crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Surprise! Leningrad Lindsey Was 'Looped In' On Ukraine

Lev Parnas and his attorney , Joseph Bondy , joined Anderson Cooper last night to discuss the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
The indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani was actually in attendance — courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer — but unable to sit in the Senate gallery to watch the proceedings in person .
Parnas ' presence was significant , as he 's a key figure in the pressure campaign Trump was exerting on the new Ukrainian government to get dirt on Joe Biden .
He 's been doing all he can , now to reveal what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On AC360 , Parnas dropped the bomb that Sen. Lindsey Graham was aware of the pressure plot as early as 2018 .
He said Giuliani told him on a number of occasions that Graham was aware , like everyone else , and even involved in helping out Viktor Shokin ( the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine ) when his visa to come to the U.S. was denied .
PARNAS : Senator Lindsey Graham , I have n't had any contact with because of my relationship with Rudy Giuliani , I have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was then surreal , then to watch Lindsey Graham up there .
He 's out there talking about all this stuff , that this is a sham , this should go away , when at the end of the day , he was in the loop , just like everybody else .
He was very good through the relationship with Rudy Giuliani .
He was very aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018 , maybe even earlier .
Then , if you recall , he was supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was supposed to bring Victor Shokin to when the visa got denied .
And I think even if we check the records involved in , you know , getting the request for the visa somehow .
COOPER : So you 're saying Senator Graham , Senator Lindsey Graham , knew about you and Mr. Giuliani 's efforts in Ukraine ?
PARNAS : Absolutely .
Just like I said .
First of all , Senator Graham was involved even before I got involved with Mayor Giuliani , so he had to have been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have known what was going on , otherwise , you know , I was with Giuliani every day , I mean , that was happening .
COOPER : You firmly believe that Lindsey Graham knew that you and Giuliani , or at least that Giuliani , was taking this effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine .
PARNAS : One million percent .
If Rudy not once , but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation and that he was always aware .
Again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I did n't speak to Lindsey Graham , I do n't have text messages with him , we did n't interact , so I can only speak for what Rudy told me .
Parnas and Bondy go on to say there are other recordings ( not made by Parnas — he never recorded anyone ) — including of Pete Sessions and Parnas — that might be made public .
But most of what is significant has already been released .
Bondy expanded with details to Betsy Swan and Erin Banco of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney for Lev Parnas , an indicted Florida businessman involved in the U.S.-Ukraine saga , told The Daily Beast that Giuliani showed his client the letter and told him he delivered it to Sen. Graham ( the letter misspelled the South Carolina Republican ’ s first name as “ Lingsey ” ) .
Bondy said Giuliani also showed Parnas a second , similar letter addressed to Sigal Mandelker , who at the time was a top official at the Treasury Department .
The letters , which The Daily Beast reviewed , claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesspeople were part of an alleged “ organized crime syndicate.
” The letters claim that the individuals were “ actively involved in the siphoning of funds appropriated by the American government for aid to Ukraine.
” And they claim that the alleged crime syndicate used those funds to buy black-market military parts from a Russian company under U.S. sanctions .
All the while , they say , Ukraine ’ s then-prosecutor general ( Giuliani ally Yuriy Lutsenko ) couldn ’ t fight the crime because then President Petro Poroshenko wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the meantime , we have Graham sitting on the jury in a trial of his boss , and he was in on the corrupt behavior for which his boss is on trial .
Everything is normal .
Everything is fine .

Lev Parnas and his attorney, Joseph Bondy, joined Anderson Cooper last night to discuss the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani was actually in attendance — courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer — but unable to sit in the Senate gallery to watch the proceedings in person. Parnas' presence was significant, as he's a key figure in the pressure campaign Trump was exerting on the new Ukrainian government to get dirt on Joe Biden. He's been doing all he can, now to reveal what he knows about the players in the scheme.
On AC360, Parnas dropped the bomb that Sen. Lindsey Graham was aware of the pressure plot as early as 2018. He said Giuliani told him on a number of occasions that Graham was aware, like everyone else, and even involved in helping out Viktor Shokin (the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine) when his visa to come to the U.S. was denied.
PARNAS: Senator Lindsey Graham, I haven't had any contact with because of my relationship with Rudy Giuliani, I have a lot of information about his dealings. It was then surreal, then to watch Lindsey Graham up there. He's out there talking about all this stuff, that this is a sham, this should go away, when at the end of the day, he was in the loop, just like everybody else. He was very good through the relationship with Rudy Giuliani. He was very aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018, maybe even earlier. Then, if you recall, he was supposed to be the one that Rudy Giuliani was supposed to bring Victor Shokin to when the visa got denied. And I think even if we check the records involved in, you know, getting the request for the visa somehow. COOPER: So you're saying Senator Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, knew about you and Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine? PARNAS: Absolutely. Just like I said. First of all, Senator Graham was involved even before I got involved with Mayor Giuliani, so he had to have been in the loop, and he had to have known what was going on, otherwise, you know, I was with Giuliani every day, I mean, that was happening. COOPER: You firmly believe that Lindsey Graham knew that you and Giuliani, or at least that Giuliani, was taking this effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine. PARNAS: One million percent. If Rudy not once, but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation and that he was always aware. Again, I don't know how deeply involved, I didn't speak to Lindsey Graham, I don't have text messages with him, we didn't interact, so I can only speak for what Rudy told me.
Parnas and Bondy go on to say there are other recordings (not made by Parnas — he never recorded anyone) — including of Pete Sessions and Parnas — that might be made public. But most of what is significant has already been released.
Bondy expanded with details to Betsy Swan and Erin Banco of The Daily Beast:
Joseph Bondy, the attorney for Lev Parnas, an indicted Florida businessman involved in the U.S.-Ukraine saga, told The Daily Beast that Giuliani showed his client the letter and told him he delivered it to Sen. Graham (the letter misspelled the South Carolina Republican’s first name as “Lingsey”). Bondy said Giuliani also showed Parnas a second, similar letter addressed to Sigal Mandelker, who at the time was a top official at the Treasury Department. The letters, which The Daily Beast reviewed, claim that an eclectic mix of Ukrainian political figures and businesspeople were part of an alleged “organized crime syndicate.” The letters claim that the individuals were “actively involved in the siphoning of funds appropriated by the American government for aid to Ukraine.” And they claim that the alleged crime syndicate used those funds to buy black-market military parts from a Russian company under U.S. sanctions. All the while, they say, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general (Giuliani ally Yuriy Lutsenko) couldn’t fight the crime because then President Petro Poroshenko wouldn’t let him take the case to court.
In the meantime, we have Graham sitting on the jury in a trial of his boss, and he was in on the corrupt behavior for which his boss is on trial.
Everything is normal. Everything is fine.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial For Thursday January 30

In an interview on AC360 , the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani appeared with his lawyer , Joseph Bondy , @ @ @ @ @ about Lindsey Graham 's involvement with Ukraine .

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--2020-01-30--John Roberts Stopped Rand Paul From Asking Question With Whistleblower's Name

Rand Paul is deliberately trying to endanger the whistleblower during the Senate Impeachment Trial .
Thankfully , Chief Justice John Roberts is , in this instance , respecting the Whistleblower Protection Act .
CNN : Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower , sources with knowledge of the situation said ...
But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial , Roberts made clear that he would not read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual , the sources said .
Roberts , in his role , reads each question submitted by senators .
He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday 's proceedings , according to two sources .
Paul 's question , which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower , ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter .
`` I trust the man behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts , to decide `` whether a witness is material or not , whether it 's appropriate to out a whistleblower or not , whether a particular passage in a document is privileged or not ... it 's not going to take months of litigation . ''
Update : Aqua Buddha Rand tried it again Thursday and got nowhere :

Rand Paul is deliberately trying to endanger the whistleblower during the Senate Impeachment Trial.
Thankfully, Chief Justice John Roberts is, in this instance, respecting the Whistleblower Protection Act. CNN:
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said... But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial, Roberts made clear that he would not read the name of the alleged whistleblower, nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual, the sources said. Roberts, in his role, reads each question submitted by senators. He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday's proceedings, according to two sources. Paul's question, which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower, ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter.
- Republican Senators threaten to call witnesses against Trump's rival to do the investigation Ukraine wouldn't do
- A Republican Senator admits their goal is to sabotage the rival
- Republican Senators hint at outing a whistleblower, whose life is in danger, to intimidate others — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 30, 2020
"I trust the man behind me," says Schiff of Justice Roberts, to decide "whether a witness is material or not, whether it's appropriate to out a whistleblower or not, whether a particular passage in a document is privileged or not... it's not going to take months of litigation." — Sam Brodey (@sambrodey) January 30, 2020
Just asked Sen. Lindsey Graham if Rand Paul effort to include alleged whistleblower’s name in a question is a good idea, and he said: “Not in this environment, but later on maybe.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 30, 2020
Update: Aqua Buddha Rand tried it again Thursday and got nowhere:


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Jim Inhofe Implores GOP Colleagues: Consider Bolton's Feelings

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma worried on Thursday that Democrats are not taking enough time to consider the feelings @ @ @ @ @ John Bolton , whose potential testimony is at issue in the Senate .
“ Right @ @ @ @ @ very emotional about this , ” Inhofe said .
“ He is a human being @ @ @ @ @ ” “ It ’ s a matter of the the real motive of the side @ @ @ @ @ string this thing out interminably , ” the senator added .
Senators are expected to @ @ @ @ @ Bolton will testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump .
Sen. Jim @ @ @ @ @ credible : “ Right now , he ’ s very emotional about this..
He is @ @ @ @ @ does have sensitives.
” “ It ’ s a matter of the the real motive @ @ @ @ @ House prosecutors to string this thing out interminably .

