rawstory--2020-01-11--Alan Dershowitz files complaint against Yale psychiatrist who accused Trump supporters of ‘shared ps

Alan Dershowitz files complaint against Yale psychiatrist who accused Trump supporters of ‘shared psychosis’

Prominent Donald Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz reportedly complained to Yale University after forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee suggested Trump supporters may have a “ shared psychosis ” with the president .
The dust-up started on January 2nd , when University of Minnesota Law Professor Richard Painter , who served as chief White House ethics lawyer in George W. Bush administration , noted that Dershowitz was using the exact same language that Trump has employed in his impeachment defense .
Lee offered her analysis of the shared use of language .
“ Alan Dershowitz ’ s employing the odd use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dismissed as ordinary influence in most contexts .
However , given the severity and spread of ‘ shared psychosis ’ among just about all of Donald Trump ’ s followers , a different scenario is more likely , ” she explained .
“ There is even proof : his bravado toward his opponent with a question about his own sex life—in a way that is irrelevant to the actual lawsuit—shows the same grandiosity and delusional-level impunity , ” Lee argued .
“ Also identical is the level of lack of empathy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences ( until some accountability comes from the outside—at which time he is likely to lash out equally ) , ” she wrote .
In the column , Dershowtiz argued why he does not think Lee should be allowed to question the mental health of the president , or himself .
“ Publicly offering “ professional opinions ” or diagnoses in the absence of a psychiatric examination , is a violation of psychiatric ethics and the rules of the American Psychiatric Association , ” he argued .
“ Dr .
Lee has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously diagnosed President Trump as being psychotic .
Now she is doubling down accusing me of having a ‘ shared psychosis ’ with President Trump , and having ‘ wholly taken on Trump ’ s symptoms by contagion . '
” “ She also believes that my use of the word ‘ perfect ’ — the same word used by Donald Trump in describing his phone call to the Ukrainian President — is evidence of a ‘ shared ’ psychosis .
She does not mention that I used the word ‘ perfect ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusations against me and proclaiming , quite truthfully , that I have never had sex with any woman other than my wife , since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein , ” he wrote .
“ I used the word ‘ perfect ’ in reference to my fidelity during the period in which I was falsely accused , just as someone might say she had a ‘ perfect ’ attendance record .
Moreover , Dr. Lee neglects to mention that the interview during which I used that word took place months before President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes he caught the contagion from me.
” Dr. Lee said she will not back down .

Prominent Donald Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz reportedly complained to Yale University after forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee suggested Trump supporters may have a "shared psychosis" with the president.
The dust-up started on January 2nd, when University of Minnesota Law Professor Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer in George W. Bush administration, noted that Dershowitz was using the exact same language that Trump has employed in his impeachment defense.
Lee offered her analysis of the shared use of language.
“Alan Dershowitz’s employing the odd use of ‘perfect’—not even a synonym—might be dismissed as ordinary influence in most contexts. However, given the severity and spread of ‘shared psychosis’ among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers, a different scenario is more likely,” she explained.
“There is even proof: his bravado toward his opponent with a question about his own sex life—in a way that is irrelevant to the actual lawsuit—shows the same grandiosity and delusional-level impunity,” Lee argued.
“Also identical is the level of lack of empathy, of remorse, and of consideration of consequences (until some accountability comes from the outside—at which time he is likely to lash out equally),” she wrote.
Dershowitz wrote an entire column complaining about Dr. Lee's tweets.
In the column, Dershowtiz argued why he does not think Lee should be allowed to question the mental health of the president, or himself.
"Publicly offering "professional opinions" or diagnoses in the absence of a psychiatric examination, is a violation of psychiatric ethics and the rules of the American Psychiatric Association," he argued. "Dr. Lee has a history of such unethical conduct. She previously diagnosed President Trump as being psychotic. Now she is doubling down accusing me of having a 'shared psychosis' with President Trump, and having 'wholly taken on Trump's symptoms by contagion.'"
"She also believes that my use of the word 'perfect' -- the same word used by Donald Trump in describing his phone call to the Ukrainian President -- is evidence of a 'shared' psychosis. She does not mention that I used the word 'perfect' in the context of rebutting the false accusations against me and proclaiming, quite truthfully, that I have never had sex with any woman other than my wife, since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein," he wrote. "I used the word 'perfect' in reference to my fidelity during the period in which I was falsely accused, just as someone might say she had a 'perfect' attendance record. Moreover, Dr. Lee neglects to mention that the interview during which I used that word took place months before President Trump used it. I guess she believes he caught the contagion from me."
Dr. Lee said she will not back down.


