crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Report:  NBC Employees 'Livid' Over Trump Town Hall Competing With Biden's

Staffers at NBC , CNBC and MSNBC were said to be angry this week after learning that President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ hold a solo town hall event .
NBC announced on Wednesday that the network will @ @ @ @ @ event for Trump opposite a similar event for Democratic candidate Joe Biden , which will @ @ @ @ @ event was only scheduled after a debate with Biden was cancelled because the president , @ @ @ @ @ , refused to participate virtually .
Others on Twitter also lashed out at NBC for @ @ @ @ @ a 90-minute event .
Read some of the responses below .

Staffers at NBC, CNBC and MSNBC were said to be angry this week after learning that President Donald Trump was offered the opportunity to hold a solo town hall event.
NBC announced on Wednesday that the network will host a 90-minute town hall event for Trump opposite a similar event for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, which will air on ABC.
The event was only scheduled after a debate with Biden was cancelled because the president, who tested positive for COVID-19, refused to participate virtually.
Others on Twitter also lashed out at NBC for “rewarding” Trump with a 90-minute event.
Read some of the responses below.
Same network that ran The Apprentice and won’t release the tapes of Trump being disgusting. NBC out here treating this election like it’s February sweeps week. — Kathleen Smith (@KikkiPlanet) October 14, 2020
ADVERTISEMENT
Still no rationale offered by the White House why they’d be willing to share so much information w/NBC about the president’s health so as to make this Thursday town hall happen, but releasing when the last time pre-diagnosis that he had tested negative would violate his privacy — Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) October 14, 2020
I managed to foster a small glimmer of hope over the past two weeks. Today I wake up to NBC giving Trump free airtime after he pulled out of the debate, and @nytimes amplifying a “but his emails” hit piece cooked up by Giuliani and the NYPost.
Sad doesn’t begin to describe it. — James 「Vote Early」Sanders (@jas_np) October 14, 2020
NBC’s decision to continue boosting Trump–regardless of the norms they trample in order to do so–is the strongest case yet that for-profit corporations can’t be trusted to put a healthy democracy ahead of shareholder profit. — Max Burns (@themaxburns) October 14, 2020
That time Trump backed out of debating Biden so NBC gave him a full 90 minutes to himself as a reward. https://t.co/KppS7wox5d — Kathleen Smith (@KikkiPlanet) October 14, 2020
This is a very stupid decision by NBC. Trump acted irresponsibly, threw a superspreader party at the White House, got sick with Covid, refused to do a virtual debate, and NBC is *rewarding* him by giving him a town hall opposite Biden’s previously scheduled town hall? Why? https://t.co/LYUr2qLZIU — Alp Ozcelik (@alplicable) October 14, 2020
NBC is gonna put the orange idiot on their network opposite Biden’s town hall on ABC…why are they doing this after that awful orange douche backed out of the debate???? – c’mon @NBCNews ….what the hell…?#disappointed — Dana Ashbrook (@DanaAshbrook) October 14, 2020
Trump once again correctly wagered that even if he refuses to do another presidential debate, outlets like NBC would jump at the chance to offer Trump a huge block of unchallenged TV time. — Max Burns (@themaxburns) October 14, 2020
That @NBCNews elected to attack on our democracy for ratings – AGAIN – by putting a Trump town hall directly against a Biden town hall, has 2 meanings: I’m done watching @NBC. And @SavannahGuthrie is despicable. She deserves a lifetime of condemnation. Let this haunt her career. — Kurt “Mask Up, Vote Early” Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) October 14, 2020
“Dr. Lane concluded “with a high degree of confidence” that the president is “not shedding infectious virus,” NBC said. “The network did not explicitly say that Mr. Trump had received a negative result from the P.C.R. test.” 🤔 — Lisa Tozzi (@lisatozzi) October 14, 2020
NBC and Trump have always been in a toxic relationship, it seems. Read this story for the toddler behavior he exhibited even back then — as well as his desire to include the family in his grift — and then pass it along … https://t.co/M2BQ1v3RwK — Laurie Brookins (@StyleWriterNYC) October 14, 2020
If you think NBC is trash for how it helped power Trump to the presidency, be sure to read ‘Catch and Kill’ for how they systematically protected sexual predators in their employ. It’s an awful company. — Matt Ghoulberg (@MattGoldberg) October 14, 2020
Why would @NBC allow themselves to be a vehicle for Trump’s bad behavior? You’re rewarding him for skipping a debate where his lies & racism can be checked. — Joe Mirabella 🏳🌈 (@joemirabella) October 14, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Conservatives Behind Closed Doors: ‘White People Have Lost Their Voice’

In a jaw-dropping article , The Post reported on videos “ covering dozens of hours ” of meetings of the Council for National Policy , a little-known group of extremely influential conservative activists and donors .
The “ white people have lost their voice ” quote came from Carol Swain , a Black author and former professor .
She also likened Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan .
As horrifying as her remarks were , they were not as potentially consequential as some of the others reported on by The Post : [ A ] fresh-faced Republican activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic : the disruption of America ’ s universities .
So many campuses had closed , he said , that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote .
“ So , please keep the campuses closed , ” Kirk , 26 , said in August as the audience cheered , according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post .
“ Like , it ’ s a great thing.
” Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told attendees that same day that the left is “ war-gaming ” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20 , 2021 , and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) to become acting president .
“ This is kind of like crazy talk ” among political people , Fitton said .
But he added : “ This is not an insignificant concern.
” Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement , Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots from going out , and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do , ” said Fitton , whose organization is a tax-exempt charity .
“ But this is a crisis that we ’ re not prepared for .
I mean , our side is not prepared for.
” These are no fringers , but powerful people at the heart of today 's conservative movement .
Their members include Ginni Thomas , wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas , a ringleader of a Trump loyalty operation known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right-wing 's SCOTUS picker .
In February , during three days of meetings in Southern California , a CNP member named Rachel Bovard described the Conservative Action Project ’ s influence in helping the Trump administration select political appointees for the executive branch .
She said the Conservative Action Project coordinated closely on these and other efforts with CNP members and the Conservative Partnership Institute , a tax-exempt charity run by former senator and tea party leader Jim DeMint of South Carolina .
“ We work very closely — CAP does and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office of Presidential Personnel at the White House to try and get good conservatives in the positions because we see what happens when we don ’ t vet these people , ” she said .
The Post also noted that the “ partisan commentary and election-related discussions ” involved members of tax-exempt charities , which are not allowed to support political candidates .
Two tax law specialists who viewed hours of video at The Post ’ s request said some of the remarks and planning on the videos could be improper for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS as charities .
“ What was jarring was that it was pretty clear to any reasonable observer that the entire purpose of the panel was to help the Republican Party win in November , up and down the ticket , ” said Roger Colinvaux , director of law and public policy at Catholic University ’ s law school , referring to a panel about health care .
Marcus Owens , a lawyer who led the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS from 1990 to 2000 , told The Post that participants ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of compliance with election laws and charity rules .
“ I ’ ve never seen anything like it on videotape and live , ” Owens said , referring to the overt partisan coordination among the nonprofit leaders .
“ It ’ s almost like a movie.
” Oh , and many of them violated the state ’ s mask mandate , too .

In a jaw-dropping article, The Post reported on videos “covering dozens of hours” of meetings of the Council for National Policy, a little-known group of extremely influential conservative activists and donors.
The “white people have lost their voice” quote came from Carol Swain, a Black author and former professor. She also likened Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan.
As horrifying as her remarks were, they were not as potentially consequential as some of the others reported on by The Post:
[A] fresh-faced Republican activist named Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic: the disruption of America’s universities. So many campuses had closed, he said, that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote.
“So, please keep the campuses closed,” Kirk, 26, said in August as the audience cheered, according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post. “Like, it’s a great thing.” … Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.” Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters. “We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do,” said Fitton, whose organization is a tax-exempt charity. “But this is a crisis that we’re not prepared for. I mean, our side is not prepared for.”
These are no fringers, but powerful people at the heart of today's conservative movement. Their members include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a ringleader of a Trump loyalty operation known as “Groundswell” and Leonard Leo, the right-wing's SCOTUS picker.
In February, during three days of meetings in Southern California, a CNP member named Rachel Bovard described the Conservative Action Project’s influence in helping the Trump administration select political appointees for the executive branch. She said the Conservative Action Project coordinated closely on these and other efforts with CNP members and the Conservative Partnership Institute, a tax-exempt charity run by former senator and tea party leader Jim DeMint of South Carolina. “We work very closely — CAP does and then we at CPI also — with the Office of Presidential Personnel at the White House to try and get good conservatives in the positions because we see what happens when we don’t vet these people,” she said.
The Post also noted that the “partisan commentary and election-related discussions” involved members of tax-exempt charities, which are not allowed to support political candidates.
Two tax law specialists who viewed hours of video at The Post’s request said some of the remarks and planning on the videos could be improper for the groups that are registered with the IRS as charities. “What was jarring was that it was pretty clear to any reasonable observer that the entire purpose of the panel was to help the Republican Party win in November, up and down the ticket,” said Roger Colinvaux, director of law and public policy at Catholic University’s law school, referring to a panel about health care. Marcus Owens, a lawyer who led the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS from 1990 to 2000, told The Post that participants’ comments on the videos raise potential issues of compliance with election laws and charity rules. “I’ve never seen anything like it on videotape and live,” Owens said, referring to the overt partisan coordination among the nonprofit leaders. “It’s almost like a movie.”
Oh, and many of them violated the state’s mask mandate, too.


