alternet--2020-12-21--Kelly Loeffler says she uses $10 million private jet to save taxpayers — but they're still covering

Kelly Loeffler says she uses $10 million private jet to save taxpayers — but they're still covering her flights to DC

Three days after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke a story in which a spokesperson for Sen. Kelly Loeffler , R-Ga. , said she used her private jet to `` save taxpayer money , '' the unelected Republican took a taxpayer-funded commercial flight from Atlanta to Washington .
Three days later , she took another one home .
In all , Loeffler has taken at least two dozen taxpayer-backed commercial flights between back and forth to Washington after claiming her personal airplane was an asset that benefited the people she served , according to biannual reports published by the secretary of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covers expenditures up to Sept. 1 ; it is unclear how many times Loeffler has flown on commercial aircraft since then .
Senators and their staff can avail themselves of public funds for travel that is deemed necessary to their government jobs .
Conversely , ethics rules allow Loeffler to use her private plane for government business as long as she does n't expense it to her government account .
Aides told the Atlanta paper in February that the `` majority '' of her private flights are her trips between Atlanta and Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' flies commercial to D.C. — in coach class , believe it or not .
At the time of that report , however Loeffler had not reported taking any commercial flights at all , according to Senate records , although her staff appears to have taken several .
In all , Loeffler 's airfare cost taxpayers $ 3,665.45 , a sum that would likely be substantially higher in a normal year , as the steep drop in demand brought about by the coronavirus pandemic has forced major airlines to make dramatic price cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant difference in cost between trips taken in the months of May and June , when airfares had cratered , suggesting that Loeffler has not always flown in coach class , as she has claimed .
For instance , the senator 's May 4 flight to Washington cost $ 87.31 , and her return to Atlanta on May 7 cost the same amount , to the penny .
For her next round trip to the nation 's capital , the first leg cost $ 233.36 , but the return once again cost $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same amounts ( with one exception ) , hold true for all 16 taxpayer-funded flights in May , June and July , when average fares between the two cities were almost always under $ 100 .
In July , Loeffler said in a Fox News interview that she had been flying on Delta Airlines , which is based at Atlanta 's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport , one of the the busiest in the country .
Delta 's PACs and CEO made maximum donations to Loeffler 's campaign at the end of March , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Salon reported in April that airlines that gave large amounts to President Trump 's re-election were among the first recipients of corporate bailout money included in that $ 2.2 trillion relief bill .
Delta alone got $ 5.4 billion .
If Loeffler had indeed used her private jet for the `` majority '' of her flights to Washington , she would be squeezing in an additional 25 trips , minimum .
But because the senator and her husband , Jeff Sprecher , chairman of the New York Stock Exchange , chartered their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the jet is `` not available for public tracking per request from the owner/operator , '' according to a database on the site FlightAware .
Loeffler 's spokesperson claimed last February that not only did the senator use her $ 10 million 2010 Bombardier Challenger 300 — which she and Sprecher bought after her appointment to the Senate — to save her constituents money , but that she paid for it `` out of her pocket . ''
It appears possible , however , that the couple joined the `` frenzy '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a loophole in the 2017 Republican tax bill that turns private jets into flying tax shelters : The provision allows a company to write off the full price of a new or used airplane against the company 's earnings .
Loeffler has also used her private jet for campaign-related trips as short as an 18-minute hop from a central Georgia town to Savannah , on the Atlantic coast .
The senator 's former Republican opponent in the 2020 primary , Rep. Doug Collins , frequently invoked the jet on the campaign trail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by far the wealthiest member of Congress , as out of touch with Georgia voters .
`` Who buys a $ 30 million jet in secret then posts a picture with their new KIA on Facebook around the same time ? ''
a Collins spokesperson told the Journal Constitution in February .
`` That 's all you need to know about Kelly Loeffler . ''
Next month , Loeffler faces a runoff against her Democratic opponent , the Rev .
Raphael Warnock , who grew up in government housing and later became pastor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Polls suggest the race will be very close .

Three days after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke a story in which a spokesperson for Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., said she used her private jet to "save taxpayer money," the unelected Republican took a taxpayer-funded commercial flight from Atlanta to Washington. Three days later, she took another one home.
In all, Loeffler has taken at least two dozen taxpayer-backed commercial flights between back and forth to Washington after claiming her personal airplane was an asset that benefited the people she served, according to biannualreports published by the secretary of the Senate.
The latest of those reports covers expenditures up to Sept. 1; it is unclear how many times Loeffler has flown on commercial aircraft since then.
Senators and their staff can avail themselves of public funds for travel that is deemed necessary to their government jobs. Conversely, ethics rules allow Loeffler to use her private plane for government business as long as she doesn't expense it to her government account. Aides told the Atlanta paper in February that the "majority" of her private flights are her trips between Atlanta and Washington, adding that the multimillionaire "occasionally" flies commercial to D.C. — in coach class, believe it or not.
At the time of that report, however Loeffler had not reported taking any commercial flights at all, according to Senate records, although her staff appears to have taken several.
In all, Loeffler's airfare cost taxpayers $3,665.45, a sum that would likely be substantially higher in a normal year, as the steep drop in demand brought about by the coronavirus pandemic has forced major airlines to make dramatic price cuts.
Loeffler's expense reports show a significant difference in cost between trips taken in the months of May and June, when airfares had cratered, suggesting that Loeffler has not always flown in coach class, as she has claimed.
For instance, the senator's May 4 flight to Washington cost $87.31, and her return to Atlanta on May 7 cost the same amount, to the penny. For her next round trip to the nation's capital, the first leg cost $233.36, but the return once again cost $87.31. These discrepancies, in those same amounts (with one exception), hold true for all 16 taxpayer-funded flights in May, June and July, when average fares between the two cities were almost always under $100.
In July, Loeffler said in a Fox News interview that she had been flying on Delta Airlines, which is based at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, one of the the busiest in the country. Delta's PACs and CEO made maximum donations to Loeffler's campaign at the end of March, as she was working on the CARES Act.
Salon reported in April that airlines that gave large amounts to President Trump's re-election were among the first recipients of corporate bailout money included in that $2.2 trillion relief bill. Delta alone got $5.4 billion.
If Loeffler had indeed used her private jet for the "majority" of her flights to Washington, she would be squeezing in an additional 25 trips, minimum. But because the senator and her husband, Jeff Sprecher, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, chartered their plane under a company that offers anonymity, the jet is "not available for public tracking per request from the owner/operator," according to a database on the site FlightAware.
Loeffler's spokesperson claimed last February that not only did the senator use her $10 million 2010 Bombardier Challenger 300 — which she and Sprecher bought after her appointment to the Senate — to save her constituents money, but that she paid for it "out of her pocket." It appears possible, however, that the couple joined the "frenzy" of Wall Street money managers who leapt at a loophole in the 2017 Republican tax bill that turns private jets into flying tax shelters: The provision allows a company to write off the full price of a new or used airplane against the company's earnings.
(Loeffler's financial disclosure forms also show that Sprecher owns a Fulton County jet hangar worth $1 million, which pulls in somewhere between $100,001 and $1 million in annual rent.)
Loeffler has also used her private jet for campaign-related trips as short as an 18-minute hop from a central Georgia town to Savannah, on the Atlantic coast.
The senator's former Republican opponent in the 2020 primary, Rep. Doug Collins, frequently invoked the jet on the campaign trail in an effort to paint Loeffler, by far the wealthiest member of Congress, as out of touch with Georgia voters.
"Who buys a $30 million jet in secret then posts a picture with their new KIA on Facebook around the same time?" a Collins spokesperson told the Journal Constitution in February. "That's all you need to know about Kelly Loeffler."
Next month, Loeffler faces a runoff against her Democratic opponent, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who grew up in government housing and later became pastor at Atlanta's historic Ebenezer Baptist Church. Polls suggest the race will be very close.


alternet--2020-12-22--Trump's last days: Report says president personally pressured more than 150 Republicans to overturn

Trump's last days: Report says president personally pressured more than 150 Republicans to overturn election

President Donald Trump 's last days are filled with chaos , erratic decisions and impulsive behavior , according to insiders familiar with his battle to overturn the outcome of the election .
According to Politico , many of the president 's advisors have repeatedly urged him to concede and let go of his losing battle , but he has adamantly pushed back .
It has been reported that Trump has now shut down his campaign team and ignored White House staff only relying on the advice of those who have no problem pushing his dangerous agenda .
Now , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican leaders across all of the battleground states he lost as he attempts to pressure and strong-arm them into overturning the presidential election .
Although the Electoral College has already cast its votes solidifying Biden 's win , Trump is still working to overturn the election without substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud .
`` In total , the president talked to at least 31 Republicans , encompassing mostly local and state officials from four critical battleground states he lost — Michigan , Arizona , Georgia , and Pennsylvania .
The contacts included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 individuals , and at least four White House meetings with 20 Republican state lawmakers , party leaders , and attorneys general , all people he hoped to win over to his side .
Trump also spoke by phone about his efforts with numerous House Republicans and at least three current or incoming Senate Republicans . ''
Despite all of the losses that have stacked up for Trump , Scott Jennings , who served under the Bush administration and now works closely with the Trump administration , believes the president sees the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was always this feeling of supreme confidence that no matter how it looks it 's all going to work out for him , something will happen and it will all work out for him because it did once before , '' said Jennings .
`` I think that sort of magical confidence or magical thinking , persisted right through Election Day and right through this post-election . ''
While Trump 's previous attempts to challenge the election have failed , the president is now looking at another date to possibly bring his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Friday , Trump tweeted to commend new Sen. Tommy Tuberville ( R-AL ) for suggesting that he would join House Republicans ' objection of the election results on Jan. 6 .
The president also admitted he 'd called Tuberville the night before he announced his decision .

