district Tuesday night has spurred GOP jubilation and Democratic soul-searching with less than two months until the November elections.

“All this talk about a ‘blue wave’? Well, the tide is out,” Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proclaimed at Flores’ election night party in San Antonio.

Flores beat Democrat Pete Gallego, a former U.S. representative, by 6 percentage points in the special election runoff for Senate District 19, where state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, resigned earlier this year after 11 felony convictions. The win made Flores the first Hispanic Republican in the Texas Senate and grew the GOP majority there to 21 members, a key addition as the caucus heads toward November looking to retain its supermajority.

Democrats moved quickly Tuesday night to blame Gov. Greg Abbott for scheduling the special election at a time when turnout was expected to be low and would favor his party. But they were nonetheless demoralized Wednesday, trying to figure out how they let a valuable seat flip in a district where Uresti repeatedly won re-election by double digits and that Hillary Clinton carried by 12 in 2016.»

* * * * * * *

Per i media è certo che la Marea Blu travolgerà Trump a midterm.

Ripetiamo esclusivamente per chiarezza.

Nessuna intenzione di generalizzare, ma i repubblicani sono riusciti a scalzare da questo distretto i democratici, che da 139 anni vi facevano eleggere un loro aderente. Un distretto ove Mrs Clinton aveva vinto nel 2016 54 – 42.

Alla fine dei conti, ciò che importa sono i risultati delle urne.

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Senato conferma Pompeo Segretario di Stato 57 – 42.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-26.

Washington. White House. 001

«The Senate narrowly confirmed CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be secretary of State on Thursday, overcoming steep opposition to his nomination »

*

«Senators voted 57-42, just over the simple majority needed for approval by the chamber»

*

«Pompeo’s confirmation was a virtual lock after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reversed his position and said he would support Trump’s pick»

*

«But Pompeo’s nomination faced historic opposition from Democrats, sparking an unusually partisan confirmation fight for a secretary of State nomination»

*

«Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Bill Nelson. (Fla.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) — who are each up for reelection in states won by Trump in 2016 — joined with Democratic Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) to support his nomination»

* * * * * * *

Una nomina lampo, tenendo conto di quanto accurato sia il Senato nel valutare i Segretari di Stato proposti dal Presidente.

Un evento non proprio favorevole ai lib dem.


The Hill. 2018-04-26. Senate confirms Pompeo to be new secretary of State

The Senate narrowly confirmed CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be secretary of State on Thursday, overcoming steep opposition to his nomination.

Senators voted 57-42, just over the simple majority needed for approval by the chamber.

Pompeo’s confirmation was a virtual lock after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reversed his position and said he would support Trump’s pick.

The announcement came amid an intense pressure campaign by the White House and spared Pompeo the dubious distinction of being the first secretary of State nominee since at least 1925 to fail to win over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“After calling continuously for weeks for Director Pompeo to support President Trump’s belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that it is time to leave Afghanistan, today I received confirmation that Director Pompeo agrees with President Trump,” Rand said explaining his decision.

But Pompeo’s nomination faced historic opposition from Democrats, sparking an unusually partisan confirmation fight for a secretary of State nomination.

Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Bill Nelson. (Fla.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) — who are each up for reelection in states won by Trump in 2016 — joined with Democratic Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) to support his nomination. 

“In his role at the CIA, Mr. Pompeo has demonstrated the ability to be an effective manager and operator on the world stage,” Jones said in a statement explaining his decision to back Pompeo.

But that’s substantially less than the 14 Democrats plus King, who caucuses with the Democrats, who supported Pompeo last year to be CIA director.

Pompeo is poised to come close to a record on opposition votes received by a secretary of State nominee. That record is currently held by Trump’s first secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, who was confirmed 56-43 last year.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who supported Pompeo to be CIA director, said this week that he would oppose him, in part, because of the investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election.

Schumer told reporters that he asked Pompeo if he would publicly urge Trump not to fire special counsel Robert Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but Pompeo “demurred.”

Pompeo, according to Schumer, also refused to walk back some of Trump’s “nasty comments” about American Muslims or individuals from South Asia.

