crooksandliars--2020-02-23--Report Shows How The Radical Right Gets Its Financing From Mainstream Sugar Daddies

People often wonder where the radical right—the neo-Nazis and white nationalists and alt-righters—get their funding , besides the occasional online fundraiser .
The truth is somewhat bland but disturbing : Most of their money comes through discreet donations from relatively anonymous individuals with significant wealth accrued through nondescript means including finance , real estate , construction , and the like .
New York Magazine ’ s Sarah Jones performed a public service this week by diving into the tax records of one such financier , a “ libertarian ” donor named Robert P. Rotella .
( Full disclosure : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What she revealed was a portrait of a quiet support network : namely , a range of significant financial support for a broad menu of far-right organizations , mostly disguised by being intermingled with a larger number of mainstream conservative and libertarian groups .
Rotella oversees a self-named foundation whose funding originated with his company , Rotella Capital Management , which generally has spread donor dollars to outfits like the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation .
Based in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue , Washington , the Robert P. Rotella Foundation has , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white nationalist organizations and an anti-immigration hate group among the recipients of its largesse—along with bizarre conspiracy-theory-oriented organizations such as the Expolitics Institute , which has an “ extraterrestrial affairs ” certification program , and the psychics-and-aliens-oriented Farsight Institute .
That conspiracism , however , actually complements its quiet support for the radical right , which is itself fueled by a universe of afactual theories .
Rotella ’ s funding helps explain how white nationalist organizations are able to milk the laws providing for foundations that operate as tax shelters to reel in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million the foundation has donated to various causes since 2002 , roughly $ 105,000 has gone to organizations like the National Policy Institute , or NPI , which is led by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer .
A comprehensive review of the foundation ’ s available 990 reports indicates that its financial support for white nationalism began in 2014 and continued through 2018 .
Though $ 105,000 is not an exceptionally large sum of money , white nationalist organizations are small , and it doesn ’ t take much money to keep them afloat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since at least the 1990s , if not before .
My first attempt to dig into the financing of right-wing extremists involved an investigation into the sponsorship of militia-organizing sessions in western Washington .
It was detailed in my 1999 book , In God ’ s Country : The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest , which found that many of the sessions were being quietly sponsored by a network of development , construction , and real estate interests with large sums of money to spend on these far-right political projects ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington ) .
The late journalist Paul de Armond ( whose work on these subjects has , unfortunately , become unavailable online ) uncovered evidence showing how wealthy benefactors interconnected with land-use extremists from the so-called “ Wise Use ” movement and gun rights extremists to help spread the “ constitutionalist ” militia gospel offered by outfits like the Militia of Montana , whose leaders spoke at several organizing rallies in western Washington .
In the end , much of the effort collapsed when members of the militia groups that arose from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately convicted for plotting terrorist acts in 1996 .
In the mid-2000s , when I investigated the financing of an attempt to build a border barrier in Arizona led by Chris Simcox and his Minuteman Civil Defense operation , the same system was largely still intact , with the added twist that the money it generated was being sucked up to benefit larger Beltway-based right-wing moneymaking operations .
Simcox ’ s fence-building scam was originally generated by a collection of wealthy benefactors , many of them in businesses such as construction and real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fence-building appeal became a nationwide fundraiser that drew in millions of dollars in donations from around the country .
Those funds were largely pocketed by the network of Washington , D.C.-based organizations behind the fundraiser , all led by right-wing gadfly Alan Keyes .
The fence was never built .
Eventually , Simcox was convicted of child molestation and is now in an Arizona prison .
Which , generally speaking , is the kind of bad ending that seems to eventually befall most far-right organizations , the vast bulk of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriotic bunting .
It may fool donors—or , in Rotella ’ s case , it may simply give them cover .
But it never ends well .

People often wonder where the radical right—the neo-Nazis and white nationalists and alt-righters—get their funding, besides the occasional online fundraiser. The truth is somewhat bland but disturbing: Most of their money comes through discreet donations from relatively anonymous individuals with significant wealth accrued through nondescript means including finance, real estate, construction, and the like.
New York Magazine’s Sarah Jones performed a public service this week by diving into the tax records of one such financier, a “libertarian” donor named Robert P. Rotella. (Full disclosure: I am quoted in this article.) What she revealed was a portrait of a quiet support network: namely, a range of significant financial support for a broad menu of far-right organizations, mostly disguised by being intermingled with a larger number of mainstream conservative and libertarian groups.
Rotella oversees a self-named foundation whose funding originated with his company, Rotella Capital Management, which generally has spread donor dollars to outfits like the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation. Based in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue, Washington, the Robert P. Rotella Foundation has, at the same time, been including white nationalist organizations and an anti-immigration hate group among the recipients of its largesse—along with bizarre conspiracy-theory-oriented organizations such as the Expolitics Institute, which has an “extraterrestrial affairs” certification program, and the psychics-and-aliens-oriented Farsight Institute.
That conspiracism, however, actually complements its quiet support for the radical right, which is itself fueled by a universe of afactual theories. Rotella’s funding helps explain how white nationalist organizations are able to milk the laws providing for foundations that operate as tax shelters to reel in those donations:
Of the $5.8 million the foundation has donated to various causes since 2002, roughly $105,000 has gone to organizations like the National Policy Institute, or NPI, which is led by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. A comprehensive review of the foundation’s available 990 reports indicates that its financial support for white nationalism began in 2014 and continued through 2018. Though $105,000 is not an exceptionally large sum of money, white nationalist organizations are small, and it doesn’t take much money to keep them afloat.
This system hasn’t changed significantly since at least the 1990s, if not before. My first attempt to dig into the financing of right-wing extremists involved an investigation into the sponsorship of militia-organizing sessions in western Washington. It was detailed in my 1999 book, In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest, which found that many of the sessions were being quietly sponsored by a network of development, construction, and real estate interests with large sums of money to spend on these far-right political projects (the central entity being the Building Industry Association of Washington).
The late journalist Paul de Armond (whose work on these subjects has, unfortunately, become unavailable online) uncovered evidence showing how wealthy benefactors interconnected with land-use extremists from the so-called “Wise Use” movement and gun rights extremists to help spread the “constitutionalist” militia gospel offered by outfits like the Militia of Montana, whose leaders spoke at several organizing rallies in western Washington. In the end, much of the effort collapsed when members of the militia groups that arose from the surreptitious BIAW organizing were arrested and ultimately convicted for plotting terrorist acts in 1996.
In the mid-2000s, when I investigated the financing of an attempt to build a border barrier in Arizona led by Chris Simcox and his Minuteman Civil Defense operation, the same system was largely still intact, with the added twist that the money it generated was being sucked up to benefit larger Beltway-based right-wing moneymaking operations. Simcox’s fence-building scam was originally generated by a collection of wealthy benefactors, many of them in businesses such as construction and real estate.
Once in place, however, the fence-building appeal became a nationwide fundraiser that drew in millions of dollars in donations from around the country. Those funds were largely pocketed by the network of Washington, D.C.-based organizations behind the fundraiser, all led by right-wing gadfly Alan Keyes.
The fence was never built. Eventually, Simcox was convicted of child molestation and is now in an Arizona prison.
Which, generally speaking, is the kind of bad ending that seems to eventually befall most far-right organizations, the vast bulk of which are often just scam operations wrapped in patriotic bunting. It may fool donors—or, in Rotella’s case, it may simply give them cover. But it never ends well.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--UPDATED: Nevada Caucus - Bernie Sanders The Projected Winner

MSNBC is projecting that Bernie Sanders is the winner of the Nevada caucus with 4 % of the vote in @ @ @ @ @ going pretty quickly so far in Nevada , with things like card draws and actual @ @ @ @ @ at least over at MSNBC .
What are your thoughts on the day so far @

UPDATED 8:08 P.M. EST
MSNBC is projecting that Bernie Sanders is the winner of the Nevada caucus with 4% of the vote in.
WATCH: Sen. Sanders wins the Nevada Democratic Caucus, NBC News projects.
Steve Kornacki explains the data behind the projection. https://t.co/yosFmgcxc7 pic.twitter.com/zYfvKqEgOa — MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 23, 2020
*****
Things seem to be going pretty quickly so far in Nevada, with things like card draws and actual math making the news, at least over at MSNBC. What are your thoughts on the day so far?
Open Thread below:
WATCH: A #NevadaCaucus worker explains the results of candidate preferences at a caucus precinct in Henderson, Nevada, and @CalNBC adds context to the process. pic.twitter.com/s95uxBfYqa — MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 22, 2020
Nevada Caucusing at its finest... tie for delegate count goes to high card... #Bernie rep pulls a 2, Buttigieg pulls a 3. @BernieSanders still carries the precinct with 7 total delegates. @PeteButtigieg gets 2 delegates. https://t.co/kxPFg5nb21 — Gadi Schwartz (@GadiNBC) February 22, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Ric Grenell As DNI Is Trump’s Latest Move To Destroy Our Government

Kirschner sounded the alarm in an AM Joy discussion today that began with host Joy Reid confirming that the firing of previous acting Director of National Intelligence , Joseph Maguire , was because one of his deputies briefed Congress that Russia favors Trump in the 2020 election .
Reid cited a tweet from Vox national security reporter Alex Ward saying that a “ senior White House official ” told him that was `` absolutely '' the case and that anyone opposing Trump will get fired .
The flip side , Reid noted is that “ blind , naked loyalty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only job requirement .
But it ’ s even worse than that .
Kirschner laid out how Trump is destroying the government for the sake of it .
KIRSCHNER : Joy , we see what Donald Trump is doing .
The pattern is unmistakable .
I mean , for goodness sake , Betsy DeVos in charge of education .
Andrew Wheeler , the administrator of the EPA , who before taking that position was an attorney working on behalf of coal magnates and lobbying against the Obama administration 's environmental protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired , and the acting DNI is going to be this Ric Grenell character .
We see what he ’ s doing , right ?
He ’ s dismantling the government brick by brick , agency by agency .
And we have a State Department that is really decimated .
We have a Department of Justice that is demoralized .
We have now an intelligence committee being headed up by , or at least coordinating efforts by , somebody who has no qualifications to be in the job .
We see what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s destroying the government for the sake of destroying the government .
And he does n't have any ideological principles he 's governed by .
He 's really just trying to tear things down , as Steve Bannon would say , deconstruct the administrative state .
And you know , there 's a handful of Republicans in the Congress that can hold him accountable and that can turn this tide and that can actually start to work in favor of election security , in favor of the security of our nation and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they need to stand up and start doing their job and taking their oath seriously .
But will those Republicans stand up and will they be enough ?
Reid could only name two candidates : Sen. Mitt Romney as having “ some desire to do something other than simply take the knee ” and Rep. Justin Amash who ’ s no longer a Republican .

