buzzfeed--2020-02-20--Here’s What You Can Expect When Michael Bloomberg Finally Faces Other Candidates On The Debate Stage

It ’ s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate .
But at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire .
https : //t.co/H02radEZcv “ I don ’ t think you should be able to hide behind airwaves and huge ad buys , ” 2020 candidate @ amyklobuchar says about Michael Bloomberg .
“ I know I ’ m not going to be able to beat him on the airwaves but I can beat him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ https : //t.co/9C1VGGdqCN Bloomberg , the billionaire former New York City mayor who has already spent more on traditional advertising for his presidential campaign than anybody ever , has been blasting up national polls over the last two weeks .
But tonight will be the first time this campaign when he ’ ll actually have to appear somewhat like a normal candidate — show up on a stage carefully groomed by a TV network , in a traditional early campaign state , with other people who would also like to be president but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that particular moment .
The reason for opposing candidate enthusiasm is obvious : Bloomberg ’ ll have to be One of Us and can ’ t just keep rising on the back of his infinite TV ads and sprawling campaign ; he ’ ll have to face the traditional questions about health care policy and whatever else from moderators ; he 'll have to stand there and face labored-over attacks from everyone ; he ’ ll have his facial expressions and hand gestures and possible mouth errors broadcast , for memes .
Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amateur .
Debates when you ’ re running for mayor of New York , occasionally wedged between the traffic report and a Yankees playoff game , aren ’ t the high-pressure affairs of a presidential debate .
Bloomberg ’ s experience in one-on-one debates with city officials over a decade ago doesn ’ t mean he ’ s all set to defend himself against very prepared people who have been debating each other at least once a month since last summer .
But you can still learn a bit about what to expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates , or at least I hope you can , as I spent two hours this week watching Bloomberg ’ s last debate from his first campaign in 2001 and his final debate from his last campaign in 2009 .
The two debates show both how Bloomberg ’ s style and ability shifted as he became more of an established politician , and how eager he can be to defend himself and bring whatever research he has to break down someone else .
They show how his specific brand of awkward translates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how he could respond to a few specific issues that could come up tonight .
“ Most people assumed I would easily win any debate .
I shared that assumption , in terms of anticipation , '' Mark Green , the former New York City public advocate who lost a close race against Bloomberg in 2001 , said in an interview Tuesday night .
`` The truth is that during the debate , while I felt comfortable , I remember saying to myself , Wait a second , he ’ s doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last debate of 2001 and the final weeks of the year 's mayoral campaign came at a very specific moment for New York City — the city was still reeling from 9/11 .
The primary had been stopped and rescheduled ; there was an argument over whether to grant then-mayor Rudy Giuliani ’ s request and extend out his term as mayor .
And the Democratic frontrunner , Green , was suddenly being pressured by the out-of-nowhere billionaire Bloomberg , who had recently moved to become a Republican after being a Democrat his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s endorsement days before the debate , which probably helped .
One question that night ( and during the campaign generally ) : Was Bloomberg ’ s party switch just opportunism to avoid a clogged Democratic primary ?
“ Well I was a Democrat up until about a year ago , ” Bloomberg said .
“ It was obvious I could not run for mayor in the Democratic Party.
” “ My rival on page 232 of his book Bloomberg by Bloomberg — and they call me arrogant — said that not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people should stick with the parties that they like , ” Green said .
“ He wrote , ‘ I will give money to any Democrat even if the Republican is more qualified.
’ As Warner Wolf would say , go to the videotape , you can look it up.
” “ Well , number one , I ’ m glad that Mark ’ s read the book , ” Bloomberg replied , with a bit of a smirk , before teasing him for knowing the page number .
The rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonpartisanship .
“ It isn ’ t so important whether you ’ re a Republican or a Democrat , as long as you ’ re a New Yorker , ” he said .
“ If we ’ ve learned anything , it is getting people together here in a nonpartisan way , that ’ s what we ’ ve done since Sept. 11 , that ’ s what we have to do to go forward .
I ’ ve got to have lots of votes in this city regardless of party .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition , we can make it better . ''
Bloomberg , who won his last term as mayor as an independent , registered as a Democrat in 2018 .
Green — who is now , among other things , the recent author of Fake President and is supporting Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president — felt Bloomberg succeeded in 2001 in part because of low expectations .
“ While he was quite shallow on public affairs and didn ’ t have much of a presence , he was personally poised , spoke well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` In other words , the bar was low because it was not his realm . ''
Bloomberg tonight , he said , `` will exceed low expectations . ''
One thing you can expect to see in tonight ’ s debate is other candidates ( or moderators ) push Bloomberg to answer for recently resurfaced comments he ’ s made about women and about people of color .
A version of this played out in 2001 .
In that debate , Green got a chance to ask Bloomberg a question and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific past comments attributed to Bloomberg .
Green cited , among other quotes , incidents where Bloomberg allegedly had said rape “ could be prosecuted only if there was a third-party witness ” and that domestic violence “ is a quality of life crime.
” Bloomberg ’ s defense : “ They were certainly said , but out of context.
” And then reasonable preparation to give the context .
“ When it came time , the issue of saying you needed a third-party witness , it was for a five-year-old case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Two years after an event occurred , you do need some kind of corroborating evidence , and the judge said that .
In terms of quality of life crimes , the issue is not the label , the issue is how do you stop the despicable behavior of domestic violence ?
Don ’ t worry about labels , worry about the substance .
That ’ s what my company has done , that ’ s what I ’ ve done .
We ’ re not talkers , we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not worried about labels , what we ’ re trying to do is to just go and do something about domestic violence .
Once again , you ’ re taking these things out of context , and it ’ s the typical smear when time gets close.
” How he goes after opponents .
Bloomberg hasn ’ t been in a political debate since late October 2009 .
But that debate , with Democrat Bill Thompson , was particularly contentious .
Thompson , then the city ’ s comptroller , repeatedly lit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things his Democratic 2020 opponents have brought up this month .
The mayor , Thompson said , is engaged in “ pay-to-endorse politics ” and buying political support , out of touch with regular people , responsible for policies that are pricing the middle class out of New York .
And , Thompson said , Bloomberg ’ s administration was targeting New Yorkers with “ an excessive number ” of parking tickets .
( This one probably won ’ t come up tonight , but . )
Bloomberg made an attempt at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s getting money to his campaign , and I ’ m giving money out ” — but mostly kept turning the debate back on Thompson .
The mayor fixated on what he said were Thompson ’ s shortcomings when he was leading the city ’ s board of education , repeatedly bringing the debate onto terms he was more comfortable with .
Thompson , he said , “ failed our future.
” He “ paved the way ” for mayoral control of the city ’ s schools because “ everybody looked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s when you ran the board of ed and they said , ‘ no más.
’ ” ( Spanish ! )
And , amid an economic crisis , Bloomberg kept pushing the price of what Thompson wanted to do as mayor .
“ I can ’ t keep straight who he wants to tax , but he ’ s going to tax somebody , ” Bloomberg said .
Bloomberg knew what he was in for in that last debate — most of Thompson ’ s criticisms were widespread among Democrats in the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend himself on the specifics and prepared with specific counters to both change the subject and try and weaken his opponent .
Green would n't disclose much particular advice for Democrats facing off with Bloomberg tonight .
“ I have been speaking to a candidate about this , won ’ t say who , but you can guess , '' he said .
But he said Bloomberg has an `` Achilles heel of being kind of Wall Street haughty , with a rich guy ’ s condescension of everybody else , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned too vigorously or closely . ''
There 's a downside , though , to a Bloomberg pile-on to poke at that Achilles ' heel , Green said : You typically get more time if you 're attacked .
`` If they all go after him , he could end up with 25 minutes of airtime while the others average 12 .
”

Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor who has already spent more on traditional advertising for his presidential campaign than anybody ever, has been blasting up national polls over the last two weeks. But tonight will be the first time this campaign when he’ll actually have to appear somewhat like a normal candidate — show up on a stage carefully groomed by a TV network, in a traditional early campaign state, with other people who would also like to be president but would prefer to be somewhere else at that particular moment.
The reason for opposing candidate enthusiasm is obvious: Bloomberg’ll have to be One of Us and can’t just keep rising on the back of his infinite TV ads and sprawling campaign; he’ll have to face the traditional questions about health care policy and whatever else from moderators; he'll have to stand there and face labored-over attacks from everyone; he’ll have his facial expressions and hand gestures and possible mouth errors broadcast, for memes.
Bloomberg, though, is not a total amateur.
Debates when you’re running for mayor of New York, occasionally wedged between the traffic report and a Yankees playoff game, aren’t the high-pressure affairs of a presidential debate. Bloomberg’s experience in one-on-one debates with city officials over a decade ago doesn’t mean he’s all set to defend himself against very prepared people who have been debating each other at least once a month since last summer.
But you can still learn a bit about what to expect from Bloomberg tonight from watching his old debates, or at least I hope you can, as I spent two hours this week watching Bloomberg’s last debate from his first campaign in 2001 and his final debate from his last campaign in 2009. The two debates show both how Bloomberg’s style and ability shifted as he became more of an established politician, and how eager he can be to defend himself and bring whatever research he has to break down someone else. They show how his specific brand of awkward translates to TV. And they give a sense of how he could respond to a few specific issues that could come up tonight.
“Most people assumed I would easily win any debate. I shared that assumption, in terms of anticipation," Mark Green, the former New York City public advocate who lost a close race against Bloomberg in 2001, said in an interview Tuesday night. "The truth is that during the debate, while I felt comfortable, I remember saying to myself, Wait a second, he’s doing better than I thought!"
His party loyalty.
The last debate of 2001 and the final weeks of the year's mayoral campaign came at a very specific moment for New York City — the city was still reeling from 9/11. The primary had been stopped and rescheduled; there was an argument over whether to grant then-mayor Rudy Giuliani’s request and extend out his term as mayor. And the Democratic frontrunner, Green, was suddenly being pressured by the out-of-nowhere billionaire Bloomberg, who had recently moved to become a Republican after being a Democrat his whole life. He got Giuliani’s endorsement days before the debate, which probably helped.
One question that night (and during the campaign generally): Was Bloomberg’s party switch just opportunism to avoid a clogged Democratic primary?
“Well I was a Democrat up until about a year ago,” Bloomberg said. “It was obvious I could not run for mayor in the Democratic Party.”
Green prodded.
“My rival on page 232 of his book Bloomberg by Bloomberg — and they call me arrogant — said that not only is politics a noble profession, but that people should stick with the parties that they like,” Green said. “He wrote, ‘I will give money to any Democrat even if the Republican is more qualified.’ As Warner Wolf would say, go to the videotape, you can look it up.”
“Well, number one, I’m glad that Mark’s read the book,” Bloomberg replied, with a bit of a smirk, before teasing him for knowing the page number.
The rest of the response was a standard appeal to nonpartisanship. “It isn’t so important whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, as long as you’re a New Yorker,” he said. “If we’ve learned anything, it is getting people together here in a nonpartisan way, that’s what we’ve done since Sept. 11, that’s what we have to do to go forward. I’ve got to have lots of votes in this city regardless of party. And if we can put together that fusion coalition, we can make it better."
Bloomberg, who won his last term as mayor as an independent, registered as a Democrat in 2018.
Green — who is now, among other things, the recent author of Fake President and is supporting Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president — felt Bloomberg succeeded in 2001 in part because of low expectations. “While he was quite shallow on public affairs and didn’t have much of a presence, he was personally poised, spoke well, and got by," Green said. "In other words, the bar was low because it was not his realm."
Bloomberg tonight, he said, "will exceed low expectations."
His past comments.
One thing you can expect to see in tonight’s debate is other candidates (or moderators) push Bloomberg to answer for recently resurfaced comments he’s made about women and about people of color. A version of this played out in 2001.
In that debate, Green got a chance to ask Bloomberg a question and went for it with a series of specific past comments attributed to Bloomberg.
Green cited, among other quotes, incidents where Bloomberg allegedly had said rape “could be prosecuted only if there was a third-party witness” and that domestic violence “is a quality of life crime.”
Bloomberg’s defense: “They were certainly said, but out of context.” And then reasonable preparation to give the context.
“When it came time, the issue of saying you needed a third-party witness, it was for a five-year-old case that the judge dismissed,” Bloomberg said. “Two years after an event occurred, you do need some kind of corroborating evidence, and the judge said that. In terms of quality of life crimes, the issue is not the label, the issue is how do you stop the despicable behavior of domestic violence? Don’t worry about labels, worry about the substance. That’s what my company has done, that’s what I’ve done. We’re not talkers, we don’t have an ideological position, we’re not worried about labels, what we’re trying to do is to just go and do something about domestic violence. Once again, you’re taking these things out of context, and it’s the typical smear when time gets close.”
How he goes after opponents.
Bloomberg hasn’t been in a political debate since late October 2009. But that debate, with Democrat Bill Thompson, was particularly contentious. Thompson, then the city’s comptroller, repeatedly lit into Bloomberg for many of the same things his Democratic 2020 opponents have brought up this month.
The mayor, Thompson said, is engaged in “pay-to-endorse politics” and buying political support, out of touch with regular people, responsible for policies that are pricing the middle class out of New York. And, Thompson said, Bloomberg’s administration was targeting New Yorkers with “an excessive number” of parking tickets. (This one probably won’t come up tonight, but.)
Bloomberg made an attempt at a one-liner about his spending — “He’s getting money to his campaign, and I’m giving money out” — but mostly kept turning the debate back on Thompson.
The mayor fixated on what he said were Thompson’s shortcomings when he was leading the city’s board of education, repeatedly bringing the debate onto terms he was more comfortable with. Thompson, he said, “failed our future.” He “paved the way” for mayoral control of the city’s schools because “everybody looked at this job that was done in the 1990s when you ran the board of ed and they said, ‘no más.’” (Spanish!)
And, amid an economic crisis, Bloomberg kept pushing the price of what Thompson wanted to do as mayor. “I can’t keep straight who he wants to tax, but he’s going to tax somebody,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg knew what he was in for in that last debate — most of Thompson’s criticisms were widespread among Democrats in the city by that time. He was prepared to defend himself on the specifics and prepared with specific counters to both change the subject and try and weaken his opponent.
Green wouldn't disclose much particular advice for Democrats facing off with Bloomberg tonight. “I have been speaking to a candidate about this, won’t say who, but you can guess," he said. But he said Bloomberg has an "Achilles heel of being kind of Wall Street haughty, with a rich guy’s condescension of everybody else, and he gets annoyed if he’s questioned too vigorously or closely."
There's a downside, though, to a Bloomberg pile-on to poke at that Achilles' heel, Green said: You typically get more time if you're attacked. "If they all go after him, he could end up with 25 minutes of airtime while the others average 12.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-19--A Nigerian Man Is Actually Behind That Pro–Pete Buttigieg Twitter Account

Tweets falsely implying the account was actually Lis Smith , a communications adviser for the Buttigieg campaign , garnered thousands of retweets and likes on Sunday despite Smith ’ s tongue-in-cheek denial .
The man who runs the @ easychinedu account — widely accused of being a sock puppet for a Mayor Pete Buttigieg staffer — told BuzzFeed News that he is a genuine supporter and has nothing to do with the South Bend mayor ’ s campaign .
Yea guys I totally have the time to be running a sock puppet account from Nigeria .
Find better conspiracies !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly popular because of a key tweet , which said “ Team Pete .
Hey .
It ’ s Lis .
It ’ s Phase 4 .
Time to leave it all on the floor .
Phone bankers , we need you.
” But while some saw evidence that Smith was running the account , the truth is much more innocuous : It was a joke .
“ I read the campaign email regarding Phase 4 and Lis introduced herself like that ( I don ’ t receive campaign emails just to clarify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
I was just having a little fun with that , ” Chinedu , the man who runs the account , told BuzzFeed News via a personal email address .
He ’ s asked for his full name to be withheld because he has been getting harassed and doxxed after the false narrative went viral .
BuzzFeed News has also seen an email from Twitter that further confirmed Chinedu is the owner of the account , and BuzzFeed News independently confirmed his identity through publicly available information .
Chinedu requested some personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his privacy .
“ Clearly , I am not Lis Smith , that ’ s the whole point , ” Chinedu said .
“ I also want to apologize to Pete ’ s campaign and Lis for contributing unintentionally to this new controversy regarding Pete/Lis.
” Many online latched on to the location of the account as another reason that it could not be genuine .
However , while Chinedu lives overseas , he has previously spent time in the US .
“ My account is run 100 % by me .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , ” he said .
“ I just support Pete passionately .
Many others outside the US support Pete as well.
” He also told BuzzFeed News that he ’ s had to disable the Twitter account because of the harassment he ’ s been receiving .
For her part , Smith has been retweeting jokes about the false conspiracy .
And a campaign spokesperson suggested it ’ s just the latest example of trolls lashing out at Buttigieg .
And , he reiterated , the @ easychinedu Twitter account has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Nigerian shadow account conspiracy theories are the new rat emojis .
Sad but not surprising , ” said Matt Corridoni , a spokesperson for the campaign .

