Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
GGoss
GGoss's Journal
GGoss's Journal
March 16, 2023
So F*ing Predictable: Meet Luke Mullen, Actor, Director, Over 300,000 Followers On Social Media
He was born about a week after 9/11, so yeah, he's young, and he votes, and he is pissed...
Thought some of you might want to see for yourselves:
https://twitter.com/thelukemullen/status/1635410164365893632
And here's a sample of some shit coming our way...
Oh, and a helping of Greta Thunberg for good measure.
https://twitter.com/MoktanYangzom/status/1631129112034291712
March 15, 2023
A special grand jury looking into election meddling interviewed Robert Cheeley, a sign that false claims made by Donald J. Trump’s allies loom large in the case.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/us/trump-georgia-lawyer-robert-cheeley.html
And...
Georgia DA's BIG MOVE on Trump Lawyer REVEALED in New Reporting
Little-Known Lawyer, a Trump Ally, Draws Scrutiny in Georgia - NYT
Little-Known Lawyer, a Trump Ally, Draws Scrutiny in Georgia - NYTA special grand jury looking into election meddling interviewed Robert Cheeley, a sign that false claims made by Donald J. Trump’s allies loom large in the case.
ATLANTA — At a Georgia State Senate hearing a few weeks after President Donald J. Trump lost his bid for re-election, Rudolph W. Giuliani began making outlandish claims. “There are 10 ways to demonstrate that this election was stolen, that the votes were phony, that there were a lot of them — dead people, felons, phony ballots,” he told the assembled legislators.
After Mr. Giuliani’s testimony, a like-minded Georgia lawyer named Robert Cheeley presented video clips of election workers handling ballots at the State Farm Arena in downtown Atlanta. Mr. Cheeley spent 15 minutes laying out specious assertions that the workers were double- and triple-counting votes, saying their actions “should shock the conscience of every red blooded Georgian” and likening what he said had happened to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
His comments mostly flew under the radar at the time, overshadowed by the election fraud claims made by Mr. Giuliani, who was then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and by other higher-profile figures. But Mr. Cheeley’s testimony did not end up in the dustbin. He was among the witnesses questioned last year by a special grand jury in Atlanta that investigated election interference by Mr. Trump and his allies, the grand jury’s forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said in an interview last month.
The fact that Mr. Cheeley was called to appear before the special grand jury adds to the evidence that although the Atlanta investigation has focused on Mr. Trump’s biggest areas of legal exposure — the calls he made to pressure local officials and his involvement in a scheme to draft bogus presidential electors — the false claims made by his allies at legislative hearings have also been of significant interest. Mr. Giuliani has been told that he is among the targets who could face charges in the investigation.
“He did testify before us,” Ms. Kohrs said of Mr. Cheeley in the interview...
After Mr. Giuliani’s testimony, a like-minded Georgia lawyer named Robert Cheeley presented video clips of election workers handling ballots at the State Farm Arena in downtown Atlanta. Mr. Cheeley spent 15 minutes laying out specious assertions that the workers were double- and triple-counting votes, saying their actions “should shock the conscience of every red blooded Georgian” and likening what he said had happened to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
His comments mostly flew under the radar at the time, overshadowed by the election fraud claims made by Mr. Giuliani, who was then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and by other higher-profile figures. But Mr. Cheeley’s testimony did not end up in the dustbin. He was among the witnesses questioned last year by a special grand jury in Atlanta that investigated election interference by Mr. Trump and his allies, the grand jury’s forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said in an interview last month.
The fact that Mr. Cheeley was called to appear before the special grand jury adds to the evidence that although the Atlanta investigation has focused on Mr. Trump’s biggest areas of legal exposure — the calls he made to pressure local officials and his involvement in a scheme to draft bogus presidential electors — the false claims made by his allies at legislative hearings have also been of significant interest. Mr. Giuliani has been told that he is among the targets who could face charges in the investigation.
“He did testify before us,” Ms. Kohrs said of Mr. Cheeley in the interview...
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/us/trump-georgia-lawyer-robert-cheeley.html
And...
Georgia DA's BIG MOVE on Trump Lawyer REVEALED in New Reporting
March 15, 2023
"Permitting Willow to go forward is greenlighting a carbon bomb," said one campaigner. "It would set back the climate fight and embolden an industry hell-bent on destroying the planet."
Jake Johnson
Mar 15, 2023
* Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely. *
Environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits on Tuesday and Wednesday to fight the Biden administration's decision to approve a massive fossil fuel drilling project on Alaska's North Slope, a step that opened the door to hundreds of millions of tons of additional planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
The first lawsuit, filed by the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska on behalf of six advocacy groups, accuses the Biden Interior Department and two of its agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service—of "violating their respective duties under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, and the Endangered Species Act" by greenlighting ConocoPhillips' Willow Project.
