crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Tom Cotton Defends Trump's Shameful Dismissal Of Soldiers' Injuries

I 'm old enough to remember President Putinpoodle crowing about how ballsy it was of him to assassinate Iraq 's second most powerful leader , Qasem Soleimani .
I have n't forgotten , either , the way he bragged about this impulsive , dangerous move being sure to make Americans safer - after all - he was saving us from some `` imminent threat , '' right ?
Do n't worry , what 's a few missiles launched into an American airbase in Iraq gon na do in retaliation ?
I mean , he tweeted `` So far , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about , amirite ?
He even said , “ We suffered no casualties , all of our soldiers are safe , and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.
” Trump 's word is always good , dontchyaknow .
What 's that you say ?
It IS N'T always good ?
Oh , that 's right , it 's NEVER good , and not only that , you can count on his sycophants to be deployed out into the media diaspora to lie their lying faces off to defend him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Face the Nation , Margaret Brennan challenged him with the Pentagon report that in reality , 34 Americans were indeed injured in the Iranian attack on our airbase in Iraq , and half of them are receiving treatment .
When Brennan asked him how serious their injuries were , he instead said the military does a better job now than it did when he was in the military of treating brain injury .
Not the answer to the question .
Then she played Trump completely downplaying the extent of their injuries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain injuries . )
Trump essentially said , `` Meh , they 're just having some headeaches ... '' , prompting the VFW to demand an apology .
What did Sen. Cotton do ?
He defended his draft-dodging , lying , criminal Commander-In-Chief .
BRENNAN : I want to play though — here 's how the president described it when he was asked about their injuries .
BRENNAN : Veterans groups are calling for the president to apologize .
Should he apologize for calling it `` not that serious ? ''
COTTON : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he 's describing their injuries .
BRENNAN : He said , `` They 're headaches and not very serious . ''
COTTON : I think he 's describing their injuries , he 's not dismissing their injuries .
Head injuries can be ... BRENNAN : He said , `` Headaches , I do n't consider them very serious . ''
COTTON : That 's like saying having a flesh wound is not very serious -- BRENNAN : Veterans groups , and I know you are a veteran , and I know that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as do I , do n't you think it 's serious , and the president may need to apologize ?
COTTON : If it is n't -- if they are as a matter of fact -- injuries are not serious , if they 're on the less-severe side of the scale than the severe/traumatic side of the scale , the president is just describing what happened to them , he was not dismissing them .
BRENNAN : So you consider a TBI A serious injury ?
COTTON : Yes , but again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that can be return to duty in one day , or have severe , traumatic lasting injury .
And I think he 's describing , thankfully , what end of the scale that lies on .
Yeah , I 'm SURE that 's what 's going on .
It 's not Trump covering his lying , colossally stupid , man-baby move to try to distract from impeachment by putting out a hit on a foreign leader without having to suffer any kind of consequence like , oh , I do n't know @ @ @ @ @

I'm old enough to remember President Putinpoodle crowing about how ballsy it was of him to assassinate Iraq's second most powerful leader, Qasem Soleimani. I haven't forgotten, either, the way he bragged about this impulsive, dangerous move being sure to make Americans safer - after all - he was saving us from some "imminent threat," right?
Don't worry, what's a few missiles launched into an American airbase in Iraq gonna do in retaliation? I mean, he tweeted "So far, so good," so nothing to worry about, amirite? He even said, “We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.” Trump's word is always good, dontchyaknow.
What's that you say? It ISN'T always good? Oh, that's right, it's NEVER good, and not only that, you can count on his sycophants to be deployed out into the media diaspora to lie their lying faces off to defend him. Yesterday it was Sen. Tom Cotton. On Face the Nation, Margaret Brennan challenged him with the Pentagon report that in reality, 34 Americans were indeed injured in the Iranian attack on our airbase in Iraq, and half of them are receiving treatment.
When Brennan asked him how serious their injuries were, he instead said the military does a better job now than it did when he was in the military of treating brain injury. Not the answer to the question.
Then she played Trump completely downplaying the extent of their injuries, many of which are TBIs (traumatic brain injuries.) Trump essentially said, "Meh, they're just having some headeaches...", prompting the VFW to demand an apology. What did Sen. Cotton do? He defended his draft-dodging, lying, criminal Commander-In-Chief.
BRENNAN: I want to play though — here's how the president described it when he was asked about their injuries. (clip)
TRUMP: I heard that they had headaches and a couple other things, but I would say, and I can report, it is not very serious.
(end clip) COTTON: So, I think ---- BRENNAN: Veterans groups are calling for the president to apologize. Should he apologize for calling it "not that serious?" COTTON: He's not dismissing their injuries, he's describing their injuries. BRENNAN: He said, "They're headaches and not very serious." COTTON: I think he's describing their injuries, he's not dismissing their injuries. Head injuries can be... BRENNAN: He said, "Headaches, I don't consider them very serious." COTTON: That's like saying having a flesh wound is not very serious-- BRENNAN: Veterans groups, and I know you are a veteran, and I know that you know people who have suffered from TBI, as do I, don't you think it's serious, and the president may need to apologize? COTTON: If it isn't-- if they are as a matter of fact-- injuries are not serious, if they're on the less-severe side of the scale than the severe/traumatic side of the scale, the president is just describing what happened to them, he was not dismissing them. BRENNAN: So you consider a TBI A serious injury? COTTON: Yes, but again, there is a big scale of that that can be return to duty in one day, or have severe, traumatic lasting injury. And I think he's describing, thankfully, what end of the scale that lies on.
Yeah, I'm SURE that's what's going on. It's not Trump covering his lying, colossally stupid, man-baby move to try to distract from impeachment by putting out a hit on a foreign leader without having to suffer any kind of consequence like, oh, I don't know, wounded American soldiers.


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Senate Democrats Hold A Presser; Lindsey Graham Cancels His

What a difference a book excerpt can make ?
Washington Post on Youtube : Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) hold separate news conferences as President Trump 's legal team continues to present their case in the Senate impeachment trial amid fallout from a new report that former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s book manuscript says Trump directly tied the holdup of nearly $ 400 million in military assistance to Ukraine to investigations of Joe Biden and his son .
Chuck Schumer was joined by Senator Tammy Baldwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland .
Lindsey Graham CANCELLED HIS PRESSER .
His opponent in the 2020 Senate race noticed .
Lindsey Graham skipped a press conference just to shamelessly stand by a President he didn ’ t even vote for .
It 's time to stop the political games .
As Senator , I will fight for South Carolina values of fairness , honesty , and justice .
https : //t.co/kVJCzSJp0u As Lindsey Graham cowers under his bed in light of the John Bolton news , remember that he 's actually on the ( admittedly SC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on a limb here boys and girls , but if # MitchMcCoverup and # GOPComplicitTraitors didn ’ t want to be blindsided by Trump and Bolton , maybe they should ’ ve called for witnesses ?
I know .
What an outlandish concept .
Trump GOP seeking the truth .
# BoltonMustTestify pic.twitter.com/XjcjPZPfql

[Presser starts at approximately the 29-minute mark.]
What a difference a book excerpt can make? Washington Post on Youtube:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hold separate news conferences as President Trump's legal team continues to present their case in the Senate impeachment trial amid fallout from a new report that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript says Trump directly tied the holdup of nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine to investigations of Joe Biden and his son.
Chuck Schumer was joined by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland.
Lindsey Graham CANCELLED HIS PRESSER. His opponent in the 2020 Senate race noticed.
Lindsey Graham skipped a press conference just to shamelessly stand by a President he didn’t even vote for.
It's time to stop the political games. As Senator, I will fight for South Carolina values of fairness, honesty, and justice. https://t.co/kVJCzSJp0u — Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) January 27, 2020
As Lindsey Graham cowers under his bed in light of the John Bolton news, remember that he's actually on the (admittedly SC) ballot this fall. — emptywheel (@emptywheel) January 27, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Did Tom Cotton Just Admit The 2016 Election Was Rigged?

Why is Tom Cotton calling John Thune a Democratic talking point generator ?
( h/t @ arupar for the transcript @ @ @ @ @ you can BET ON IT will be positing himself as the `` sane , reasonable @ @ @ @ @ once the ashes of the Trump administration blow away , went both-siderist , claiming that @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainians might coulda shoulda possibly interfered in the 2016 election .
That does n't exactly @ @ @ @ @ defending NOW seem like the duly-elected choice of the American people , Tom .
Hillary @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Donald Trump `` won '' by 70,000 surgically precise electoral college state choices @ @ @ @ @ truth confirmed by all of our intelligence agencies and the conspiracy theories spouted by Crazy @ @ @ @ @ both be `` valid '' is a # Fail .

Why is Tom Cotton calling John Thune a Democratic talking point generator? (h/t @arupar for the transcript)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Thune said he would prefer Trump's lawyers not spread conspiracy theories about Ukraine during the impeachment trial. SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): That's a Democratic talking point. BRENNAN: Thune is a Republican leader. COTTON: It's a Democratic talking point.
Then Cotton, who you can BET ON IT will be positing himself as the "sane, reasonable return to Republican values" once the ashes of the Trump administration blow away, went both-siderist, claiming that BOTH the Russians AND the Ukrainians might coulda shoulda possibly interfered in the 2016 election.
That doesn't exactly make the president you're defending NOW seem like the duly-elected choice of the American people, Tom.
Hillary Clinton won by three million-plus votes. Donald Trump "won" by 70,000 surgically precise electoral college state choices. Allowing for both the truth confirmed by all of our intelligence agencies and the conspiracy theories spouted by Crazy President Liberty on Twitter to both be "valid" is a #Fail.


