Connect with us

News

Trump overrules Sessions: DOJ won’t target marijuana in states like Colorado where the drug is legal

Published

on

How did this shift come about? Was Trump persuaded on the federalist merits of letting states take the lead on setting marijuana policy? Or did Cory Gardner’s hardball tactics of blockading Senate confirmation of DOJ nominees until the White House reversed itself win the day?

Or … did POTUS realize that few things would piss off his least favorite cabinet nominee more than easing off the war on weed? If so, border hawks should start urging Sessions to take a strong “please don’t build the wall” line in public.

To be fair to Sessions, his determination to enforce federal pot laws in states where it’s legal has been overstated. All he said when he rescinded the Obama DOJ’s hands-off policy was that the local U.S. Attorneys in each state should use their discretion in prosecuting offenders. Last month he watered that down further by urging U.S. Attorneys not to bother with “small marijuana cases.” He’s not demanding that the DEA start rounding up potheads in Denver. But even so:

In a phone call late Wednesday, Trump told Gardner that despite the DOJ memo, the marijuana industry in Colorado will not be targeted, the senator said in a statement Friday. Satisfied, the first-term senator is now backing down from his nominee blockade.

“Since the campaign, President Trump has consistently supported states’ rights to decide for themselves how best to approach marijuana,” Gardner said Friday. “Late Wednesday, I received a commitment from the President that the Department of Justice’s rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado’s legal marijuana industry.”

He added: “Furthermore, President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states’ rights issue once and for all. Because of these commitments, I have informed the Administration that I will be lifting my remaining holds on Department of Justice nominees.”

The last part is big news, if true. A federal law requiring the DOJ to defer to states on marijuana enforcement would go a long way towards destigmatizing the drug; if you’re pro-legalization, or at least pro-decriminalization at the federal level, that’s obviously a major step. (“We may now be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel,” said one prominent Colorado legalization advocate.) It’d also bring President Trump back into line with candidate Trump’s campaign promises. WaPo flagged this short clip from summer 2016 in its story about this today:

Marijuana stocks surged on news of the new policy, which is what you’d expect when an industry in perpetual legal limbo gets a jolt towards legitimacy. One obvious question, though: Is Trump serious about this or is it another example of him telling someone (in this case Gardner) what they want to hear when they’re right in front of him, only to reverse himself privately five minutes later? Legalization advocates are cautious:

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat and the co-founder of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, called Gardner’s announcement “another head-spinning moment.”

“We should hope for the best, but not take anything for granted,” Blumenauer said in a statement. “Trump changes his mind constantly, and Republican leadership is still in our way.”

The case for optimism here is that this isn’t an out-of-the-blue reversal a la Trump telling Larry Kudlow to take a look at rejoining TPP. The legalization side has a powerful advocate in Gardner, a senator from a swing state and current chair of the NRSC. If Trump were to reverse himself again, presumably Gardner would reinstate his hold on Trump nominees in the Senate. He has leverage to make sure POTUS keeps his promise. The case for pessimism is that congressional compromise on culture-war issues is always hard and this is, after all, a midterm year. Ryan and McConnell might conclude that they have enough problems this fall already that they shouldn’t do anything that might risk alienating senior citizens. Even if it looks like a “let the states decide” bill on marijuana might have 218 votes in the House, Ryan could invoke the Hastert Rule to say that unless a majority of his own caucus supports it, it’s not coming to the floor.

He should consider two things, though. One: Letting the states lead on marijuana is an issue that polls fantastically well. There’s still considerable Republican opposition to legalizing marijuana outright, but a federalist approach that has the DOJ defer to the states on enforcement routinely does supermajority numbers in surveys. The risk of Ryan angering his own base by passing Gardner’s legislation isn’t that great and may even be marginal if Trump is true to his word and backs the legislation, bringing MAGA Nation into line. Two: Because there’s already bipartisan support and Trump seems onboard with the idea, it’s a cinch that some bill like Gardner’s will pass the House next year if Democrats take back the chamber this fall. That being so, why would Ryan let Pelosi have the credit for passing a 70-percent issue when he can do it himself right now? If anything, having the GOP majority pass it now might ease some of the enthusiasm that left-leaning marijuana legalization advocates feel to vote in November.

