Thursday, December 19, 2019

AS MAD AS A HATTER

Read the full letter Trump sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on eve of impeachment vote

In the letter, Trump invoked the Salem witch trials and questioned whether Pelosi, as she has said she does, truly prays for him.

By NBC News
President Donald Trump sent a rambling six-page letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling Congress' impeachment inquiry a partisan “crusade,” an “unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power” and a “spiteful” “election-nullification scheme.” The letter was sent a day before the full House is scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment against Trump.   Read the full text:PDF

House votes to impeach President Donald Trump
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump.

AMERICA YOU HAVE A MAD KING LIKE GEORGE III
CONGRATULATIONS YOU ELECTED A PSYCHOPATHIC SOCIOPATHIC NARCISSIST WHO WANTS ULTIMATE POWER LIKE A COMIC BOOK VILLAIN.

Letter from President Donald J. Trump to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Issued on: December 17, 2019

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.

Sincerely yours,

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America

cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representative


The 30 most blistering lines from Donald Trump's unhinged letter to Nancy Pelosi

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 3:37 AM ET, Wed December 18, 2019
(CNN)On the eve of his impeachment by the House, President Donald Trump sent a blistering letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- airing his grievances with her and the broader Democratic Party while insisting that the actions taken on Wednesday will doom her to the dustbin of history.

I went through the letter -- which, from its first words, you can tell has the President's rhetorical fingerprints all over it -- and highlighted some of the most, uh, important lines. They're below.

In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

1. "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."
So, two things. One, impeachment is built into the Constitution and two past presidents have been impeached by the House. Two, it's "Democratic lawmakers" not "Democrat Lawmakers." And away we go!
2. "You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!"
Like I said: You can clearly see Trump's involvement in the letter.
3. "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."
Wow. Lot to unpack here. Whether or not Trump likes it, the House is tasked with carrying out impeachment if a majority of members believe it is warranted. So, it's not "invalid." As for "declaring open war on American Democracy," well, Trump never pretended to be understated.
4. "You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme?"
There's almost never a good time for the "how dare you?" construction.
5. "Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying you pray for the President when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense."
WHOA BOY. So, Trump knows Pelosi doesn't actually pray for him? How? Did he someone eavesdrop on her prayers? Also, what is the "negative sense" of praying? I spent more time than I'd like to admit thinking about this and decided that Trump is suggesting that if Pelosi prays for him, it's for his demise. I think.
6. "It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"
Nothing is ever Trump's fault. Ever.
7. "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."
What would a perfect paragraph look like? Do we even know? Anywho, here are 4 facts from that July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: a) Trump tells Zelensky that the US does a lot for Ukraine b)Trump reminds Zelensky that Ukraine doesn't reciprocate c) Trump asks Zelensky for a favor: to look into a debunked conspiracy theory that the hacked Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine and d) Trump asks Zelensky to look into Joe and Hunter Biden. To my mind, the White House transcript of that call reads more like a smoking gun than an exoneration.
8. "I said to President Zelensky: 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."
Trump didn't start making this "me" versus "us" argument until the past few weeks. But even putting that aside, the two things he asks of Zelensky (whereabouts of DNC server and investigation into the Biden) were not mentioned at all in Trump's notes for the call, which were supposed to focus, generally speaking, on the country's corruption problems.
9. "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense."
At issue is not the separation of powers or even really a disagreement. The issue is whether a president can ask a foreign country to investigate one of his potential political rivals. And, even if he can do it, should he?
10. "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars."
Reminder: Biden called for the firing of Ukraine's top prosecutor as part of an international coalition designed to address corruption in the country. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in Ukraine by Joe or his son Hunter Biden.
11. "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did."
Apples and oranges here. Again, Biden called for the firing of the prosecutor as part of a coordinated -- and transparent -- strategy to address corruption in Ukraine. Trump got on the phone with the Ukrainian president and, contrary to the notes prepared for him in advance of the meeting, freelanced to ask him to investigate one of his main rivals for the GOP nomination.
12. "President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was 'No Pressure.'"
Zelensky is no dummy! He knows he needs future aid from the US in order to fight the Russians at his borders. Given that, why would he piss Trump off by saying he felt pressure? Also, not for nothing: Why is "No Pressure" capitalized?
13. "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.'"
Yes, Trump did tell US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that. After the White House had been made aware that Congress was looking into the withholding of military aid. So....
14. "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."
The 2016 election ended 1,134 days ago.
15. "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!"
An incurable case of TDS??? Call the CDC, STAT.
16. "You view democracy as your enemy!"
Just a reminder here: This is the President of the United States, on official White House stationery, telling the Speaker of the House that she believes democracy is the "enemy." Very normal! Nothing to see here!
17. "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."
Wait. Is this the "perfect" conversation? Or are we referring to another "totally appropriate" conversation here? Either way, Trump did nothing wrong! Ever!
18. "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."
This claim, which Trump repeats constantly, makes me insane. Because it's just wrong. Here's what Schiff said before paraphrasing what was in the July 25 phone call: "In not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates." He literally makes clear that he is paraphrasing Trump, not directly quoting him. Why is this a thing???
19. "You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United States, and you are doing it yet again."
To be clear: Pelosi had zero to do with the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. That was the Justice Department under Trump. Also, that investigation wasn't "fake" -- it led to a number of arrests and prison sentences, not to mention documenting the deep and broad efforts of the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.
20. "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."
Again, Trump misses the point here. The issue is not that other people were listening. The issue is what he told Zelensky -- even with people listening! If he talks like that when he knows people are on the line, how does he talk on the sidelines of summits and the like when there are far less staff nearby?
21. "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy."
I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
22. "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 horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of spies against my campaign."
There has never been a shred of evidence that spies were used against Trump's campaign. In fact, in the report released by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz earlier this month, it's made quite clear there is zero evidence of spies being sicced on the Trump campaign.
23. "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."
"Detest America's Constitutional order"? Really?
24. "In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew up, but that didn't stop you from continuing."
As I wrote at the time, the transcript of the July 25 phone call is pretty damn close to a smoking gun against Trump.
25. "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
Uh, paging John Proctor...
26. "This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth."
Definitely not illegal! Or a coup!
27. "Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution."
Not to be a contrarian here, but pretty sure that no matter what happens with impeachment, Pelosi's legacy will be as the first female Speaker of the House.
28. "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."
Really? And how did Trump learn to glean people's "real" motives? Is that some sort device you can buy on Amazon? If so, send me a link!
29. "I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record."
"This will go down on your permanent record." -- The Violent Femmes
30. "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."
Yeah, this feels like a good place to end.