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma worried on Thursday that Democrats are not taking enough time to consider the feelings of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, whose potential testimony is at issue in the Senate.
“Right now, he’s very emotional about this,” Inhofe said. “He is a human being so he does have sensitivities.”
“It’s a matter of the the real motive of the side of the House prosecutors to string this thing out interminably,” the senator added.
Senators are expected to vote on Friday on whether Bolton will testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Graham And Cruz Beg Adam Schiff To Humiliate Them In Public

Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham teamed up to ask a question of the House Managers that was the gross , intellectually dishonest version of `` Come on , you guys , do n't you think you 'd excuse Obama doing the same thing as Trump did ?
CJ ROBERTS : In Mr. Schiff 's hypothetical , if President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney 's son was being paid one million dollars per year by a corrupt Russian company , and Mitt Romney had acted to benefit that company , would Obama have authority to ask that that potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good thing we are in the questions portion of the impeachment trial , because I have a lot of questions .
Why do Sens .
Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham think everyone is as terrible as they are ?
Is it because they think everyone is dumber than they are ?
( Yes . )
Did they think by mentioning Obama 's name they 'd score political points with the one who yanks their leash ?
( Yes . )
Did they think they 'd succeed in diminishing Obama 's great name ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Did they think they could trick Rep. Adam Schiff into admitting the untrue — that Dems would n't have minded if one of their own misbehaved like Trump and the disgusting GOP does ?
( Yes , but Katie Hill and Al Franken would like a word with you . )
As usual , Rep. Adam Schiff did not come to play .
REP. SCHIFF : Well , first of all , the hypothetical is a bit off , because it presumes in that hypothetical that President Obama was acting corruptly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruptly with respect to his son , but nonetheless , let 's take your hypothetical on its terms .
Would it have been impeachable if Barack Obama had tried to get Medvedev to try to do an investigation of Mitt Romney , whether it was justified or unjustified ?
The reality is , for the president to withhold military aid from an ally , or in the hypothetical , to withhold it to benefit an adversary , to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt .
Period .
End of story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rationalize that conduct , rationalize jeopardizing the nation 's security to benefit himself because he believes his opponent should be investigated by a foreign power , that is impeachable .
DAMN .
Okay , boys ?
First of all , Ted and Lindsey were probably whispering to each other , `` Who 's Medvedev ? ''
Second of all , they were n't expecting Rep. Schiff to say , `` First of all , fix your question .
Second of all , no .
Obama would not have that authority , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Third of all , not only is it wrong , it 's impeachable . ''
THEN , Rep. Schiff went even further to destroy Trump , Bill Barr , and their despicable , dangerous coziness .
REP. SCHIFF : Now , if you have a legitimate reason to think that any U.S. person has committed an offense , there are legitimate ways to have an investigation conducted .
There are legitimate ways to have the Justice Department conduct an investigation .
I would suggest to you that for a president to turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want you to investigate my political rival , '' taints whatever investigation they do .
Presidents should not be in the business of asking even their own Justice Department to investigate their rivals .
The Justice Department ought to have some independence from the political desires of the president , and one of the deeply troubling circumstances of the current presidency is you do have a president of the United States speaking quite openly , urging his Justice Department to investigate his perceived enemies .
That should not take place , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go outside of your own legitimate law enforcement process to ask a foreign power to investigate your rival , whether you think there 's cause or you do n't think there 's cause .
And you certainly do n't invite that foreign power to try to influence an election to your benefit .
It 's remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation .
At this point , the world is wishing for something they 've never before wished : to see the faces of Cruz and Graham .
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and kept going to steamroll right over Bill Barr and the Justice Department , not to mention Trump 's pathological need to call for Hillary Clinton and other political rivals to be investigated , too .
Finally , Rep. Superman summarized by landing on the fact that Trump did n't even want the actual investigation .
He just wanted the announcement , and ended by fixing Senator Stupids ' question for them .
REP. SCHIFF : And , so , I would say it 's wrong for the president of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own Justice Department .
I would say it 's wrong for the president of the United States to ask a foreign power to engage in an investigation of his political rival .
But particularly where , as we have shown here , there is no merit to that investigation , is even more egregious .
And you know there 's no merit to it because he did n't even want the investigation .
And the more accurate parallel , Senator , would be if Barack Obama said , `` I do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the investigation .
I just want you to announce it . ''
Because that betrays the fact that there was no legitimate basis , because the president did n't even need the investigation done , he just wanted it announced .
And there is no legitimate explanation for that , except he wanted their help in cheating the next election .
When will they learn not to come for Obama ?
When will they learn not to come for Adam Schiff ?
To call it a fool 's errand is an insult @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham teamed up to ask a question of the House Managers that was the gross, intellectually dishonest version of "Come on, you guys, don't you think you'd excuse Obama doing the same thing as Trump did?
CJ ROBERTS: In Mr. Schiff's hypothetical, if President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney's son was being paid one million dollars per year by a corrupt Russian company, and Mitt Romney had acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority to ask that that potential corruption be investigated?
It's a good thing we are in the questions portion of the impeachment trial, because I have a lot of questions.
Why do Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham think everyone is as terrible as they are? Is it because they think everyone is dumber than they are? (Yes.) Did they think by mentioning Obama's name they'd score political points with the one who yanks their leash? (Yes.) Did they think they'd succeed in diminishing Obama's great name? (Yes, but they failed.) Did they think they could trick Rep. Adam Schiff into admitting the untrue — that Dems wouldn't have minded if one of their own misbehaved like Trump and the disgusting GOP does? (Yes, but Katie Hill and Al Franken would like a word with you.)
As usual, Rep. Adam Schiff did not come to play.
REP. SCHIFF: Well, first of all, the hypothetical is a bit off, because it presumes in that hypothetical that President Obama was acting corruptly, or there was evidence he was acting corruptly with respect to his son, but nonetheless, let's take your hypothetical on its terms. Would it have been impeachable if Barack Obama had tried to get Medvedev to try to do an investigation of Mitt Romney, whether it was justified or unjustified? The reality is, for the president to withhold military aid from an ally, or in the hypothetical, to withhold it to benefit an adversary, to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. Period. End of story. And, if you allow a president to rationalize that conduct, rationalize jeopardizing the nation's security to benefit himself because he believes his opponent should be investigated by a foreign power, that is impeachable.
DAMN. Okay, boys? First of all, Ted and Lindsey were probably whispering to each other, "Who's Medvedev?" Second of all, they weren't expecting Rep. Schiff to say, "First of all, fix your question. Second of all, no. Obama would not have that authority, and neither does your boy, Donnie. Third of all, not only is it wrong, it's impeachable."
THEN, Rep. Schiff went even further to destroy Trump, Bill Barr, and their despicable, dangerous coziness.
REP. SCHIFF: Now, if you have a legitimate reason to think that any U.S. person has committed an offense, there are legitimate ways to have an investigation conducted. There are legitimate ways to have the Justice Department conduct an investigation. I would suggest to you that for a president to turn to his Justice Department and say, "I want you to investigate my political rival," taints whatever investigation they do. Presidents should not be in the business of asking even their own Justice Department to investigate their rivals. The Justice Department ought to have some independence from the political desires of the president, and one of the deeply troubling circumstances of the current presidency is you do have a president of the United States speaking quite openly, urging his Justice Department to investigate his perceived enemies. That should not take place, either. But under no circumstance do you go outside of your own legitimate law enforcement process to ask a foreign power to investigate your rival, whether you think there's cause or you don't think there's cause. And you certainly don't invite that foreign power to try to influence an election to your benefit. It's remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation.
At this point, the world is wishing for something they've never before wished: to see the faces of Cruz and Graham. Rep. Schiff blew through their stupid-ass question, and kept going to steamroll right over Bill Barr and the Justice Department, not to mention Trump's pathological need to call for Hillary Clinton and other political rivals to be investigated, too.
Finally, Rep. Superman summarized by landing on the fact that Trump didn't even want the actual investigation. He just wanted the announcement, and ended by fixing Senator Stupids' question for them.
REP. SCHIFF: And, so, I would say it's wrong for the president of the United States to be asking for political prosecutions by his own Justice Department. I would say it's wrong for the president of the United States to ask a foreign power to engage in an investigation of his political rival. But particularly where, as we have shown here, there is no merit to that investigation, is even more egregious. And you know there's no merit to it because he didn't even want the investigation. And the more accurate parallel, Senator, would be if Barack Obama said, "I don't even need you, Russia, to do the investigation. I just want you to announce it." Because that betrays the fact that there was no legitimate basis, because the president didn't even need the investigation done, he just wanted it announced. And there is no legitimate explanation for that, except he wanted their help in cheating the next election.
When will they learn not to come for Obama? When will they learn not to come for Adam Schiff? To call it a fool's errand is an insult to fools. And to errands.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--WATCH LIVE:  Nancy Pelosi Press Conference