Kirschner sounded the alarm in an AM Joy discussion today that began with host Joy Reid confirming that the firing of previous acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, was because one of his deputies briefed Congress that Russia favors Trump in the 2020 election. Reid cited a tweet from Vox national security reporter Alex Ward saying that a “senior White House official” told him that was "absolutely" the case and that anyone opposing Trump will get fired.
The flip side, Reid noted is that “blind, naked loyalty to Donald Trump,” not expertise, is the only job requirement.
But it’s even worse than that. Kirschner laid out how Trump is destroying the government for the sake of it.
KIRSCHNER: Joy, we see what Donald Trump is doing. The pattern is unmistakable. I mean, for goodness sake, Betsy DeVos in charge of education. Andrew Wheeler, the administrator of the EPA, who before taking that position was an attorney working on behalf of coal magnates and lobbying against the Obama administration's environmental protections. And now, DNI Maguire is fired, and the acting DNI is going to be this Ric Grenell character. We see what he’s doing, right? He’s dismantling the government brick by brick, agency by agency. And we have a State Department that is really decimated. We have a Department of Justice that is demoralized. We have now an intelligence committee being headed up by, or at least coordinating efforts by, somebody who has no qualifications to be in the job. We see what the president’s doing. He’s destroying the government for the sake of destroying the government. And he doesn't have any ideological principles he's governed by. He's really just trying to tear things down, as Steve Bannon would say, deconstruct the administrative state. And you know, there's a handful of Republicans in the Congress that can hold him accountable and that can turn this tide and that can actually start to work in favor of election security, in favor of the security of our nation and the American people. And for goodness sakes, they need to stand up and start doing their job and taking their oath seriously.
But will those Republicans stand up and will they be enough? Reid could only name two candidates: Sen. Mitt Romney as having “some desire to do something other than simply take the knee” and Rep. Justin Amash who’s no longer a Republican.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Trump Wants Fox’s Neil Cavuto Fired Over Critical Guest

Donald Trump upped his attacks on Fox News and Fox Business host Neil Cavuto yesterday by suggesting he should be pushed out like Shepard Smith was .
As we have previously posted , Donald Trump had a meltdown after RealClear Politics associate editor A.B .
Stoddard ripped Trump over his “ disastrous ” 2016 debate performances when she appeared on Cavuto ’ s Your World show Thursday .
The Crybaby in Chief responded in a tweet : “ Could somebody at @ foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B .
Stoddard ( zero talent ! )
and @ TeamCavuto , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates , from beginning to end .
Check the polls taken immediately after the debates .
The debates got me elected .
Must be Fox Board Member Paul Ryan !
” Cavuto shot back with an on-air fact check that pointed out , no , polls found that Trump “ had failed to do well in those debates.
” Trump was still obsessing about Cavuto during a rally in Colorado a little later : “ All [ Fox ’ s ] high-rated shows are the shows that like Trump .
All their loser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that don ’ t like Trump.
” Then , throwing open his arms , he shouted with triumphant malice , “ How is Shep Smith doing lately , by the way ?
” Trump gloated as the crowd booed .
“ How is Shep ?
He had the lowest ratings and now Cavuto took his place , so that ’ s OK , ” Trump added .
Yesterday , Trump was still whining about the slight .
This time , Trump not-so-subtly hinted that Fox should fire Cavuto : You probably will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong about Cavuto ’ s show being a “ loser show , ” according to Mediaite : Nielsen data shows that in the month of February , only one non-Fox News program in all of cable news boasts a higher audience that Your World with Neil Cavuto — that being MSNBC ’ s The Rachel Maddow Show .
Cavuto ’ s weekend show on Fox News , Cavuto Live , is No .
1 across the board .
And those two programs , along with Cavuto : Coast to Coast on Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To her credit , Fox Trumper Trish Regan stuck up for Cavuto Thursday ( much more so than Fox News ’ Ed Henry ) : REGAN : It ’ s come to my attention that the president , while speaking to that crowd in Colorado Springs said some disparaging things about one of my colleagues , someone who I respect tremendously , Neil Cavuto , who has been here since the start of Fox , who is someone who started this network , Fox Business and someone who is the utmost journalist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that about Neil .
He is a fair person , a fair guy and a good man .
So I ’ m disappointed that the president said those things because Neil Cavuto is one guy who just doesn ’ t deserve it .
You can watch Regan ’ s comments below , from Fox Business Network ’ s February 20 , 2020 Trish Regan Primetime .

Donald Trump upped his attacks on Fox News and Fox Business host Neil Cavuto yesterday by suggesting he should be pushed out like Shepard Smith was.
As we have previously posted, Donald Trump had a meltdown after RealClear Politics associate editor A.B. Stoddard ripped Trump over his “disastrous” 2016 debate performances when she appeared on Cavuto’s Your World show Thursday.
The Crybaby in Chief responded in a tweet: “Could somebody at @foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B. Stoddard (zero talent!) and @TeamCavuto, that I won every one of my debates, from beginning to end. Check the polls taken immediately after the debates. The debates got me elected. Must be Fox Board Member Paul Ryan!”
Cavuto shot back with an on-air fact check that pointed out, no, polls found that Trump “had failed to do well in those debates.”
Trump was still obsessing about Cavuto during a rally in Colorado a little later:
“All [Fox’s] high-rated shows are the shows that like Trump. All their loser shows, like Cavuto, are the shows that don’t like Trump.” Then, throwing open his arms, he shouted with triumphant malice, “How is Shep Smith doing lately, by the way?” Trump gloated as the crowd booed. “How is Shep? He had the lowest ratings and now Cavuto took his place, so that’s OK,” Trump added.
Yesterday, Trump was still whining about the slight. This time, Trump not-so-subtly hinted that Fox should fire Cavuto:
So @TeamCavuto has very bad ratings on @foxnews with his Fake guests like A.B.Stoddard and others that still haven’t figured it all out. Will he get the same treatment as his friend Shepherd Smith, who also suffered from the ratings drought? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2020
You probably will not be shocked to learn that Trump is wrong about Cavuto’s show being a “loser show,” according to Mediaite:
Nielsen data shows that in the month of February, only one non-Fox News program in all of cable news boasts a higher audience that Your World with Neil Cavuto — that being MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. Cavuto’s weekend show on Fox News, Cavuto Live, is No. 1 across the board. And those two programs, along with Cavuto: Coast to Coast on Fox Business are up year over year.
To her credit, Fox Trumper Trish Regan stuck up for Cavuto Thursday (much more so than Fox News’ Ed Henry):
REGAN: It’s come to my attention that the president, while speaking to that crowd in Colorado Springs said some disparaging things about one of my colleagues, someone who I respect tremendously, Neil Cavuto, who has been here since the start of Fox, who is someone who started this network, Fox Business and someone who is the utmost journalist and always fair. I can tell you that about Neil. He is a fair person, a fair guy and a good man. So I’m disappointed that the president said those things because Neil Cavuto is one guy who just doesn’t deserve it.
You can watch Regan’s comments below, from Fox Business Network’s February 20, 2020 Trish Regan Primetime.
Published with permission from News Hounds.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Midday Open Thread:  McDonalds To Release Burger-Scented Candles

Even more offensive than his usual political analysis , Chris Matthews thinks that Sanders ' path to the Democratic nomination @ @ @ @ @ Nazis .
Remind me again , how does he STILL have a job ?

Can you help us out?
For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Bloomberg Trolls Trump With Giant Billboard On Vegas Strip

I 've got to admit , `` Donald Trump went broke running a casino '' probably has a great deal @ @ @ @ @ Strip .
And people who cheat at golf are indeed the lowest of the low @ @ @ @ @ ) - Democratic White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg mocked Donald Trump with a giant billboard @ @ @ @ @ on Friday , fueling their feud as the US president visits the city for a @ @ @ @ @ lost the popular vote , '' read one slogan on the world-famous street lined with @ @ @ @ @ `` Donald Trump 's wall fell over . ''
The giant digital billboard is just @ @ @ @ @ ) down the Strip from Trump 's own hotel , where the president is staying @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg is vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Trump at November 's election @ @ @ @ @ fire on the president rather than candidates from his own party .