“I am voting ‘no’ for those reasons, and I think people have good reasons to vote ‘no’ for Secretary Pompeo, both on the foreign policy sphere, and in these areas,” Schumer added

Pompeo’s confirmation was a setback for liberals, who wanted to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to try to discharge Pompeo’s nomination from the committee. The unusual move would have required 60 votes and given Democrats an opening to try block Pompeo — the first time they would have been able to scuttle a Trump nominee on the Senate floor. 

But that strategy failed to take hold as vulnerable Democrats began coming out in support of Pompeo’s nomination.

Red-state Democrats faced intense pressure from both sides, with progressive groups urging them to block Trump’s “war cabinet” and conservatives arguing opposition was a sign they were too liberal for their home states.

“So, what are red state Dems to do? Placate the base to pass the liberal Kamala Harris litmus test? Or vote to confirm Pompeo? Either way red state Dems are left in a no-win situation,” Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), said ahead of the vote.

Democratic Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) were among the red and purple state senators who opposed Pompeo. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who isn’t up for reelection but supported Pompeo to be CIA director, announced his opposition moments before the vote.

With Paul’s reversal, Pompeo technically didn’t need help from Democrats. With Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) away from Washington, he still could have gotten a 50-49 vote if every Democrat had ultimately decided to oppose him.

But Republicans lashed out at Democrats throughout the week. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the chairman of the NRSC, accused Democrats of “procedural sabotage.”

McConnell on Thursday called the Democratic tactics a failed attempt to “play politics.”

“It’s just too bad Director Pompeo’s confirmation process has offered such a prime example of the historic partisan obstruction that my colleagues across the aisle are visiting on the Senate,” he said.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Congresso Usa. Uranium One avrebbe pagato Hillary Clinton. E molto bene.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-02-09.

Galeotti 001

Nota.

Ricordiamo come per Costituzione gli Stati Uniti siano governati da un Presidente, da una Camera dei Rappresentanti (House, Congress) e da un Senato, tutti elettivi a suffragio universale.

Il Democratic National Committee (DNC) è l’organo direzionale del Partito Democratico: è entità di diritto privato, non di diritto pubblico.

Mentre le dichiarazioni del Presidente e le delibere del Congresso e del Senato sono dichiarazioni/leggi degli Stati Uniti di America, quelle del Democratic National Committee sono solamente espressioni di opinioni politiche di parte espresse da organo non elettivo.


Riportiamo dal sito Congress.gov il testo della risoluzione H. Res. 477.

«Introduced in House (07/26/2017)

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that a special counsel should be appointed by the Department of Justice to investigate:

– then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Comey to refer to the investigation into the handling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a matter, rather than a criminal investigation;

– Comey’s leaks to Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman regarding conversations between Lynch and President Trump and how the leaked information was released to lead to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller;

– the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others by the FBI during the criminal investigation into Clinton’s conduct;

– Comey’s decision to usurp Lynch’s authority in announcing that criminal charges would not be brought against Clinton regarding her use of a private email server and handling of classified information;

– Comey’s knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte conversation between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport on a private jet;

– Comey’s knowledge of the company Fusion GPS and its creation of a dossier on Donald Trump;

– any potential leaks by Comey to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993;

– Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of a majority stake in Uranium One by Rosatom;

– Comey’s refusal to investigate Hillary Clinton regarding selling access to the Department of State through Clinton Foundation donations, Huma Abedin’s dual employment at such entities simultaneously, or utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband;

– any collusion between Comey and Robert Mueller;

– whether Comey had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump, to assess Comey’s knowledge about the unmasking of individuals on Donald Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both, to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of such individuals, or to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individuals serving on the staff of Donald Trump; and

– whether Comey had any knowledge of the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies and of any attempts to use surveillance of Donald Trump to damage the credibility of his campaign, presidency, or both.»

Iniziava a comparire sulla documentazione ufficiale del Congresso degli Stati Uniti il nome della Uranium One.

«Uranium One is a Canadian uranium mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013 Rosatom, the Russian state-owned uranium monopoly, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased the company at a value of $1.3 billion. The purchase of the company by Russian interests is, as of October 2017, under investigation by the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. ….