The Washington Post is apparently stacking their live YouTubes with back-to-back press conferences of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and minority @ @ @ @ @ if you click above and find Kevin McCarthy lying in the video above , blame @ @


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--House Ethics Warns Members On Deepfake Videos

[ Above , a deepfake video showing `` Arnold Schwarzenegger '' instead of Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry . ]
Faced with a dishonest Republican scoring racist political `` points '' about Barack Obama using a manipulated image : The warning comes three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a doctored photo of President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani .
In a caption , he wrote that `` The world is a better place without these guys in power . ''
The original , unaltered photo featured Obama and now-former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Arizona Republican , Singh is replaced by Rouhani , who remains in power .
Obama and Rouhani never met in person .
It was n't the first time a member of Congress had shared a misleading image , or even the first time that particular fake photo had circulated .
A political action committee used the same picture in a 2015 television ad supporting Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis .
The House Ethics Committee is responding by cracking down early on deepfakes , releasing a memo ( PDF ) to members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a First Amendment right , to contribute to the public discourse , including through parody and satire .
However , manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House .
Moreover , Members or their staff posting deep fakes “ could erode public trust , affect public discourse , or sway an election.
” Accordingly , Members , officers , and employees posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prior to disseminating any image , video , or audio file by electronic means , including social media , Members and staff are expected to take reasonable efforts to consider whether such representations are deep fakes or are intentionally distorted to mislead the public .
The Committee has long held that Members are responsible for the actions of their staff .
Further , Members must take reasonable steps to ensure that any outside organization over which the Member exercises control—including a campaign entity—operates in compliance with applicable law .
Accordingly , Members should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with the rules and regulations regarding electronic communications that those staff are involved in preparing or disseminating .
Governing Magazine reports that the Maine legislature is considering a bill outlawing deepfake technology in political advertising .

[Above, a deepfake video showing "Arnold Schwarzenegger" instead of Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry.]
Faced with a dishonest Republican scoring racist political "points" about Barack Obama using a manipulated image:
The warning comes three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a doctored photo of President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. In a caption, he wrote that "The world is a better place without these guys in power." The original, unaltered photo featured Obama and now-former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011. In the doctored image tweeted by the Arizona Republican, Singh is replaced by Rouhani, who remains in power. Obama and Rouhani never met in person. It wasn't the first time a member of Congress had shared a misleading image, or even the first time that particular fake photo had circulated. A political action committee used the same picture in a 2015 television ad supporting Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
The House Ethics Committee is responding by cracking down early on deepfakes, releasing a memo (PDF) to members this week:
Members have a duty, and a First Amendment right, to contribute to the public discourse, including through parody and satire. However, manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House. Moreover, Members or their staff posting deep fakes “could erode public trust, affect public discourse, or sway an election.” Accordingly, Members, officers, and employees posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation of the Code of Official Conduct. Prior to disseminating any image, video, or audio file by electronic means, including social media, Members and staff are expected to take reasonable efforts to
consider whether such representations are deep fakes or are intentionally distorted to mislead the public. The Committee has long held that Members are responsible for the actions of their staff. Further, Members must take reasonable steps to ensure that any outside organization over which the Member exercises control—including a campaign entity—operates in compliance with applicable law. Accordingly, Members should ensure their official and campaign staff are familiar with the rules and regulations regarding electronic communications that those staff are
involved in preparing or disseminating.
Governing Magazine reports that the Maine legislature is considering a bill outlawing deepfake technology in political advertising.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Dem Senator Will Offer Motion To Allow Chief Justice Roberts To Issue Subpoenas

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen will offer a motion in Donald Trump 's impeachment trial Friday to require Chief Justice John Roberts to subpoena documents and witnesses , if he determines they are relevant to the articles of impeachment , and to exercise his authority to rule on all issues of evidence , including executive privilege .
`` A fair trial includes relevant documents and witnesses .
And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted , '' Van Hollen said in a statement announcing the motion .
He said his effort `` ensures the Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a judge in any trial across our country—to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth . ''
He adds `` No Republican can question the fairness of this approach—the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President .
And , given his authority to rule on questions of privilege , they should not fear a drawn-out process .
I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hide the truth . ''
He 's right , it 's perfectly fair .
So it 's another test of whether there are just four Republicans left who think this process should be fair .
Here 's the text of the motion : `` I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment , and , consistent with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of evidence , shall rule on any assertion of privilege . ''

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen will offer a motion in Donald Trump's impeachment trial Friday to require Chief Justice John Roberts to subpoena documents and witnesses, if he determines they are relevant to the articles of impeachment, and to exercise his authority to rule on all issues of evidence, including executive privilege.
"A fair trial includes relevant documents and witnesses. And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted," Van Hollen said in a statement announcing the motion. He said his effort "ensures the Chief Justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country—to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth." He adds "No Republican can question the fairness of this approach—the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President. And, given his authority to rule on questions of privilege, they should not fear a drawn-out process. I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion. Anything else constitutes an effort to hide the truth." He's right, it's perfectly fair. So it's another test of whether there are just four Republicans left who think this process should be fair.
Here's the text of the motion: "I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment, and, consistent with his authority to rule on all questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of privilege."
Published with permission of Daily Kos


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Hannity Invites Bolton To Tell His Story On His Show Rather Than Testify

Sean Hannity thinks we should hear from John Bolton but only under Hannity ’ s supervision , not under oath to the United States Senate and not to all the American people during Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
During his whip-against-impeachment-witnesses diatribe last night , Hannity went after his former colleague , John Bolton , whose book revelations have put pressure on senators to hear from him during the Senate trial .
Apparently , Hannity ’ s solution is to have Bolton “ testify ” to Hannity so as not to interfere with a quick acquittal of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big ratings night .
HANNITY : You worked here .
This is your old home .
Come on this show and have your say on this show .
… John Bolton come on the show .
Your country wants to hear from you .
I ’ d like to hear from you .
You have a story to tell the country , John ?
Stop playing games .
This is not a game when it ’ s the presidency of the United States .
It ’ s not a game when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege which George Washington used and every president pretty much in between and since .
I guess Hannity thinks it ’ s OK to push those boundaries on the Hannity show .
Or does self-styled legal-eagle Hannity think he ’ s as good as Chief Justice John Roberts at arbitrating what ’ s appropriate to disclose ?
You can watch Hannity try to supplant Congress above , from the January 28 , 2020 Hannity show .

Sean Hannity thinks we should hear from John Bolton but only under Hannity’s supervision, not under oath to the United States Senate and not to all the American people during Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
During his whip-against-impeachment-witnesses diatribe last night, Hannity went after his former colleague, John Bolton, whose book revelations have put pressure on senators to hear from him during the Senate trial.
Apparently, Hannity’s solution is to have Bolton “testify” to Hannity so as not to interfere with a quick acquittal of Trump and, coincidentally, ensure for himself a big ratings night.
HANNITY: You worked here. This is your old home. Come on this show and have your say on this show. …
John Bolton come on the show. Your country wants to hear from you. I’d like to hear from you. You have a story to tell the country, John? Stop playing games. This is not a game when it’s the presidency of the United States. It’s not a game when you’re pushing the boundaries of executive privilege which George Washington used and every president pretty much in between and since.
I guess Hannity thinks it’s OK to push those boundaries on the Hannity show. Or does self-styled legal-eagle Hannity think he’s as good as Chief Justice John Roberts at arbitrating what’s appropriate to disclose?
You can watch Hannity try to supplant Congress above, from the January 28, 2020 Hannity show.
Published with permission of NewsHounds.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Pelosi Ripping Up Trump's Speech Is The Only Moment From SOTU 2020 Worth Remembering

A State of the Union address that includes shameful tokenism and an absolutely disgusting award of the Medal of Freedom @ @ @ @ @ one worth watching .
Rep. Tim Ryan walked out , likening it to professional wrestling @ @ @ @ @ , defiling all of the institutions we hold dear .
And Nancy Pelosi expressed that @ @ @ @ @ 's final bullshit spew still ringing , she very carefully and pointedly ripped up his @ @ @ @ @ because it felt so good after all the lies and slime in that speech .
@ @ @ @ @ from the Queen herself :

A State of the Union address that includes shameful tokenism and an absolutely disgusting award of the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh wasn't one worth watching. Rep. Tim Ryan walked out, likening it to professional wrestling.
It was a farce, defiling all of the institutions we hold dear. And Nancy Pelosi expressed that disgust when, with Trump's final bullshit spew still ringing, she very carefully and pointedly ripped up his speech.
And Twitter erupted because it felt so good after all the lies and slime in that speech.
I for real think this was a brilliant move. Because instead of talking about Trump's MAGA rally, a lot of people are going to talk about her reaction to it.
AND Trump is going to step on his own story when he sees this on Twitter. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) February 5, 2020
Cue Nancy Pelosi tearing up the speech gifs.
The 2020 version of the clap.
America is full satire. — saira rao (@sairasameerarao) February 5, 2020
The best thing about Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech behind Trump is that he didn’t see it. But he will. Oh yes, he will. — Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) February 5, 2020
And finally, a word from the Queen herself:


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--State Of The Union Open Thread

State Of The Union Open Thread

This tweet from 2018 is applicable many times over this year : And a quick survey of drinking games on @ @ @ @ @ is a favorite `` take a drink '' moment .
For those who want to @ @ @ @ @ here you go : Open thread for State of the Union below ...