---30---
Trump Diatribe Belittles Impeachment as ‘Attempted Coup’ on Eve of Votes
In an irate, six-page letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry in scathing terms, asserting that he had done nothing wrong and that Democrats would pay a political price in 2020.
“I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election,” President Trump wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Michael D. Shear
Published Dec. 17, 2019

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday angrily denounced the looming House votes to impeach him as a “Star Chamber of partisan persecution” by Democrats, describing the effort to remove him from office as an “attempted coup” that would come back to haunt them at the ballot box next year.

On the eve of the historic votes, Democrats reached a critical threshold, gathering majority support to impeach Mr. Trump, as the president raged against the proceedings. In an irate and rambling six-page letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Trump portrayed himself as the victim of enemies determined to destroy his presidency with false accusations.

“This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth,” Mr. Trump declared, describing a process enshrined in the Constitution as an attempted government overthrow.

“History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade,” he wrote.

In a missive full of unproven charges, hyperbole and long-simmering grievances against his own government — at one point, he referred to leaders of the F.B.I. as “totally incompetent and corrupt” — Mr. Trump angrily disputed both of the impeachment charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The letter ignored the extensive evidence uncovered during a two-month inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee, based in part on the testimony by members of his own administration. It found that Mr. Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals while holding back nearly $400 million in military assistance the country badly needed and a White House meeting for its president.

The charges accuse Mr. Trump of engaging in a corrupt scheme to enlist a foreign power for his own political benefit in the 2020 election, followed by an effort to conceal his actions by blocking congressional investigations. On Wednesday, the House is all but certain to approve them on nearly party-line votes, making him the third president ever to be impeached.

Past presidents have offered contrition as they stared down looming House impeachment votes. President Bill Clinton issued a personal apology from the White House Rose Garden in 1998, biting his lip and saying he was “profoundly sorry” for his actions in the Monica Lewinsky affair days before the House voted to impeach him. President Richard M. Nixon resigned his office in 1974 rather than face the vote at all.

But Mr. Trump was defiant and unrepentant on Tuesday. He accused Ms. Pelosi and her party of fabricating lies, saying that the speaker and Democrats were possessed by “Impeachment Fever” and vowing that he and the Republican Party would emerge stronger after he was vindicated in a Senate trial.

“You are the ones interfering in America’s elections,” he wrote in the letter, on stationery embossed with the presidential seal. “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.”

The letter appeared to preview the grievance-filled narrative of Mr. Trump’s 2020 campaign, echoing the rants he delivers at arena-style rallies around the country as he campaigns for re-election.

The president wrote that he knew his letter would not change the outcome. But he said that the document was “for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.”

In her own message on Tuesday evening to Democratic lawmakers, Ms. Pelosi made no reference to the president’s letter, instead urging her colleagues to “proceed in a manner worthy of our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Read Trump’s Letter to Pelosi Protesting Impeachment

President Trump sent a letter on Tuesday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing his “most powerful protest” against the impeachment process. The House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump on Wednesday.


Mr. Trump and Ms. Pelosi released their letters as Democrats began drafting rules for debate on the House floor. Meeting in a tiny hearing room just upstairs from the chamber, the House Rules Committee kicked off the broader House debate over the fate of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Impeachment Inquiry
What Happened Yesterday
Updated
Dec. 19, 2019

The House voted last night to impeach President Trump over his campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival, making him just the third president in American history to be charged with “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

On the first article, for the charge of abuse of power, the vote was split almost entirely along party lines, 230 to 197. Two Democrats sided with Republicans: Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew, who has indicated that he plans to switch parties and join the Republicans. Justin Amash, who recently left the Republican Party to become independent, voted for the article, and Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted “present.”