President Donald Trump's last days are filled with chaos, erratic decisions and impulsive behavior, according to insiders familiar with his battle to overturn the outcome of the election.
According to Politico, many of the president's advisors have repeatedly urged him to concede and let go of his losing battle, but he has adamantly pushed back. It has been reported that Trump has now shut down his campaign team and ignored White House staff only relying on the advice of those who have no problem pushing his dangerous agenda.
Now, he has reportedly spoken to more than 150 Republican leaders across all of the battleground states he lost as he attempts to pressure and strong-arm them into overturning the presidential election. Although the Electoral College has already cast its votes solidifying Biden's win, Trump is still working to overturn the election without substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud.
The publication reports:
"In total, the president talked to at least 31 Republicans, encompassing mostly local and state officials from four critical battleground states he lost — Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. The contacts included at least 12 personal phone calls to 11 individuals, and at least four White House meetings with 20 Republican state lawmakers, party leaders, and attorneys general, all people he hoped to win over to his side. Trump also spoke by phone about his efforts with numerous House Republicans and at least three current or incoming Senate Republicans."
Despite all of the losses that have stacked up for Trump, Scott Jennings, who served under the Bush administration and now works closely with the Trump administration, believes the president sees the election from a dangerously delusional perspective.
"There was always this feeling of supreme confidence that no matter how it looks it's all going to work out for him, something will happen and it will all work out for him because it did once before," said Jennings. "I think that sort of magical confidence or magical thinking, persisted right through Election Day and right through this post-election."
While Trump's previous attempts to challenge the election have failed, the president is now looking at another date to possibly bring his aspirations to fruition: January 6.
On Friday, Trump tweeted to commend new Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) for suggesting that he would join House Republicans' objection of the election results on Jan. 6. The president also admitted he'd called Tuberville the night before he announced his decision.


alternet--2020-12-22--What was the worst pardon ever? This historian says you'll be surprised

