Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: DeVos claims she resigned over Trump’s inaction on Jan. 6, Pence's refusal to support 25th Amendment

Published

on

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 08:  U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos speaks during a White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing at the U.S. Department of Education July 8, 2020 in Washington, DC. Vice President Pence and the task force members discussed the latest on the COVID-19 pandemic and the reopening of nation's schools in the Fall. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

#DeVos #claims #resigned #Trumps #inaction #Jan #Pence039s #refusal #support #25th #Amendment

When Pence told DeVos, a significant contributor to the Republican party, that he would not support using the 25th Amendment, she told USA Today, that’s when she knew it was time to leave.

“I spoke with the vice president and just let him know I was there to do whatever he wanted and needed me to do or help with, and he made it very clear that he was not going to go in that direction or that path. … I spoke with colleagues. I wanted to get a better understanding of the law itself and see if it was applicable in this case. There were more than a few people who had those conversations internally,” DeVos says.

Of course, DeVos did not directly implicate Trump on Jan. 6 or call out the fact that he incited the insurrection, but admits that the former president should have acted to help stem the tide of rioters on the U.S. Capitol.  

“When I saw what was happening on Jan. 6 and didn’t see the president step in and do what he could have done to turn it back or slow it down or really address the situation, it was just obvious to me that I couldn’t continue. I was thinking about the kids I was there to represent, and what they are seeing and what they are taking away from this—it was not defensible in any way.”

Campaign Action

Alright, Betsy. Let’s come clean about your concern about “the kids.” To which kids are you referring? Obviously not public school kids. We know how you feel about public schools.

As Daily Kos staff writer Laura Clawson wrote in 2020, after DeVos begged other Education Department career employees to “resist” working under President Joe Biden, she was clear about “what’s right for students.”

“Privatized education, at Christian schools where possible, with those schools having the right to discriminate against LGBTQ kids. In higher education, it’s expanded protections for alleged rapists and fewer protections for victims, as well as weaker oversight of for-profit colleges and universities,” Clawson wrote. “That’s what she’s asking the career employees of the Education Department to ‘resist’ on behalf of.”

In 2017, DeVos made her mark when she rescinded former President Barack Obama’s guidance on transgender bathrooms, sparking Liz King of the liberal-leaning Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to describe DeVos’ decision as “heartless, cruel, reckless and irresponsible,” NPR reports.

In 2020, DeVos’ press secretary, Angela Morabito, cited DeVos’ greatest accomplishment—the Education Freedom Scholarships, insisting that the proposed voucher program was “the most transformative K-12 policy in our nation’s history.”  But, As NPR reported, thanks to a lack of bipartisan support and the fact that neither she nor Trump could bridge that gap, DeVos’ school choice idea never got off the ground.

Advertisement

Now, there’s a reasonable president in office, a first lady with actual education experience, and an administration that supports public schools.


We talk to gun control advocate and executive director of Guns Down America, Igor Volsky on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast



Politics

Exclusive: The Washington Post Runs Article That Petitions Congress To Block Trump From Running in 2024 – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

The Washington Post Runs Article That Petitions Congress To Block Trump From Running in 2024

#Washington #Post #Runs #Article #Petitions #Congress #Block #Trump #Running

On Thursday, The Washington Post published an op-ed entitled, “There is a better option to keep Trump out of office than prosecution,” petitioning Congress to block former President Donald J. Trump from re-election in 2024.

The article was written by NBC News analyst Edward B. Foley, who argued that Congress should weaponize Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump to prevent him from running again. 

“If the goal of prosecuting former President Donald Trump is to protect American democracy from a Trump comeback in 2024, there is a better way to go about it than filing criminal charges,” Foley wrote. 

“Instead, Congress should exercise its constitutional authority to prohibit Trump from seeking the presidency again,” he continued. 

Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly authorizes Congress and the DOJ to ban people who have “engaged in insurrection” from running for office. Something Foley repeatedly called on Congress to exercise. 

TRENDING: BREAKING: SUPREME COURT REVERSES ROE v. WADE – ABORTION RETURNED TO THE STATES

Foley said, “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sets out the procedure. It provides that ‘no person’ shall hold federal office who, ‘having previously taken an oath’ as a federal officer ‘to support the Constitution of the United States,’ has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’”

Foley noted that utilizing the 14th Amendment “would avoid all the extra burdens of a criminal trial, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Foley believes that the events of January 6 were a criminal act led by the former President but appeared to suggest pursuing a criminal conviction would be difficult.

