aljazeera--2019-12-12--Transcript: Aung San Suu Kyi's speech at the ICJ in full

Aung San Suu Kyi has defended Myanmar's military against genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), amid accusations of mass killings, rape and expulsion of the mostly Muslim Rohingya minority.  In her opening statement in front of judges in The Hague on Wednesday, the former human rights icon rejected the case at the United Nations' highest court - which was filed by the Gambia with the support of the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) - alleging Myanmar violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  The hearing concludes on Thursday, but a final judgement could take several years. • Timeline: How the crackdown on Myanmar's Rohingya unfolded  Here is her speech in full:  "Thank you, Mr President and members of the court. It is an honour to appear as Agent of the Union of the Republic of Myanmar in these proceedings, in my capacity as Union Minister of Foreign Affairs.  "For materially less resourceful countries like Myanmar, the World Court is a vital refuge of international justice. We look to the Court to establish conditions conducive to respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, one of the fundamental objectives of the United Nations Charter.  "In the present case, Mr President, the Court has been asked to apply the 1948 Genocide Convention, one of the most fundamental multilateral treaties of our time. Invoking the 1948 Genocide Convention is a matter of utmost gravity. This is the treaty that we made following the systematic killing of more than six million European Jews, and that my country wholeheartedly signed as early as December 30, 1949, and ratified on March 14, 1956. Genocide is the crime that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda applied in response to the mass-killing of perhaps 70 percent of the Tutsis in Rwanda. It is the crime that was not applied by the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to the displacement of approximately one million residents of Kosovo in 1999. Neither was it applied by that Tribunal nor by this Court when deciding upon the exodus of the Serb population from Croatia in 1995.  "In both situations, international justice resisted the temptation to use this strongest of legal classifications because the requisite specific intent to physically destroy the targeted group in whole or in part was not present.  "Regrettably, The Gambia has placed before the Court an incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Yet, it is of the utmost importance that the Court assess the situation obtaining on the ground in Rakhine dispassionately and accurately. The situation in Rakhine is complex and not easy to fathom.  "But one thing surely touches all of us equally: the sufferings of the many innocent people whose lives were torn apart as a consequence of the armed conflicts of 2016 and 2017, in particular, those who have had to flee their homes and are now living in camps in Cox's Bazar.  "Mr President and members of the court, the troubles of Rakhine State and its population, whatever their background, go back into past centuries and have been particularly severe over the last few years. Currently, an internal armed conflict is going on there – between the Arakan Army, an organised Buddhist armed group with more than 5,000 fighters, and the regular Myanmar Defence Services. None of the speakers yesterday made any reference to this.  "The Arakan Army seeks autonomy or independence for Rakhine - or Arakan as it was called - finding inspiration in the memory of the historic Kingdom of Arakan. This conflict has led to the displacement of thousands of civilians in Rakhine. Standard security restrictions - such as curfew and checkpoints - are in place at present in the conflict zone and affect the situation of civilians there, regardless of their background.  "Mr President, on October 9, 2016, approximately 400 fighters of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army - known as ARSA – launched simultaneous attacks on three police posts in Maungdaw and Rathedaung townships in northern Rakhine, near the border with Bangladesh. ARSA claimed responsibility for these attacks, which led to the death of nine police officers, more than 100 dead or missing civilians, and the theft of 68 guns and more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition.  "This was the start of an internal armed conflict between ARSA and Myanmar's Defence Services which lasted until late 2017. The selective factual propositions contained in The Gambia's Application actually concern this conflict.  "In the months following the October 9, 2016 attacks, ARSA grew in strength in the Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung townships in northern Rakhine. It resorted to threats and intimidation against local villagers in order to gain support and allegiance, executing suspected informers. According to, among others, the International Crisis Group, ARSA received weapons - and explosives - training from Afghan and Pakistani militants.  "In the early morning of August 25, 2017, several thousand ARSA fighters launched coordinated attacks on more than 30 police posts and villages, and an army base in northern Rakhine. Most of the attacks took place on the narrow Maungdaw plain, which is framed by densely forested hills to the east, and the border with Bangladesh to the west. Indications are that ARSA's objective was to seize Maungdaw township.  "It may aid the Court to briefly consider the historical significance of Maungdaw. When Britain made Burma a colonial entity separate from British India in 1937, the border between Burma and India was drawn along the river Naf, where we find today's border between Bangladesh and Myanmar. The historical Kingdom of Arakan had extended much further to the north than the river Naf, including most of what is today Chittagong District in Bangladesh.  "Members of some Rakhine communities, therefore, felt that the border drawn by the British was too far south; others, that it was too far north. Myanmar has never challenged this border since independence in 1948.  "Britain did not lose control over what is today Maungdaw township during World War II. From September 1942, a number of local Muslim families offered fighters to the British irregular V-Force set up to collect intelligence and to initially absorb any Japanese advance. Many Muslims gave their lives in combat against the Japanese in Rakhine.  "The sacrifices made by Muslim fighters motivated a call for the creation of an autonomous Muslim space in northern Rakhine, centred on Maungdaw. Whether or not this was encouraged by British officers, Britain rejected this call as soon as it had reoccupied Burma, before independence in 1948. The Muslim-Buddhist intercommunal violence of 1942 recurred in 1948 and several times after that. This cycle of violence has negatively affected life in northern Rakhine, making it the second poorest state in Myanmar.  "Mr President and members of the court, may I go back to the situation in Rakhine on the morning of August 25, 2017. More than thirty police stations and villages, and one military base, had been attacked before sunrise in a highly coordinated fashion, by an organised armed group operating along a densely forested hill-range that provides ample opportunity to hide. Many of the ARSA fighters had been recruited from local villages in the weeks and months preceding the attack.  "Myanmar's Defence Services responded to the attacks of ARSA fighters by the use of ground forces. There were armed incidents in more than 60 locations. The main clashes occurred in 12 places: In Min Gyi (Tola Toli) village, Chut Pyin village, Maung Nu village, Gutar Pyin village, Alai Than Kyaw village, Myin Lut village, Inn Din village, Chein Kharli (Koetan Kauk) village, Myo Thugyi ward, Kyauk Pandu village, wards of Maungdaw Town, and southern Maungdaw.  "Mr President, allow me to clarify the use of the term 'clearance operation' - 'nae myay shin lin yeh' in Myanmar [language]. Its meaning has been distorted. As early as the 1950s, this term has been used during military operations against the Burma Communist Party in Bago Range. Since then, the military has used this expression in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations after attacks by insurgents or terrorists. In the Myanmar language, 'nae myay shin lin yeh' – literally 'clearing of locality' – simply means to clear an area of insurgents or terrorists.  "It is still not easy to establish clear patterns of events in these 12 locations. Many ARSA fighters died. There may have been several hundred casualties in some of the 12 locations. There was some inter-communal violence. Buddhist and Hindu minority communities also feared for their security after the original ARSA attacks and many fled from their homes.  "It may be worth noting that the use of air power in military operations was avoided as far as possible to minimise the risk of collateral damage. However, in one incident, in order to be able to extract a unit surrounded by hundreds of ARSA fighters, the use of a helicopter was required. There was shooting from the helicopter which resulted in fatalities, which may have included noncombatants.  "Mr President, it cannot be ruled out that disproportionate force was used by members of the Defence Services in some cases in disregard of international humanitarian law, or that they did not distinguish clearly enough between ARSA fighters and civilians. There may also have been failures to prevent civilians from looting or destroying property after fighting or in abandoned villages. But these are determinations to be made in the due course of the criminal justice process, not by any individual in the Myanmar Government.  "Please bear in mind this complex situation and the challenge to sovereignty and security in our country when you are assessing the intent of those who attempted to deal with the rebellion. Surely, under the circumstances, genocidal intent cannot be the only hypothesis.  "Under its 2008 Constitution, Myanmar has a military justice system. Criminal cases against soldiers or officers for possible war crimes committed in Rakhine must be investigated and prosecuted by that system. On November 25, 2019, the Office of the Judge Advocate General announced the start of a court-martial for allegations linked to the Gutar Pyin village incident, one of the 12 main incidents referred to earlier. The Office also let it be known that there will be additional courts-martial if further incriminating evidence is brought by the Independent Commission of Enquiry. The ICOE is an independent special investigation procedure established for Rakhine allegations by the President of Myanmar, chaired by a former Deputy Foreign Minister from the Philippines, with three other members, including a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations from Japan.  "On November 26, 2019, this Commission announced that it had taken about 1500 witness statements from all affected groups in Rakhine and that it has interviewed 29 military personnel who were deployed to the affected townships in northern Rakhine during the military operations from August 25, 2017, to September 5, 2017, as well as 20 police personnel who were stationed at the police posts that were attacked on August 25, 2017. There is currently no other fact-finding body in the world that has garnered relevant first-hand information on what occurred in Rakhine in 2017 to the same extent as the Independent Commission of Enquiry and the Office of the Judge Advocate General in Myanmar.  "This fact reinforces my sense that I should refrain from any action or statement that could undermine the integrity of these ongoing criminal justice processes in Myanmar. They must be allowed to run their course. It is never easy for armed forces to recognise self-interest in accountability for their members, and to implement a will to accountability through actual investigations and prosecutions. I respectfully invite the members of the court to consider for a moment the record of other countries. This is a common challenge, even in resource-rich countries.  "Recent cases in the news headlines illustrate that even when military justice works, there can be reversals. This can also happen in Myanmar. As part of the overall efforts of the Myanmar Government to provide justice, a court-martial found that 10 Muslim men had been summarily executed in Inn Din village, one of the 12 locations of serious incidents referred to earlier. It sentenced four officers and three soldiers each to ten years in prison with hard labour. After serving a part of their sentences, they were given a military pardon. Many of us in Myanmar were unhappy with this pardon.  "Other cases are undertaken without controversy. In the Mansi case, for example, a court-martial sat close to the location in Kachin State where three internally displaced civilians were killed. It sentenced six soldiers, each to 10 years in prison, in January 2018. Relatives of the victims and local civil society representatives were invited to the sentencing.  "The Office of the Judge Advocate General in Myanmar is by our standards well-resourced, with more than 90 staff and a presence in all regional commands throughout the country. I am encouraged by the Gutar Pyin court-martial, and I expect the Office to continue its investigations and prosecutions based on reliable evidence collected in Rakhine and from persons who witnessed what happened there.  "Can there be genocidal intent on the part of a state that actively investigates, prosecutes and punishes soldiers and officers who are accused of wrongdoing? Although the focus here is on members of the military, I can assure you that appropriate action will also be taken against civilian offenders, in line with due process. There will be no tolerance of human rights violations in the Rakhine, or elsewhere in Myanmar.  "Mr President, there are those who wish to externalise accountability for alleged war crimes committed in Rakhine, almost automatically, without proper reflection. Some of the United Nations human rights mandates relied upon in the Application presented by The Gambia have even suggested that there cannot be accountability through Myanmar's military justice system. This not only contradicts Article 20(b) of the Constitution of Myanmar, it undercuts painstaking domestic efforts relevant to the establishing of cooperation between the military and the civilian government in Myanmar, in the context of a Constitution that needs to be amended to complete the process of democratisation. That process is now underway at the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, the Union Parliament.  "The emerging system of international criminal justice rests on the principle of complementarity. Accountability through domestic criminal justice is the norm. Only if domestic accountability fails, may international justice come into play. It would be inconsistent with complementarity to require that domestic criminal justice should proceed much faster than international criminal justice. A rush to externalise accountability may undermine professionals in domestic criminal justice agencies. What does the appearance of competition between domestic and international accountability do to the public's trust in the intentions of impatient international actors?  "No stone should be left unturned to make domestic accountability work. It would not be helpful for the international legal order if the impression takes hold that only resource-rich countries can conduct adequate domestic investigations and prosecutions, and that the domestic justice of countries still striving to cope with the burden of unhappy legacies and present challenges is not good enough. The Gambia will also understand this challenge with which they too are confronted.  "Mr President and members of the court, these reflections are relevant to the present hearing because the Applicant has brought a case based on the Genocide Convention. We are, however, dealing with an internal armed conflict, started by coordinated and comprehensive attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, to which Myanmar's Defence Services responded. Tragically, this armed conflict led to the exodus of several hundred thousand Muslims from the three northernmost townships of Rakhine into Bangladesh – just as the armed conflict in Croatia with which the Court had to deal led to the massive exodus of, first, ethnic Croats and later, ethnic Serbs.  "As I have already stated, if war crimes have been committed by members of Myanmar's Defence Services, they will be prosecuted through our military justice system, in accordance with Myanmar's Constitution. It is a matter for the competent criminal justice authorities to assess whether, for example, there has been inadequate distinction between civilians and ARSA fighters, disproportionate use of force, violations of human rights, failure to prevent plundering or property destruction, or acts of forcible displacement of civilians. Such conduct, if proven, could be relevant under international humanitarian law or human rights conventions, but not under the 1948 Genocide Convention for reasons Professor William Schabas will elaborate in a moment.  "Mr President, allow me to share one further reflection in this Great Hall of Justice. International law may well be our only global value system, and international justice a practice that affirms our common values. Leaders of States and relevant inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations should also be cognisant of their responsibility to express and affirm fundamental values. Feeding the flames of an extreme polarisation in the context of Rakhine, for example, can harm the values of peace and harmony in Myanmar. Aggravating the wounds of conflict can undermine unity in Rakhine. Hate narratives are not simply confined to hate speech - language that contributes to extreme polarisation also amounts to hate narratives.  "Several international actors face a challenge here. But Myanmar could also have done more since the 1980s to emphasise the shared heritage and deeper layers of unity among the diverse peoples of our country. Cycles of inter-communal violence in Rakhine going back to the 1940s should be countered not just by practical measures aimed at sustainable development and rule of law, but also by nourishing a spiritual mindset of unity. It is a moral responsibility of leaders to guard the aspirations of people for harmony and peace.  "U Thant, the third United Nations Secretary-General, had understood this. He wrote in his memoirs View From the UN published in 1974: 'I even believe that the mark of the truly educated and imaginative person facing the twenty-first century is that he feels himself to be a planetary citizen' (p. 454). Encouraging this added layer of identity - a sense of planetary citizenship - is of fundamental importance for peaceful relations between nations as well as ethnic and religious groups.  "A commitment to broadening the mindset must go hand in hand with practical steps to improve lives. Even before the events of 2016-2017, Muslim, Buddhist and other communities in Rakhine faced what the Kofi Annan Advisory Commission described as complex challenges of low development and poverty rooted in enduring social conflict between the communities. The Myanmar government is committed to addressing these challenges. Together with our partners, we are now striving to ensure that all communities enjoy the same fundamental rights. To expedite citizenship verification and application, a mobile team is already in operation.  "All children born in Rakhine, regardless of religious background, are issued with birth certificates. Arrangements have been made to enable more Muslim youth to attend classes at universities across Myanmar. With the support of international and local partners, scholarships will also be made available to students from all communities living in Rakhine. The government has started a social cohesion model project in Maungdaw township, to promote social harmony among all communities. Inter-faith fora have been encouraged.  "These are some of the steps taken to improve livelihoods, security, access to education and health, citizenship, and social cohesion for all communities in Rakhine. Three IDP camps have already been closed, and an IDP-camp closure strategy has been adopted. Myanmar is also committed to voluntary, safe and dignified repatriation of displaced persons from Rakhine under the framework agreement reached between Bangladesh and Myanmar.  "Mr President, how can there be an ongoing genocide or genocidal intent when these concrete steps are being taken in Rakhine?  "To conclude, Mr President and members of the court, Rakhine today suffers an internal armed conflict between the Buddhist Arakan Army and Myanmar's Defence Services. Muslims are not a party to this conflict, but may, like other civilians in the conflict area, be affected by security measures that are in place. We pray the Court to refrain from taking any action that might aggravate the ongoing armed conflict and peace and security in Rakhine. Right now, in northern Rakhine, an army base near Paletwa is under attack by a group of more than 400 Arakan Army fighters, and some 200 insurgents have surrounded a military column near Ann City in Rakhine.  "Since Myanmar gained independence in 1948, our people have not known the security of sustainable development that is the fruit of peace and prosperity. Our greatest challenge is to address the roots of distrust and fear, prejudice and hate, that undermine the foundations of our Union. We shall adhere steadfastly to our commitment to non-violence, human rights, national reconciliation and rule of law, as we go forward to build the Democratic Federal Union to which our people have aspired for generations past.  "We look to justice as a champion of the reconciliation and harmony that will assure the security and rights of all peoples.  "Mr President and members of the court, I thank you for your kind attention and ask that you now call upon Professor William Schabas to continue the Myanmar submissions."