Political Pundits and television talking heads have been speculating widely and wildly about who Donald Trump will pardon before he leaves office on January 20 , 2021 .
Will he pardon Rudy Giuliani ?
Paul Manafort ?
Steve Bannon ?
His children ?
Himself ?
It is customary for an outgoing President to grant 11th hour pardons , sometimes to surprising recipients .
But Donald Trump is anything but customary , and thus that pardon-guessing game offers a goldmine of interesting and in some cases alarming speculation regarding who and why .
This Christmastime gift giveaway shows us just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Plus it gives a president opportunities to accomplish multiple personal and political goals .
Of course , not all presidential pardons are created equal .
To be sure , justice and mercy are worthy and occasional goals .
But the end-of-term pardons often reveal other , less savory objectives .
Some pardons seem to be given in exchange for money ( directly or as tax-free donations to a presidential library fund or other cause of interest for the outgoing president ) , some to settle scores , some to reward partisan loyalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad and derives from the U.S. Constitution .
The only two areas where the pardon power is forbidden are a ) in cases of impeachment ; and b ) for state , rather than federal , offenses .
The question of a pardon prior to an indictment or finding of guilt was decided in the case of the Nixon pardon in 1974 , when Gerald Ford granted his predecessor a `` full , free , and absolute pardon '' even before Nixon was charged formally with a crime ( he was , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a criminal case that landed several people in his administration in jail ) .
The intentions of the Framers of the Constitution gave the newly invented president the pardon power to ensure justice and , as Alexander Hamilton noted a few years after the adoption of the Constitution , `` restore domestic tranquility of the commonwealth . ''
But not every Founder was in support of giving the president this absolute power .
George Mason , a convention delegate from Virginia , warned that a president might `` make dangerous use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he might be a co-conspirator .
The early pardons were indeed used to ensure mercy and to quell hostility towards the new government , which was in the early stages of gaining legitimacy .
But it was n't long before the pardon power met with controversy .
James Buchanan , the president who presided over the pre-civil war breakup of the union , pardoned Brigham Young and other Mormons who had been involved in revolutionary acts against the government in the Utah territory .
Buchanan was justly concerned that Young and the Mormons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and form their own `` theocratic nation . ''
As part of a compromise , Buchanan delivered pardons and Young and his followers ceased their revolutionary activities .
Just after the Civil War , Andrew Johnson issued a Christmas Day 1868 pardon to most Southerners .
Johnson wanted to go easy on the Confederates , while members of Congress called for punishment against the rebels .
To make matters worse , Johnson pardoned Dr. Samuel Mudd , who helped John Wilkes Booth escape .
It all became too much , a great backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from Congress en route to being the first impeached President .
In 1921 , President Warren G. Harding pardoned Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs .
Debs had run for president several times , even getting nearly a million votes in 1920 , but called on Americans to resist the draft in World War I. Debs was imprisoned and even ran for president from prison , his fifth and final run at the White House .
Harding granted Debs a full pardon , which ran against popular opinion .
On Christmas Eve 1971 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoffa , who had been convicted of fraud and bribery .
Nixon was trying to woo labor voters to the Republican Party , and openly courted Teamsters prior to his 1972 bid for reelection .
Hoffa disappeared four years later following a meeting with known members of the mob .
In 1982 he was legally declared dead .
To many , Gerald Ford 's pardoning of Richard Nixon ranks as the worst ever .
Ford was suspected of agreeing to a deal with Nixon that called for Nixon to resign in exchange for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus view is that there was actually no deal , and Ford granted Nixon a pardon to both `` get Watergate behind us , '' and out of concern for the health of the former president .
Other modern questionable pardons include Jimmy Carter 's pardon for all those who evaded the draft during Vietnam War , Bill Clinton 's pardon for his half-brother Roger , who was convicted on drug charges , Clinton 's controversial pardon of donor Marc Rich , who had been convicted of tax fraud ( Rich 's ex-wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , George W. Bush 's pardon of Lewis `` Scooter '' Libby , the former chief-of-staff to Vice President Dick Cheney who had been convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame , Barack Obama 's pardoning of Private Chelsea Manning , who was convicted of releasing classified documents , and Donald Trump 's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio , who was an anti-immigrant Arizona official who supervised harsh treatment of immigrant detainees under inhumane conditions .
Other notable Trump pardons include one for Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lied under oath , and former Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher , who was convicted of committing war crimes .
The only person NOT to accept a presidential pardon was George Wilson , who in 1829 was found guilty of robbery of the mail .
Without giving an explanation , Wilson refused the pardon .
The Supreme Court finally rendered a judgment on this and ruled that it was Mr. Wilson 's right to reject a pardon .
He was executed by hanging not long afterward .
By the numbers , modern presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardons they granted .
FDR ( who was elected four times ) granted the most ( 2,819 ) .
His successor Harry Truman was also pardon-happy , issuing 1,913 .
Ike granted 1,110 .
From then on , presidents greatly reduced the number of pardons granted .
In descending order , Kennedy issued 472 , Clinton 396 , Reagan 393 , Ford 382 , Obama 212 , GW Bush 189 , and GHW Bush 74 .
Perhaps the most intriguing pardon was by Harry Truman , who in 1952 commuted the sentence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Truman over the issue of Puerto Rican independence .
Is Donald Trump contemplating , and could he issue , a self-pardon ?
On June 14 , 2018 he announced `` I have the absolute right to pardon myself . ''
But can he do so legally ?
It is unclear , as no president has ever issued a self-pardon ( none felt the great need to ) , so it has never been tested in court .
The two central problems of a self-pardon are 1 ) that it allows someone to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2 ) that it puts a president above the law .
A self-pardon violates both of these essential elements of our jurisprudence .
The closest thing we have to a judicial precedent stems from 1974 , when the Department of Justice issued a memorandum on this question .
The acting Deputy Attorney General Mary C. Lawton asserted that a president could not issue a self-pardon .
Such memoranda are considered in the Department of Justice to have the force of law .
Thus , under current ruling , President Trump could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can answer the question by saying that the President absolutely , unequivocally , probably ca n't issue a self-pardon .
A pardon for family members is another matter altogether .
There seems no legal reason why he could n't ( but many legal and moral reasons why he should n't ) give `` the best Christmas present ever '' to his family : a full , free , and absolute pardon !
Would a Trump self-pardon be the worst pardon ever ?
Probably , but until and if Trump does give himself a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all-time worst presidential pardon ever was granted by George H.W .
Bush to former secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger .
Weinberger was about to face trial in the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration , where Bush had served as Reagan 's vice president .
Part of the case against Weinberger involved the use of entries from his diary relating to the making of decisions that led to illegal activity in both Iran ( selling arms to terrorists ) and with the Contras ( illegally funding a rebellion against the government of Nicaragua @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testified under oath that he had no knowledge of these activities , but Weinberger 's diaries said otherwise .
They contained material that deeply implicated Bush in the decisions , and could have been used to put the former VP on trial for perjury .
On Christmas Eve 1992 ( Christmas eve is a very popular time for Presidents to issue pardons – for obvious reasons ) , Bush granted Weinberger a pardon .
Thus , in pardoning Weinberger , Bush was able to keep is activities secret , and in effect give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first presidential self-pardon ?
In a way , yes .
The way to end the abuse of presidential pardons is to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding self-pardons and pardons for a president 's family members .
One might also pass an amendment allowing the Congress 30 days to vote approving a presidential pardon with a majority of both Houses having the ability to prevent a pardon that seems to them inappropriate .
Pardons do have a positive role to play .
But their checkered history calls upon us to make a few minor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Political Pundits and television talking heads have been speculating widely and wildly about who Donald Trump will pardon before he leaves office on January 20, 2021. Will he pardon Rudy Giuliani? Paul Manafort? Steve Bannon? His children? Himself?
It is customary for an outgoing President to grant 11th hour pardons, sometimes to surprising recipients. But Donald Trump is anything but customary, and thus that pardon-guessing game offers a goldmine of interesting and in some cases alarming speculation regarding who and why.
This Christmastime gift giveaway shows us just how valuable a presidential get-out-of-jail card can be. Plus it gives a president opportunities to accomplish multiple personal and political goals.
Of course, not all presidential pardons are created equal. To be sure, justice and mercy are worthy and occasional goals. But the end-of-term pardons often reveal other, less savory objectives. Some pardons seem to be given in exchange for money (directly or as tax-free donations to a presidential library fund or other cause of interest for the outgoing president), some to settle scores, some to reward partisan loyalists.
The president's pardon power is broad and derives from the U.S. Constitution. The only two areas where the pardon power is forbidden are a) in cases of impeachment; and b) for state, rather than federal, offenses. The question of a pardon prior to an indictment or finding of guilt was decided in the case of the Nixon pardon in 1974, when Gerald Ford granted his predecessor a "full, free, and absolute pardon" even before Nixon was charged formally with a crime (he was, however, named an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a criminal case that landed several people in his administration in jail).
The intentions of the Framers of the Constitution gave the newly invented president the pardon power to ensure justice and, as Alexander Hamilton noted a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, "restore domestic tranquility of the commonwealth." But not every Founder was in support of giving the president this absolute power. George Mason, a convention delegate from Virginia, warned that a president might "make dangerous use of it" by pardoning crimes in which he might be a co-conspirator.
The early pardons were indeed used to ensure mercy and to quell hostility towards the new government, which was in the early stages of gaining legitimacy. But it wasn't long before the pardon power met with controversy.
James Buchanan, the president who presided over the pre-civil war breakup of the union, pardoned Brigham Young and other Mormons who had been involved in revolutionary acts against the government in the Utah territory. Buchanan was justly concerned that Young and the Mormons intended to break away from the U.S. and form their own "theocratic nation." As part of a compromise, Buchanan delivered pardons and Young and his followers ceased their revolutionary activities.
Just after the Civil War, Andrew Johnson issued a Christmas Day 1868 pardon to most Southerners. Johnson wanted to go easy on the Confederates, while members of Congress called for punishment against the rebels. To make matters worse, Johnson pardoned Dr. Samuel Mudd, who helped John Wilkes Booth escape. It all became too much, a great backlash occurred, and Johnson lost virtually all support from Congress en route to being the first impeached President.
In 1921, President Warren G. Harding pardoned Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs. Debs had run for president several times, even getting nearly a million votes in 1920, but called on Americans to resist the draft in World War I. Debs was imprisoned and even ran for president from prison, his fifth and final run at the White House. Harding granted Debs a full pardon, which ran against popular opinion.
On Christmas Eve 1971, Richard Nixon pardoned labor boss Jimmy Hoffa, who had been convicted of fraud and bribery. Nixon was trying to woo labor voters to the Republican Party, and openly courted Teamsters prior to his 1972 bid for reelection. Hoffa disappeared four years later following a meeting with known members of the mob. In 1982 he was legally declared dead.
To many, Gerald Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon ranks as the worst ever. Ford was suspected of agreeing to a deal with Nixon that called for Nixon to resign in exchange for a pardon. Over time, the consensus view is that there was actually no deal, and Ford granted Nixon a pardon to both "get Watergate behind us," and out of concern for the health of the former president.
Other modern questionable pardons include Jimmy Carter's pardon for all those who evaded the draft during Vietnam War, Bill Clinton's pardon for his half-brother Roger, who was convicted on drug charges, Clinton's controversial pardon of donor Marc Rich, who had been convicted of tax fraud (Rich's ex-wife was a mega-donor to the Democratic Party), George W. Bush's pardon of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief-of-staff to Vice President Dick Cheney who had been convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Barack Obama's pardoning of Private Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of releasing classified documents, and Donald Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was an anti-immigrant Arizona official who supervised harsh treatment of immigrant detainees under inhumane conditions. Other notable Trump pardons include one for Mike Flynn, his National Security Advisor, who lied under oath, and former Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, who was convicted of committing war crimes.
The only person NOT to accept a presidential pardon was George Wilson, who in 1829 was found guilty of robbery of the mail. Without giving an explanation, Wilson refused the pardon. The Supreme Court finally rendered a judgment on this and ruled that it was Mr. Wilson's right to reject a pardon. He was executed by hanging not long afterward.
By the numbers, modern presidents have varied widely in the number of pardons they granted. FDR (who was elected four times) granted the most (2,819). His successor Harry Truman was also pardon-happy, issuing 1,913. Ike granted 1,110. From then on, presidents greatly reduced the number of pardons granted. In descending order, Kennedy issued 472, Clinton 396, Reagan 393, Ford 382, Obama 212, GW Bush 189, and GHW Bush 74.
Perhaps the most intriguing pardon was by Harry Truman, who in 1952 commuted the sentence of Oscar Collazo, who tried to assassinate Truman over the issue of Puerto Rican independence.
Is Donald Trump contemplating, and could he issue, a self-pardon? On June 14, 2018 he announced "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." But can he do so legally? It is unclear, as no president has ever issued a self-pardon (none felt the great need to), so it has never been tested in court. The two central problems of a self-pardon are 1) that it allows someone to be the judge in his own case; and 2) that it puts a president above the law. A self-pardon violates both of these essential elements of our jurisprudence. The closest thing we have to a judicial precedent stems from 1974, when the Department of Justice issued a memorandum on this question. The acting Deputy Attorney General Mary C. Lawton asserted that a president could not issue a self-pardon. Such memoranda are considered in the Department of Justice to have the force of law. Thus, under current ruling, President Trump could not issue himself a pardon. Thus one can answer the question by saying that the President absolutely, unequivocally, probably can't issue a self-pardon.
A pardon for family members is another matter altogether. There seems no legal reason why he couldn't (but many legal and moral reasons why he shouldn't) give "the best Christmas present ever" to his family: a full, free, and absolute pardon!
Would a Trump self-pardon be the worst pardon ever? Probably, but until and if Trump does give himself a pardon, we would argue that the all-time worst presidential pardon ever was granted by George H.W. Bush to former secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger was about to face trial in the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration, where Bush had served as Reagan's vice president. Part of the case against Weinberger involved the use of entries from his diary relating to the making of decisions that led to illegal activity in both Iran (selling arms to terrorists) and with the Contras (illegally funding a rebellion against the government of Nicaragua). Vice President Bush had already testified under oath that he had no knowledge of these activities, but Weinberger's diaries said otherwise. They contained material that deeply implicated Bush in the decisions, and could have been used to put the former VP on trial for perjury. On Christmas Eve 1992 (Christmas eve is a very popular time for Presidents to issue pardons – for obvious reasons), Bush granted Weinberger a pardon. Thus, in pardoning Weinberger, Bush was able to keep is activities secret, and in effect give himself a pardon. Was this the first presidential self-pardon? In a way, yes.
The way to end the abuse of presidential pardons is to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding self-pardons and pardons for a president's family members. One might also pass an amendment allowing the Congress 30 days to vote approving a presidential pardon with a majority of both Houses having the ability to prevent a pardon that seems to them inappropriate. Pardons do have a positive role to play. But their checkered history calls upon us to make a few minor adjustments to move closer to the ideal.


alternet--2020-12-22--Kushner and Trump signed off on  shell company arrangements to pay top campaign officials: source