On the second article, concerning obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229 to 198. Members voted the same way as in the first vote, except Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who voted “no.” (Here’s how every member of the House voted.)
The votes came after eight hours of debate in the House. Lawmakers made a barrage of one- to two-minute speeches, with each side laying out a highlight reel of the arguments they have been making for weeks.

Democrats described it as a solemn day, saying they saw it as their duty to protect the Constitution and hold the president accountable. “Our founders’ vision of a republic is under threat from actions from the White House,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the president’s reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice.”

Republicans argued that Democrats have been hellbent on impeaching Mr. Trump since he first took office, with the Ukraine affair merely a convenient scandal to reach that end. “This day is about one thing and one thing only: They hate this president,” said Representative Chris Stewart of Utah. “They hate those of us who voted for him. They think we are stupid. They think we made a mistake.”

Mr. Trump took the stage at a campaign rally tonight in Battle Creek, Mich., just minutes before he was impeached, an extraordinary scene where thousands of supporters responded to the votes in real time as Mr. Trump railed against House Democrats.
During the day Mr. Trump sent more than 45 tweets defending himself and amplifying messages from supporters. “SUCH ATROCIOUS LIES BY THE RADICAL LEFT, DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS,” he said in one tweet. “THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON AMERICA, AND AN ASSAULT ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!”

“This scheme to corrupt an American presidential election subordinated the democratic sovereignty of the people to the private political ambitions of one man, the president himself,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “It immediately placed the national security interests of the United States of America at risk.”

Republicans responded with the same ferocity that has characterized their defense of Mr. Trump throughout the impeachment inquiry, insisting that the president had done nothing wrong and certainly nothing that warranted impeachment, and accusing Democrats of orchestrating an unfair and illegitimate process.

“No matter what happened and no matter where the investigations led, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was pushing since the day they took over to impeach President Trump,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the senior Republican on the Rules Committee.

Representative Doug Collins, Republican of Georgia, consulting with a lawyer during the Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of ignoring the rules in order to rush Mr. Trump’s impeachment. “What’s up is down and what’s down is up,” he said. “We’re more Alice in Wonderland than we are House of Representatives.”

None of them disputed the now-familiar facts surrounding the case against Mr. Trump, that he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading political rival, as he was holding back vital military assistance from the country.

The Rules Committee voted along party lines on Tuesday night to allow a total of six hours of debate over impeachment on the House floor on Wednesday, divided equally among Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

As House Democrats moved methodically toward the votes, the Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate clashed over the procedures that would guide an impeachment trial that is likely to begin early next year.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, rejected demands by Democrats to call four White House officials as witnesses. He said there was no reason now for the Senate to agree to take testimony from officials who might bolster Democrats’ case against the president. Later, in a strikingly public rejection of the oath senators take during an impeachment trial to “do impartial justice,” Mr. McConnell insisted he had no obligation to be evenhanded in his handling of the proceeding.

“I’m not an impartial juror,” he told reporters. “This is a political process. I’m not impartial about this at all.”

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, had requested in a letter to Mr. McConnell that the Senate take testimony during trial from four key figures, including Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser.

After Mr. McConnell’s rebuff, Mr. Schumer said that holding a trial without witnesses “would be an aberration.” In an interview, he added that the move would shirk the responsibility the Senate has to get to the truth about what occurred, and that it “eats away at the foundation of the republic.”

“The bottom line is that a trial with no witnesses, a trial with no documents is not a trial,” he said, adding, “We are going to do everything we can to get these documents and get these witnesses.”

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, had insisted in a letter to Senator Mitch McConnell that certain witnesses must be heard from.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

The bitter exchange between the Senate leaders came as the most politically vulnerable House Democrats continued to announce their support for the impeachment charges.

One centrist lawmaker, Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, announced Tuesday that he would support impeaching Mr. Trump for abuse of power, one of the two articles, but would vote against the article charging the president with obstruction of Congress.

“While I do not dispute that the White House has been provocative in its defiance and sweeping in its claims of executive privilege,” Mr. Golden said in a statement, “I also believe there are legitimate and unresolved constitutional questions about the limits of executive privilege.”

Others announced they would vote for both articles even though they were aware that the decision could cost them support in their conservative-leaning districts, and possibly even their seats.

Representative Anthony Brindisi, a freshman Democrat from upstate New York, said in a statement that he would vote for the articles of impeachment with “profound sadness.” But he said Mr. Trump needed to be held accountable.

“I will be voting not as Democrat or Republican but as an American who has been given this responsibility by the people I serve and the community I love,” Mr. Brindisi wrote in an early-morning series of posts on Twitter.

Like Mr. Golden, Mr. Brindisi is one of 23 freshman lawmakers who represent a district that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.

By evening, a majority of the House — all Democrats — had said they would vote in favor. The cascade of announcements from lawmakers who had been deeply skeptical of the drive to force Mr. Trump from office was a sign of Democratic unity on the eve of the House vote.