I've got to admit, "Donald Trump went broke running a casino" probably has a great deal of resonance on the Vegas Strip. And people who cheat at golf are indeed the lowest of the low.
Source: AFP
Las Vegas (AFP) - Democratic White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg mocked Donald Trump with a giant billboard on the Las Vegas Strip on Friday, fueling their feud as the US president visits the city for a rally.
"Donald Trump lost the popular vote," read one slogan on the world-famous street lined with casinos, while another read "Donald Trump's wall fell over."
The giant digital billboard is just two miles (three kilometers) down the Strip from Trump's own hotel, where the president is staying while in Las Vegas.
Bloomberg is vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Trump at November's election, and has focused his fire on the president rather than candidates from his own party.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Wait, The Press Actually Thinks Barr's Going To Stand Up To Trump?

Published With Permission of Press Run .
Subscribe here .
Stressing that a `` standoff '' between Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr had `` intensified '' in recent days , the Beltway press spent this week whipping itself into a mini-frenzy , suggesting some sort of dramatic showdown was looming on the horizon .
This is the kind of purposefully naïve news coverage that helps normalize Trump 's dangerous behavior .
It also propagates the myth that Republicans like Barr are actually concerned by Trump 's destructive ways .
The modest public jousting between the two men this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice with lots of shouty tweets .
Trump 's furious that his former adviser Roger Stone is now facing more than three years in prison after being convicted of felonies in connection to the 2016 election .
Prompted by anonymous Barr aides , new outlets really leaned into the idea that the Trump/Barr relationship was at the breaking point .
`` Barr had a previously scheduled lunch with the White House counsel Tuesday and was still the attorney general by day ’ s end . ''
The Washington Post reported , suggesting Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The New York Times agreed : `` Mr. Barr was left by the end of the day to consider his own future . ''
And NPR had the same take , reporting that `` Attorney General William Barr has told people close to him that he has considered resigning . ''
Question : How unsophisticated can our press corps be ?
Let 's cut through the spin and recall that Barr was specifically hired to protect Trump from legal peril , because Barr had essentially promised that Trump would never be indicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea that Trump would now get rid of his legal backstop makes no sense .
And so too , is the idea that Barr would make a stand on principle and resign.Yet Barr has fueled that storyline by waging a public relations offensive , and the Beltway press has been an eager , compliant player in the production .
Playing the straight man/woman , the press has obediently reported that Barr is deeply concerned about Trump 's attack , and that Barr basically ca n't sleep at night knowing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a kabuki theater production , and not a very good one at that .
Still , the Beltway press is playing along , writing in hushed tones about how Barr is deeply upset by Trump 's behavior .
We know because anonymous sources close to Barr say so !
`` He has his limits , ” said one person familiar with Barr ’ s thinking , '' the Post dutifully reported .
The p.r .
offensive began last week when Barr gave an interview to ABC News where he timidly complained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ make it impossible for me to do my job.
” The Beltway press corps was stunned , or at least pretended to be .
The Washington Post called the `` assertion of independence '' `` remarkable '' because , wow , Barr had criticized Trump !
!
CNN legal analyst Jim Baker cheered , “ This is the Bill Barr that I ’ m familiar with…This is sort of the strong , independent leader a person of integrity and intelligence , and speaking out loudly for his troops.
” And CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unexpected challenge to President Trump . ''
But you know what 's actually `` remarkable ? ''
The fact that the President of the United States is publicly attacking a federal judge , prosecutors , and even the jury foreman connected to a case involving the president 's former adviser who was convicted of obstruction of justice and witness tampering in connection to his role in the 2016 campaign .
That 's remarkable , not the idea that the attorney general would meekly complain about the president 's harassment .
Is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take drastic action and stand up to Trump ?
Sure , but I think the chances are slim and none , and slim 's out of town .
Folks , Barr 's job today is essentially to protect Trump and his colleagues from criminal prosecution .
Plus , if he actually cared about Trump ’ s unprecedented and un-democratic attack on the Department of Justice , Barr would have resigned long ago .
Or , Barr would loudly and forcefully denounce Trump , in public and on the record .
What 's worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boosts the idea that Barr is an honorable , ethical man who 's struggling with his conscience as Trump interferes .
Nope , nope , and nope .
It was Barr who aggressively ran interference for the White House when the Mueller report on Russian election interference was released last year .
Barr released a brazenly false three-page press release that insisted the investigation had exonerated Trump .
It was Barr who then weeks later categorically lied about the contents when the Mueller report was released to the public .
So why this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what 's going on is the D.C. press clinging to the fantasy that the GOP in the age of Trump is still populated with lots of highly ethical people who are deeply , deeply troubled by Trump 's erratic behavior , and they continually struggle with their moral compass over what to do about it .
For three years , the press has presented his fantasy take on the Republican Party , even though reporters ca n't actually find examples of Republicans , certainly not Republicans in Congress or in the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battles .
I mean , Republicans just acquitted Trump on articles of impeachment , one of which accused him of seeking the help of a foreign government for the 2020 election , despite the fact Trump admitted to doing it .
So no , spare us the tales of tortured Republicans .
Barr is Trump 's fixer .
Period .

Published With Permission of Press Run. Subscribe here.
Stressing that a "standoff" between Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr had "intensified" in recent days, the Beltway press spent this week whipping itself into a mini-frenzy, suggesting some sort of dramatic showdown was looming on the horizon. This is the kind of purposefully naïve news coverage that helps normalize Trump's dangerous behavior. It also propagates the myth that Republicans like Barr are actually concerned by Trump's destructive ways.
The modest public jousting between the two men this week came after Trump eviscerated the Department of Justice with lots of shouty tweets. Trump's furious that his former adviser Roger Stone is now facing more than three years in prison after being convicted of felonies in connection to the 2016 election.
Prompted by anonymous Barr aides, new outlets really leaned into the idea that the Trump/Barr relationship was at the breaking point. "Barr had a previously scheduled lunch with the White House counsel Tuesday and was still the attorney general by day’s end." The Washington Post reported, suggesting Barr might be ousted or quit his post. The New York Times agreed: "Mr. Barr was left by the end of the day to consider his own future." And NPR had the same take, reporting that "Attorney General William Barr has told people close to him that he has considered resigning."
Question: How unsophisticated can our press corps be? Let's cut through the spin and recall that Barr was specifically hired to protect Trump from legal peril, because Barr had essentially promised that Trump would never be indicted as long as Barr oversaw the DOJ. The idea that Trump would now get rid of his legal backstop makes no sense. And so too, is the idea that Barr would make a stand on principle and resign.Yet Barr has fueled that storyline by waging a public relations offensive, and the Beltway press has been an eager, compliant player in the production. Playing the straight man/woman, the press has obediently reported that Barr is deeply concerned about Trump's attack, and that Barr basically can't sleep at night knowing that the department's independence is being compromised.
This is a kabuki theater production, and not a very good one at that. Still, the Beltway press is playing along, writing in hushed tones about how Barr is deeply upset by Trump's behavior. We know because anonymous sources close to Barr say so! "He has his limits,” said one person familiar with Barr’s thinking," the Post dutifully reported.
The p.r. offensive began last week when Barr gave an interview to ABC News where he timidly complained that Trump's tweets attacking the DOJ, “make it impossible for me to do my job.” The Beltway press corps was stunned, or at least pretended to be.
The Washington Post called the "assertion of independence" "remarkable" because, wow, Barr had criticized Trump!! CNN legal analyst Jim Baker cheered, “This is the Bill Barr that I’m familiar with…This is sort of the strong, independent leader a person of integrity and intelligence, and speaking out loudly for his troops.” And CBS News announced it was a “forceful and unexpected challenge to President Trump."
But you know what's actually "remarkable?" The fact that the President of the United States is publicly attacking a federal judge, prosecutors, and even the jury foreman connected to a case involving the president's former adviser who was convicted of obstruction of justice and witness tampering in connection to his role in the 2016 campaign. That's remarkable, not the idea that the attorney general would meekly complain about the president's harassment.
Is it possible Barr would move beyond platitudes and take drastic action and stand up to Trump? Sure, but I think the chances are slim and none, and slim's out of town. Folks, Barr's job today is essentially to protect Trump and his colleagues from criminal prosecution. Plus, if he actually cared about Trump’s unprecedented and un-democratic attack on the Department of Justice, Barr would have resigned long ago. Or, Barr would loudly and forcefully denounce Trump, in public and on the record.
What's worse though, is that all this stenography boosts the idea that Barr is an honorable, ethical man who's struggling with his conscience as Trump interferes. Nope, nope, and nope. It was Barr who aggressively ran interference for the White House when the Mueller report on Russian election interference was released last year. Barr released a brazenly false three-page press release that insisted the investigation had exonerated Trump. It was Barr who then weeks later categorically lied about the contents when the Mueller report was released to the public.
So why this type of weak media coverage? Part of what's going on is the D.C. press clinging to the fantasy that the GOP in the age of Trump is still populated with lots of highly ethical people who are deeply, deeply troubled by Trump's erratic behavior, and they continually struggle with their moral compass over what to do about it.
For three years, the press has presented his fantasy take on the Republican Party, even though reporters can't actually find examples of Republicans, certainly not Republicans in Congress or in the administration, who suffer from these debilitating internal battles. I mean, Republicans just acquitted Trump on articles of impeachment, one of which accused him of seeking the help of a foreign government for the 2020 election, despite the fact Trump admitted to doing it.
So no, spare us the tales of tortured Republicans. Barr is Trump's fixer. Period.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Trump Is Running The Government With Unqualified Temps To Keep His Quasi-Dictatorial Power