Top White House adviser Jared Kushner , President Trump 's son-in-law , personally signed off on keeping salary payments to top campaign officials off the books , according to a person involved with the arrangements .
Federal Election Commission records show that the Trump campaign has made no salary payments to chief strategist Jason Miller , who came on board in June , or to campaign manager Bill Stepien , who joined the campaign in late 2018 and took over the top job from Brad Parscale in July .
Kushner agreed to both arrangements , and personally directed the payments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the Trump campaign has reported $ 20,000 monthly salary payments to chief of staff Stephanie Alexander and senior adviser Katrina Pierson , it has not done the same for COO Jeff DeWit or senior advisers Bob Paduchik and Bill Shine .
Deputy campaign manager Justin Clark has not taken a direct payment from the campaign since February 2019 , according to federal records .
Instead , the campaign has paid these top-tier advisers through intermediaries — some of which are still unknown .
For instance , according to the source , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directed the campaign to route the top strategist 's $ 35,000 monthly payment through Jamestown Associates , a media and production firm where Miller once worked , and which the campaign contracts for video production .
Miller , who is currently contesting child-support payments in court , requested the anonymous arrangement for the $ 420,000 annual rate , for unclear reasons .
Communications , court documents and FEC filings reviewed by Salon make clear that the money was paid to Miller 's by way of Jamestown .
President Trump himself was aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To this point , the campaign has not told government that it has paid Miller anything .
Instead , it has stated that its payments to Jamestown are for `` video production , '' without mentioning Miller 's name or strategy work .
Furthermore , Miller 's official role means that he has often directed how and when the campaign uses Jamestown Associates , the company that technically pays him .
Stepien replaced Parscale as campaign manager in mid-July , and allegedly pleased Trump by taking a pay cut when he accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in 2018 the campaign created an in-house shell company called American Made Media Consultants ( AMMC ) in response to rumors about Parscale 's spending , which according to a campaign source had made the president uneasy .
Reports over the summer said that Parscale had stepped aside partly in response to criticism of his profligate spending , which Stepien promised to rein in .
In fact , the campaign 's expenses increased significantly after Stepien took over , including , FEC records show , payments to a company called Elections LLC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 with fellow campaign adviser Justin Clark .
Stepien and Clark , who worked together in the Trump White House until late 2018 , were paid by the firm instead of directly by the campaign , according to a person involved , and Kushner approved the third-party arrangement .
FEC records show that some campaign expenses to Elections LLC are marked `` ATTN : Stefan Passantino '' — the former White House deputy counsel who also incorporated the campaign committee for Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene , a Georgia Republican and QAnon supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 20,000 a month to $ 60,000 over the course of 2020 .
Stepien and Clark formed another firm in February 2019 , called National Public Affairs .
A Trump spokesperson told Salon that AMMC does not pay that firm , but would not say whether Stepien was paid through Elections LLC .
By contrast , Parscale 's salary came through a firm that had his name on it — Parscale Strategy — which took in more than $ 47,700 a month until the campaign reduced that by $ 15,000 a month following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another top campaign adviser , Bob Paduchik , also does not appear to have received any payments from the campaign .
Paduchik served as co-chair of the Republican National Committee from January 2017 to January 2019 , when he departed to work for the Trump campaign .
Federal records show that the RNC had him on the payroll during that time , but those RNC payments actually increased after he left for the campaign — except they then went to his consulting firm , Agincourt .
It is even less clear how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News executive who was on the network 's payroll while serving in the Trump White House .
The same holds true for campaign COO Jeff DeWit , whom Trump had previously appointed as CFO at NASA .
It 's not clear what role Kushner had in those arrangements , if any , but the person familiar with the campaign told Salon that Kushner would have signed off on any and all decisions at that level .
Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh told Salon that the allegation Kushner had signed off on the payment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` the campaign reported all expenditures as required by federal law . ''
Murtaugh did not respond to specific follow-up questions about how top campaign officials were compensated .
When previously asked about the missing payroll receipts , Brendan Fischer , director of the Federal Reform Program at the Campaign Legal Center , told Salon , `` It does n't surprise me at all .
The Trump campaign has disguised millions of dollars in payments to personnel and vendors by routing the money through LLCs created or managed by senior Trump campaign officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an FEC complaint alleging that the Trump campaign had unlawfully covered up at least $ 170 million in payments through AMMC , thereby keeping its spending a secret from federal enforcement agencies , its own donors and the public .
Some campaign disbursements allegedly went towards salaries , the complaint says , such as payments to Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump , who were on the Parscale Strategy payroll .

Top White House adviser Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law, personally signed off on keeping salary payments to top campaign officials off the books, according to a person involved with the arrangements.
Federal Election Commission records show that the Trump campaign has made no salary payments to chief strategist Jason Miller, who came on board in June, or to campaign manager Bill Stepien, who joined the campaign in late 2018 and took over the top job from Brad Parscale in July. Kushner agreed to both arrangements, and personally directed the payments to Miller, the person involved said.
While the Trump campaign has reported $20,000 monthly salary payments to chief of staff Stephanie Alexander and senior adviser Katrina Pierson, it has not done the same for COO Jeff DeWit or senior advisers Bob Paduchik and Bill Shine. Deputy campaign manager Justin Clark has not taken a direct payment from the campaign since February 2019, according to federal records.
Instead, the campaign has paid these top-tier advisers through intermediaries — some of which are still unknown.
For instance, according to the source, after salary negotiations with Miller, Kushner directed the campaign to route the top strategist's $35,000 monthly payment through Jamestown Associates, a media and production firm where Miller once worked, and which the campaign contracts for video production. Miller, who is currently contesting child-support payments in court, requested the anonymous arrangement for the $420,000 annual rate, for unclear reasons. Communications, court documents and FEC filings reviewed by Salon make clear that the money was paid to Miller's by way of Jamestown. President Trump himself was aware of the deal, a person involved said.
To this point, the campaign has not told government that it has paid Miller anything. Instead, it has stated that its payments to Jamestown are for "video production," without mentioning Miller's name or strategy work. Furthermore, Miller's official role means that he has often directed how and when the campaign uses Jamestown Associates, the company that technically pays him.
Stepien replaced Parscale as campaign manager in mid-July, and allegedly pleased Trump by taking a pay cut when he accepted the position. Salon reported last week that in 2018 the campaign created an in-house shell company called American Made Media Consultants (AMMC) in response to rumors about Parscale's spending, which according to a campaign source had made the president uneasy.
Reports over the summer said that Parscale had stepped aside partly in response to criticism of his profligate spending, which Stepien promised to rein in. In fact, the campaign's expenses increased significantly after Stepien took over, including, FEC records show, payments to a company called Elections LLC, a legal firm that Stepien founded in 2019 with fellow campaign adviser Justin Clark.
Stepien and Clark, who worked together in the Trump White House until late 2018, were paid by the firm instead of directly by the campaign, according to a person involved, and Kushner approved the third-party arrangement. FEC records show that some campaign expenses to Elections LLC are marked "ATTN: Stefan Passantino" — the former White House deputy counsel who also incorporated the campaign committee for Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and QAnon supporter. Payments to Elections LLC increased from $20,000 a month to $60,000 over the course of 2020.
Stepien and Clark formed another firm in February 2019, called National Public Affairs. A Trump spokesperson told Salon that AMMC does not pay that firm, but would not say whether Stepien was paid through Elections LLC.
By contrast, Parscale's salary came through a firm that had his name on it — Parscale Strategy — which took in more than $47,700 a month until the campaign reduced that by $15,000 a month following his demotion, federal filings show.
Another top campaign adviser, Bob Paduchik, also does not appear to have received any payments from the campaign. Paduchik served as co-chair of the Republican National Committee from January 2017 to January 2019, when he departed to work for the Trump campaign. Federal records show that the RNC had him on the payroll during that time, but those RNC payments actually increased after he left for the campaign — except they then went to his consulting firm, Agincourt.
It is even less clear how the campaign compensates Shine, a former Fox News executive who was on the network's payroll while serving in the Trump White House. The same holds true for campaign COO Jeff DeWit, whom Trump had previously appointed as CFO at NASA.
It's not clear what role Kushner had in those arrangements, if any, but the person familiar with the campaign told Salon that Kushner would have signed off on any and all decisions at that level.
Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh told Salon that the allegation Kushner had signed off on the payment arrangements was false, and said that "the campaign reported all expenditures as required by federal law." Murtaugh did not respond to specific follow-up questions about how top campaign officials were compensated.
When previously asked about the missing payroll receipts, Brendan Fischer, director of the Federal Reform Program at the Campaign Legal Center, told Salon, "It doesn't surprise me at all. The Trump campaign has disguised millions of dollars in payments to personnel and vendors by routing the money through LLCs created or managed by senior Trump campaign officials."
In July the CLC filed an FEC complaint alleging that the Trump campaign had unlawfully covered up at least $170 million in payments through AMMC, thereby keeping its spending a secret from federal enforcement agencies, its own donors and the public. Some campaign disbursements allegedly went towards salaries, the complaint says, such as payments to Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump, who were on the Parscale Strategy payroll.


alternet--2020-12-22--Congress passes 'pathetic' COVID relief bill with billions in gifts for the wealthy