rawstory--2020-01-11--Rick Wilson tips off Democrats on how they are about to blow the election and hand Trump four more y

Rick Wilson tips off Democrats on how they are about to blow the election and hand Trump four more years

Former GOP strategist Rick Wilson , who quit his party in protest of President Donald Trump , has become a fixture of cable news talk shows , and his book Everything Trump Touches Dies was a runaway success .
In a profile in The Guardian on Saturday , Wilson discussed his upcoming book , Running Against the Devil , in which he goes into greater detail about how Democrats can defeat Trump in the 2020 election .
“ We control 38 state legislatures right now and there ’ s a reason for that : it ’ s because of guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a phone call with reporters .
“ I helped to build some of the tools in the toolbox for how you go out and exploit the cultural divisions in the country , and the political divisions , to win for Republicans in blue and purple areas .
On paper it looks hard but we worked hard and recognized that the way to win is sometimes to not tell people who you really are.
” That last part in particular , Wilson warned , is why Democrats are on track to trip before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand out in the primary by coming up with the most progressive ideas possible on gun control , Medicare for All , abortion rights , and immigration — and while these ideas play well in the primary , they could be points of attack later .
“ Guys like me who still work on the Trump side of the fence can always turn it into something that is a millstone around their neck , ” said Wilson .
“ It ’ s not even that hard .
Elizabeth Warren produces a 600-page healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t find , I don ’ t know , 30 things in there that I can ’ t demagogue the hell out of ?
Because I can .
Or the guys that are me now can.
” The flip side , too , is that Democrats have to know their audience .
“ This isn ’ t rocket science , ” said Wilson .
“ How did we Republicans elect guys in Wisconsin and Vermont and other places in recent years ?
We did it because we weren ’ t running them as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican governor in Vermont , four times .
And you ’ re thinking , ‘ Wow , Vermont , super liberal , how did that happen ?
’ Well , our guy was out there saying the Bush administration was wrong on climate change .
Try a Democrat in rural Pennsylvania , say , who comes out and says , ‘ Yes , I want to seize all automatic weapons , I want to make third trimester abortions fully taxpayer funded.
’ That may work , that may provoke hosannas in San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ?
Not as much .
They ’ re like … ‘ Wait , what ? '
” Bernie Sanders in particular , warned Wilson , is “ the easiest person in the world to turn into the comic opera villain Republicans love to hate , the Castro sympathiser , the socialist , the Marxist , the guy who wants to put the aristos in the tumbril as they cart them off to the guillotine .
”

Former GOP strategist Rick Wilson, who quit his party in protest of President Donald Trump, has become a fixture of cable news talk shows, and his book Everything Trump Touches Dies was a runaway success.
In a profile in The Guardian on Saturday, Wilson discussed his upcoming book, Running Against the Devil, in which he goes into greater detail about how Democrats can defeat Trump in the 2020 election.
"We control 38 state legislatures right now and there’s a reason for that: it's because of guys like me," said Wilson in a phone call with reporters. "I helped to build some of the tools in the toolbox for how you go out and exploit the cultural divisions in the country, and the political divisions, to win for Republicans in blue and purple areas. On paper it looks hard but we worked hard and recognized that the way to win is sometimes to not tell people who you really are."
That last part in particular, Wilson warned, is why Democrats are on track to trip before the finish line. Candidates are trying to stand out in the primary by coming up with the most progressive ideas possible on gun control, Medicare for All, abortion rights, and immigration — and while these ideas play well in the primary, they could be points of attack later.
“Guys like me who still work on the Trump side of the fence can always turn it into something that is a millstone around their neck," said Wilson. "It's not even that hard. Elizabeth Warren produces a 600-page healthcare plan and my research geeks can't find, I don't know, 30 things in there that I can't demagogue the hell out of? Because I can. Or the guys that are me now can."
The flip side, too, is that Democrats have to know their audience.
"This isn’t rocket science," said Wilson. "How did we Republicans elect guys in Wisconsin and Vermont and other places in recent years? We did it because we weren't running them as national Republican figures. We helped elect a Republican governor in Vermont, four times. And you're thinking, 'Wow, Vermont, super liberal, how did that happen?' Well, our guy was out there saying the Bush administration was wrong on climate change. Try a Democrat in rural Pennsylvania, say, who comes out and says, 'Yes, I want to seize all automatic weapons, I want to make third trimester abortions fully taxpayer funded.' That may work, that may provoke hosannas in San Francisco or Los Angeles. But out there? Not as much. They're like … 'Wait, what?'"
Bernie Sanders in particular, warned Wilson, is "the easiest person in the world to turn into the comic opera villain Republicans love to hate, the Castro sympathiser, the socialist, the Marxist, the guy who wants to put the aristos in the tumbril as they cart them off to the guillotine."