Impeached president Donald Trump has replaced the former acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire with another acting truly atrocious selection who will also only be in the job as an acting DNI .
That 's because he is so bad and so unqualified for the job that he could n't be confirmed even by Mitch McConnell 's Republicans .
That and Trump just likes to have unqualified temps who are loyal only to him running things .
A Washington Post analysis highlights the churn in Trump 's administration , and the fact that there has n't been a permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Post , `` Trump has kept acting officials in charge of top agencies and departments so much that they 've accounted for 1 out of every 9 days in those positions . ''
That means that in the 22 cabinet-level jobs there have been so many acting officials that they 've served a combined 2,736 days , which amounts to seven years .
That means that in three years ' time , Trump `` has had acting officials serve more than three times as much as did [ President ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That 's without counting the Obama officials that held the jobs on a temporary basis at the beginning of Trump 's term for the sake of continuity .
There have been three acting directors of Homeland Security , for a combined 440 days .
Trump has n't designated a permanent nominee .
At the Small Business Administration , there 's been an acting director for 277 days .
At the Environmental Protection Agency , 234 days .
At the Department of Defense , there has been an acting director for 203 days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 188 days , and will continue in that capacity under the odious Richard Grenell for the foreseeable future .
In previous administrations , acting directors have just been in place while a confirmation process for a permanent administrator was completed , and people generally left office because of personal and professional reasons .
Not because a would-be dictator declared `` off with their heads . ''
Trump has said `` I like acting because I can move so quickly , .
[ … ] It gives me more flexibility . ''
More like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps the people working for him freaked out and , in his warped mind , loyal .

Impeached president Donald Trump has replaced the former acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire with another acting truly atrocious selection who will also only be in the job as an acting DNI. That's because he is so bad and so unqualified for the job that he couldn't be confirmed even by Mitch McConnell's Republicans. That and Trump just likes to have unqualified temps who are loyal only to him running things.
A Washington Post analysis highlights the churn in Trump's administration, and the fact that there hasn't been a permanent DNI in more than six months. According to the Post, "Trump has kept acting officials in charge of top agencies and departments so much that they've accounted for 1 out of every 9 days in those positions." That means that in the 22 cabinet-level jobs there have been so many acting officials that they've served a combined 2,736 days, which amounts to seven years. That means that in three years' time, Trump "has had acting officials serve more than three times as much as did [President] Obama" did in eight years.
That's without counting the Obama officials that held the jobs on a temporary basis at the beginning of Trump's term for the sake of continuity. There have been three acting directors of Homeland Security, for a combined 440 days. Trump hasn't designated a permanent nominee. At the Small Business Administration, there's been an acting director for 277 days. At the Environmental Protection Agency, 234 days. At the Department of Defense, there has been an acting director for 203 days. The DNI has been acting now for 188 days, and will continue in that capacity under the odious Richard Grenell for the foreseeable future.
In previous administrations, acting directors have just been in place while a confirmation process for a permanent administrator was completed, and people generally left office because of personal and professional reasons. Not because a would-be dictator declared "off with their heads." Trump has said "I like acting because I can move so quickly,. […] It gives me more flexibility." More like it keeps things chaotic, and it keeps the people working for him freaked out and, in his warped mind, loyal.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Anderson Cooper Calls 'Bullshit' On Blogojevich’s 'Alternative Universe Of Facts'

Trump issued Rod Blagojevich clemency this week — one of a number of outrageous abuses of his pardoning power — in a move that many interpret as a harbinger of even more grotesque pardons to come .
Blagojevich , in turn , appeared on Anderson Cooper 's show Friday evening to whine about having been treated unfairly by prosecutors , going so far as to frame it as an experience that gave him empathy with Black and Latinos who are `` oversentenced '' in the criminal justice system .
Yeah , how many of THEM are getting presidential pardons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having it , he told Blagojevich he should have done something about that when he `` mattered '' — as in , when he was GOVERNOR of a state that was oversentencing and Black and brown people .
Finally , Cooper was so disgusted , he called Blago 's entire framing of his story `` bullshit . ''
BLAGOJEVICH : I 've learned something in these eight years and that is we have a racist and corrupt criminal justice system in many areas .
This is why I hope one day maybe you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform our criminal justice system and do something about the problem of over-sentencing Blacks and Latinos .
I learned that when I was there .
COOPER : Well , what 's sad is you had n't actually learned that when you mattered .
When you actually were the governor .
You talk about working for the criminal justice reform .
There 's a lot of people in Chicago , there 's a lot of people in Illinois who actually , like , spit up when you say that , because when you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually governor , and could have helped thousands of people with clemency cases , you blew it off .
[ ... ] So it 's a little ironic , and frankly a little sad and pathetic and hypocritical .
You talking about , you know , commuting -- getting -- you get a commutation of a sentence which is within the president 's right but you ignored a whole hell of a lot of other people who were hoping you would give them clemency when you actually mattered .
[ ... ] I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on criminal justice reform but I would n't work with you .
Oh , my .
Blagojevich applied burn cream to his entire psyche as he tried to make amends with Cooper .
He admitted he .
wished now he 'd done more , but then basically said he never cared about it until it happened to him .
NARRATOR VOICE : It did n't happen to him .
Cooper allowed zero of that nonsense to get by him .
BLAGOJEVICH : That 's among my biggest regrets .
I did n't know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until it did it to me and that was a wake-up call .
One thing about me as governor when the cases came to me and I was given files about people who were seeking clemency or pardons , I acted appropriately .
COOPER : Actually , no , they sat on your desk and that 's why you were sued .
BLAGOJEVICH : I did clemencies and I did pardons .
I did n't do nearly enough .
It was n't a priority .
I would acknowledge that .
I did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Instead I was giving health care to all the children , free public transportation to seniors and disabled .
COOPER : Actually you were holding up money to hospitals in order to get campaign contributions but what , listen , governor -- BLAGOJEVICH : That 's a big lie .
They got $ 8 million from me .
COOPER : They got it after you left .
BLAGOJEVICH : I promised -- I ordered it before that happened and they got it while I was governor .
That is not factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I do wish you the best .
I really am glad for your family that you 're out and -- BLAGOJEVICH : I do n't know by the way you were asking me questions .
I 'm sorry , Anderson .
I appreciate -- AGAIN , Blago could n't leave well enough alone - he had to get a swipe in about how his feelings were hurt by the way Cooper was talking to him .
It was at that point that Cooper probably did that mental calculation as to how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew he was about to be hit with some FCC fines , and decided , `` Meh .
I can afford this . ''
COOPER : Honestly , look , I have no problem with you getting out .
The president can commute whoever he wants .
I just think -- I wish you 're besmirching prosecutors who actually are no longer in government but prosecutors are important to our system and you are going after the very basis of our justice system which has plenty of problems but , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , do you have an obligation to at least admit what you did wrong and you refuse to do that and you 're creating a whole new alternate universe of facts and that may be big in politics today but it 's still frankly just bullshit .
We got to leave it there .
BLAGOJEVICH : It 's not bullshit .
I lived it all .
It 's not bullshit at all .
WELP .
Who needs a cigarette after that ?
Twitter , apparently .
Behold the Twittergasm :