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--New US Citizen Creates Amazing Animation:  VOTE

This is a story so ridiculous , Q would not want to be associated with it , which hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ Sec .
Kayleigh McEnany from tweeting out parts of it as if it ’ s @ @

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


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--WATCH LIVE:  ABC News Town Hall With Joe Biden

Via Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) Whitehouse warns his Republican colleagues : `` Do n't think that when you @ @ @ @ @ 'because we can , ' that should the shoe be on the other foot , @ @ @ @ @ . ''

We live in hell wherein a third rate reality TV show host with the nuclear codes is fueled solely by ratings. So, please, turn every television/device that you own to Joe Biden's town hall tonight and deprive Donald Trump of the only thing he cares about.
— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) October 15, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Most Important Speech This Week: Sen. Whitehouse, 'Look For Power In The Shadows'

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his 30 minutes of allotted time during Tuesday 's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing not to ask questions of President Donald Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett—who repeatedly dodged the straightforward questions of other lawmakers—but to deliver a detailed presentation on the sprawling `` dark money operation '' fueling the right-wing takeover of the U.S. judicial system .
Displaying a number of visuals and flow charts , the senator from Rhode Island traced the dizzying array of special interests and advocacy groups—from the Koch network to the Federalist Society to the Judicial Crisis Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money into the effort to confirm Barrett and other far-right , corporate-friendly judges committed to rolling back reproductive rights , voting rights , climate regulations , and more .
After taking his Republican colleagues to task for orchestrating a `` political ram-job '' to confirm Barrett less than a month before the November election while doing nothing about the coronavirus crisis , Whitehouse began deconstructing the process by which GOP judicial nominees are chosen , promoted , and ultimately placed on the court by conservative lawmakers .
`` There is a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , and my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight , look for power in the shadows ... We have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection , '' Whitehouse said , referring to the Federalist Society .
`` Then in another lane we have , again , anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network ... and it 's doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees . ''
Whitehouse noted that the Judicial Crisis Network received two single $ 17 million dollar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
`` Somebody , perhaps the same person , spent $ 35 million to influence the United States Supreme Court , '' the senator said .
`` Tell me that 's good . ''
Whitehouse went on to highlight the major role of DonorsTrust , a secretive organization the senator described as a `` gigantic identity-scrubbing device for the right wing . ''
`` I was in a case , actually , as an amicus myself , the Consumer Financial Protection Board case , '' said Whitehouse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 amicus briefs filed , and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust ...
It does n't have a business .
It does n't have a business plan .
It does n't do anything .
It 's just an identity scrubber . ''
`` Something is not right around the court , '' Whitehouse said in closing .
`` And dark money has a lot to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot to do with it .
DonorsTrust and whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it . ''
`` Kudos to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse for shining a light on the dark money ( secret donors ) behind the right-wing campaign to remake the Supreme Court , '' economist Robert Reich tweeted in response to Whitehouse 's remarks , echoing the applause of other progressives .
`` Best argument I 've heard for ( 1 ) outlawing dark money , and ( 2 ) expanding the size of the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Whitehouse 's remarks , courtesy of the Center for Media and Democracy : Thank you , Chairman , Judge Barrett .
You can take a bit of a breather on your return to the committee , because what I want to do is go through with the people who are watching this now the conversation that you and I had when we spoke on the telephone .
You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that I made , and I intend to ask some questions in that area , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask questions if I haven ’ t laid the predicate , particularly for viewers who are watching this .
So , I guess the reason that I want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little TV box that you are looking at , the little screen that you are looking at , are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater , and if you only look at what ’ s going on in the puppet theater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole story .
You are not going to understand the real dynamic what is going on here , and you are certainly not going to understand forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react .
So first , let me say , why do I think outside forces are here pulling strings ?
Well , part of it is behavior .
We have colleagues here who supported you , this nominee , before there was a nominee .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political ram job that we have already complained of driving this process through at breakneck speed in the middle of a pandemic while the Senate is closed for safety reasons and while we are doing nothing about the COVID epidemic around us .
We have some very awkward 180s from colleagues .
Mr. Chairman , you figure in this .
Our leader said back when it was Garland versus Gorsuch , that of course , of course , the American people should have a say in the Court ’ s direction .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell .
That ’ s long gone .
Senator Grassley said the American people shouldn ’ t be denied a voice .
That ’ s long gone .
Senator Cruz said you don ’ t do this in an election year .
That ’ s long gone .
And our chairman made his famous hold-the-tape promise if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump ’ s term we ’ ll wait until the next election .
That ’ s gone too .
So there is a lot of hard-to-explain hypocrisy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight , look for power in the shadows .
Now people say well , what does all this matter ?
This is a political parlor game ; it ’ s no big deal .
Well , there are some pretty high stakes here that we have been talking about here on our side , and I will tell you three of them right here .
Roe v. Wade , Obergefell , and the Obamacare cases .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the platform of my colleagues on the other side of this aisle say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe , Obergefell , and the Obamacare cases .
So if you have a family member with an interest in some autonomy over their body under Roe v. Wade , the ability to have a marriage , have friends marry , have a niece or a daughter or a son marry someone of their same-sex they have – you ’ ve got a stake , and if you are one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who depend on the affordable care act you ’ ve got a stake .
It ’ s not just the platform .
Over and over again , let ’ s start by talking about the Affordable Care Act .
Here is the president talking about this litigation that we are gearing up this nominee for for November 10 .
In this litigation , he said we want to terminate healthcare under Obamacare .
That is the president ’ s statement , so when we react to that , don ’ t act as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is what President Trump said .
This is what your party platform says : reverse the Obamacare cases .
Senator after senator , including many in this committee , filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care Act should be thrown out by courts .
Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want nominees to do ?
One quick stop on NFIB v. Sebelius , because a lot of this has to do with money .
This is an interesting comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until it filed the NFIB v. Sebelius case , had its biggest donation ever of $ 21,000 .
In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act , ten wealthy donors gave $ 10 million .
Somebody deserves a thank you .
So let ’ s go on to Roe v. Wade .
Same thing .
Same thing .
The president has said that reversing Roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he is putting pro-life justices on the Court .
Why would we not take him at his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will reverse Roe .
Why would we not comment on that and take you at your word ?
Senators here , including Senator Hawley , have said I will vote only for nominees who acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided , and their pledge to vote for this nominee .
Do the math .
That ’ s a really simple equation to run .
The Republican brief in June Medical said Roe should be overruled , so don ’ t act surprised when we ask questions about whether that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And finally , out in the ad world that you have spared yourself wisely Judge Barrett , the Susan B Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set , you are set to give our pro-life country a Court that it deserves .
Here is the ad with the voiceover .
She said – she said .
And then Roe , Obamacare cases and Obergefell , gay marriages .
National Organization for Marriage , the big group that opposes same-sex marriage , says in this proceeding , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican platform says it wants to reverse Obergefell .
And the Republican brief filed in the case said same-sex relationships don ’ t fall within any constitutional protection , so when we say the stakes are high on this , it ’ s because you have said the stakes are high on this .
You have said that is what you want to do .
So how are people going about doing it ?
What is the scheme here ?
Let me start with this one .
In all cases , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of activity .
One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society .
It is managed by a guy – was managed by – a guy named Leonard Leo , and it has taken over the selection of judicial nominees .
How do we know that to be the case ?
Because Trump has said so over and over again .
His White House counsel said so .
So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection run by this guy Leonard Leo .
Then in another lane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something called the Judicial Crisis Network , which is run by Carrie Severino , and it is doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees .
It got $ 17 million – a single $ 17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest .
It got another single $ 17 million donation to support Kavanaugh .
Somebody , perhaps the same person , spent $ 35 million to influence the United States Supreme Court .
Tell me that ’ s good .
And then over here you have a whole array of legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which have a different role .
They bring cases to the Court .
They don ’ t wind their way to the Court , your Honor , they get shoved to the Court to by these legal groups , many of which ask to lose below so they can get quickly to the Court to get their business done there .
And then they turn up in a chorus , an orchestrated chorus of amici .
Now I ’ ve had a chance to have a look at this .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an amicus myself , the Consumer Financial Protection Board case .
And in that case there were 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 amicus briefs filed , and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust .
DonorsTrust is a gigantic identity-scrubbing device for the right wing so that it says DonorsTrust is the donor without whoever the real donor is .
It doesn ’ t have a business .
It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It doesn ’ t do anything .
It ’ s just an identity scrubber .
And this group here , the Bradley Foundation , funded eight out of the 11 briefs .
That seems weird to me when you have amicus briefs coming in little flotillas that are funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court .
So I actually attached this to my brief as an appendix .
Center for Media and Democracy saw it , and they did better work .
They went on to say which foundations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
Here is the Bradley Foundation for $ 5.6 million to those groups .
Here ’ s DonorsTrust , $ 23 million to those brief writing groups .
The grand total across all the donor groups was $ 68 million to the groups that were filing amicus briefs , pretending that they were different groups .
And it ’ s not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case .
You might say well that was just a one-off .