rawstory--2020-01-11--The Supreme Court can legally step in if McConnell tries to push through an unfair impeachment trial

The Supreme Court can legally step in if McConnell tries to push through an unfair impeachment trial: attorney

In a column for the Washington Post , attorney James Robenalt laid out the legal basis for the Supreme Court to step in and review the impeachment trial of Donald Trump if there is evidence it was not conducted properly .
With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) already admitting that he is working hand-in-hand with the White House to undercut the impeachment trial of the president — as well as signing as a co-sponsor a dismissal bill in the Senate that would allow throw all charges against Trump to be dismissed without a trial — Robenalt explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to intervene .
“ If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell follows through on his desire to hold an abbreviated impeachment trial without witnesses — as many in his party would prefer — he will be testing the limits of the impeachment trial clause of the Constitution , ” he wrote before adding , “ If such a sham trial comes to pass , is there any remedy ?
In fact , there is a stronger case than many think that the Supreme Court has the power to review impeachment trials , to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fairness.
” According to the attorney , “ The only Supreme Court decision addressing the Senate impeachment trial clause is Nixon v. United States ( 1993 ) — which has nothing to do with Richard Nixon .
When Walter L. Nixon , a federal judge in Mississippi , was impeached in 1989 and removed from office , he sued the United States , the secretary of state and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts , arguing that the Senate had not conducted a proper ‘ trial ’ as required by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing for the majority , ruled against him , ” he elaborated .
” t concluded that how the Senate conducted impeachment trials was essentially a political question , because the Constitution gives that body the “ sole power ” to try impeached officials .
That meant the dispute was , in the legal jargon , ‘ nonjusticiable.
’ But other justices — namely Byron White , Harry Blackmun and David Souter — argued that , while Nixon deserved to lose , it was possible that one day the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial that the courts would be obliged to hear a case if an aggrieved party sought a judicial remedy .
That ’ s precisely the situation we may face today.
” “ As the court noted in Nixon , the Constitution lays out several indispensable elements of an impeachment trial : The Senate ‘ shall be on Oath or Affirmation ’ ; if it ’ s the president who ’ s on trial , ‘ the Chief Justice shall preside ’ ; and conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the members present .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate tries an impeachment are left to its discretion , ” he continued .
According to the attorney , McConnell ’ s public pronouncements that he plans to obstruct justice and absolve the president before he has even been handed the articles of impeachment opens the door for judicial review .
“ McConnell has said he does not intend to be impartial — and in fact will work , lockstep , with the White House during the trial .
That would violate his oath to ‘ do impartial justice according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with witnesses and speedily steers the outcome to the one desired by the White House , that would reduce the Senate proceeding to the kind of “ summary determination ” that the three justices warned about.
” the attorney explained .
“ Collectively , such actions could be seen by reasonable judges as ‘ seriously threatening the integrity of the results ’ — the standard [ Justice David } Souter suggested should trigger judicial review .
According to Robenalt , Chief Justice John Roberts has the right and duty to step in if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Since the Constitution grants the chief justice the privilege of presiding over the trial , he ought to have — and in my view does have , under proper constitutional interpretation — considerable power to steer the Senate toward reasonable standards for weighing evidence and rendering judgments .
He can not and should not be a potted plant.
, ” he explained .
“ The current Senate rules , however , reduce the chief justice ’ s role to one of subservience and ceremony ; even his rulings on admissibility of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That can not possibly be what the founders intended.
” “ If McConnell and his Republican colleagues insist on setting rules that turn the trial into a farce , then the matter would be ripe for judicial review , as outlined by the various justices in Nixon v. United States .
The House — through the speaker or the impeachment managers — could take the matter to court , ” he concluded .
You can read the whole piece here .

