theguardian--2020-02-13--Roger Stone sentencing explained: the controversy over Trump's intervention

A master of the dark arts of politics who cut his teeth on a Richard Nixon election campaign .
He regularly gives Nixon ’ s trademark salute and has a tattoo of the disgraced 37th president on his back .
A self-described “ dirty trickster ” , Stone , 67 , is also a longtime friend of Donald Trump .
In November he was convicted of seven crimes including obstruction of justice , lying to Congress and witness tampering .
He was the sixth former Trump aide to be convicted in cases arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 presidential election .
Why is he back in the news ?
He is awaiting sentencing .
On Monday , prosecutors recommended that Stone should serve seven to nine years in prison .
But at 1.48am on Tuesday , Trump raised an objection via Twitter : “ This is a horrible and very unfair situation .
The real crimes were on the other side , as nothing happens to them .
Can not allow this miscarriage of justice !
” So he was just letting off steam again ?
What ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against all protocol , the justice department overruled its career prosecutors and issued a memo saying their recommended sentence was too harsh .
All four prosecutors resigned from the case in protest .
There was an outcry from Democrats and legal experts who alleged that Trump had pressured the justice department , which is supposed to be independent , to do his pal a favour .
No .
And the White House spokesman , Hogan Gidley , told reporters : “ While he has the right to have a conversation with the attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department officials also denied that Trump had meddled .
But the president did tweet congratulations to the attorney general , William Barr , “ for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have been brought ” .
Where does Barr fit in ?
Despite having served in the George HW Bush administration , Barr is rivalling the treasury secretary , Steven Mnuchin , and the Republican senator Lindsey Graham as Trump ’ s ultimate yes man .
He memorably misled the public about the conclusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest he personally intervened on Stone ’ s behalf .
We told you so , say Democrats .
They warned that acquittal in the impeachment trial would make Trump more convinced than ever that , like a monarch , he is above the law .
Sure enough , he swiftly began a purge of officials who testified against him and now appears to be tweeting instructions to his attorney general .
What happens next ?
Democrats say Barr has agreed to testify to the House judiciary committee on 31 March which , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year-long standoff that began when the panel first demanded his testimony in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation ” .
He is likely to put up a pugnacious defence .
Democrats are also seeking an investigation by the justice department ’ s watchdog , the inspector general .
Republicans , as usual , are mostly mute .
He is due to be sentenced on 20 February by Judge Amy Berman Jackson , who may yet choose to ignore the revised memo and follow the prosecutors ’ original recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone during the trial , ticking him off over his use of social media .
But the other big question is : will Trump pardon Stone ?
What can be done to save the rule of law ?
Democrats have already deployed their ultimate constitutional weapon , impeachment , and will not reach for it again in an election year .
But they can try to make it an issue in the presidential race .
The presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted : “ Americans of all political stripes should be gravely concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give sweetheart deals to criminals who do their crimes on behalf of Donald Trump .
Yes Roger Stone , I ’ m looking at you.
” Ultimately , however , will anyone care ?
Critics say the erosion of democratic institutions continues and the integrity of the legal system is on the line .
Brian Schatz , a Democratic senator from Hawaii , wrote on Twitter : “ The DOJ itself appears to have been corrupted by a President who rewards his friends and punishes his enemies .
Media should treat this like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if this takes more than ten seconds to explain .
”

Who is Roger Stone?
A master of the dark arts of politics who cut his teeth on a Richard Nixon election campaign. He regularly gives Nixon’s trademark salute and has a tattoo of the disgraced 37th president on his back. A self-described “dirty trickster”, Stone, 67, is also a longtime friend of Donald Trump.
When was Stone convicted?
In November he was convicted of seven crimes including obstruction of justice, lying to Congress and witness tampering. He was the sixth former Trump aide to be convicted in cases arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Why is he back in the news?
He is awaiting sentencing. On Monday, prosecutors recommended that Stone should serve seven to nine years in prison. But at 1.48am on Tuesday, Trump raised an objection via Twitter: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
So he was just letting off steam again? What’s the big deal?
Later that day, against all protocol, the justice department overruled its career prosecutors and issued a memo saying their recommended sentence was too harsh. All four prosecutors resigned from the case in protest. There was an outcry from Democrats and legal experts who alleged that Trump had pressured the justice department, which is supposed to be independent, to do his pal a favour.
Did Trump admit it?
No. And the White House spokesman, Hogan Gidley, told reporters: “While he has the right to have a conversation with the attorney general, he did not.” Justice department officials also denied that Trump had meddled. But the president did tweet congratulations to the attorney general, William Barr, “for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have been brought”.
'It's a disgrace': Trump unhappy with Roger Stone prosecution – video
Where does Barr fit in?
Despite having served in the George HW Bush administration, Barr is rivalling the treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, and the Republican senator Lindsey Graham as Trump’s ultimate yes man. He memorably misled the public about the conclusions of the Mueller report. Media accounts suggest he personally intervened on Stone’s behalf.
What about Trump?
We told you so, say Democrats. They warned that acquittal in the impeachment trial would make Trump more convinced than ever that, like a monarch, he is above the law. Sure enough, he swiftly began a purge of officials who testified against him and now appears to be tweeting instructions to his attorney general.
What happens next?
Democrats say Barr has agreed to testify to the House judiciary committee on 31 March which, the Politico website points out, ends “a year-long standoff that began when the panel first demanded his testimony in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation”. He is likely to put up a pugnacious defence. Democrats are also seeking an investigation by the justice department’s watchdog, the inspector general. Republicans, as usual, are mostly mute.
And Stone?
He is due to be sentenced on 20 February by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who may yet choose to ignore the revised memo and follow the prosecutors’ original recommended sentence. She certainly seemed unamused by Stone during the trial, ticking him off over his use of social media. But the other big question is: will Trump pardon Stone?
What can be done to save the rule of law?
Democrats have already deployed their ultimate constitutional weapon, impeachment, and will not reach for it again in an election year. But they can try to make it an issue in the presidential race. The presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “Americans of all political stripes should be gravely concerned about the corruption that pressures federal prosecutors to give sweetheart deals to criminals who do their crimes on behalf of Donald Trump. Yes Roger Stone, I’m looking at you.”
Ultimately, however, will anyone care?
Critics say the erosion of democratic institutions continues and the integrity of the legal system is on the line. Brian Schatz, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, wrote on Twitter: “The DOJ itself appears to have been corrupted by a President who rewards his friends and punishes his enemies. Media should treat this like a potentially explosive abuse of power even if this takes more than ten seconds to explain.”


theguardian--2020-02-13--Roger Stone furore shows 'crisis of credibility' in US justice system, experts warn

The US justice system is facing a crisis of credibility that could undermine the integrity of federal prosecutors , politicize the legal handling of Donald Trump ’ s friends and enemies , and ultimately threaten democracy itself , top lawyers warn .
A barrage of former justice department figures have sounded the alarm following a decision on Tuesday by the US attorney general , William Barr , to undercut a sentencing recommendation for Trump ’ s friend Roger Stone .
In a new court filing , Barr ’ s office condemned the initial recommendation of seven to nine years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The direct interference of the US attorney general in an individual sentencing decision by his department ’ s own career professionals was highly unusual .
The White House and Trump himself also appeared to be involved , with the president posting a tweet shortly before Barr made his move that called the original sentencing proposal for Stone “ horrible and very unfair ” .
Trump later congratulated Barr on “ taking charge of a case that was totally out of control ” .
In the fallout , all four career prosecutors who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the case in protest .
The new filing and the instant resignations it provoked have now led to an outpouring of rebuke from senior legal figures who cautioned that the rule of law is being shaken by Trump and his DoJ allies .
“ This is a crisis of credibility , ” said Sasha Samberg-Champion , a former federal appellate attorney now with Relman Colfax .
“ Nobody knows whether decisions are being made based on the facts and the law , or whether they are based on a political whim.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for four years as a DoJ prosecutor , told the Guardian he was shocked by events .
“ This will have serious consequences for staff morale at the justice department , for the credibility of justice department attorneys in court , and for the public ’ s sense that the justice system is fair .
How are judges or juries supposed to have faith that prosecutors represent the impartial position of the United States and not a political agenda ?
” he said .
Two of Barr ’ s predecessors at the helm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Holder , US attorney general under Barack Obama , said in a statement that the conduct over Stone had “ put at risk the perceived – and real – neutral enforcement of our laws and , ultimately , endanger the fabric of our democracy ” .
Sally Yates , who briefly held the position of acting attorney general at the start of the Trump presidency , poignantly tweeted that the career lawyers of the DoJ – like the four who had resigned from the case – “ are the backbone and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedication to the rule of law is the foundation of our republic.
” The insulation of justice officials from any political interference in their handling of criminal prosecutions is seen as the bedrock of the entire US justice system .
The concept is enshrined in the mission statement of the DoJ : “ To ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
” In the wake of the Watergate scandal , new rules were put in place under the title “ White House contacts policy ” that severely restrict any communication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice officials .
That wall of separation has been honored by successive Republican and Democratic administrations since 1978 .
“ Trump has torn down that wall , ” Bains said .
“ He treats the justice department ’ s prosecution powers as an arm of his political apparatus , to threaten perceived enemies and reward friends.
” Michael Bromwich , who acted as the DoJ ’ s official ethics watchdog between 1994 and 1999 , was so alarmed by the apparent intervention of the White House in Stone ’ s sentencing that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political pressure to report it confidentially to his successors in the inspector general ’ s office .
He said the integrity of government lawyers had been “ publicly undermined to suit the whims of the White House ” , and said the events amounted to “ a cancer on our system of justice ” .
Preet Bharara , the former US attorney for the southern district of New York , who was fired by Trump , accused Barr and the DoJ leadership of “ humiliating its own career prosecutors , and giving special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associates .
The worst part is they don ’ t seem even to care any more.
” Bharara is no stranger to the crossing of sacred lines by Trump and his cohorts .
A few days before he was dismissed in March 2017 , he received a phone call from Trump asking him to talk .
A direct call from the US president to a senior justice official in charge of highly sensitive investigations was utterly against protocol , and Bharara did not pick up the phone .
Bharara later told the Guardian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made .
“ Imagine what it would look like now if I were still US attorney and it became known that I had quiet little chats with the president at the same time we were investigating the Trump organisation.
” That is not the only incident in which Trump has attempted to wield the powers of the presidency to forward his political purposes and help his friends in their tangles with criminal prosecutors .
In February 2017 , Trump tried to cajole the then FBI director , James Comey , into ending an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Flynn .
According to NBC News , the interference in Flynn ’ s case continues to this day .
The news outlet reported that , in an echo of the Stone affair , senior DoJ officials intervened last month to try to undercut government sentencing recommendations for Flynn and spare him any prison time for lying to the FBI .
How the current crisis plays out could boil down to what Amy Berman Jackson , the judge in the criminal case against Stone , does next .
Stone was convicted by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , obstructing a congressional investigation and witness tampering .
Jackson has so far proven herself to be immune to Stone ’ s legendary wiles .
She now exclusively has the power to determine Stone ’ s sentence .
At the sentencing hearing , set for 20 February , she will also be able to ask the justice department ’ s lawyer probing and potentially awkward questions .
Barr will come under further questioning on 31 March when he has been called to appear before the House judiciary committee .
Democratic leaders of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the misuse of our justice system for political purposes ” .
“ This is a test for the entire justice system , ” Samberg-Champion said .
“ It will determine whether political interference will be allowed to happen – because if you allow it once there is nothing to stop it happening again .
”