In October 2013, Uranium One Inc. became a private company and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Rosatom. From 2012 to 2014, an unspecified amount of Uranium was reportedly exported to Canada via a Kentucky-based trucking firm with an existing export license; most of the processed uranium was returned to the U.S., with approximately 25% going to Western Europe and Japan. ….

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition of Uranium One by Rosatom was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee of nine government agencies including the United States Department of State, which was then headed by Hillary Clinton. The voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.

In April 2015, The New York Times wrote that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One’s chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were legal but not publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, despite an agreement with the White House to disclose all contributors. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced. Several members of Clinton’s State Department staff and officials from the Obama-era Department of Justice have said that CFIUS reviews are handled by civil servants and that it would be unlikely that Clinton would have had more than nominal involvement in her department’s signing off on the acquisition. ….

In October 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift a “gag order” it had placed on a former FBI informant involved the investigation. The DOJ released the informant from his nondisclosure agreement on October 25, 2017, authorizing him to provide the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market” involving Rosatom, its subsidiaries Tenex and Uranium One, and the Clinton Foundation. The informant’s laywer said that the informant “can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made”. During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were “baloney”.

In November 2017, Shepard Smith of Fox News has described President Trump’s accusations against Clinton regarding Uranium One “inaccurate in a number of ways”. Smith said that the sale of Uranium One was “not a Hillary Clinton approval” but instead a unanimous decision by the nine cabinet-level department heads of CFIUS, approved by the president and with permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Smith added that “most of the Clinton Foundation donations” came from Frank Giustra, who said he “sold his stake in the company” three years before it was sold to Russia. Lastly, Smith noted that “none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia”.

On November 16, 2017, William D. Campbell identified himself as the FBI informant. He is a former lobbyist for Tenex, the US-based arm of Russia’s Rosatom.» [Fonte]

*

Adesso Mr Campbell ha testimoniato davanti al Congresso degli Stati Uniti.

Sicuramente potrebbe avere mentito: nel qual caso si aprirebbe per lui una condanna di carcere a vita.

«I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil»

*

«An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in a written statement that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton’s charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.»

*

«The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton.»

*

«Campbell added in the testimony that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.”»

*

«“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”»

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Si configurerebbe un reato di alto tradimento.


Fox News. 2018-02-08. Uranium One informant says Moscow paid millions in bid to influence Clinton

An FBI informant involved in the controversial Uranium One deal has told congressional committees that Moscow paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in a bid to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration.

The Hill first reported late Wednesday that informant Douglas Campbell gave a 10-page statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by committee staff.

In the statement, obtained by Fox News, Campbell said Russian executives told him that Moscow was hiring APCO Worldwide in an effort to influence the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.”

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.” 

In a statement to Fox News, though, APCO called Campbell’s assertion “false and unfounded.” 

“APCO Worldwide undertook client work on behalf of Tenex in 2010 and 2011. It undertook work for the Clinton Global Initiative from 2008-2016,” APCO told Fox News. “These projects were totally separate and unconnected in any way. All APCO’s actions on these two unconnected activities were publicly documented from the outset, legally proper and entirely ethical. Any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.” 

Uranium One is a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The U.S. government was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part of the U.S. uranium supply. The transaction has faced renewed scrutiny after The Hill reported last year that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S., related to a subsidiary of the same Russian firm.

Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to know how the deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee. 

The Campbell statement also described an earlier meeting with Russian officials outside Washington where they “boasted about how weak the U.S. government was in giving away uranium business,” and referred to then-President Barack Obama “with racial epithets.” 

Campbell’s attorney Victoria Toensing said her client has reported a “strategic plan” by Russian President Vladimir Putin to “take over the uranium industry.”

“[The Russians] were so confident that they told Mr. Campbell with the Clinton’s help, it was a shoo-in to get CFIUS [The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] approval,” Toensing said on “Hannity.” “They were so confident in that that they even had him open up the new office because they were planning on the kind of business they were going to do as soon as CFIUS approved it.”