In a column for the Washington Post, attorney James Robenalt laid out the legal basis for the Supreme Court to step in and review the impeachment trial of Donald Trump if there is evidence it was not conducted properly.
With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) already admitting that he is working hand-in-hand with the White House to undercut the impeachment trial of the president -- as well as signing as a co-sponsor a dismissal bill in the Senate that would allow throw all charges against Trump to be dismissed without a trial -- Robenalt explains there is precedent for the Supreme Court to intervene.
"If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell follows through on his desire to hold an abbreviated impeachment trial without witnesses — as many in his party would prefer — he will be testing the limits of the impeachment trial clause of the Constitution," he wrote before adding, "If such a sham trial comes to pass, is there any remedy? In fact, there is a stronger case than many think that the Supreme Court has the power to review impeachment trials, to ensure that Senate procedures meet a basic level of fairness."
According to the attorney, "The only Supreme Court decision addressing the Senate impeachment trial clause is Nixon v. United States (1993) — which has nothing to do with Richard Nixon. When Walter L. Nixon, a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached in 1989 and removed from office, he sued the United States, the secretary of state and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, arguing that the Senate had not conducted a proper 'trial' as required by the Constitution."
"The court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing for the majority, ruled against him," he elaborated. " t concluded that how the Senate conducted impeachment trials was essentially a political question, because the Constitution gives that body the “sole power” to try impeached officials. That meant the dispute was, in the legal jargon, 'nonjusticiable.' But other justices — namely Byron White, Harry Blackmun and David Souter — argued that, while Nixon deserved to lose, it was possible that one day the Senate would conduct such an unfair impeachment trial that the courts would be obliged to hear a case if an aggrieved party sought a judicial remedy. That’s precisely the situation we may face today."
"As the court noted in Nixon, the Constitution lays out several indispensable elements of an impeachment trial: The Senate 'shall be on Oath or Affirmation'; if it’s the president who’s on trial, 'the Chief Justice shall preside'; and conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the members present. Beyond this, the terms of how the Senate tries an impeachment are left to its discretion," he continued.
According to the attorney, McConnell's public pronouncements that he plans to obstruct justice and absolve the president before he has even been handed the articles of impeachment opens the door for judicial review.
"McConnell has said he does not intend to be impartial — and in fact will work, lockstep, with the White House during the trial. That would violate his oath to 'do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.' If he dispenses with witnesses and speedily steers the outcome to the one desired by the White House, that would reduce the Senate proceeding to the kind of “summary determination” that the three justices warned about." the attorney explained. "Collectively, such actions could be seen by reasonable judges as 'seriously threatening the integrity of the results' — the standard [Justice David} Souter suggested should trigger judicial review.
According to Robenalt, Chief Justice John Roberts has the right and duty to step in if he sees justice not being served.
"Since the Constitution grants the chief justice the privilege of presiding over the trial, he ought to have — and in my view does have, under proper constitutional interpretation — considerable power to steer the Senate toward reasonable standards for weighing evidence and rendering judgments. He cannot and should not be a potted plant.," he explained. "The current Senate rules, however, reduce the chief justice’s role to one of subservience and ceremony; even his rulings on admissibility of evidence can be overridden by the Senate. That cannot possibly be what the founders intended."
"If McConnell and his Republican colleagues insist on setting rules that turn the trial into a farce, then the matter would be ripe for judicial review, as outlined by the various justices in Nixon v. United States. The House — through the speaker or the impeachment managers — could take the matter to court," he concluded.
You can read the whole piece here.


rawstory--2020-01-11--George Conway and Neal Katyal advise Pelosi on how to trip up McConnell’s impeachment plans