aljazeera--2019-12-17--READ: In letter, Trump accuses Democrats of 'attempted coup'

On the eve of his expected impeachment in the US House of Representatives, President Donald Trump accused Democrats of pursuing an "illegal, partisan attempted coup" and declaring "open war" on American democracy as they seek to remove him from office for pressing Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.  Trump's remarks came in a signed, six-page letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, released as House politicians met to set the rules for debate before Wednesday's planned vote on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  The Honorable Nancy Pelosi  Speaker of the House of Representatives  Washington, D.C. 20515  Dear Madam Speaker:  I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.  The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!  By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme - yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!  Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted, mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States. Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.  You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense - it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.  You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, "I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars'...I looked at them and said: "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.  President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said: "At no time during this meeting...was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did Ukraine complain about pressure being applied - not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."  The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats: "I can't emphasize this enough…if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."  Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!  Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for two and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) - who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, "We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!  Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.  You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border Wall - and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme policies - open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.  There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.  After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United States, and you are doing it yet again.  There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further. You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along, the phone call with Ukraine - even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.  You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.  Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians - a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection. Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade-you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person. All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger - this is what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with your party.  If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election - including the use of spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.  Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment - against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle - is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.  Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made. Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud, and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.  More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.  You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan - it is not. You said it was very divisive - it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible - and it will only get worse!  This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.  Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.  I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.  There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.  One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again.    Donald J. Trump  President of the United States of A rica  See the original document here.


bbc--2019-03-24--How Pope Francis could shape the future of robotics

It might not be the first place you imagine when you think about robots.  But in the Renaissance splendour of the Vatican, thousands of miles from Silicon Valley, scientists, ethicists and theologians gather to discuss the future of robotics.  The ideas go to the heart of what it means to be human and could define future generations on the planet.  The workshop, Roboethics: Humans, Machines and Health was hosted by The Pontifical Academy for Life.  The Academy was created 25 years ago by Pope John Paul II in response to rapid changes in biomedicine.  These techniques were controversially claimed to have been used by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, to alter the genes of twin girls so they could not get HIV.  For the opening of the meeting, Pope Francis presented a letter to the Human Community, where he outlines the paradox of "progress" and cautions against developing technologies without first thinking of the possible costs to society.  In the letter, the Pope emphasises the need to study new technologies: communication technologies, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies and robotics.  "There is a pressing need, then, to understand these epochal changes and new frontiers in order to determine how to place them at the service of the human person, while respecting and promoting the intrinsic dignity of all," Pope Francis writes.  In stark contrast to this message came a hypothesis from Japanese Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro, who says we will no longer be recognized as flesh and blood humans, in 10,000 years time.  Famous for creating extremely human-like robots at his lab in Osaka University, including one of himself, Prof Ishiguro spoke about the need to evolve our bodies away from their current materials to something more enduring.  "Our ultimate aim of human evolution is immortality by replacing the flesh and bones with inorganic material," he said.  "The question is what happens if something happens in the planet, or something happens on the Sun, so we cannot live in the planet, we need to live in space."  "In this case, which is better? Organic materials or inorganic materials?"  For Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, there is a clear answer.  "This dream is a terrible dream," adding that it was "impossible" to divide the body and soul.  "The flesh is the body with the soul and the soul is a spirit with flesh," he asserted.  "The body is very important for human beings, through the body we love, through the body we embrace and communicate with one another," he said.  "We are aware on one side this is unbelievable progress, but on the other side, we felt that are risks that this development can give the world.  "The risk is we forget we are creatures, not creators."  Listen to Why is the Pope worried about robots?, on the Beyond Today podcast on BBC Sounds.  Creating robots that can do tasks humans can do, even intimate tasks like caring for elderly people or having a relationship, is a fundamental aspect of Prof Ishiguro's work.  "We have a serious problem, the Japanese population is going down to half the number of the current population within 50 years."  Instead of relying on human immigrants or a baby boom to solve the decline, Prof Ishiguro points to the possibility of utilising robots instead.  "We don't have enough annual immigrations, Japan is an isolated country, it's an island, our culture is quite different from other countries,"  "It is not so easy for the foreigners to survive in Japan in some sense,' Prof Ishiguro said.  "That is the main reason why we are so crazy for creating robots."  The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) released a report last year emphasising the "urgent and complex moral questions" raised by advances in AI and robotics.  It emphasized a need to for a collective and collaborative way of working to establish a set of values around which to organise society and the role these new technologies play.  "It was on the request of the European Commission to have ethical thoughts about the future of our societies and the future of work in times of robotics and artificial intelligence," said Professor Christiane Woopen, chair of the EGE and Professor of ethics and theory of medicine at Cologne University, who was at the Vatican.  The focus of the group's work is on how human rights relate to robots, rather than the idea of giving rights to new forms of autonomous technology.  "We are not of the opinion that AI or robots should have rights on their own," Prof Woopen said.  "Rights pertain to people and refer to fundamental rights, like human dignity, the right to autonomy."  "Those rights refer to people, to human beings, and they refer to the EU Charter on fundamental rights," she explained.  But Prof Ishiguro thinks the closer we get to having robots in our house and in our friendship circles, the more rights we will naturally want to give them.  "Once a robot is going to be a partner, or a companion for us, a friend for us, we will want to protect the robot of course," he said.  "As we give a kind of right to the animals, I think we will give a kind of right to the robots as well."  For Prof Woopen, blurring the lines between humans and robots and entering into relationships with them raises complex ethical issues.  "If you imagine that someday there will be a robot that completely behaves like a human being, moves like a human being, has facial expressions like a human being, how will you then decide whether this entity has a soul or not?"  "We use them for our purposes, because we are the beings who can set their goals, who can choose the means, who can do good and evil, but we are free human beings," she says.  "And I think that we shouldn't grant technical artefacts the freedom we have."  The Vatican recently partnered with Microsoft to offer an international prize on ethics and artificial intelligence, after a private meeting between Pope Francis and Microsoft President Brad Smith.  The prize is for the best doctoral dissertation of 2019 on the subject of "artificial intelligence in the service of human life".  Next year, the agenda for the Academy's meeting focuses on artificial intelligence.  "We have underlined the importance of technical research, this is a really good gift that God gave to us," Archbishop Paglia says.  "But when we become similar to computers, we immediately see conflicts, dangers, inequalities and sometimes a terrible slavery with the other." he says.  Prof Woopen emphasised the need for governments to address these emerging ethical issues.  'We have to be faster in Europe," she said.  "But I think governments have already learned that these are crucial aspects to regulate and deal with because this will just shape our societies without taking account of what governments say, if they don't."