The US justice system is facing a crisis of credibility that could undermine the integrity of federal prosecutors, politicize the legal handling of Donald Trump’s friends and enemies, and ultimately threaten democracy itself, top lawyers warn.
A barrage of former justice department figures have sounded the alarm following a decision on Tuesday by the US attorney general, William Barr, to undercut a sentencing recommendation for Trump’s friend Roger Stone. In a new court filing, Barr’s office condemned the initial recommendation of seven to nine years in prison as “excessive and unwarranted”.
The direct interference of the US attorney general in an individual sentencing decision by his department’s own career professionals was highly unusual. The White House and Trump himself also appeared to be involved, with the president posting a tweet shortly before Barr made his move that called the original sentencing proposal for Stone “horrible and very unfair”.
Trump later congratulated Barr on “taking charge of a case that was totally out of control”.
In the fallout, all four career prosecutors who had framed the initial sentencing recommendation quit from the case in protest.
The new filing and the instant resignations it provoked have now led to an outpouring of rebuke from senior legal figures who cautioned that the rule of law is being shaken by Trump and his DoJ allies.
“This is a crisis of credibility,” said Sasha Samberg-Champion, a former federal appellate attorney now with Relman Colfax. “Nobody knows whether decisions are being made based on the facts and the law, or whether they are based on a political whim.”
Chiraag Bains of Demos, who worked for four years as a DoJ prosecutor, told the Guardian he was shocked by events.
“This will have serious consequences for staff morale at the justice department, for the credibility of justice department attorneys in court, and for the public’s sense that the justice system is fair. How are judges or juries supposed to have faith that prosecutors represent the impartial position of the United States and not a political agenda?” he said.
Two of Barr’s predecessors at the helm of the DoJ expressed their distress. Eric Holder, US attorney general under Barack Obama, said in a statement that the conduct over Stone had “put at risk the perceived – and real – neutral enforcement of our laws and, ultimately, endanger the fabric of our democracy”.
How are judges or juries supposed to have faith that prosecutors represent the impartial position of the United States? Chiraag Bains
Sally Yates, who briefly held the position of acting attorney general at the start of the Trump presidency, poignantly tweeted that the career lawyers of the DoJ – like the four who had resigned from the case – “are the backbone and the heart of the department. Your noble dedication to the rule of law is the foundation of our republic.”
The insulation of justice officials from any political interference in their handling of criminal prosecutions is seen as the bedrock of the entire US justice system. The concept is enshrined in the mission statement of the DoJ: “To ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, new rules were put in place under the title “White House contacts policy” that severely restrict any communication between the president, his team and justice officials. That wall of separation has been honored by successive Republican and Democratic administrations since 1978.
“Trump has torn down that wall,” Bains said. “He treats the justice department’s prosecution powers as an arm of his political apparatus, to threaten perceived enemies and reward friends.”
Michael Bromwich, who acted as the DoJ’s official ethics watchdog between 1994 and 1999, was so alarmed by the apparent intervention of the White House in Stone’s sentencing that he called on federal prosecutors coming under improper political pressure to report it confidentially to his successors in the inspector general’s office. He said the integrity of government lawyers had been “publicly undermined to suit the whims of the White House”, and said the events amounted to “a cancer on our system of justice”.
Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the southern district of New York, who was fired by Trump, accused Barr and the DoJ leadership of “humiliating its own career prosecutors, and giving special treatment to the president’s criminal associates. The worst part is they don’t seem even to care any more.”
Bharara is no stranger to the crossing of sacred lines by Trump and his cohorts. A few days before he was dismissed in March 2017, he received a phone call from Trump asking him to talk.
A direct call from the US president to a senior justice official in charge of highly sensitive investigations was utterly against protocol, and Bharara did not pick up the phone. Bharara later told the Guardian it was the best decision he ever made.
“Imagine what it would look like now if I were still US attorney and it became known that I had quiet little chats with the president at the same time we were investigating the Trump organisation.”
That is not the only incident in which Trump has attempted to wield the powers of the presidency to forward his political purposes and help his friends in their tangles with criminal prosecutors. In February 2017, Trump tried to cajole the then FBI director, James Comey, into ending an investigation into the former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
According to NBC News, the interference in Flynn’s case continues to this day. The news outlet reported that, in an echo of the Stone affair, senior DoJ officials intervened last month to try to undercut government sentencing recommendations for Flynn and spare him any prison time for lying to the FBI.
How the current crisis plays out could boil down to what Amy Berman Jackson, the judge in the criminal case against Stone, does next.
Stone was convicted by a jury in November of lying to investigators, obstructing a congressional investigation and witness tampering. Jackson has so far proven herself to be immune to Stone’s legendary wiles. She now exclusively has the power to determine Stone’s sentence.
At the sentencing hearing, set for 20 February, she will also be able to ask the justice department’s lawyer probing and potentially awkward questions.
Barr will come under further questioning on 31 March when he has been called to appear before the House judiciary committee. Democratic leaders of the committee said they wanted to address “the misuse of our justice system for political purposes”.
“This is a test for the entire justice system,” Samberg-Champion said. “It will determine whether political interference will be allowed to happen – because if you allow it once there is nothing to stop it happening again.”


theguardian--2020-02-13--Marie Yovanovitch: former ambassador warns of ‘amoral’ US foreign policy

The former US ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch , has warned that the US had adopted an “ amoral ” foreign policy that “ substitutes threats , fear and confusion for trust ” .
In her first public remarks since leaving the US foreign service two weeks ago , Yovanovitch said that the Trump administration ’ s handling of foreign policy risked alienating allies and driving them into the arms of other partners they find more reliable .
The veteran former ambassador was ousted from her post in Kyiv by Donald Trump last May , at the time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Ukrainian government to launch investigations of Trump ’ s political opponents .
Yovanovitch gave evidence about the pressure campaign at congressional impeachment hearings before retiring from the foreign service altogether .
“ We need to be principled , consistent and trustworthy , ” she said while accepting an award for diplomacy at Georgetown University .
“ To be blunt , an amoral , keep-them-guessing foreign policy that substitutes threats , fear and confusion for trust can not work over the long haul.
” “ At some point , the once unthinkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies who have as much right to act in their own self interest as we do , will seek out more reliable partners partners whose interests might not align well with ours.
” Yovanovitch was given a standing ovation by an audience of students and diplomats .
She warned that the state department was “ in trouble ” adding that its leadership lacked “ policy vision ” and “ moral clarity ” .
The secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , did not defend her when she was smeared by the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not appear to try to stop her removal from her post .
When asked about her last month , Pompeo launched an obscenity-laced tirade against the journalist who raised the question .
Yovanovitch described her months at the centre of the impeachment uproar as a “ through-the-looking-glass experience ” , and said she was forced to “ dig deep a little bit ” and rely on family , friends , faith , and in the wake of her retirement , fun .