Here ’ s Janus , the anti-labor case that had a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and through Knox , and through other decisions .
And SourceWatch and ProPublica did some work about this .
Here ’ s DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund .
And here ’ s the Bradley Foundation .
And they totaled giving $ 45 million to the 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 groups that filed amicus briefs , pretending to be different groups , and both of the lawyer groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus .
This is happening over and over and over again , and it goes beyond just the briefs .
It goes beyond just the amicus presentations .
The Federalist Society – remember this group that is acting as the conduit and that Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection ?
They ’ re getting money from the same foundations , from DonorsTrust , $ 16.7 million and the Bradley Foundation , $ 1.37 million .
From the same group of foundations total , $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at these , and you can start to tie them together .
The legal groups , all the same funders over and over again , bringing the cases and providing us orchestrated , orchestrated chorus of amici .
Then the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here .
The Washington Post wrote a big expose about this , and that made Leonard Leo a little hot , a little bit like a burned agent .
So he had to jump out .
And he went off to go do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped in to take over the selection process in this case for Judge Barrett ?
Carrie Severino made the hop .
So once again , ties right in together .
So , Center for Media and Democracy did a little bit more research .
Here ’ s a Bradley Foundation memo that they ’ ve published .
The Bradley Foundation is reviewing a grant application asking for money for this orchestrated amicus process , and what do they say in the staff recommendation ?
It is important to orchestrate – their word , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amicus efforts before the Court .
They also note that Bradley has done previous philanthropic investments in the actual underlying legal actions .
So Bradley is funding – what do they call – philanthropically investing in , the underlying legal action and then giving money to groups to show up in the orchestrated chorus of amici .
That can ’ t be good .
And it goes on , because they also found this email .
This email comes from an individual at the Bradley Foundation , and it asks our friend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the selection process , is there a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) nonprofit to which Bradley could direct any support of the two Supreme Court amicus projects other than DonorsTrust ?
I don ’ t know why they wanted to avoid the reliable identity-scrubber DonorsTrust , but for some reason they did .
So Leonard Leo writes back on Federalist Society address – so don ’ t tell me that it isn ’ t Federal Society business – on Federalist Society , on his address , he writes back , yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project , which could take and allocate the money .
And guess who works for the Judicial Education Project ?
Carrie Severino , who also helped select this nominee , running the Trump Federalist Society selection process .
So the connections abound .
In the Washington Post article , they point out that the Judicial Crisis Network ’ s office is on the same hallway in the same building as the Federalist Society , and when they sent their reporter to talk to somebody at the Judicial Crisis Network , somebody from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
This more and more looks like it ’ s not three schemes , but it ’ s one scheme with the same funders selecting judges , funding campaigns for the judges , and then showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do .
On the Judicial Crisis Network , you ’ ve got the Leonard Leo connection , obviously .
She hopped in to take over for him with the Federalist Society .
You ’ ve got the campaigns that I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 million contributions .
That ’ s a big check to write , $ 17 million , to campaign for Supreme Court nominees .
No idea who that is or what they got for it .
You ’ ve got briefs that she wrote .
The Republican senators filed briefs in that NFIB case signed by Ms. Severino .
The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA .
Don ’ t say the ACA is not an issue here .
And by the way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorneys general .
It funds RAGA , the Republican Attorneys General Association , and it funds individual Republican attorneys general .
And guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care Act case ?
Republican attorneys general .
Trump joined them because he didn ’ t want to defend , so he ’ s in with the Republican attorneys general .
But here ’ s the Judicial Crisis Network campaigning for Supreme Court nominees , writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act , supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this nominee .
Here is the page off the brief .
Here is where they are .
Mitch McConnell , and on through the list , Senator Collins , Senator Cornyn , Senator Hoeven , Senator — who ’ s still here ?
Marco Rubio .
It ’ s a huge assortment of Republican senators who Carrie Severino wrote a brief for against the Affordable Care Act .
So this is a , to me , pretty big deal .
I ’ ve never seen this around any court that I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s this much dark money and this much influence being used .
Here ’ s how the Washington Post summed it up .
This is “ a conservative activist behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation ’ s courts , ” and it ’ s a $ 250 million dark money operation .
$ 250 million is a lot of money to spend if you ’ re not getting anything for it .
So that raises the question , what are they getting for it ?
Well , I showed the slide earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Obergefell and on Roe v. Wade , that ’ s where they lost .
But with another judge , that could change .
That ’ s where the contest is .
That ’ s where The Republican Party platform tells us to look at how they want judges to rule , to reverse Roe , to reverse the Obamacare cases , and to reverse Obergefell and take away gay marriage .
That is their stated objective and plan .
Why not take them at their word ?
But there is another piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s ahead of us , but what ’ s behind us .
What ’ s behind us is now 80 cases , Mr. Chairman , 80 cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics .
One , they were decided five to four by a bare majority .
Two , the five-to-four majority was partisan in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five .
I refer to that group as the “ Roberts Five.
” It changes a little bit as–with Justice Scalia ’ s death , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a steady “ Roberts Five ” that has delivered now 80 of these decisions .
And the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases , and in every single case , that donor interest won .
It was an 80 to zero , 5 to 4 partisan rout , ransacking .
And it ’ s important to look at where those cases went , because they ’ re not about big , public issues like getting rid of the Affordable Care Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same sex marriage .
They ’ re about power .
And if you look at those 80 decisions , they fall into four categories over and over and over again .
One , unlimited and dark money and politics .
Citizens United is the famous one , but it ’ s continued since with McCutcheon and we ’ ve got one coming up now .
Always the five for unlimited money in politics .
Never protecting against money dark money in politics , despite the fact that they said it was going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you allow unlimited dark money in politics ?
A very small group .
The ones who have unlimited money to spend and a motive to spend it in politics .
They win .
Everybody else loses .
And if you ’ re looking at who might be behind this , let ’ s talk about people with unlimited money to spend and a motive to do it .
We ’ ll see how that goes .
Next , knock the civil jury down .
Whittle it down to a nub .
The civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill of Rights , in our darn Declaration of Independence , but it ’ s annoying to big corporate powers because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through Congress .
You can go and tell the president you put money into to elect what to do .
He will put your stooges at the EPA .
It ’ s all great until you get to the civil jury , because they have an obligation , as you know , Judge Barrett , they have an obligation under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrespective of their size .
You can ’ t bribe them .
You ’ re not allowed to .
It ’ s a crime to tamper with the jury .
It ’ s standard practice to tamper with Congress .
And they make decisions based on the law .
If you ’ re used to being the boss and swaggering your way around the political side , you don ’ t want to be answerable before a jury .
And so one after another , these 80 5-to-4 decisions have knocked down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a great American institution .
Third – first was unlimited dark money , second was demean and diminish the civil jury – third is weaken regulatory agencies .
A lot of this money , I ’ m convinced , is polluter money .
The Koch Industries is a polluter , the fossil fuel industry is a polluter .
Who else would be putting buckets of money into this and wanting to hide who they are behind DonorsTrust or other schemes ?
And what are – if you ’ re a big polluter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want weak regulatory agencies .
You want ones that you can box up and run over to Congress and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress .
Over and over and over again , these decisions are targeted at regulatory agencies to weaken their independence and weaken their strength .
And if you ’ re a big polluter , a weak regulatory agency is your idea of a good day .
And the last thing is in politics .
In voting .
Why on earth the Court made the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appellate courts are ordinarily supposed to make , as I understand it Judge Barrett – the factual decision that nobody needed to worry about minority voters in preclearance states being discriminated against , or that legislators would try to knock back their ability to vote .
These five made that finding in Shelby County against bipartisan legislation from both houses of Congress , hugely passed , on no factual record .
They just decided that that was a problem that was over , on no record with no basis , because it got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw .
What followed ?
State after state after state passed voter suppression laws .
One so badly targeting African Americans that two courts said it was surgically , surgically tailored to get after minority voters .
And gerrymandering , the other great control .
Bulk gerrymandering where you go into a state , like the Red Map project did in Ohio and Pennsylvania , and you pack Democrats so tightly into a few districts that all the others become Republican majority districts .
And in those states , you send a delegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republican members , like 13 to 5 , as I recall , in a state where the five , the party of the five actually won the popular vote .
You ’ ve sent a delegation to Congress that is out of step with the popular vote of that state and court after court figured out how to solve that , and the Supreme Court said nope .
5 to 4 again .
Nope .
We ’ re not going to take an interest in that question .
In all these areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for big special interests , and people who want to fund campaigns , and people who want to get their way through politics without actually showing up , doing it behind DonorsTrust and other groups , doing it through these schemes over and over and over again , you see the same thing .
80 decisions , Judge Barrett .
80 decisions .
An 80-to-0 sweep .
I don ’ t think you ’ ve tried cases , but some cases , the issue is bias and discrimination .
And if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial lawyer – Lindsey Graham is a hell of a good trial lawyer .
If he wanted to make a bias case – Dick Durbin is a hell of a good trial lawyer .
If they wanted to make a bias case and they could show an 80-to-0 pattern , A , that ’ s admissible , and B , I ’ d love to make that argument to the jury .
I ’ d be really hard pressed to be the lawyer saying no , 80-to-0 is just a bunch of flukes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this way .
So something is not right around the Court .
And dark money has a lot to do with it .
Special interests have a lot to do with it .
DonorsTrust and whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it , and the Bradley Foundation orchestrating its amici over at the Court has a lot to do with it .
So I thank you , Judge Barrett , for listening to me now a second time and I think this gives you a chance for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting conversation tomorrow .
And I thank my colleagues for hearing me out .