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Trump's Press Secretary Says Schiff Has 'A Mental Issue'

Instead of saying `` head on a pike , '' Donald Trump tweeted that Adam Schiff had not `` paid the price ... for what he has done to our country ! ''
Howie Kurtz asked White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham on Fox ( of course ) if this is a threat .
STEPHANIE GRISHAM : I disagree .
People put meanings behind what he said .
The president speaks in a very unique way , he ’ s a counter-puncher , he ’ s saying what it ’ s on his mind .
KURTZ : What does he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the price ?
” GRISHAM : I haven ’ t talked to him about it yet .
Grisham routinely comes to interviews with this exact lack of preparation .
It 's very Kellyanne of her .
She went on with this whopper : GRISHAM : Quite frankly it seems like he ’ s having a little bit of a mental issue when you sit on the floor for hours and hours and hours .
He ’ s obsessed with this president and trying to take him down .
How many times has Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then of course the news about Bolton 's book came out .
Sad !

Instead of saying "head on a pike," Donald Trump tweeted that Adam Schiff had not "paid the price... for what he has done to our country!"
Mobster.
Howie Kurtz asked White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham on Fox (of course) if this is a threat.
HOWIE KURTZ: That sounds like a vague threat. STEPHANIE GRISHAM: I disagree. People put meanings behind what he said. The president speaks in a very unique way, he’s a counter-puncher, he’s saying what it’s on his mind. KURTZ: What does he mean Schiff "hasn’t paid the price?” GRISHAM: I haven’t talked to him about it yet.
Grisham routinely comes to interviews with this exact lack of preparation. It's very Kellyanne of her.
She went on with this whopper:
GRISHAM: Quite frankly it seems like he’s having a little bit of a mental issue when you sit on the floor for hours and hours and hours. He’s obsessed with this president and trying to take him down.
How many times has Trump tweeted about Schiff, Stephanie?
How very professional of her. 🙄 — Katbro (@katbrolv79) January 26, 2020
Trump’s obsessive / compulsive need to tweet slander, threats and sensitive national security issues is more than a “Mental Issue” — Cece (@AolCRAFT) January 26, 2020
If you think that criticism of the president means I have some sort of mental issue, then it is not me that has unhealthy views of the president. — David Vauhn (@Kythtrid) January 27, 2020
And then of course the news about Bolton's book came out. Sad!


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Time For Action: Pick Up The Phone Now And Call Your Senators

95 % of the calls received today at Angus King ’ s office were calling for witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial pic.twitter.com/CqjBvEKg48 The Bolton book excerpt throws a major monkey wrench into the Republican plan to get witnesses from testifying at the Senate impeachment trial .
Now 's the time to strike .
I told you last week : You have to pick up the phone and call .
Even the Republicans keep track of calls pro and con , and report back to their leadership .
Stop making excuses , just do it .
It takes two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling definitely does n't work !
Via the New York Times : I went to the press gallery one afternoon to check out the tableau vivant .
The visitors ’ gallery was only half full , and there was none of the passion and titillation that infused the Clinton impeachment , which also , oddly enough , revolved around a power disparity between two people .
One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy .
“ Our phones aren ’ t ringing , ” he told me .
“ Nobody cares .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your Democratic senators to tell them to keep pushing .
Call your Republican senators and tell them you want documents and witnesses .
Just do it !
If you ca n't get through to the D.C. office , check the website and call a satellite office instead .
If your senator 's voicemail is full , send a free fax to their office : https : //faxzero.com/fax_senate.php You can also send a free fax to Mitch McConnell .
https : //faxzero.com/fax_senate/M000355 I can tell you that when everyone 's calling and faxing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their boss .
That 's how we get our message across .

The Bolton book excerpt throws a major monkey wrench into the Republican plan to get witnesses from testifying at the Senate impeachment trial. Now's the time to strike.
I told you last week: You have to pick up the phone and call. Even the Republicans keep track of calls pro and con, and report back to their leadership. Stop making excuses, just do it. It takes two minutes. We already know that not calling definitely doesn't work! Via the New York Times:
I went to the press gallery one afternoon to check out the tableau vivant. The visitors’ gallery was only half full, and there was none of the passion and titillation that infused the Clinton impeachment, which also, oddly enough, revolved around a power disparity between two people. One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy. “Our phones aren’t ringing,” he told me. “Nobody cares. It’s the saddest thing ever.”
Call 202-224-3121
Have you called your Senators? 202-224-3121 gets you to the switchboard. If you think this is pointless, it’s not. It’s just as important to support your senator if your believe they’re on the right path as it is to share your views with one who you disagree with. Be counted. — Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) January 25, 2020
Call your Democratic senators to tell them to keep pushing. Call your Republican senators and tell them you want documents and witnesses. Just do it!
If you can't get through to the D.C. office, check the website and call a satellite office instead.
If your senator's voicemail is full, send a free fax to their office:
https://faxzero.com/fax_senate.php
You can also send a free fax to Mitch McConnell.
https://faxzero.com/fax_senate/M000355
Or use Resistbot:
We need an army. SHARE to allies far and near-Text REMOVE TRUMP to 50409 You will be prompted to text first name, last name and address and your email. Your Senator will receive a letter from you! It’s free. #bluearmy #bluewave #textwarriors @mddems https://t.co/IcRcoONkTP — Baltimore County Democratic Party (@BaltCoDemParty) January 26, 2020
I can tell you that when everyone's calling and faxing, the staffers get stressed and complain to their boss. That's how we get our message across.


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Sen. Klobuchar Does Math: 'Zero Witnesses Plus Zero Evidence Equals Zero Justice'

Senator Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) was a prosecutor before she was a Senator , and you can see flashes of why she was a successful one in this exchange with George Stephanopoulos about today 's talking point o ' the day on the Sunday shows : Censure as substitute for removal .
Apparently this is what the Sunday show hosts got together and discussed over the weekend , because this question has been asked on every Sunday show today , as if Trump would somehow be punished by the Senate saying `` Bad boy ! ''
before they recommenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the work of cutting Social Security .
Nevertheless , GSteph persisted .
`` You just heard Senator Lankford back up the president 's contention that he 'd done absolutely nothing wrong , '' he said .
`` It does seem that foreign interference in elections happens all the time , which gets to the question , it still appears that the president 's heading towards an acquittal . ''
Wait , WHAT ?
It does seem that foreign interference in elections happens all the time ?
Since when ?
The first I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC server and turned over a trove of emails to Wikileaks .
There are other interventions ?
Really ?
WTF .
`` Should the Senate move to censure or at least try and censure President Trump if he is indeed acquitted ? ''
asked Stephanopoulos .
`` We are not at that point , George , '' she reminded him .
`` Right now , what I want my colleagues to do is join us in getting the witnesses .
I literally do n't know how you can sit over there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president 's lawyers , they raise fact questions .
They say , 'Well , the facts are n't there . '
I want to hear from the men -- to quote the founding fathers musical -- to hear from the men in the room where it happened .
That is people like Mr. Bolton and Mick Mulvaney . ''
But she was n't done .
She was just warming up , and she was pretty straight about how ridiculous this whole thing is .
`` All of these signs point to things and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , '' she explained .
`` And all we are asking for right now is four witnesses . ''
She argued , `` Zero witnesses plus zero evidence equals zero justice .
You ca n't have a trial without the witnesses .
However they vote , whatever they choose to do when the evidence comes in , they can not go down in history as the people that blocked the truth from coming forward , because eventually it will come forward . ''
Yes .
Quit talking about censure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how trials have witnesses and evidence for jurors to consider .
We all know why Republicans do n't want to actually hold a real trial .
The evidence would be overwhelming for Trump 's guilt , just like it is already .

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was a prosecutor before she was a Senator, and you can see flashes of why she was a successful one in this exchange with George Stephanopoulos about today's talking point o' the day on the Sunday shows: Censure as substitute for removal. Apparently this is what the Sunday show hosts got together and discussed over the weekend, because this question has been asked on every Sunday show today, as if Trump would somehow be punished by the Senate saying "Bad boy!" before they recommenced approving all of his judges and set about the work of cutting Social Security.
Nevertheless, GSteph persisted. "You just heard Senator Lankford back up the president's contention that he'd done absolutely nothing wrong," he said. "It does seem that foreign interference in elections happens all the time, which gets to the question, it still appears that the president's heading towards an acquittal."
Wait, WHAT? It does seem that foreign interference in elections happens all the time? Since when? The first I heard about it was when Russia hacked the DNC server and turned over a trove of emails to Wikileaks. There are other interventions? Really? WTF.
"Should the Senate move to censure or at least try and censure President Trump if he is indeed acquitted?" asked Stephanopoulos.
Klobuchar rebuked him.
"We are not at that point, George," she reminded him. "Right now, what I want my colleagues to do is join us in getting the witnesses. I literally don't know how you can sit over there and listen, even when you hear the president's lawyers, they raise fact questions. They say, 'Well, the facts aren't there.' I want to hear from the men -- to quote the founding fathers musical -- to hear from the men in the room where it happened. That is people like Mr. Bolton and Mick Mulvaney."
But she wasn't done. She was just warming up, and she was pretty straight about how ridiculous this whole thing is.
"All of these signs point to things and discussions that they had with the president of the United States," she explained. "And all we are asking for right now is four witnesses."
She argued, "Zero witnesses plus zero evidence equals zero justice. You can't have a trial without the witnesses. However they vote, whatever they choose to do when the evidence comes in, they cannot go down in history as the people that blocked the truth from coming forward, because eventually it will come forward."
Yes. Quit talking about censure, Beltway press, and start talking about how trials have witnesses and evidence for jurors to consider. We all know why Republicans don't want to actually hold a real trial. The evidence would be overwhelming for Trump's guilt, just like it is already.