Representative Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a Democrat from a moderate district, came out in favor of impeachment on Tuesday.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Only one centrist Democrat, Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, intends to break with his party completely and vote “no” on impeachment, and he is planning to switch his affiliation to Republican to insulate himself politically.

Mr. Brindisi said in a newspaper opinion article that he became convinced of the president’s wrongdoing after carefully reviewing the evidence collected by the House Intelligence Committee in nearly two months of testimony from national security officials and diplomats in Mr. Trump’s government.

“The fact that the president made a political request to a foreign leader of a troubled country with the intention for it to impact an American rival is beyond disappointing,” Mr. Brindisi wrote. “It is unconstitutional. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. What the President admitted to doing is not something I can pretend is normal behavior.”

In her own statement, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said she would vote to impeach the president in order to make sure Congress did not send the message that his behavior was appropriate.

“I grieve for our nation,” Ms. Houlahan said. “But I cannot let history mark the behavior of our president as anything other than an unacceptable violation of his oath of office. The future of our republic and of our values depend on that.”

---30---
Reporting was contributed by Catie Edmonson, Nicholas Fandos, Sheryl Stolberg and Emily Cochrane.

Michael D. Shear is a White House correspondent. He previously worked at The Washington Post and was a member of their Pulitzer Prize-winning team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. @shearm







USA
Poll: 4 in 10 think there should be non-binary gender options on forms
Forty-two percent of Americans said online profiles and other forms should offer non-binary gender options, a Pew Research Center poll indicates.



https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LGBTQ

USA
Suicide among black youth growing faster than other groups, report says
The number of suicides among black youth is increasing faster than other racial or ethnic groups, an analysis by the Congressional Black Caucus found Thursday.

Thieves across U.S. mistake hemp fields for marijuana
Thieves have mistaken hundreds of thousands of acres of newly legal hemp plants for their close cousin -- marijuana -- across the country this year.

Across the country, newly legal hemp plants are being mistaken for their close cousin, marijuana -- and they're attracting thieves.



Putin dismisses Trump impeachment, urges talks for missile treaty
In his annual Christmastime address on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump, saying the historic step was predicated on "invented reasons."

UPI.COM




Long work hours at the office linked to both regular and hidden high blood pressure


Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Office workers who spend long hours on the job are more likely to have high blood pressure, including a type that can go undetected during a routine medical appointment, according to a new study published today in the American Heart Association's journal Hypertension.
High blood pressure affects nearly half of Americans ages 18 and older and is a primary factor in more than 82,000 deaths per year. Approximately 15-30% of U.S. adults have a type of the condition called masked , meaning their  readings are normal during health care visits but elevated when measured elsewhere.
The new study, conducted by a Canadian research team, enlisted more than 3,500 white-collar employees at three public institutions in Quebec. These institutions generally provide insurance services to the general population. Compared with colleagues who worked fewer than 35 hours a week:
  • Working 49 or more hours each week was linked to a 70% greater likelihood of having masked hypertension and 66% greater likelihood of having sustained hypertension- elevated blood pressure readings in and out of a clinical setting.
  • Working between 41 and 48 hours each week was linked to a 54% greater likelihood of having masked hypertension and 42% greater likelihood of having sustained hypertension.
  • The findings accounted for variables such as job strain, age, sex, , occupation, smoking status, body mass index and other health factors.
"Both masked and sustained high blood pressure are linked to higher cardiovascular disease risk," said lead study lead author Xavier Trudel, Ph.D., assistant professor in the social and preventive medicine department at Laval University in Quebec, Canada.
"The observed associations accounted for job strain, a work stressor defined as a combination of high work demands and low decision-making authority. However, other related stressors might have an impact," Trudel said. "Future research could examine whether family responsibilities—such as a worker's number of children, household duties and childcare role—might interact with work circumstances to explain high blood pressure."
The five-year study involved three waves of testing—in years one, three and five. To simulate in-clinic blood pressure readings, a trained assistant provided participants with a wearable monitor to check each participant's resting blood pressure three times in one morning. For the rest of the workday, the participant wore the blood pressure monitoring device, which took readings every 15 minutes—collecting a minimum of 20 additional measures for one day. Average resting readings at or above 140/90 mmHg, and average working readings at or above 135/85, were considered high.
In all, almost 19% of the workers had sustained hypertension, which included employees who were already taking high blood pressure medications. More than 13% of the workers had masked hypertension and not receiving treatment for high blood pressure. "The link between long working hours and high blood pressure in the study was about the same for men as for women," Trudel said.
The study "did not include blue-collar workers (employees who are paid by the hour and perform manual labor work in positions such agriculture, manufacturing, construction, mining, maintenance or hospitality service), therefore, these findings may not reflect the impact on blood pressure of shift-work or positions with higher physical demands," the authors said. Other limitations include the study's measurement of blood pressure only during daytime hours, and the omission of hours worked outside participants' primary job.
The authors noted several strengths of the study, including its many volunteers, accounting for multiple factors that can impact blood pressure, repeated testing over several years, the use of wearable monitors instead of relying on workers' reports of their ; and the use of the same monitors for all blood pressure measurements.
"People should be aware that long work hours might affect their heart health, and if they're working , they should ask their doctors about checking their blood pressure over time with a wearable monitor," Trudel said. "Masked hypertension can affect someone for a long period of time and is associated, in the long term, with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. We have previously shown that over five years, about 1 out of 5 people with masked hypertension never showed high  pressure in a clinical setting, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment."