The former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, has warned that the US had adopted an “amoral” foreign policy that “substitutes threats, fear and confusion for trust”.
In her first public remarks since leaving the US foreign service two weeks ago, Yovanovitch said that the Trump administration’s handling of foreign policy risked alienating allies and driving them into the arms of other partners they find more reliable.
The veteran former ambassador was ousted from her post in Kyiv by Donald Trump last May, at the time the president and his associates were putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to launch investigations of Trump’s political opponents. Yovanovitch gave evidence about the pressure campaign at congressional impeachment hearings before retiring from the foreign service altogether.
“We need to be principled, consistent and trustworthy,” she said while accepting an award for diplomacy at Georgetown University. “To be blunt, an amoral, keep-them-guessing foreign policy that substitutes threats, fear and confusion for trust cannot work over the long haul.”
“At some point, the once unthinkable will become the inevitable – that our allies who have as much right to act in their own self-interest as we do, will seek out more reliable partners partners whose interests might not align well with ours.”
Yovanovitch was given a lengthy, thunderous standing ovation by an audience of students and diplomats and beamed as she took the stage. She warned that the state department was “in trouble” adding that its leadership lacked “policy vision” and “moral clarity”.
The secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, did not defend her when she was smeared by the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and did not appear to try to stop her removal from her post. When asked about her last month, Pompeo launched an obscenity-laced tirade against the journalist who raised the question.
Yovanovitch described her months at the centre of the impeachment uproar as a “through-the-looking-glass experience”, and said she was forced to “dig deep a little bit” and rely on family, friends, faith and, in the wake of her retirement, fun.
She was given the Trainor Award for Excellence in the Conduct of Diplomacy at Georgetown University. Previous winners have been the then US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and then secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.
And on a brighter note, she said: “With all the focus on Ukraine, it has meant that there is continued bipartisan support for a strong Ukraine policy.”
Yovanovitch spoke out in an opinion article for the Washington Post earlier in the month.
She wrote: “These are turbulent times, perhaps the most challenging that I have witnessed. But I still intend to find ways to engage on foreign policy issues and to encourage those who want to take part in the important work of the Foreign Service.”
She added: “Like my parents before me, I remain optimistic about our future. The events of the past year, while deeply disturbing, show that even though our institutions and our fellow citizens are being challenged in ways that few of us ever expected, we will endure, we will persist and we will prevail.”
Testifying before the House of Representatives in the impeachment inquiry last year, Yovanovitch spoke about the devastating campaign to undermine her work in Ukraine by the president and his confidants, before he ultimately recalled her from the job.
She told impeachment investigators she felt “shocked and devastated” by Trump’s personal attacks on her, and that she was “amazed” corrupt elements in Ukraine had found willing American partners to take her down.
Trump tweeted attacks on her even as she testified, accusing Yovanovitch of incompetence, an experience she told the committee that she found intimidating.


theguardian--2020-02-13--Barr agrees to testify to Congress amid growing outrage over Roger Stone case

William Barr , the US attorney general , has agreed to testify before a congressional committee over alleged political interference at the justice department , Democrats said , as they warned of “ a crisis in the rule of law in America ” .
Washington is reeling from aftershocks of the department ’ s unusual decision to overrule career prosecutors and seek a lighter prison sentence for the political operative Roger Stone , a longtime friend of the US president .
The entire prosecution team resigned in protest .
On Wednesday , Democrats on the House judiciary committee wrote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify at a hearing on 31 March .
Chairman Jerry Nadler wrote in the letter that the attorney general should expect to be asked about recent steps that “ raise grave questions ” over his leadership of the justice department .
These include , Nadler said , “ the decision to overrule your career prosecutors and significantly reduce the recommended sentence for Roger Stone , who has been convicted for lying under oath , at the apparent request of the president – a decision that led to all four prosecutors handling the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Stone , 67 , a political operative and self-described dirty trickster , was convicted last November of lying to Congress , witness tampering and impeding the investigation into Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
On Monday , prosecutors requested that he serve seven to nine years behind bars .
But Trump issued a late-night objection via Twitter , stating : “ Can not allow this miscarriage of justice !
” Hours later , a new memo from the justice department cut the proposed sentence , offering Stone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal circumstances and lack of criminal history ” as mitigating circumstances .
Media reports suggested Barr had personally intervened .
All four lawyers that prosecuted Stone abruptly quit the case , with one leaving the justice department altogether .
On Wednesday , the White House insisted that Trump had not meddled , but on Twitter the president brazenly praised Barr for “ taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought ” .
Later , speaking to reporters at the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sentencing recommendation .
He declined to say whether he would pardon Stone .
“ They treated Roger Stone very badly , ” he said .
But Chuck Schumer , the Democrat minority leader in the Senate , sounded the alarm about an unprecedented threat to the independence of the legal system .
“ We are witnessing a crisis in the rule of law in America – unlike one we have ever seen before , ” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor .
“ It is a crisis of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was enabled and emboldened by every Senate Republican who was too afraid to stand up to him and say the simple word ‘ no ’ , when the vast majority of them knew that that was the right thing to do.
” Trump was acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate in his impeachment trial last week and immediately began a purge of officials who testified about his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival – fuelling Democrats ’ fears that he would feel further emboldened , unleashed and able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his acquittal , Schumer noted , Trump retaliated by firing members of his administration who testified in the impeachment inquiry , including Lt Col Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland .
He even dismissed Vindman ’ s brother .
“ How vindictive , how petty , how nasty , ” Schumer said .
On Tuesday Trump withdrew the nomination of Jessie Liu , a former US attorney in Washington whose office prosecuted Stone , for a new post in the treasury department .
But it was the Stone case that prompted Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee hearing , where Barr would potentially be obliged to testify , and an investigation by the department ’ s inspector general , an external watchdog .
“ The president is claiming that rigging the rules is perfectly legitimate – he claims an ‘ absolute right ’ to order the justice department to do anything he wants , ” he said .
“ And the president has as his attorney general an enabler – and that ’ s a kind word – who actually supports this view.
” Schumer added : “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has contempt for the rule of law beginning to try out the new , unrestrained power conferred on him by 52 Republican senators … Left to his own devices , President Trump would turn America into a banana republic , where the dictator can do whatever he wants and the justice department is the president ’ s law firm , not a defender of the rule of law.
” The sentiments were echoed by Hillary Clinton , the former secretary of state who was defeated by Trump in the 2016 presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the powers of the presidency like a tyrant – now , to reward accomplices and go after witnesses who dared to speak against him .
This should concern and anger us all.
” Eric Holder , who served as Barack Obama ’ s attorney general , wrote on Twitter : “ Do not underestimate the danger of this situation .
This affects the rule of law and respect for it .
Unprecedented.
” Yet most Senate Republicans , all but one of whom voted in Trump ’ s favour in the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters : “ I ’ m not disturbed about it at all .
If you read the reports , this action began on Monday night before the president ’ s tweets , so I ’ ve got to take them at their word.
” However , Senator Susan Collins of Maine , who had claimed Trump would learn his “ lesson ” from impeachment , struck a note of dissent .
“ The president should not have gotten involved , ” she told the Reuters news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentenced by the US district judge Amy Berman Jackson on 20 February .
Jackson on Wednesday declined to grant Stone ’ s request for a new trial .
Barr last year cleared the president of obstruction of justice even when the special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so after the Russia investigation .