In late-night votes just hours after nearly 5,600 pages of legislative text were released , the U.S. Congress on Monday night approved trillions of dollars worth of government funding and coronavirus relief that will temporarily avert a catastrophic expiration of key benefits , send $ 600 direct payments to many Americans , and provide billions of dollars in handouts to the rich .
The entire Senate Democratic caucus and every Republican but six voted for the roughly $ 900 billion coronavirus relief legislation , which was paired with a $ 1.4 trillion spending package that will fund the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats—Reps .
Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) and Tulsi Gabbard ( D-Hawaii ) —voted against the coronavirus relief portion of the sprawling package ( pdf ) , which President Donald Trump is expected to sign .
`` I voted against the latest Covid-19 relief legislation because it is woefully inadequate in addressing the needs of people , '' Tlaib said in a statement late Monday .
`` I have watched as many of my colleagues rush to provide billions to corporations and wealthy individuals , while admonishing the needs of the majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do all they can do to poison our society further with corporate greed , while abandoning the very people they are supposed to be working for , '' Tlaib added .
`` This is evident by the inclusion of the 'three martini lunch ' tax giveaway . ''
The tax deduction for business meals was one of several giveaways to wealthy Americans stuffed in the mammoth legislative package , which was made available to read Monday afternoon after reported computer issues delayed its release .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the lack of time lawmakers were given to read the bill before voting on it .
`` Members of Congress have not read this bill .
It 's over 5000 pages , arrived at 2 pm today , and we are told to expect a vote on it in two hours , '' tweeted Ocasio-Cortez , who voted against a rule paving the way for speedy passage but ultimately voted yes on the coronavirus aid portion of the package .
`` This is n't governance .
It 's hostage-taking . ''
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still being combed , progressives noted and denounced the inclusion of billions of dollars in gifts to wealthy Americans—benefits made more obscene by the bill 's inadequate relief for people who are hungry , sick , unemployed , and facing eviction .
`` Pathetic , '' said Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , pointing to the bill 's $ 120 billion handout to rich business owners and other provisions that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest people in the country during the most unequal recession in modern U.S. history .
The Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noting that `` the average family of four will receive a direct payment of $ 2,400 . ''
`` While including these direct payments ultimately improved this bill , given the enormous economic desperation that so many working families across this country are now experiencing , there is no question but that this legislation did not go anywhere near far enough , '' Sanders said in a statement .
As the Washington Post 's Mike DeBonis pointed out , the bill 's `` three martini lunch '' tax deduction is projected to cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenue over 10 years , `` roughly the price tag for another round of CARES Act-sized checks '' — $ 1,200 per eligible adult and $ 500 per child .
Republican lawmakers complained that larger checks would contribute to the budget deficit .
The $ 900 billion coronavirus relief package is a far cry from what economists say is necessary to bring the faltering U.S. economy out of recession and provide meaningful relief to the increasingly desperate public amid rising poverty and a major hunger crisis .
Some economists are calling for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that anything less would result in `` permanent damage '' to families and the economy .
On top of the paltry direct payments—for which millions of vulnerable people will not be eligible—the newly passed bill provides a non-retroactive $ 300-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance and an 11-week extension of UI benefits—an extension accompanied by more burdensome documentation requirements for applicants who are already struggling to navigate rickety state systems .
`` States will be asked to implement a significant number of new rules for these programs for a law that will only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stettner , a senior fellow at The Century Foundation .
`` In reality , many workers wo n't receive the benefits until well into this short period—and at that point , the states will be forced to cut it off once again .
Worst of all , Congress will be setting itself up for another 10 million-plus worker benefit cut off that will start in mid-March , before the new administration and Congress can be reasonably expected to pass another round of relief . ''
`` Congress has given itself little choice but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next economic stimulus package as soon as President Biden and the 117th Congress take office , '' Stettner added .
`` That package must build on the CARES Act and include key reforms to make sure benefits are available as long as the economy remains constrained by this disastrous pandemic . ''
Robert Greenstein , president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , also raised concerns about the too-short duration of relief and pointed to the bill 's inadequate sick and family leave provisions .
`` While the agreement continues the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Families First Act for providing coronavirus-related sick days and family leave , '' Greenstein said in a statement , `` it does n't extend workers ' right to take that time off , leaving that to employers ' discretion . ''
`` A likely result , '' Greenstein warned , `` is that a substantial number of workers will be unable to stay home when they are quarantined or ill or will be unable to balance work and family care-giving needs when schools are closed or a family member has Covid-19 . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who voted for the final relief package , said late Monday that she is glad the legislation will provide direct payments that were not originally on the table as well as billions of dollars in funding for schools .
`` But that does n't mean this package is anything close to enough , '' said Omar .
`` Six hundred dollars is not close to sufficient to cover eight months of lost wages , food , or rent expenses ... Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues have stonewalled state and local aid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of the crisis .
This is a collective failure in helping Americans in their time of need . ''

In late-night votes just hours after nearly 5,600 pages of legislative text were released, the U.S. Congress on Monday night approved trillions of dollars worth of government funding and coronavirus relief that will temporarily avert a catastrophic expiration of key benefits, send $600 direct payments to many Americans, and provide billions of dollars in handouts to the rich.
The entire Senate Democratic caucus and every Republican but six voted for the roughly $900 billion coronavirus relief legislation, which was paired with a $1.4 trillion spending package that will fund the federal government through next September. Just two House Democrats—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)—voted against the coronavirus relief portion of the sprawling package (pdf), which President Donald Trump is expected to sign.
"I voted against the latest Covid-19 relief legislation because it is woefully inadequate in addressing the needs of people," Tlaib said in a statement late Monday. "I have watched as many of my colleagues rush to provide billions to corporations and wealthy individuals, while admonishing the needs of the majority of families."
"Republicans continue to do all they can do to poison our society further with corporate greed, while abandoning the very people they are supposed to be working for," Tlaib added. "This is evident by the inclusion of the 'three martini lunch' tax giveaway."
The tax deduction for business meals was one of several giveaways to wealthy Americans stuffed in the mammoth legislative package, which was made available to read Monday afternoon after reported computer issues delayed its release. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was one of several lawmakers who publicly expressed outrage at the lack of time lawmakers were given to read the bill before voting on it.
"Members of Congress have not read this bill. It's over 5000 pages, arrived at 2 pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in two hours," tweeted Ocasio-Cortez, who voted against a rule paving the way for speedy passage but ultimately voted yes on the coronavirus aid portion of the package. "This isn't governance. It's hostage-taking."
While the contents of the enormous legislative package are still being combed, progressives noted and denounced the inclusion of billions of dollars in gifts to wealthy Americans—benefits made more obscene by the bill's inadequate relief for people who are hungry, sick, unemployed, and facing eviction.
"Pathetic," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), pointing to the bill's $120 billion handout to rich business owners and other provisions that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest people in the country during the most unequal recession in modern U.S. history.
The Vermont senator voted for the relief legislation, noting that "the average family of four will receive a direct payment of $2,400."
"While including these direct payments ultimately improved this bill, given the enormous economic desperation that so many working families across this country are now experiencing, there is no question but that this legislation did not go anywhere near far enough," Sanders said in a statement.
As the Washington Post's Mike DeBonis pointed out, the bill's "three martini lunch" tax deduction is projected to cost the federal government $328 billion in revenue over 10 years, "roughly the price tag for another round of CARES Act-sized checks"—$1,200 per eligible adult and $500 per child. Republican lawmakers complained that larger checks would contribute to the budget deficit.
The $900 billion coronavirus relief package is a far cry from what economists say is necessary to bring the faltering U.S. economy out of recession and provide meaningful relief to the increasingly desperate public amid rising poverty and a major hunger crisis. Some economists are calling for a roughly $4 trillion package, warning that anything less would result in "permanent damage" to families and the economy.
On top of the paltry direct payments—for which millions of vulnerable people will not be eligible—the newly passed bill provides a non-retroactive $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance and an 11-week extension of UI benefits—an extension accompanied by more burdensome documentation requirements for applicants who are already struggling to navigate rickety state systems.
"States will be asked to implement a significant number of new rules for these programs for a law that will only last 11 weeks," noted Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. "In reality, many workers won't receive the benefits until well into this short period—and at that point, the states will be forced to cut it off once again. Worst of all, Congress will be setting itself up for another 10 million-plus worker benefit cut off that will start in mid-March, before the new administration and Congress can be reasonably expected to pass another round of relief."
"Congress has given itself little choice but to immediately get to work on the next economic stimulus package as soon as President Biden and the 117th Congress take office," Stettner added. "That package must build on the CARES Act and include key reforms to make sure benefits are available as long as the economy remains constrained by this disastrous pandemic."
Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also raised concerns about the too-short duration of relief and pointed to the bill's inadequate sick and family leave provisions. "While the agreement continues the tax credits for employers established under the Families First Act for providing coronavirus-related sick days and family leave," Greenstein said in a statement, "it doesn't extend workers' right to take that time off, leaving that to employers' discretion."
"A likely result," Greenstein warned, "is that a substantial number of workers will be unable to stay home when they are quarantined or ill or will be unable to balance work and family care-giving needs when schools are closed or a family member has Covid-19."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who voted for the final relief package, said late Monday that she is glad the legislation will provide direct payments that were not originally on the table as well as billions of dollars in funding for schools.
"But that doesn't mean this package is anything close to enough," said Omar. "Six hundred dollars is not close to sufficient to cover eight months of lost wages, food, or rent expenses... Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues have stonewalled state and local aid, along with survival checks that meet the scale of the crisis. This is a collective failure in helping Americans in their time of need."


