State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid
A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.
Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.
The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.
The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.
In the last 47 years Independent Parties have received a combined total of 0% of the electoral votes. The losers of elections don't get to decide how the system changes, so you really do accomplish a precise mixture of jack shit and fuck all by voting third party.
And thats going so well for us as we get to choose between Joe "Im a Zionist" who uses emergency powers to bypass congress to fast track weapons to Israel to commit genocide, and Trump.
Lmao
Yes, to reiterate this for you one more time, we're choosing between Joe "Don't Cross this Line for Real this Time" Biden and Donald "Nuke the Region" Trump. You contribute more to death and destruction by voting third party than for Biden. These are your choices.
I don't like it. I don't expect you to like it. But this is it.
Alright if I can only possibly choose between Trump or Biden on the ballot in November you shouldnt have anything to worry about me choosing someone else whose name is gonna be on the ballot.
The USA allows write-ins and third parties on the ballot, but as I mentioned 0% of the Electoral Vote in 47 years makes it sort of pointless. If you really don't like either voting for candidate then I have some good news: both parties want Election Reform. DNC is for campaign finance and popular vote winners while RNC is for ending elections.
No theyre not, theyre as bribed as republicans. Makes all that noise making about trump soliciting campaign funds from oil executives ring hollow.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess H.R. 1 For the People Act was just complete lies start to finish. It's a good thing Republicans didn't call them out on their bluffs or it would have exposed them all as frauds, huh?
I dont see anything in it about reducing the bribes they receive.
That's because that was already illegal. What the bill blocked was Campaign Financing by megadonors and foreign nationals.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text
DIVISION B—Campaign Finance
TITLE IV—Campaign Finance Transparency - Mainly talks about disclosure of foreign entity funds and corporations based outside of the USA or with any such affiliations.
TITLE V—Campaign Finance Empowerment - The US Citizen specific rules, and in fact it STARTS this title with an overturning of Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
Its legal. It does nothing to reduce bribes from megadonors. It doesnt overturn citizens united, it just criticizes it.
Added 1962: Title 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
Yeah but theres a made up distinction between bribery and lobbying. Its money given to politicians to influence them, which is bribery.
You think Personal and Campaign Finances are the same? And you refuse to believe the Campaign Finance Reform I linked you to on a Government Hosted site, that Republicans voted down without hesitation, helps police Campaign Finance?
If it really is so inconsequential as you say, then why did Republicans vote it down on Roll Call 61, barely passing on Roll Call 62? Wouldn't they benefit from keeping up a facade? Why would the GOP Speaker of the Senate refuse to call it to vote?