William Barr, the US attorney general, has agreed to testify before a congressional committee over alleged political interference at the justice department, Democrats said, as they warned of “a crisis in the rule of law in America”.
Washington is reeling from aftershocks of the department’s unusual decision to overrule career prosecutors and seek a lighter prison sentence for the political operative Roger Stone, a longtime friend of the US president. The entire prosecution team resigned in protest.
On Wednesday, Democrats on the House judiciary committee wrote to Barr confirming that he had agreed to testify at a hearing on 31 March. Chairman Jerry Nadler wrote in the letter that the attorney general should expect to be asked about recent steps that “raise grave questions” over his leadership of the justice department.
These include, Nadler said, “the decision to overrule your career prosecutors and significantly reduce the recommended sentence for Roger Stone, who has been convicted for lying under oath, at the apparent request of the president – a decision that led to all four prosecutors handling the case to withdraw from the proceedings in protest”.
Stone, 67, a political operative and self-described dirty trickster, was convicted last November of lying to Congress, witness tampering and impeding the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. On Monday, prosecutors requested that he serve seven to nine years behind bars. But Trump issued a late-night objection via Twitter, stating: “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
Hours later, a new memo from the justice department cut the proposed sentence, offering Stone’s “advanced age, health, personal circumstances and lack of criminal history” as mitigating circumstances. Media reports suggested Barr had personally intervened.
All four lawyers that prosecuted Stone abruptly quit the case, with one leaving the justice department altogether. On Wednesday, the White House insisted that Trump had not meddled, but on Twitter the president brazenly praised Barr for “taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought”.
Later, speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump thanked justice department officials for trimming the sentencing recommendation. He declined to say whether he would pardon Stone. “They treated Roger Stone very badly,” he said.
But Chuck Schumer, the Democrat minority leader in the Senate, sounded the alarm about an unprecedented threat to the independence of the legal system.
‘Trump is using the powers of the presidency like a tyrant,’ Hillary Clinton said. Photograph: Suzi Pratt/Getty Images for Refinery29
“We are witnessing a crisis in the rule of law in America – unlike one we have ever seen before,” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. “It is a crisis of President Trump’s making. But it was enabled and emboldened by every Senate Republican who was too afraid to stand up to him and say the simple word ‘no’, when the vast majority of them knew that that was the right thing to do.”
Trump was acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate in his impeachment trial last week and immediately began a purge of officials who testified about his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival – fuelling Democrats’ fears that he would feel further emboldened, unleashed and able to act with impunity.
Two days after his acquittal, Schumer noted, Trump retaliated by firing members of his administration who testified in the impeachment inquiry, including Lt Col Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland. He even dismissed Vindman’s brother. “How vindictive, how petty, how nasty,” Schumer said.
On Tuesday Trump withdrew the nomination of Jessie Liu, a former US attorney in Washington whose office prosecuted Stone, for a new post in the treasury department. But it was the Stone case that prompted Schumer to call for an emergency Senate judiciary committee hearing, where Barr would potentially be obliged to testify, and an investigation by the department’s inspector general, an external watchdog.
“The president is claiming that rigging the rules is perfectly legitimate – he claims an ‘absolute right’ to order the justice department to do anything he wants,” he said. “And the president has as his attorney general an enabler – and that’s a kind word – who actually supports this view.”
Schumer added: “We are seeing the behavior of a man who has contempt for the rule of law beginning to try out the new, unrestrained power conferred on him by 52 Republican senators … Left to his own devices, President Trump would turn America into a banana republic, where the dictator can do whatever he wants and the justice department is the president’s law firm, not a defender of the rule of law.”
The sentiments were echoed by Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who was defeated by Trump in the 2016 presidential election. She tweeted: “Trump is using the powers of the presidency like a tyrant – now, to reward accomplices and go after witnesses who dared to speak against him. This should concern and anger us all.”
Eric Holder, who served as Barack Obama’s attorney general, wrote on Twitter: “Do not underestimate the danger of this situation. This affects the rule of law and respect for it. Unprecedented.”
Yet most Senate Republicans, all but one of whom voted in Trump’s favour in the impeachment trial, again held the line. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters: “I’m not disturbed about it at all. If you read the reports, this action began on Monday night before the president’s tweets, so I’ve got to take them at their word.”
However, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who had claimed Trump would learn his “lesson” from impeachment, struck a note of dissent. “The president should not have gotten involved,” she told the Reuters news agency.
Stone is scheduled to be sentenced by the US district judge Amy Berman Jackson on 20 February. Jackson on Wednesday declined to grant Stone’s request for a new trial.
Barr last year cleared the president of obstruction of justice even when the special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so after the Russia investigation.


theguardian--2020-02-13--Black voters hold Buttigieg and Biden's fates in their hands | Theodore R Johnson

After the first two states in the Democratic presidential primary have had their say , one thing is quite clear : Pete Buttigieg is on the rise and Joe Biden ’ s campaign is losing steam .
Buttigieg is still neck and neck with Bernie Sanders in last week ’ s chaotic Iowa caucuses – which the Associated Press still hasn ’ t called – and he finished second to Sanders in Tuesday ’ s New Hampshire primary .
Meanwhile , Biden , the national frontrunner for almost the entirety of the invisible primary , finished a disappointing fourth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year with any other candidates , this would be more meaningful .
But the results to date only tell us what we have long known – Buttigieg does well with white voters .
Until black voters have the opportunity to weigh in en masse , we won ’ t actually know which of the two is closer to leading the field and which is nearer to suspending his campaign .
The dynamics of the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns couldn ’ t be more different .
Never mind the large gap in age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States Senate began nine years before Buttigieg was born – their respective paths to the nomination rely on distinct parts of the Democratic electorate .
Buttigieg ’ s chances are tied to the support of white moderates , and Biden ’ s hinge on holding on to black voters .
Thus far , we ’ ve only heard from one – white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire accounted for more than 90 % of those who cast ballots .
It ’ s no wonder , then , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different directions .
Biden ’ s campaign has long considered the South Carolina primary its firewall , where black voters comprised 61 % of the electorate in 2016 .
He continues to lead among black voters with the latest national polls showing him at 38 % , more than twice that of Sanders .
In South Carolina , which holds its primary on 29 February , support from this bloc is 44 % .
The poor finishes in the first two states caused Biden to leave New Hampshire early and attempt to reinforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Any chance he has of securing the nomination now depends on his ability to maintain the support of the black electorate , expected to be one in four primary voters overall .
The Buttigieg campaign , on the other hand , has faced a number of questions about its inability to attract black voters .
After spending much of 2019 at a statistical zero , he has only managed to reach about 2 % this week .
His strategy all along has been to perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum and win over the more diverse electorates in Nevada and South Carolina .
The campaign often cites Barack Obama ’ s rise in 2008 as the model for this strategy , but confidence in that approach is misplaced .
In other words , Buttigieg had the good fortune of competing in the best two possible states for his candidacy .
That luck , however , may be about to run out .
If their electoral coalitions hold true , we can expect to see Buttigieg ’ s chances decline and Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two forces affecting presidential primary campaigns are momentum and strategic effects .
Momentum from early primary wins helps a candidate ’ s fundraising , polling and chances of securing the nomination .
Strategic effects are the advantages gained by candidates who perform well in later contests , assuming he or she has the resources to hang on until the more favorable elections occur , and finishing strong can be the key to the nomination .
The challenge is that momentum and strategic effects operate in opposite directions .
That is , improved performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of momentum candidates .
Biden certainly hopes this is the case .
Despite the rather clear prospects for both , the road ahead is far from smooth .
Biden ’ s support from black voters is under threat from billionaire candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer , who are both spending exorbitant amounts of money on campaign staff and advertising .
Bloomberg has managed to tie Sanders for second place among black voters , and Steyer is second to Biden in South Carolina with one in four supporting his campaign .
The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely it is that he ’ ll be able to win the nomination .
Over the next three weeks , 16 states will hold primaries , and voters of color figure to make up a substantial part of them .
Buttigieg ’ s failure to gain their support means he ’ ll either need to appeal to them in a way he ’ s been unable to do thus far , or he ’ ll need to win over white voters by exceedingly large margins .
Neither of these appear likely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren in the first two states .
And yet , in 2020 alone , stranger things have happened .
Altogether , the destinies of Biden and Buttigieg in this presidential primary seem to be inversely related .
The disparity between their coalitions and primary state demographics means that as one rises , the other is likely to fall .
The fates of both campaigns are largely contingent on the choices voters of color , especially black voters , make in the days ahead .
• None Theodore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brennan Center for Justice

After the first two states in the Democratic presidential primary have had their say, one thing is quite clear: Pete Buttigieg is on the rise and Joe Biden’s campaign is losing steam.
Buttigieg is still neck and neck with Bernie Sanders in last week’s chaotic Iowa caucuses – which the Associated Press still hasn’t called – and he finished second to Sanders in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary. Meanwhile, Biden, the national frontrunner for almost the entirety of the invisible primary, finished a disappointing fourth and fifth, respectively.
In any other election year with any other candidates, this would be more meaningful. But the results to date only tell us what we have long known – Buttigieg does well with white voters. Until black voters have the opportunity to weigh in en masse, we won’t actually know which of the two is closer to leading the field and which is nearer to suspending his campaign.
The dynamics of the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns couldn’t be more different. Never mind the large gap in age and experience – Biden’s career in the United States Senate began nine years before Buttigieg was born – their respective paths to the nomination rely on distinct parts of the Democratic electorate. Buttigieg’s chances are tied to the support of white moderates, and Biden’s hinge on holding on to black voters.
Thus far, we’ve only heard from one – white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire accounted for more than 90% of those who cast ballots. It’s no wonder, then, that the two campaigns seem to be going in different directions.
Biden’s campaign has long considered the South Carolina primary its firewall, where black voters comprised 61% of the electorate in 2016. He continues to lead among black voters with the latest national polls showing him at 38%, more than twice that of Sanders. In South Carolina, which holds its primary on 29 February, support from this bloc is 44%. The poor finishes in the first two states caused Biden to leave New Hampshire early and attempt to reinforce his double-digit lead in South Carolina. Any chance he has of securing the nomination now depends on his ability to maintain the support of the black electorate, expected to be one in four primary voters overall.
The Buttigieg campaign, on the other hand, has faced a number of questions about its inability to attract black voters. After spending much of 2019 at a statistical zero, he has only managed to reach about 2% this week. His strategy all along has been to perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes that he can ride a wave of momentum and win over the more diverse electorates in Nevada and South Carolina. The campaign often cites Barack Obama’s rise in 2008 as the model for this strategy, but confidence in that approach is misplaced. In other words, Buttigieg had the good fortune of competing in the best two possible states for his candidacy. That luck, however, may be about to run out.
If their electoral coalitions hold true, we can expect to see Buttigieg’s chances decline and Biden’s improve
If their electoral coalitions hold true, we can expect to see Buttigieg’s chances decline and Biden’s improve. Political scientists note that two forces affecting presidential primary campaigns are momentum and strategic effects. Momentum from early primary wins helps a candidate’s fundraising, polling and chances of securing the nomination. Strategic effects are the advantages gained by candidates who perform well in later contests, assuming he or she has the resources to hang on until the more favorable elections occur, and finishing strong can be the key to the nomination. The challenge is that momentum and strategic effects operate in opposite directions. That is, improved performance of strategic candidates can staunch the surge of momentum candidates. Biden certainly hopes this is the case.
Despite the rather clear prospects for both, the road ahead is far from smooth.
Biden’s support from black voters is under threat from billionaire candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, who are both spending exorbitant amounts of money on campaign staff and advertising. Bloomberg has managed to tie Sanders for second place among black voters, and Steyer is second to Biden in South Carolina with one in four supporting his campaign. The more they chip into his lead, the less likely it is that he’ll be able to win the nomination.
Over the next three weeks, 16 states will hold primaries, and voters of color figure to make up a substantial part of them. Buttigieg’s failure to gain their support means he’ll either need to appeal to them in a way he’s been unable to do thus far, or he’ll need to win over white voters by exceedingly large margins. Neither of these appear likely, especially considering the relatively strong showings by Sanders and Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren in the first two states. And yet, in 2020 alone, stranger things have happened.
Altogether, the destinies of Biden and Buttigieg in this presidential primary seem to be inversely related. The disparity between their coalitions and primary state demographics means that as one rises, the other is likely to fall. The fates of both campaigns are largely contingent on the choices voters of color, especially black voters, make in the days ahead.