The conspiracy was particularly popular because of a key tweet, which said “Team Pete. Hey. It’s Lis. It’s Phase 4. Time to leave it all on the floor. Phone bankers, we need you.”
But while some saw evidence that Smith was running the account, the truth is much more innocuous: It was a joke.
“I read the campaign email regarding Phase 4 and Lis introduced herself like that (I don’t receive campaign emails just to clarify, I just read one on twitter). I was just having a little fun with that,” Chinedu, the man who runs the account, told BuzzFeed News via a personal email address.
He’s asked for his full name to be withheld because he has been getting harassed and doxxed after the false narrative went viral. BuzzFeed News has also seen an email from Twitter that further confirmed Chinedu is the owner of the account, and BuzzFeed News independently confirmed his identity through publicly available information. Chinedu requested some personal information not be disclosed to help protect his privacy.
“Clearly, I am not Lis Smith, that’s the whole point,” Chinedu said. “I also want to apologize to Pete’s campaign and Lis for contributing unintentionally to this new controversy regarding Pete/Lis.”
Many online latched on to the location of the account as another reason that it could not be genuine. However, while Chinedu lives overseas, he has previously spent time in the US.
“My account is run 100% by me. I am not affiliated with Pete Buttigieg's campaign,” he said. “I just support Pete passionately. Many others outside the US support Pete as well.”
He also told BuzzFeed News that he’s had to disable the Twitter account because of the harassment he’s been receiving.
For her part, Smith has been retweeting jokes about the false conspiracy.
And a campaign spokesperson suggested it’s just the latest example of trolls lashing out at Buttigieg. And, he reiterated, the @easychinedu Twitter account has no affiliation with Smith or the campaign.
“Nigerian shadow account conspiracy theories are the new rat emojis. Sad but not surprising,” said Matt Corridoni, a spokesperson for the campaign.


buzzfeed--2020-02-20--Some Committees Have Waited “Many Months” For The Treasury Department To Produce Records They’ve Req

Some Committees Have Waited “Many Months” For The Treasury Department To Produce Records They’ve Requested

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has slow-rolled congressional requests from several lawmakers in recent years , raising questions about the department ’ s relatively quick response to a November request from Republican senators for sensitive financial information on former vice president Joe Biden ’ s son and the Ukrainian company for which he worked .
Last week , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified that the department has complied with congressional requests for suspicious activity reports ( SARs ) “ from both Republicans and Democrats on an equal basis.
” Speaking before the Senate Finance Committee , Mnuchin said Treasury had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ thousands of SARs . ''
But BuzzFeed News has learned committees investigating Russian election interference and President Donald Trump have waited several months for Treasury ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ( FinCEN ) to turn over records , and some requests from Democrats have yet to be completely fulfilled .
In the past , Treasury has been so uncooperative with Congress that senators — both Democrat and Republican — have resorted to holding up Treasury nominees to force the department to turn over documents .
“ I ’ m deeply concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicized , ” Sen. Ron Wyden , the top Democrat on the Finance Committee , said in a statement to BuzzFeed News this week .
“ I believe that requests should generally be handled in the order they are received , but that ’ s not how they are being handled under this administration .
Requests that further Donald Trump ’ s interests should not be moved to the front of the line while requests that would shed light on potential wrongdoing by the president and his associates are slow-walked.
” But Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been politicized .
“ The Treasury Department does not process congressional requests for FinCEN records on a partisan basis and has provided FinCEN records in response to requests from both sides of the aisle over the past year , ” a Treasury official said in a statement to BuzzFeed News on Thursday .
“ In fact , the overwhelming majority of those productions have been in response to requests made or joined by Democratic members .
Since January 2017 , the Treasury Department has provided approximately 60,000 pages of FinCEN records in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Intelligence Committees — all of which were made or joined by Democratic members.
” On Nov. 15 , Republican Sens .
Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson wrote to FinCEN seeking SARs on Hunter Biden , Burisma — the Ukrainian gas company where he served as a board member — and other figures .
Grassley , the chair of the Senate Finance Committee , and Johnson , the chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , ramped up an investigation into Democrats and Ukraine this fall while Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Congress .
Banks file SARs to FinCEN when they identify transactions that bear the hallmarks of money laundering or other financial crimes .
The reports themselves are not evidence of a crime — many are filed on transactions that are perfectly legal — but can be used to support investigations .
Treasury responded to the Republican senators ’ request for SARs within about one month , according to a source familiar with the investigation .
A spokesperson for Wyden said earlier this month that the department was “ rapidly complying ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and producing ‘ evidence ’ of questionable origin.
” At the time , a spokesperson for Grassley said it was “ strange that any senator would complain about receiving responses to oversight requests in a timely manner .
”

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has slow-rolled congressional requests from several lawmakers in recent years, raising questions about the department’s relatively quick response to a November request from Republican senators for sensitive financial information on former vice president Joe Biden’s son and the Ukrainian company for which he worked.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified that the department has complied with congressional requests for suspicious activity reports (SARs) “from both Republicans and Democrats on an equal basis.” Speaking before the Senate Finance Committee, Mnuchin said Treasury had responded to requests from several committees involving “thousands of SARs."
But BuzzFeed News has learned committees investigating Russian election interference and President Donald Trump have waited several months for Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to turn over records, and some requests from Democrats have yet to be completely fulfilled. In the past, Treasury has been so uncooperative with Congress that senators — both Democrat and Republican — have resorted to holding up Treasury nominees to force the department to turn over documents.
“I’m deeply concerned that Treasury Department oversight requests are being politicized,” Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, said in a statement to BuzzFeed News this week. “I believe that requests should generally be handled in the order they are received, but that’s not how they are being handled under this administration. Requests that further Donald Trump’s interests should not be moved to the front of the line while requests that would shed light on potential wrongdoing by the president and his associates are slow-walked.”
But Treasury disputes that its handling of congressional requests has been politicized.
“The Treasury Department does not process congressional requests for FinCEN records on a partisan basis and has provided FinCEN records in response to requests from both sides of the aisle over the past year,” a Treasury official said in a statement to BuzzFeed News on Thursday. “In fact, the overwhelming majority of those productions have been in response to requests made or joined by Democratic members. Since January 2017, the Treasury Department has provided approximately 60,000 pages of FinCEN records in response to requests from the House and Senate Intelligence Committees — all of which were made or joined by Democratic members.”
On Nov. 15, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson wrote to FinCEN seeking SARs on Hunter Biden, Burisma — the Ukrainian gas company where he served as a board member — and other figures. Grassley, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Johnson, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, ramped up an investigation into Democrats and Ukraine this fall while Trump’s impeachment on Ukraine-related matters made its way through Congress.
Banks file SARs to FinCEN when they identify transactions that bear the hallmarks of money laundering or other financial crimes. The reports themselves are not evidence of a crime — many are filed on transactions that are perfectly legal — but can be used to support investigations.
Treasury responded to the Republican senators’ request for SARs within about one month, according to a source familiar with the investigation. A spokesperson for Wyden said earlier this month that the department was “rapidly complying” with the request from the Republican senators “and producing ‘evidence’ of questionable origin.” At the time, a spokesperson for Grassley said it was “strange that any senator would complain about receiving responses to oversight requests in a timely manner.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren Has Reversed On Super PAC Support: "That’s How It Has To Be"