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 

Mice subjected to shift work schedule start developing diabetes

CAPITALISM KILLS

lab mouse
Credit: CC0 Public Domain
Exposing mice to a light-dark cycle meant to mimic the schedule of human shift workers changes insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance in the animals, according to a study published December 18, 2019 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Bo Zhang of Southern Medical University, China, and colleagues.
Biological clocks, synchronized with environmental light and dark cycles, are responsible for not only mediating the timing of sleep and hunger cues, but regulating  and metabolism. Studies have previously shown that mutations in key clock genes can lead mice to rapidly develop metabolic disorder and obesity.
In the new work, researchers exposed  to a constantly shifting light-dark cycle. For four days out of each week, 12 hours of light and 12 hours of dark were aligned to the mice's previous schedule. For three subsequent days, the schedule jumped forward by eight hours, with darkness beginning partway through the normal light period. After four weeks of this alternating schedule, the researchers measured the  tolerance, and insulin secretion of the mice at multiple time points throughout the day, as well as food intake and physical activity. Control mice were kept on a static 12-hour  for the whole four weeks.
Mice on the shift work schedule had increased levels of fasting blood  (10.86 mmol/L vs 8.98, t=2.821, P=0.022) and hepatic glycogen (F=29.883, p<0 .001="" 12-hour="" 2.27="" 20.4="" a="" affect="" amplitude.="" and="" animals.="" ate="" attenuation="" average="" by="" change="" compared="" control="" daily="" did="" earlier="" early="" eliminated="" feeding="" fixed="" food="" glucose="" had="" hours="" however="" in="" increased="" insulin="" intake="" light="" mice.="" mice="" middle="" moreover="" normal="" not="" of="" on="" overall="" p="" period="" restricting="" rhythms="" schedule="" sensitivity.="" sensitivity="" shift="" shifted="" stages="" than="" the="" this="" though="" to="" tolerance="" unchanged="" was="" were="" while="" work="">

The current study was limited by the fact that only female mice were studied and sleep data was not collected. However, should the glucose tolerance patterns seen in these  occur also in human shift workers, this could lead to a mismatch between glucose uptake rhythms and meal timing, with glucose intolerance occurring during meals. Changes to both insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance could put shift workers at greater risk of developing Type II diabetes.
Zhand adds: "The effect of circadian disruption induced by light at night on glucose metabolism in shiftwork population and even in general population is a serious concern
More information: Li-Xin Zhong et al. Circadian misalignment alters insulin sensitivity during the light phase and shifts glucose tolerance rhythms in female mice, PLOS ONE (2019). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225813
Journal information: PLoS ONE 
Scientists discover potential medicinal cannabis substitute for treating Parkinson's disease

DECEMBER 19, 2019
 by University of Technology, Sydney
Credit: Pixabay

A drug that provides the benefits obtained from medicinal cannabis without the "high" or other side effects may help to unlock a new treatment for Parkinson's disease.

The drug—HU-308—lessens devastating involuntary movements called dyskinesias, a side effect from years of treatment for Parkinson's disease.

The research, published today in Neurobiology of Disease, has been conducted by the Centre for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine (CNRM) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and the Applied Medical Research Institute of St Vincent's Hospital Sydney.

The study shows that in mice HU-308 is as effective as amantadine, the only available treatment for dyskinesias. Furthermore, the combination of HU-308 with amantadine is more effective than either drug used alone.

Professor Bryce Vissel, director of the CNRM and senior author of the study, said the findings present the possibility of new options for Parkinson's patients.

"Our study suggests that a derivative of HU-308, either alone or in combination with amantadine, may be a more effective treatment for dyskinesias and a much better option than using an unproven potentially harmful substance like cannabis," Professor Vissel said.

"Currently there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis. One problem is that no cannabis preparation is the same and cannabis has numerous effects, some of which may not be beneficial in Parkinson's disease."

Cannabis works on several receptors in the brain—CB1 and CB2. The psychoactive effect is caused mostly because of receptor CB1.

Professor Vissel said the HU-308 drug explored by his team works only on receptor CB2, allowing medicinal benefits to be administered without causing psychoactive effects like drowsiness or highness.

Lead author Dr. Peggy Rentsch said it is unclear whether medicinal cannabis itself can help Parkinson's patients.

"Medicinal cannabis contains different compounds, some of which make you high and which can impact a person's normal day-to-day activities," Dr. Rentsch said.

"Our research suggests HU-308 is an important prototype drug which we believe won't interfere with patients' day-to-day activities. They should maintain normal levels of mental sharpness on a treatment like this."

Professor Vissel and his team are investigating ways to block inflammation of the brain to maintain and restore memory and slow the progression for both Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.

"HU-308 works by reducing inflammation in the brain, affecting the neurons and immune cells.