theguardian--2020-02-13--The Trump era is a golden age of conspiracy theories – on the right and left | Nicolas Guilhot and S

The Trump era is a golden age of conspiracy theories – on the right and left | Nicolas Guilhot and Samuel Moyn

In his novel Foucault ’ s Pendulum , the late Umberto Eco dreamed up a plot for our time .
The book portrays a collection of enlightened skeptics who get swept into conspiracy .
First to amuse themselves , and then because the crackpots they ridicule participate in the madness , Eco ’ s characters seal their own doom .
They connect dots that are unrelated .
They see cabals that don ’ t exist .
Before they all die , Eco ’ s leading characters have learned that conspiracies are false but their effects are true – especially for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more obvious wrongs to right instead .
“ We offered a map to people who were trying to overcome a deep , private frustration , ” one reflects .
Clear meaning in an opaque world turns out to be a dodge for people aggravated by real problems but never offered the right solutions .
And it is disastrous for all concerned .
In America today , it is happening for real .
Conspiracy has long haunted American politics , but the age of Trump has made it an almost universal syndrome .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bred the right conspiracy of the deep state and Ukrainian election interference .
The boring incompetence that led to the Iowan primary fiasco generated Twitter fevers and TV speculation that the Democratic National Committee – with a software company idiotically named “ Shadow ” , manned , naturally , by foreign agents – has hidden designs against Bernie Sanders .
The most prominent theory of conspiracy isolates the illiberal fringe , while casting the mainstream as rational .
It proceeds to call for the “ cognitive infiltration ” of the “ extremists ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nowadays , similar voices insist , only the unhinged right – which at least used to gesture to facts – spins conspiracies from thin air with no pretense of truthfulness , in order to attack the foundations of democracy .
But such theories complacently deny how universal conspiracy thinking is , driven by genuine social conditions – and how pathologizing it as someone else ’ s problem makes things worse .
Historically , conspiratorial thinking has never been anyone ’ s monopoly .
The idea of a worldwide Jewish plot has inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Russian Jewish writer Isaac Babel ’ s memorable formula , “ the socialism of the imbeciles ” .
Alt-right bloviations about “ deep state ” conspiracies make us forget that the counterculture of the 1960s was rife with anxious visions of monsters inhabiting the same abyss , as a recent Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition suggested .
The root causes of conspiracy theories are not a matter of cognitive impairment either .
In what may be the first article ever written on “ fake news ” , the French historian Marc Bloch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require specific social conditions to take hold and spread – in his experience , a fragmented society disrupted by war .
While America fights endless war , it is equally relevant that its society is fragmented by unprecedented levels of inequality .
In this context , conspiracy theories have become endemic to America ’ s brand of democratic politics .
Those intent on continuing oligarchic policies that serve the interests of an increasingly small fraction of the population can not rely on it to form a majority .
They turn to conspiracy-mongering in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social resentment generated by the policies that leave most people in the lurch .
But even when they refrain from using such tactics and lose elections , they can indulge in conspiracy-mongering .
When it comes to explaining the loss of the 2016 primaries and general election , American centrists have no qualms laying the blame on shadowy forces .
They should know better .
After all , it was their ultimate forbear , the 19th-century French liberal François Guizot , who acknowledged that conspiracies are what weak governments conjure out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up their own mistakes .
This is clearly true of current governance too .
But it also applies to all those who believe their elections are being stolen while never succeeding in garnering enough votes to win .
The point is not that Russia did not intervene in 2016 – everything indicates it did – but that the obsession with conspiracies misses the point .
If the Russian hack made any difference , it is only because the fruit was hanging so low that the worms were able to feast on it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two faces of the same coin : the avoidance of true politics .
Conspiracies to ferret out sometimes exist , of course .
Yet they fail most of the time .
As Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli observed of them long ago , “ many are attempted , few have the desired outcome.
” The real danger , he warned , was not that their designs would come to pass but the long shadow they cast upon politics .
Once the idea of conspiracy has taken hold of the public mind , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not .
Even when anxieties of conspiracies afoot have some basis , concern with them regularly helps fulfill them and makes things worse .
Conspiracies are best left to Netflix period dramas with bouffant breeches and damascened daggers .
The best defense against their corrosive effect on politics , Machiavelli suggested , is a set of policies that do not alienate the vast majority of the population , leaving them wondering who betrayed them : “ a prince must take little account of conspiracies when he counts the people as his friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy and hold him in contempt he must fear everything and everyone.
” If we want to avoid the descent of politics into the factionalism of corrupt oligarchies , what we need is not the foiling of alleged plots or the debunking of conspiracy theories but a new political realism that takes a cold look at the economic and fiscal policies that have failed so many for so long .
• None Nicolas Guilhot is a senior fellow at the French National Center for Scientific Research ( CNRS ) .
Samuel Moyn is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yale

In his novel Foucault’s Pendulum, the late Umberto Eco dreamed up a plot for our time. The book portrays a collection of enlightened skeptics who get swept into conspiracy. First to amuse themselves, and then because the crackpots they ridicule participate in the madness, Eco’s characters seal their own doom. They connect dots that are unrelated. They see cabals that don’t exist.
Before they all die, Eco’s leading characters have learned that conspiracies are false but their effects are true – especially for those who might have simply looked for more obvious wrongs to right instead. “We offered a map to people who were trying to overcome a deep, private frustration,” one reflects. Clear meaning in an opaque world turns out to be a dodge for people aggravated by real problems but never offered the right solutions. And it is disastrous for all concerned.
In America today, it is happening for real.
Conspiracy has long haunted American politics, but the age of Trump has made it an almost universal syndrome. The left conspiracy of Russian assets in government bred the right conspiracy of the deep state and Ukrainian election interference. The boring incompetence that led to the Iowan primary fiasco generated Twitter fevers and TV speculation that the Democratic National Committee – with a software company idiotically named “Shadow”, manned, naturally, by foreign agents – has hidden designs against Bernie Sanders.
The most prominent theory of conspiracy isolates the illiberal fringe, while casting the mainstream as rational. It proceeds to call for the “cognitive infiltration” of the “extremists” to correct a “crippled epistemology”. Nowadays, similar voices insist, only the unhinged right – which at least used to gesture to facts – spins conspiracies from thin air with no pretense of truthfulness, in order to attack the foundations of democracy.
But such theories complacently deny how universal conspiracy thinking is, driven by genuine social conditions – and how pathologizing it as someone else’s problem makes things worse. Historically, conspiratorial thinking has never been anyone’s monopoly. The idea of a worldwide Jewish plot has inspired the Nazis but it was also, in the German socialist August Bebel’s memorable formula, “the socialism of the imbeciles”. Alt-right bloviations about “deep state” conspiracies make us forget that the counterculture of the 1960s was rife with anxious visions of monsters inhabiting the same abyss, as a recent Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition suggested.
If the Russian hack made any difference, it's because the fruit was hanging so low the worms were able to feast on it
The root causes of conspiracy theories are not a matter of cognitive impairment either. In what may be the first article ever written on “fake news”, the French historian Marc Bloch observed in 1921 that conspiracy theories always require specific social conditions to take hold and spread – in his experience, a fragmented society disrupted by war. While America fights endless war, it is equally relevant that its society is fragmented by unprecedented levels of inequality. In this context, conspiracy theories have become endemic to America’s brand of democratic politics. Those intent on continuing oligarchic policies that serve the interests of an increasingly small fraction of the population cannot rely on it to form a majority. They turn to conspiracy-mongering in order to capture support and deflect the social resentment generated by the policies that leave most people in the lurch.
But even when they refrain from using such tactics and lose elections, they can indulge in conspiracy-mongering. When it comes to explaining the loss of the 2016 primaries and general election, American centrists have no qualms laying the blame on shadowy forces. They should know better. After all, it was their ultimate forbear, the 19th-century French liberal François Guizot, who acknowledged that conspiracies are what weak governments conjure out of the resentment they generate in order to cover up their own mistakes. This is clearly true of current governance too. But it also applies to all those who believe their elections are being stolen while never succeeding in garnering enough votes to win.
The point is not that Russia did not intervene in 2016 – everything indicates it did – but that the obsession with conspiracies misses the point. If the Russian hack made any difference, it is only because the fruit was hanging so low that the worms were able to feast on it. Peddling or debunking conspiracy theories are just two faces of the same coin: the avoidance of true politics.
Conspiracies to ferret out sometimes exist, of course. Yet they fail most of the time. As Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli observed of them long ago, “many are attempted, few have the desired outcome.” The real danger, he warned, was not that their designs would come to pass but the long shadow they cast upon politics. Once the idea of conspiracy has taken hold of the public mind, it generates real effects whether it is true or not. Even when anxieties of conspiracies afoot have some basis, concern with them regularly helps fulfill them and makes things worse.
Conspiracies are best left to Netflix period dramas with bouffant breeches and damascened daggers. The best defense against their corrosive effect on politics, Machiavelli suggested, is a set of policies that do not alienate the vast majority of the population, leaving them wondering who betrayed them: “a prince must take little account of conspiracies when he counts the people as his friend, but when the people are his enemy and hold him in contempt he must fear everything and everyone.”
If we want to avoid the descent of politics into the factionalism of corrupt oligarchies, what we need is not the foiling of alleged plots or the debunking of conspiracy theories but a new political realism that takes a cold look at the economic and fiscal policies that have failed so many for so long.