bbc--2019-07-31--Burger King beard ban scrapped in Catalonia

Burger King workers in Catalonia will now be able to grow beards after local officials decided the company's ban on facial hair violated the constitutional rights of staff.  Authorities also ruled that ordering men and women to wear different clothes amounted to sexual discrimination.  Officials were asked to step in after the fast food giant refused to back down over the issue.  Inspectors said the rules infringed on "the right to one's own image".  The Workers' Commissions union raised the issue, arguing that Burger King's rules on banning beards, moustaches and stubble "undermined the dignity of its workers".  "As a result of the inspection, it has been established that certain company practices laid out in the internal rules infringe the constitutional rights of workers, namely, the right to one's own image and the right to equal treatment and against sexual discrimination," the inspectors concluded.  The inspectors pointed out that other measures such as beard nets could be used in order to prevent the violation of fundamental rights.  They also found that company policy ordering men to wear ties and female workers ribbons amounted to sexual discrimination.  "We want this to be applied to all Burger King workers; not just those in Barcelona, where we have union representation," Carles Català of the Catalan branch of the Workers' Commissions told The Guardian.  Burger King employs more than 1,260 people in 46 restaurants in the province of Barcelona.


bbc--2019-08-05--Article 370 What happened with Kashmir and why it matters

Article 370: What happened with Kashmir and why it matters

India's BJP-led government is hailing its decision to strip the state of Jammu and Kashmir of autonomy after seven decades, characterising it as the correction of a "historical blunder". The BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi explains why this has happened and why it's important.  Kashmir is a Himalayan region that both India and Pakistan say is fully theirs.  The area was once a princely state called Jammu and Kashmir, but it joined India in 1947 when the sub-continent was divided up at the end of British rule.  India and Pakistan subsequently went to war over it and each came to control different parts of the territory with a ceasefire line agreed.  There has been violence in the Indian-administered side - the state of Jammu and Kashmir - for 30 years due to a separatist insurgency against Indian rule.  In the first few days of August, there were signs of something afoot in Kashmir.  Tens of thousands of additional Indian troops were deployed, a major Hindu pilgrimage was cancelled, schools and colleges were shut, tourists were ordered to leave, telephone and internet services were suspended and regional political leaders were placed under house arrest.  But most of the speculation was that Article 35A of the Indian constitution, which gave some special privileges to the people of the state, would be scrapped.  The government then stunned everyone by saying it was revoking nearly all of Article 370, which 35A is part of and which has been the basis of Kashmir's complex relationship with India for some 70 years.  The article allowed the state a certain amount of autonomy - its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Foreign affairs, defence and communications remained the preserve of the central government.  As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights. It could also bar Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there.  The constitutional provision has underpinned India's often fraught relationship with Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority region to join India at partition.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party had long opposed Article 370 and revoking it was in the party's 2019 election manifesto.  They argued it needed to be scrapped to integrate Kashmir and put it on the same footing as the rest of India. After returning to power with a massive mandate in the April-May general elections, the government lost no time in acting on its pledge.  Critics of Monday's move are linking it to the economic slowdown that India is currently facing - they say it provides a much-needed diversion for the government.  Many Kashmiris believe that the BJP ultimately wants to change the demographic character of the Muslim-majority region by allowing non-Kashmiris to buy land there.  Although Home Minister Amit Shah's announcement in parliament on Monday came as a surprise to most Indians, it would have taken the government some preparation to arrive at the decision.  The move also fits in with Mr Modi's desire to show that the BJP is tough on Kashmir, and Pakistan.  Kashmir will no longer have a separate constitution but will have to abide by the Indian constitution much like any other state.  All Indian laws will be automatically applicable to Kashmiris, and people from outside the state will be able to buy property there.  The government says this will bring development to the region.  "I want to tell the people of Jammu and Kashmir what damage Articles 370 and 35A did to the state," Mr Shah told parliament. "It's because of these sections that democracy was never fully implemented, corruption increased in the state, that no development could take place."  The government is also moving to break up the state into two smaller, federally administered territories. One region will combine Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu. The other is Buddhist-majority Ladakh, which is culturally and historically close to Tibet.  P Chidambaram, a senior leader in the opposition Congress Party described the decision as a "catastrophic step" and warned in parliament that it could have serious consequences.  "You may think you have scored a victory, but you are wrong and history will prove you to be wrong. Future generations will realise what a grave mistake this house is making today," he said.  According to the constitution, Article 370 could only be modified with the agreement of the "state government". But there hasn't been much of a state government in Jammu and Kashmir for over a year now.  In June last year, India imposed federal rule after the government of the then chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti, was reduced to a minority. This meant the federal government only had to seek the consent of the governor who imposes its rule.  The government says it is well within its rights to bring in the changes and that similar decisions have been taken by federal governments in the past.  But expert opinion is sharply divided.  One constitutional expert, Subhash Kashyap, told news agency ANI that the order was "constitutionally sound" and that "no legal and constitutional fault can be found in it".  However another constitutional expert, AG Noorani, told BBC Hindi it was "an illegal decision, akin to committing fraud" that could be challenged in the Supreme Court.  Opposition political parties could launch a legal challenge but Kashmir is an emotive issue with many Indians, and most parties would be wary of opposing the move lest they be branded anti-India.  That could leave any challenge up to individuals or activists.


bbc--2019-10-17--Catalan protests: Region's president urges immediate halt to violence