The legal challenge specifically faults the federal agencies for "failing to consider alternatives that would further reduce impacts to subsistence users, preclude drilling in sensitive ecosystems, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts."
"It further charges agencies for not taking a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as required by NEPA, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, air quality, polar bears, caribou, wetlands, and subsistence uses and resources," Trustees for Alaska said in a press release on Tuesday.
Siqiñiq Maupin, executive director of Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic—an Alaska indigenous group involved in the suit—said in a statement that "once again, we find ourselves going to court to protect our lives, our communities, and our future."
"The Biden administration's approval of the ConocoPhillips Willow project makes no sense for the health of the Arctic or the planet and comes after numerous calls by local communities for tribal consultation and real recognition of the impacts to land, water, animals, and people," said Maupin. "ConocoPhillips has made record profits year after year and hopes to continue to do so at the cost of our communities and future generations."
On Wednesday, the Biden administration faced an additional lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of an alliance of conservation groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Greenpeace USA.
Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
"We’re asking the court to halt this illegal project and ensure the public knows its true climate impacts," said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for NRDC. "Permitting Willow to go forward is greenlighting a carbon bomb. It would set back the climate fight and embolden an industry hell-bent on destroying the planet."
The Wednesday lawsuit also charges the Biden administration with failing to fully examine alternatives to the project it formally approved earlier this week, ignoring months of protests from climate organizations.
Earthjustice noted that the options the administration considered "ranged only from allowing ConocoPhillips to develop 100% of the available oil to allowing it to develop 92% of the oil."
Natalie Mebane, the climate director for Greenpeace USA, said in a statement Wednesday that "approving what would be the largest oil extraction project on federal lands is incredibly hypocritical from President Biden, who in his State of the Union called the climate crisis an existential threat."
"The science is clear," said Mebane. "We cannot afford any new oil or gas projects if we are going to avoid climate catastrophe."
While the Biden Interior Department—headed by Deb Haaland, a former Willow opponent—has insisted that the version of the project it approved "subtantially reduces" the scope of ConocoPhillips' drilling operations, Earthjustice stressed Wednesday that the project "will still add about 260 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the next 30 years, the equivalent of an extra two million cars on the road each year for thirty years."
"There is no question that the administration possessed the legal authority to stop Willow—yet it chose not to," said Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney in Earthjustice's Alaska regional office. "It greenlit this carbon bomb without adequately assessing its climate impacts or weighing its options to limit the damage and say no."
"The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges we face, and President Biden has promised to do all he can to meet the moment," Grafe added. "We're bringing today's lawsuit to ensure that the administration follows the law and ultimately makes good on this promise for future generations."
Link: https://www.commondreams.org/news/groups-sue-biden-willow-project
Green Groups Sue to Fight Biden Approval of 'Illegal' Willow Project - CommonDreams
Green Groups Sue to Fight Biden Approval of 'Illegal' Willow Project - CommonDreams"Permitting Willow to go forward is greenlighting a carbon bomb," said one campaigner. "It would set back the climate fight and embolden an industry hell-bent on destroying the planet."
Jake Johnson
Mar 15, 2023
* Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely. *
Environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits on Tuesday and Wednesday to fight the Biden administration's decision to approve a massive fossil fuel drilling project on Alaska's North Slope, a step that opened the door to hundreds of millions of tons of additional planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
The first lawsuit, filed by the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska on behalf of six advocacy groups, accuses the Biden Interior Department and two of its agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service—of "violating their respective duties under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, and the Endangered Species Act" by greenlighting ConocoPhillips' Willow Project.
The legal challenge specifically faults the federal agencies for "failing to consider alternatives that would further reduce impacts to subsistence users, preclude drilling in sensitive ecosystems, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts."
"It further charges agencies for not taking a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as required by NEPA, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, air quality, polar bears, caribou, wetlands, and subsistence uses and resources," Trustees for Alaska said in a press release on Tuesday.
Siqiñiq Maupin, executive director of Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic—an Alaska indigenous group involved in the suit—said in a statement that "once again, we find ourselves going to court to protect our lives, our communities, and our future."
"The Biden administration's approval of the ConocoPhillips Willow project makes no sense for the health of the Arctic or the planet and comes after numerous calls by local communities for tribal consultation and real recognition of the impacts to land, water, animals, and people," said Maupin. "ConocoPhillips has made record profits year after year and hopes to continue to do so at the cost of our communities and future generations."