This tweet from 2018 is applicable many times over this year:
And a quick survey of drinking games on Twitter indicates "sniffing" is a favorite "take a drink" moment.
Watch your intake, folks!
For those who want to watch the live stream, here you go:
Open thread for State of the Union below...


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Susan Collins Betrays The Country With Vote To Acquit

None of this is a surprise .
None of it .
Not that Trump cheated , that he broke the law , that he continues to cheat and break the law , that the a $ $ holes in the GOP do everything they can to allow him to get away with it , and that Sen. Susan Collins will provide fodder for Cecily Strong on Saturday Night Live for the rest of her living days .
The Senator from Maine , who is hated even more than Mitch McConnell ( well DONE , Susan ! )
took to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she will vote to acquit King Donald of both impeachment charges brought by the House .
First of all , she sounded like she was explaining the concept of `` Near '' and `` Far '' to a group of pre-schoolers .
And frankly , Grover did a much f*cking better job of it .
COLLINS : Madam President , this decision is not about whether you like or dislike this president .
Or agree with or oppose his policies .
Or approve or disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not about whether or not you disapprove of a president 's conduct ?
Even if that conduct involves cheating in order to steal an election ?
Rather , it is about whether the charges meet the very high Constitutional standard of treason , bribery , or other high crimes or misdemeanors .
It has been 230 years since George Washington first took the oath of office , and there are good reasons why during that entire time the Senate has never removed a president .
Which means there never will be ?
Honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual depth would be astonishing if it were n't so constantly on display .
Such a move would not only affect the sitting president , but could have unpredictable and adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process .
It is my judgement that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result , we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy , namely , who should lead their country .
Again .
What in the name of brown-skinned , curly-haired , bicycle-riding , James Taylor-loving , Sweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not a president who extorted another nation in order to get dirt on an American for political gain ?
What , if not a president who does n't know that Kiev is in Ukraine ?
What , if not a president who daily , probably HOURLY endangers our national security by revealing classified information to foes , using his phone , hiring people who stalk and talk about harming American ambassadors , kissing the ass of dictators , constitutes extraordinary circumstances ?
She thinks Trump has `` learned his lesson ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows her child to choose their punishment .
It 's hard to know if she is dumber than a bag of hair or she thinks the rest of us are .
Trump has n't ever , ever learned ANYTHING except for the fact that he can get away with f*cking anything he wants .
Yes , you can read that sentence both ways .
For Collins to pretend otherwise is beyond insulting .
Beyond gaslighting .
It 's abuse .
Collins claims to want to leave this decision to the people .
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only chosen the president , but the Constitution , as they live here , and under it , and have chosen representatives to Congress who are supposed to enforce its machinations .
One of those machinations is impeachment , Susan .
The people expect Congress to use it when the nation is in grave danger from the president .
And you have failed .
F*cking miserably .
But do n't worry .
No one expected any better from you .

None of this is a surprise. None of it. Not that Trump cheated, that he broke the law, that he continues to cheat and break the law, that the a$$holes in the GOP do everything they can to allow him to get away with it, and that Sen. Susan Collins will provide fodder for Cecily Strong on Saturday Night Live for the rest of her living days.
The Senator from Maine, who is hated even more than Mitch McConnell (well DONE, Susan!) took to the floor of the Senate today to announce that she will vote to acquit King Donald of both impeachment charges brought by the House.
First of all, she sounded like she was explaining the concept of "Near" and "Far" to a group of pre-schoolers. And frankly, Grover did a much f*cking better job of it.
COLLINS: Madam President, this decision is not about whether you like or dislike this president. Or agree with or oppose his policies. Or approve or disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances.
* insert record SKREEEEEEECH here*
Hold up, Susan. Impeachment is not about whether or not you disapprove of a president's conduct? Even if that conduct involves cheating in order to steal an election?
Rather, it is about whether the charges meet the very high Constitutional standard of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. It has been 230 years since George Washington first took the oath of office, and there are good reasons why during that entire time the Senate has never removed a president.
Which means there never will be? Honestly, Collins' lack of imagination and intellectual depth would be astonishing if it weren't so constantly on display.
Such a move would not only affect the sitting president, but could have unpredictable and adverse consequences for public confidence in our electoral process. It is my judgement that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy, namely, who should lead their country.
Again. What in the name of brown-skinned, curly-haired, bicycle-riding, James Taylor-loving, Sweet Baby Jesus would constitute extraordinary circumstances, if not a president who extorted another nation in order to get dirt on an American for political gain? What, if not a president who doesn't know that Kiev is in Ukraine? What, if not a president who daily, probably HOURLY endangers our national security by revealing classified information to foes, using his phone, hiring people who stalk and talk about harming American ambassadors, kissing the ass of dictators, constitutes extraordinary circumstances?
She thinks Trump has "learned his lesson?" She is worse than the mother who allows her child to choose their punishment. It's hard to know if she is dumber than a bag of hair or she thinks the rest of us are. Trump hasn't ever, ever learned ANYTHING except for the fact that he can get away with f*cking anything he wants. Yes, you can read that sentence both ways. For Collins to pretend otherwise is beyond insulting. Beyond gaslighting. It's abuse.
Collins claims to want to leave this decision to the people. Well, presumably, the people have not only chosen the president, but the Constitution, as they live here, and under it, and have chosen representatives to Congress who are supposed to enforce its machinations. One of those machinations is impeachment, Susan. The people expect Congress to use it when the nation is in grave danger from the president. And you have failed.
F*cking miserably. But don't worry. No one expected any better from you.
Sen. Susan Collins likening removing Trump to overturning an election is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard... It’s like someone showin up to your party, slapping your wife and kicking your dog... and you refuse to kick em out because it would be like reversing their invitation... — Cyrus McQueen (@CyrusMMcQueen) February 4, 2020
This is typical disingenuous Susan Collins nonsense. She knew McConnellwas wrong on Garland-did nothing. She knew Dr. Ford was telling the truth-did nothing. And she knows Trump will do it again-did nothing. She is the worst kind of DC creature that never does what she believes https://t.co/k8NCfHfv6h — Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) February 4, 2020
Susan Collins is the mom who said “my son would NEVER smoke cigarettes or drink!” Meanwhile her kid was the school drug dealer. https://t.co/ZC1igC0UB6 — Sarah Thyre (@SarahThyre) February 4, 2020
Men like Kavanaugh & Trump can always count on women like Susan Collins. https://t.co/ELXj87qIye — Anushay Hossain (@AnushayHossain) February 4, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Colossal Idiot Joni Ernst Promises To Pre-Impeach Biden