theguardian--2020-02-12--Andrew Yang fell short but outsider campaign's fresh ideas struck a chord

In another political age , Andrew Yang ’ s bid for the White House would have been a fairytale that captivated pundits and Hollywood scriptwriters .
But after 2016 , the idea of a man with no political or military experience running for US president is no longer novel .
If anything , outsider status is almost an advantage .
Even so , Yang , 45 , who has never held public office , pulled off something remarkable , outlasting numerous Democratic senators , representatives and governors , featuring on all six of the first debate stages and gaining a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gang ” .
The son of Taiwanese immigrants , his departure on Tuesday night makes him the latest candidate of colour to withdraw from what had begun as the most racially diverse field in major party history .
Yang ’ s long-shot campaign , launched in November 2017 , is likely to be remembered for a signature promise – giving every adult a monthly check for $ 1,000 – and self-description : “ The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.
” Such quips prompted criticism that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were probably a factor in him winning the endorsement of comedian Dave Chappelle , a critic of perceived “ woke ” culture and political correctness .
“ I ’ m not running for president because I dreamt about being president of the United States , ” Yang told a campaign rally in Des Moines , Iowa , earlier this month .
“ Trust me , those were not the conversations in the Yang household .
My parents were not telling me , ‘ You ’ re going to be president some day.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re terrible , clean your room.
’ But I ’ m a parent and a patriot who has seen the future that lies ahead for our kids and it is not something we should accept for them .
They deserve better , we must give them better.
” That dark future rested on a diagnosis of America ’ s ills that acknowledged Donald Trump had been on to something in 2016 with his simple slogan , “ Make America great again ” , and held that Hillary Clinton was wrong to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had an answer for the ultimate question of life , the universe and why Trump won the election : the country automated away 4m manufacturing jobs that were concentrated in the rust belt states that switched from Democrat to Republican .
“ I have been to those towns where the manufacturing jobs dried up , ” Yang said in Iowa .
“ After the plant closed , the shopping district closed and then people left , the schools shrank and that town has never recovered.
” He warned that the worst is yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truck driving and much else .
Amazon hovers “ like a spaceship ” over shopping malls which can go “ from cheery to spooky awfully quick ” .
Trump , he contended , was a symptom of this disease , and the 2020 election can be the cure .
Yang explained that he decided to run for president after visiting Washington and asking politicians for answers only to find none forthcoming .
Yang ’ s most radical solution was a universal basic income in the form of a $ 1,000-a-month “ freedom dividend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Thomas Paine , Martin Luther King , Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman all backed similar ideas , while oil-rich Alaska pays an annual dividend to citizens .
He proposed that Amazon and Google would pay a value added tax to generating hundreds of billions of dollars for the scheme .
He argued that universal basic income would pump money back into the economy .
“ This is the trickle-up economy from people , families and communities , ” he told the Guardian last year during an interview conducted in the public area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would actually work , unlike the trickle-down economy which was sold to us.
” Along with the bleakness , and a lack of sure-footedness on foreign policy , there was eccentricity and quirkiness that many found a breath of fresh air .
He challenged celebrities to pickup basketball games and crowd-surfed at a candidates event .
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , who has endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders , tweeted on Tuesday night : “ You ran a great race , Andrew Yang .
Your campaign focused on the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of fun doing it .
Thank you for bringing up ideas like UBI and opening a discourse on how we better value undervalued work like caregiving.
” The author and social activist Naomi Klein wrote : “ Andrew Yang forced a national debate on UBI and GDP as a measure of economic health .
Those are big ideas we need to keep discussing and it was a major contribution.
” The fact he was difficult to pigeonhole ideologically attracted interest from dark corners of the internet but also worked to his advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he asked for a show of hands from 2016 Trump voters who would now support him .
Among them was Grayson Feist , 22 , a student in Kansas wearing a “ Math ” hat .
“ I voted for him because he was against the party , not with the system , but through and through Trump hasn ’ t united America .
He hasn ’ t made America better .
He ’ s really divided America , especially with our allies abroad .
What I like about Yang is he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anyone and everyone .
He ’ s a businessman and he ’ s smart .
The first time I went to his website he has over a hundred issues and it tells you exactly what he stands for and believes in .
The way he can get anyone and everyone interested in politics , especially people who hated Trump or hated the Democratic party , people are flipping faster than people can actually count.
” Meanwhile , at the same event , Frankie Chyi , 26 , a dental student , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporter but I just went on to YouTube and started watching his videos .
The more I listened to him talk , the more I was like , this guy sounds very genuine .
He ’ s thinking about our future .
“ His ideas about automation : it ’ s true .
A lot of our jobs have disappeared and nobody ’ s really doing anything to help us with it .
Also , everyone ’ s going to love $ 1,000 more each month , and it ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are in poverty .
I really like his messages .
”