Toensing told Fox News that Campbell was told by the FBI that Obama was aware of the information.

“He was told that President Obama had it in his daily briefing twice,” Toensing said.

Congressional Republicans have called for further investigation into Uranium One. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate “certain issues” requested by Republicans, including Uranium One and alleged dealings related to the Clinton Foundation, leaving the door open for the appointment of another special counsel.

But this week, Democrats have charged that Campbell’s statements and the Republican interest in them is a tactic to distract from the larger Russia probe clouding the Trump administration.

Democrats have accused Republicans of making “wild claims” against Clinton.

“Republicans have been talking directly to this individual while refusing to grant Democratic members access, despite multiple requests,” Ranking Members of the House oversight and intelligence committees, Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement. “During this same time period, Republicans have been making wild and unsubstantiated allegations against Secretary Clinton on national television based on this individual’s information.”

Cummings and Schiff said that the Justice Department provided them with a “detailed briefing” that “directly contradicts these Republican allegations.”

Cummings and Schiff said Campbell never provided any evidence or made allegations regarding Clinton or the Clinton Foundation in any of their interactions with him. 

The ranking members claimed that the Justice Department stated that “at no point did [the individual] provide any allegation of corruption, illegality, or impropriety on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, President Clinton, the Uranium One deal, or CFIUS,” and said there were “no allegations of impropriety or illegality” regarding Clinton in the documents they reviewed.

The Justice Department told Fox News they would not confirm whether the Schiff-Cummings characterization was accurate. 

Toensing disputed the Democrats’ claims, calling Schiff “disingenuous.” 

The Clinton Global Initiative did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Hillary Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill panned the informant claims, likening them to the controversial “Nunes memo” on alleged surveillance abuse released last week and newly released text messages between anti-Trump FBI officials. 

Just this week the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that, a charade. Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own President’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses,” he said in a statement. 


The Hill. 2018-02-08. Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations to Congress

An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in a written statement that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton‘s charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.

The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton.

Democrats have cast doubt on Campbell’s credibility, setting the stage for a battle with Republicans over his testimony.

Campbell added in the testimony that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.”

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

APCO officials told The Hill that its support for the Clinton Global Initiative and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States.

“APCO Worldwide’s activities involving client work on behalf of Tenex and The Clinton Global Initiative were totally separate and unconnected in any way,” APCO told The Hill in a statement. “All actions on these two unconnected activities were appropriate, publicly documented from the outset and consistent with regulations and the law. Any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said Campbell’s account is simply being used to distract from the investigations into President Trump and Russian election meddling.

“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that, a charade. Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own President’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses,” Merrill said. 

In addition to his written statement, Campbell on Wednesday was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by staff from both parties on the Senate Judiciary, the House Intelligence and the House Oversight and Government Reform committees. 

Democrats have asked that a transcript of the interview be released to the public, but a court reporter was not present for the interview and Campbell was not sworn in.

Republicans are seeking to use Campbell’s account to expand their investigations beyond the 2016 election and Trump to possible questions about Russian graft during the Obama administration.

They note that the FBI found Campbell’s undercover work valuable enough to reward him with a $50,000 check in 2016. 

Democrats, in turn, have accused Republicans of making “wild claims” about Campbell and Uranium One.   

In a letter sent this week, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, asserted that Justice Department officials told both parties during a briefing in December that they ultimately found they “could not trust” Campbell when he was working as an FBI informant.

Justice officials also said that Campbell had at no point made “any allegations of corruption, illegality, or impropriety on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, President Clinton, the Uranium One deal, or [the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States],” according to the Democrats. 

“They also confirmed that there were ‘no allegations of impropriety or illegality’ regarding Secretary Clinton in any of the documents they reviewed,” the Democrats said.

Campbell painted a different picture in his written statement.

He accused Obama administration officials of making decisions that ended up benefitting the Russian nuclear industry, which he said was seeking to build a monopoly in the global uranium market to help President Vladimir Putin seek a geopolitical advantage over the United States. 