"In neurological disorders, the immune cells in the brain can lose supportive function with adverse stimuli—including but not limited to trauma or obesity—and become 'activated.' Scientists at the CNRM believe that, after this activation, the immune cells backfire, kill the brain's neurons, destroy them—and become dysfunctional.

"By reducing inflammation in the brain—such as with HU-308—these immune cells can support normal neural function again, rather than inhibiting it."

Study collaborator Dr. Sandy Stayte said: "The fact that amantadine has its own set of side effects, may not work in the long term, and is still the only drug available on the market that is approved for dyskinesias makes our study really exciting.

"First, our study shows HU-308 is equally affective so a drug like HU-308 will be useful for those people who can't take amantadine. Second, for those who can tolerate amantadine, taking the combination may have even greater benefits than taking either drug alone. That means we may end up with a much more powerful treatment than currently available by ultimately prescribing both."

The paper "Targeting the cannabinoid receptor CB2 in a mouse model of l-dopa induced Dyskinesia" is published in the journal Neurobiology of Disease.

New cannabinoid research shows potential for targeted drug therapy

by University of Aberdeen

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Researchers from the University of Aberdeen have identified parts of a gene that could open the door to treatment with medical cannabis for millions of people.

Although promising, the potential of cannabinoids in treating disease, addiction and obesity has been hampered due to the unpredictability of adverse side-effects which can include depression and psychosis. At present there is no way to predict which people will experience these side-effects, but Dr. Alasdair MacKenzie and his team, including leading cannabis researcher Professor Roger Pertwee, are working towards making these predictions.

In a study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, Dr. MacKenzie and Dr. Elizabeth Hay from the School of Medicine, Medical Science and Nutrition at the University, used revolutionary DNA sequencing, CRISPR technology to study specific areas of the gene that make cannabis receptors in the brain. According to their research, these previously ignored gene regions may hold the key to understanding why people respond differently to some drugs and could help inform treatments tailored to the individual.

Dr. MacKenzie explains: "We found that there was a genetic switch within the cannabis receptor in humans and mice and which had remained almost unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. This switch controlled the expression of the receptor in a part of the brain that modulates mood. We found that when we disrupted this switch in mice, alcohol intake and anxiety levels were reduced, as were the effects of cannabinoids.

"This means that we are helping to establish a functional role for this switch which may help us understand how it responds to cannabinoids. Going forward, this will contribute to unlocking the potential of medicinal cannabis."

Targeted drug therapy could dramatically increase the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis by eliminating the risk of harmful side-effects and this research has moved a step closer to that.

In a related study the team that were also able to identify a genetic change in the switch which occurred in about 20% of people. In a second paper published in Human Mutation, the team concluded that this may increase susceptibility to side effects in these individuals.

Dr. MacKenzie explains: "Cannabinoids are amazing source of drug therapies however the side effects that some people suffer hampers the development of these drugs. We need to know why people respond differently to drugs? Why do some people suffer depression and psychosis when taking cannabis when others don't? By identifying the people who could suffer from these adverse effects we could try to develop personalized medicine."

"It is hoped that this "gene switch" based approach may accelerate the development of more effective "personalized" cannabinoid-based drug treatments to treat obesity, addiction and mood disorders more safely. "

Professor Pertwee who is an internationally recognised leader in the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids added: "By starting to look at the effects of genetic changes on the switches that turn genes on and off in specific cells and at specific times, instead of changes in the genes themselves, we can begin to understand how drug side effects arise in different patient groups and focus treatment using these drugs on those who would most benefit. "


More information: Elizabeth . Hay et al. Disruption of an enhancer associated with addictive behaviour within the cannabinoid receptor-1 gene suggests a possible role in alcohol intake, cannabinoid response and anxiety-related behaviour, Psychoneuroendocrinology (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104407



Elizabeth A. Hay et al. Disease‐associated polymorphisms within the conserved ECR1 enhancer differentially regulate the tissue‐specific activity of the cannabinoid‐1 receptor gene promoter; implications for cannabinoid pharmacogenetics, Human Mutation (2019). DOI: 10.1002/HUMU.23931
Journal information: Psychoneuroendocrinology

ANALYSIS

Vancouver’s Right-Wing Municipal Party Just Moved Even Further to the Far-Right

NPA supporters jump ship after far-right activists take over the party, despite the NPA’s long history of pushing right-wing policies

December 16, 2019

People are abandoning Vancouver’s right-wing political party amid accusations that the party has shifted even further to the far-right.

Last week, Rebecca Bligh, a city councillor with the Non-Partisan Association party, announced her resignation from the NPA after the party elected a new executive with extreme, far-right views.

In a statement posted on Facebook, Bligh complained that the new party executive included “anti-SOGI” activists who oppose LGBTQ rights.