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his 30 minutes of allotted time during Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing not to ask questions of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett—who repeatedly dodged the straightforward questions of other lawmakers—but to deliver a detailed presentation on the sprawling "dark money operation" fueling the right-wing takeover of the U.S. judicial system.
Displaying a number of visuals and flow charts, the senator from Rhode Island traced the dizzying array of special interests and advocacy groups—from the Koch network to the Federalist Society to the Judicial Crisis Network to the Pacific Legal Foundation—coordinating and pouring money into the effort to confirm Barrett and other far-right, corporate-friendly judges committed to rolling back reproductive rights, voting rights, climate regulations, and more.
After taking his Republican colleagues to task for orchestrating a "political ram-job" to confirm Barrett less than a month before the November election while doing nothing about the coronavirus crisis, Whitehouse began deconstructing the process by which GOP judicial nominees are chosen, promoted, and ultimately placed on the court by conservative lawmakers.
"There is a lot of hard-to-explain hypocrisy and rush taking place right now, and my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows... We have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection," Whitehouse said, referring to the Federalist Society. "Then in another lane we have, again, anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network... and it's doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees."
Whitehouse noted that the Judicial Crisis Network received two single $17 million dollar donations to back Trump Supreme Court picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
"Somebody, perhaps the same person, spent $35 million to influence the United States Supreme Court," the senator said. "Tell me that's good."
Whitehouse went on to highlight the major role of DonorsTrust, a secretive organization the senator described as a "gigantic identity-scrubbing device for the right wing."
"I was in a case, actually, as an amicus myself, the Consumer Financial Protection Board case," said Whitehouse. "And in that case there were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 amicus briefs filed, and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust... It doesn't have a business. It doesn't have a business plan. It doesn't do anything. It's just an identity scrubber."
"Something is not right around the court," Whitehouse said in closing. "And dark money has a lot to do with it. Special interests have a lot to do with it. DonorsTrust and whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it."
"Kudos to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse for shining a light on the dark money (secret donors) behind the right-wing campaign to remake the Supreme Court," economist Robert Reich tweeted in response to Whitehouse's remarks, echoing the applause of other progressives. "Best argument I've heard for (1) outlawing dark money, and (2) expanding the size of the court."
Below is a full transcript of Whitehouse's remarks, courtesy of the Center for Media and Democracy:
Thank you, Chairman, Judge Barrett. You can take a bit of a breather on your return to the committee, because what I want to do is go through with the people who are watching this now the conversation that you and I had when we spoke on the telephone. You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that I made, and I intend to ask some questions in that area, but it doesn’t make sense to ask questions if I haven’t laid the predicate, particularly for viewers who are watching this.
So, I guess the reason that I want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little TV box that you are looking at, the little screen that you are looking at, are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater, and if you only look at what’s going on in the puppet theater you’re not going to understand the whole story. You are not going to understand the real dynamic what is going on here, and you are certainly not going to understand forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react.
So first, let me say, why do I think outside forces are here pulling strings? Well, part of it is behavior. We have colleagues here who supported you, this nominee, before there was a nominee. That’s a little unusual.
We have the political ram job that we have already complained of driving this process through at breakneck speed in the middle of a pandemic while the Senate is closed for safety reasons and while we are doing nothing about the COVID epidemic around us. We have some very awkward 180s from colleagues. Mr. Chairman, you figure in this. Our leader said back when it was Garland versus Gorsuch, that of course, of course, the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction. Of course, of course, said Mitch McConnell. That’s long gone.
Senator Grassley said the American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. That’s long gone. Senator Cruz said you don’t do this in an election year. That’s long gone. And our chairman made his famous hold-the-tape promise if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term we’ll wait until the next election. That’s gone too.
So there is a lot of hard-to-explain hypocrisy and rush taking place right now, and my experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows. Now people say well, what does all this matter? This is a political parlor game; it’s no big deal. Well, there are some pretty high stakes here that we have been talking about here on our side, and I will tell you three of them right here.
Roe v. Wade, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases. Here’s the GOP platform, the Republican platform, the platform of my colleagues on the other side of this aisle say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases. So if you have a family member with an interest in some autonomy over their body under Roe v. Wade, the ability to have a marriage, have friends marry, have a niece or a daughter or a son marry someone of their same-sex they have – you’ve got a stake, and if you are one of the millions and millions of Americans who depend on the affordable care act you’ve got a stake.
It’s not just the platform. Over and over again, let’s start by talking about the Affordable Care Act. Here is the president talking about this litigation that we are gearing up this nominee for for November 10. In this litigation, he said we want to terminate healthcare under Obamacare.
That is the president’s statement, so when we react to that, don’t act as if we are making this stuff up. This is what President Trump said. This is what your party platform says: reverse the Obamacare cases. Senator after senator, including many in this committee, filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care Act should be thrown out by courts. Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want nominees to do?
One quick stop on NFIB v. Sebelius, because a lot of this has to do with money. This is an interesting comparison. National Federation of Independent Businesses, until it filed the NFIB v. Sebelius case, had its biggest donation ever of $21,000. In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act, ten wealthy donors gave $10 million. Somebody deserves a thank you.
So let’s go on to Roe v. Wade. Same thing. Same thing. The president has said that reversing Roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he is putting pro-life justices on the Court. Why would we not take him at his word? The Republican Party platform says it will reverse Roe. Why would we not comment on that and take you at your word?
Senators here, including Senator Hawley, have said I will vote only for nominees who acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided, and their pledge to vote for this nominee. Do the math. That’s a really simple equation to run.
The Republican brief in June Medical said Roe should be overruled, so don’t act surprised when we ask questions about whether that’s what you are up to here. And finally, out in the ad world that you have spared yourself wisely Judge Barrett, the Susan B Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set, you are set to give our pro-life country a Court that it deserves.
Here is the ad with the voiceover. She said – she said. And then Roe, Obamacare cases and Obergefell, gay marriages. National Organization for Marriage, the big group that opposes same-sex marriage, says in this proceeding, all our issues are at stake. The Republican platform says it wants to reverse Obergefell. And the Republican brief filed in the case said same-sex relationships don’t fall within any constitutional protection, so when we say the stakes are high on this, it’s because you have said the stakes are high on this. You have said that is what you want to do. So how are people going about doing it? What is the scheme here?
Let me start with this one. In all cases, there’s big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity. One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It is managed by a guy – was managed by – a guy named Leonard Leo, and it has taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know that to be the case? Because Trump has said so over and over again. His White House counsel said so. So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection run by this guy Leonard Leo.
Then in another lane, we have again anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino, and it is doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees. It got $17 million – a single $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest. It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh. Somebody, perhaps the same person, spent $35 million to influence the United States Supreme Court. Tell me that’s good.
And then over here you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role. They bring cases to the Court. They don’t wind their way to the Court, your Honor, they get shoved to the Court to by these legal groups, many of which ask to lose below so they can get quickly to the Court to get their business done there. And then they turn up in a chorus, an orchestrated chorus of amici.
Now I’ve had a chance to have a look at this. And I was in a case, actually, as an amicus myself, the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. And in that case there were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 amicus briefs filed, and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust.
DonorsTrust is a gigantic identity-scrubbing device for the right wing so that it says DonorsTrust is the donor without whoever the real donor is. It doesn’t have a business. It doesn’t have a business plan. It doesn’t do anything. It’s just an identity scrubber.
And this group here, the Bradley Foundation, funded eight out of the 11 briefs. That seems weird to me when you have amicus briefs coming in little flotillas that are funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court.
So I actually attached this to my brief as an appendix. Center for Media and Democracy saw it, and they did better work. They went on to say which foundations funded the brief writers in that CFPB case. Here is the Bradley Foundation for $5.6 million to those groups. Here’s DonorsTrust, $23 million to those brief writing groups. The grand total across all the donor groups was $68 million to the groups that were filing amicus briefs, pretending that they were different groups.
And it’s not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. You might say well that was just a one-off. Here’s Janus, the anti-labor case that had a long trail through the Court, through Friedrichs, and through Knox, and through other decisions.
And SourceWatch and ProPublica did some work about this. Here’s DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. And here’s the Bradley Foundation. And they totaled giving $45 million to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 groups that filed amicus briefs, pretending to be different groups, and both of the lawyer groups in the case, funded by DonorsTrust, funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus.