Trump issued Rod Blagojevich clemency this week — one of a number of outrageous abuses of his pardoning power — in a move that many interpret as a harbinger of even more grotesque pardons to come.
Blagojevich, in turn, appeared on Anderson Cooper's show Friday evening to whine about having been treated unfairly by prosecutors, going so far as to frame it as an experience that gave him empathy with Black and Latinos who are "oversentenced" in the criminal justice system. Yeah, how many of THEM are getting presidential pardons, Blago?
Not only was Cooper not having it, he told Blagojevich he should have done something about that when he "mattered" — as in, when he was GOVERNOR of a state that was oversentencing and Black and brown people. Finally, Cooper was so disgusted, he called Blago's entire framing of his story "bullshit."
BLAGOJEVICH: I've learned something in these eight years and that is we have a racist and corrupt criminal justice system in many areas. This is why I hope one day maybe you'll join me in the fight to reform our criminal justice system and do something about the problem of over-sentencing Blacks and Latinos. I learned that when I was there. COOPER: Well, what's sad is you hadn't actually learned that when you mattered. When you actually were the governor. You talk about working for the criminal justice reform. There's a lot of people in Chicago, there's a lot of people in Illinois who actually, like, spit up when you say that, because when you were actually in power and when you were actually governor, and could have helped thousands of people with clemency cases, you blew it off.
[...]
So it's a little ironic, and frankly a little sad and pathetic and hypocritical. You talking about, you know, commuting -- getting -- you get a commutation of a sentence which is within the president's right but you ignored a whole hell of a lot of other people who were hoping you would give them clemency when you actually mattered.
[...]
I'd be happy to work with people on criminal justice reform but I wouldn't work with you.
Oh, my. Blagojevich applied burn cream to his entire psyche as he tried to make amends with Cooper. He admitted he . wished now he'd done more, but then basically said he never cared about it until it happened to him.
NARRATOR VOICE: It didn't happen to him.
Cooper allowed zero of that nonsense to get by him.
BLAGOJEVICH: That's among my biggest regrets. I didn't know how corrupt the criminal justice system was until it did it to me and that was a wake-up call. One thing about me as governor when the cases came to me and I was given files about people who were seeking clemency or pardons, I acted appropriately. COOPER: Actually, no, they sat on your desk and that's why you were sued. BLAGOJEVICH: I did clemencies and I did pardons. I didn't do nearly enough. It wasn't a priority. I would acknowledge that. I didn't go to the office every day doing that. Instead I was giving health care to all the children, free public transportation to seniors and disabled. COOPER: Actually you were holding up money to hospitals in order to get campaign contributions but what, listen, governor -- BLAGOJEVICH: That's a big lie. They got $8 million from me. COOPER: They got it after you left. BLAGOJEVICH: I promised -- I ordered it before that happened and they got it while I was governor. That is not factual. COOPER: Okay. Governor Blagojevich, I do wish you the best. I really am glad for your family that you're out and -- BLAGOJEVICH: I don't know by the way you were asking me questions. I'm sorry, Anderson. I appreciate --
AGAIN, Blago couldn't leave well enough alone - he had to get a swipe in about how his feelings were hurt by the way Cooper was talking to him. It was at that point that Cooper probably did that mental calculation as to how much was in his bank account because he knew he was about to be hit with some FCC fines, and decided, "Meh. I can afford this."
COOPER: Honestly, look, I have no problem with you getting out. The president can commute whoever he wants. I just think -- I wish you're besmirching prosecutors who actually are no longer in government but prosecutors are important to our system and you are going after the very basis of our justice system which has plenty of problems but, you know, part of the thing is you got out, do you have an obligation to at least admit what you did wrong and you refuse to do that and you're creating a whole new alternate universe of facts and that may be big in politics today but it's still frankly just bullshit. We got to leave it there. BLAGOJEVICH: It's not bullshit. I lived it all. It's not bullshit at all. COOPER: Thank you, governor.
WELP. Who needs a cigarette after that? Twitter, apparently. Behold the Twittergasm:
Hooooooly shit. Anderson Cooper just mopped the floor with Blagojevich, calling him out - literally - on his "bullshit."
Watch every second of this.pic.twitter.com/xmkusZrmh4 — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 22, 2020
I could watch this 1,000 times. Bravo Anderson Cooper. This is the kind of take down I expect from you at all times.pic.twitter.com/FhztC95Atd — Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) February 22, 2020
Blagojevich
(verb)
1. To completely lack empathy for disenfranchised people to the point of malice until you, yourself, are forcibly placed in the exact same position as the people in question
2. To get your ass handed to you on live TV by Anderson Cooper — Padma Lakshmi (@PadmaLakshmi) February 22, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-02-22--Mike's Blog Round Up

Mike's Blog Round Up

Calculated Risk : Projections for first quarter GDP growth are all over the map .
Mock , Paper , Scissors @ @ @ @ @ have helped Donald Trump with his “ personal Vietnam.
” ACA Signups : A new @ @ @ @ @ Foundation shows Obamacare is more popular than ever .
Zandar Versus the Stupid : Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ violence in Germany as “ poison ” even as New Jersey raises its domestic terrorism @ @ @ @ @ which , your quote of the day : `` You had some very bad people @ @ @ @ @ you also had people that were very fine people on both sides . ''
( @ @ @ @ @ violent right-wing demonstration in Charlottesville , August 15 , 2017 . )
Guest blogging Mike @ @ @ @ @ week is Jon Perr from Perrspectives .
Send your tips , recommendations , comments and @ @ @ @ @ DOT com .

Calculated Risk: Projections for first quarter GDP growth are all over the map.
Mock, Paper, Scissors: Evangelist Jim Bakker could have helped Donald Trump with his “personal Vietnam.”
ACA Signups: A new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows Obamacare is more popular than ever.
Zandar Versus the Stupid: Chancellor Angela Merkel denounces white supremacist violence in Germany as “poison” even as New Jersey raises its domestic terrorism threat level.
Speaking of which, your quote of the day:
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." (Donald Trump, on the violent right-wing demonstration in Charlottesville, August 15, 2017.)
Guest blogging Mike's Blog Round Up this week is Jon Perr from Perrspectives. Send your tips, recommendations, comments and angst to mbru AT crooksandliars DOT com.


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--Marc Short Uses CNN Hiring Of Andrew McCabe To Justify Potential Stone Pardon

This really has to be the most pathetic excuse ever to justify the pardon we all know is coming eventually for Trump-fixer , now convict , Roger Stone .
Pence aide Marc Short was asked about the potential pardon by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace , who actually , to his credit , pointed out the real reason for the pardon -- the fact that Stone protected Trump in the Mueller investigation -- and Short responded by claiming that the entire system is just terribly unfair because the former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has been hired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail cell , which is where Trump would still like for him to be .
Trump 's own DOJ refused to prosecute McCabe , but that does n't matter to the right-wing grievance industry , who will never stop beating this dead horse as long as Trump remains in office , or ever .
WALLACE : One of the president 's friends , Roger Stone , was sentenced this week to 40 months in prison for lying to congress , for obstruction , and for witness tampering .
Here was the president 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see roger exonerated .
and I 'd love to see happen because I personally think he was treated very unfairly .
WALLACE : So here 's the question , Stone was convicted , specifically , for lying about the fact that he in fact was trying to get information from Wikileaks about what they were going to do with the thousands of hacked Democratic emails .
Why does the president -- and it was a treasure trove of evidence that indicated he had lied about the fact that he was trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do with the emails .
Why does the president think you should be exonerated ?
SHORT : You know it 's possible he will get exonerated Chris ... WALLACE : I 'm asking you , why does the president think he should be ?
SHORT : I have no interest in being a character witness for Roger Stone .
I do n't know Roger Stone .
I think that lying to federal investigators , he should be prosecuted for and that 's what the Department of Justice did .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see a Department of Justice that comes in with the original sentencing guidelines four years beyond what it 's supposed to be for sentencing guidelines for his offenses .
And yet when you see people like Andy McCabe , who also lied to federal investigators , referred for investigation , what they get is a lucrative contract at CNN .
That does n't seem to be equitable justice .
I think that 's what the president 's primary frustration is .
WALLACE : But , he 's not saying he got sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did n't get the 7-9 years , he got three and a half years , roughly .
Here 's what the president 's own Attorney General William Barr said .
BARR : I think it was established , he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering , and I thought that was a righteous prosecution , and I was happy that he was convicted .
WALLACE : And the judge in the case , said this about Stone .
“ He was not prosecuted , as some have complained , for standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecuted for covering up for the president.
” So when the president talks about wanting to see Roger Stone get off , to be exonerated , and even raises the possibility that he might pardon him , is that because Roger Stone protected him in the Mueller investigation ?
SHORT : I do n't think so , Chris .
I think the president again is frustrated in seeing what he thinks is an equitable system of justice .
I think what he 's seeing is the Roger Stone investigation was born out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it started from .
The reality is that the Mueller Report , as we 've seen , did not show Russia collusion .
It would seem to our minds ... WALLACE ; You have the Attorney General saying it was a righteous prosecution .
SHORT : And I 'll just share with you that I think it should be prosecuted as well .
I think that people who lie to Congress should be prosecuted Chris ... and so ... but I think that what 's unfair in the system , is that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president from being elected inside their position at the Department of Justice , lied about it , leaked information .
The Inspector General refers them for prosecution and what they get is a lucrative contract at a TV network .
How is that equitable justice ?
WALLACE : Well , I suppose one of the arguments would be just because one guy gets off , does n't mean the other person should .
SHORT : And I 've said multiple times on your network that he should have been prosecuted .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second round .

This really has to be the most pathetic excuse ever to justify the pardon we all know is coming eventually for Trump-fixer, now convict, Roger Stone.
Pence aide Marc Short was asked about the potential pardon by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, who actually, to his credit, pointed out the real reason for the pardon -- the fact that Stone protected Trump in the Mueller investigation -- and Short responded by claiming that the entire system is just terribly unfair because the former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has been hired by CNN instead of sitting in a jail cell, which is where Trump would still like for him to be.
Trump's own DOJ refused to prosecute McCabe, but that doesn't matter to the right-wing grievance industry, who will never stop beating this dead horse as long as Trump remains in office, or ever.
WALLACE: One of the president's friends, Roger Stone, was sentenced this week to 40 months in prison for lying to congress, for obstruction, and for witness tampering. Here was the president's reaction.
TRUMP: I'd love to see roger exonerated. and I'd love to see happen because I personally think he was treated very unfairly.
WALLACE: So here's the question, Stone was convicted, specifically, for lying about the fact that he in fact was trying to get information from Wikileaks about what they were going to do with the thousands of hacked Democratic emails. Why does the president -- and it was a treasure trove of evidence that indicated he had lied about the fact that he was trying to find out from Wikileaks what they were going to do with the emails. Why does the president think you should be exonerated?
SHORT: You know it's possible he will get exonerated Chris...
WALLACE: I'm asking you, why does the president think he should be?
SHORT: I have no interest in being a character witness for Roger Stone. I don't know Roger Stone. I think that lying to federal investigators, he should be prosecuted for and that's what the Department of Justice did. But I think the president's frustration is, you see a Department of Justice that comes in with the original sentencing guidelines four years beyond what it's supposed to be for sentencing guidelines for his offenses. And yet when you see people like Andy McCabe, who also lied to federal investigators, referred for investigation, what they get is a lucrative contract at CNN. That doesn't seem to be equitable justice. I think that's what the president's primary frustration is.
WALLACE: But, he's not saying he got sentence for too long. Incidentally, he didn't get the 7-9 years, he got three and a half years, roughly. Here's what the president's own Attorney General William Barr said.
BARR: I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering, and I thought that was a righteous prosecution, and I was happy that he was convicted.
WALLACE: And the judge in the case, said this about Stone.
“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president. He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”
So when the president talks about wanting to see Roger Stone get off, to be exonerated, and even raises the possibility that he might pardon him, is that because Roger Stone protected him in the Mueller investigation?
SHORT: I don't think so, Chris. I think the president again is frustrated in seeing what he thinks is an equitable system of justice. I think what he's seeing is the Roger Stone investigation was born out of the Mueller Report, what's there it started from. The reality is that the Mueller Report, as we've seen, did not show Russia collusion. It would seem to our minds...
WALLACE; You have the Attorney General saying it was a righteous prosecution.
SHORT: And I'll just share with you that I think it should be prosecuted as well. I think that people who lie to Congress should be prosecuted Chris... and so... but I think that what's unfair in the system, is that those who also were trying to prevent this president from being elected inside their position at the Department of Justice, lied about it, leaked information. The Inspector General refers them for prosecution and what they get is a lucrative contract at a TV network. How is that equitable justice?
WALLACE: Well, I suppose one of the arguments would be just because one guy gets off, doesn't mean the other person should.
SHORT: And I've said multiple times on your network that he should have been prosecuted. And so we will see what happens with the second round.