Is this supposed to scare us ?
Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans could immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House .
“ I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened , ” Ernst said in an interview with Bloomberg News .
“ Joe Biden should be very careful what he ’ s asking for because , you know , we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden , that immediately , people , right the day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Well , we ’ re going to impeach him.
’ ” Let 's not rehash the Biden-Burisma story .
Let 's just talk about the practicalities of trying to do this .
Who impeaches ?
The House .
Who controls the House right now ?
Democrats .
If Joe Biden wins the presidential election , who will have won the popular vote ?
Biden , because it 's Republicans , not Democrats , who can win the presidency while losing the popular vote .
And if Biden wins the popular vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races ?
Well enough to hold the House and maybe even gain seats .
So there simply wo n't be an immediate impeachment if Biden wins .
It 's not like four years ago , when Republicans controlled the House and were promising endless investigations in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory .
I do n't doubt that they 'd like to impeach Biden .
They just ca n't .
Ernst is hoping you have n't figured all this out .
On behalf of her president , she 's trying to deter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump regards as his most dangerous opponent .
Except that Trump is n't sure anymore that Biden is the candidate he needs to fear most .
Here was Trump over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago , according to The New York Times : ... Mr. Trump ’ s anger over impeachment , and his antipathy toward his possible 2020 election opponents — in particular , Michael R. Bloomberg — spilled into public view ... .
Sunday night the president and Mr. Bloomberg , the former New York City mayor and a latecomer to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot in the Iowa caucuses on Monday , would face off in costly Super Bowl ads .
But Mr. Trump , who seems to be increasingly fixated on Mr. Bloomberg and the fortune he is vowing to spend on the election , apparently could not wait .
In a tweet sent just after midnight , Mr. Trump tried to implicate Mr. Bloomberg in a conspiracy theory he has used in an apparent attempt to sow divisions in the Democratic presidential field .
Many of the ads you are watching were paid for by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nowhere , just wasting his money , but he is getting the DNC to rig the election against Crazy Bernie , something they wouldn ’ t do for @ CoryBooker and others .
They are doing it to Bernie again , 2016 .
... More tweets about Mr. Bloomberg followed , culminating in an interview with Sean Hannity , the Fox News personality and presidential confidant , that was taped on Saturday but aired three hours before the game .
In the interview , the president reiterated a false claim he had sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg had demanded a box to stand on should he participate in a Democratic candidates ’ debate .
... “ You know , now he wants a box for the debates to stand on .
O.K.
, it ’ s O.K.
, there ’ s nothing wrong , ” Mr. Trump said .
“ You can be short .
Why should he get a box to stand on , O.K.
?
He wants a box for the debates .
Why should he be entitled to that ?
Really .
Does that mean everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader of the free world , ladies and gentlemen .
Mike Bloomberg has a colossal ego .
This wo n't fluster him the way it flustered Marco Rubio .
( It would be good if it offended more people , but contempt for short people is a widely acceptable prejudice . )
I have problems with Bloomberg , but I 'm delighted that he 's getting under Trump 's skin .
I pissed some of you off by making it clear that I 'm ready to get behind Bernie Sanders if necessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind Bloomberg , who 's the antithesis of Sanders in many ways .
Whatever it takes .
Bloomberg would at least be good on reproductive rights , climate change , and guns .
The taxes on the rich he 's proposed might be modest by comparison with the ones proposed by Sanders or Elizabeth Warren , but they 're more than I expected .
( You know the rich will get another tax cut in a second Trump term . )
Maybe in a few months we 'll be hearing about Republicans ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren .
But they 'll have no opportunity if the Democratic nominee wins the White House .
Crossposted with permission from No More Mister Nice Blog

Is this supposed to scare us?
Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans could immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House. “I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”
Let's not rehash the Biden-Burisma story. Let's just talk about the practicalities of trying to do this.
Who impeaches? The House. Who controls the House right now? Democrats. If Joe Biden wins the presidential election, who will have won the popular vote? Biden, because it's Republicans, not Democrats, who can win the presidency while losing the popular vote. And if Biden wins the popular vote, how will Democrats do in House races? Well enough to hold the House and maybe even gain seats.
So there simply won't be an immediate impeachment if Biden wins. It's not like four years ago, when Republicans controlled the House and were promising endless investigations in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory. I don't doubt that they'd like to impeach Biden. They just can't.
Ernst is hoping you haven't figured all this out. On behalf of her president, she's trying to deter Iowans from voting for the Democratic candidate Trump regards as his most dangerous opponent.
Except that Trump isn't sure anymore that Biden is the candidate he needs to fear most. Here was Trump over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago, according to The New York Times:
... Mr. Trump’s anger over impeachment, and his antipathy toward his possible 2020 election opponents — in particular, Michael R. Bloomberg — spilled into public view.... Sunday night the president and Mr. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and a latecomer to the Democratic race who is not on the ballot in the Iowa caucuses on Monday, would face off in costly Super Bowl ads. But Mr. Trump, who seems to be increasingly fixated on Mr. Bloomberg and the fortune he is vowing to spend on the election, apparently could not wait. In a tweet sent just after midnight, Mr. Trump tried to implicate Mr. Bloomberg in a conspiracy theory he has used in an apparent attempt to sow divisions in the Democratic presidential field. Many of the ads you are watching were paid for by Mini Mike Bloomberg. He is going nowhere, just wasting his money, but he is getting the DNC to rig the election against Crazy Bernie, something they wouldn’t do for @CoryBooker and others. They are doing it to Bernie again, 2016. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2020 ... More tweets about Mr. Bloomberg followed, culminating in an interview with Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and presidential confidant, that was taped on Saturday but aired three hours before the game. In the interview, the president reiterated a false claim he had sent in a late-night tweet: that Mr. Bloomberg had demanded a box to stand on should he participate in a Democratic candidates’ debate. ... “You know, now he wants a box for the debates to stand on. O.K., it’s O.K., there’s nothing wrong,” Mr. Trump said. “You can be short. Why should he get a box to stand on, O.K.? He wants a box for the debates. Why should he be entitled to that? Really. Does that mean everyone else gets a box?”
The leader of the free world, ladies and gentlemen.
Mike Bloomberg has a colossal ego. This won't fluster him the way it flustered Marco Rubio. (It would be good if it offended more people, but contempt for short people is a widely acceptable prejudice.)
I have problems with Bloomberg, but I'm delighted that he's getting under Trump's skin. I pissed some of you off by making it clear that I'm ready to get behind Bernie Sanders if necessary, but I'm also ready to get behind Bloomberg, who's the antithesis of Sanders in many ways. Whatever it takes. Bloomberg would at least be good on reproductive rights, climate change, and guns. The taxes on the rich he's proposed might be modest by comparison with the ones proposed by Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but they're more than I expected. (You know the rich will get another tax cut in a second Trump term.)
Maybe in a few months we'll be hearing about Republicans' plans to impeach Bloomberg or Sanders or Warren. But they'll have no opportunity if the Democratic nominee wins the White House.
Crossposted with permission from No More Mister Nice Blog


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Donald Trump Is Acquitted, But Not Exonerated

We know that both Doug Jones , vulnerable Democrat of Alabama , and Mitt Romney , invulnerable Republican from Utah @ @ @ @ @ convict .
On the first article , Senator Mitt Romney joined with Democrats and Independents @ @ @ @ @ Abuse of Power .
The final vote was 52-48 .
On the second article , @ @ @ @ @ acquit Trump on charges of Obstruction of Congress for a final vote count of 53-47 @ @ @ @ @ been more than 2/3rds of the Senate .
That did not happen .
He was @ @ @ @ @ but not exonerated .
He is forever impeached , but he got off because the @ @ @ @ @ above those of the country .

We know that both Doug Jones, vulnerable Democrat of Alabama, and Mitt Romney, invulnerable Republican from Utah, are both voting to convict.
UPDATE: (Karoli)
On the first article, Senator Mitt Romney joined with Democrats and Independents to vote Trump guilty of Abuse of Power. The final vote was 52-48.
On the second article, Romney joined with Republicans to acquit Trump on charges of Obstruction of Congress for a final vote count of 53-47.
Full exoneration would have been more than 2/3rds of the Senate. That did not happen. He was, therefore, acquitted, but not exonerated.
He is forever impeached, but he got off because the Republican party put their interests above those of the country.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Mitt Romney Will Vote For Trump's Conviction: 'A Flagrant Assault Of Our Electoral Rights'

Senator Mitt Romney just announced in his Senate floor speech that he will honor the oath he took to do impartial justice and vote for Trump 's conviction and removal from office .
`` The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders , '' he said , making his case for his vote .
`` The president 's purpose was personal and political .
Accordingly , the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust .
What he did was not perfect .
No , it was a flagrant assault of our electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my verdict will not remove the president from office , so this Senate court will in fact be appealed to a higher court -- the people of the United States of America , `` he said .
`` Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end , it would , I fear , expose my character to history 's rebuke & the censor of my own conscience . ''
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made a courageous decision .
He will vote to acquit on the contempt of Congress charge but convict on the abuse of power , saying that Donald Trump should be removed from office .
It is hard to convey the weight of the 2012 Republican nominee for president voting to impeach and remove the Republican president from office , but here we are .
I can not remember a time in the last 10 years when I saw Mitt Romney do the courageous thing , but today he did .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 PM Eastern will be a bipartisan vote to convict him , even though he will be acquitted by the 52 Republican Senators who chose NOT to honor their oaths .

Senator Mitt Romney just announced in his Senate floor speech that he will honor the oath he took to do impartial justice and vote for Trump's conviction and removal from office.
"The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders," he said, making his case for his vote. "The president's purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault of our electoral rights."
"I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office, so this Senate court will in fact be appealed to a higher court -- the people of the United States of America, " he said.
"Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history's rebuke & the censor of my own conscience."
I think that is the first time Mitt Romney has made a courageous decision. He will vote to acquit on the contempt of Congress charge but convict on the abuse of power, saying that Donald Trump should be removed from office.
It is hard to convey the weight of the 2012 Republican nominee for president voting to impeach and remove the Republican president from office, but here we are.
I cannot remember a time in the last 10 years when I saw Mitt Romney do the courageous thing, but today he did. And if Democrats stay together, the vote at 4 PM Eastern will be a bipartisan vote to convict him, even though he will be acquitted by the 52 Republican Senators who chose NOT to honor their oaths.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Twitter Celebrates Pelosi As MAGA Seethes

The same people who were just appalled by the halftime show are now appalled by # MadamSpeaker 's shredding of @ @ @ @ @ SOTU speech .
The same people who support a racist , bigot , criminal , @ @ @ @ @ cretinous criminal cockwaffle of a president .