This is happening over and over and over again, and it goes beyond just the briefs. It goes beyond just the amicus presentations. The Federalist Society – remember this group that is acting as the conduit and that Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection? They’re getting money from the same foundations, from DonorsTrust, $16.7 million and the Bradley Foundation, $1.37 million. From the same group of foundations total, $33 million.
So you can start to look at these, and you can start to tie them together. The legal groups, all the same funders over and over again, bringing the cases and providing us orchestrated, orchestrated chorus of amici. Then the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here. The Washington Post wrote a big expose about this, and that made Leonard Leo a little hot, a little bit like a burned agent. So he had to jump out. And he went off to go do anonymously-funded voter suppression work. Guess who jumped in to take over the selection process in this case for Judge Barrett? Carrie Severino made the hop. So once again, ties right in together.
So, Center for Media and Democracy did a little bit more research. Here’s a Bradley Foundation memo that they’ve published. The Bradley Foundation is reviewing a grant application asking for money for this orchestrated amicus process, and what do they say in the staff recommendation? It is important to orchestrate – their word, not mine – important to orchestrate high-caliber amicus efforts before the Court.
They also note that Bradley has done previous philanthropic investments in the actual underlying legal actions. So Bradley is funding – what do they call – philanthropically investing in, the underlying legal action and then giving money to groups to show up in the orchestrated chorus of amici. That can’t be good.
And it goes on, because they also found this email. This email comes from an individual at the Bradley Foundation, and it asks our friend, Leonard Leo, who used to run the selection process, is there a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to which Bradley could direct any support of the two Supreme Court amicus projects other than DonorsTrust? I don’t know why they wanted to avoid the reliable identity-scrubber DonorsTrust, but for some reason they did.
So Leonard Leo writes back on Federalist Society address – so don’t tell me that it isn’t Federal Society business – on Federalist Society, on his address, he writes back, yes, send it to the Judicial Education Project, which could take and allocate the money. And guess who works for the Judicial Education Project? Carrie Severino, who also helped select this nominee, running the Trump Federalist Society selection process.
So the connections abound. In the Washington Post article, they point out that the Judicial Crisis Network’s office is on the same hallway in the same building as the Federalist Society, and when they sent their reporter to talk to somebody at the Judicial Crisis Network, somebody from the Federalist Society came down to let them up.
This more and more looks like it’s not three schemes, but it’s one scheme with the same funders selecting judges, funding campaigns for the judges, and then showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do.
On the Judicial Crisis Network, you’ve got the Leonard Leo connection, obviously. She hopped in to take over for him with the Federalist Society. You’ve got the campaigns that I’ve talked about, where they take $17 million contributions. That’s a big check to write, $17 million, to campaign for Supreme Court nominees. No idea who that is or what they got for it. You’ve got briefs that she wrote. The Republican senators filed briefs in that NFIB case signed by Ms. Severino.
The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA. Don’t say the ACA is not an issue here. And by the way, the Judicial Crisis Network funds the Republican attorneys general. It funds RAGA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, and it funds individual Republican attorneys general. And guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care Act case? Republican attorneys general.
Trump joined them because he didn’t want to defend, so he’s in with the Republican attorneys general. But here’s the Judicial Crisis Network campaigning for Supreme Court nominees, writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act, supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case, and leading the selection process for this nominee.
Here is the page off the brief. Here is where they are. Mitch McConnell, and on through the list, Senator Collins, Senator Cornyn, Senator Hoeven, Senator — who’s still here? Marco Rubio. It’s a huge assortment of Republican senators who Carrie Severino wrote a brief for against the Affordable Care Act. So this is a, to me, pretty big deal. I’ve never seen this around any court that I’ve ever been involved with, where there’s this much dark money and this much influence being used.
Here’s how the Washington Post summed it up. This is “a conservative activist behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s courts,” and it’s a $250 million dark money operation. $250 million is a lot of money to spend if you’re not getting anything for it. So that raises the question, what are they getting for it?
Well, I showed the slide earlier on the Affordable Care Act. And on Obergefell and on Roe v. Wade, that’s where they lost. But with another judge, that could change. That’s where the contest is. That’s where The Republican Party platform tells us to look at how they want judges to rule, to reverse Roe, to reverse the Obamacare cases, and to reverse Obergefell and take away gay marriage. That is their stated objective and plan. Why not take them at their word?
But there is another piece of it, and that is not what’s ahead of us, but what’s behind us. What’s behind us is now 80 cases, Mr. Chairman, 80 cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics. One, they were decided five to four by a bare majority. Two, the five-to-four majority was partisan in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five. I refer to that group as the “Roberts Five.”
It changes a little bit as–with Justice Scalia’s death, for instance – but there’s been a steady “Roberts Five” that has delivered now 80 of these decisions. And the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases, and in every single case, that donor interest won. It was an 80 to zero, 5 to 4 partisan rout, ransacking.
And it’s important to look at where those cases went, because they’re not about big, public issues like getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, undoing Roe v. Wade, and undoing same sex marriage. They’re about power. And if you look at those 80 decisions, they fall into four categories over and over and over again. One, unlimited and dark money and politics. Citizens United is the famous one, but it’s continued since with McCutcheon and we’ve got one coming up now. Always the five for unlimited money in politics. Never protecting against money dark money in politics, despite the fact that they said it was going to be transparent.
And who wins when you allow unlimited dark money in politics? A very small group. The ones who have unlimited money to spend and a motive to spend it in politics. They win. Everybody else loses. And if you’re looking at who might be behind this, let’s talk about people with unlimited money to spend and a motive to do it. We’ll see how that goes.
Next, knock the civil jury down. Whittle it down to a nub. The civil jury was in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in our darn Declaration of Independence, but it’s annoying to big corporate powers because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through Congress. You can go and tell the president you put money into to elect what to do. He will put your stooges at the EPA. It’s all great until you get to the civil jury, because they have an obligation, as you know, Judge Barrett, they have an obligation under the law to be fair to both parties irrespective of their size.
You can’t bribe them. You’re not allowed to. It’s a crime to tamper with the jury. It’s standard practice to tamper with Congress. And they make decisions based on the law. If you’re used to being the boss and swaggering your way around the political side, you don’t want to be answerable before a jury. And so one after another, these 80 5-to-4 decisions have knocked down, whittled away at, the civil jury, a great American institution.
Third – first was unlimited dark money, second was demean and diminish the civil jury – third is weaken regulatory agencies. A lot of this money, I’m convinced, is polluter money. The Koch Industries is a polluter, the fossil fuel industry is a polluter. Who else would be putting buckets of money into this and wanting to hide who they are behind DonorsTrust or other schemes?
And what are – if you’re a big polluter – what do you want? You want weak regulatory agencies. You want ones that you can box up and run over to Congress and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress. Over and over and over again, these decisions are targeted at regulatory agencies to weaken their independence and weaken their strength. And if you’re a big polluter, a weak regulatory agency is your idea of a good day.
And the last thing is in politics. In voting. Why on earth the Court made the decision, a factual decision – not something appellate courts are ordinarily supposed to make, as I understand it Judge Barrett – the factual decision that nobody needed to worry about minority voters in preclearance states being discriminated against, or that legislators would try to knock back their ability to vote. These five made that finding in Shelby County against bipartisan legislation from both houses of Congress, hugely passed, on no factual record.
They just decided that that was a problem that was over, on no record with no basis, because it got them to the result that we then saw. What followed? State after state after state passed voter suppression laws. One so badly targeting African Americans that two courts said it was surgically, surgically tailored to get after minority voters.
And gerrymandering, the other great control. Bulk gerrymandering where you go into a state, like the Red Map project did in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and you pack Democrats so tightly into a few districts that all the others become Republican majority districts. And in those states, you send a delegation to Congress that has a huge majority of Republican members, like 13 to 5, as I recall, in a state where the five, the party of the five actually won the popular vote.
You’ve sent a delegation to Congress that is out of step with the popular vote of that state and court after court figured out how to solve that, and the Supreme Court said nope. 5 to 4 again. Nope. We’re not going to take an interest in that question. In all these areas where it’s about political power for big special interests, and people who want to fund campaigns, and people who want to get their way through politics without actually showing up, doing it behind DonorsTrust and other groups, doing it through these schemes over and over and over again, you see the same thing.
80 decisions, Judge Barrett. 80 decisions. An 80-to-0 sweep. I don’t think you’ve tried cases, but some cases, the issue is bias and discrimination. And if you’re making a bias case as a trial lawyer – Lindsey Graham is a hell of a good trial lawyer. If he wanted to make a bias case – Dick Durbin is a hell of a good trial lawyer. If they wanted to make a bias case and they could show an 80-to-0 pattern, A, that’s admissible, and B, I’d love to make that argument to the jury. I’d be really hard pressed to be the lawyer saying no, 80-to-0 is just a bunch of flukes.
All five-four. all partisan, all this way. So something is not right around the Court. And dark money has a lot to do with it. Special interests have a lot to do with it. DonorsTrust and whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it, and the Bradley Foundation orchestrating its amici over at the Court has a lot to do with it.
So I thank you, Judge Barrett, for listening to me now a second time and I think this gives you a chance for you and I to tee up an interesting conversation tomorrow. And I thank my colleagues for hearing me out.