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--MSNBC Guest Slams Chris Matthews After He Compares Sanders To Nazis: 'He Had Kin Murdered In The Hol

MSNBC Guest Slams Chris Matthews After He Compares Sanders To Nazis: 'He Had Kin Murdered In The Holocaust'

Time magazine editor Anand Giridharadas criticized MSNBC host Chris Matthews over the weekend for his alleged bias against Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders .
Giridharadas remarks came after Matthews compared Sanders ' win in Nevada to a Nazi invasion .
`` Last night was a historic win that I think a lot of us are still struggling to understand , '' Giridharadas explained .
`` It 's historic because we may be seeing that we are paddling through a bend of a river in history here .
Something is happening in America right now that actually does not fit our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't fit the mental models of a lot of people on TV , '' he continued .
`` It does n't fit the mental models of a lot of people in the parties .
It does n't fit our cultural mental models . ''
`` Many of this establishment are behaving in my view as they face the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination like out-of-touch aristocrats in a dying aristocracy '' he said .
`` Just sort of , 'How do we stop this , how do we block this ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for curiosity in America , '' Giridharadas told MSNBC host Joy Reid .
`` I think about this network , which I love , which you love .
And I think we have to look within also .
Why is a lobbyist for Uber and Mark Zuckerberg on the air many nights explaining a political revolution to us ?
Why is Chris Matthews on this air talking about the victory Bernie Sanders , who had kin murdered in the Holocaust , analogizing it to the Nazi conquest of France ? ''
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing what 's going on of what may be , frankly , a new era in American life . ''
Reid responded by asking to `` defend my friend Chris Matthews . ''
`` I do n't think he was trying to make an anti-Jewish disparagement of Mr. Sanders , '' Reid said .
`` I think what he 's speaking to is that there is a cultural revulsion to the idea of socialism among people of Chris ' generation . ''

Time magazine editor Anand Giridharadas criticized MSNBC host Chris Matthews over the weekend for his alleged bias against Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Giridharadas remarks came after Matthews compared Sanders' win in Nevada to a Nazi invasion.
"Last night was a historic win that I think a lot of us are still struggling to understand," Giridharadas explained. "It's historic because we may be seeing that we are paddling through a bend of a river in history here. Something is happening in America right now that actually does not fit our mental models."
"It certainly doesn't fit the mental models of a lot of people on TV," he continued. "It doesn't fit the mental models of a lot of people in the parties. It doesn't fit our cultural mental models."
Giridharadas called it a "wake-up moment" for pundits.
"Many of this establishment are behaving in my view as they face the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination like out-of-touch aristocrats in a dying aristocracy" he said. "Just sort of, 'How do we stop this, how do we block this?'"
"This is a moment for curiosity in America," Giridharadas told MSNBC host Joy Reid. "I think about this network, which I love, which you love. And I think we have to look within also. Why is a lobbyist for Uber and Mark Zuckerberg on the air many nights explaining a political revolution to us? Why is Chris Matthews on this air talking about the victory Bernie Sanders, who had kin murdered in the Holocaust, analogizing it to the Nazi conquest of France?"
According to Giridharadas, people like Matthews are "missing what's going on of what may be, frankly, a new era in American life."
Reid responded by asking to "defend my friend Chris Matthews."
"I don't think he was trying to make an anti-Jewish disparagement of Mr. Sanders," Reid said. "I think what he's speaking to is that there is a cultural revulsion to the idea of socialism among people of Chris' generation."


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--Gaslighting National Security Advisor Claims He's Seen No Intelligence On Russia Favoring Trump In 2

Gaslighting National Security Advisor Claims He's Seen No Intelligence On Russia Favoring Trump In 2020

Just days after the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee by Shelby Pierson , the DNI 's election security czar , which may have put her head on the chopping block as the next to be purged by the Trump administration , Trump National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien wants us to believe that he knows nothing about the meeting .
It seems O'Brien is more concerned about keeping his job and playing to an audience of one than telling the truth and keeping the public informed about the threat to our democracy from Russian interference in our elections .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaslighting the audience about whether he 's aware of the fact that Russia wants to see his boss reelected : STEPHANOPOULOS : Let 's address all this now with the president 's National Security Advisor , Robert O'Brien .
Ambassador O'Brien , thank you for joining us this morning .
How is Russia interfering in the 2020 election ?
O'BRIEN : Well , there are these reports that they want Bernie Sanders to get elected president .
That 's no surprise .
He honeymooned in Moscow .
President Trump has rebuilt the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen since Ronald Reagan .
So , I do n't think it 's any surprise that Russia or China or Iran would want somebody other than President Trump .
If President Trump is elected , we 're going to continue a `` peace through strength '' foreign policy and defense policy .
And that 's not good for our adversaries .
It 's good for us and our allies .
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well , the reports are actually that they 're trying to help Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that the lawmakers have been briefed by an intelligence professional , that it 's Russia 's aim to favor President Trump in the 2020 election .
Have you seen analysis from the intelligence community showing that one of Russia 's aims in its election interference is to help President Trump ?
O'BRIEN : Yeah , I have not seen that , and I get pretty good access .
As you know from your time in the White House , the national security advisor gets pretty good access to our intelligence .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected .
I think this is the same old story that we 've heard before .
I 've seen the reports from that briefing at the Intel Committee .
I was n't there , but I 've seen no intelligence that suggests that .
I 've also heard that from the briefers that that 's not what they intended the story to be .
So , look , who knows what happened over at the House and the Intelligence Committee , but I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected .
And our message to the Russians is stay out of the U.S. elections .
We 've been very tough on Russia and we 've been great on election security .
So I think it 's a non-story .
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well , non-story -- obviously , a lot of people do n't think it 's a non-story .
Obviously , the lawmakers who were briefed do n't think it 's a non-story .
And the reports are that the election security official who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several times during the briefing that Russia had developed a preference for President Trump .
Was she not telling the truth ?
O'BRIEN : Well , what I heard from the Republican lawmakers there , and again I was n't at the hearing , so I ca n't comment what , what happened to the hearing , and I 'm not going to play that Washington game , but what I heard from Republican lawmakers is that there was zero intelligence that was proffered to them to support that sort of comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence .
So if it 's out there , it 's something I have n't seen .
But I highly doubt it because , look , it 's a commonsense question .
Why would Russia want the president who has rebuilt the American military , who has given the Ukrainians lethal arms , javelin missiles and has sanctioned the Russians far more than any president in recent history , why would they want him reelected ?
I mean , that just does n't make common sense .
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hack Burisma right ?
Which is , of course , the firm , the natural gas firm in Ukraine that Hunter Biden once worked for and of course , President Trump had talked about that several times .
You have seen those reports , have n't you ?
O'BRIEN : Well , look , I 'm not going to get into specific intelligence issues , but -- with respect to Ukraine .
But what I will tell you is that I do think the Russians and the Chinese and others like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I think they 've done -- and that does n't mean because they prefer a particular candidate .
It 's because these are autocratic regimes that do n't believe in democracy and they 'd like to see Americans at each other 's throat .
And I think there are a lot of folks who 've played right into that .
I think the Russians have gotten a great return on investment for a very small amount of , of election interference .
I mean , they helped Steele .
They helped with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 've gotten Americans polarized over this thing .
But I can tell you that there 's -- we 're , we 're gon na do everything we can to keep the Russians , the Chinese , the Iranians , the North Koreans or anybody else who would like to do us harm , out of our election .
STEPHANOPOULOS : I have to press you on this .
Are you really saying you 've seen absolutely no intel analysis from the intelligence community showing that one of Russia 's aims , just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor President Trump ?
No analysis at all ?
O'BRIEN : No , what I 'm talking about , I 've seen no intelligence , the -- and I have n't seen that analysis .
The only analysis I heard was reported second-hand from leaks from the House Intelligence Committee that purport to claim that the woman who briefed them said that .
But I 've seen zero intelligence that Russia is doing anything to help , to help , to help President Trump get reelected .
And I do n't think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make common sense .
And look , let me tell you what we are doing .
We 're making sure we 're working very hard with all the agencies .
We 're working very hard with the states .
We 're going to paper ballots in many cases to harden our election infrastructure , to make sure that not only is there not election influence through trolls and Twitter and that sort of thing , but to make sure that countries ca n't hack into our secretaries of state in our 50 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election day .
We 're going to do everything we can to harden our systems , to make sure that our elections are free and fair and the will of the American people is implemented .
STEPHANOPOULOS : So you 're drawing a distinction here between intelligence and analysis , and that is fair .
Let me ask : you 've seen no analysis -- Have you seen any analysis that one of Russia 's aims is to , is to help President Trump -- is to favor president Trump ?
O'BRIEN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any intelligence on that , George .
And I have n't seen any analysis on that .
The only thing I 've seen were the press reports on this House intel briefing , which are second-hand .
I do n't know if they were leaked out or how the papers got those .
So , so that 's the only thing I 've seen .
But I have not seen that in the presidential daily briefs , in my conversations with Director Haspel , Acting Director Maguire -- O'BRIEN : I have n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't work with someone at her level .
But I 'm I was briefed by Joe Maguire , by , by Director Haspel , by the new acting director Grenell , and I have not heard that analysis or seen any intel along those lines .
So if it 's out there , it has n't been shared with me .
And as far as I know , the two acting directors at NDI that I 've dealt with and the CIA director hasn ’ t seen it either .
So , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intel Committee .
I also heard , I mean , that Republicans have said this , that they asked for the backup for the analysis and there was no intelligence backup for it .