The president of Spain's Catalonia region has called for an immediate halt to violence, as protests continued into a fourth day.  "We condemn violence... This has to stop right now," said Quim Torra. He later said he would push for a new referendum on Catalan independence.  Protesters clashed with riot police, days after nine separatist leaders were jailed for their role in a failed push for independence.  Demonstrators were detained in Barcelona, Lleida, Tarragona and Girona on Wednesday night as the protests spread across Spain's north-east region.  Protesters have reportedly been using an app known as Tsunami Democràtic, which directs them to protest sites in Catalan cities.  The Spanish authorities say they are investigating who is co-ordinating the disruption. Mr Torra blamed "infiltrators" but government spokeswoman Isabel Celaá described those instigating the violence as "co-ordinated young Catalans" whose actions were not improvised.  Barricades were set alight and petrol bombs thrown as riots gripped the centre of Barcelona.  Police released footage of a firework fired at one the helicopters flying over demonstrators in Barcelona.  Thousands of people have joined a series of "marches for freedom", which are set to converge in the Catalan capital on Friday.  What did the Catalan president say?  In a televised statement, Mr Torra said: "We will not permit incidents like those we are seeing in the streets.  "This has to stop right now. There is no reason nor justification for burning cars, nor any other vandalism."  Mr Torra, who advocates independence for Catalonia, was speaking after Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had made a direct appeal to him to condemn the violence.  Speaking in the Catalan parliament on Thursday, Mr Torra condemned the long jail sentences handed down to leading separatist figures on Monday as a "direct attack on fundamental rights".  He appealed to the prime minister to "face up to the conflict as democracies do - by speaking to and giving voice to the citizens".  The protests began after nine pro-independence leaders were jailed for between nine and 13 years by Spain's Supreme Court.  The separatists were convicted of sedition over their role in an independence referendum in 2017.  Another three were found guilty of disobedience and fined but not jailed. All 12 defendants denied the charges.  On Monday, thousands of protesters blocked roads to Barcelona's El Prat airport - a major transport hub.  More than 100 flights were cancelled as demonstrators fought running battles with riot police at the terminal buildings.  What is behind the Catalonia unrest?  Catalan nationalists have long complained that their region, which has a distinct history dating back almost 1,000 years, sends too much money to poorer parts of Spain, through taxes which are controlled by Madrid.  The wealthy region is home to about 7.5 million people, with their own language, parliament, flag and anthem.  In September, a march in Barcelona in support of Catalonia's independence from Spain drew crowds of about 600,000 people - one of the lowest turnouts in the eight-year history of the annual rally.


bbc--2019-12-12--Citizenship Amendment Bill: India calls in army to Assam and Tripura states

The army has been called into north-eastern India, after thousands of people defied curfews to protest against a new citizenship bill.  The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) offers amnesty to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three countries.  Critics say the bill discriminates against Muslims - but in the north-east, protesters claim they will be "overrun" by Hindus from Bangladesh.  Officials said 20-30 people were injured in the demonstrations, and air and railway services have been severely impacted.  The bill - which applies to people from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan - was passed in the upper house of parliament on Wednesday night.  It is yet to be ratified by the president, but that is merely a formality.  The ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party says the CAB will give sanctuary to people fleeing religious persecution.  Illegal migration from Bangladesh has long been a concern in the north-east.  How bad are the protests?  Violent protests intensified on Thursday, and have been particularly bad in the states of Assam and Tripura, which border Bangladesh.  The army has deployed thousands of personnel, as protesters defy curfew orders and spill into the streets.  The protesters blocked roads and set vehicles on fire. There are reports that at least two railway stations have been burned down.  Railway services are suspended and some airlines have started offering rescheduling or cancellation fee waivers.  The AFP news agency reported that police fired blanks into the air in a bid to disperse crowds. They have also used tear gas shells.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought to reassure people in Assam, telling them they had "nothing to worry" about.  Read more about the Citizenship Amendment Bill:  "The central government and I are totally committed to constitutionally safeguard the political, linguistic, cultural and land rights of the Assamese people," he tweeted.  However, with internet and mobile services shut down, it is unlikely residents would have been able to read the message.  The chief minister of Assam was stranded at the airport for several hours on Wednesday because roads were blocked by protests.  What do protesters want?  They want the bill to be repealed, as they say their ethnic and cultural identity is under threat from illegal migration.  Essentially, they do not want any migrants - regardless of religion - to be allowed into the state.  What is further fuelling passions in Assam, is the fact that two million residents - deemed to be illegal immigrants- were left off a citizens' register last August.  The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a list of people who can prove they came to the state by 24 March 1971, a day before neighbouring Bangladesh became an independent country.  In the run-up to its publication, the BJP had supported the NRC, but changed tack days before the final list was published, saying it was error-ridden.  The reason for that was a lot of Bengali Hindus - a strong voter base for the BJP - were left off the list, and would possibly become illegal immigrants.  The CAB is seen as being linked to the register, although it is not the same thing.  It will help protect non-Muslims who are excluded from the register and face the threat of deportation or internment.  Has the bill been challenged?  The Indian Union Muslim League, a political party, has petitioned the country's top court to declare the bill illegal.  In their petition to the Supreme Court, the Indian Union Muslim League argued that the bill violated articles of equality, fundamental rights and the right to life.


bbc--2019-12-17--Trump impeachment: President pens irate letter to Pelosi on eve of vote

President Donald Trump has lashed out over his impending impeachment in an irate letter to top Democrat Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of declaring "open war on American democracy".  "You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!" he wrote in the letter, sent on Tuesday.  Mr Trump faces an impeachment vote on Wednesday over allegations he pressured Ukraine for personal political gain.  He is expected to be impeached, setting up a trial in the Senate.  With little hope of changing the outcome of Wednesday's vote in the House, Mr Trump used his six-page letter to angrily rail against the process and denounce Ms Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House.  It was a remarkable intervention by the president, who has fought to stymie the impeachment process by preventing key aides from testifying before the House of Representatives.  Mr Trump claimed in his letter he had been "deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam" and "denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence".  "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials," he wrote.  The president was in fact publicly invited by the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee to give evidence in the impeachment process, which would have also allowed his legal team to question witnesses, but he declined.  Mr Trump is facing two impeachment charges: obstruction of Congress, by refusing to co-operate with the impeachment probe, barring staff from testifying, and holding back documentary evidence; and attempting to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic political rival Joe Biden.  If the House votes as expected on Wednesday along party lines, Mr Trump will become the third president in US history to be impeached. He will then go on trial in the Senate, where Senators from both parties are obliged to act as independent jurors.  The Senate is controlled by the president's Republican Party. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell outraged Democrats last week when he said Republican senators would act in "total co-ordination" with the president's team during the trial and vote against the process.  Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Minority Senate Leader, said: "If articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, every single senator will take an oath to render 'impartial justice'. Making sure the Senate conducts a fair and honest trial that allows all the facts to come out is paramount."  Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani appeared to confirm that he worked to remove the US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to clear the way for investigations that could be politically useful to Mr Trump.  Mr Giuliani told the New York Times he passed along to Mr Trump "a couple of times" information about how Ms Yovanovitch had got in the way of potential investigations.  "I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," Mr Giuliani told the New Yorker magazine.


bearingarms--2019-07-03--Lawsuit Filed Over Californias Ban On Gun Sales To People Under 21