alternet--2020-12-22--Trump is at odds with his own administration once again — over Russia

At a press conference on Monday , outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr became the latest senior official to link the Russian government to a massive and ongoing cyberattack against U.S. federal agencies , even as President Donald Trump downplays the hack and seeks again to shift focus away from Moscow .
Experts have specifically blamed the hack on a group known as APT29 , or `` Cozy Bear , '' a Russian intelligence cyber unit that had targeted Democratic National Committee systems in 2016 .
Over the last week it was revealed that perhaps as far back as 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of commercial software sold by Texas company SolarWinds to a number of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies , including Microsoft , Cisco , Intel , the Departments of State , Treasury , Homeland Security and Commerce , as well as the National Institutes of Health .
Nearly 20,000 SolarWinds customers received updates containing APT29 malware .
Though the full extent of the damage is still unknown , Trump 's former head of Homeland Security , Tom Bossert , said last Wednesday that `` the magnitude of this national security breach is hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which `` all elements of national power must be placed on the table . ''
On Friday , Trump 's U.S. Cybersecurity Agency warned that the hack posed a `` grave risk '' to national security , and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pinned the responsibility on Russia that same day .
`` This was a very significant effort , and I think it 's the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity , '' Pompeo said in a radio interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' adding : `` I ca n't say much more as we 're still unpacking precisely what it is , and I 'm sure some of it will remain classified . ''
The next day , however , Trump , who had still not commented on the cyberattack , undercut that assessment in a pair of tweets , claiming that he had been `` fully briefed '' and `` everything is well under control , '' and accusing the media of pushing a false narrative about Russia .
`` The Cyber Hack is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in actuality .
I have been fully briefed and everything is well under control .
Russia , Russia , Russia is the priority chant when anything happens because Lamestream is , for mostly financial reasons , petrified of ... .discussing the possibility that it may be China ( it may ! )
, '' Trump wrote .
`` There could also have been a hit on our ridiculous voting machines during the election , which is now obvious that I won big , making it an even more corrupted embarrassment for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he added , tagging Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Ratcliffe .
The tweets reportedly came as the White House prepared to issue a statement blaming Russia , and sent aides scrambling .
Officials were reportedly told to stand down , and the White House still has not released a statement .
The next day , Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has `` no reason to believe it 's China , '' and Sen. Mitt Romney , R-Utah , told CNN 's Jake Tapper that the president 's tweets came as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blind spot '' to Moscow .
`` The President has a blind spot when it comes to Russia , and so you can expect that that 's the response that he would have , '' Romney said .
`` What Russia has done is put in place a capacity to potentially cripple us in terms of our electricity , our water , our communications , '' the former GOP presidential candidate added .
`` This is the same sort of thing one can do in a wartime setting and so it 's extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our sovereignty and one that 's going to have to be met with a very strong response , not just rhetorical , important as that is , but also with a cyber response of like magnitude or greater . ''
Barr , a formerly devout Trump loyalist who was fired via executive tweet last week , joined the chorus on Monday .
`` I agree with Secretary Pompeo 's assessment .
It certainly appears to be the Russians , but I 'm not going to discuss it beyond that , '' the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden 's transition team said the next administration is weighing its options , which could include retaliatory cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure , according to Reuters .
`` It 's not just sanctions .
It 's steps and things we could do to degrade the capacity of foreign actors to engage in this sort of attack , '' incoming White House chief of staff Ron Klain told CBS ' `` Face the Nation '' on Sunday .
Experts say that it could take months or even longer before the government has a full grasp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has repeatedly refused to hold Russian President Vladimir Putin directly accountable for carrying out cyberattacks on Trump 's behalf in the 2016 election , and has deferred to him repeatedly in public .
During Trump 's term , the real estate mogul has resisted retaliatory sanctions , at one point even firing back at Congress in a written signing statement , calling near-unanimous sanctions `` seriously flawed . ''
The Russian government has denied involvement in the hack .

At a press conference on Monday, outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr became the latest senior official to link the Russian government to a massive and ongoing cyberattack against U.S. federal agencies, even as President Donald Trump downplays the hack and seeks again to shift focus away from Moscow.
Experts have specifically blamed the hack on a group known as APT29, or "Cozy Bear," a Russian intelligence cyber unit that had targeted Democratic National Committee systems in 2016. Over the last week it was revealed that perhaps as far back as 2019, hackers hijacked an update in a piece of commercial software sold by Texas company SolarWinds to a number of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, the Departments of State, Treasury, Homeland Security and Commerce, as well as the National Institutes of Health. Nearly 20,000 SolarWinds customers received updates containing APT29 malware.
Though the full extent of the damage is still unknown, Trump's former head of Homeland Security, Tom Bossert, said last Wednesday that "the magnitude of this national security breach is hard to overstate" and requires a response in which "all elements of national power must be placed on the table." On Friday, Trump's U.S. Cybersecurity Agency warned that the hack posed a "grave risk" to national security, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pinned the responsibility on Russia that same day.
"This was a very significant effort, and I think it's the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity," Pompeo said in a radio interview on "The Mark Levin Show," adding: "I can't say much more as we're still unpacking precisely what it is, and I'm sure some of it will remain classified."
The next day, however, Trump, who had still not commented on the cyberattack, undercut that assessment in a pair of tweets, claiming that he had been "fully briefed" and "everything is well under control," and accusing the media of pushing a false narrative about Russia.
"The Cyber Hack is far greater in the Fake News Media than in actuality. I have been fully briefed and everything is well under control. Russia, Russia, Russia is the priority chant when anything happens because Lamestream is, for mostly financial reasons, petrified of ....discussing the possibility that it may be China (it may!)," Trump wrote.
"There could also have been a hit on our ridiculous voting machines during the election, which is now obvious that I won big, making it an even more corrupted embarrassment for the USA. @DNI_Ratcliffe @SecPompeo," he added, tagging Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Ratcliffe.
The tweets reportedly came as the White House prepared to issue a statement blaming Russia, and sent aides scrambling. Officials were reportedly told to stand down, and the White House still has not released a statement.
The next day, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has "no reason to believe it's China," and Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told CNN's Jake Tapperthat the president's tweets came as no surprise, considering Trump's "blind spot" to Moscow.
"The President has a blind spot when it comes to Russia, and so you can expect that that's the response that he would have," Romney said.
"What Russia has done is put in place a capacity to potentially cripple us in terms of our electricity, our water, our communications," the former GOP presidential candidate added. "This is the same sort of thing one can do in a wartime setting and so it's extraordinary dangerous and it's an outrageous affront on our sovereignty and one that's going to have to be met with a very strong response, not just rhetorical, important as that is, but also with a cyber response of like magnitude or greater."
Barr, a formerly devout Trump loyalist who was fired via executive tweet last week, joined the chorus on Monday.
"I agree with Secretary Pompeo's assessment. It certainly appears to be the Russians, but I'm not going to discuss it beyond that," the outgoing top prosecutor said.
President-elect Joe Biden's transition team said the next administration is weighing its options, which could include retaliatory cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, according to Reuters.
"It's not just sanctions. It's steps and things we could do to degrade the capacity of foreign actors to engage in this sort of attack," incoming White House chief of staff Ron Klain told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Experts say that it could take months or even longer before the government has a full grasp on the extent of the attack.
Trump has repeatedly refused to hold Russian President Vladimir Putin directly accountable for carrying out cyberattacks on Trump's behalf in the 2016 election, and has deferred to him repeatedly in public. During Trump's term, the real estate mogul has resisted retaliatory sanctions, at one point even firing back at Congress in a written signing statement, calling near-unanimous sanctions "seriously flawed."
The Russian government has denied involvement in the hack.


alternet--2020-12-22--There's a disturbing provision buried in the government spending bill that could upend the way we us

There's a disturbing provision buried in the government spending bill that could upend the way we use the internet