On Wednesday, the Biden administration faced an additional lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of an alliance of conservation groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Greenpeace USA.
Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
"We’re asking the court to halt this illegal project and ensure the public knows its true climate impacts," said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for NRDC. "Permitting Willow to go forward is greenlighting a carbon bomb. It would set back the climate fight and embolden an industry hell-bent on destroying the planet."
The Wednesday lawsuit also charges the Biden administration with failing to fully examine alternatives to the project it formally approved earlier this week, ignoring months of protests from climate organizations.
Earthjustice noted that the options the administration considered "ranged only from allowing ConocoPhillips to develop 100% of the available oil to allowing it to develop 92% of the oil."
Natalie Mebane, the climate director for Greenpeace USA, said in a statement Wednesday that "approving what would be the largest oil extraction project on federal lands is incredibly hypocritical from President Biden, who in his State of the Union called the climate crisis an existential threat."
"The science is clear," said Mebane. "We cannot afford any new oil or gas projects if we are going to avoid climate catastrophe."
While the Biden Interior Department—headed by Deb Haaland, a former Willow opponent—has insisted that the version of the project it approved "subtantially reduces" the scope of ConocoPhillips' drilling operations, Earthjustice stressed Wednesday that the project "will still add about 260 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the next 30 years, the equivalent of an extra two million cars on the road each year for thirty years."
"There is no question that the administration possessed the legal authority to stop Willow—yet it chose not to," said Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney in Earthjustice's Alaska regional office. "It greenlit this carbon bomb without adequately assessing its climate impacts or weighing its options to limit the damage and say no."
"The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges we face, and President Biden has promised to do all he can to meet the moment," Grafe added. "We're bringing today's lawsuit to ensure that the administration follows the law and ultimately makes good on this promise for future generations."
Link: https://www.commondreams.org/news/groups-sue-biden-willow-project
March 15, 2023
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/nyregion/george-santos-yacht.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Sold: Yacht With a Waterfall. Price: $19 Million. Broker: George Santos. - NYT
Sold: Yacht With a Waterfall. Price: $19 Million. Broker: George Santos. - NYTA $19 million luxury yacht deal brokered by Representative George Santos between two of his wealthy donors has captured the attention of federal and state authorities investigating the congressman’s campaign finances and personal business dealings.
The sale, which has not been previously reported, is one of about a dozen leads being pursued by the F.B.I., the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn and the Nassau County district attorney’s office, people familiar with the investigation said.
Prosecutors and F.B.I. agents have sought in recent weeks to question the new owner of the 141-foot superyacht — Raymond Tantillo, a Long Island auto dealer — about the boat and his dealings with Mr. Santos, including his campaign fund-raising efforts.
Mr. Tantillo bought the boat from Mayra Ruiz, a Republican donor in Miami. Mr. Santos negotiated the payment — $12.25 million up front, with $6.5 million more in installments — and advised the two on the logistics of turning over the yacht, according to a person familiar with the sale, which took place a few weeks before his election in November.
The sale, which has not been previously reported, is one of about a dozen leads being pursued by the F.B.I., the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn and the Nassau County district attorney’s office, people familiar with the investigation said.
Prosecutors and F.B.I. agents have sought in recent weeks to question the new owner of the 141-foot superyacht — Raymond Tantillo, a Long Island auto dealer — about the boat and his dealings with Mr. Santos, including his campaign fund-raising efforts.
Mr. Tantillo bought the boat from Mayra Ruiz, a Republican donor in Miami. Mr. Santos negotiated the payment — $12.25 million up front, with $6.5 million more in installments — and advised the two on the logistics of turning over the yacht, according to a person familiar with the sale, which took place a few weeks before his election in November.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/nyregion/george-santos-yacht.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
March 15, 2023
Read the History (DOJ site) here: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain
Here's The Question I Really Wanted To Ask Re: Willow... Why Not Use Eminent Domain ???
We've used it plenty of times throughout our history. And for things just like this.
Properties acquired over the hundred years since the creation of the Environment and Natural Resources Section are found all across the United States and touch the daily lives of Americans by housing government services, facilitating transportation infrastructure and national defense and national security installations, and providing recreational opportunities and environmental management areas.
Read the History (DOJ site) here: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain
March 15, 2023
ConocoPhillips has existing lease rights. But the Biden administration had tools to curtail those rights to limit harms.