The United States already imports more than 90 percent of the uranium it uses in nuclear reactors, according to U.S. government figures from 2016.

Campbell wrote that Russian nuclear executives “boasted” during vodka-fueled meetings monitored by the FBI about “how weak the U.S. government was in giving away uranium business and were confident that Russia would secure the strategic advantage it was seeking in the U.S. uranium market.” 

He also said he asked his FBI handlers why the U.S. was not more aggressive.

“I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that politics was somehow involved,” he stated.

Much of the GOP’s interest in Campbell’s story centers on the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal. That deal at the time gave the Russian mining giant Rosatom control of roughly 20 percent of America’s capacity to mine uranium.

The deal was approved unanimously in 2010 by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency board that includes the State Department, the Defense Department and the Justice Department, among other agencies. The board has the power to block deals that threaten national security. 

Campbell, whose work as an informant was first disclosed in a series of stories published last fall by The Hill, helped the FBI gather evidence as early as 2009 that the Russian nuclear industry was engaged in a kickback, bribery and racketeering scheme on U.S. soil. The criminal scheme, among other things, compromised the U.S. trucking firm that had the sensitive job of transporting uranium around America, Campbell testified.

Campbell says he provided the FBI the evidence of wrongdoing months before the Obama administration approved a series of favorable decisions that enriched Rosatom, including the CFIUS decision. 

The Hill’s stories last fall prompted the Justice Department to take the rare step of freeing Campbell from his nondisclosure agreement as an intelligence asset so he could testify to Congress about what he witnessed inside Russia’s nuclear industry.

Campbell gave the congressional committees documents he said he provided to his FBI handlers in 2010 showing that the Russian and American executives implicated in the Tenex bribery scheme specifically asked him to try to help get the Uranium One deal approved by the Obama administration.

“In 2010, officials inside Tenex became interested in helping another Rosatom subsidiary, ARMZ, win Obama administration approval to purchase Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive Kazakh and large U.S. uranium assets,” Campbell said.  “Although Tenex and ARMZ are separate subsidiaries, Tenex had its own interest in Uranium One. Tenex would become responsible for finding commercial markets and revenue for those uranium assets once they were mined.”

“The emails and documents I intercepted during 2010 made clear that Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One — for both its Kazakh and American assets — was part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to gain leverage in global energy markets,” he testified. “I obtained documentary proof that Tenex was helping Rosatom win CFIUS approval, including an October 6, 2010 email … asking me specifically to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal.” 

Campbell told lawmakers the purchase of the Uranium One assets and the securing of billions of new uranium sales contracts inside the United States during the Obama years were part of the “Russian uranium dominance strategy.”

“The importance of the Uranium One decision to Tenex was made clear by the fact that the Russian government directed Mikerin to open a new U.S. office for Tenex and to create a new American entity called Tenam in early October 2010, just weeks before Rosatom and ARMZ won the Obama administration approval to buy Uranium One,” he said.

“Rosatom/Tenex threw a party to celebrate, which was widely attended by American nuclear industry officials. At the request of the FBI, I attended and recorded video footage of Tenam’s new offices,” he added. 

Campbell’s written statement covered a wide array of activities he conducted under the FBI’s direction, ranging from a failed sting effort to lure Putin to the United States to gathering evidence that Russia was “helping Iran build its nuclear capability.”

Campbell provided Congress an April 16, 2010, memo he said he wrote and gave to the FBI that spelled out in detail the Russian efforts to aid Iran.

“Tenex continues to supply Iran fuel through their Russian company,” Campbell wrote in that 2010 document obtained by The Hill, naming the specific company that was being used to help. “They continue to assist with construction consult [sic] and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult” of Russians.

“The final fabricators to Iran are being flown by Russian air transport due to the sensitive nature of the equipment,” his 2010 memo to the FBI added.

Campbell told lawmakers he also gave the FBI “documentary proof that officials in Moscow were obtaining restricted copies of IAEA compliance reports on Iranian nuclear inspections, a discovery that appeared to deeply concern my handlers.” 