Just days after the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee by Shelby Pierson, the DNI's election security czar, which may have put her head on the chopping block as the next to be purged by the Trump administration, Trump National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien wants us to believe that he knows nothing about the meeting.
It seems O'Brien is more concerned about keeping his job and playing to an audience of one than telling the truth and keeping the public informed about the threat to our democracy from Russian interference in our elections. Here's O'Brien on ABC's This Week gaslighting the audience about whether he's aware of the fact that Russia wants to see his boss reelected:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's address all this now with the president's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien. Ambassador O'Brien, thank you for joining us this morning. How is Russia interfering in the 2020 election?
O'BRIEN: Well, there are these reports that they want Bernie Sanders to get elected president. That's no surprise. He honeymooned in Moscow. President Trump has rebuilt the American military to an extent we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. So, I don't think it's any surprise that Russia or China or Iran would want somebody other than President Trump. If President Trump is elected, we're going to continue a "peace through strength" foreign policy and defense policy. And that's not good for our adversaries. It's good for us and our allies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the reports are actually that they're trying to help Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. And, of course, you've seen the reports that the lawmakers have been briefed by an intelligence professional, that it's Russia's aim to favor President Trump in the 2020 election. Have you seen analysis from the intelligence community showing that one of Russia's aims in its election interference is to help President Trump?
O'BRIEN: Yeah, I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access. As you know from your time in the White House, the national security advisor gets pretty good access to our intelligence. I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected. I think this is the same old story that we've heard before.
I've seen the reports from that briefing at the Intel Committee. I wasn't there, but I've seen no intelligence that suggests that. I've also heard that from the briefers that that's not what they intended the story to be. So, look, who knows what happened over at the House and the Intelligence Committee, but I haven't seen any evidence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected. And our message to the Russians is stay out of the U.S. elections. We've been very tough on Russia and we've been great on election security. So I think it's a non-story.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, non-story -- obviously, a lot of people don't think it's a non-story. Obviously, the lawmakers who were briefed don't think it's a non-story. And the reports are that the election security official who briefed Congress, Shelby Pierson, said several times during the briefing that Russia had developed a preference for President Trump. Was she not telling the truth?
O'BRIEN: Well, what I heard from the Republican lawmakers there, and again I wasn't at the hearing, so I can't comment what, what happened to the hearing, and I'm not going to play that Washington game, but what I heard from Republican lawmakers is that there was zero intelligence that was proffered to them to support that sort of comment.
I haven't seen any of that intelligence. So if it's out there, it's something I haven't seen. But I highly doubt it because, look, it's a commonsense question. Why would Russia want the president who has rebuilt the American military, who has given the Ukrainians lethal arms, javelin missiles and has sanctioned the Russians far more than any president in recent history, why would they want him reelected? I mean, that just doesn't make common sense.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you have seen the intelligence that Russia was trying to hack Burisma right? Which is, of course, the firm, the natural gas firm in Ukraine that Hunter Biden once worked for and of course, President Trump had talked about that several times. You have seen those reports, haven't you?
O'BRIEN: Well, look, I'm not going to get into specific intelligence issues, but -- with respect to Ukraine. But what I will tell you is that I do think the Russians and the Chinese and others like to sow disruption in the American electorate. And I think they've done -- and that doesn't mean because they prefer a particular candidate. It's because these are autocratic regimes that don't believe in democracy and they'd like to see Americans at each other's throat. And I think there are a lot of folks who've played right into that.
I think the Russians have gotten a great return on investment for a very small amount of, of election interference. I mean, they helped Steele. They helped with the dossier. So, and they've gotten Americans polarized over this thing. But I can tell you that there's -- we're, we're gonna do everything we can to keep the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans or anybody else who would like to do us harm, out of our election.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I have to press you on this. Are you really saying you've seen absolutely no intel analysis from the intelligence community showing that one of Russia's aims, just one of Russia's aims, is to favor President Trump? No analysis at all?
O'BRIEN: No, what I'm talking about, I've seen no intelligence, the -- and I haven't seen that analysis. The only analysis I heard was reported second-hand from leaks from the House Intelligence Committee that purport to claim that the woman who briefed them said that.
But I've seen zero intelligence that Russia is doing anything to help, to help, to help President Trump get reelected. And I don't think it makes any sense -- it doesn't make common sense. And look, let me tell you what we are doing. We're making sure we're working very hard with all the agencies. We're working very hard with the states. We're going to paper ballots in many cases to harden our election infrastructure, to make sure that not only is there not election influence through trolls and Twitter and that sort of thing, but to make sure that countries can't hack into our secretaries of state in our 50 states and change election results or cause mischief on election day. We're going to do everything we can to harden our systems, to make sure that our elections are free and fair and the will of the American people is implemented.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're drawing a distinction here between intelligence and analysis, and that is fair. Let me ask: you've seen no analysis -- Have you seen any analysis that one of Russia's aims is to, is to help President Trump -- is to favor president Trump?
O'BRIEN: No, I haven't seen any intelligence on that, George. And I haven't seen any analysis on that. The only thing I've seen were the press reports on this House intel briefing, which are second-hand. I don't know if they were leaked out or how the papers got those. So, so that's the only thing I've seen. But I have not seen that in the presidential daily briefs, in my conversations with Director Haspel, Acting Director Maguire --
STEPHANOPOULOS: – Shelby Pierson?
O'BRIEN: I haven't talked to her because I usually wouldn't work with someone at her level. But I'm I was briefed by Joe Maguire, by, by Director Haspel, by the new acting director Grenell, and I have not heard that analysis or seen any intel along those lines. So if it's out there, it hasn't been shared with me. And as far as I know, the two acting directors at NDI that I've dealt with and the CIA director hasn’t seen it either. So, all I've heard about is this House Intel Committee. I also heard, I mean, that Republicans have said this, that they asked for the backup for the analysis and there was no intelligence backup for it.


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor Calls Out Conservative Justices For Pro-Trump Bias

It is not common for Supreme Court Justices to come out and publicly go against fellow justices .
They keep that commentary for their written dissents to cases before the Supreme Court .
But , after a despicable ruling that was decided along party lines ( 5-4 ) which allowed the Trump administration to implement a `` wealth tax '' on immigrants in all 50 states , Justice Sonia Sotomayor could not hold back .
ABC News reports that the dissent , written by Justice Sotomayor , called out the conservative wing of the Supreme Court in such a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biased toward the Trump administration . ''
Here is why that matters — it is expected for justices to vote in a conservative or liberal fashion , but to call them deferential to a particular president is stark commentary .
They are being called MAGA/Trump Cult all the way .
To catch people up on this `` wealth tax '' — it is a way of forcing immigrants to prove that they have attained a certain level of financial status to reduce the likelihood that they will rely on the U.S. government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become a `` public charge '' ) .
Think about that .
Immigrants coming from small villages in Africa or South America might NEVER attain the level required to enter our country .
Basically , this means that the only immigrants that could make it in would be from rich countries , Europe , etc .
So this is a blatant way of blocking brown and Black people from entering our country .
This goes counter to everything that our country was built on .
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your poor , your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ... ” It says the word `` POOR . ''
So are we changing the inscription based on this Supreme Court ruling ?
Is that where we are now ?
In her dissent , Sotomayor wrote separately , addressing the DOJ 's repeated demands for decisions based on `` emergencies '' that simply do not exist , as a means of getting rulings implemented quickly .
And , sadly , the 5 conservative justices seem all too happy to give in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rule everything an `` emergency '' has “ benefited one litigant over all others : '' the Trump administration .
The Supreme Court has been weaponized to provide Donald Trump with every racist and evil ruling he wants .
Just a reminder that they are hearing cases related to his taxes in the coming months .
Do n't be shocked if they rule in favor of the King .