Link: https://legal-planet.org/2023/03/14/did-biden-have-to-approve-the-willow-oil-project/
And... Here's The Legal Scoop On The Willow Project:
Did Biden have to approve the Willow oil project? - LegalPlanetConocoPhillips has existing lease rights. But the Biden administration had tools to curtail those rights to limit harms.
So, do the administration’s apparent legal concerns stand up to scrutiny?
Partly, this decision illustrates the limits of our environmental laws. The goal of those laws is substantive: to protect the environment. But often those laws impose procedural requirements, not substantive bans on harmful activities. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides a good example. Sure, the Biden administration issued its own supplemental environmental impact statement under NEPA for the Willow project, carefully reviewing the project’s environmental impacts—but nearly all of the attention in that document is spent comparing some versions of the project against other versions, all of which would result in significant oil extraction. The “No Action” alternative—the only one that involves refusing the Willow project entirely—gets very little attention, on the order of a single paragraph. And even if the Biden administration had fully expounded on that “no action” alternative, nothing in NEPA requires that policymakers choose the least damaging option, even in the face of stakes as overwhelming as global climate disruption. As Justice Stevens (writing for the Court) once wrote: “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed—rather than unwise—agency action.”
The Willow decision also shows the limits of politics. Yes, ConocoPhillips has existing lease rights that make it complicated, or maybe even impossible, to stop all oil extraction from this site. But the Biden Administration had tools to curtail those rights to limit harms to the environment and to people, and it’s not clear that it used those tools to the greatest degree possible. For example, the Endangered Species Act theoretically prohibits agencies from taking actions that jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely affect their critical habitat. Does anyone really imagine that this project’s greenhouse gas emissions would not adversely affect the habitat of polar bears, or other ice-dependent listed species? Yet this Administration, along with others before it, has deliberately blinkered its review of the climate impacts of massive fossil fuel extraction projects like this one, in a way that allows federal agencies to conclude that these projects won’t jeopardize species. That blinkering is more a symptom of weak political will than of weak law.
Even one of the core statutes governing ConocoPhillips’s rights under these existing leases, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, directs the Biden administration to constrain the exercise of existing lease rights to limit environmental harm. The NPRPA, for example, requires that BLM “provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions” on activities within the Reserve as it determines necessary to protect the Reserve’s surface resources. And BLM may suspend operations and production “in the interest of conservation of natural resources” or to mitigate “reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources” under that statute.
And there will certainly be more litigation. Trustees of Alaska and other groups opposed to the Willow project released a statement saying that “authorization of the project comes after a deficient supplemental environmental review process that failed to assess the intense and cumulative impacts of the project on Arctic communities, lands and water, wildlife, and the global climate.” Earthjustice has said it could file a lawsuit as soon as this Wednesday to attempt to block the project from going forward.
Partly, this decision illustrates the limits of our environmental laws. The goal of those laws is substantive: to protect the environment. But often those laws impose procedural requirements, not substantive bans on harmful activities. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides a good example. Sure, the Biden administration issued its own supplemental environmental impact statement under NEPA for the Willow project, carefully reviewing the project’s environmental impacts—but nearly all of the attention in that document is spent comparing some versions of the project against other versions, all of which would result in significant oil extraction. The “No Action” alternative—the only one that involves refusing the Willow project entirely—gets very little attention, on the order of a single paragraph. And even if the Biden administration had fully expounded on that “no action” alternative, nothing in NEPA requires that policymakers choose the least damaging option, even in the face of stakes as overwhelming as global climate disruption. As Justice Stevens (writing for the Court) once wrote: “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed—rather than unwise—agency action.”
The Willow decision also shows the limits of politics. Yes, ConocoPhillips has existing lease rights that make it complicated, or maybe even impossible, to stop all oil extraction from this site. But the Biden Administration had tools to curtail those rights to limit harms to the environment and to people, and it’s not clear that it used those tools to the greatest degree possible. For example, the Endangered Species Act theoretically prohibits agencies from taking actions that jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely affect their critical habitat. Does anyone really imagine that this project’s greenhouse gas emissions would not adversely affect the habitat of polar bears, or other ice-dependent listed species? Yet this Administration, along with others before it, has deliberately blinkered its review of the climate impacts of massive fossil fuel extraction projects like this one, in a way that allows federal agencies to conclude that these projects won’t jeopardize species. That blinkering is more a symptom of weak political will than of weak law.
Even one of the core statutes governing ConocoPhillips’s rights under these existing leases, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, directs the Biden administration to constrain the exercise of existing lease rights to limit environmental harm. The NPRPA, for example, requires that BLM “provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions” on activities within the Reserve as it determines necessary to protect the Reserve’s surface resources. And BLM may suspend operations and production “in the interest of conservation of natural resources” or to mitigate “reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources” under that statute.