On Friday , conservative attorney George Conway and law professor Neal Katyal wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting a key way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) could get the upper hand on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) .
Specifically , they argued , Pelosi should “ split up ” the articles of impeachment — submitting the article of obstruction of Congress , but holding onto the article of abuse of power for further investigation .
“ Separating the two articles — our preferred approach — would make perfect sense , ” they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second article , all the evidence about Trump ’ s obstruction is a matter of public record .
There ’ s nothing more to add , so the second article is ripe for trial .
But as to the first , although there is plenty of evidence demonstrating Trump ’ s guilt , his obstruction has prevented all of the evidence from coming to light.
” “ Since the House voted to approve the articles of impeachment last month , new revelations of Trump ’ s involvement have emerged , including emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine 91 minutes after Trump ’ s supposedly ‘ perfect ’ phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky , ” they wrote .
“ Trump ’ s former national security adviser , John Bolton , has said he is willing to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed , and Bolton ’ s lawyer has said he has new information , yet McConnell has balked at assurances that Bolton would be called.
” “ How can one conduct a ‘ trial ’ without knowing this evidence ?
” they continued .
“ As lawyers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without witnesses .
Both past impeachment trials of presidents featured witnesses — including 41 in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson .
And the lack of witnesses is particularly striking given the shell game Trump and his Republican colleagues have played .
In the House , Trump prevented executive branch employees from testifying , but said some of them would be able to testify in the Senate .
Now that we are in the Senate , Republicans say these folks should have testified in the House .
Lewis Carroll would be pleased.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton , ” they said .
“ But there ’ s one big difference : Clinton didn ’ t gag all the witnesses and documents in the House and the predecessor investigation ; as a result , there was a full record before the Senate .
And there were , in fact , witnesses who were deposed as part of the Senate trial nonetheless .
This time , the reason this evidence wasn ’ t generated in the House has everything to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is the case for sending up the second article now , to put the spotlight on Trump ’ s obstructionism.
” “ Holding the first article back and letting the second go forward would be a powerful and precise response to McConnell ’ s unprecedented attempts to avoid committing to a real trial , ” they concluded .
“ It makes practical sense but also highlights what ’ s at stake here .
Trump would be forced to undergo two impeachment trials instead of one — but that ’ s a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to hide evidence from the American people.
” You can read more here .

On Friday, conservative attorney George Conway and law professor Neal Katyal wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting a key way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) could get the upper hand on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Specifically, they argued, Pelosi should "split up" the articles of impeachment — submitting the article of obstruction of Congress, but holding onto the article of abuse of power for further investigation.
"Separating the two articles — our preferred approach — would make perfect sense," they wrote. "When it comes to the second article, all the evidence about Trump’s obstruction is a matter of public record. There’s nothing more to add, so the second article is ripe for trial. But as to the first, although there is plenty of evidence demonstrating Trump’s guilt, his obstruction has prevented all of the evidence from coming to light."
"Since the House voted to approve the articles of impeachment last month, new revelations of Trump’s involvement have emerged, including emails showing that aid was ordered withheld from Ukraine 91 minutes after Trump’s supposedly 'perfect' phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky," they wrote. "Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, has said he is willing to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed, and Bolton’s lawyer has said he has new information, yet McConnell has balked at assurances that Bolton would be called."
"How can one conduct a 'trial' without knowing this evidence?" they continued. "As lawyers, we have never heard of a trial without witnesses. Both past impeachment trials of presidents featured witnesses — including 41 in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. And the lack of witnesses is particularly striking given the shell game Trump and his Republican colleagues have played. In the House, Trump prevented executive branch employees from testifying, but said some of them would be able to testify in the Senate. Now that we are in the Senate, Republicans say these folks should have testified in the House. Lewis Carroll would be pleased."
"McConnell claims he is adhering to the rules in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton," they said. "But there’s one big difference: Clinton didn’t gag all the witnesses and documents in the House and the predecessor investigation; as a result, there was a full record before the Senate. And there were, in fact, witnesses who were deposed as part of the Senate trial nonetheless. This time, the reason this evidence wasn’t generated in the House has everything to do with the defendant in the impeachment case itself. That is the case for sending up the second article now, to put the spotlight on Trump’s obstructionism."
"Holding the first article back and letting the second go forward would be a powerful and precise response to McConnell’s unprecedented attempts to avoid committing to a real trial," they concluded. "It makes practical sense but also highlights what’s at stake here. Trump would be forced to undergo two impeachment trials instead of one — but that’s a fair price for him to pay for his attempts to hide evidence from the American people."
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump may have committed another impeachable offense by having Suleimani killed: MSNBC contributor