It is not common for Supreme Court Justices to come out and publicly go against fellow justices. They keep that commentary for their written dissents to cases before the Supreme Court. But, after a despicable ruling that was decided along party lines (5-4) which allowed the Trump administration to implement a "wealth tax" on immigrants in all 50 states, Justice Sonia Sotomayor could not hold back.
ABC News reports that the dissent, written by Justice Sotomayor, called out the conservative wing of the Supreme Court in such a public fashion, accusing them of being "biased toward the Trump administration." Here is why that matters — it is expected for justices to vote in a conservative or liberal fashion, but to call them deferential to a particular president is stark commentary. They are being called MAGA/Trump Cult all the way.
Shots. Fired.
To catch people up on this "wealth tax" — it is a way of forcing immigrants to prove that they have attained a certain level of financial status to reduce the likelihood that they will rely on the U.S. government to support them in any fashion (ie become a "public charge"). Think about that. Immigrants coming from small villages in Africa or South America might NEVER attain the level required to enter our country. Basically, this means that the only immigrants that could make it in would be from rich countries, Europe, etc. So this is a blatant way of blocking brown and Black people from entering our country.
This goes counter to everything that our country was built on. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty actually reads:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...”
It says the word "POOR."
So are we changing the inscription based on this Supreme Court ruling? Is that where we are now?
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote separately, addressing the DOJ's repeated demands for decisions based on "emergencies" that simply do not exist, as a means of getting rulings implemented quickly. And, sadly, the 5 conservative justices seem all too happy to give in to Trump. Sotomayor wrote that this decision to rule everything an "emergency" has “benefited one litigant over all others:" the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court has been weaponized to provide Donald Trump with every racist and evil ruling he wants. Just a reminder that they are hearing cases related to his taxes in the coming months. Don't be shocked if they rule in favor of the King.


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--Trump Administration Proposes Another Social Security Rule That Violates The Law, Hurts The Disabled

The Trump administration has been making a low-key but concerted attack on Social Security in the past weeks , not in public pronouncements , but in attacks on the program through the rule-making process .
While the proposal intended to kick Social Security Disability claimants off of benefits has received attention , a second rule that would make the appeals process harder to navigate has flown under the radar .
Administrative law judges and Democrats in Congress have been paying attention , though .
The rule would cut administrative law judges out of the loop in taking up standard cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on applications for disability benefits—all responsibilities currently reserved for them .
The Social Security Administration says that the change would streamline the hearing process and `` provide us with appropriate flexibility , particularly when budgets may not support additional hiring or unanticipated shifts in disability application rates occur . ''
What it will actually do , the judges and members of Congress say , it strip due process rights from people applying for benefits .
It would also violate the law and Supreme Court precedent , the administrative law judges ' union says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine the ALJs ' judicial independence '' they argue in their comment opposing the rule , and `` effectively subject the entire administrative adjudicative process under performance appraisal control by the agency . ''
The end result would be that the `` claimant is denied a truly independent review within the agency and is left only with an appeal to the courts for such a review . ''
The Supreme Court , in Smith v. Berryhill , they argue , said that a claimant must have access to an appeal specifically with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is indeed a matter of legislative right rather than agency grace . ''
That 's what Democrats in Congress said , too , in their comment on the proposed rule , sent jointly by Sen. Ron Wyden , ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee , and Rep. Richard Neal , chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee .
Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney , the chairs of the Judiciary and the Oversight and Reform committees of the House , signed on as well for good measure .
`` SSA 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans who are appealing a denial of Social Security or Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) , threatening access by eligible individuals to disability , retirement , and survivors ' benefits , '' the members wrote in their comment letter .
`` Replacing independent Administrative Law Judges ( ALJs ) with Administrative Appeals Judges ( AAJs ) is contrary to congressional intent for impartial SSA hearings , and it is not supported by the rationale asserted in the proposed rule . ''
It would contradict the congressional intent of the law regarding disability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly mean fewer people would receive disability benefits , a chief aim of the Trump administration .

The Trump administration has been making a low-key but concerted attack on Social Security in the past weeks, not in public pronouncements, but in attacks on the program through the rule-making process. While the proposal intended to kick Social Security Disability claimants off of benefits has received attention, a second rule that would make the appeals process harder to navigate has flown under the radar. Administrative law judges and Democrats in Congress have been paying attention, though.
The rule would cut administrative law judges out of the loop in taking up standard cases, conducting hearings, and issuing decisions on applications for disability benefits—all responsibilities currently reserved for them. The Social Security Administration says that the change would streamline the hearing process and "provide us with appropriate flexibility, particularly when budgets may not support additional hiring or unanticipated shifts in disability application rates occur." What it will actually do, the judges and members of Congress say, it strip due process rights from people applying for benefits. It would also violate the law and Supreme Court precedent, the administrative law judges' union says. The administration is "trying to undermine the ALJs' judicial independence" they argue in their comment opposing the rule, and "effectively subject the entire administrative adjudicative process under performance appraisal control by the agency."
The end result would be that the "claimant is denied a truly independent review within the agency and is left only with an appeal to the courts for such a review." The Supreme Court, in Smith v. Berryhill, they argue, said that a claimant must have access to an appeal specifically with an administrative law judge, and that "is indeed a matter of legislative right rather than agency grace." That's what Democrats in Congress said, too, in their comment on the proposed rule, sent jointly by Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, the chairs of the Judiciary and the Oversight and Reform committees of the House, signed on as well for good measure.
"SSA's proposed rule would erode due process for Americans who are appealing a denial of Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), threatening access by eligible individuals to disability, retirement, and survivors' benefits," the members wrote in their comment letter. "Replacing independent Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) with Administrative Appeals Judges (AAJs) is contrary to congressional intent for impartial SSA hearings, and it is not supported by the rationale asserted in the proposed rule." It would contradict the congressional intent of the law regarding disability claim proceedings.
It would also almost certainly mean fewer people would receive disability benefits, a chief aim of the Trump administration.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-02-23--Fox News Panel Goes Off The Rails When Guest Says 'Jesus Is More Of A Socialist'

Conservative religious pundits on Fox News recoiled in outrage on Sunday after a left-leaning guest suggested that Jesus Christ was `` more of a socialist '' than a capitalist .
During a Fox & Friends segment designed to cast doubt on the faith or Democratic presidential candidates , evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress argued that socialism is `` antithetical to Christianity . ''
But St. Paul Reverend Dee Dawkins-Haigler reminded the other panelists that scriptures seemed to point to what people now call socialism .
`` We believe in things like , what did you do to the least of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fed the hungry , you clothed the naked , you went to see those who are in prison . ''
`` You do not have to be a socialist to be a Christian ! ''
Jeffress shot back .
`` Socialism is antithetical to Christianity and if they nominate Bernie Sanders , they are not going to be able to attract any faith voters . ''
`` I totally disagree , '' Dawkins-Haigler retorted .
`` People would have said that Jesus was more of a socialist than anybody we 're talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a socialist ? ''
he exclaimed .
`` Because Jesus did not sit with the establishment , he overturned tables of the tax collectors , he sat with people who were lepers , '' Dawkins-Haigler explained .
`` He made sure he healed people who people thought should not have been healed . ''
`` So we have to be very careful how we use this language and try to take ownership of who God is , '' she added .
`` That 's a big claim , '' Hegseth interrupted again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No !
Jesus was not a socialist ! ''
Jeffress opined .
`` He said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar 's and to God the things that are God 's .
He was compassionate .
Church is to be compassionate , but you do n't have to believe in socialism , which is nothing but communism light and is absolutely is opposed to everything that is Christian . ''
To that , we respond with friend of the blog comedian John Fugelsang 's famous quote on Jesus

Conservative religious pundits on Fox News recoiled in outrage on Sunday after a left-leaning guest suggested that Jesus Christ was "more of a socialist" than a capitalist.
During a Fox & Friends segment designed to cast doubt on the faith or Democratic presidential candidates, evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress argued that socialism is "antithetical to Christianity."
But St. Paul Reverend Dee Dawkins-Haigler reminded the other panelists that scriptures seemed to point to what people now call socialism.
"We believe in things like, what did you do to the least of them?" Dawkins-Haigler explained. "You fed the hungry, you clothed the naked, you went to see those who are in prison."
"You do not have to be a socialist to be a Christian!" Jeffress shot back. "Socialism is antithetical to Christianity and if they nominate Bernie Sanders, they are not going to be able to attract any faith voters."
"I totally disagree," Dawkins-Haigler retorted. "People would have said that Jesus was more of a socialist than anybody we're talking about today."
The remarks stopped Fox News host Pete Hegseth cold.
"Why was Jesus a socialist?" he exclaimed.
"Because Jesus did not sit with the establishment, he overturned tables of the tax collectors, he sat with people who were lepers," Dawkins-Haigler explained. "He made sure he healed people who people thought should not have been healed."
"So we have to be very careful how we use this language and try to take ownership of who God is," she added.
"That's a big claim," Hegseth interrupted again, giving the floor to Jeffress.
"No! Jesus was not a socialist!" Jeffress opined. "He said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. He was compassionate. Church is to be compassionate, but you don't have to believe in socialism, which is nothing but communism light and is absolutely is opposed to everything that is Christian."
To that, we respond with friend of the blog comedian John Fugelsang's famous quote on Jesus