LAS VEGAS — Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a longtime critic of the big-money organizations known as super PACs — and of candidates who are supported by them .
But she reversed course on Thursday and refused to disavow a super PAC , called Persist PAC , created to support her presidential campaign .
It was a change so sudden that Warren 's own campaign website still said the Massachusetts senator `` rejects all super PACs '' and `` would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary . ''
She had criticized other candidates for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate stage in New Hampshire .
Warren told reporters she had called `` dozens '' of times for other candidates to agree not to accept the support of super PACs , with no success .
`` So here ’ s where I stand : If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs , count me in — I ’ ll lead the charge , '' she told reporters at a campaign stop Thursday .
`` But that ’ s how it has to be .
It can ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep them and only one or two don ’ t . ''
She connected the issue directly to gender , noting that the Democratic field was stocked with male candidates who were either billionaires or backed by big-money organizations .
`` We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign , and the only people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two women , '' she said .
`` At that point , there were some women around the country who said , 'That 's just not right . '
'' Bernie Sanders has a big-money group , Our Revolution , that functions similarly to a PAC , and is able to raise unlimited sums of money on his behalf .
As a nonprofit , it does not have to disclose its donors , unlike super PACs .
He 's also supported by the country 's largest nurse 's union , National Nurses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 million backing him in 2016 .
Persist PAC booked nearly $ 800,000 in television ads for Warren this week , as her own campaign faces tight finances in the wake of disappointing finishes in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire .
She got a much-needed personal infusion of cash after a dominant debate performance Wednesday , raising $ 2.8 million — her campaign 's biggest fundraising day by far .
But she will need much larger sums of money to compete on Super Tuesday in early March , when big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California and Texas will go to the polls .
Super PACs , which can raise unlimited sums of money for candidates , are by definition independent ; they are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns .
Technically , candidates have zero control over the groups .
But practically , candidates can hamper them by openly disavowing them or calling for them to stop spending money on their behalf .
Some campaigns have also found ways for years to skirt regulations to guide a super PAC 's direction .
Just a few months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outside group supporting her campaign .
When dark money group Women.Vote bought ads backing Warren in Iowa , her campaign disavowed the organization 's activities to Politico .
The campaign , a spokesperson said , “ was not aware of this and asks that those involved immediately stop purchasing advertisements of any kind .
Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous , dark-money attempts to influence voters — whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy .
”

LAS VEGAS — Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a longtime critic of the big-money organizations known as super PACs — and of candidates who are supported by them. But she reversed course on Thursday and refused to disavow a super PAC, called Persist PAC, created to support her presidential campaign.
It was a change so sudden that Warren's own campaign website still said the Massachusetts senator "rejects all super PACs" and "would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary." She had criticized other candidates for them as late as last week on the debate stage in New Hampshire.
Warren told reporters she had called "dozens" of times for other candidates to agree not to accept the support of super PACs, with no success.
"So here’s where I stand: If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in — I’ll lead the charge," she told reporters at a campaign stop Thursday. "But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t."
She connected the issue directly to gender, noting that the Democratic field was stocked with male candidates who were either billionaires or backed by big-money organizations.
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Bernie Sanders has a big-money group, Our Revolution, that functions similarly to a PAC, and is able to raise unlimited sums of money on his behalf. As a nonprofit, it does not have to disclose its donors, unlike super PACs. He's also supported by the country's largest nurse's union, National Nurses United, whose super PAC spent $5 million backing him in 2016.
Persist PAC booked nearly $800,000 in television ads for Warren this week, as her own campaign faces tight finances in the wake of disappointing finishes in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
She got a much-needed personal infusion of cash after a dominant debate performance Wednesday, raising $2.8 million — her campaign's biggest fundraising day by far. But she will need much larger sums of money to compete on Super Tuesday in early March, when big, delegate-rich, and expensive states like California and Texas will go to the polls.
Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums of money for candidates, are by definition independent; they are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns. Technically, candidates have zero control over the groups. But practically, candidates can hamper them by openly disavowing them or calling for them to stop spending money on their behalf. Some campaigns have also found ways for years to skirt regulations to guide a super PAC's direction.
Just a few months ago, Warren took a different stance with an outside group supporting her campaign. When dark money group Women.Vote bought ads backing Warren in Iowa, her campaign disavowed the organization's activities to Politico. The campaign, a spokesperson said, “was not aware of this and asks that those involved immediately stop purchasing advertisements of any kind. Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous, dark-money attempts to influence voters — whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-20--Trump’s Close Ally Roger Stone Was Sentenced To 40 Months In Prison

Roger Stone — a close associate of President Donald Trump — was sentenced on Thursday to 40 months in prison .
He ’ d been convicted of trying to sabotage the Russia probe , covering up his conversations with Trump supporters and WikiLeaks in order to help Trump ’ s 2016 campaign .
`` This is intolerable to the administration of justice and the court should not sit idly by , shrug its shoulders and say well that is just Roger being Roger , ” US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said before handing down the sentence .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists .
The truth still matters .
Roger Stone 's insistence that it doesn ’ t ... [ is ] a threat to our most fundamental institutions . ''
Stone ’ s lawyers asked for a new trial this week , claiming a member of the jury was biased .
Jackson said on Wednesday she would “ defer execution of any sentence ” until she rules on whether to grant a new trial — meaning Stone wouldn ’ t have to begin a prison term until that matter is resolved .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 67 , for his seven felonies , but indicated Thursday that he 's unlikely to pardon Stone before a decision is made about a new trial .
`` I 'm following this very closely and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration in my opinion , '' he said .
Even before the court ’ s decision Thursday , the length of Stone ’ s sentence exploded into a national controversy over inappropriate political overreach .
Four prosecutors who were originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a term of seven to nine years , but Trump balked , saying on Twitter that would be a “ very unfair situation ” and “ miscarriage of justice !
” Political appointees at the Justice Department quickly intervened to request a lighter punishment , prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case .
Before Stone was sentenced , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Justice Department 's Office of the Inspector General to investigate , saying , `` This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference.
” Jackson on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentencing memo , noting that the original one had never been withdrawn .
`` For those who woke up last week and became persuaded that the guidelines are harsh … defense attorneys and judges have been making that argument for a very long time .
...
But we don ’ t usually succeed in getting the government to agree , ” she said , according to the Washington Post .
Stone joins several other members of the Republican president ’ s inner orbit who ’ ve been convicted or pleaded guilty to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former campaign deputy chair Rick Gates , former national security adviser Michael Flynn , Trump ’ s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen , former campaign aide George Papadopoulos , and former campaign chair Paul Manafort .
In November , a jury found Stone guilty on five counts of lying to Congress and one count each of witness tampering and obstruction of Congress .
`` Witnesses do not get to decide for themselves whether Congress is entitled to the facts , ” Jackson said Thursday .
Stone was heckled by one protester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on Thursday morning , where demonstrators had erected a giant inflatable rat with Trump 's hair and tie .
An eccentric , self-styled “ dirty trickster ” who has been compared to “ a tax collector from a candy-themed board game ” and “ a czarist Mr. Peanut , ” Stone worked for Trump ’ s campaign through August 2015 and continued to act as an adviser to the president after Trump took office .
Stone was arrested in January 2019 after former special counsel Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange .
WikiLeaks had published emails , obtained by Russians , from the hacked servers of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
Stone and Trump made phone calls in 2016 , prosecutors showed , including the same day the DNC announced it had been hacked , though the content of those phone calls remains unknown .
Although Stone denied being in contact with Assange , who was sequestered in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleging he was repeatedly in touch with WikiLeaks and people involved in the Trump campaign about publishing the leaks .
Court records indicate Stone told an unidentified person involved in Trump ’ s campaign , `` Spoke to my friend in London last night .
The payload is still coming.
” Prosecutors also say Stone “ subsequently told the [ Trump ] supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.
” In 2016 , Stone had also communicated with Guccifer 2.0 , who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNC 's computers .
( Mueller ’ s office later charged 12 Russians with the hack . )
Stone called his communications “ innocuous.
” On the obstruction charge , Stone ’ s indictment said he “ testified falsely and misleadingly ” before the House Intelligence Committee , lied about the existence of records , falsely misled the committee about communications with colleagues , and pressured radio host Randy Credico to “ falsely testify.
” As for witness tampering , prosecutors said Stone “ knowingly and intentionally corruptly persuaded and attempted to corruptly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence , delay , and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding , ” in reference to Credico .
Stone repeatedly urged Credico not to comply with the FBI and congressional investigations and told him to pull a “ Frank Pentangeli ” ( a reference to the character in The Godfather Part II who lies to Congress after his brother is threatened ) .
Stone did n't exactly curry favor with the judge during the trial .
Instead , Stone had antagonized the court by posting an image on Instagram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be gun crosshairs next to her head .
Jackson responded by barring him from speaking publicly about his case or Mueller ’ s investigation , saying , `` The privilege , the liberty he was afforded , was promptly abused.
” Stone commented afterward , “ I am kicking myself over my own stupidity.
” But Stone had noisy volunteers tied to the Proud Boys — a violent , racist , all-male conservative group — who continued to discuss the case online on his behalf , including one Stone ally who retweeted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DID NOTHING WRONG .
SUPPORTING TRUMP IS NOT A CRIME .
THE LEFT WANTS US DEAD .
THE LEFT WANTS US IN PRISON .
THE LEFT WANTS US SILENT . ''
Assistant US Attorney Aaron Zelinsky ( one of the prosecutors who quit the case earlier this month ) told the jury when the trial began in November , “ Evidence will show Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad .
The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer , tried to distance the president from Stone in a statement at the time of his arrest .
`` The indictment today does not allege Russian collusion by Roger Stone or anyone else , ” Sekulow said at the time .
“ Rather , the indictment focuses on alleged false statements Mr. Stone made to Congress . ''