While most of his account involved intelligence matters, Campbell also briefly described the toll years of undercover work took on him personally. He continued informing through a bout with brain cancer, a case of leukemia and battles with excessive drinking, he told lawmakers.

He also was never reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of dollars he used of his own money to make bribe payments under the FBI’s direction to the Russians to facilitate his cover.

But Campbell said he was gratified when the FBI in 2016 gave him a $50,000 reward check celebrating his undercover work, directly answering Democrats criticisms that federal prosecutors didn’t trust him as a witness.

“My FBI handlers praised my work. They told me on various occasions that details from the undercover probe had been briefed directly to FBI top officials. On two occasions my handlers were particularly excited, claiming that my undercover work had been briefed to President Obama as part of his daily presidential briefing,” he said.

In the end, though, he told lawmakers he remains disturbed that the Obama administration made so many favorable decisions benefiting the Russian nuclear industry when the evidence of wrongdoing and ill intent was so extensive. 

“I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil,” he wrote. “Tenex and Rosatom were raking in billions of U.S. dollars by signing contracts with American nuclear utility clients at the same time they were indulging in extortion by using threats to get bribes and kickbacks, with a portion going to Russia for high ranking officials.” 

He said he never got a satisfactory answer from the FBI.

“I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct.  His answer: ‘Ask your politics,’ ” Campbell said.  

This article was corrected on Feb. 8 to reflect that Campbell gave an interview to lawmakers.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. La Corte Federale rigetta il ricorso della FRF.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-17.

Jan_van_der_Meer_-_Singing_Couple

Per tradizione secolare Congresso e Senato Americano aprono le sessioni con una preghiera a Dio Onnipotente.

«the inclusion of a prayer before the opening of each session of both the House and the Senate traces its origins back to the days of the Continental Congress, and the official recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787:

    “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live,

    the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . .  I therefore beg leave to move— that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”» [Fonte]

*

«The constitutionality of legislative chaplains was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, related to chaplains in the Nebraska Legislature)» [Fonte]

*

Tuttavia, nel progredire dei tempi, in America si è fatta strada l’ideologia liberal democratica, la quale, proponendosi essa stessa come religione, riteneva essere intollerabile simile pratica.

L’ultimo tentativo di far dichiarare incostituzionali le preghiere iniziali di Congresso e Senato è stato fatto in perfetto stile liberal.

Dapprima si è fondata l’organizzazione non governativa ‘Freedom from Religion Foundation‘, che ha raggiunto i29,500 membri in tutti gli Stati Uniti.

Quindi questa organizzazione ha sottoposto il problema alla Corte Federale, presentandosi come interprete dei sentimenti anti-religiosi di tutto il popolo americano.

*

Freedom from Religion Foundation.

«Won’t you join FFRF in our critical work to promote nontheism and defend the constitutional separation between religion and government? With more than 29,500 members, the nonprofit FFRF works as an effective state/church watchdog and voice for freethought (atheism, agnosticism, skepticism)» [Freedom from Religion Foundation]

*

«About FFRF

Welcome to the Freedom from Religion Foundation

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is delighted to announce the formation of a new FFRF Honorary Board of distinguished achievers who have made known their dissent from religion.

The FFRF Honorary Board includes Jerry Coyne, Robin Morgan, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Ernie Harburg, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Jacoby, Lawrence Krauss, Mike Newdow, Katha Pollitt, Steven Pinker, Ron Reagan, Oliver Sacks, M.D., Robert Sapolsky, Edward Sorel and Julia Sweeney.

“We are so pleased that these outstanding thinkers and freethinkers have agreed to publicly lend their endorsement to the Foundation, and its two purposes of promoting freethought and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” said Dan Barker, Foundation co-president.» [Freedom from Religion Foundation]

*

Questo è il profilo del giudice federale che ha esaminato la questione.

«Rosemary Mayers Collyer (born November 19, 1945) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Born in Port Chester, New York, Collyer received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College (now Trinity Washington University) in 1968 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Denver College of Law in 1977.