In another political age, Andrew Yang’s bid for the White House would have been a fairytale that captivated pundits and Hollywood scriptwriters.
But after 2016, the idea of a man with no political or military experience running for US president is no longer novel. If anything, outsider status is almost an advantage.
Even so, Yang, 45, who has never held public office, pulled off something remarkable, outlasting numerous Democratic senators, representatives and governors, featuring on all six of the first debate stages and gaining a cult following from the so-called “Yang gang”.
The son of Taiwanese immigrants, his departure on Tuesday night makes him the latest candidate of colour to withdraw from what had begun as the most racially diverse field in major party history.
Yang’s long-shot campaign, launched in November 2017, is likely to be remembered for a signature promise – giving every adult a monthly check for $1,000 – and self-description: “The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.”
Such quips prompted criticism that he was leaning into Asian American stereotypes, and were probably a factor in him winning the endorsement of comedian Dave Chappelle, a critic of perceived “woke” culture and political correctness.
“I’m not running for president because I dreamt about being president of the United States,” Yang told a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, earlier this month. “Trust me, those were not the conversations in the Yang household. My parents were not telling me, ‘You’re going to be president some day.’
“They were more like, ‘You’re terrible, clean your room.’ But I’m a parent and a patriot who has seen the future that lies ahead for our kids and it is not something we should accept for them. They deserve better, we must give them better.”
Andrew Yang greets supporters in Keene, New Hampshire. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
That dark future rested on a diagnosis of America’s ills that acknowledged Donald Trump had been on to something in 2016 with his simple slogan, “Make America great again”, and held that Hillary Clinton was wrong to protest America is already great.
Yang had an answer for the ultimate question of life, the universe and why Trump won the election: the country automated away 4m manufacturing jobs that were concentrated in the rust belt states that switched from Democrat to Republican.
“I have been to those towns where the manufacturing jobs dried up,” Yang said in Iowa. “After the plant closed, the shopping district closed and then people left, the schools shrank and that town has never recovered.”
He warned that the worst is yet to come, as robots take over truck driving and much else. Amazon hovers “like a spaceship” over shopping malls which can go “from cheery to spooky awfully quick”. Trump, he contended, was a symptom of this disease, and the 2020 election can be the cure.
Yang explained that he decided to run for president after visiting Washington and asking politicians for answers only to find none forthcoming.
Yang’s most radical solution was a universal basic income in the form of a $1,000-a-month “freedom dividend” for US citizens. He argued that Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman all backed similar ideas, while oil-rich Alaska pays an annual dividend to citizens.
It would actually work, unlike the trickle-down economy which was sold to us Andrew Yang
He proposed that Amazon and Google would pay a value added tax to generating hundreds of billions of dollars for the scheme. He argued that universal basic income would pump money back into the economy.
“This is the trickle-up economy from people, families and communities,” he told the Guardian last year during an interview conducted in the public area of a low-key Washington hotel. “It would actually work, unlike the trickle-down economy which was sold to us.”
Along with the bleakness, and a lack of sure-footedness on foreign policy, there was eccentricity and quirkiness that many found a breath of fresh air. He challenged celebrities to pickup basketball games and crowd-surfed at a candidates event.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who has endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders, tweeted on Tuesday night: “You ran a great race, Andrew Yang. Your campaign focused on the future, and looked like you were having a lot of fun doing it. Thank you for bringing up ideas like UBI and opening a discourse on how we better value undervalued work like caregiving.”
Yang was best known for his proposal of a universal basic income. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
The author and social activist Naomi Klein wrote: “Andrew Yang forced a national debate on UBI and GDP as a measure of economic health. Those are big ideas we need to keep discussing and it was a major contribution.”
The fact he was difficult to pigeonhole ideologically attracted interest from dark corners of the internet but also worked to his advantage. At his final Iowa rally, he asked for a show of hands from 2016 Trump voters who would now support him.
Among them was Grayson Feist, 22, a student in Kansas wearing a “Math” hat. “I voted for him because he was against the party, not with the system, but through and through Trump hasn’t united America. He hasn’t made America better. He’s really divided America, especially with our allies abroad. What I like about Yang is he’s so transparent.
“He talks to anyone and everyone. He’s a businessman and he’s smart. The first time I went to his website he has over a hundred issues and it tells you exactly what he stands for and believes in. The way he can get anyone and everyone interested in politics, especially people who hated Trump or hated the Democratic party, people are flipping faster than people can actually count.”
Meanwhile, at the same event, Frankie Chyi, 26, a dental student, said: “I was actually a Bernie supporter but I just went on to YouTube and started watching his videos. The more I listened to him talk, the more I was like, this guy sounds very genuine. He’s thinking about our future.
“His ideas about automation: it’s true. A lot of our jobs have disappeared and nobody’s really doing anything to help us with it. Also, everyone’s going to love $1,000 more each month, and it’s going to help a lot of families, people who are in poverty. I really like his messages.”


theguardian--2020-02-13--Barr says Trump's tweets 'make it impossible for me to do my job' – live

Before the president met with the New York governor , Andrew Cuomo , today , he not only insulted Cuomo ’ s brother – the CNN political analyst Chris Cuomo – he also implied that the administration ’ s policies toward New York were linked to the state ’ s ongoing investigations into Trump ’ s finances .
“ New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harassment , start cleaning itself up , and lowering taxes , ” he tweeted , before the meeting .
The administration and New York have been at odds over a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for drivers licenses .
Federal officials banned New York residents from applying to a federal program that lets travelers avoid long security lines .
Picking up on Trump ’ s ask that New York drop lawsuits , the representative Val Demings , one of the impeachment managers who made the case to remove Trump from office , said the president is “ holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud ” .
“ The president is now expanding his abuse of power to blackmailing US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor Cuomo has commented on whether they reached a resolution after today ’ s meeting .
The acting homeland security secretary , Chad Wolf , described the meeting as “ productive ” .
“ New York is the only state that restricts CBP access to their data across the board – from law enforcement , customs , trade and travel facilitation purposes , ” Wolf said .
“ Despite that , we will continue discussions with the State of New York to find a mutually agreeable solution.
” New York is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have drivers licenses .
Still , last week , Ken Cuccinelli , the homeland security department acting deputy secretary , said that New Yorkers would no longer be eligible to apply or reapply for the Global Entry program because the state ’ s policies made it harder for border agents to confirm immigration status .
New York responded with a lawsuit against the administration .

Maanvi Singh (now), Joan E Greve and Paul Owen (earlier)