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Democrats Must Expand And Reform The Federal Courts As First Order Of Business

Democrats must expand and reform the courts as one of their first orders of business if they win back the Senate and White House .
This has to be non-negotiable .
I do n't write things like that very often but this has to be an imperative and the Beltway media needs to quit making it sound like it 's some sort of norm-shattering mortal legislative sin .
Especially given how many norm-shattering mortal legislative acts have been committed by the self-anointed Grim Reaper Mitch McConnell himself .
In the words of Sheldon Whitehouse above to Republicans : `` Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of 'because we can , ' that should the shoe be on the other foot , you will have any credibility . ''
Lawyer , all around smart person , and great analyst Elie Mystal laid out the case in The Nation : It ’ s essential to remember that the reason Republicans have long sought to control the courts is that they serve as an antidemocratic check on the liberal agenda—and not just for an election cycle but for a whole generation .
There ’ s not a single Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6-3 by conservative justices can not frustrate or block .
A Republican-appointed court will smack down voting rights legislation , gun reform legislation , climate change protections , LGBTQ rights , and abortion rights .
It will nullify the Affordable Care Act and block the merest whiff of a public option or Medicare for All .
Republicans wanted the court as a hedge against their waning popular support , and now they have it .
The obvious—and only—solution to this Republican power grab is for Democrats to expand the number of justices on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court expansion is often presented as retribution for Republicans messing with the court , first by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland , now by rushing the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s successor .
But there is a higher purpose for court expansion , one that goes beyond avenging Ginsburg and Garland .
Expanding the court now—through raw political power , if necessary—is the best way to reform and depoliticize the court for future generations .
Expanding the court is the way to save it .
It ’ s a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leg .
Media is trying to make this a negative issue , framing it in a dishonest right wing frame called `` packing the courts . ''
This is not that .
This is long-needed court reform , which would include forcing SCOTUS to adhere to the same Code of Ethics as lower appellate courts , opening up financial disclosures , expanding the circuit courts to better serve a far larger public and yes , expanding the Supreme Court by adding seats to it .
If this does n't happen , nothing else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this as a gotcha .
It 's well past time to take this political lever away and make the courts what they are supposed to be : an apolitical body interpreting the law and the constitution .

Democrats must expand and reform the courts as one of their first orders of business if they win back the Senate and White House. This has to be non-negotiable.
I don't write things like that very often but this has to be an imperative and the Beltway media needs to quit making it sound like it's some sort of norm-shattering mortal legislative sin.
Especially given how many norm-shattering mortal legislative acts have been committed by the self-anointed Grim Reaper Mitch McConnell himself. In the words of Sheldon Whitehouse above to Republicans: "Don't think that when you have established the rule of 'because we can,' that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility."
Lawyer, all around smart person, and great analyst Elie Mystal laid out the case in The Nation:
It’s essential to remember that the reason Republicans have long sought to control the courts is that they serve as an antidemocratic check on the liberal agenda—and not just for an election cycle but for a whole generation. There’s not a single Democratic law or program that a court controlled 6-3 by conservative justices cannot frustrate or block. A Republican-appointed court will smack down voting rights legislation, gun reform legislation, climate change protections, LGBTQ rights, and abortion rights. It will nullify the Affordable Care Act and block the merest whiff of a public option or Medicare for All. Republicans wanted the court as a hedge against their waning popular support, and now they have it. The obvious—and only—solution to this Republican power grab is for Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The argument for court expansion is often presented as retribution for Republicans messing with the court, first by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, now by rushing the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor. But there is a higher purpose for court expansion, one that goes beyond avenging Ginsburg and Garland. Expanding the court now—through raw political power, if necessary—is the best way to reform and depoliticize the court for future generations. Expanding the court is the way to save it. It’s a lot like breaking a bone to reset the leg.
Media is trying to make this a negative issue, framing it in a dishonest right wing frame called "packing the courts."
This is not that. This is long-needed court reform, which would include forcing SCOTUS to adhere to the same Code of Ethics as lower appellate courts, opening up financial disclosures, expanding the circuit courts to better serve a far larger public and yes, expanding the Supreme Court by adding seats to it.
If this doesn't happen, nothing else matters. Don't let media use this as a gotcha. It's well past time to take this political lever away and make the courts what they are supposed to be: an apolitical body interpreting the law and the constitution.


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Larry Kudlow Lied To Average Americans, But GOP Donors Were Warned About COVID In February

In case you do n't remember , we 've got video receipts above that in late February , Larry Kudlow said on CNBC that '' We 've got this contained , not air tight , but pretty close to air tight '' Turns out he was telling RICH REPUBLICAN DONORS something completely different .
New York Times today : ... Republican donors — got another taste of government uncertainty from Larry Kudlow , the director of the National Economic Council .
Hours after he had boasted on CNBC that the virus was contained in the United States and “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mr. Kudlow delivered a more ambiguous private message .
He asserted that the virus was “ contained in the U.S. , to date , but now we just don ’ t know , ” according to a document describing the sessions obtained by The New York Times .
... U.S. stocks were already spiraling because of a warning from a federal public health official that the virus was likely to spread , but traders spotted the immediate significance : The president ’ s aides appeared to be giving wealthy party donors an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when Mr. Trump was publicly insisting that the threat was nonexistent .
These mofos in the Trump White House had one stream of intel for their rich donors , and one stream of lies for the rest of us .
They ALL have to GO .