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Jennifer Granholm Catches Rick Santorum Shamelessly Lying About Pre-Existing Conditions

Conservative CNN contributor Rick Santorum predicted prior to Tuesday ’ s State of the Union Address that President Donald Trump could change the minds of Americans with a uncharacteristically pleasant speech .
Just moments before the annual speech was set to kick off , Santorum argued that the event is the perfect occasion to introduce new voters to Trump .
“ For Donald Trump , this is a more important speech than it is really for anybody , ” Santorum opined , recalling President Barack Obama ’ s oratory skills .
“ The perpetual criticism of Donald Trump being unhinged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he continued .
“ To have him stand up in this setting , deliver a speech , sound reasonable , sound articulate , sound like he ’ s got a plan and the country is not crashing and burning — that ’ s a much bigger deal for him.
” According to Santorum , the State of the Union Address is Trump ’ s chance to prove that he ’ s not a “ liar ” or “ unhinged.
” “ Maybe when he ’ s doing business , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CNN contributor offered .
“ I find it hard to even be here , ” Democratic strategist Jennifer Granholm replied .
“ Because I see what he does on a daily basis .
And so maybe he gets things done .
But when he gets things done like taking away health care from people with pre-existing conditions , I don ’ t like that thing that he ’ s getting done.
” “ I don ’ t like separating families at the border , ” she added .
“ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused people in America to feel unsafe.
” “ I worked on the health care bill with Republicans and I can tell you every time , [ Trump said ] , ‘ I ’ m not signing the bill , ' ” Santorum recalled .
“ He ’ s in court trying to undo [ protections for pre-existing conditions ] , ” Granholm interrupted .
“ That doesn ’ t mean he against a good provision , ” Santorum quipped .
“ It ’ s really hard for you to make that argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged .
“ I ’ m sure it ’ s not hard for you personally , ” Granholm acknowledged .

Conservative CNN contributor Rick Santorum predicted prior to Tuesday’s State of the Union Address that President Donald Trump could change the minds of Americans with a uncharacteristically pleasant speech.
Just moments before the annual speech was set to kick off, Santorum argued that the event is the perfect occasion to introduce new voters to Trump.
“For Donald Trump, this is a more important speech than it is really for anybody,” Santorum opined, recalling President Barack Obama’s oratory skills.
“The perpetual criticism of Donald Trump being unhinged and lying and doing all these things,” he continued. “To have him stand up in this setting, deliver a speech, sound reasonable, sound articulate, sound like he’s got a plan and the country is not crashing and burning — that’s a much bigger deal for him.”
According to Santorum, the State of the Union Address is Trump’s chance to prove that he’s not a “liar” or “unhinged.”
“Maybe when he’s doing business, he’s a pretty reasonable guy,” the CNN contributor offered.
“I find it hard to even be here,” Democratic strategist Jennifer Granholm replied. “Because I see what he does on a daily basis. And so maybe he gets things done. But when he gets things done like taking away health care from people with pre-existing conditions, I don’t like that thing that he’s getting done.”
“I don’t like separating families at the border,” she added. “I don’t like the way that he has caused people in America to feel unsafe.”
Santorum objected to Granholm’s point on pre-existing conditions.
“I worked on the health care bill with Republicans and I can tell you every time, [Trump said], ‘I’m not signing the bill,'” Santorum recalled.
“He’s in court trying to undo [protections for pre-existing conditions],” Granholm interrupted.
“That doesn’t mean he against a good provision,” Santorum quipped.
“It’s really hard for you to make that argument with a straight face,” Granholm charged.
“No, it’s not!” Santorum exclaimed.
“I’m sure it’s not hard for you personally,” Granholm acknowledged.
“Thank you,” Santorum said.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Rush Limbaugh's Medal Of Freedom Was His Final F*ck-You To America

If I were face to face with Rush Limbaugh right now , I 'd throw a little verse from the Bible that he should know well in his face as he prepares himself for his journey to his final place in the universe : `` As ye reap , so shall ye sow . ''
He 'll know what I 'm talking about , since he , his acolytes and his fixer friends tried hard to destroy my life back in 2012 after I joined some other activists in an effort to Flush Rush from the airwaves after he called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doxed , my entire extended family was doxed , and I was harassed for two years after that .
It was a miserable experience , one I would n't recommend to anyone .
And here 's the thing : I was a nobody who dared to stand up to an autocratic assh0le .
No one was too small , too insignificant for that jerk and his goons to step on like a bug .
Tuesday night , the so-called President of this divided United States gave the highest civilian honor in the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but defile this country with his hate and racism for the last 30 years , corrupting the minds of otherwise decent people with long commutes who had nothing better to do than listen to him tell them why they should be furious at what liberals have taken from them .
John Stoehr writes : `` After watching last night two hours of Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union speech , the word “ gothic ” keep ringing in my ears .
It wouldn ’ t stop .
His address was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common sense and a glorification of pettiness and barbarism .
Making it all the more gothic and horrible was the press corps pretending it was none of these things .
Afterward , CBS News ’ Norah O ’ Donnell said : “ This was a speech unlike any other I have witnessed from President Donald Trump—the reality TV president took on the state of the union , a master showman at his best.
” ' Limbaugh 's tutelage , right down to the media applauding the `` reality show '' aspects .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisive than Rush Limbaugh .
No one .
There are too many examples to cite .
Daily examples .
He taught Donald Trump how to name-call back in the days where such behavior was considered juvenile and offensive .
Now it 's `` Presidential . ''
Every day of his shitty little life , Rush Limbaugh raises his middle finger to the institutions of this country , spits on it , and grinds it in our eye .
Even now , as lung cancer eats away at him , he 's busy chipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says he 's got religion like tearing down the institution he helped build for one even more evil , more dishonest and more destructive .
For the past 30 years , Limbaugh has been the de facto leader of the Republican party , normalizing racism and hate while raising up others to do the work he 's just begun .
So when he acted surprised that he was receiving the Medal of Freedom during the Great SOTU 2020 Giveaway , it was just another thing that has been forever defiled , rendered meaningless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump touches .
Trump is his greatest creation , the monster that Limbaugh dreamed about all his life as he was raking in the millions for fcking up the entire country with his propaganda .
Limbaugh is the voice of American autocracy , lying to his listening faithful in order to beckon them to act against their own interests , always for the benefit of the authoritarians and the greedy .
Trump 's Oprah-style giveaway had to include a desecration of an American institution in Rush Limbaugh 's name .
It was his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump created is his instrument of destruction , but in the end none of it matters , because Rush Limbaugh will waste away and die , leaving a legacy of hatred and division for those mentored to carry on .

If I were face to face with Rush Limbaugh right now, I'd throw a little verse from the Bible that he should know well in his face as he prepares himself for his journey to his final place in the universe: "As ye reap, so shall ye sow."
He'll know what I'm talking about, since he, his acolytes and his fixer friends tried hard to destroy my life back in 2012 after I joined some other activists in an effort to Flush Rush from the airwaves after he called Sandra Fluke a slut. I was doxed, my entire extended family was doxed, and I was harassed for two years after that. It was a miserable experience, one I wouldn't recommend to anyone. And here's the thing: I was a nobody who dared to stand up to an autocratic assh0le. No one was too small, too insignificant for that jerk and his goons to step on like a bug.
Tuesday night, the so-called President of this divided United States gave the highest civilian honor in the land to a man who has done nothing but defile this country with his hate and racism for the last 30 years, corrupting the minds of otherwise decent people with long commutes who had nothing better to do than listen to him tell them why they should be furious at what liberals have taken from them.
John Stoehr writes: "After watching last night two hours of Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, the word “gothic” keep ringing in my ears. It wouldn’t stop. His address was a perversion of morality, an inversion of common sense and a glorification of pettiness and barbarism. Making it all the more gothic and horrible was the press corps pretending it was none of these things. Afterward, CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell said: “This was a speech unlike any other I have witnessed from President Donald Trump—the reality TV president took on the state of the union, a master showman at his best.”'
Limbaugh's tutelage, right down to the media applauding the "reality show" aspects.
There is no one who has been more divisive than Rush Limbaugh. No one. There are too many examples to cite. Daily examples. He taught Donald Trump how to name-call back in the days where such behavior was considered juvenile and offensive. Now it's "Presidential." Every day of his shitty little life, Rush Limbaugh raises his middle finger to the institutions of this country, spits on it, and grinds it in our eye.
Even now, as lung cancer eats away at him, he's busy chipping away at Fox News, because nothing says he's got religion like tearing down the institution he helped build for one even more evil, more dishonest and more destructive.
For the past 30 years, Limbaugh has been the de facto leader of the Republican party, normalizing racism and hate while raising up others to do the work he's just begun. So when he acted surprised that he was receiving the Medal of Freedom during the Great SOTU 2020 Giveaway, it was just another thing that has been forever defiled, rendered meaningless and without value, like everything Donald Trump touches. Trump is his greatest creation, the monster that Limbaugh dreamed about all his life as he was raking in the millions for fcking up the entire country with his propaganda.
Limbaugh is the voice of American autocracy, lying to his listening faithful in order to beckon them to act against their own interests, always for the benefit of the authoritarians and the greedy.
Trump's Oprah-style giveaway had to include a desecration of an American institution in Rush Limbaugh's name. It was his final fck-you to America. The monster Trump created is his instrument of destruction, but in the end none of it matters, because Rush Limbaugh will waste away and die, leaving a legacy of hatred and division for those mentored to carry on.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Alabama Sen. Doug Jones Will Vote To Convict On Both Counts