The Bolton Match

Sen. Tom Cotton tells CBS host Margaret Brennan that he wo n't vote for more witnesses in their sham of @ @ @ @ @ '' and calls one of his fellow GOP Senators saying he would prefer Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ ]

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--2020-01-28--State Department Denies NPR Reporter Access To Pompeo's Plane

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to double-down on his bullying and pettiness towards NPR , after last week 's contentious interview with Mary Louise Kelly .
Now they 've denied another NPR reporter a seat on Pompeo 's plane .
The State Department Correspondents ’ Association says the State Department has denied a National Public Radio reporter a seat aboard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s plane for an upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia .
The decision came a few days after Pompeo lashed out at another NPR reporter .
The correspondents ’ association said Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelemen from Pompeo ’ s plane led it to conclude “ the State Department is retaliating ” against NPR .
The group asked the State Department to reconsider and allow Kelemen to join Pompeo .
The State Department declined to comment on the correspondents ’ association request .
In an interview Friday , Pompeo responded testily when NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly asked him about Ukraine and , specifically , whether he defended or should have defended Marie Yovanovitch , the former U.S. ambassador in Kyiv whose ouster figured in President Donald Trump @ @ @ @

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to double-down on his bullying and pettiness towards NPR, after last week's contentious interview with Mary Louise Kelly. Now they've denied another NPR reporter a seat on Pompeo's plane.
Source: Washington Post
The State Department Correspondents’ Association says the State Department has denied a National Public Radio reporter a seat aboard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s plane for an upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia.
The decision came a few days after Pompeo lashed out at another NPR reporter.
The correspondents’ association said Monday the decision to remove NPR correspondent Michele Kelemen from Pompeo’s plane led it to conclude “the State Department is retaliating” against NPR. The group asked the State Department to reconsider and allow Kelemen to join Pompeo.
The State Department declined to comment on the correspondents’ association request.
In an interview Friday, Pompeo responded testily when NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly asked him about Ukraine and, specifically, whether he defended or should have defended Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador in Kyiv whose ouster figured in President Donald Trump’s impeachment.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--WATCH LIVE:  Senate Impeachment Trial For Tuesday January 28


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--McConnell Doesn't Have The Votes!

McConnell Doesn't Have The Votes!

Reports are pouring out of the closed-door Republican caucus meeting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not have the votes to block witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) indicated in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans that he did not yet have enough votes to defeat an effort , expected later this week , to call additional witnesses and evidence in the trial .
Pressure has ramped up to include witnesses after reports that former national security adviser John Bolton says in a book manuscript that Trump directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in military assistance to Ukraine to investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
The next phase of the impeachment trial is 16 hours of questions from Senators for the House impeachment managers or Trump 's defense team .
After that , there will be a vote .
Perhaps there will be witnesses called , and perhaps not , since Susan Collins is always a question mark .
However , it looks like Republicans are in disarray this time .
According to a quote in the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit ... petulant .
“ We ’ re not robots .
We ’ re not sheep .
We ’ re individuals that represent our states , ” Mr. Cramer told The Times .
“ There are no wimps in the United States Senate.
” Nevertheless , the Times put the best spin on it , saying that McConnell expected to have the votes by the end of the week as they apply pressure on those in the caucus who want to hear from witnesses and see some evidence , as most people @ @

Reports are pouring out of the closed-door Republican caucus meeting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not have the votes to block witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.
Washington Post reports:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans that he did not yet have enough votes to defeat an effort, expected later this week, to call additional witnesses and evidence in the trial. Pressure has ramped up to include witnesses after reports that former national security adviser John Bolton says in a book manuscript that Trump directly tied the holdup of nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine to investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
The next phase of the impeachment trial is 16 hours of questions from Senators for the House impeachment managers or Trump's defense team. After that, there will be a vote. Perhaps there will be witnesses called, and perhaps not, since Susan Collins is always a question mark.
However, it looks like Republicans are in disarray this time. According to a quote in the New York Times, Senator Kevin Cramer sounded a bit...petulant. “We’re not robots. We’re not sheep. We’re individuals that represent our states,” Mr. Cramer told The Times. “There are no wimps in the United States Senate.”
Nevertheless, the Times put the best spin on it, saying that McConnell expected to have the votes by the end of the week as they apply pressure on those in the caucus who want to hear from witnesses and see some evidence, as most people do.
UPDATE: Looks like some strong-arming going on behind the scenes.


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Who's Afraid Of The IRS? Not Facebook