Roger Stone — a close associate of President Donald Trump — was sentenced on Thursday to 40 months in prison. He’d been convicted of trying to sabotage the Russia probe, covering up his conversations with Trump supporters and WikiLeaks in order to help Trump’s 2016 campaign.
"This is intolerable to the administration of justice and the court should not sit idly by, shrug its shoulders and say well that is just Roger being Roger,” US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said before handing down the sentence. She later added, "The truth still exists. The truth still matters. Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn’t ... [is] a threat to our most fundamental institutions."
Stone’s lawyers asked for a new trial this week, claiming a member of the jury was biased. Jackson said on Wednesday she would “defer execution of any sentence” until she rules on whether to grant a new trial — meaning Stone wouldn’t have to begin a prison term until that matter is resolved.
Trump has yet to rule out pardoning Stone, 67, for his seven felonies, but indicated Thursday that he's unlikely to pardon Stone before a decision is made about a new trial. "I'm following this very closely and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration in my opinion," he said.
Even before the court’s decision Thursday, the length of Stone’s sentence exploded into a national controversy over inappropriate political overreach.
Four prosecutors who were originally assigned to the case had called for a term of seven to nine years, but Trump balked, saying on Twitter that would be a “very unfair situation” and “miscarriage of justice!” Political appointees at the Justice Department quickly intervened to request a lighter punishment, prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case.
Before Stone was sentenced, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate, saying, "This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference.”
Jackson on Thursday pressed the government on the lighter sentencing memo, noting that the original one had never been withdrawn. "For those who woke up last week and became persuaded that the guidelines are harsh … defense attorneys and judges have been making that argument for a very long time. ... But we don’t usually succeed in getting the government to agree,” she said, according to the Washington Post.
Stone joins several other members of the Republican president’s inner orbit who’ve been convicted or pleaded guilty to federal crimes. The roster includes Trump's former campaign deputy chair Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, former campaign aide George Papadopoulos, and former campaign chair Paul Manafort.
In November, a jury found Stone guilty on five counts of lying to Congress and one count each of witness tampering and obstruction of Congress. "Witnesses do not get to decide for themselves whether Congress is entitled to the facts,” Jackson said Thursday.
Stone was heckled by one protester as "a traitor" as he entered the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on Thursday morning, where demonstrators had erected a giant inflatable rat with Trump's hair and tie.
An eccentric, self-styled “dirty trickster” who has been compared to “a tax collector from a candy-themed board game” and “a czarist Mr. Peanut,” Stone worked for Trump’s campaign through August 2015 and continued to act as an adviser to the president after Trump took office.
Stone was arrested in January 2019 after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s office indicted him on charges of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. WikiLeaks had published emails, obtained by Russians, from the hacked servers of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Stone and Trump made phone calls in 2016, prosecutors showed, including the same day the DNC announced it had been hacked, though the content of those phone calls remains unknown.
Although Stone denied being in contact with Assange, who was sequestered in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, prosecutors presented emails and text messages alleging he was repeatedly in touch with WikiLeaks and people involved in the Trump campaign about publishing the leaks. Court records indicate Stone told an unidentified person involved in Trump’s campaign, "Spoke to my friend in London last night. The payload is still coming.” Prosecutors also say Stone “subsequently told the [Trump] supporter that more material would be released and that it would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.”
In 2016, Stone had also communicated with Guccifer 2.0, who had taken credit for the hack of the DNC's computers. (Mueller’s office later charged 12 Russians with the hack.) Stone called his communications “innocuous.”
On the obstruction charge, Stone’s indictment said he “testified falsely and misleadingly” before the House Intelligence Committee, lied about the existence of records, falsely misled the committee about communications with colleagues, and pressured radio host Randy Credico to “falsely testify.”
As for witness tampering, prosecutors said Stone “knowingly and intentionally corruptly persuaded and attempted to corruptly persuade another person … with intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding,” in reference to Credico. Stone repeatedly urged Credico not to comply with the FBI and congressional investigations and told him to pull a “Frank Pentangeli” (a reference to the character in The Godfather Part II who lies to Congress after his brother is threatened).
Stone didn't exactly curry favor with the judge during the trial.
Instead, Stone had antagonized the court by posting an image on Instagram that portrayed Jackson with what appeared to be gun crosshairs next to her head. Jackson responded by barring him from speaking publicly about his case or Mueller’s investigation, saying, "The privilege, the liberty he was afforded, was promptly abused.”
Stone commented afterward, “I am kicking myself over my own stupidity.”
But Stone had noisy volunteers tied to the Proud Boys — a violent, racist, all-male conservative group — who continued to discuss the case online on his behalf, including one Stone ally who retweeted a message that said, “ROGER STONE DID NOTHING WRONG. SUPPORTING TRUMP IS NOT A CRIME. THE LEFT WANTS US DEAD. THE LEFT WANTS US IN PRISON. THE LEFT WANTS US SILENT."
Assistant US Attorney Aaron Zelinsky (one of the prosecutors who quit the case earlier this month) told the jury when the trial began in November, “Evidence will show Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad. The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.”
Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer, tried to distance the president from Stone in a statement at the time of his arrest. "The indictment today does not allege Russian collusion by Roger Stone or anyone else,” Sekulow said at the time. “Rather, the indictment focuses on alleged false statements Mr. Stone made to Congress."


buzzfeed--2020-02-21--This Democrat Tried To Oust A Republican From Congress. She Blames Michael Bloomberg For Her Loss.

WASHINGTON — After Democrats attacked Michael Bloomberg for his past support of Republicans during Wednesday ’ s presidential debate , a Democrat who ran against one of his GOP allies says she feels like he cost her her election just two years ago .
Liuba Grechen Shirley , a New York congressional candidate , ran against longtime Republican Rep. Pete King and nearly unseated him for New York 's 2nd District in 2018 .
Grechen Shirley told BuzzFeed News on Thursday that during the campaign , she called Bloomberg to ask for his support .
“ He told me that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so he would be supporting him , ” she said .
Bloomberg had donated the maximum to King ’ s campaigns in the past ; in 2018 , he hosted a high-dollar fundraiser for the Republican at his home .
That year , a blue wave upended New York state politics : Democrats flipped the legislature after a long Republican reign , and Staten Island elected its first Democratic member of Congress in nearly a decade .
But on Long Island , Grechen Shirley struggled to secure the extra 5 % she needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other Democrat in nearly three decades .
“ That was the closest that anyone had ever come in his 26 years in office — and had we not had Mike Bloomberg fundraising for King on the other side , we very well might have taken that seat , ” she said .

WASHINGTON — After Democrats attacked Michael Bloomberg for his past support of Republicans during Wednesday’s presidential debate, a Democrat who ran against one of his GOP allies says she feels like he cost her her election just two years ago.
Liuba Grechen Shirley, a New York congressional candidate, ran against longtime Republican Rep. Pete King and nearly unseated him for New York's 2nd District in 2018. Grechen Shirley told BuzzFeed News on Thursday that during the campaign, she called Bloomberg to ask for his support. “He told me that Peter King was a longtime friend and so he would be supporting him,” she said.
Bloomberg had donated the maximum to King’s campaigns in the past; in 2018, he hosted a high-dollar fundraiser for the Republican at his home.
That year, a blue wave upended New York state politics: Democrats flipped the legislature after a long Republican reign, and Staten Island elected its first Democratic member of Congress in nearly a decade. But on Long Island, Grechen Shirley struggled to secure the extra 5% she needed to unseat King — despite coming closer than any other Democrat in nearly three decades.
“That was the closest that anyone had ever come in his 26 years in office — and had we not had Mike Bloomberg fundraising for King on the other side, we very well might have taken that seat,” she said.


buzzfeed--2020-02-21--The FBI Arrested A Man For Allegedly Hacking Former Rep. Katie Hill's Opponent To Help Her Win