Lawmakers in Congress are under fire from digital rights campaigners for embedding three controversial changes to online copyright and trademark laws into the must-pass $ 2.3 trillion legislative package—which includes a $ 1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill and a $ 900 billion Covid-19 relief bill—that could receive floor votes in the House and Senate as early as Monday evening .
The punitive provisions crammed into the enormous bill ( pdf ) , warned Evan Greer of the digital rights group Fight for the Future , `` threaten ordinary Internet users with up to $ 30,000 in fines for engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and re-uploading it ... [ or ] sharing memes . ''
While the citizenry had almost no time to process the actual contents of the 5,593 page legislative text , Greer said Monday afternoon that the CASE Act , Felony Streaming Act , and Trademark Modernization Act `` are in fact included in the must-pass omnibus spending bill . ''
As Mike Masnick explained in a piece at TechDirt on Monday : '' The fact that these are getting added to the must-pass government funding bill is just bad government , '' Masnick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear about this . ''
According to Fight for the Future , `` More than 20,000 people had called on House and Senate leadership to remove these dangerous and unnecessary provisions from the must-pass bill , '' yet Congress chose to include them anyway .
`` This is atrocious , '' Greer said in her statement .
`` We 're facing a massive eviction crisis and millions are unemployed due to the pandemic , but congressional leaders could only muster $ 600 stimulus checks for Covid relief . ''
And yet , lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content companies like Disney ? ''
Greer continued .
`` The CASE Act is a terribly written law that will threaten ordinary Internet users with huge fines for everyday online activity .
It 's absurd that lawmakers included these provisions in a must-pass spending bill . ''
Explaining why the inclusion of these provisions is dangerous , Masnick said `` there 's a reason [ why ] copyright is generally controversial . ''
Even `` small changes '' threaten a `` massive impact on ... the public 's ability to express themselves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that `` we 've seen time and time again that changes to copyright law have profound implications for online freedom of expression and human rights . ''
`` Frivolous copyright takedowns are already a huge problem for the next generation of artists and creators , streamers , gamers , and activists , '' Greer noted , advocating instead for what she called `` a fair system that protects human rights and ensures artists are fairly compensated . ''
Considering how artists and musicians `` are suffering immensely during the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be working quickly to provide immediate relief , not cramming controversial , poison-pill legislation into budget bills to appease special interests . ''
The way Congress jammed through these changes `` is a total and complete travesty , '' said Masnick .
`` People should be mad about this and should hold the congressional leadership of both parties responsible . ''
Calling on `` House and Senate leadership to remove the copyright provisions from the continuing resolution and move them through regular order so we can have transparent and open debate about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` these types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package . ''

Lawmakers in Congress are under fire from digital rights campaigners for embedding three controversial changes to online copyright and trademark laws into the must-pass $2.3 trillion legislative package—which includes a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill and a $900 billion Covid-19 relief bill—that could receive floor votes in the House and Senate as early as Monday evening.
The punitive provisions crammed into the enormous bill (pdf), warned Evan Greer of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, "threaten ordinary Internet users with up to $30,000 in fines for engaging in everyday activity such as downloading an image and re-uploading it... [or] sharing memes."
While the citizenry had almost no time to process the actual contents of the 5,593 page legislative text, Greer said Monday afternoon that the CASE Act, Felony Streaming Act, and Trademark Modernization Act "are in fact included in the must-pass omnibus spending bill."
As Mike Masnick explained in a piece at TechDirt on Monday:
The CASE Act will supercharge copyright trolling exactly at a time when we need to fix the law to have less trolling. And the felony streaming bill (which was only just revealed last week with no debate or discussion) includes provisions that are so confusing and vague no one is sure if it makes sites like Twitch into felons.
"The fact that these are getting added to the must-pass government funding bill is just bad government," Masnick added. "And congressional leadership should hear about this."
According to Fight for the Future, "More than 20,000 people had called on House and Senate leadership to remove these dangerous and unnecessary provisions from the must-pass bill," yet Congress chose to include them anyway.
"This is atrocious," Greer said in her statement. "We're facing a massive eviction crisis and millions are unemployed due to the pandemic, but congressional leaders could only muster $600 stimulus checks for Covid relief."
And yet, lawmakers "managed to cram in handouts for content companies like Disney?" Greer continued. "The CASE Act is a terribly written law that will threaten ordinary Internet users with huge fines for everyday online activity. It's absurd that lawmakers included these provisions in a must-pass spending bill."
Explaining why the inclusion of these provisions is dangerous, Masnick said "there's a reason [why] copyright is generally controversial." Even "small changes" threaten a "massive impact on... the public's ability to express themselves," he wrote.
As The Verge's Makena Kelly reported:
The CASE Act would create a quasi-judicial tribunal of "Copyright Claims Officers" who would work to resolve infringement claims. As outlined in the bill, copyright holders could be awarded up to $30,000 if they find their creative work being shared online.
Proponents of the CASE Act, like the Copyright Alliance, argue that the bill would make it easier for independent artists to bring about copyright claims without having to endure the lengthy and expensive federal courts process. Still, critics of the bill, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future, argue that the CASE Act could fine ordinary internet users for engaging in everyday online behavior like sharing memes.
Greer echoed Masnick, saying that "we've seen time and time again that changes to copyright law have profound implications for online freedom of expression and human rights."
"Frivolous copyright takedowns are already a huge problem for the next generation of artists and creators, streamers, gamers, and activists," Greer noted, advocating instead for what she called "a fair system that protects human rights and ensures artists are fairly compensated."
Considering how artists and musicians "are suffering immensely during the pandemic," Greer added, "Congress should be working quickly to provide immediate relief, not cramming controversial, poison-pill legislation into budget bills to appease special interests."
The way Congress jammed through these changes "is a total and complete travesty," said Masnick. "People should be mad about this and should hold the congressional leadership of both parties responsible."
Calling on "House and Senate leadership to remove the copyright provisions from the continuing resolution and move them through regular order so we can have transparent and open debate about the right balance," Greer said that "these types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package."


alternet--2020-12-22--House Oversight chair has 'grave concerns' the Trump team is trashing White House records

House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney expressed `` grave concerns '' Monday that the outgoing Trump administration `` may be disposing '' of presidential records in violation of federal law .
Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) voiced her concerns in a letter to Archivist of the United States David Ferriero .
She referenced the Presidential Records Act and the requirements the post-Watergate statute imposes on President Donald Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration ( NARA ) , which Ferriero heads .
The law says that the president ca n't get rid of presidential records , including memos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting `` the views , in writing , of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal . ''
The archivist must `` request the advice '' of several congressional committees—including the House Oversight Committee—regarding such proposals to see if the records in question `` may be of special interest to the Congress '' or if congressional consultation may be `` in the public interest . ''
And yet , wrote Maloney , her committee `` has no visibility into what is happening at the White House in terms of archiving and transferring records to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in light of Covid-19 , `` NARA has not detailed any employees to the White House to assist or oversee this process , as it has in past transitions . ''
The Democratic congresswoman also pointed to reporting indicating that Trump has not been compliant with record-keeping obligations , citing a 2018 report from Politico indicating that White House staffers were forced—in the face of Trump 's habit of ripping papers and throwing them in garbage or on the floor—to reassemble pieces with Scotch tape .
Maloney added that `` our existing laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight and compliance . ''
She demanded answers by January 5 , 2021 to a number questions including whether any Trump administration official has disposed of records since Inauguration Day and `` What efforts , if any , have you made to determine whether President Trump and White House officials are disposing of presidential records without '' adhering to PRA requirements .
The congresswoman 's demands to Ferriero follow a letter sent last week by a coalition of state attorneys general to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reminding the administration of its `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York 's Letitia James and dated December 16 , the 15 AGs wrote that they `` have serious concerns about compliance by White House personnel with their Presidential Records Act obligations , including preservation of records and proper use of non-official electronic message accounts . ''
Beyond the reported ripping of papers , fueling concerns about record-keeping are Trump son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner 's communications via WhatsApp and first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump 's use of personal email for White House business .
`` The Trump administration should n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comply with the law and keep all records of official business , but the last four years have shown that the president needs to be constantly reminded what the law is and how he must comply with it , '' James said in a statement Wednesday .
`` Even the president 's tweets , the private conversations he had with Russian President Putin , and Ivanka 's private email server must be archived , '' added James .
`` Every bit of this information belongs to the American people and the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information . ''

House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney expressed "grave concerns" Monday that the outgoing Trump administration "may be disposing" of presidential records in violation of federal law.
Maloney (D-N.Y.) voiced her concerns in a letter to Archivist of the United States David Ferriero. She referenced the Presidential Records Act and the requirements the post-Watergate statute imposes on President Donald Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which Ferriero heads.
The law says that the president can't get rid of presidential records, including memos, emails, and notes, without first getting "the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal." The archivist must "request the advice" of several congressional committees—including the House Oversight Committee—regarding such proposals to see if the records in question "may be of special interest to the Congress" or if congressional consultation may be "in the public interest."
And yet, wrote Maloney, her committee "has no visibility into what is happening at the White House in terms of archiving and transferring records to NARA." What's more, in light of Covid-19, "NARA has not detailed any employees to the White House to assist or oversee this process, as it has in past transitions."
The Democratic congresswoman also pointed to reporting indicating that Trump has not been compliant with record-keeping obligations, citing a 2018 report from Politico indicating that White House staffers were forced—in the face of Trump's habit of ripping papers and throwing them in garbage or on the floor—to reassemble pieces with Scotch tape.
Maloney added that "our existing laws may need review and revision to strengthen oversight and compliance."
She demanded answers by January 5, 2021 to a number questions including whether any Trump administration official has disposed of records since Inauguration Day and "What efforts, if any, have you made to determine whether President Trump and White House officials are disposing of presidential records without" adhering to PRA requirements.
The congresswoman's demands to Ferriero follow a letter sent last week by a coalition of state attorneys general to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reminding the administration of its "record preservation obligations."
Led by New York's Letitia James and dated December 16, the 15 AGs wrote that they "have serious concerns about compliance by White House personnel with their Presidential Records Act obligations, including preservation of records and proper use of non-official electronic message accounts."
Beyond the reported ripping of papers, fueling concerns about record-keeping are Trump son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner's communications via WhatsApp and first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump's use of personal email for White House business.
"The Trump administration shouldn't have to be told that they need to comply with the law and keep all records of official business, but the last four years have shown that the president needs to be constantly reminded what the law is and how he must comply with it," James said in a statement Wednesday.
"Even the president's tweets, the private conversations he had with Russian President Putin, and Ivanka's private email server must be archived," added James. "Every bit of this information belongs to the American people and the White House cannot deprive the public of this information."