Who's Afraid Of The IRS? Not Facebook

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
In March 2008 , as Facebook was speeding toward 100 million users and emerging as the next big tech company , it announced an important hire .
Sheryl Sandberg was leaving Google to become Facebook ’ s chief operating officer .
CEO Mark Zuckerberg , then 23 years old , told The New York Times that Sandberg would take the young company “ to the next level.
” Based on her time at Google , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook was behind its peers was in its tax dodging .
“ My experience is that by not having a European center and running everything through the US , it is very costly in terms of taxes , ” she wrote other executives in an April 2008 email , which hasn ’ t been previously reported .
Facebook ’ s head of tax agreed , replying that the company needed to find “ a low taxed jurisdiction to park profits.
” Later that year , Facebook named Dublin as its international headquarters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was there .
And just like Google , Facebook concocted an intra-company deal to “ park profits ” in Ireland , where it would pay a tax rate near zero .
Like its Big Tech peers , Facebook wasn ’ t much afraid of the IRS .
But , as it happened , the same year that Facebook started moving profits to Ireland , the IRS launched a team to crack down on deals like that .
The effort started aggressively .
As we recently reported , the IRS threw everything it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency ’ s history .
But shortly after the IRS showed this new ambition , Republicans in Congress , after taking the House in 2010 , began forcing cuts to the IRS ’ budget .
Over the years , as Facebook grew into one of the world ’ s largest companies , with 2 billion users , the IRS was shrinking .
By the time the IRS finally took on Facebook over its Irish deal a few years later , the agency was in over its head .
ProPublica pieced together the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents filed by the two sides in their yearslong battle .
( Both the IRS and the company declined to comment . )
The picture revealed by the documents provides a crucial window into the IRS ’ struggles to check large corporations ’ tax schemes .
At one point in the audit , the exam stalled for months because there was no money to hire an expert .
Agents tried for five years to pick apart the deal ’ s complexities and were still scrambling when the statute of limitations expired in July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the bell rings , to turn in a test with unanswered questions , the IRS sent Facebook the results of its incomplete audit .
Based on the work it had done , the IRS thought Facebook had massively mispriced its Irish deal and should have paid billions more in taxes .
Today the fight continues before the U.S. Tax Court , and the conflict is about to reach a climax : A trial is scheduled for February , and the IRS is trying to convince a judge that it has a firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , Facebook has defended its actions in court filings , calling the IRS ’ conclusions “ arbitrary , capricious , or unreasonable.
” If the IRS prevails in court , it could cost Facebook up to $ 9 billion more in taxes , based on estimates in the company ’ s securities filings .
It would be a notable defeat for a company that , when it comes to risky tax avoidance , has been more aggressive “ than almost any other U.S. corporation , ” said Matt Gardner , a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Economic Policy .
According to Facebook ’ s public filings , from 2010 through 2017 ( when the U.S. corporate tax rate was 35 % ) , the company paid a total of $ 3.9 billion in taxes on $ 50 billion of pre-tax income , a rate of about 8 % .
Still , the IRS hasn ’ t won a clear victory in a major profit-shifting case in court for decades , said Reuven Avi-Yonah , a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and an expert on international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has simply been “ overmatched.
” Given how things have gone so far in its conflict with the IRS , Facebook has good reason to be confident about the coming trial .
From the beginning in 2008 , Facebook laid the foundations of its big profit shift with care , according to internal company emails disclosed by the IRS in court filings .
The first step was to establish a company office in a low-tax country .
Given Sandberg ’ s experience helping Google choose Dublin and set up its office there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then the question was what and who to put there .
The key was having just enough of a presence in Dublin “ to justify the tax benefits , ” Sandberg wrote in an email at the time .
A Facebook finance executive explained that , to get “ the tax advantages , ” Facebook needed to transfer its intellectual property to the Dublin office .
There needed to be servers there with “ the key source code and user data ” on them in order to “ build the case ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grumbled , “ Ireland is not a first or second choice for a significant data center presence , ” because it was easier to hire people in London , the tax exec responded that the Dublin center wouldn ’ t need to be particularly large .
In other words , it didn ’ t really matter how many people worked in the Dublin office .
Yet , in October 2008 when Facebook publicly announced its choice of what it grandly called its “ international headquarters , ” Sandberg was quoted in a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workforce .
“ After exploring various locations throughout the region , we decided Ireland was the best place , ” she said .
“ The talent pool in Dublin is world-class and recruiting local talent will help us better understand the needs of local users.
” In a private email to an old Google colleague the previous day , however , she ’ d been frank .
“ Same decision process Google went through a long time ago , ” she wrote : “ tax breaks to put international revenue through .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe 10 people by end of this year and 30-50 by end of next year.
” The main pieces now in place , Facebook started constructing its deal to move profits to Ireland .
It set up an Irish company that declared itself to have management in the Cayman Islands .
This was a trick to avoid paying even Ireland ’ s low 12.5 % tax rate on the profits : The company would instead pay close to nothing .
Now it just needed some profits .
Essentially , Facebook would license its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this would in turn entitle the Irish subsidiary to a portion of Facebook ’ s profits .
IRS rules allow such intra-company deals , but the companies are supposed to arrive at a fair , “ arm ’ s-length ” price .
How much the Irish company would pay for the license and what portion of Facebook ’ s profits the Dublin office would get — these are not numbers that companies can just make up .
It doesn ’ t matter that the transaction was highly artificial , without any clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have some objective basis .
To conjure the prices Facebook should pay in this deal with itself , Facebook hired the giant accounting firm Ernst & Young .
The firm ’ s experts and economists worked for years on the project .
In 2011 , a year after the deal had officially closed , E & Y ’ s team was still crunching figures and generating reports .
In September 2011 , an E & Y economist emailed 600 pages of analysis to Ted Price , Facebook ’ s head of tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ printed copies : two for his team , and one for the IRS , should the agency ever come calling .
Price said that he ’ d take three , but they ’ d all be for his team .
“ I doubt the IRS ever even audits us on this , ” he wrote .
The E & Y economist replied , “ knock on wood.
” ( In a court filing , Facebook said Price ’ s comment was “ sarcastic.
” ) The IRS began its audit , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t until 2015 that a team of agents presented preliminary findings to Facebook .
The IRS thought E & Y ’ s estimates were off by billions of dollars .
( E & Y declined to comment . )
A month later , Facebook responded with a presentation of its own that blasted the IRS ’ analysis .
The agency “ had made significant and arbitrary errors , ” Facebook later claimed in legal filings .
The IRS decided to regroup .
The agency needed help , the team working the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would hire outside experts .
But there was a problem .
In late 2014 , Republicans in Congress had forced through a sudden $ 346 million cut to the IRS ’ budget , and money was tight .
Although billions of dollars were at stake in the Facebook audit , the IRS had no funds to hire an expert .
The audit team had to wait for three months , until the new fiscal year began in October 2015 , to even begin looking .
Then , because of a lengthy contracting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the $ 800,000 contract to go through .
The expert , an economist who specializes in analyzing these intra-company deals , finally went to work in March 2016 .
Meanwhile , the IRS was struggling to get all the documents it needed from Facebook .
In January 2016 , the exam team had sent off a broad request for documents about the Irish deal .
Two months later , Facebook turned over three emails in response .
The company told the IRS it had “ narrowly construed ” the request , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nina Wu Stone , later declared in court , and “ the IRS would have to start over with issuance of a new set of [ requests ] if the IRS wanted a more comprehensive response.
” At the same time , the IRS feared being buried in paper .
In response to another request , Facebook told the IRS the company ’ s systems couldn ’ t efficiently sort for responsive documents , and as a result , Facebook was going to turn over so much that it would “ perhaps overwhelm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it in a court filing .
Through all of this , the clock was ticking .
The IRS has three years to assess additional tax on a return , but corporate taxpayers often voluntarily extend the statute of limitations .
In this case , Facebook had done so five times .
Companies do this because they are hoping to avoid having to go to court .
But as the IRS began asking for more time to hire experts , Facebook decided it didn ’ t like where the audit was headed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extend the statute again , but on one condition .
The IRS had to commit that Facebook would be able to take its case to the IRS Office of Appeals .
The Office of Appeals offers taxpayers the prospect of a quiet settlement of a tax dispute , and as ProPublica reported in the story about the audit of Microsoft , large corporations often are able to obtain steep reductions in what they owe .
But the IRS does have the power to block appeals .
The agency rarely employs that power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against other big taxpayers like Coca-Cola and Amazon .
Facebook wanted to make sure that didn ’ t happen .
The IRS refused , and the clock continued to tick .
By May 2016 , with just two months left , the IRS managed to get its second expert working on the case .
Nancy Bronson , an IRS supervisor , asked Facebook to reconsider an extension .
That ’ s when Price , the Facebook executive , offered another exchange .
The IRS has a powerful tool to compel documents from large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their feet .
It ’ s called a “ designated summons , ” and it stops the clock until the taxpayer turns over all the requested documents .
This can buy the IRS valuable time , but it angers corporations who must now endure added time to the audit .
Price told Bronson that Facebook would give the IRS six more months if it agreed not to use a designated summons .
Again , Bronson declined .
“ I explained my reservations with giving up that right given the difficulties in obtaining information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of the proposed statute extension , ” she declared in a court filing .
Despite the apparent utility of designated summonses , the IRS has used them only three times since the mid- ’ 90s .
The most recent instance , against Microsoft in 2014 , provoked a powerful response , and Microsoft and its corporate allies launched a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill .
Soon , lawmakers were introducing bills seeking to curtail the IRS ’ use of designated summonses and other tools .
Against this added pressure , the IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The agency didn ’ t relinquish the ability to use the designated summons , but it didn ’ t take the aggressive step of actually using it , either .
Instead , the IRS issued a conventional summons and then sued in federal district court to enforce it .
This forced Facebook to turn over documents , but the clock continued to run and it would take months for Facebook to comply .
The IRS ’ decision meant that it had to finish the audit without the benefit of documents that it characterized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook ’ s Ireland deal .
So , that ’ s what it did .
Shortly before the statute expired , the IRS sent Facebook an official notice closing the audit .
“ The examination team had not completed its fact-gathering efforts when the notice was issued , ” Bronson said .
The IRS concluded , based on its incomplete analysis , that Facebook ’ s Irish subsidiary had underpaid for Facebook ’ s software platform by $ 7 billion : The subsidiary had paid $ 7 billion when it should ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS ’ view prevailed , less profit would flow to Ireland and thus more income would be taxable in the U.S. As expected , Facebook soon filed a challenge in U.S. Tax Court .
The IRS said its findings weren ’ t absolutely final , because it could modify them in court as it acquired more evidence .
But agency veterans say such changes are unusual and make the agency ’ s already difficult task — fighting a complex litigation battle against a better-resourced foe — even harder .
“ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case where the IRS increased an assessment after it came out of exam , ” said Ken Wood , a former attorney with the IRS who worked on large corporate audits .
Making any sort of change is “ dangerous , ” he said , because it can undermine the IRS ’ argument that its findings are firmly supported .
Last October , in a legal filing , the IRS disclosed that , having had time to review the millions of pages of documents that Facebook had turned over since 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company should have paid $ 20 billion in the original transaction .
However , the agency was apparently wary of shaking up its case by officially modifying its earlier findings .
Confusingly , the IRS said it would argue at trial that its earlier estimate was too low , while simultaneously preserving that low estimate as the basis of the trial .
The IRS wasn ’ t definitely saying Facebook should pay more ; It was suggesting to the judge that it should .
A couple months later , just before Christmas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a motion officially changing its earlier findings and made the $ 20 billion valuation its one and only position at trial .
It ’ s unclear just how much tax Facebook ’ s Irish deal has saved the company , because the company has also made other moves to reduce taxes .
Since Facebook refuses to divulge details , back of the envelope calculations based on other company disclosures provide the best guess .
On that basis , ProPublica estimates that Facebook shifted at least $ 19 billion in profits offshore .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were upended , Facebook could be forced to pay up to $ 9 billion more in taxes , the company recently said , an increase from its earlier estimates of up to $ 5 billion before the IRS changed its demand .
But despite the increased exposure , Facebook ’ s chances in Tax Court are good .
A win would be just another windfall for a company that ’ s clearly reached “ the next level .
”

