Trump Killing Kids

from realclearpolitics this morning:

Some are calling Donald Trump “the most pro-life president ever.” He’s definitely been anti-abortion. But he’s hardly pro-life.
The “consistent life ethic” gets closer to the heart of what this means. Originating in the Catholic Church, it expands the pro-life concept to include opposition to capital punishment, humane treatment of immigrants and even the wearing of face masks during a pandemic. Trump subscribes to none of the above.

“Why aren’t all pro-lifers pro-maskers?” writes James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America, a Jesuit magazine. “This should be a no-brainer.”

He goes on: “Some people think these precautions are not just inconvenient but an infringement on their civil liberties. I could give you all sorts of arguments about all sorts of other public health measures designed to protect people — food-safety rules, turn signals on cars and so on — that people seem fine with. But in these politicized times, even caring for the other person has become political.”

[…]
A true pro-life stance would also recognize the moral duty to care for the Creation, a stance many religious leaders do take. This would extend to concern over the threat that global warming poses to life on our planet, including human life.
The National Bureau of Economic Research predicts that if climate change is left unchecked, higher temperatures could lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by 2100. Counting from today’s world population, that comes to a hard-to-imagine half-billion lives lost.
Trump doesn’t give a rat’s tail about climate change or health coverage or protecting Americans from a deadly pandemic. Accusations that he is running a death cult may sound overheated but are not without basis.
That’s who Trump is. Americans claiming to be pro-life should ask whether that’s OK with them.

above from minnesota’s star tribune

lawandcrime:

The lead attorney representing former National Security Advisor and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn admitted to bringing President Donald Trump into the loop on the high-profile case–immediately after purporting to invoke “executive privilege” on the matter.
During an oftentimes cantankerous portion of a technology-deficient hearing on Tuesday, Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell stunned U.S. District Judge for the D.C. Circuit Emmet G. Sullivan into silence when the issue of Trump’s direct involvement arose.
Sullivan began his questioning of Powell by referring to a controversial letter she penned to Attorney General Bill Barr prior to her work on the case. The letter predicted Brady violations would come out and asked for the removal of all attorneys connected to the Russiagate investigation led by former special counsel Robert Mueller.
The judge then somewhat interrupted himself and asked, as a threshold matter, if Powell had ever spoke to the president about the Flynn case. A few beats passed before the attorney answered.
“I’m sorry your honor, I can’t discuss that,” Powell eventually said.
A bemused Sullivan pressed Powell as to why she couldn’t answer his question.
“I would think that any conversations I have had with the president would be covered by executive privilege,” Powell replied.
“You don’t work for the government,” Sullivan noted.
“I don’t think executive privilege only applies to people who work for the government,” Powell replied.
That’s not quite how executive privilege works–as noted by University of Michigan Law Professor Leah Litman:
“So you’re purporting to invoke executive privilege?” the increasingly astonished judge asked before attempting to ferret out additional details as to the general nature of the conversation. Powell eventually conceded that she personally gave Trump the outlines of her representation of Flynn so far.
“I provided it in person, before counsel for the president,” Flynn’s attorney clarified.
“Who did you speak to?” Judge Sullivan asked.
“I spoke with Jenna Ellis and I spoke to the president himself to provide him with a brief update on the status of the litigation in the past couple of weeks.”
Ellis is the Trump campaign’s senior legal advisor. She currently worked as a constitutional attorney and advocate for right-wing evangelical Christian interests.
“Did you make any requests?” Sullivan pressed.
“No, only that he not issue a pardon,” Powell said.
“How many discussions?” Sullivan demanded.
“That’s the only one I recall,” Powell demurred.
Sullivan again appeared distraught over the attorney’s response–asking whether or not she would remember a conversation with the president.
“What did you ask him to do in connection with this case?” Sullivan reiterated.
“I never discussed this case with the president until recently when I asked him not to issue a pardon and when I provided him with a general status update about the litigation,” Powell said–effectively ending this discrete line of inquiry.
[continues]

jack, enjoy