WASHINGTON — The FBI arrested a man connected to former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill ’ s congressional campaign , according to a federal complaint filed in California Wednesday .
Hill , who flipped a Republican-held seat in California two years ago , resigned from Congress last year after nude photos of her were released without her consent .
While she was a candidate in 2018 , the website of one of her Democratic rivals — Bryan Caforio — was hacked .
According to the complaint , the FBI arrested Arthur Dam , whose wife worked for Hill ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks against her opponent .
His arrest was first reported by the Intercept .
Hill did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News ’ s request for comment .
Though the complaint does not name the victim of the cyberattacks , Caforio confirmed to BuzzFeed News that he is the individual identified as `` Victim '' in the complaint .
The description by the FBI also matches reports from 2018 about Caforio ’ s campaign hack .
According to a Rolling Stone article from September of that year , Caforio ’ s website crashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a debate and another time just a week before the election .
The attacks were DDoS attacks , which direct overwhelming traffic to a website in an effort to crash it .
Caforio narrowly lost the primary .
According to the FBI complaint , Dam registered an Amazon Web Services account to coordinate the attacks and registered it under a pseudonym , but used his real name for payment information .
The account that Dam used to attack the site was closed the day the Rolling Stone story was published , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , the Victim provided information to the FBI that as a result of the DDoS attacks , the Victim suffered various harms , including a reduction of in political donations and campaign visibility , and between approximately $ 27,000 and $ 30,000 in expenditures and lot time to respond to , investigate , and mitigate the attacks , '' the complaint filed this week reads .
Caforio told the FBI that he believed the attacks contributed to his election loss by fewer than 3,000 votes .
( Caforio came in third in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came in second with 24,507 . )
`` I ’ m absolutely shocked and saddened to learn today that Katie Hill ’ s campaign associates hacked my campaign in order to help her advance through the primary , '' Caforio told BuzzFeed News in a statement .
`` This should serve as a somber reminder that Russia is not the only threat to our democracy .
There are bad actors on all sides who will do anything for their own personal gain , and we need to come together as Americans to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The FBI alleged that Dam visited Caforio 's website multiple times and researched the candidate , while also searching for terms and equipment related to DDoS attacks .
`` Dam was found to be connected to the cyber attacks through subscriber information , IP addresses , geolocation history , and open sources , including through his employer and his wife , K.O.
, who worked for one of the Victim ’ s opponents , '' the complaint reads .
According to The Intercept , Dam is married to Kelsey O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her congressional run and worked for Hill after she was elected to Congress .
Federal Election Commission records show that Dam performed “ graphic design and website security consultation ” for Hill ’ s 2018 campaign , an in-kind contribution that the campaign valued at $ 500 .
The FBI interviewed both Dam and O'Hara at their home in Santa Monica , California , in November 2019 , according to the complaint .
Dam , who is an engineer , told the FBI that he occasionally used DDoS attacks at work for testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI that they used third parties for that kind of testing were unaware of any internal tests .
The FBI also searched Dam 's home and his office in November , according to the complaint .

WASHINGTON — The FBI arrested a man connected to former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill’s congressional campaign, according to a federal complaint filed in California Wednesday.
Hill, who flipped a Republican-held seat in California two years ago, resigned from Congress last year after nude photos of her were released without her consent. While she was a candidate in 2018, the website of one of her Democratic rivals — Bryan Caforio — was hacked.
According to the complaint, the FBI arrested Arthur Dam, whose wife worked for Hill’s campaign, accusing him of coordinating four DDoS attacks against her opponent. His arrest was first reported by the Intercept. Hill did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News’s request for comment.
Though the complaint does not name the victim of the cyberattacks, Caforio confirmed to BuzzFeed News that he is the individual identified as "Victim" in the complaint. The description by the FBI also matches reports from 2018 about Caforio’s campaign hack.
According to a Rolling Stone article from September of that year, Caforio’s website crashed four times during the primary, once during a debate and another time just a week before the election. The attacks were DDoS attacks, which direct overwhelming traffic to a website in an effort to crash it. Caforio narrowly lost the primary.
According to the FBI complaint, Dam registered an Amazon Web Services account to coordinate the attacks and registered it under a pseudonym, but used his real name for payment information. The account that Dam used to attack the site was closed the day the Rolling Stone story was published, according to the complaint.
"In May 2019, the Victim provided information to the FBI that as a result of the DDoS attacks, the Victim suffered various harms, including a reduction of in political donations and campaign visibility, and between approximately $27,000 and $30,000 in expenditures and lot time to respond to, investigate, and mitigate the attacks," the complaint filed this week reads.
Caforio told the FBI that he believed the attacks contributed to his election loss by fewer than 3,000 votes. (Caforio came in third in the primary with 21,821 votes. Hill came in second with 24,507.)
"I’m absolutely shocked and saddened to learn today that Katie Hill’s campaign associates hacked my campaign in order to help her advance through the primary," Caforio told BuzzFeed News in a statement. "This should serve as a somber reminder that Russia is not the only threat to our democracy. There are bad actors on all sides who will do anything for their own personal gain, and we need to come together as Americans to defend our country and hold everyone responsible accountable."
The FBI alleged that Dam visited Caforio's website multiple times and researched the candidate, while also searching for terms and equipment related to DDoS attacks.
"Dam was found to be connected to the cyber attacks through subscriber information, IP addresses, geolocation history, and open sources, including through his employer and his wife, K.O., who worked for one of the Victim’s opponents," the complaint reads.
According to The Intercept, Dam is married to Kelsey O’Hara, who fundraised for Hill during her congressional run and worked for Hill after she was elected to Congress. Federal Election Commission records show that Dam performed “graphic design and website security consultation” for Hill’s 2018 campaign, an in-kind contribution that the campaign valued at $500.
The FBI interviewed both Dam and O'Hara at their home in Santa Monica, California, in November 2019, according to the complaint. Dam, who is an engineer, told the FBI that he occasionally used DDoS attacks at work for testing, though his company later told the FBI that they used third parties for that kind of testing were unaware of any internal tests.
The FBI also searched Dam's home and his office in November, according to the complaint.


buzzfeed--2020-02-21--The Political Fundraising Model Is Breaking Down. The Success Of Bernie Sanders And Mike Bloomberg A

The Political Fundraising Model Is Breaking Down. The Success Of Bernie Sanders And Mike Bloomberg Are The Clearest Sign.

One possibility in 2020 is that we get a very weird primary : two old men most recently elected to office as independents competing for the Democratic nomination .
A choice between Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders , however , might actually be the natural conclusion of the last 15 years in politics .
Centrally , they each reflect the breakdown of the fundraising model that powered politics for a time — and the party structures that dominated politics for a century .
You saw a quick version of this dynamic play out on Thursday : Elizabeth Warren — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of super PAC funding — wouldn ’ t disavow the new super PAC that ’ s airing pro-Warren ads in Nevada .
“ That ’ s how it has to be , ” she said .
“ It can ’ t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don ’ t. ” Later that night , the presidential campaigns released their January financial reports — a total wasteland of cash .
Days before the Iowa caucus , Warren ’ s campaign had just $ 2.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line of credit on the books .
Pete Buttigieg had $ 6.6 million on hand , but at least some of that money can only be spent in a general election .
Since then , Warren has announced fundraising deadlines , walked onto the debate stage with machetes , cut Bloomberg 's head off , and taken in $ 17 million .
Buttigieg is flying so much between rallies ( and fundraisers ) in Western states that he joked he isn ’ t always sure where he is anymore .
These are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delegate count .
But we ’ re undergoing a major shift in the way politics work .
In the 1950s and ‘ 60s , television broke up the chokehold that big city machines held on national politics , pushing the parties toward more democratic caucuses and primaries .
Congress instituted a public financing program that lasted , in various iterations , for the next 40 years .
We ’ re seeing another shift in the mobile internet age as a result of specific finance decisions over the last two decades .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take public financing for the Republican primary , breaking with tradition ; previously , candidates would receive matching funds from the government for their campaigns that capped fundraising .
In 2008 , Barack Obama declined to take general election public financing , blowing the doors off how much money candidates would raise thereafter .
( John McCain , who took public financing , raised the maximum $ 84 million to Obama 's $ 750 million in 2008 . )
Fundraising for those campaigns ( and still many campaigns now ) ran on individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between a primary and a general , often “ bundled ” by someone on behalf of the campaign for efficiency and impact .
But because of a series of Supreme Court rulings , donors by the early 2010s could create authorized super PACs — and the limits on joint-fundraising agreements between campaigns and the national parties went much higher .
That meant , as you may have noticed with Donald Trump this time around or Hillary Clinton in 2016 , that a presidential candidate can raise staggering sums of money through max-out checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength of these developments , Obama , Clinton , Mitt Romney , the Republican National Committee , and a series of PACs raised and spent billions on presidential elections .
The situation by 2015 : an outsize media and political obsession on whom big donors might favor in the Republican primary , and a Clinton operation that organized fundraising like they were retaking France .
Meanwhile , you had a Republican Party machine presiding over a Trump nomination with essentially zero way to interfere , and a Democratic Party machine only able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of debates .
In 2015 , Sanders took the Obama-era innovations in online fundraising and advanced far beyond them , proving categorically that you could fund a national campaign without those $ 2,800 checks , reengaging the activist left in the process .
Sanders raised $ 228 million , all from small contributions , premised on a highly ambitious , highly ideological platform .
( He also had and has some super PAC support of his own , funded by a nurses union . )
Sanders ’ success — with all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and money — has already transformed the purview of Democrats from policy to style .
The party 's base for generations might really be far more in line with his ideas than anyone else ’ s ; Sanders , more than any other politician in America , commands a multiracial base under the age of 30 .

