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.

  • FiniteBanjo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      DNC is for campaign finance

      No theyre not, theyre as bribed as republicans. Makes all that noise making about trump soliciting campaign funds from oil executives ring hollow.

      • FiniteBanjo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

          • FiniteBanjo
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • blazera@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Its legal. It does nothing to reduce bribes from megadonors. It doesnt overturn citizens united, it just criticizes it.

                • blazera@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yeah but theres a made up distinction between bribery and lobbying. Its money given to politicians to influence them, which is bribery.

                  • FiniteBanjo
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    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?