She was in private practice at the law firm of Sherman & Howard in Colorado from 1977 to 1981. She was then Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission from 1981 to 1984 and General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from 1984 to 1989. She returned to private practice in Washington, D.C. as a partner in the firm of Crowell & Moring LLP from 1989 to 2002.

On August 1, 2002, Collyer was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Thomas Penfield Jackson. Collyer was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 14, 2002, and received her commission on November 15, 2002. She assumed senior status on May 18, 2016.

In 2013, Collyer was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Court provides a measure of judicial oversight over surveillance activities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended. Judge Collyer’s term on the FIS Court began on March 8, 2013 and will conclude on March 7, 2020. She replaced Judge John D. Bates, whose term ended on February 21, 2013.» [Fonte]

*

«A federal judge has re-affirmed the constitutionality of prayer in the U.S. Congress, ruling that Supreme Court precedent undergirds the long tradition of prayer opening each congressional session, along with the House rules that govern the practice»

*

«The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains»

*

«In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith»

*

«She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”»

* * * * * * *

Adesso resta aperta la questione della proibizione delle preghiere nelle scuole pubbliche.

Si voglia o meno, l’America è religiosa.


New American. 2017-10-14. Federal Judge Re-affirms Tradition of Congressional Prayer

A federal judge has re-affirmed the constitutionality of prayer in the U.S. Congress, ruling that Supreme Court precedent undergirds the long tradition of prayer opening each congressional session, along with the House rules that govern the practice.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Daniel Barker, president of the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker had charged that Congress denied him the opportunity to offer an opening invocation, while extending the honor to religious chaplains.

In her October 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer pointed out that House rules barred Barker from offering the invocation because of his lack of faith. She also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ two-century-long tradition of prayer does not conflict with the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

But if Congress’ tradition of prayer does not conflict with the establsihment clause, then why would prayer in the public schools be considered a violation of the establishment clause? Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the latter to be a violation. How can this be? Judge Collyer did not address this question, which fell outside the scope of the case she was deciding.

In her opinion, Collyer wrote that “to decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) applauded Collyer’s ruling, noting: “Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated. The court rightfully dismissed the claims of an atheist that he had the right to deliver a secular invocation in place of the opening prayer.”

Ryan said that since the return to Congress of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was shot and severely wounded in an attack on him and other congressmen in June, “this institution has been reminded about the power of prayer. I commend the District Court for its decision, and I am grateful that the People’s House can continue to begin its work each day as we have for centuries: taking a moment to pray to God.”

Scalise also applauded the ruling, posting on Twitter: “Our rights come from God, so it’s only fitting that the House begins each day united in prayer.”

Following the ruling Barker complained that a bias “against the nonreligious” had prevented him “from participating in my government. The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers.”

By contrast, Tony Perkins of the Christian-oriented Family Research Council reflected that “for over 240 years, our elected representatives to the federal government have begun their public duties with prayer. When a session of the House of Representatives is opened, a prayer seeking God’s guidance is offered. Among other things, this is a reflection of the faith of many people across America who themselves seek His guidance in their lives.”


The Washington Times. 2017-10-14. Federal court upholds prayer in Congress

House Speaker Ryan cheers ruling: ‘Freedom to exercise religion was vindicated’.

*

A federal court ruled Wednesday that Congress can continue to open its sessions each day with a prayer, and upheld the House’s ability to pick and choose who’s allowed to lead the prayer.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, a Bush appointee who sits in Washington, D.C., rejected a challenge by Daniel Barker, co-president of Freedom From Religion Foundation, who said he was not permitted to give an opening invocation, even though other guest chaplains have been permitted.

Judge Collyer said House rules didn’t permit him to lead the prayer because he had left his faith.

Judge Collyer also said an opening prayer has been a tradition in this country for more than two centuries, and the Supreme Court has ruled it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause.

“To decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer,” Judge Collyer wrote in her opinion on Wednesday.

Mr. Barker said her ruling was tainted by personal bias against nonreligious people.

“The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers,” he said.

But House Speaker Paul D. Ryan applauded the ruling.

“Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated,” said Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.

He added the return of Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, who was shot earlier this year by a left wing zealot, reminded Congress of the power of prayer.