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
In March 2008, as Facebook was speeding toward 100 million users and emerging as the next big tech company, it announced an important hire. Sheryl Sandberg was leaving Google to become Facebook’s chief operating officer. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, then 23 years old, told The New York Times that Sandberg would take the young company “to the next level.”
Based on her time at Google, Sandberg soon decided that one area where Facebook was behind its peers was in its tax dodging. “My experience is that by not having a European center and running everything through the US, it is very costly in terms of taxes,” she wrote other executives in an April 2008 email, which hasn’t been previously reported. Facebook’s head of tax agreed, replying that the company needed to find “a low taxed jurisdiction to park profits.”
Later that year, Facebook named Dublin as its international headquarters, just as Google had done when Sandberg was there. And just like Google, Facebook concocted an intra-company deal to “park profits” in Ireland, where it would pay a tax rate near zero.
Like its Big Tech peers, Facebook wasn’t much afraid of the IRS. But, as it happened, the same year that Facebook started moving profits to Ireland, the IRS launched a team to crack down on deals like that. The effort started aggressively. As we recently reported, the IRS threw everything it had at Microsoft in the largest audit in the agency’s history.
But shortly after the IRS showed this new ambition, Republicans in Congress, after taking the House in 2010, began forcing cuts to the IRS’ budget. Over the years, as Facebook grew into one of the world’s largest companies, with 2 billion users, the IRS was shrinking. By the time the IRS finally took on Facebook over its Irish deal a few years later, the agency was in over its head.
ProPublica pieced together the story of the Facebook audit from court documents filed by the two sides in their yearslong battle. (Both the IRS and the company declined to comment.) The picture revealed by the documents provides a crucial window into the IRS’ struggles to check large corporations’ tax schemes.
At one point in the audit, the exam stalled for months because there was no money to hire an expert. Agents tried for five years to pick apart the deal’s complexities and were still scrambling when the statute of limitations expired in July 2016. Like a student forced, when the bell rings, to turn in a test with unanswered questions, the IRS sent Facebook the results of its incomplete audit. Based on the work it had done, the IRS thought Facebook had massively mispriced its Irish deal and should have paid billions more in taxes.
Today the fight continues before the U.S. Tax Court, and the conflict is about to reach a climax: A trial is scheduled for February, and the IRS is trying to convince a judge that it has a firm basis for its conclusions. For its part, Facebook has defended its actions in court filings, calling the IRS’ conclusions “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.”
If the IRS prevails in court, it could cost Facebook up to $9 billion more in taxes, based on estimates in the company’s securities filings. It would be a notable defeat for a company that, when it comes to risky tax avoidance, has been more aggressive “than almost any other U.S. corporation,” said Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. According to Facebook’s public filings, from 2010 through 2017 (when the U.S. corporate tax rate was 35%), the company paid a total of $3.9 billion in taxes on $50 billion of pre-tax income, a rate of about 8%.
Still, the IRS hasn’t won a clear victory in a major profit-shifting case in court for decades, said Reuven Avi-Yonah, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and an expert on international tax. The agency, he said, has simply been “overmatched.” Given how things have gone so far in its conflict with the IRS, Facebook has good reason to be confident about the coming trial.
From the beginning in 2008, Facebook laid the foundations of its big profit shift with care, according to internal company emails disclosed by the IRS in court filings. The first step was to establish a company office in a low-tax country. Given Sandberg’s experience helping Google choose Dublin and set up its office there, Ireland was the first option. Then the question was what and who to put there. The key was having just enough of a presence in Dublin “to justify the tax benefits,” Sandberg wrote in an email at the time.
A Facebook finance executive explained that, to get “the tax advantages,” Facebook needed to transfer its intellectual property to the Dublin office. There needed to be servers there with “the key source code and user data” on them in order to “build the case” for the transfer. When a Facebook executive grumbled, “Ireland is not a first or second choice for a significant data center presence,” because it was easier to hire people in London, the tax exec responded that the Dublin center wouldn’t need to be particularly large.
In other words, it didn’t really matter how many people worked in the Dublin office. Yet, in October 2008 when Facebook publicly announced its choice of what it grandly called its “international headquarters,” Sandberg was quoted in a press release singing the praises of the Irish workforce. “After exploring various locations throughout the region, we decided Ireland was the best place,” she said. “The talent pool in Dublin is world-class and recruiting local talent will help us better understand the needs of local users.”
In a private email to an old Google colleague the previous day, however, she’d been frank. “Same decision process Google went through a long time ago,” she wrote: “tax breaks to put international revenue through. Our operations there will be very small — maybe 10 people by end of this year and 30-50 by end of next year.”
The main pieces now in place, Facebook started constructing its deal to move profits to Ireland. It set up an Irish company that declared itself to have management in the Cayman Islands. This was a trick to avoid paying even Ireland’s low 12.5% tax rate on the profits: The company would instead pay close to nothing. Now it just needed some profits. Essentially, Facebook would license its software platform to its Irish subsidiary, and this would in turn entitle the Irish subsidiary to a portion of Facebook’s profits.
IRS rules allow such intra-company deals, but the companies are supposed to arrive at a fair, “arm’s-length” price. How much the Irish company would pay for the license and what portion of Facebook’s profits the Dublin office would get — these are not numbers that companies can just make up. It doesn’t matter that the transaction was highly artificial, without any clear real-world models. The price is supposed to have some objective basis.
To conjure the prices Facebook should pay in this deal with itself, Facebook hired the giant accounting firm Ernst & Young. The firm’s experts and economists worked for years on the project. In 2011, a year after the deal had officially closed, E&Y’s team was still crunching figures and generating reports.
In September 2011, an E&Y economist emailed 600 pages of analysis to Ted Price, Facebook’s head of tax, and offered to send him three printed copies: two for his team, and one for the IRS, should the agency ever come calling. Price said that he’d take three, but they’d all be for his team. “I doubt the IRS ever even audits us on this,” he wrote. The E&Y economist replied, “knock on wood.” (In a court filing, Facebook said Price’s comment was “sarcastic.”)
The IRS began its audit, as it happened, soon afterward. But it wasn’t until 2015 that a team of agents presented preliminary findings to Facebook. The IRS thought E&Y’s estimates were off by billions of dollars. (E&Y declined to comment.)
A month later, Facebook responded with a presentation of its own that blasted the IRS’ analysis. The agency “had made significant and arbitrary errors,” Facebook later claimed in legal filings.
The IRS decided to regroup. The agency needed help, the team working the case decided, and for that, it would hire outside experts.
But there was a problem. In late 2014, Republicans in Congress had forced through a sudden $346 million cut to the IRS’ budget, and money was tight. Although billions of dollars were at stake in the Facebook audit, the IRS had no funds to hire an expert. The audit team had to wait for three months, until the new fiscal year began in October 2015, to even begin looking. Then, because of a lengthy contracting process, it took six more months for the $800,000 contract to go through. The expert, an economist who specializes in analyzing these intra-company deals, finally went to work in March 2016.
Meanwhile, the IRS was struggling to get all the documents it needed from Facebook. In January 2016, the exam team had sent off a broad request for documents about the Irish deal.
Two months later, Facebook turned over three emails in response. The company told the IRS it had “narrowly construed” the request, one of the agents on the case, Nina Wu Stone, later declared in court, and “the IRS would have to start over with issuance of a new set of [requests] if the IRS wanted a more comprehensive response.”
At the same time, the IRS feared being buried in paper. In response to another request, Facebook told the IRS the company’s systems couldn’t efficiently sort for responsive documents, and as a result, Facebook was going to turn over so much that it would “perhaps overwhelm the IRS,” as the agency put it in a court filing.
Through all of this, the clock was ticking. The IRS has three years to assess additional tax on a return, but corporate taxpayers often voluntarily extend the statute of limitations. In this case, Facebook had done so five times. Companies do this because they are hoping to avoid having to go to court.
But as the IRS began asking for more time to hire experts, Facebook decided it didn’t like where the audit was headed. The company played hardball. It offered to extend the statute again, but on one condition. The IRS had to commit that Facebook would be able to take its case to the IRS Office of Appeals.
The Office of Appeals offers taxpayers the prospect of a quiet settlement of a tax dispute, and as ProPublica reported in the story about the audit of Microsoft, large corporations often are able to obtain steep reductions in what they owe. But the IRS does have the power to block appeals. The agency rarely employs that power, but it had recently done so against other big taxpayers like Coca-Cola and Amazon. Facebook wanted to make sure that didn’t happen.
The IRS refused, and the clock continued to tick. By May 2016, with just two months left, the IRS managed to get its second expert working on the case. Nancy Bronson, an IRS supervisor, asked Facebook to reconsider an extension. That’s when Price, the Facebook executive, offered another exchange.
The IRS has a powerful tool to compel documents from large corporations that the agency thinks are dragging their feet. It’s called a “designated summons,” and it stops the clock until the taxpayer turns over all the requested documents. This can buy the IRS valuable time, but it angers corporations who must now endure added time to the audit.
Price told Bronson that Facebook would give the IRS six more months if it agreed not to use a designated summons. Again, Bronson declined. “I explained my reservations with giving up that right given the difficulties in obtaining information in a timely manner and the short period of the proposed statute extension,” she declared in a court filing.
Despite the apparent utility of designated summonses, the IRS has used them only three times since the mid-’90s. The most recent instance, against Microsoft in 2014, provoked a powerful response, and Microsoft and its corporate allies launched a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Soon, lawmakers were introducing bills seeking to curtail the IRS’ use of designated summonses and other tools.
Against this added pressure, the IRS decided to take the middle path. The agency didn’t relinquish the ability to use the designated summons, but it didn’t take the aggressive step of actually using it, either. Instead, the IRS issued a conventional summons and then sued in federal district court to enforce it. This forced Facebook to turn over documents, but the clock continued to run and it would take months for Facebook to comply.
The IRS’ decision meant that it had to finish the audit without the benefit of documents that it characterized in court filings as essential to understanding Facebook’s Ireland deal. So, that’s what it did. Shortly before the statute expired, the IRS sent Facebook an official notice closing the audit. “The examination team had not completed its fact-gathering efforts when the notice was issued,” Bronson said.
The IRS concluded, based on its incomplete analysis, that Facebook’s Irish subsidiary had underpaid for Facebook’s software platform by $7 billion: The subsidiary had paid $7 billion when it should’ve paid $14 billion. If the IRS’ view prevailed, less profit would flow to Ireland and thus more income would be taxable in the U.S. As expected, Facebook soon filed a challenge in U.S. Tax Court.
The IRS said its findings weren’t absolutely final, because it could modify them in court as it acquired more evidence. But agency veterans say such changes are unusual and make the agency’s already difficult task — fighting a complex litigation battle against a better-resourced foe — even harder.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where the IRS increased an assessment after it came out of exam,” said Ken Wood, a former attorney with the IRS who worked on large corporate audits. Making any sort of change is “dangerous,” he said, because it can undermine the IRS’ argument that its findings are firmly supported.
Last October, in a legal filing, the IRS disclosed that, having had time to review the millions of pages of documents that Facebook had turned over since 2016, it now thought Facebook’s Irish company should have paid $20 billion in the original transaction. However, the agency was apparently wary of shaking up its case by officially modifying its earlier findings. Confusingly, the IRS said it would argue at trial that its earlier estimate was too low, while simultaneously preserving that low estimate as the basis of the trial. The IRS wasn’t definitely saying Facebook should pay more; It was suggesting to the judge that it should.
A couple months later, just before Christmas, the IRS reversed course. It filed a motion officially changing its earlier findings and made the $20 billion valuation its one and only position at trial.
It’s unclear just how much tax Facebook’s Irish deal has saved the company, because the company has also made other moves to reduce taxes. Since Facebook refuses to divulge details, back of the envelope calculations based on other company disclosures provide the best guess. On that basis, ProPublica estimates that Facebook shifted at least $19 billion in profits offshore.
If the company’s big tax dodge were upended, Facebook could be forced to pay up to $9 billion more in taxes, the company recently said, an increase from its earlier estimates of up to $5 billion before the IRS changed its demand. But despite the increased exposure, Facebook’s chances in Tax Court are good. A win would be just another windfall for a company that’s clearly reached “the next level.”