Exit question: If even Mr Establishment is now singing the praises of weed, how far away can we be from full legalization, realistically?

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

You won’t have Maggie Haberman to kick around anymore (on Twitter, anyway)

Published

on

By

Another voice on Twitter is falling silent (at least mostly) but it has nothing to do with the recent Great Twitter Purge. New York Times columnist Maggie Haberman is throwing in the towel for the time being, while allowing the possibility that she may return after a break. The first indication of her imminent departure came, ironically enough, on Twitter.

I’m not sure how “no reason or prompt” fits into the explanation, but Haberman expanded on her decision in a column yesterday.

I woke up last Sunday morning feeling anxiety in my chest as I checked the Twitter app on my phone, scrolling down to refresh, refresh, refresh. There was a comment I started to engage with — I opened a new post, tapped out some words, then thought better of it and deleted the tweet. The same thing happened repeatedly for the next two hours.

The evening before, I had complained to a close friend that I hated being on Twitter. It was distorting discourse, I said. I couldn’t turn off the noise. She asked what was the worst that could happen if I stepped away from it.

There was nothing I could think of. And so just after 6 p.m. last Sunday, I did.

After nearly nine years and 187,000 tweets, I have used Twitter enough to know that it no longer works well for me. I will re-engage eventually, but in a different way.

Haberman goes into greater detail than simply saying it “wasn’t working for her” anymore. She describes at length the, “viciousness, toxic partisan anger, intellectual dishonesty, motive-questioning and sexism” she regularly encounters. In a sweeping bit of generalization, she describes the platform has having become, “an anger video game for many users.”

Having been a user of the system for eight years now, and not wanting to come off as too much of a jerk, all I could really think to say is, “welcome to Twitter.”

People leave Twitter all the time, some permanently and others just for a break. And yes, if you allow it to absorb your life it can definitely be an overwhelming experience. But as I said, that’s only if you let it. The fact is that Twitter is what you make of it, particularly in terms of how much time you’re willing to invest and to what purpose. Many of us (including yours truly) went through a period during their early days on the internet where our entire evening could boil away because… Oh My God… Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet.

I can remember some of my first online community interactions on the web. For a time I enjoyed participating in some USENET newsgroups. Since we’ve always kept pets I spent a brief period participating in the alt.cats community. What could go wrong in a group that enjoys talking about cats, right? Let me enlighten you. I ran into some Brit who was virulently opposed to keeping cats as indoor pets and thought they should all live outdoors. And yes, I spent weeks in a flamewar with him on that subject which sometimes kept me up until the wee hours of the morning because of the time difference between us. To this day I’m not sure which one of us came off looking more like the troll.

The point is that I eventually learned that I didn’t have to do that. Twitter is no different. If you’re getting so much hate and trolling that you’re losing your mind you can always simply shut down (or ignore) your mentions. It’s easy enough to set up groups of people you actually want to hear from. If you’re a relatively famous blue checkmark person (and Haberman definitely qualifies) you can also tone down the noise by filtering your mentions to only show verified accounts. Mute is also a wonderful feature if those other filters don’t do the trick.

But mostly it’s just a question of how compelled you feel to engage or how much weight you assign to some anonymous user who wants to call you names, impugn your reputation or otherwise haunt you. Personally, I find that my eyes are the best filter of all. After enough time walking through the maelstrom of the various social networks, you can quickly skim past the comments that aren’t going to add to the experience and simply engage with the ones who are either positive or at least offering constructive criticism.

I’m sure Maggie Haberman and I don’t see eye to eye on much but I’ve been following her on Twitter for some time. She frequently highlights and links to articles which I at least find worth my time to read and possibly even respond to here. I hope she comes back.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Rep. Mark Meadows Calls For Carter Page FISA Docs to be Declassified, Unredacted

Published

on

By

On Saturday, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton announced documents related to the FISA warrants on Trump’s former campaign advisor, Carter Page were released by the FBI — and arrived at JW headquarters.