One possibility in 2020 is that we get a very weird primary: two old men most recently elected to office as independents competing for the Democratic nomination.
A choice between Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders, however, might actually be the natural conclusion of the last 15 years in politics. Centrally, they each reflect the breakdown of the fundraising model that powered politics for a time — and the party structures that dominated politics for a century.
You saw a quick version of this dynamic play out on Thursday: Elizabeth Warren — the candidate who literally called for the rejection of super PAC funding — wouldn’t disavow the new super PAC that’s airing pro-Warren ads in Nevada.
“That’s how it has to be,” she said. “It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
Later that night, the presidential campaigns released their January financial reports — a total wasteland of cash. Days before the Iowa caucus, Warren’s campaign had just $2.3 million left, with a $400,000 line of credit on the books. Pete Buttigieg had $6.6 million on hand, but at least some of that money can only be spent in a general election. Since then, Warren has announced fundraising deadlines, walked onto the debate stage with machetes, cut Bloomberg's head off, and taken in $17 million. Buttigieg is flying so much between rallies (and fundraisers) in Western states that he joked he isn’t always sure where he is anymore. These are the candidates who are first and third in the delegate count.
But we’re undergoing a major shift in the way politics work.
In the 1950s and ‘60s, television broke up the chokehold that big city machines held on national politics, pushing the parties toward more democratic caucuses and primaries. Congress instituted a public financing program that lasted, in various iterations, for the next 40 years. We’re seeing another shift in the mobile internet age as a result of specific finance decisions over the last two decades.
In 2000, George W. Bush declined to take public financing for the Republican primary, breaking with tradition; previously, candidates would receive matching funds from the government for their campaigns that capped fundraising. In 2008, Barack Obama declined to take general election public financing, blowing the doors off how much money candidates would raise thereafter. (John McCain, who took public financing, raised the maximum $84 million to Obama's $750 million in 2008.)
Fundraising for those campaigns (and still many campaigns now) ran on individual max-out checks: usually about $5,000 between a primary and a general, often “bundled” by someone on behalf of the campaign for efficiency and impact. But because of a series of Supreme Court rulings, donors by the early 2010s could create authorized super PACs — and the limits on joint-fundraising agreements between campaigns and the national parties went much higher. That meant, as you may have noticed with Donald Trump this time around or Hillary Clinton in 2016, that a presidential candidate can raise staggering sums of money through max-out checks to the party committees. On the strength of these developments, Obama, Clinton, Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee, and a series of PACs raised and spent billions on presidential elections.
The situation by 2015: an outsize media and political obsession on whom big donors might favor in the Republican primary, and a Clinton operation that organized fundraising like they were retaking France. Meanwhile, you had a Republican Party machine presiding over a Trump nomination with essentially zero way to interfere, and a Democratic Party machine only able to favor Clinton by, like, limiting the number of debates.
In 2015, Sanders took the Obama-era innovations in online fundraising and advanced far beyond them, proving categorically that you could fund a national campaign without those $2,800 checks, reengaging the activist left in the process. Sanders raised $228 million, all from small contributions, premised on a highly ambitious, highly ideological platform. (He also had and has some super PAC support of his own, funded by a nurses union.) Sanders’ success — with all the validation conferred by votes, sway, and money — has already transformed the purview of Democrats from policy to style. The party's base for generations might really be far more in line with his ideas than anyone else’s; Sanders, more than any other politician in America, commands a multiracial base under the age of 30.


buzzfeed--2020-02-21--Mike Bloomberg Once Again Called Transgender People “It” And “Some Guy Wearing A Dress”

“ And so you can understand where somebody like Trump comes from , ” Bloomberg said at the forum last year .
“ You can understand when you look at the Democratic Party , they are so far left that two years ago there was nobody on their side who would take these positions , and today virtually all the candidates for president of the Democratic Party are so progressive .
I don ’ t know what progressive means.
” The video was posted to YouTube shortly after the March event , but has received few views .
Bloomberg was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , but announced his campaign just eight months after he made the remarks .
Bloomberg made a similar remark about a “ man wearing a dress ” in 2016 , but his comments uncovered Tuesday — remarks he made less than a year ago — came amid the early stages of the 2020 Democratic primary .
“ If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he , she , or it can go to the locker room with their daughter , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
Bloomberg ’ s sensitivity was far less apparent at a forum hosted by the Bermuda Business Development Agency on March 21 , 2019 , in Manhattan , where Bloomberg derided Democratic candidates for talking about transgender protections .
And yet , Bloomberg ’ s campaign published a new video on Tuesday that pledged the former New York City mayor believed in “ inclusivity ” for “ LGBTQ+ youth , ” featuring fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi declaring , “ Mike is so incredibly sensitive to this issue.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Bloomberg in 2019 describing transgender people as “ he , she , or it ” and “ some guy in a dress ” who enters girls locker rooms — invoking a conservative cliché as he argued that transgender rights are toxic for presidential candidates trying to reach Middle America .
A Bloomberg campaign spokesperson told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday , `` Mike understands that the transgender community has been under attack for decades and the advance of rights has not been equal .
In April 2002 , during his first year as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights bill into law .
His company provides comprehensive health care coverage for his transgender employees .
As president , he has a comprehensive plan to secure rights for transgender Americans , including passing the Equality Act , ensuring transgender people have access to affirming health care and working to end the crisis of violence against transgender women .
Mike is running to defeat Donald Trump and reverse the many policies he has implemented that attack the rights of the transgender community . ''
His company Bloomberg LP joined a court filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a North Carolina law that banned transgender people from using restrooms that matched their gender identity in government buildings .
The spokesperson did not directly respond to BuzzFeed News ’ questions about whether Bloomberg thinks a transgender woman is “ a guy wearing a dress ” or an “ it , ” if transgender rights are a liability for Democratic presidential candidates , or how his campaign video on LGBTQ+ rights squares with his comments less than a year ago .
When Bloomberg raised a similar talking point in 2016 , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti–transgender rights law .
According to reports that emerged earlier this month , Bloomberg said , `` If you want to know if somebody is a good salesman , give him the job of going to the Midwest and picking a town and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter . ''
After those first comments were reported , a Bloomberg campaign spokesperson told NBC News that the billionaire signed a gender identity nondiscrimination bill in 2002 when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Mike is running to defeat Donald Trump and reverse the many policies he has implemented that attack the rights of the transgender community , '' the spokesperson told the network .
But the latest video shows that he was still deploying this idea three years later , in 2019 , as the primary started to unfold .
A former Republican , Bloomberg has emerged as contender in the Democratic primary after he doused the nation with a $ 400 million ad buy — enough to boost his poll numbers to 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released Tuesday and to qualify for Wednesday ’ s debate in Nevada .
At the same time , he ’ s faced a lash of criticism for his past positions on race and gender .
The Washington Post reported on several lawsuits that allege discrimination against women , including in one case in which he allegedly told a pregnant employee to “ kill ” her fetus .
Bloomberg also defended the New York City Police Department 's stop-and-frisk policy — which targeted people of color for searches — in a 2015 speech at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods .
Yes , that 's true .
Why 'd we do it ?
Because that 's where all the crime is .
And the way you should get the guns out of the kids ' hands is throw them against the wall and frisk them.
” Bloomberg tried to distance himself from those comments this month , telling NPR , “ I regret that and I have apologized.
” Bloomberg has also tried to reach LGBTQ progressives .
In the campaign video released Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ” emblem in the corner and was retweeted by his campaign , Mizrahi , a designer and entertainer , begins , “ My thing is LGBTQ+ youth.
” “ As a kid you feel completely ostracized , completely on the outside of everything , but then as an adult you see there is a whole bunch of inclusivity , ” Mizrahi continues .
“ Mike is so incredibly sensitive to this issue .
Having lived in New York for a number of years that Mike was mayor and seeing him enact these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ populations but also the kids , the thing I like about Mike is that he ’ s really proactive.
” “ There is no one more perfect than Mike , ” he concludes .
Back at the March 2019 forum , Bloomberg said he ’ d largely ruled out running for president this year due to his political views , saying in a video , “ It ’ s just not going to happen on a national level for somebody like me starting where I am , unless I was going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what CNN calls an apology tour.
” This is Bloomberg ’ s full quote from the forum : “ 'Throw the bums out , they have n't delivered , they did n't listen to us . '
If you go to the middle of the country , people would say .
If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he , she , or it can go to the locker room with their daughter , that ’ s not a winning formula for most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they care about education , they care about safety , and all of those kinds of things .
And some of these social issues — and not just the American government , the EU government does as well — we are focusing on a lot of things that have little relevance to people who are trying to live in a world that is changing because of technology and communications and things like that .
And so you can understand where somebody like Trump comes from ; you can understand when you look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far left that two years ago there was nobody on their side who would take these positions , and today virtually all the candidates for president of the Democratic Party are so progressive .
I don ’ t know what progressive means .
They are in a place where some of the American public is , and it remains to be seen if the remainder of the electorate is .
”