Lawsuit Filed Over California’s Ban On Gun Sales To People Under 21

California is one of a handful of states that decided to make it illegal for an 18-year-old to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The thinking, if you can call it that, is that by banning people under 21 from buying a gun, we will be able to prevent some percentage of mass shootings.  Of course, since most mass shootings committed by people under 21 are carried out with stolen guns anyway, don’t expect such laws to make the least little difference.  Anyway, California passed the law. So did some other states, most notably Florida.  Now, a lawsuit has been filed challenging the law.  Second Amendment right groups sued the state of California Monday over the new law banning the sale of firearms to people under the age of 21. The groups, the Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, argued in a lawsuit filed in San Diego on behalf of individual gun owners that those 18 and over are adults and have a right to purchase a firearm. “Once individuals turn eighteen, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” said John W. Dillon, the Carlsbad attorney representing the groups, the Los Angeles Times reported. “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.” But the lawsuit argues that any adult who isn’t a convicted felon or mentally ill should be allowed to use the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and adults over the age of eighteen but under twenty-one are not second-class people,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, according to the Times.  If we’re going to trust 18-year-olds with the ability to sign contracts, enlist in the military, and vote, they should damn well be allowed to purchase a firearm. I’m still upset that we have 21 as the age requirement on handguns, for crying out loud. If they’re adults, treat them as such.  And I say this as someone who will have an 18-year-old son in about a week.  This isn’t because there is some concern that people under 21 are more dangerous or more likely to commit a mass shooting. It’s an excuse. Parkland just gave them an excuse to limit who could purchase a rifle. That’s it. If most of the lawmakers supporting this legislation had their way, no one would ever be able to buy a firearm of any type.  The shooting gave them an excuse to infringe on the rights of a group of Americans — nothing more, nothing less.  In a few years, you’ll look at states that passed these laws and guess what kind of change you’ll see in their crime rates? If you said “none,” give yourself a cookie. But these states won’t repeal these laws either.  With luck, though, this is a moot discussion. Hopefully, the courts will kill this one and all other similar laws across the nation. It’ll be a while, though, because I’d be very surprised to see the Ninth Circuit overturn a law like this. Still, a guy can dream.


bearingarms--2019-08-21--Op-Ed Argues SCOTUS Radical For Not Wanting To Destroy Second Amendment

Op-Ed Argues SCOTUS ‘Radical’ For Not Wanting To Destroy Second Amendment

The term “radical” gets thrown around a lot in politics these days. It’s a warning sign to voters. “Beware this position for it is radical!”  Now, sometimes, it’s accurate. Sometimes, it’s not.  One such time it’s not is when an op-ed tries to argue that the likelihood of the Supreme Court protecting the Constitution of the United States is somehow “radical.” I know, I know, no one’s that dumb, right?  Well, you’d think that. You’d also be wrong.  All that changed in 2008 with the court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v Heller. In striking down a Washington DC ban on handguns in the home, the court’s conservative majority held for the first time that the second amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia”. Relying on an “originalist” reading of the constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia insisted the supreme court had essentially misread the second amendment for 200 years. Originalists claim that reading the constitution as understood at the time of its adoption makes a judge a more faithful interpreter of constitutional text, although in reality this approach guarantees no such thing. To the contrary, it permits judges to cherry-pick history to reach virtually any outcome, or, as in this case, to radically overturn decades of received wisdom in the name of constitutional “fidelity”. Not all constitutional rights are created equal. The fifth amendment, for example, guarantees a right to grand jury indictment in federal criminal trials, but the supreme court long ago concluded that because the right was not fundamental, it did not bind state courts. Freedom of speech, by contrast, is a fundamental constitutional right, and so both state and federal governments are limited in their power to regulate speech. In the wake of Heller, the court left open the question – is the individual right of gun ownership more like the right to a grand jury indictment, or more like the fundamental right to free speech? In McDonald v Chicago (2010), a similarly divided court gave its fateful answer. “It is clear,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “that the Framers and ratifiers … counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty”. In elevating gun ownership into a fundamental individual right, the court has erected a formidable constitutional barrier to shaping a sensible political solution to a horrific national problem.  There are so many problems with this argument it’s not even funny.  The Fifth Amendment, for example, says no person can be held for a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime,” which arguably doesn’t apply to charges in state courts.  No less troubling is an opinion that Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote during his tenure as a judge on DC’s federal appellate court. Applying the court’s reasoning in Heller, Kavanaugh argued that any ban on semiautomatic rifles should be struck down as unconstitutional. That bears repeating: A ban on semiautomatic weapons would be unconstitutional. Using “text, history, and tradition” as his guides, Kavanaugh concluded that semiautomatic rifles “have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses”. Why does the fact that we’ve permitted such weapons in the past mean that we are constitutionally tethered to them now? The logic again follows straight from the disastrous Heller ruling.  That would be because Heller gave us a test for what weapons can be banned and which can’t. Kavanaugh applied that test to semi-automatic weapons and guess what? He found they couldn’t be banned since they met the criteria.  Honestly, the whole thing is bat-guano stupid, and this is a law professor, for crying out loud.  What it does show, however, is that despite our Founding Fathers best intentions, they didn’t create a system that was fool proof against individuals selectively reading whatever they want into the plain text of the document they built as a foundation for our country. That happened for years, but now we’re seeing the sour grapes of those who found their preferred “interpretation” shut out by Heller.  Doing as the Founding Fathers intended isn’t radical. It’s just right.


bearingarms--2019-09-23--California Gun Shop Plaintiff In Lawsuit Against CAs Gun Age Limit

California Gun Shop Plaintiff In Lawsuit Against CA’s Gun Age Limit

California is one of a handful of states that restricts all gun sales to people aged 21 or over. This is a curtailment of their civil liberties, of course, and needs to be struck down. That means lawsuits.  Of course, lawsuits are a pain, especially for people under the age of 21.  Yet there’s another group impacted by these laws and that’s gun stores. Now, one of them is joining a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s laws.  A Fallbrook gun shop is a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s gun law banning the sale of firearms to those under 21. The lawsuit recently filed in San Diego argues that adults over age 18 who are not convicted felons or mentally ill should have access to the full scope of the Second Amendment. Thomas Furrh of Vista and Matthew Jones of Santee, both under 21, are listed as plaintiffs, along with four gun advocate groups and three retail gun shops in San Diego County. The four gun advocate groups include the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation. The three retail gun shops include Poway Weapons and Gear, North County Shooting Center in San Marcos and Beebe Family Arms and Munitions in Fallbrook. The lawsuit was filed by John Dillon, associate attorney with the Carlsbad-based law firm of Gatzke Dillon and Ballance LLP. “Once individuals turn 18, they are considered as adults in the eyes of the law,” Dillon said. “Therefore, law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport. “We’re asking the court to rule the state’s law as an unconstitutional infringement so that law-abiding adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 can exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to purchase and possess firearms. The state’s actions and policies to deny Californians their fundamental rights are unconstitutional and wrong,” he said.  It’s interesting because one would be hardpressed to successfully argue that gun stores lack standing for such a lawsuit. It’s not hard to demonstrate they’re impacted negatively by such laws. After all, how many sales per year are they losing out on because of such unconstitutional measures?  While it’s impossible to guess the actual number, even one represents lost income and provides sufficient standing to be party to such a lawsuit.  Frankly, I’d like to see more gun stores join in these lawsuits as it becomes much more difficult to argue a lack of standing, which is the default first tactic for all governments being sued over their insane gun control laws. Gun stores invariably have standing because even if a particular individual didn’t try to buy a gun, someone else did and those gun stores can’t sell them.  I like it, especially with regard to age limits. Those laws need to die horribly because it’s idiotic to tell an adult they aren’t old enough to enjoy all of their constitutional rights. With luck, the courts will strike these laws down so hard that there’s no need for the Supreme Court to get involved, but if that can’t be, then at least let the Supreme Court smack them down permanently.