14 Feb 2020 01.08 GMT Summary Bill Barr , the attorney general, complained that Donald Trump ’s tweets about justice department cases “make it impossible for me to do my job” and said he would not be “bullied” into doing the president’s bidding. The White House responded that Trump “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments.
, the attorney general, complained that ’s tweets about justice department cases “make it impossible for me to do my job” and said he would not be “bullied” into doing the president’s bidding. The White House responded that Trump “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments. Critics have questioned Barr’s sincerity, given his record going along with what the president wants.
A f ederal judge dismissed Trump’s criticisms of the court’s handling of the Roger Stone case, issuing a rare statement to say, “The judges of this court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them” and not based on “public criticism or pressure”.
dismissed Trump’s criticisms of the court’s handling of the case, issuing a rare statement to say, “The judges of this court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them” and not based on “public criticism or pressure”. The Democratic National Committee had oversight of the faulty app used in the Iowa caucuses, according to a report.
had oversight of the faulty app used in the Iowa caucuses, according to a report. Nevada’s influential Culinary Union declined to endorse a candidate ahead of the caucuses next week. The union has criticized Bernie Sanders ’ health plan and complained of “vicious attacks” from Sanders’ supporters.
declined to endorse a candidate ahead of the caucuses next week. The union has criticized ’ health plan and complained of “vicious attacks” from Sanders’ supporters. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is carrying on after placing third in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire. Roger Stone case: chief justice urged to step in as Trump's 'abuse of power' condemned Read more
Updated at 01.10 GMT
14 Feb 2020 00.33 GMT
Donald Trump will be the guest of honor at a fundraiser where donors are paying $580,600 per couple to attend. The Washington Post reports that the dinner on Saturday will take place at the Palm Beach estate of billionaire Nelson Peltz: The dinner, taking place just a few miles from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, shows how enthusiastically Trump has embraced big-dollar fundraising in his bid for a second term — a dramatic about-face from 2016, when he criticized the influence of wealthy donors on the politicians who court them. It also shows the special access enjoyed by many of Trump’s wealthiest donors, including business executives and lobbyists, who get the chance to air their grievances with the president’s tariffs or promote their pet projects, often while dining on Trump’s favorite foods. The event will be the most expensive fundraising event for Trump since he took office.
14 Feb 2020 00.05 GMT A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s criticisms of the Roger Stone case. “Public criticism or pressure is not a factor” in the court’s decisions, said Beryl Howell, the chief US district judge of Washington.
Howell issued a rare statement in response to Trump’s criticisms of her colleague Amy Berman Jackson, the sentencing judge in the Roger Stone case. “The Judges of this Court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them; the applicable sentencing guidelines and statutory factors; the submissions of the parties, the Probation Office and victims; and their own judgment and experience,” she said.
13 Feb 2020 23.41 GMT Report: the Democratic National Committee had oversight of app that caused chaos in Iowa The DNC was involved throughout the development of the mobile app that was meant to collect and tally results of the Iowa caucuses, according to Yahoo News. Party officials had access to the software – designed by Shadow – for testing before it was used Iowa, according to a contract obtained by Yahoo: An unaffiliated Democratic operative in Iowa provided Yahoo News with a copy of the contract between Shadow and the Iowa Democratic Party. The contract, which was signed on Oct. 14 and refers to Shadow as the “Consultant,” specified that the company had to work with the DNC and provide the national party with access to its software for testing. “Consultant agrees to work with the DNC Services Corporation / Democratic National Committee (‘DNC’) on an on-going basis as Consultant develops the software,” the contract reads. The contract also specifies that Shadow agrees to “provide DNC continual access to review the Consultant’s system configurations, security and system logs, system designs, data flow designs, security controls (preventative and detective), and operational plans for how the Consultant will use and run the Software for informational dissemination, pre-registration, tabulation, and reporting throughout the caucus process.” The DNC has tried to distance itself from the debacle in Iowa; chair Tom Perez has blamed state Democratic party, which directly oversaw the caucuses. After this election cycle, the party will “have a further conversation about whether or not state parties should be running elections”, Perez said in an interview with CNN. In his resignation letter, the Iowa Democratic party chair, Troy Price, said, “I am deeply sorry for what happened and bear the responsibility for any failures on behalf of the Iowa Democratic party.” Following the app’s failure in Iowa, the DNC abandoned plans to use a similar system from Shadow in the upcoming Nevada caucuses.
Updated at 01.03 GMT
13 Feb 2020 23.24 GMT On Fox News, Senate leader Mitch McConnell said the president should listen to attorney general Bill Barr. “I think the president should listen to his advice,” McConnell told Fox News host Bret Baier. “If the attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job, the president should listen to the attorney general.”
13 Feb 2020 23.10 GMT Donald Trump “wasn’t bothered” by the attorney general Bill Barr’s comments, according to the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. “President Trump uses social media very effectively to fight for the American people against injustices in our country.” NEW: White House press sec. Stephanie Grisham says President Trump "wasn’t bothered" by Attorney General Bill Barr's comments to @ABC News. https://t.co/crNbWi6YpG pic.twitter.com/eK4dd9BdZ0 — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 13, 2020 In an interview with ABC, Barr said “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but added that the president’s tweets about the Roger Stone case and the Department of Justice’s work “make it impossible for me to do my job”.
Updated at 23.24 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.51 GMT Before the president met with the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, today, he not only insulted Cuomo’s brother – the CNN political analyst Chris Cuomo – he also implied that the administration’s policies toward New York were linked to the state’s ongoing investigations into Trump’s finances. “New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes,” he tweeted, before the meeting. The administration and New York have been at odds over a state law that allows undocumented people to apply for drivers licenses. Federal officials banned New York residents from applying to a federal program that lets travelers avoid long security lines. Picking up on Trump’s ask that New York drop lawsuits, the representative Val Demings, one of the impeachment managers who made the case to remove Trump from office, said the president is “holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud”. “The president is now expanding his abuse of power to blackmailing US,” she said.
Neither the president nor Cuomo has commented on whether they reached a resolution after today’s meeting. The acting homeland security secretary, Chad Wolf, described the meeting as “productive”. “New York is the only state that restricts CBP access to their data across the board – from law enforcement, customs, trade and travel facilitation purposes,” Wolf said. “Despite that, we will continue discussions with the State of New York to find a mutually agreeable solution.” New York is one of several states that allow undocumented immigrants to have drivers licenses. Still, last week, Ken Cuccinelli, the homeland security department acting deputy secretary, said that New Yorkers would no longer be eligible to apply or reapply for the Global Entry program because the state’s policies made it harder for border agents to confirm immigration status. New York responded with a lawsuit against the administration.
Updated at 23.24 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.24 GMT Vindman attorney: the president is ‘encouraging breaking the law’ The president claimed that “many of the people in the building started applauding” when Lt Col Alexander Vindman was escorted out after he was fired from his post at the National Security Council. Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly recalled from their positions in a campaign of retribution against officials who cooperated with the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.
“Vindman was the guy that, when we took him out of the building, the building applauded,” Trump said in a radio interview with host Geraldo Rivera. “I don’t know if you heard that.”
“Just so you understand, many of these people I’ve never met,” Trump added. “But I’m not a fan of Vindman, no question about it.” JUST IN: Vindman’s attorney is out with a statement on Trump’s Geraldo interview. He says the president is “encouraging breaking the law” by attempting to intimidate and punish Vindman. pic.twitter.com/VsZXnW1L5J — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 13, 2020 In response, an attorney for Vindman responded that the president’s public attacks are “designed to intimidate and punish” the Ukraine expert, who provided key testimony in the impeachment case.
“By using the power of his office to repeatedly humiliate and punish those following the law, the president is encouraging breaking the law,” said attorney David Pressman.
Updated at 22.29 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.00 GMT Evening summary That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours. Here’s where the day stands: Attorney general Bill Barr said he would not be “bullied” into allowing the president to influence justice department decisions after Trump tweeted about the case of his former associate, Roger Stone. Barr complained that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job”.
said he would not be “bullied” into allowing the president to influence justice department decisions after tweeted about the case of his former associate, Barr complained that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job”. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi , said Trump’s comments on Stone represented “an abuse of power”.
, said Trump’s comments on Stone represented “an abuse of power”. The Senate passed a resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations in Iran, but the proposal seems unlikely to survive the president’s expected veto.
A judge has temporarily halted Microsoft’s cloud-computing work for the Pentagon in response to a lawsuit from Amazon, which claims the company lost the contract partly because of Trump’s bias against Jeff Bezos.
The Pentagon informed Congress it intends to shift $3.8bn in funds away from projects like fighter jets and national guard equipment to pay for Trump’s border wall. Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
Updated at 22.32 GMT
13 Feb 2020 21.50 GMT Nevada's influential Culinary Union declines to endorse presidential candidate The Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 workers in Nevada, declined to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate ahead of the state’s caucuses next Saturday. “We’ve worked really hard to make sure members know what’s going on with the candidates, and we’re not stopping that,” the union secretary-treasurer Geoconda Argüello-Kline said during a press conference. “We’re going to endorse our goals, what we’re doing. We’re not going to endorse a political candidate.” There was some speculation that the union would endorse Joe Biden, the only specific candidate Argüello-Kline mentioned during the press conference. But although she described Biden as “our friend”, the union did not offer an explicit endorsement. The announcement comes after the union distributed a flier criticizing the Medicare-for-all plans embraced by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The union later said it was subjected to “vicious attacks” by Sanders’ supporters over the flier.
More details: @Culinary226’s spokeswoman tells me they have received “hundreds” of attacks, in the form of mentions, DM’s, calls and emails, including threats to their personal safety. She says she and Geoconda Arguello-Kline have been doxxed, their personal addresses shared. — Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) February 13, 2020
Updated at 22.30 GMT
13 Feb 2020 21.29 GMT The White House reportedly received little notice about attorney general Bill Barr’s comments to ABC News. Senior level White House sources tell @ABC the president and top aides were unaware of the Barr’s intentions in today’s interview with ABC and were only informed of the content just before it aired - w/ @KFaulders — John Santucci (@Santucci) February 13, 2020
13 Feb 2020 21.27 GMT Interestingly, Bill Barr said he hoped Trump would respond to the attorney general’s criticism of the president’s comments on Roger Stone. “I hope he will react,” Barr told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas. “And respect it?” Thomas asked. “Yes,” Barr replied.
13 Feb 2020 21.21 GMT Despite attorney general Bill Barr insisting he will not be “bullied” by Trump on Justice Department matters, some commentators were skeptical that Barr was actually trying to distance himself from the president. From an Obama-era Justice Department official: Don't be fooled by this one, people. Barr is telling the president that his impulsiveness is making it politically harder for him to deliver the results he wants. If Trump would just shut up, Barr could take care of him much more effectively. https://t.co/6CmHHgxy9u — Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) February 13, 2020
13 Feb 2020 21.16 GMT In his ABC interview, attorney general Bill Barr ackowledged his comments about Trump could leave him open to backlash from the president, who is notoriously intolerant of criticism from his aides. But Barr said he was determined to lead the Justice Department without being influence by outside forces, including the president. EXCLUSIVE: Attorney Gen. Bill Barr tells @PierreTABC “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case”—but should stop tweeting about the DOJ because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.” https://t.co/YGa2AhcH5v pic.twitter.com/GSRRrJadSU — ABC News (@ABC) February 13, 2020 “I think the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that and I will continue to do that,” Barr said. “And I’m happy to say that, in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The attorney general insisted he made his own decision that the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, the president’s former associate, should be revised, but Trump’s tweets on the matter complicated the issue. “Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back because of the tweet?” Barr said. “And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be.”
13 Feb 2020 21.05 GMT Barr: Trump's tweets 'make it impossible for me to do my job' In an interview with ABC News, attorney general Bill Barr said Trump’s tweets about Roger Stone’s case “make it impossible for me to do my job.” “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC. The attorney general emphasized Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,” but he acknowledged the president’s comments undercut his authority. “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr said. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
13 Feb 2020 20.51 GMT Trump suggested he may stop allowing aides to listen in to his calls with foreign leaders, a clear reaction to the Ukraine controversy. “That’s what they’ve done over the years, when you call a foreign leader, people listen,” the president told Geraldo Rivera in a radio interview that aired today. “I may end the practice entirely, I may end it entirely.” The impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint stemming from Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president, during which the US president asked for a “favor” and went on to discuss potential investigations of Democrats. It’s a long-running practice to allow administration officials to listen in on presidential calls with world leaders to keep senior advisers updated on foreign policy.
13 Feb 2020 20.29 GMT Pentagon intends to shift $3.8 billion for Trump's border wall The Pentagon has informed Congress of plans to shift $3.8 billion away from fighter jets and National Guard equipment, among other resources, to pay for Trump’s border wall. Politico reports: The surprise reprogramming of another $3.8 billion ... means the Pentagon will have forked over nearly $10 billion since last year to help pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall. But this shift in funding marks a new phase for the administration, which until now had used money set for military construction and counterdrug operations, not combat equipment. The fiscal 2020 money will be moved into drug interdiction accounts that the Pentagon tapped last year to fund border barrier projects. The money will be drawn from a host of procurement accounts, many of which are popular on Capitol Hill. The move includes a cut of two Marine Corps F-35B fighter jets at a cost of $223 million; $100 million from the Army National Guard’s Humvee modernization program; $650 million cut from the Navy’s amphibious assault ship replacement; and $261 million from the Expeditionary Fast Transport ship. The reprogramming also trimmed two Air Force C-130J transport aircraft for a cut of $196 million and $180 million from the service’s light attack aircraft program. The plan sparked criticism from at least one Republican lawmaker, congressman Mac Thornberry, but he has already said he will not seek reelection next year. Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on House Armed Services Committee, says President Trump's latest raid on DOD funds to spend more taxpayer money on a Mexico border wall than Congress was willing to appropriate is unconstitutional. pic.twitter.com/JiorGw1LKt — Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) February 13, 2020