alternet--2020-12-22--Bill Barr just publicly shot down Trump's demand for a special counsel on Hunter Biden case

Outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr said on Monday that he would not appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden or President Trump 's baseless voter fraud claims before leaving office later this week .
Barr , who announced he would step down before Christmas after refuting Trump 's unfounded allegations of voter fraud , made the comments at a news conference two days before he is set to leave the Justice Department .
Multiple news outlets have reported that President-elect Joe Biden 's son Hunter , a frequent target of the president 's attacks , has been under investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Southern District of New York since at least 2018 .
Hunter Biden has said he learned of the investigation earlier this month , and has denied any wrongdoing .
The news prompted Trump to consider appointing a special counsel to investigate the younger Biden , according to the Associated Press .
`` I think to the extent that there 's an investigation , I think that it 's being handled responsibly and professionally , '' Barr said of the probe on Monday .
`` To this point I have not seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I have no plan to do so before I leave . ''
The comments came after Trump criticized Barr , who was reportedly aware of the investigation , for not disclosing the probe publicly before the election .
`` Why did n't Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public , before the Election , about Hunter Biden .
Joe was lying on the debate stage that nothing was wrong , or going on — Press confirmed '' the president tweeted last week .
`` Big disadvantage for Republicans at the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the recent cyberattack on federal agencies , telling reporters that it `` certainly '' appeared to have been carried out by the `` Russians , '' echoing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
Trump over the weekend disputed that the attack was from Russia and attempted to downplay its impact .
Trump has also complained that Barr publicly rejected the president 's baseless voter fraud claims earlier this month .
Barr said that while he is `` sure '' that there was some minor fraud during the election , the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might have changed the result .
`` I 'm sure there was fraud in this election , but I was commenting on the extent to which we had looked at suggestions or allegations of systemic or brace fraud that could affect the outcome of the election , and I already spoke to that , and I stand by that statement , '' Barr said .
He added that there was `` no basis '' for the federal government to seize voting machines to examine them , as some Trump loyalists have urged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after The New York Times reported that Trump has considered naming attorney Sidney Powell , who has pushed a baseless and bizarre conspiracy theory alleging a foreign-backed plot by a voting machine company to flip votes from Trump to Biden , as a special counsel to investigate the unfounded voter fraud claims .
Powell , who was ousted from Trump 's legal team after claiming that Gov .
Brian Kemp of Georgia , a Republican , was involved in the plot , reportedly brought her client Michael Flynn , the former national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a White House meeting .
Flynn has recently suggested that Trump could invoke martial law to `` rerun '' the election , although the president has no legal or constitutional authority to do such a thing .
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and other top advisers strongly pushed back on the idea of appointing Powell , according to the report , but Trump and Giuliani have discussed issuing an executive order to seize voting machines in various states .
Giuliani separately called Ken Cuccinelli , a top Trump appointee who was illegally installed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homeland Security , to ask DHS to seize the voting machines .
Cuccinelli explained that the department did not have the authority to do so , according to the report .
`` There 's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud , and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results , '' he told The Associated Press .
`` And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that , and so far , we have n't seen anything to substantiate that . ''
Though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate Biden or voting irregularities , he announced last month that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel in order to continue his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation .
`` I wanted to provide him and his team with assurance that they 'd be able to finish their work , and they 're making good progress now , and I expect they will be able to finish their work , '' Barr said Monday .
`` And I am hoping that the next administration handles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Barr would be replaced by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen , who did not participate in the news conference on Monday and declined to answer questions from Reuters about whether he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Biden or election fraud .
Rosen has also declined to say whether he agrees with Barr 's assessment that there was no widespread fraud .
`` If Trump is unable to pressure Rosen to appoint a special counsel he could replace the acting attorney general with someone more likely to carry out his wishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He asked his team of lawyers , including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani , to look into whether the president has the power to appoint a special counsel himself . ''
Rosen said at his 2019 confirmation hearing that he would push back against any improper pressure from the White House , arguing that criminal investigations should `` proceed on the facts and the law '' and be `` free of improper political influences . ''
`` If the appropriate answer is to say no to somebody , '' he said , `` then @ @ @ @ @ @

Outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr said on Monday that he would not appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden or President Trump's baseless voter fraud claims before leaving office later this week.
Barr, who announced he would step down before Christmas after refuting Trump's unfounded allegations of voter fraud, made the comments at a news conference two days before he is set to leave the Justice Department. Multiple news outlets have reported that President-elect Joe Biden's son Hunter, a frequent target of the president's attacks, has been under investigation by U.S. attorney's offices in Delaware and the Southern District of New York since at least 2018. Hunter Biden has said he learned of the investigation earlier this month, and has denied any wrongdoing.
The news prompted Trump to consider appointing a special counsel to investigate the younger Biden, according to the Associated Press.
"I think to the extent that there's an investigation, I think that it's being handled responsibly and professionally," Barr said of the probe on Monday. "To this point I have not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave."
The comments came after Trump criticized Barr, who was reportedly aware of the investigation, for not disclosing the probe publicly before the election.
"Why didn't Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden. Joe was lying on the debate stage that nothing was wrong, or going on — Press confirmed" the president tweeted last week. "Big disadvantage for Republicans at the polls!"
Barr also broke with Trump on the recent cyberattack on federal agencies, telling reporters that it "certainly" appeared to have been carried out by the "Russians," echoing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Trump over the weekend disputed that the attack was from Russia and attempted to downplay its impact.
Trump has also complained that Barr publicly rejected the president's baseless voter fraud claims earlier this month. Barr said that while he is "sure" that there was some minor fraud during the election, the Justice Department has found no evidence of widespread fraud that might have changed the result.
"I'm sure there was fraud in this election, but I was commenting on the extent to which we had looked at suggestions or allegations of systemic or brace fraud that could affect the outcome of the election, and I already spoke to that, and I stand by that statement," Barr said. He added that there was "no basis" for the federal government to seize voting machines to examine them, as some Trump loyalists have urged.
The attorney general's comments came after The New York Times reported that Trump has considered naming attorney Sidney Powell, who has pushed a baseless and bizarre conspiracy theory alleging a foreign-backed plot by a voting machine company to flip votes from Trump to Biden, as a special counsel to investigate the unfounded voter fraud claims. Powell, who was ousted from Trump's legal team after claiming that Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, a Republican, was involved in the plot, reportedly brought her client Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser recently pardoned by Trump, to a White House meeting. Flynn has recently suggested that Trump could invoke martial law to "rerun" the election, although the president has no legal or constitutional authority to do such a thing.
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and other top advisers strongly pushed back on the idea of appointing Powell, according to the report, but Trump and Giuliani have discussed issuing an executive order to seize voting machines in various states.
Giuliani separately called Ken Cuccinelli, a top Trump appointee who was illegally installed as acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, to ask DHS to seize the voting machines. Cuccinelli explained that the department did not have the authority to do so, according to the report.
Barr disputed Powell's conspiracy theory earlier this month.
"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud, and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results," he told The Associated Press. "And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that."
Though Barr pushed back against using special counsels to investigate Biden or voting irregularities, he announced last month that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel in order to continue his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
"I wanted to provide him and his team with assurance that they'd be able to finish their work, and they're making good progress now, and I expect they will be able to finish their work," Barr said Monday. "And I am hoping that the next administration handles that matter responsibly."
Trump announced that Barr would be replaced by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who did not participate in the news conference on Monday and declined to answer questions from Reuters about whether he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Biden or election fraud. Rosen has also declined to say whether he agrees with Barr's assessment that there was no widespread fraud.
"If Trump is unable to pressure Rosen to appoint a special counsel he could replace the acting attorney general with someone more likely to carry out his wishes," the AP reported. "He asked his team of lawyers, including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, to look into whether the president has the power to appoint a special counsel himself."
Rosen said at his 2019 confirmation hearing that he would push back against any improper pressure from the White House, arguing that criminal investigations should "proceed on the facts and the law" and be "free of improper political influences."
"If the appropriate answer is to say no to somebody," he said, "then I will say no."