bearingarms--2019-10-18--What Anti-Gun Attorneys Get Wrong About The Second Amendment

Law professors Vikram D. Amar and Alan E. Brownstein have a column in the Los Angeles Times today entitled What The Gun Lobby Gets Wrong About The Second Amendment. A title like that is clickbait candy to me, so of course I took a look at their arguments. What I found was this: Yes, the Second Amendment may be an individual right, they say, but we should still be able to pass almost any gun control law we want.  Of course, a constitutional right does carry with it a strong presumption against government interference with that particular activity, even though the exercise of the right involves a societal cost. We protect freedom of religion, for example, even though we know that some religious practices — like pulling children out of school after the eighth grade — might be considered problematic or harmful. But there is a critical difference between assigning a high value to a constitutional right when balancing it against social concerns, and arguing that the right necessarily overrides the public’s ability to regulate that activity in ways that may be needed to protect the community.  The problem with that argument is that under the standard articulated by Amar and Brownstein, any anti-gun politicians can simply claim that any gun control measure they adopt is simply regulating the right to keep and bear arms in ways that “may be needed to protect the community”, and that’s all the evidence needed to uphold the gun control law in question. It’s one reason why Second Amendment supporters are eager to see the Supreme Court take up the NYSPRA v. NYC case in early December, because it will allow the Court to actually speak on the standard of review for Second Amendment cases. Despite what the anti-gun attorneys claim, Second Amendment supporters aren’t asking for some special status for the right to keep and bear arms. They’re simply arguing that the courts should consider gun control laws under the highest level of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. That means the government has to demonstrate that the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest (in this case, public safety).  At the moment, many courts around the country are looking at gun control laws using “intermediate scrutiny”, a vague and fuzzy middle ground that allows judges to uphold many gun control laws. While Amar and Brownstein don’t come right out and say it, that’s clearly the legal standard they prefer, and in doing so, they consign the Second Amendment to the status of a second class right.  The national debate now has focused on proposed regulations such as background checks and assault weapons bans. Whether specific measures would be permissible under the Constitution depends on their particulars, but the big point is that particulars matter. In evaluating gun control regulations, it’s legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms. Constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the state’s need to promote public safety.  And what if you believe the state promotes public safety by securing and strengthening the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed? Again, simply stating that a gun control law was put on the books for public safety reasons doesn’t mean the public is any safer. You can have good intentions and still make bad law.  For a non-Second Amendment example, consider the recent legislation approved in California that was meant to help freelance writers but is going to screw them over instead.  If a freelance journalist writes for a magazine, newspaper or other entity whose central mission is to disseminate the news, the law says, that journalist is capped at writing 35 “submissions” per year per “putative employer.” At a time when paid freelance stories can be written for a low end of $25 and high end of $1 per word, some meet that cap in a month just to make end’s meet. Amy Lamare, who writes for money site Celebritynetworth.com and YourTango.com, adds, “Everyone’s freaking out, like my anxiety is going through the damn roof.”  I don’t know why Lamare is freaking out. Sure, her livelihood may be at stake, but the bill’s sponsor says she’s only trying to help. Can’t these writers show a little gratitude?  The overall goal of AB 5, Gonzalez says, is “to protect and preserve good jobs. We’re trying to create new good jobs and a livable, sustainable wage job.” Indeed, freelancers typically do not enjoy employee benefits like paid leave, sick days, health care and retirement benefits, nor are they covered by workplace civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination, and they have less recourse if laws are broken or fees aren’t paid on time (the latter a frequent complaint of freelance journalists). Gonzalez, who previously worked as a labor organizer and says she spoke to “dozens” of freelance journalists while writing the bill and moving it through the lawmaking process, adds that freelancers can be used to break newsroom unions like the ones formed last year at The Los Angeles Times and this year at The Ringer. As for how lawmakers settled on the 35-submission figure, Gonzalez says that she and her team decided that a weekly columnist sounded like a part-time worker and so halved that worker’s yearly submissions. After protest from some freelancers, the number was bumped up to 35. “Was it a little arbitrary? Yeah. Writing bills with numbers like that are a little bit arbitrary,” she says.  Gun owners know all about lawmakers writing bills with arbitrary numbers in them, just like we know all about lawmakers claiming that they’re putting gun laws in place to protect the public, only to see crime rates increase afterwards. It’s why real judicial scrutiny is needed when it comes to the constitutionality of gun control laws, instead of what happens all too often these days; judges simply rubber-stamping every anti-gun law that ends up in front of them. The best of intentions can still lead to the worst results when government gets involved.


bearingarms--2019-11-18--If Gun Control Works, Then Please Explain This Case From North Ireland

North Ireland has been in varying degrees of disarray for more than a century. While it’s filled with good people, much like anywhere else, it also has its rowdy component as well. Their dangerous crowd is known for doing things like blowing up cars and things of that sort.  However, the entire island, both North Ireland and Ireland itself, are nations under strict gun control. Further, they’re on an island cut off from everywhere else except via ferry from the UK or by plane. With the UK also having strict gun control, they aren’t just coming across in the ferry.  Yet a recent bust shows just how useless those gun control laws actually are.  Guns including an AR-15 assault rifle have been intercepted on their way to Northern Ireland. A joint operation involving the National Crime Agency and the PSNI swung into action after Border Force officers stopped the weapons haul at a parcel hub in England. And in a follow-up raid, in Newtownards, Co Down , more weapons were found. In total, the NCA says, 24 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition have been seized. They say the “huge firearms and ammunition haul” was uncovered after an “investigation commenced following the interception of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and two handguns by Border Force officers at an international parcel hub in the Midlands earlier this month”.  Now, let’s keep in mind that the AR-15 is an American design. I don’t know any European makers for the weapon off the top of my head and, even if there are some, the flow of such weapons are tightly controlled.  Yet if gun control worked as advertised, this simply couldn’t happen, now could it?  Of course, gun control doesn’t work. It merely limits the law-abiding and their access to firearms. It doesn’t actually stop those with no respect for the law. They’ll keep doing whatever they want with no regard for the rules the rest of us have to follow.  Someone, somewhere, sent an AR-15 into North Ireland, something that should be virtually impossible to do and actually is legally. For the criminals, though, it’s just an inconvenience.  Meanwhile, good people in Northern Ireland may find themselves facing armed attackers with absolutely no ability to defend themselves because their betters have so decreed that the plebes can’t be trusted with guns. The criminals will continue to scoff at the law.  Time and time again, we watch this play out. We see criminals arm themselves while the law-abiding are left defenseless. This continues to be a problem and will until the powers that be wake up and understand that gun control is not the answer.  Gun rights are human rights, and the European leaders need to be reminded of that fact as well. Especially since so many people throughout the world reject that basic human right. Then again, we live in a world where even Americans are trying to reject fundamental rights like free speech and freedom of religion, so why should we be shocked when gun rights are also rejected?  The thing is, I can show you mountains of evidence that gun control doesn’t really work. Will any of them ever listen?