Advertisement

“Moreover, safeguarding the 2024 election from the kind of subversion that Trump attempted in 2020 does not require putting him in prison for his past criminality. Instead, what is necessary is to disable him from being a candidate again,” he argued. 

Foley went on to say that if Trump is not blocked from candidacy in the 2024 election, “the Republic is truly in trouble.” 

The continued effort to characterize January 6 as one of the worst days in American history is a sham campaign to distract from the events that have indeed hurt the nation. 

Attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro argues that January 6 was not an insurrection. He pointed out the creatively edited evidence used by the shame January 6 committee to paint Trump as a villain. 

In one set of footage played in the public hearings, Trump told the protesters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” However, the January 6 Committee cut out the “peacefully and patriotically” line in the video of Trump’s speech.

RELATED: VIDEO: Bill Maher Slams The Washington Post, Calling Their Newsrooms An ‘Unlicensed Daycare Center’

New York Post columnist Miranda Devine noted that “The 2020 BLM riots injured or blinded more than 2,000 police officers, resulted in the deaths of more than two dozen people and property damage worth more than $1 billion, the most expensive in insurance history.” 

Devine said, “As RealClearInvestigations has found, the 2020 BLM riots resulted in ’15 times more injured police officers, 30 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.’”


Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: House GOP Already Mulling National Abortion Ban – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#House #GOP #Mulling #National #Abortion #Ban

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: New Op-Ed: "On abortion, justices demonstrate courage under fire" – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#OpEd #quotOn #abortion #justices #demonstrate #courage #firequot

Yesterday, the Deseret News invited me to write an op-ed on Dobbs. I thought I would have some time to think about it, but the Court moved quicker than I expected.

My Op-Ed is titled, “On abortion, justices demonstrate courage under fire.” This piece builds on my essay “Judicial Courage” in the Texas Review of Law & Politics.

Here is the introduction:

In 1973, Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to abortion. Two decades later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court refused to reverse that controversial decision, writing that “to overrule (Roe) under fire … would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”

Today, Roe was overruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. And in doing so, the majority demonstrated real courage “under fire.” Five justices were willing to take this bold and correct legal step in the face of never-ending personal attacks, efforts to pack the court, fallout from the leaked draft opinion, protests outside their homes and even an assassination attempt.

Dobbs, which is a triumph for originalism and sound constitutional law, also signals that the court is infused with judicial fortitude. This virtue, more than any particular method of deciding cases, guarantees that the court will steadfastly safeguard the rule of law.

And the conclusion:

Two years ago, I dubbed the final month of the Supreme Court’s term as “Blue June.” In case after case, the court’s purported conservative majority went to the left. Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote, found creative ways to strike balances that did not really resolve contentious issues, but avoided any obvious conservative victory. He hewed closely to a jurisprudence of public relations.

Two years later, we are in a very different time — call it “Red June.” Today, the court overruled Roe v. Wade; yesterday the court held that New York’s restrictions on concealed carry were unconstitutional. These two decisions, separated by 24 hours, were handed down in the face of immense pressure from every facet of our society. Yet the justices did not falter. They are infused with judicial courage. And if they stick to their guns, come what may, the rule of law will be steadfastly safeguarded.

I will have much more to say about Red June, or perhaps Red Flag June in due course.

You should also check out Joel Alicea’s piece in City Journal, titled “An Originalist Victory.”

Advertisement

To acknowledge this achievement is to acknowledge the constitutional theory around which the coalition that brought it about rallied for a half-century: originalism. It was originalism that the pro-life movement adopted after Roe and supported through the confirmation defeat of Robert Bork; the attempted defeats of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh; and the setback of Casey. The goal of overruling Roe and Casey bound the conservative political movement to the conservative legal movement, and originalism was their common constitutional theory. Dobbs thus had the potential—as I argued in an earlier essay—to exacerbate the tensions over originalism within the conservative legal movement. It would be viewed as the acid test of originalism’s ability to translate theory into practice, and there would be no avoiding the stakes for the conservative legal movement in the case: “complete victory or crisis-inducing defeat,” as I put it. We now know that it was a complete victory, and it was, in large part, originalism’s victory.

I count Joel, Sherif Girgis, and a few others, as leaders in the conservative legal movement who helped advance the debate in Dobbs.

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.