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Elie Mystal Summarizes Tuesday's Impeachment Proceedings In 13 Tweets

I really hope The Nation gives Elie Mystal some kind of bonus for working under extreme duress or something .
The Justice Correspondent for the magazine took one for the team by listening to and watching all three days of the White House `` legal '' team 's defense of Trump in the Senate impeachment trial .
Mystal graced the rest of us with a twitter breakdown of their arguments in non-lawyerly ( and hilarious ) terms .
His also wrote up a summary of Monday 's proceedings in article form for The Nation : Ken Starr argued that impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be applied to a president .
Michael Purpura argued that nobody ever heard Trump order a quid pro quo .
Jane Raskin argued that Rudy Giuliani was a distraction , but also a great guy who did nothing wrong .
Patrick Philbin argued that presidents never have to comply with congressional subpoenas they don ’ t like .
Pam Bondi argued that corruption is rampant in Ukraine because of Joe and Hunter Biden .
Eric Herschman argued that… well , he held a MAGA rally from the well of the Senate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeached .
Robert Ray argued that presidents can not be prosecuted .
And finally , Alan Dershowtiz argued that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense , while self-owning the fact that essentially no credible legal scholars agree with him .
Below are highlights from Mystal 's feed from Tuesday , for those who do n't enter the Twitterverse , and can not wait for his next article in The Nation .
For the most part , he just destroys Jay Sekulow , but that 's mostly because he did most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House team did n't have too much to say , since Trump totally has no defense , so they barely argued for even two hours before they said weirdly that we need to LET them keep the Republic .
I think we can ALL agree with Mystal on that last .
I mean , how many times could we listen to Jay Sekulow say `` DANGER !
DANGER !
DANGER ! ''
?
Though it did prompt probably the best of the tweets : He ended by summarizing Pat Cipollone 's super weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Godfather take on Benjamin Franklin 's famous line about the republic .
And he did it without setting himself on fire ... a real concern a few hours into Monday 's arguments .
Someone buy that guy a drink .

I really hope The Nation gives Elie Mystal some kind of bonus for working under extreme duress or something. The Justice Correspondent for the magazine took one for the team by listening to and watching all three days of the White House "legal" team's defense of Trump in the Senate impeachment trial. Mystal graced the rest of us with a twitter breakdown of their arguments in non-lawyerly (and hilarious) terms. His also wrote up a summary of Monday's proceedings in article form for The Nation:
Ken Starr argued that impeachment is no longer a constitutional provision that should be applied to a president. Michael Purpura argued that nobody ever heard Trump order a quid pro quo. Jane Raskin argued that Rudy Giuliani was a distraction, but also a great guy who did nothing wrong. Patrick Philbin argued that presidents never have to comply with congressional subpoenas they don’t like. Pam Bondi argued that corruption is rampant in Ukraine because of Joe and Hunter Biden. Eric Herschman argued that… well, he held a MAGA rally from the well of the Senate and argued that President Barack Obama should be impeached. Robert Ray argued that presidents cannot be prosecuted. And finally, Alan Dershowtiz argued that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, while self-owning the fact that essentially no credible legal scholars agree with him.
Below are highlights from Mystal's feed from Tuesday, for those who don't enter the Twitterverse, and cannot wait for his next article in The Nation. For the most part, he just destroys Jay Sekulow, but that's mostly because he did most of the talking today. Thankfully the White House team didn't have too much to say, since Trump totally has no defense, so they barely argued for even two hours before they said weirdly that we need to LET them keep the Republic.
Sekulow reprises his line from Saturday that we should put ourselves in the shoes of the President.
Never has a President whined as much as this one, and now his personal lawyer out here is whining for him. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Sekulow is now complaining about the investigation into the *last* time Trump got help from a foreign government, as opposed to, you know, *this* time the President tried to get help to steal an election. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Jay Sekulow now questioning why @SpeakerPelosi held onto the impeachment articles for a month, suggesting that the hold belies the contention that Trump is dangerous.
ACTUALLY, we've seen that the 33 days allows Dems to WORK TO CONVINCE THE SENATE of the danger. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
... Sekulow now arguing that even if Trump said "quid pro quo" to Bolton (remember when @LindseyGrahamSC and the Republicans made quid pro quo the thing) that you STILL can't impeach Trump because... soliciting foreign election interference is okay, according to Sekulow. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Sekulow is now CROSS EXAMINING John Bolton... without the Senate actually CALLING BOLTON TO TESTIFY.
Like, Bolton is not DEAD. He's RIGHT THERE. Ask him these questions yourself! — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Sekulow makes a stirring case for why nobody should impeach Obama.
I mean, the fact that he's NO LONGER PRESIDENT is kind of enough but, don't worry, Sekulow has us covered. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Sekulow: "Did Congress come through with some kind of constitutionally mandated accommodations process to... NO THEY DID NOT."
For those who missed it: Sekulow made up a constitutional "mandate" out of thin air, then found Congress in violation of it.#ImpeachmentTrial — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Let me try, and see if it works for me:
"Did Sekulow go through the constitutionally mandated lie detector NO HE DID NOT."
Funsies. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Thank Christ, he's done. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
I think we can ALL agree with Mystal on that last. I mean, how many times could we listen to Jay Sekulow say "DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!"? Though it did prompt probably the best of the tweets:
If Twitter doesn't give me a gif of Jay Sekulow's head on top of Will Robinson's robot by close of business, I'm cancelling my subscription. :) — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
He ended by summarizing Pat Cipollone's super weird closing argument, which was like a Godfather take on Benjamin Franklin's famous line about the republic.
Pat Cipollone closes by playing House managers objecting over to impeachment of Clinton over an extra-marital affair.#ImpeachmentTrial — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
This is the first halfway decent argument they've made... IF you have a lobotomy and forget that they were railing against impeachment over an affair as opposed to impeachment over trying to steal an American election. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
Cipollone: "It's a republic, if you LET US keep it."
He thinks he's riffing on the Ben Franklin line. He's actually putting the Republican philosophy on full display. We can only have a republic if Republicans are allowed to steal elections. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
And finally,
Folks... I've made it through, gavel-to-gavel, for all the House Managers presentations and all the Trump lawyer's presentation. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 28, 2020
And he did it without setting himself on fire...a real concern a few hours into Monday's arguments. Someone buy that guy a drink.


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Does Impeachment Need A Crime? Not According To The Constitution

Donald Trump ’ s legal and political defenders are all singing the same refrain : The president can ’ t be impeached ; he hasn ’ t committed a crime .
Alan Dershowitz , the constitutional lawyer now representing Trump , said it during an appearance on CNN .
Sen. Ted Cruz echoed it on Twitter , noting there was “ not even a speeding ticket.
” And , of course , Trump himself has used the phrase “ no crime ” repeatedly as he seeks to delegitimize the impeachment hearings .
But does the impeachment and conviction of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the president ’ s counselors and supporters argue ?
Democrats clearly don ’ t think so .
Jerrold Nadler , the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee , lectured senators at the impeachment hearing on Jan. 23 that the Constitution made it clear that a crime was not necessary for the president to be impeached .
This question of constitutional interpretation is critical to experts such as me , since the two articles of impeachment now pending in the Senate allege actions — including the abuse of power and the obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a violation of any criminal law .
And even though the Government Accountability Office has concluded that the President ’ s withholding of aid to Ukraine was unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act , the president ’ s actions do not give rise to criminal penalties .
It ’ s important to understand what is not on the table .
Under the impeachment clause of the Constitution , a president may be removed from office “ on impeachment for , and conviction of , treason , bribery , or other high crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offenses , defined in the Constitution as acts that “ consist of levying war ” against the United States or giving “ aid and comfort ” to its enemies .
The Supreme Court has held that it can take place only in wartime .
Under this definition , Trump did not commit treason .
Treason is not a catch-all phrase for unpatriotic acts .
It requires actions like those of Benedict Arnold , the American general who betrayed his country to fight for the British in the Revolutionary War .
Bribery , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the pending articles of impeachment .
That leaves us with “ other high crimes and misdemeanors.
” The Republican Party has long advocated for constitutional interpretation that relies on the original intent of the framers .
So what did the framers mean by this lofty phrase , and what did they reject as impeachable offenses ?
During the Constitutional Convention , George Mason moved that the impeachment clause follow the term “ bribery ” with “ or maladministration.
” But James Madison objected on grounds that it was too broad and would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pleasure of the Senate .
So the phrase was replaced by “ other high crimes and misdemeanors.
” The framers intended the phrase to convey a more serious connotation than simple incompetence or poor administration .
In Federalist Paper No .
65 , Hamilton made clear that impeachable acts must involve “ the abuse or violation of some public trust ” and “ relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
” Hamilton made no mention of the requirement that actual crimes be committed , nor as far as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual crimes were mandatory for impeachment .
Examples of impeachable offenses cited by the framers provide further context .
In response to concerns that the president could use his pardon powers to protect his own bad acts from detection , Madison responded : “ if the president be connected , in any suspicious manner , with any person , and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him , the House of Representatives can impeach him.
” Madison makes no reference to any crime .
His concern here is the potential for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other inappropriate purposes .
Fellow framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception .
The framers understood that “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” included acts that may not necessarily violate any criminal law , but do constitute a serious violation of the public trust .
It also has to be remembered that the word “ misdemeanors ” had a broader meaning at the time it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law professor and historian Frank Bowman has pointed out , in the context of British law at the time “ misdemeanor ” did not solely mean a less serious criminal offense .
Rather , “ crimes and misdemeanors ” was used more colloquially to mean bad behavior .
Advocates for Trump say the current articles of impeachment do not meet the threshold as they do not allege criminal offenses .
The framers would be surprised by this interpretation .
The articles allege that Trump abused his political power to serve his own ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in so doing he undermined the nation ’ s security policy in terms of its commitment to Ukraine ’ s defense .
Whether or not the evidence supports this charge , an actual criminal offense is simply not a prerequisite for impeachment in this or any other case .
The framers are clear on this point .
Interpreting “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” to reflect the modern understanding of those terms as actual statutory offenses is inconsistent with the framers ’ original intent .
Such an approach is also inconsistent with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on interpreting what the founders meant at the time of the Constitution ’ s writing .
Indeed , the president ’ s position on “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” appears more consistent with the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted within a modern context as a “ living ” constitution — an interpretative method much criticized by many in the GOP .
[ Expertise in your inbox .
Sign up for The Conversation ’ s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today ’ s news , every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Stefanie Lindquist, Arizona State University
Donald Trump’s legal and political defenders are all singing the same refrain: The president can’t be impeached; he hasn’t committed a crime.
Alan Dershowitz, the constitutional lawyer now representing Trump, said it during an appearance on CNN. Sen. Ted Cruz echoed it on Twitter, noting there was “not even a speeding ticket.” And, of course, Trump himself has used the phrase “no crime” repeatedly as he seeks to delegitimize the impeachment hearings.
But does the impeachment and conviction of a president require an actual criminal offense, as the president’s counselors and supporters argue?
Democrats clearly don’t think so. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, lectured senators at the impeachment hearing on Jan. 23 that the Constitution made it clear that a crime was not necessary for the president to be impeached.
This question of constitutional interpretation is critical to experts such as me, since the two articles of impeachment now pending in the Senate allege actions — including the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress — that do not themselves constitute a violation of any criminal law.
And even though the Government Accountability Office has concluded that the President’s withholding of aid to Ukraine was unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act, the president’s actions do not give rise to criminal penalties.
Treason, a matter of dates
It’s important to understand what is not on the table.
Under the impeachment clause of the Constitution, a president may be removed from office “on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Treason is a criminal offenses, defined in the Constitution as acts that “consist of levying war” against the United States or giving “aid and comfort” to its enemies. The Supreme Court has held that it can take place only in wartime.
Under this definition, Trump did not commit treason. Treason is not a catch-all phrase for unpatriotic acts. It requires actions like those of Benedict Arnold, the American general who betrayed his country to fight for the British in the Revolutionary War.
Bribery, also a criminal offense, was not alleged in the pending articles of impeachment.
Framers’ intent
That leaves us with “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Republican Party has long advocated for constitutional interpretation that relies on the original intent of the framers. So what did the framers mean by this lofty phrase, and what did they reject as impeachable offenses?
During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason moved that the impeachment clause follow the term “bribery” with “or maladministration.”
But James Madison objected on grounds that it was too broad and would subject a president to tenure only at the pleasure of the Senate. So the phrase was replaced by “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The framers intended the phrase to convey a more serious connotation than simple incompetence or poor administration. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Hamilton made clear that impeachable acts must involve “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and “relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
Hamilton made no mention of the requirement that actual crimes be committed, nor as far as I know did any other framer suggest that actual crimes were mandatory for impeachment.
Examples of impeachable offenses cited by the framers provide further context. In response to concerns that the president could use his pardon powers to protect his own bad acts from detection, Madison responded: “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.”
Madison makes no reference to any crime. His concern here is the potential for the use of presidential power for personal or other inappropriate purposes.
Fellow framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception.
‘Misdemeanors’ misinterpreted?
The framers understood that “high crimes and misdemeanors” included acts that may not necessarily violate any criminal law, but do constitute a serious violation of the public trust.
It also has to be remembered that the word “misdemeanors” had a broader meaning at the time it was added to the impeachment clause. As law professor and historian Frank Bowman has pointed out, in the context of British law at the time “misdemeanor” did not solely mean a less serious criminal offense. Rather, “crimes and misdemeanors” was used more colloquially to mean bad behavior.
Advocates for Trump say the current articles of impeachment do not meet the threshold as they do not allege criminal offenses. The framers would be surprised by this interpretation.
Originalism revisited
The articles allege that Trump abused his political power to serve his own ends, including his reelection, and that in so doing he undermined the nation’s security policy in terms of its commitment to Ukraine’s defense.
Whether or not the evidence supports this charge, an actual criminal offense is simply not a prerequisite for impeachment in this or any other case. The framers are clear on this point.
Interpreting “high crimes and misdemeanors” to reflect the modern understanding of those terms as actual statutory offenses is inconsistent with the framers’ original intent. Such an approach is also inconsistent with the broader theory of originalism, which relies on interpreting what the founders meant at the time of the Constitution’s writing. Indeed, the president’s position on “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears more consistent with the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted within a modern context as a “living” constitution — an interpretative method much criticized by many in the GOP.
[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. ]
Stefanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science, Arizona State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--John Kelly Sides With Bolton Against Trump On Ukraine Aid Story