Fitton said Saturday evening Judicial Watch received the requested documents and even though they are heavily redacted, they confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts.

Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI withheld information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC being behind the information used to obtain the FISA warrant.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) called for the FISA docs to be declassified so “Americans can know the truth.”

Meadows tweeted: Potentially groundbreaking development here. The Carter Page FISA docs should be declassified and further unredacted (protecting only sources and methods) so Americans can know the truth.


If the previous admin was funneling campaign research toward surveillance, we need to know.

Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and Sally Yates all signed the FISA applications even though Hillary’s fraudulent Russia dossier was used as a pretext to obtain the warrants.

Obama’s Deep State FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page in October of 2016 and three subsequent renewals in order to spy on Trump’s campaign and transition team.

By law, the FBI must present to the FISC new, compelling information gathered from current monitoring in order to get a FISA warrant renewed every 90 days…

However, the applications filed to renew the Carter Page FISA warrants simply recycle old Christopher Steele/Yahoo information [Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo article on Carter Page] from the original application, reported Paul Sperry.

The newly released docs also reveal Peter Strzok did indeed provide information which was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page, directly contradicting his sworn claims to GOP lawmakers.

And President Trump isn’t allowed to question our intel agencies after all of this corruption??

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Nikki Haley: For peace, we need to tell the truth about Hamas

Published

on

By

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, along with presidential adviser Jared Kushner, ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and assistant to the president Jason Greenblatt, published a piece today at CNN arguing that peace in Gaza will require telling the truth about Hamas. Haley recounts a recent vote in the UN when it seemed, for the first time, a majority of other nations might actually agree:

On the surface, everything about the General Assembly session on June 13 appeared to be business as usual. Algeria offered a grossly one-sided resolution blaming Israel — and Israel alone — for the recent violence in Gaza. The resolution blatantly ignored the facts.

Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza, has been inciting the violence at the Israeli boundary fence for months, using Palestinian civilians as human shields. And Hamas and other terror groups have fired more than 100 rockets and sent untold numbers of flaming kites, some displaying swastikas, into Israel in the past month, hoping to kill as many Israeli civilians and destroy as much property as possible. And yet the Algerian resolution not only failed to hold Hamas terrorists accountable for their role in the violence, it failed to mention Hamas at all.

In response, the United States proposed a simple amendment to the resolution that called out Hamas for its role in the skirmishes. A minimum fealty to the truth demanded that the United Nations condemn Hamas by name for firing rockets into Israel and for allowing other terror groups to do the same…

When the amendment came to a vote, a miracle by UN standards happened. Although the measure ultimately failed for technical reasons, more nations voted for holding Hamas accountable with the US amendment than against it.

For the first time in the United Nations, more nations than not acknowledged that peace between Israel and the Palestinian people must be built on a foundation of truth regarding Hamas.

Haley goes on to say that this kind of realism will be part of any U.S. sponsored peace proposal. If you haven’t been keeping up with what is going on in Gaza, Israel unleashed a string of attacks on Hamas outposts after an Israeli soldier was killed by a sniper:

On Friday, a Palestinian sniper killed an Israeli soldier along the border — the first casualty it has sustained in four years — and Israel unleashed an offensive it says destroyed more than 60 Hamas targets, including three battalion headquarters. Four Palestinians were killed, of which three were Hamas militants.

“The attack delivered a severe blow to the Hamas’s training array, command and control abilities, weaponry, aerial defense and logistic capabilities along with additional military infrastructure,” the Israeli military said in a statement, adding that the strikes “will intensify as necessary.”…

In a brief statement early Saturday, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the movement accepted the cease-fire brokered by Egyptian and United Nations officials and that calm had been restored. Later, the Israeli military announced a return to civilian routine along the volatile border.

So, further escalation of the conflict has been avoided for now but there’s no telling how long it will last. While Hamas lacks the military strength to make significant strikes on Israel, its leaders continue to talk in terms of ethnic cleansing. It’s difficult to imagine making peace so long as these people are in control:

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close