In case you don't remember, we've got video receipts above that in late February, Larry Kudlow said on CNBC that
"We've got this contained, not air tight, but pretty close to air tight"
about the Coronavirus.
Turns out he was telling RICH REPUBLICAN DONORS something completely different. New York Times today:
...Republican donors — got another taste of government uncertainty from Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council. Hours after he had boasted on CNBC that the virus was contained in the United States and “it’s pretty close to airtight,” Mr. Kudlow delivered a more ambiguous private message. He asserted that the virus was “contained in the U.S., to date, but now we just don’t know,” according to a document describing the sessions obtained by The New York Times. ...U.S. stocks were already spiraling because of a warning from a federal public health official that the virus was likely to spread, but traders spotted the immediate significance: The president’s aides appeared to be giving wealthy party donors an early warning of a potentially impactful contagion at a time when Mr. Trump was publicly insisting that the threat was nonexistent.
These mofos in the Trump White House had one stream of intel for their rich donors, and one stream of lies for the rest of us. They ALL have to GO.


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--After She Was Targeted For Kidnapping By Right Wing Militia Group, Trump Verbally Assaults Gretchen

After She Was Targeted For Kidnapping By Right Wing Militia Group, Trump Verbally Assaults Gretchen Whitmer

On FOX Business this morning , Trump attacked Michigan 's Governor just days after the FBI thwarted a kidnapping plot against her .
Donald Trump was on Fox Business , claiming Whitmer is `` a dictator . ''
He added , for color , that `` nobody likes her . ''
Trump was a rambling mess on Varney & Co. , and Stuart Varney looked visibly embarrassed for some moments of the broadcast .
Dictators throughout history have been overthrown by revolutions and uprisings .
What is Trump trying to pull ?
This morning Trump classified Gov .
Whitmer as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her people as much suffering as possible from the COVID19 and refuses to play with the lives of her constituents .
`` Open up the states , '' Trump said to Stuart Varney .
`` She wants to be a dictator in Michigan and the people ca n't stand her , '' Trump erroneously claimed .
Is Trump calling for another intervention by right-wing militia extremists to attack her ?
Trump sounds like he has feces lodged in his brain .
Trump also lied about her being disliked in Michigan .
Actually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his narcissistic reign .
Michigan people much prefer her handling of the virus and job performance than the so-called president .
Gov .
Whitmer has excellent approval rating in Michigan

On FOX Business this morning, Trump attacked Michigan's Governor just days after the FBI thwarted a kidnapping plot against her.
Donald Trump was on Fox Business, claiming Whitmer is "a dictator."
He added, for color, that "nobody likes her."
Trump was a rambling mess on Varney & Co., and Stuart Varney looked visibly embarrassed for some moments of the broadcast.
Dictators throughout history have been overthrown by revolutions and uprisings. What is Trump trying to pull?
This morning Trump classified Gov. Whitmer as a dictator because she wants to save her people as much suffering as possible from the COVID19 and refuses to play with the lives of her constituents.
"Open up the states," Trump said to Stuart Varney.
"She wants to be a dictator in Michigan and the people can't stand her," Trump erroneously claimed.
Is Trump calling for another intervention by right-wing militia extremists to attack her?
Trump sounds like he has feces lodged in his brain.
Trump also lied about her being disliked in Michigan. Actually, Donald hates her for pushing back against his narcissistic reign.
Michigan people much prefer her handling of the virus and job performance than the so-called president. Gov. Whitmer has excellent approval rating in Michigan


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Congressmen Call Out Lindsey Graham For Lawbreaking On Live Television

LINDSEY GRAHAM : I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett .
I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ today , but if you want to help me close the gap…I think the contest @ @ @ @ @ on sort of a national profile .
Several congressmen , including Eric Swalwell , were @ @ @ @ @ the Senate building , which , again , is against the law .
Senator Graham @ @ @ @ @ `` It shall be unlawful for ... Members of Congress , to solicit or receive @ @ @ @ @ other thing of value in connection with a Federal election , while in any room @ @ @ @ @ discharge of official duties . ''
18 USC 607 https : //t.co/raJEztmn66 UPDATE : The @ @ @ @ @ is fines and jail .
A person who violates this section shall be fined not @ @ @ @ @ imprisoned not more than 3 years , or both .

Lindsey Graham broke the law on live televison.
LINDSEY GRAHAM: I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett. I don’t know how much it affected fundraising today, but if you want to help me close the gap…I think the contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile.
Several congressmen, including Eric Swalwell, were appalled by his fundraising in the Senate building, which, again, is against the law.
This is a crime. @LindseyGrahamSC committed a crime in plain sight. https://t.co/ZySdwtzfXW — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) October 15, 2020
You have no idea how many ethics presentations we members sit through. This is not only TOTALLY illegal, but he knows it. This is brazen. https://t.co/HAX20bbOeq — Sean Casten (@SeanCasten) October 15, 2020
He thinks he’s on Fox. Hard to blame him in light of how the WH and his chamber have been run for the last 4 years. — Little Tiny Fish Michael (@Merv515) October 15, 2020
Senator Graham might need a lawyer: "It shall be unlawful for...Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties." 18 USC 607 https://t.co/raJEztmn66 — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) October 15, 2020
UPDATE: The penalty for breaking this law is fines and jail.


crooksandliars--2020-10-15--Republicans Won't Do Stimulus Because They're Deliberately Wrecking The Economy

Those of us old enough to have lived through several rounds of this understand what 's going on , but we have to put this in perspective for the younger readers : The Republicans do n't want a stimulus deal because they want to destroy the economy for an incoming Democratic administration .
We 've seen this over and over again .
Republicans do n't fix things , they only break them so the rest of us ca n't have nice things .
Greg Sargent at the Washington Post writes : A GOP strategist who has been consulting with Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief .
The thinking , the strategist said , is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint .
This comes from an anonymous source .
But it accords with what all our intuitions and our understanding of recent U.S. political history tell us .
Republicans almost certainly suspect Trump will lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope to put an incoming President Joe Biden in a fiscal straitjacket , saddling him with the terrible politics of a grueling recovery .
A big package now under a GOP president would make that harder to get away with .
That ’ s bad enough , but the evolving strategy here may be worse than this suggests .
The calculation is probably not just about avoiding the hypocrisy of spending big now and embracing austerity under a Democratic president .
It ’ s also likely that a big package now would put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early next year , when Biden ( should he win ) would take over .
This , too , is probably what Republicans want to avoid .
Indeed , as Eric Levitz points out , if Republicans can scuttle a robust package now , that would hand Biden a “ deepening recession.
” If Republicans hold the Senate and can block big stimulus measures at that point , Levitz continues , “ Biden ’ s presidency would be over before it starts.
” We have to win big , and we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep , fight every single race .

Those of us old enough to have lived through several rounds of this understand what's going on, but we have to put this in perspective for the younger readers: The Republicans don't want a stimulus deal because they want to destroy the economy for an incoming Democratic administration.
We've seen this over and over again. Republicans don't fix things, they only break them so the rest of us can't have nice things. Greg Sargent at the Washington Post writes:
The Bloomberg report offers this remarkable clue: A GOP strategist who has been consulting with Senate campaigns said Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief. The thinking, the strategist said, is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint. This comes from an anonymous source. But it accords with what all our intuitions and our understanding of recent U.S. political history tell us. Republicans almost certainly suspect Trump will lose even with a big stimulus and already hope to put an incoming President Joe Biden in a fiscal straitjacket, saddling him with the terrible politics of a grueling recovery. A big package now under a GOP president would make that harder to get away with. That’s bad enough, but the evolving strategy here may be worse than this suggests. The calculation is probably not just about avoiding the hypocrisy of spending big now and embracing austerity under a Democratic president. It’s also likely that a big package now would put the economy in a somewhat better position early next year, when Biden (should he win) would take over. This, too, is probably what Republicans want to avoid. Indeed, as Eric Levitz points out, if Republicans can scuttle a robust package now, that would hand Biden a “deepening recession.” If Republicans hold the Senate and can block big stimulus measures at that point, Levitz continues, “Biden’s presidency would be over before it starts.”
We have to win big, and we have to get the Senate, people. Dig deep, fight every single race.


crooksandliars--2020-10-16--McConnell Has Written Off Trump, So Now It's About Crippling The Future Biden Administration