Gen. John Kelly , Donald Trump 's former White House Chief of Staff , threw down in favor of John Bolton in the He-Said/He-Said war of words between the two .
In Bolton 's new book , a manuscript of which has leaked , he claims Trump told him directly that releasing Congressionally-approved , and much-needed military aid to Ukraine was dependent upon their investigating the Bidens and even other Democrats .
( Gee I wonder which Hillary other DemoClintoncrats Trump may Barackhave wantObamaed investiHillarygated it is suCliintonch a mystery I imagine ) Speaking at a lecture hall in Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton revelations , and Trump 's refuting them .
He answered that he always has known Bolton to be an honest man , and that he believed John Bolton .
From Sarasota Herald-Tribune : “ Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth , ” Kelly said of Bolton , who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry .
Asked about the passages in Bolton ’ s book — which has yet to be released — that appear to reinforce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ John ’ s an honest guy .
He ’ s a man of integrity and great character , so we ’ ll see what happens.
” There are growing calls for Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial , something GOP leaders have resisted .
Kelly said he supports calling witnesses during the trial .
Waiting for renewed character assassination on one of Trump 's formerly favorite generals to begin in 3 ... 2 ...

Gen. John Kelly, Donald Trump's former White House Chief of Staff, threw down in favor of John Bolton in the He-Said/He-Said war of words between the two. In Bolton's new book, a manuscript of which has leaked, he claims Trump told him directly that releasing Congressionally-approved, and much-needed military aid to Ukraine was dependent upon their investigating the Bidens and even other Democrats. (Gee I wonder which Hillary other DemoClintoncrats Trump may Barackhave wantObamaed investiHillarygated it is suCliintonch a mystery I imagine)
Speaking at a lecture hall in Florida, Gen. Kelly was asked about the Bolton revelations, and Trump's refuting them. He answered that he always has known Bolton to be an honest man, and that he believed John Bolton. From Sarasota Herald-Tribune:
“Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton, who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry. ... Asked about the passages in Bolton’s book — which has yet to be released — that appear to reinforce the impeachment allegations, Kelly said Monday evening that “John’s an honest guy. He’s a man of integrity and great character, so we’ll see what happens.” There are growing calls for Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial, something GOP leaders have resisted. Kelly said he supports calling witnesses during the trial.
Waiting for renewed character assassination on one of Trump's formerly favorite generals to begin in 3...2...


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Twitter Thunders At Trump's 'Good Job On Her' Celebration Of Pompeo's Bullying

During a press conference celebrating his Middle East peace plan with Benjamin Netanyahu , Donald Trump took a moment to @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo .
After the standing ovation was done , Trump then took a shot at @ @ @ @ @ .
`` That reporter could n't have done too good a job on you , @ @ @ @ @ I think you did a good job on her actually . ''
What the so-called @ @ @ @ @ is verbal abuse by a cabinet secretary of a reporter trying to get at the @ @ @ @ @ more , it was verbal abuse with a pack of lies attached to it , @ @ @ @ @ .
After he did that , he banned NPR from his plane .
Because he @ @ @ @ @ 's what the so-called `` president '' is calling a `` good job . ''
@ @ @ @ @ thoughts :

During a press conference celebrating his Middle East peace plan with Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump took a moment to recognize Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. After the standing ovation was done, Trump then took a shot at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly.
"That reporter couldn't have done too good a job on you," he snarked. "I think you did a good job on her actually."
What the so-called "President" is celebrating is verbal abuse by a cabinet secretary of a reporter trying to get at the truth. And what's more, it was verbal abuse with a pack of lies attached to it, and some f-bombs, too.
After he did that, he banned NPR from his plane. Because he is that petty. That's what the so-called "president" is calling a "good job."
Reactions were swift:
So *this* laughter is just fine? Care to weigh in, @IvankaTrump?#BeBest — Mollie Katzen (@MollieKatzen) January 28, 2020
Trump just praised Pompeo "for the job he did on her" -- meaning NPR reporter who Pompeo mistreated.
The latest case of Trump celebrating poor treatment of the media. — Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) January 28, 2020
Also, the latest example of Trump’s hatred for women. https://t.co/OGVE7PJGqr — Connie Schultz (@ConnieSchultz) January 28, 2020
When Trump praised Pompeo for doing "a good job" with @NPRKelly, "the room then broke into laughter and journalists looked at each other in disbelief in the back of the room. The event is on Middle East peace," per @AlliemalCNN and @Acosta. — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 28, 2020
“The job he did on her”??? Note also the rank misogyny of Trump’s praise for Pompeo’s attacks on @NPRKelly. Hideous. https://t.co/YMQOEXJmvY — Mark Follman (@markfollman) January 28, 2020
This sums up my own thoughts:


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Hannity Defends Trump With 'Thinking About Murder Isn't A Crime'

Sean Hannity often says crazy right wing nonsense on his radio show that he does not say on television .
Via Media Matters : SEAN HANNITY ( HOST ) : Let 's say the president thought for a minute , `` You know what , I 'm going to kill that person .
I 'm going to kill that idiot . ''
Uh-oh .
You speak and you say `` I 'm going to kill that person . ''
Do you kill them ?
No .
You 're not guilty of murder .
What are we now going to -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new politically correct world we live in ?
That 's radio-Sean crazy , right ?
He would n't go that far on his Fox TV show oh wait Sean Hannity defends Trump : `` So if you say ' I want to kill this person , ' ok , what crime have you committed ?
Did you kill the person ?
No .
Did you think about it for a second ?
Yeah but you did n't do it . ''
pic.twitter.com/OTggEUkoXF They 're going for the `` well , he did n't @ @ @ @ @