Doug Jones is up for re-election in Alabama in 2020 .
Nevertheless , he is voting his conscience .
He 's voting to convict Trump on both counts .
From his website : On the day I was sworn in as a United States Senator , I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution .
At the beginning of the impeachment trial , I took a second oath to do ‘ impartial justice ’ according to the same Constitution I swore to protect .
These solemn oaths have been my guides during what has been a difficult time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for me personally .
I did not run for Senate hoping to participate in the impeachment trial of a duly-elected President , but I can not and will not shrink from my duty to defend the Constitution and to do impartial justice .
In keeping with my oaths , I resolved that throughout this process I would keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence before making a final decision on the charges against the President .
For months , I have been studying the facts of this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pages of transcripts , watched videos of testimony , taken copious notes , reviewed history and precedents and discussed this case with colleagues , staff , and constituents , in addition to having participated in the Senate trial over the past two weeks .
After many sleepless nights , I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .

Doug Jones is up for re-election in Alabama in 2020. Nevertheless, he is voting his conscience.
He's voting to convict Trump on both counts. From his website:
On the day I was sworn in as a United States Senator, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. At the beginning of the impeachment trial, I took a second oath to do ‘impartial justice’ according to the same Constitution I swore to protect.
These solemn oaths have been my guides during what has been a difficult time for our country, for my state, and for me personally. I did not run for Senate hoping to participate in the impeachment trial of a duly-elected President, but I cannot and will not shrink from my duty to defend the Constitution and to do impartial justice.
In keeping with my oaths, I resolved that throughout this process I would keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence before making a final decision on the charges against the President. For months, I have been studying the facts of this case exhaustively. I have read thousands of pages of transcripts, watched videos of testimony, taken copious notes, reviewed history and precedents and discussed this case with colleagues, staff, and constituents, in addition to having participated in the Senate trial over the past two weeks. After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--Parnas And Fruman’s Dodgy Donation Was Uncovered Via Google Translate

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman have attained notoriety for their parts in the Ukraine mess .
They ’ re both Soviet-born U.S. citizens who worked closely with the president ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , serving as emissaries in the campaign to oust then-U.S .
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and press Ukraine ’ s government to investigate Joe Biden ’ s son .
But Parnas and Fruman also exemplify the shattering of norms when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money in politics during the administration of President Donald Trump — and that ’ s the subject of this week ’ s episode of “ Trump , Inc ” .
Using a recently formed LLC , Parnas and Fruman donated $ 325,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in early 2018 .
They then attended a dinner with the president — at the president ’ s hotel — and got the ear of the president .
At that dinner , in April 2018 , Parnas and Fruman made the first known pitch to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion a series of events that led to the president ’ s impeachment .
Parnas and Fruman have since been indicted by federal prosecutors in New York for , among other things , acting on behalf of one or more Ukrainian officials who wanted the U.S. ambassador removed , and funneling money from a Russian businessman into campaigns in Nevada while concealing the source of the funds .
The men have pleaded not guilty .
At first glance , the indictments seem to show that potential campaign abuses are being effectively policed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ episode shows just the opposite : The events came to light because of an improbable , almost random , series of events and at least one key slip-up .
Parnas and Fruman ’ s successful attempt to use money to win access to the president wasn ’ t brought to light by prosecutors .
Or by the federal agency set up specifically to enforce the laws governing money in politics .
It was uncovered by a few watchdogs responding to a question from a reporter and using Google Translate to decipher Russian-language articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason that we know about Parnas and Fruman is that they weren ’ t sophisticated donors , ” said Robert Maguire , the research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
The process began with a question .
In a newsletter he wrote , reporter Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast wondered about a $ 325,000 donation to the pro-Trump America First PAC attributed to an entity he ’ d never heard of called Global Energy Producers .
Could anybody , he asked his readers , tell him anything about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brendan Fischer , the director of the federal reform program at the elections watchdog group Campaign Legal Center .
He noted the size of the donation , which represented 6.5 % of what the America First PAC had taken in that quarter .
He asked a researcher-investigator at the center , Maggie Christ , to begin digging .
Christ learned that Global Energy Producers was a Delaware LLC formed only five weeks before .
There was no sign it was an operating business or had any assets .
As is typical , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Christ noticed a second address .
It turned out to be the Boca Raton , Florida , home of a man named Lev Parnas .
( Suffice it to say that most people who set up an LLC that shields their identity choose to leave their home address off the documents they file .
Parnas ’ lawyer declined to be interviewed . )
Christ had never heard of Parnas .
He was a cipher online ; he ’ d never been covered by the news , as far as Christ could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no public footprints at that point , ” she said .
“ They were just not public figures at all .
So we were pretty confused as to what their motivations might have been.
” Christ kept pulling threads .
Using Google Translate , she was able to read some Russian-language articles that had appeared in Ukraine , one of which described Fruman as a “ channel of direct communication between the Jewish community of Kiev and the President of the United States.
” From there she found indications that Parnas and Fruman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president as well as a photo of Fruman at Mar-a-Lago with Trump .
Suspicious , the Campaign Legal Center decided to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that Global Energy Producers was a front for an unnamed donor — which , the organization contended , would violate U.S. election laws .
The complaint generated more information .
A lawyer in Florida representing a family claiming to be owed money by Parnas — an investment years ago in a movie called “ Anatomy of an Assassin , ” which the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campaign Legal Center .
That lawyer was then able to subpoena bank and wire transfer records .
The resulting documents revealed that Global Energy Producers hadn ’ t donated the $ 325,000 to the America First PAC ; a different shell company , this one owned by Parnas and wife , had actually contributed the money .
That only increased the suspicions , and ultimately federal prosecutors echoed the Campaign Legal Center ’ s assertions in their indictment , while also adding the allegation that Parnas and Fruman were acting on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
” What became of the complaint to the FEC ?
The agency isn ’ t allowed to say what , if anything , it ’ s doing in response to the complaint ( though the FEC would typically step aside when prosecutors file criminal charges that parallel an FEC investigation ) .
But even if the FEC wanted to take action , it couldn ’ t .
The agency no longer has the minimum number of commissioners legally required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making the agency impotent .
And even before that , according to Commissioner Ellen Weintraub , a Democratic appointee , the agency had succumbed to total paralysis .
What was once a partisan divide at the agency , she said , had turned into a dispute over whether the very notion of enforcing election laws has merit .
It no longer matters , she said , whether the potential target of an investigation is a Republican or a Democrat .
As Weintraub put it : “ So Republicans have voted over and over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to investigate , not to pursue allegations against Democrats .
And Democratic commissioners have , on the other hand , voted to pursue them .
So most , most recently , we had a case alleging a multimillion-dollar coordination scheme between a super PAC and the Hillary Clinton campaign .
And I voted to pursue the investigation and the Republicans blocked it .
And this has happened — this scenario — has happened over and over and over again.
” ( The two other sitting FEC commissioners , both Republican appointees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear the full story , listen to “ Trump , Inc. ” And if you ’ d like to get involved and do your own campaign sleuthing , you can read more here .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman have attained notoriety for their parts in the Ukraine mess. They’re both Soviet-born U.S. citizens who worked closely with the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, serving as emissaries in the campaign to oust then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and press Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe Biden’s son.
But Parnas and Fruman also exemplify the shattering of norms when it comes to the influence of big money in politics during the administration of President Donald Trump — and that’s the subject of this week’s episode of “Trump, Inc”.
Using a recently formed LLC, Parnas and Fruman donated $325,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in early 2018. They then attended a dinner with the president — at the president’s hotel — and got the ear of the president. At that dinner, in April 2018, Parnas and Fruman made the first known pitch to Trump to remove Yovanovitch, helping set in motion a series of events that led to the president’s impeachment.
Parnas and Fruman have since been indicted by federal prosecutors in New York for, among other things, acting on behalf of one or more Ukrainian officials who wanted the U.S. ambassador removed, and funneling money from a Russian businessman into campaigns in Nevada while concealing the source of the funds. The men have pleaded not guilty.
At first glance, the indictments seem to show that potential campaign abuses are being effectively policed. But the “Trump, Inc.” episode shows just the opposite: The events came to light because of an improbable, almost random, series of events and at least one key slip-up.
Parnas and Fruman’s successful attempt to use money to win access to the president wasn’t brought to light by prosecutors. Or by the federal agency set up specifically to enforce the laws governing money in politics. It was uncovered by a few watchdogs responding to a question from a reporter and using Google Translate to decipher Russian-language articles published in Ukraine. “The only reason that we know about Parnas and Fruman is that they weren’t sophisticated donors,” said Robert Maguire, the research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The process began with a question. In a newsletter he wrote, reporter Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast wondered about a $325,000 donation to the pro-Trump America First PAC attributed to an entity he’d never heard of called Global Energy Producers. Could anybody, he asked his readers, tell him anything about it?
That piqued the curiosity of Brendan Fischer, the director of the federal reform program at the elections watchdog group Campaign Legal Center. He noted the size of the donation, which represented 6.5% of what the America First PAC had taken in that quarter. He asked a researcher-investigator at the center, Maggie Christ, to begin digging.
Christ learned that Global Energy Producers was a Delaware LLC formed only five weeks before. There was no sign it was an operating business or had any assets. As is typical, the Delaware LLC’s address revealed nothing.
But Christ noticed a second address. It turned out to be the Boca Raton, Florida, home of a man named Lev Parnas. (Suffice it to say that most people who set up an LLC that shields their identity choose to leave their home address off the documents they file. Parnas’ lawyer declined to be interviewed.)
Christ had never heard of Parnas. He was a cipher online; he’d never been covered by the news, as far as Christ could discern. “Fruman and Parnas had no public footprints at that point,” she said. “They were just not public figures at all. So we were pretty confused as to what their motivations might have been.”
Christ kept pulling threads. Using Google Translate, she was able to read some Russian-language articles that had appeared in Ukraine, one of which described Fruman as a “channel of direct communication between the Jewish community of Kiev and the President of the United States.” From there she found indications that Parnas and Fruman had been at a dinner with the president as well as a photo of Fruman at Mar-a-Lago with Trump.
Suspicious, the Campaign Legal Center decided to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that Global Energy Producers was a front for an unnamed donor — which, the organization contended, would violate U.S. election laws.
The complaint generated more information. A lawyer in Florida representing a family claiming to be owed money by Parnas — an investment years ago in a movie called “Anatomy of an Assassin,” which the man asserted Parnas never repaid — contacted the Campaign Legal Center. That lawyer was then able to subpoena bank and wire transfer records. The resulting documents revealed that Global Energy Producers hadn’t donated the $325,000 to the America First PAC; a different shell company, this one owned by Parnas and wife, had actually contributed the money.
That only increased the suspicions, and ultimately federal prosecutors echoed the Campaign Legal Center’s assertions in their indictment, while also adding the allegation that Parnas and Fruman were acting on behalf of “at least one foreign official — a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.”
What became of the complaint to the FEC? The agency isn’t allowed to say what, if anything, it’s doing in response to the complaint (though the FEC would typically step aside when prosecutors file criminal charges that parallel an FEC investigation).
But even if the FEC wanted to take action, it couldn’t. The agency no longer has the minimum number of commissioners legally required to bring an enforcement action, effectively making the agency impotent. And even before that, according to Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic appointee, the agency had succumbed to total paralysis. What was once a partisan divide at the agency, she said, had turned into a dispute over whether the very notion of enforcing election laws has merit. It no longer matters, she said, whether the potential target of an investigation is a Republican or a Democrat.
As Weintraub put it: “So Republicans have voted over and over again not to enforce the law, not to investigate, not to pursue allegations against Democrats. And Democratic commissioners have, on the other hand, voted to pursue them. So most, most recently, we had a case alleging a multimillion-dollar coordination scheme between a super PAC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. And I voted to pursue the investigation and the Republicans blocked it. And this has happened — this scenario — has happened over and over and over again.” (The two other sitting FEC commissioners, both Republican appointees, declined to be interviewed.)
To hear the full story, listen to “Trump, Inc.” And if you’d like to get involved and do your own campaign sleuthing, you can read more here.