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been taking a lot of fire for not just capitulating to Republicans and taking the poison-pilled scraps that they are purportedly offering in pandemic relief .
Those poison pills are the big tell here .
Mitch McConnell does n't want a deal and his refusal to pass anything without them are all the proof you need .
We 've speculated about this for a few weeks , the possibility that McConnell and his fellow Republicans have already given up on a Trump victory , and is purposefully wrecking the economy to complicate Joe Biden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving him a wrecked economy , and setting the stage for making it harder to demand the trillions that are going to be necessary to save the country .
That speculation has proven true , with Republican operatives admitting that 's the strategy .
As the Washington Post 's Greg Sargent points out , McConnell has offered up the bare minimum of assistance to give vulnerable Republicans something to point to , to tell voters that they 've done a thing and maybe , maybe save his majority .
But he 's got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not accept : absolving businesses from any liability for exposing their workers to infection with COVID-19 .
It 's seemed for months that McConnell did n't want a deal and now , well , a Republican operative confirms it , and says point blank it 's about fighting Biden next year .
A GOP strategist who has been consulting on Senate campaigns told Bloomberg that `` Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
A number of hard-core Republicans have been using the deficit peacock 's argument against saving the nation for months , to be clear .
This is n't new—it 's what Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Ron Johnson have been arguing since early summer .
But now it 's hardened into how they 'll deal with a Biden administration starting in January .
`` The thinking , the strategist said , is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all the more critical that Democrats retake the Senate .
It also makes it all the more critical that when they do , they eliminate the filibuster so they can pass the trillions of dollars in stimulus that is going to be necessary without allowing Republicans to stop it .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been taking a lot of fire for not just capitulating to Republicans and taking the poison-pilled scraps that they are purportedly offering in pandemic relief. Those poison pills are the big tell here. Mitch McConnell doesn't want a deal and his refusal to pass anything without them are all the proof you need.
We've speculated about this for a few weeks, the possibility that McConnell and his fellow Republicans have already given up on a Trump victory, and is purposefully wrecking the economy to complicate Joe Biden's first year in office. Both in giving him a wrecked economy, and setting the stage for making it harder to demand the trillions that are going to be necessary to save the country. That speculation has proven true, with Republican operatives admitting that's the strategy.
As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent points out, McConnell has offered up the bare minimum of assistance to give vulnerable Republicans something to point to, to tell voters that they've done a thing and maybe, maybe save his majority. But he's got his poison pill that he knows Democrats will not accept: absolving businesses from any liability for exposing their workers to infection with COVID-19. It's seemed for months that McConnell didn't want a deal and now, well, a Republican operative confirms it, and says point blank it's about fighting Biden next year.
A GOP strategist who has been consulting on Senate campaigns told Bloomberg that "Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief." A number of hard-core Republicans have been using the deficit peacock's argument against saving the nation for months, to be clear. This isn't new—it's what Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Ron Johnson have been arguing since early summer. But now it's hardened into how they'll deal with a Biden administration starting in January. "The thinking, the strategist said, is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint."
It makes it all the more critical that Democrats retake the Senate. It also makes it all the more critical that when they do, they eliminate the filibuster so they can pass the trillions of dollars in stimulus that is going to be necessary without allowing Republicans to stop it.
Republished with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-10-16--Sen. Cornyn: Barrett ‘Appreciates’ Diversity Because She Adopted Two Black Kids!

Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) pointed out that Barrett is part of a larger pattern of a lack of diversity in judges , particularly among Trump appointees .
He asked Randall Noel , of the American Bar Association ’ s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary , to speak to the importance of diversity on the federal bench : COONS : By nearly every metric , the Trump administration 's judicial nominees have been among the least diverse of any president in generations .
He ’ s made 50 nominations to the circuit courts , not one of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his over 200 nominations , about 85 % have been white and only 25 % have been women .
Yesterday , in response to a question from Senator Booker , Judge Barrett could not name a single book , study or law review that in any way addressed racial discrimination and its legacy in American law .
I ’ m not suggesting in any way that that ’ s disqualifying .
I ’ m simply saying that at a time when such books are best sellers , at a time when this central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for our legal system about how to address , recognize , combat the legacy of racial discrimination , I just wondered if you could briefly speak to the importance of diversity on the bench in the legal community more broadly ?
Her failure to respond to Senator Booker ’ s question yesterday with a specific example - I did not mean to imply suggested any bias .
Just it led me to question whether or not having broader diversity on our courts would bring into the decision-making role those who bring personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all who serve on the bench and in Congress should be more aware of this challenge facing our nation .

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) pointed out that Barrett is part of a larger pattern of a lack of diversity in judges, particularly among Trump appointees. He asked Randall Noel, of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, to speak to the importance of diversity on the federal bench:
COONS: By nearly every metric, the Trump administration's judicial nominees have been among the least diverse of any president in generations. He’s made 50 nominations to the circuit courts, not one of whom was Black. In fact, over his over 200 nominations, about 85% have been white and only 25% have been women.
Yesterday, in response to a question from Senator Booker, Judge Barrett could not name a single book, study or law review that in any way addressed racial discrimination and its legacy in American law. I’m not suggesting in any way that that’s disqualifying. I’m simply saying that at a time when such books are best sellers, at a time when this central, challenging issue for the United States and for our legal system about how to address, recognize, combat the legacy of racial discrimination, I just wondered if you could briefly speak to the importance of diversity on the bench in the legal community more broadly?
[…]
Her failure to respond to Senator Booker’s question yesterday with a specific example - I did not mean to imply suggested any bias. Just it led me to question whether or not having broader diversity on our courts would bring into the decision-making role those who bring personal insight and experience and whether or not all who serve on the bench and in Congress should be more aware of this challenge facing our nation.


The Fox-ic Candidate


crooksandliars--2020-10-16--Trump Claims He Doesn't Know If He Was Tested For Covid Before The First Debate

Donald Trump hemmed , and hawed , and refused to answer directly to NBC 's Savannah Guthrie opening Town Hall question : Did he know he was infected the day of the first presidential debate ?
This is crazy .
Not only did Trump say he had 'no idea ' if he was infectious when he debated Joe Biden , he would n't even tell the American people how many tests he took for COVID , when he first tested positive , and when he first tested negative .
And you wonder why the pandemic has continued to spread and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember what Chris Wallace told us : Trump arrived too late to be tested for coronavirus at the first presidential debate .
Having Trump partake in an honor system is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer not to eat the people he 's putting in his freezer .
Guthrie then began the questioning , which he repeatedly dodged .
GUTHRIE : Back to the debate , because the debate commission 's rules , it was the honor system , would be that you would come with a negative test .
You say you do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day of the debate ?
TRUMP : I had no problem .
Again , the doctors do it .
I do n't ask them .
I test all the time .
GUTHRIE : Did you take a test , though , on the day of the debate ?
TRUMP : If you ask the doctors , they 'll give you a perfect answer .
They take a test , I leave , I go about my business .
GUTHRIE : Did you take a test on the day of the debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TRUMP : I probably did .
I took a test before , the day before .
I was in great shape for the debate .
It was only after the debate , like a period of time after the debate , that I said , that 's interesting , and they took a test , and it tested positive .
GUTHRIE : Just to button it up , do you take a test every single day ?
TRUMP : No .
no .
But I take a lot of tests .
GUTHRIE : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a test the day of the debate ?
Possibility ?
You 're the f**king president .
You should know and you do know .
Did they arrive late to the first debate in hopes of infecting Joe Biden , too ?

Donald Trump hemmed, and hawed, and refused to answer directly to NBC's Savannah Guthrie opening Town Hall question: Did he know he was infected the day of the first presidential debate?
This is crazy. Not only did Trump say he had 'no idea' if he was infectious when he debated Joe Biden, he wouldn't even tell the American people how many tests he took for COVID, when he first tested positive, and when he first tested negative.
And you wonder why the pandemic has continued to spread and grow at an alarming rate?
And remember what Chris Wallace told us:Trump arrived too late to be tested for coronavirus at the first presidential debate.
Having Trump partake in an honor system is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer not to eat the people he's putting in his freezer.
Guthrie then began the questioning, which he repeatedly dodged.
GUTHRIE: Back to the debate, because the debate commission's rules, it was the honor system, would be that you would come with a negative test. You say you don't know if you got a test on the day of the debate? TRUMP: I had no problem. Again, the doctors do it. I don't ask them. I test all the time. GUTHRIE: Did you take a test, though, on the day of the debate? TRUMP: If you ask the doctors, they'll give you a perfect answer. They take a test, I leave, I go about my business. GUTHRIE: Did you take a test on the day of the debate, I guess is the bottom line. TRUMP: I probably did. I took a test before, the day before. I was in great shape for the debate. It was only after the debate, like a period of time after the debate, that I said, that's interesting, and they took a test, and it tested positive. GUTHRIE: Just to button it up, do you take a test every single day? TRUMP: No. no. But I take a lot of tests. GUTHRIE: And you don't know if you took a test the day of the debate? TRUMP: Possibly I did, possibly I didn't.
Possibility? You're the f**king president. You should know and you do know.
Liar.
Did they arrive late to the first debate in hopes of infecting Joe Biden, too?