A Bloomberg campaign spokesperson told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday, "Mike understands that the transgender community has been under attack for decades and the advance of rights has not been equal. In April 2002, during his first year as mayor, Mike signed a sweeping transgender civil rights bill into law. His company provides comprehensive health care coverage for his transgender employees. As president, he has a comprehensive plan to secure rights for transgender Americans, including passing the Equality Act, ensuring transgender people have access to affirming health care and working to end the crisis of violence against transgender women. Mike is running to defeat Donald Trump and reverse the many policies he has implemented that attack the rights of the transgender community."
His company Bloomberg LP joined a court filing with several dozen other corporations to oppose a North Carolina law that banned transgender people from using restrooms that matched their gender identity in government buildings.
The spokesperson did not directly respond to BuzzFeed News’ questions about whether Bloomberg thinks a transgender woman is “a guy wearing a dress” or an “it,” if transgender rights are a liability for Democratic presidential candidates, or how his campaign video on LGBTQ+ rights squares with his comments less than a year ago.
When Bloomberg raised a similar talking point in 2016, he was discussing the fallout of the North Carolina anti–transgender rights law. According to reports that emerged earlier this month, Bloomberg said, "If you want to know if somebody is a good salesman, give him the job of going to the Midwest and picking a town and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter."
After those first comments were reported, a Bloomberg campaign spokesperson told NBC News that the billionaire signed a gender identity nondiscrimination bill in 2002 when he was the mayor of New York City.
"Mike is running to defeat Donald Trump and reverse the many policies he has implemented that attack the rights of the transgender community," the spokesperson told the network.
But the latest video shows that he was still deploying this idea three years later, in 2019, as the primary started to unfold.
A former Republican, Bloomberg has emerged as contender in the Democratic primary after he doused the nation with a $400 million ad buy — enough to boost his poll numbers to 19% among Democrats in a national poll released Tuesday and to qualify for Wednesday’s debate in Nevada.
At the same time, he’s faced a lash of criticism for his past positions on race and gender. The Washington Post reported on several lawsuits that allege discrimination against women, including in one case in which he allegedly told a pregnant employee to “kill” her fetus.
Bloomberg also defended the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy — which targeted people of color for searches — in a 2015 speech at the Aspen Institute, saying, “We put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that's true. Why'd we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you should get the guns out of the kids' hands is throw them against the wall and frisk them.”
Bloomberg tried to distance himself from those comments this month, telling NPR, “I regret that and I have apologized.”
Bloomberg has also tried to reach LGBTQ progressives. In the campaign video released Tuesday, which features a “Mike Bloomberg 2020” emblem in the corner and was retweeted by his campaign, Mizrahi, a designer and entertainer, begins, “My thing is LGBTQ+ youth.”
“As a kid you feel completely ostracized, completely on the outside of everything, but then as an adult you see there is a whole bunch of inclusivity,” Mizrahi continues. “Mike is so incredibly sensitive to this issue. Having lived in New York for a number of years that Mike was mayor and seeing him enact these incredible programs that helped both the adult LGBTQ populations but also the kids, the thing I like about Mike is that he’s really proactive.”
“There is no one more perfect than Mike,” he concludes.
Back at the March 2019 forum, Bloomberg said he’d largely ruled out running for president this year due to his political views, saying in a video, “It’s just not going to happen on a national level for somebody like me starting where I am, unless I was going to change all my views and go on what CNN calls an apology tour.”
This is Bloomberg’s full quote from the forum:
“'Throw the bums out, they haven't delivered, they didn't listen to us.' If you go to the middle of the country, people would say. If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people. They care about health care, they care about education, they care about safety, and all of those kinds of things. And some of these social issues — and not just the American government, the EU government does as well — we are focusing on a lot of things that have little relevance to people who are trying to live in a world that is changing because of technology and communications and things like that. And so you can understand where somebody like Trump comes from; you can understand when you look at the Democratic Party, they are so far left that two years ago there was nobody on their side who would take these positions, and today virtually all the candidates for president of the Democratic Party are so progressive. I don’t know what progressive means. They are in a place where some of the American public is, and it remains to be seen if the remainder of the electorate is.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-23--Live Results: Nevada Democratic Caucuses

The Nevada caucuses are wrapping up ; the third contest of the Democratic presidential primary and the most diverse state yet to weigh in on the race .
A couple things to know as results begin to come in : First , yes , this is another caucus , the quirky election system that brought a disaster to Iowa earlier this month .
There are a few key differences , though , between Nevada and Iowa .
For one , Nevada allowed early voting , and about 75,000 Democrats took advantage — rivaling the total participation for the Democratic caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nevada Democratic Party will not be using an app like the one that made the caucus reporting process in Iowa such a nightmare .
Most of the caucus basics are the same as in Iowa .
Nevada Democrats gathered at a set time ( 12 p.m. PT ) at a collection of precinct sites to register their candidate preferences by physically grouping at each site and writing their selections on preference cards — this step is called the first alignment , and early vote tallies will be considered once this grouping is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have enough support on that first preference to be viable ( the threshold is typically 15 % of caucusgoers at a location ) then that candidate ’ s supporters are able to realign either with a candidate who was viable in the first round or join together to make another candidate viable — this is the final alignment .
The state party is then due to publicly report the totals for the first alignment , the final alignment , and the allocation of county convention delegates .
There could still be issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reliant on an army of state party staff and volunteers to get the caucus data together and reported .
The party has said it intends to have the full results reported on Saturday , but there ’ s still the possibility more time will be needed to iron everything out .

UPDATE: Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada caucuses.
The Nevada caucuses are wrapping up; the third contest of the Democratic presidential primary and the most diverse state yet to weigh in on the race.
A couple of things to know about the results: First, yes, this is another caucus, the quirky election system that brought a disaster to Iowa earlier this month. There are a few key differences, though, between Nevada and Iowa. For one, Nevada allowed early voting, and about 75,000 Democrats took advantage — rivaling the total participation for the Democratic caucuses in the state in 2016. And the Nevada Democratic Party will not be using an app like the one that made the caucus reporting process in Iowa such a nightmare.
Most of the caucus basics are the same as in Iowa. Nevada Democrats gathered at a set time (12 p.m. PT) at a collection of precinct sites to register their candidate preferences by physically grouping at each site and writing their selections on preference cards — this step is called the first alignment, and early vote tallies will be considered once this grouping is complete. If a candidate does not have enough support on that first preference to be viable (the threshold is typically 15% of caucusgoers at a location), then that candidate’s supporters are able to realign either with a candidate who was viable in the first round or join together to make another candidate viable — this is the final alignment.
The state party will then publicly report the totals for the first alignment, the final alignment, and the allocation of county convention delegates.
There could still be issues, however. The caucus system is complicated and reliant on an army of state party staff and volunteers to get the caucus data together and reported. The party has said it intends to have the full results reported on Saturday, but there’s still the possibility more time will be needed to iron everything out.