After considerable discussions with my family, I made the personal decision to resign from the NPA Party and remain on Vancouver City Council as an independent. My full statement is attached. https://t.co/EvqAxbuA0E

— Rebecca Bligh (@rebeccaleebligh) December 7, 2019



Bligh appears worried about Phyllis Tang and Ray Goldenchild, two newly elected NPA board members who ran for the “Let’s Vote Association,” a social conservative municipal party that railed against BC’s LGBTQ-inclusive school curriculum in last year’s Vancouver election

Christopher Wilson, another newly elected NPA board member, is a former Rebel Media personality. In 2017, he made national headlines after Catherine McKenna, then the federal environment minister, confronted him about referring to her with a sexist nickname.

A number of current NPA councillors and former NPA candidates also criticized the party’s new board, including 2018 mayoral candidate Ken Sim, 2018 council candidate Justin P. Goodrich, ex-councillor George Affleck and sitting councillor Sarah Kirkby-Yung.

But party insiders who complain the NPA is losing its “progressive” identity might be overlooking the party’s long history of promoting hard right-wing policies:

1. The NPA provoked the second longest strike in Vancouver’s history

Former NPA mayor Sam Sullivan oversaw an 88-day strike of Vancouver’s civic workers in 2007. At the time, CUPE leaders accused Sullivan of refusing to negotiate on pay increases and job security for workers, resulting in widespread disruptions to city services.

2. The NPA voted against a tax increase designed to help ease the city’s opioid crisis

In 2016, Council voted to increase property taxes by 0.5% (around $4 for condo owners, $11 for single family homes) to help pay for resources to deal with the city’s fentanyl and opioid crisis.

Voting against that measure, NPA councillor Melissa De Genova said “it’s easy for us to make that decision, $4 more, $10 more, hundreds of dollars more — it all depends on your property value.”

4. NPA councillors voted against the creation of an empty-homes tax

NPA councillors voted against the introduction of the city’s Empty Homes Tax and regulations on short-term rentals. The measures were introduced in an effort to tackle global real estate speculation. However, Affleck called the measures “tax cash-grabs to increase bottom line revenue for the city.”

5. The NPA forced out its own sitting mayor because he supported harm reduction

NPA officials contested the nomination of long-serving NPA mayor Philip Owen after he sought a fourth term in the 2002 election over his pursuit of a harm-reduction strategy to tackle the city’s overdose crisis.

Owen lost the nomination, and the NPA’s candidate went on to lose the election.

6. An NPA councillor voted against the city’s reconciliation efforts

NPA councillor Colleen Hardwick recently voted against Vancouver’s City of Reconciliation report.

Hardwick told the Vancouver Sun: “Are we a local government? Or are we a values-based organization. I just wish there was more education and a little less ideology.”

Natural causes are the key driver of change in Athabasca Delta flood patterns, research shows
by Matthew Grant, University of Waterloo
THE CHEMICAL PROCESS OF DILUTION [EP]
"It's clear from our research that lakes in the Athabasca Delta have been largely influenced by shifting river paths within the delta," said Mitchell Kay, a Ph.D. candidate at Waterloo and lead author of the studies. "Our findings also identify that concentrations of metals supplied by the Athabasca River have remained unchanged during the past 150 years."
About 80 per cent of the Peace-Athabasca Delta is
 contained within Wood Buffalo National Park, 
one of Canada’s 20 UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 
Credit: Mackenzie Schultz

Natural environmental processes—not upstream energy projects—are the primary cause of changing flood patterns in Alberta's Athabasca Delta, new research shows.

The research also shows there is no evidence to support the perception that energy projects have increased the amount of metal pollutants in the delta ecosystem.

Two recent studies, led by researchers at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, found that natural changes to the river paths alongside climate impacts remain the dominant influences in the Athabasca Delta. In this area, recent lake drying and an increased perception of pollution have been widely attributed to the WAC Bennett Dam and oil sands developments, which are located upstream.

"It's clear from our research that lakes in the Athabasca Delta have been largely influenced by shifting river paths within the delta," said Mitchell Kay, a Ph.D. candidate at Waterloo and lead author of the studies. "Our findings also identify that concentrations of metals supplied by the Athabasca River have remained unchanged during the past 150 years."

"These findings provide important information to the Government of Canada, First Nations, and UNESCO, who are currently reviewing the World Heritage status of Wood Buffalo National Park, which houses a large portion of the delta."

About 80 percent of the Peace-Athabasca Delta is contained within Wood Buffalo National Park, one of Canada's 20 UNESCO World Heritage Sites. There are ongoing discussions between the Government of Canada, UNESCO and First Nations in the area about the conservation status of the park and whether it should be downgraded to a "World Heritage in Danger" site.

The studies analyzed cores of sediment that has settled at the bottom of floodplain lakes across the Athabasca Delta, providing a record of the flooding and metal concentrations over the past 150 years.

These records show that the major change to flooding patterns in the delta occurred after 1982, with some areas of the delta experiencing a marked increase in flooding, while other areas flooded less. The researchers attribute this change to a natural erosion event that occurred in 1982 when the Embarras River broke through its bank, substantially shifting the direction of river flow within the delta. This event is known as The Embarras Breakthrough.