bigleaguepolitics--2019-12-16--HUGE for 2020: House Freedom Fund Endorses America First Candidate Marjorie Greene

Georgia Congressional candidate Marjorie Greene received an endorsement from the House Freedom Fund on Monday, December 16, 2019.  Greene is running for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District running on a platform that will protect the Second Amendment and the rights of the unborn.  The House Freedom Fund was formed by members of the House Freedom Caucus (including rock stars like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows) to bring in more conservatives who will fight for limited government, slashing wasteful spending and fundamental rights such as life, freedom of speech and self-defense.  Trending: Meet the Female Georgia Republican Who Plans to Dismantle Planned Parenthood  According to its website, the House Freedom Fund “only supports candidates for Congress who are dedicated to open, accountable, and limited government – candidates who will fight to defend the Constitution and advance policies that promote liberty, safety, and prosperity for all Americans.”  take our poll - story continues below  The Greene campaign published this press release highlighting the endorsement.  In response to the endorsement from the House Freedom Fund, Marjorie said:  I’m honored to receive the House Freedom Fund endorsement. I look forward to their strong conservative support across the 14th Congressional District as we head into the May 19th Republican Primary. As a Christian conservative wife, mother of three, businesswoman and job creator, I’m proud to say I’m 100% Pro-America, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life, and Pro-Second Amendment. I’m a political outsider and problem solver. I’m not a career politician and never want to be. With a Congress that is continually failing the people, my sole purpose for running is to represent the people of the 14th CD, not the career politicians and bureaucrats. I encourage all conservative Republicans in the 14th, and those who love our country and want to Keep America Great, to get behind my campaign and help me take the fight for the people of NW Georgia to Washington, DC. I would also be honored to become the first female elected Representative from the 14th and NW Georgia in Congress.  Solid conservative congressmen like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows lead the fundraising for the House Freedom Fund.  Jim Jordan: “The House Freedom Fund helps grassroots candidates get the financial support they need to compete with establishment candidates.”  Mark Meadows: “Change in Washington means changing the people we send there and HFF is making that happen by sending principled, conservative outsiders to D.C.”  Greene is the only option for conservatives who believe in the principles of the Second Amendment and the right to life in Georgia’s 14th congressional district.  A 2020 victory by Greene would represent a major step forward for American First patriots.


birminghammail--2019-10-03--This is 2019 not 150 BC - fallout as doctor refuses to call a transgender woman she

'This is 2019, not 150 BC' - fallout as doctor refuses to call a transgender woman 'she'

The case of Christian doctor who refused to call a transgender woman "she" because of his religion has sparked fierce debate in his home region.  David Mackereth claimed he was sacked after saying he would not "call any 6ft tall bearded man madam" during an "abstract discussion" with his manager.  The 56-year-old, from Dudley, West Midlands, alleged the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) discriminated against his religious beliefs, costing him his job as a disability claim assessor - but lost his employment tribunal unanimously.  That news sparked fierce debate on the Black Country Live Facebook page with some arguing the doctor should be allowed to continue while others said people's personal choices must be honoured.  David Dale said: "He's not much of a Christian, is he? Would his mate Jesus act like that? No, as usual, the Old Testament is dragged out and used as a defence. Well, it's not. This is 2019, not 150BC.  "If someone identifies as a woman, man, or a Cauliflower, it has no effect on him, me, or anyone reading this. Relax and remember it's not your issue. Leave them alone and concentrate on yourself."  Luke O'Sullivan added: "If you're employed in a job that requires you to employ certain behaviours or use certain language because that's what your employer wants, abide by it or do one - that's how the private sector works."  Kerrie Ann Blakemore said: "I think they made the right decision. Glad they sacked him."  However, Ross Oakley said the world "has gone mad".  Donna Brittle added: "What an absolute joke, you won't be able to say anything soon without it being offensive. It states he was a bearded man so if he wants to be called Madam, have a shave and a few operations that will warrent the request to be called madam."  Sam Harding said: "A qualified doctor to lose his job because he hurt someone's feelings? We need all the doctors we can get. This story has been blown totally out of proportion."  The tribunal concluded the "lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals".  Publishing its conclusions, the tribunal panel said: "In our unanimous judgment there was no contravention of part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 and the claimant was not subjected to discrimination. Those complaints are dismissed."  Dr Mackereth has said he will appeal. In his witness statement to tribunal hearings in July, Dr Mackereth said that transgender individuals "may find my views to be offensive".  The 56-year-old doctor, who was trained to assess eligibility for Employment Support Allowance or the capability element of Universal Credit, also said there was no deliberate desire on his part to offend people.  But the tribunal "found that his beliefs were likely to cause offence and have the effect of violating a transgender person's dignity or creating a proscribed environment, or subjecting a transgender person to less favourable treatment".  As well as claiming religious discrimination, Dr Mackereth said no effort was made to accommodate his beliefs, such as referring transgender clients at Birmingham's Five Ways assessment centre to another doctor.


bonginoreport--2019-12-25--VA is Laying the Groundwork to Begin Jailing Gun Owners

As if Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s wholesale attack on law-abiding gun owners wasn’t enough, the disgraced public official and his Michael Bloomberg-bought allies in the General Assembly now want the state’s hard-working taxpayers to foot the bill for their unconstitutional schemes. The budget bill (HB30) includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.  The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of Northam’s gun control measures. Among the enumerated laws that this allocation is meant to fund is a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, the criminalization of private firearms transfers, and gun confiscation orders issued without due process.  Aside from the insult of forcing law-abiding Virginia taxpayers to pay for the diminution of their rights, the gun control allocation is a severe waste of resources. Northam’s Bloomberg-backed gun control measures will not make Virginia safer.  In additional to being unconstitutional, a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms will not reduce violent crime.  Long guns of any description are rarely used in violent crime. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data breaks down homicides by weapon type. In 2018, the FBI reported that there were five times as many individuals listed as killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also showed that rifles were listed as being used in less homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”  A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study came to a similar conclusion. The study determined that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,” “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”  So-called “universal” background checks do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.  Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing firearms, getting them on the black market, or getting them from straw purchasers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 75 percent of criminals in state and federal state prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers.”  This year, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”  Aside from enabling the unacceptable deprivation of constitutional rights without due process, an Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag) law is unnecessary in Virginia because the state already has strong and effective civil commitment laws.  Under Virginia law, a law enforcement officer may take an individual into emergency custody for a mental health evaluation without prior court approval. A person detained in this manner is then evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for a temporary detention. A person that was subject to a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission to a mental health facility is prohibited from possessing firearms until their rights are restored by a court.  Tax-paying Virginians should not have to foot the bill for Northam and Bloomberg’s radical attack on their fundamental rights.  Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Click here to follow NRA-ILA on Facebook.


breaking911--2019-10-08--White House Tells House Democrats It Will Not Participate In Trump Impeachment Inquiry

The White House on Tuesday informed Democrats in the House that it will not be participating or cooperating with the impeachment inquiry against President Trump.  The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it. For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American. These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.  Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings. The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections. Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election. In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater.  President Trump and his entire Administration will, however, keep fighting for the American people, growing the economy, building prosperity, and protecting America’s interests at home and abroad.