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--John Avlon's Reality Check: 'Acquittal Doesn't Mean Exoneration'

`` Remember this .
Acquittal is not exoneration .
and that 's especially true in the impeachment trial of President Trump , '' the CNN analyst said .
`` His acquittal today is a foregone conclusion , but impeachment will be in the first paragraph of his obituary , putting him in a presidential Hall of Shame .
Unlike the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton , it was about something the Founding Fathers feared : foreign interference in our elections .
Even Steve Doocey said it was wrong at one point .
If the president said I 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate Joe Biden , that is really off-the-rails wrong .
`` While the president and his legal team argued he did nothing wrong , at least a half dozen Republicans now admit the evidence does not exonerate him .
They 've settled on saying his conduct was improper but not impeachable .
It 's definitively both .
George Washington warned foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government .
James Madison argued for impeachment at the Constitutional Convention , saying a president might betray his trust to foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but what about Trump 's argument that abuse of power is n't a legitimate cause ?
Alexander Hamilton put the kibosh on that , saying it was for the misconduct of public men from the abuse of some public trust .
Republicans also argued that obstruction of Congress was an absurd charge citing George Washington 's executive fight with Congress .
But they wrote Congress had no reason to see his papers except that of an impeachment .
What about this argument from Alan Dershowitz ?
If a president does something which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment .
`` Well , not so much .
William Davey argued at the Constitutional Convention , 'If he be not impeachable whilst in office he 'll spare no efforts or means whatsoever to get re-elected . '
That 's what 's at stake today .
President Trump has n't admitted wrongdoing .
And Republicans ' lack of interest even in witnesses could open the door to a massive expansion of presidential power -- including foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time we know they 're trying to interfere in our elections .
`` The last test will be whether the Senate votes to censure the president .
It requires only a simple majority vote .
This is not acceptable for presidents of either party to act this way .
But do n't hold your breath that Mitch McConnell will let that vote come to the floor because it might upset the president .
Republicans say the Founders never intended for there will be a partisan impeachment but they did n't realize how hyperpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause the Senate to forget the First Principles .
`` And that 's your reality check . ''

John Avlon's Reality Check segment today looked at the impending impeachment vote.
"Remember this. Acquittal is not exoneration. and that's especially true in the impeachment trial of President Trump," the CNN analyst said.
"His acquittal today is a foregone conclusion, but impeachment will be in the first paragraph of his obituary, putting him in a presidential Hall of Shame. Unlike the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, it was about something the Founding Fathers feared: foreign interference in our elections. Even Steve Doocey said it was wrong at one point.
If the president said I'll give you the money but you have to investigate Joe Biden, that is really off-the-rails wrong.
"While the president and his legal team argued he did nothing wrong, at least a half dozen Republicans now admit the evidence does not exonerate him. They've settled on saying his conduct was improper but not impeachable. It's definitively both. George Washington warned foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government. James Madison argued for impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, saying a president might betray his trust to foreign powers.
"This isn't subtle but what about Trump's argument that abuse of power isn't a legitimate cause? Alexander Hamilton put the kibosh on that, saying it was for the misconduct of public men from the abuse of some public trust. Republicans also argued that obstruction of Congress was an absurd charge citing George Washington's executive fight with Congress. But they wrote Congress had no reason to see his papers except that of an impeachment. What about this argument from Alan Dershowitz?
If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
"Well, not so much. William Davey argued at the Constitutional Convention, 'If he be not impeachable whilst in office he'll spare no efforts or means whatsoever to get re-elected.' That's what's at stake today. President Trump hasn't admitted wrongdoing. And Republicans' lack of interest even in witnesses could open the door to a massive expansion of presidential power -- including foreign interference in our elections at the same time we know they're trying to interfere in our elections.
"The last test will be whether the Senate votes to censure the president. It requires only a simple majority vote. This is not acceptable for presidents of either party to act this way. But don't hold your breath that Mitch McConnell will let that vote come to the floor because it might upset the president. Republicans say the Founders never intended for there will be a partisan impeachment but they didn't realize how hyperpartisan polarization could short circuit our system and cause the Senate to forget the First Principles.
"And that's your reality check."


crooksandliars--2020-02-05--It's Midnight In Washington, And This Needs To Go Viral Today

We know that today , a Republican Senate will vote unanimously to acquit the worst president ever .
We ca @ @ @ @ @ we can make sure that everywhere they turn , or their families , or their @ @ @ @ @ , they will be faced with the truth of how history will see them .
@ @ @ @ @ tied to his with a cord of steel , and for all of history .
@ @ @ @ @ , Oregon made this .
Let 's get it out there today , any way @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , email .

We know that today, a Republican Senate will vote unanimously to acquit the worst president ever. We can't stop them.
But we can make sure that everywhere they turn, or their families, or their staffers, or their neighbors, they will be faced with the truth of how history will see them.
"Your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel, and for all of history."
Eleven Films of Portland, Oregon made this. Let's get it out there today, any way we can. Facebook, Twitter, email.
Remind them: They're complicit. And history won't lie.