"While there is broad consensus that the lake and river water levels have been declining in recent years, there is considerable controversy over the cause," said Roland Hall, a biology professor at Waterloo who has been studying the region for 20 years. "Our research clearly shows drying in much of the Athabasca Delta began in 1982, which corresponds to the Embarras Breakthrough event, not to operation of the WAC Bennett Dam, which began in 1968."

Further analysis of the sediment showed that metals of concern, found abundantly in the bitumen mined upstream of the delta, have remained within the natural range of concentrations that have existed for at least the past 150 years.

The study established baseline levels of six different metals of concern prior to oil sands development, and found no evidence supporting the common perception that pollution from the oil sands industry has reached the downstream Athabasca Delta.

This research was completed by Kay, Hall, collaborator Brent Wolfe of Wilfrid Laurier University, and members of their research teams, and published in the journals Environmental Research Communications and Science of the Total Environment.

More information: M L Kay et al. Bi-directional hydrological changes in perched basins of the Athabasca Delta (Canada) in recent decades caused by natural processes, Environmental Research Communications (2019). DOI: 10.1088/2515-7620/ab37e7

M.L. Kay et al. Evaluating temporal patterns of metals concentrations in floodplain lakes of the Athabasca Delta (Canada) relative to pre-industrial baselines, Science of The Total Environment (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135309

Journal information: Science of the Total Environment

Studies find Alberta oil sands development not a major source of long-distance air and water pollution
by University of Waterloo

(Phys.org)—Oil sands development in northern Alberta isn’t polluting the nearby Peace-Athabasca Delta via the air and water to the extent many may believe, two recently published University of Waterloo research studies have found.

The research revealed that Alberta oil sands emissions haven’t increased the amount of metal and organic contaminants travelling via the atmosphere to the delta, located 200 km north of the oil sands industry. And it determined that oil sands mining activity hasn’t measurably increased the delivery of organic contaminants to shallow delta lakes via the Athabasca River.

The findings by researchers at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University counter the belief that human health, wildlife, and ecosystems are suffering as a result of long-distance transport of contaminants from the oil sands development.

“This evidence is essential in guiding responsible development of the oil sands while recognizing its true impact and benefits,” says Terry McMahon, dean of science. “It demonstrates the value that comprehensive research and the generation of knowledge can have on future decisions that affect our health, economy, and environment.”

One of the studies, “"Has Alberta oil sands development altered delivery of polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Peace-Athabasca Delta?"” published on September 26 in PLOS ONE, discovered the amount of organic contaminants that the Athabasca River carried to the downstream delta hasn’t increased above pre-development levels in sediments of a flood-prone lake.

Earlier in September, the study "“Has Alberta oil sands development increased far-field delivery of airborne contaminants to the Peace-Athabasca Delta?"”examining the transport of metal contaminants from the oil sands by air was published in Science of the Total Environment. It shows that key metals of concern including lead, antimony, arsenic, and mercury declined during the period when Alberta oil sands production was increasing dramatically. For these studies, researchers used lake sediment records spanning the past 200 years to provide critical knowledge of baseline, pre-development levels of metal and organic contaminant deposition, and to measure changes over time since the onset of oil sands development.

“The results of this study are significant in providing the knowledge needed for meaningful debates about the environmental exposure and effects of oil production at the world’s second-largest proven reserve,” says Roland Hall, principal investigator on the study and professor in the Department of Biology. “Indeed, our data show that toxic metals like arsenic and lead travelling via the atmosphere have declined dramatically in recent decades despite the growth of Alberta’s oil sands industry. And, we were unable to detect an increase in organic contaminants transported by the Athabasca River above natural levels delivered by floodwaters.”

The study may provide a foundation to map the footprint of emissions travelling via the air and water from oil sands operations over space and time, which could be a valuable contribution to Environment Canada’s new oil sands monitoring program.

Image: Athabasca oil sands from orbit
by European Space Agency
Credit: USGS/ESA
This Landsat-8 image covers a distance of over 350 km from top to bottom, all within Canada's Alberta province.
To the north, blue lake waters are visible, interspersed with rivers and creeks. This area makes up the world's largest freshwater inland river delta, where the Peace and Athabasca rivers converge on the Slave River and Lake Athabasca (the water body in the upper right).

Lake Claire to the left is also part of this delta system, and lies within the Wood Buffalo National Park – Canada's largest.

The lower half of the image is part of a wider area known as the Athabasca oil sands, which has the world's largest known reservoir of crude bitumen, which can be upgraded to crude oil using technology that extracts the oil from the soil using chemicals.

Boreal forests and peat bogs in this area are being destroyed by open-pit mining and hydraulic fracturing – 'fracking' – for heavy crude oil.

Boreal forests cover nearly half of the province, but about 20% has been disturbed by open-pit mining, some of which are visible in the lower-right. In addition to deforestation, these activities cause pollution and push wildlife from their preferred habitats.

This image, also featured on the Earth from Space video programme, is just one of more than 130 satellite images on display at the Palazzo delle Esposizioni in Rome, Italy, until 2 November.

As part of the 'My Planet from Space: Fragility and Beauty' exhibition, the collection takes you on a journey to some of the most beautiful and remote places on Earth, demonstrating the fragility of our planet and the challenges posed by human activities and climate change.