And there will certainly be more litigation. Trustees of Alaska and other groups opposed to the Willow project released a statement saying that “authorization of the project comes after a deficient supplemental environmental review process that failed to assess the intense and cumulative impacts of the project on Arctic communities, lands and water, wildlife, and the global climate.” Earthjustice has said it could file a lawsuit as soon as this Wednesday to attempt to block the project from going forward.
Link: https://legal-planet.org/2023/03/14/did-biden-have-to-approve-the-willow-oil-project/
March 15, 2023
Hit the replies button for the rest.
Well... Here's What President Biden's Youngest Delegate Says About The Willow Decision
https://twitter.com/Victorshi2020/status/1635806119645044736Hit the replies button for the rest.
March 15, 2023
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/climate/willow-biden-oil-climate.html
This story is not going away: https://tinyurl.com/2sjjyucc
How Biden Got From 'No More Drilling' to Backing a Huge Project in Alaska - NYT
How Biden Got From ‘No More Drilling’ to Backing a Huge Project in Alaska - NYTWASHINGTON — As a candidate, Joseph R. Biden promised voters worried about the warming planet “No more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.” On Monday, President Biden approved an enormous $8 billion plan to extract 600 million barrels of oil from pristine federal land in Alaska.
The distance between Mr. Biden’s campaign pledge and his blessing on that plan, known as the Willow project, is explained by a global energy crisis, intense pressure from Alaska lawmakers (including the state’s lone Democratic House member), a looming election year and a complicated legal landscape that government lawyers said left few choices for Mr. Biden.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and one of the chief advocates for Willow, which is projected to generate 2,500 jobs and millions in revenue for her state, said the president was inclined to oppose it and “needed to really be brought around.”
Mr. Biden was acutely aware of his campaign pledge, according to multiple administration officials involved in discussions over the past several weeks. Environmental activists had also openly warned that Mr. Biden’s climate record, which includes making landmark investments in clean energy, would be undermined if he approved Willow, and that young voters in particular could turn against him.
The distance between Mr. Biden’s campaign pledge and his blessing on that plan, known as the Willow project, is explained by a global energy crisis, intense pressure from Alaska lawmakers (including the state’s lone Democratic House member), a looming election year and a complicated legal landscape that government lawyers said left few choices for Mr. Biden.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and one of the chief advocates for Willow, which is projected to generate 2,500 jobs and millions in revenue for her state, said the president was inclined to oppose it and “needed to really be brought around.”
Mr. Biden was acutely aware of his campaign pledge, according to multiple administration officials involved in discussions over the past several weeks. Environmental activists had also openly warned that Mr. Biden’s climate record, which includes making landmark investments in clean energy, would be undermined if he approved Willow, and that young voters in particular could turn against him.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/climate/willow-biden-oil-climate.html
This story is not going away: https://tinyurl.com/2sjjyucc
March 15, 2023
Link: https://www.rawstory.com/conservative-partnership-institute-2659599692/
'Seditionist square': Trump allies gobbling up properties two blocks from the US Capitol - RawStory
'Seditionist square': Trump allies gobbling up properties two blocks from the US Capitol - RawStoryThe Washington Post is reporting that allies of former President Donald Trump have been gobbling up residential properties in a Washington D.C. neighborhood located just two blocks from the United States Capitol building.
According to the Post, the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization led by former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, recently went on a $41 million property buying spree that left it in possession of "four commercial properties along a single Pennsylvania Avenue block, three adjoining rowhouses around the corner, and a garage and carriage house in the rear alley."
The goal of the spending splurge is to create what Trump allies describe as a "Patriots' Row" in the heart of Washington D.C., although Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told the Post that he doesn't see anything remotely patriotic about the project.
"It just seems like a massive real estate coming-out party for the extreme right wing of the Republican Party," he said.
According to the Post, the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization led by former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, recently went on a $41 million property buying spree that left it in possession of "four commercial properties along a single Pennsylvania Avenue block, three adjoining rowhouses around the corner, and a garage and carriage house in the rear alley."
The goal of the spending splurge is to create what Trump allies describe as a "Patriots' Row" in the heart of Washington D.C., although Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told the Post that he doesn't see anything remotely patriotic about the project.
"It just seems like a massive real estate coming-out party for the extreme right wing of the Republican Party," he said.
Link: https://www.rawstory.com/conservative-partnership-institute-2659599692/
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jan 8, 2023, 01:18 AMNumber of posts: 1,273