Sean Hannity often says crazy right wing nonsense on his radio show that he does not say on television. Via Media Matters:
SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let's say the president thought for a minute, "You know what, I'm going to kill that person. I'm going to kill that idiot." Uh-oh. You speak and you say "I'm going to kill that person." Do you kill them? No. You're not guilty of murder. What are we now going to -- are thoughts crimes now according to this new politically correct world we live in?
That's radio-Sean crazy, right? He wouldn't go that far on his Fox TV show oh wait
Sean Hannity defends Trump: "So if you say 'I want to kill this person,' ok, what crime have you committed? Did you kill the person? No. Did you think about it for a second? Yeah but you didn't do it." pic.twitter.com/OTggEUkoXF — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 28, 2020
They're going for the "well, he didn't commit MURDER" defense?
Dear #Hannity
Threatening to Murder = Crime
Attempted bribery = Crime
Attempted extortion = Crime
Contempt of Congress = Crime
Defying a Subpoena = Crime
Aiding a Foreign Enemy = Crime@SeanHannity =/= A Lawyer. He's just #Client3 — J. C. Young (@WriterJCYoung) January 28, 2020
Hannity using murder as an example to explain and justify Trumps actions with Ukraine has to set some kind of record in degrees of absurd irony. — CurmudgeonlyYours (@BobGoble) January 28, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Why 'Nepotism Barbie' Is Trending On Twitter

Pro-tip , folks : Do not be distracted by Trump 's `` outrage '' over Don Lemon laughing at Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali .
Trump and his Trumpers are looking for another faux-rage to distract from the horrible performance by his lawyers at the Impeachment Trial in the Senate .
And the fact that John Bolton 's testimony becomes more likely with each passing half-hour .
Turns out their fake fainting spell over `` head on a pike '' lasted less than a news cycle ?
Sad !
Wilson and Ali are n't having it either .
We did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
If you 're willing to believe and promote these absurd and dangerous lies , well , you deserve to be mocked for it : `` CNNs Don Lemon Cracks Up As Rick Wilson , Wajahat Ali Trash Trump Supporters As Ignorant Rubes '' https : //t.co/gK3s42yj6c — Wajahat `` Some Muslim ...
I 've Never Heard Of '' Ali ( @ WajahatAli ) January 27 , 2020 Let 's also remember what this Trump-right Douchebag Ouroboros frenzy is REALLY about .
What *really* rattled Trump is that I went on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine on a map .
He hates being caught out on his ignorance , and *that ' is what triggered this whole thing .
But Ivanka Trump 's nails were dry so she decided to weigh in on Twitter .
She was as welcome as she was at the G7 .

Pro-tip, folks: Do not be distracted by Trump's "outrage" over Don Lemon laughing at Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali.
Trump and his Trumpers are looking for another faux-rage to distract from the horrible performance by his lawyers at the Impeachment Trial in the Senate. And the fact that John Bolton's testimony becomes more likely with each passing half-hour. Turns out their fake fainting spell over "head on a pike" lasted less than a news cycle? Sad!
Wilson and Ali aren't having it either.
We did. Not going to apologize for it either. If you're willing to believe and promote these absurd and dangerous lies, well, you deserve to be mocked for it: "CNNs Don Lemon Cracks Up As Rick Wilson, Wajahat Ali Trash Trump Supporters As Ignorant Rubes" https://t.co/gK3s42yj6c — Wajahat "Some Muslim...I've Never Heard Of" Ali (@WajahatAli) January 27, 2020
Let's also remember what this Trump-right Douchebag Ouroboros frenzy is REALLY about.
What *really* rattled Trump is that I went on the air and said he couldn't find Ukraine on a map.
He hates being caught out on his ignorance, and *that' is what triggered this whole thing. — Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 28, 2020
__________
But Ivanka Trump's nails were dry so she decided to weigh in on Twitter.
You consistently make fun of half the country and then complain that it is divided.
The arrogance, mocking accents and smug ridicule of this nation’s ‘Real Elites’ is disgusting. https://t.co/p3RQzymx4s — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) January 28, 2020
She was as welcome as she was at the G7.
Awww. Isn't that nice. #NepotismBarbie is labeling people like me the "Real Elites" while she retweets a white supremacist, NAZI rag.
I feel so special now! I'm a member of the "Real Elites"!
Pardon me, while I go empty a bed pan. pic.twitter.com/otoe67JlJM — Lola Rennt (@LolaRennt20) January 28, 2020
A challenge to @IvankaTrump.
1) Search "@realDonaldTrump" and the word "Democrats."
2) Find anything in your daddy's last 500 twitter posts that isn't anything but hateful and corrosive toward half the population.
3) Apologize to this country for being an abject hypocrite. — John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) January 28, 2020
I think this separates most of us in the country @IvankaTrump https://t.co/Fa7lfwF0TG — Jojo (#Resistence) Grandma (@jojo_rugolo) January 28, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-28--Scarborough Rants At Ken Starr, Calls Trump Defense Team 'A Confederacy Of Dunces'

Joe Scarborough went off on an extended rant this morning , starting with pompous Ken Starr 's performance yesterday .
He said Starr dug up the corpse of irony and ran over the headstone .
`` How does Ken Starr say with a straight face , because I was there when he said the capstone of impeachment for Bill Clinton was abuse of power .
Then he said , so mournful , this is so terrible .
'We 're starting to have a culture of impeachment . '
Abuse of power , that 's not enough .
I said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ken Starr , a flashing billboard , a gaudily printed sandwich board sign going down Times Square saying we 're all dunces , hypocrites .
We 're all making fools of ourselves .
And Willie Geist , i have n't even gotten to Pam Bondi , '' Scarborough said .
`` Oh my God , Pam Bondi says that Joe Biden bragged about firing the prosecutor because he was prosecuting Burisma , and it was all sort of this inside -- hey , Rupert Murdoch 's Wall Street Journal called that a farce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a farce months ago .
Willie , the European Union demanded removal of the corrupt prosecutor .
The western world demanded the removal of the prosecutor .
The Obama administration told Joe Biden to go over there and remove the prosecutor .
`` Oh wait , one more thing , Pam Bondi , just one more thing .
and for the entire Trump team and for all you stupid people out there , actually you 're not stupid , you think we 're all stupid , you think Donald Trump supporters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are stupid , like Donald Trump , do you think southerners are stupid ?
We 're not .
We 're not .
You have the Ukranians who said themselves that the prosecutor had stopped investigating Burisma at the time .
It was one of the complaints on why , Willie , this guy was in the tank . ''
Then he started comparing himself to James Brown .
`` I have done my thing .
Throw the cape off me , I have to walk offstage .
I will throw it off and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can handle .
This confederacy of dunces , They lowered the collective IQ of the western world by at least 24 points every hour they spoke on the senate floor . ''
He 's right .
Just as theater ( and after all , that 's all Trump cares about ) , the defense of the Reality TV President was a snooze .
Self-righteous Ken Starr just does n't have that oomph anymore , especially in light of his rape-scandal coverup at Baylor University .
And Pam Bondi , aka Bribery Barbie ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking a large `` contribution '' to drop a slam-dunk prosecution of a Trump University case , was set up with a plum lobbying job by Trump that pays $ 100,000 A MONTH , and for her big national TV debut , she comes up with a glittery dress that looks like something your maiden aunt would wear to a family wedding reception at the local VFW .
Also : Let 's be kind , and say the woman is not rhetorically gifted .
Oh hell , let 's not .
She sounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rowdy high school class .
It 's not even that she lied the entire time -- she was n't good at it !
Trump needs to recast these clowns , or his ratings are going down fast .

Joe Scarborough went off on an extended rant this morning, starting with pompous Ken Starr's performance yesterday. He said Starr dug up the corpse of irony and ran over the headstone.
"How does Ken Starr say with a straight face, because I was there when he said the capstone of impeachment for Bill Clinton was abuse of power. Then he said, so mournful, this is so terrible. 'We're starting to have a culture of impeachment.' Abuse of power, that's not enough. I said it was the capstone. You are, Ken Starr, a flashing billboard, a gaudily printed sandwich board sign going down Times Square saying we're all dunces, hypocrites. We're all making fools of ourselves. And Willie Geist, i haven't even gotten to Pam Bondi," Scarborough said.
"Oh my God, Pam Bondi says that Joe Biden bragged about firing the prosecutor because he was prosecuting Burisma, and it was all sort of this inside -- hey, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal called that a farce months ago. Every major newspaper calls it a farce months ago. Willie, the European Union demanded removal of the corrupt prosecutor. The western world demanded the removal of the prosecutor. The Obama administration told Joe Biden to go over there and remove the prosecutor.
"Oh wait, one more thing, Pam Bondi, just one more thing. and for the entire Trump team and for all you stupid people out there, actually you're not stupid, you think we're all stupid, you think Donald Trump supporters are all stupid, do you think conservatives are stupid, like Donald Trump, do you think southerners are stupid? We're not. We're not. You have the Ukranians who said themselves that the prosecutor had stopped investigating Burisma at the time. It was one of the complaints on why, Willie, this guy was in the tank."
Then he started comparing himself to James Brown.
"I have done my thing. Throw the cape off me, I have to walk offstage. I will throw it off and come back. This is all I can handle. This confederacy of dunces, They lowered the collective IQ of the western world by at least 24 points every hour they spoke on the senate floor."
He's right. Just as theater (and after all, that's all Trump cares about), the defense of the Reality TV President was a snooze. Self-righteous Ken Starr just doesn't have that oomph anymore, especially in light of his rape-scandal coverup at Baylor University.
And Pam Bondi, aka Bribery Barbie? Here's a woman who, after taking a large "contribution" to drop a slam-dunk prosecution of a Trump University case, was set up with a plum lobbying job by Trump that pays $100,000 A MONTH, and for her big national TV debut, she comes up with a glittery dress that looks like something your maiden aunt would wear to a family wedding reception at the local VFW. Also: Let's be kind, and say the woman is not rhetorically gifted.
Oh hell, let's not. She sounded like a terrified substitute teacher facing a rowdy high school class. It's not even that she lied the entire time -- she wasn't good at it! Trump needs to recast these clowns, or his ratings are going down fast.