On MSNBC Saturday , commentator Danielle Moodie-Mills suggested that if President Donald Trump invoked his war powers solely to distract @ @ @ @ @ that would be grounds to impeach him again .
“ How much do you think @ @ @ @ @ and his actions right now ?
” asked anchor Alex Witt .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s head and he can not shake it out , ” said @ @ @ @ @ Trump thinks about is his legacy and his name .
And impeachment now has an @ @ @ @ @ , on top of the fact that we know that the Russians helped get him @ @ @ @ @ , so he didn ’ t do that on his own either .
And the @ @ @ @ @ even consider , for a moment , thinking about impeachment as a decision to assassinate @ @ @ @ @ insane , and on its own is an impeachable offense .
”

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Still, Ron DeSantis refuses to expand Medicaid, even though 93 percent of the cost is covered with money from Washington, DC. It’s the principle of the thing, apparently: he’s one of 11 red state governors who believes that working poor people simply shouldn’t get health coverage. After all, they didn’t have the good sense to be born into a wealthy family!
Michael, 30, lives in Orlando and has asthma, but running his little business buying and selling used furniture hasn’t earned him enough to cover his medical bills and to pay rent. He recently got an eviction notice, telling the Florida Health Justice Project:
“I was given a list of homeless shelters to choose from but I hope it doesn’t come to that.”
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Violence, hate, bigotry, and cruelty are the four cardinal points of fascism. Compassion and concern for the greater good, for the poor and weak, for the victims of fate and accident have no place in the fascist world.
Historians and political observers have been predicting that America would get our very own Mussolini ever since the days of Barry Goldwater. And there’s been no shortage of candidates: bribe-taking Nixon; Central American fascist-loving Reagan; Gitmo torturing and war-lying Bush; and, of course, Trump.
But with Ron DeSantis, we may finally be facing an all-American politician who has Mussolini’s guile, ruthlessness, and willingness to see people die to advance his political career, all while being smart and educated enough to avoid the easily satirized buffoonishness of Trump.
Mussolini was a famously short man who strutted with his muscular chest pushed out and his chin jutted forward, just like DeSantis, who Trump says is musclebound, likes to do.
Both men were socially awkward, craved power, lacked empathy, displayed casual cruelty, sucked up to the wealthiest men in the nation, and demonized opposition politicians — literally calling or implying their fellow citizens are “the enemy” (a favorite trick of Hitler and Orbán, as well) — to encourage their followers to support them or entertain the rhetoric of violence and threats of violence to achieve political ends.
Miriam, a single parent of two young children, discovered a lump in her breast but postponed visiting the doctor for months because she had no health insurance with her job as a housekeeper.
Finally, she realized the potential gravity of her situation.
“I needed to live to be there for my children,” she said.
She got treatment through the charity ward of a hospital, but even that treatment came with a cost of $2,183. She slipped behind in the $200 monthly payments when her job vanished with the pandemic and now she’s struggling to pay the $1783 she still owes in co-payments from her treatments. She’s been sent to collection and is living in fear of what’s next when the court finally comes after her.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of the possible rise of politicians like DeSantis who would suggest other Americans are enemies of the nation’s values, who would exaggerate policy differences in war-like terms, and who would ascribe the most evil of motives and intentions to simple political opponents.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
But it wasn’t just that calling other politicians enemies or attributing evil motivations to them produced dissension and could tear a society apart, although those concerns were at the top of Washington’s mind.
He also knew that such rhetoric was the platform from which a literal strongman could arise in America, destroying the democracy he’d fought the Revolutionary War to create:
“But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” he told the nation. “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Such a warlike approach to politics, Washington said, could only lead in one direction:
“It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
Such rhetoric, Washington argued, produces:
“A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
It’s been 225 years since George Washington uttered those words. And now we’re here.
Hipolito, the father of four, is worried about his life’s partner, the mother of their children.
“My wife has been in pain for weeks now but we can’t afford to find out why,” Hipolito told the Florida Health Justice Project. “I swear, I’m very afraid. She is pale and suffering every day.”
He notes that his wife hasn’t visited the doctor because their family can’t afford the expense when they must also house, feed, and clothe their kids on his job as a cook.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Arresting black men for voting, terrifying them and ruining their lives while making sure they all get paraded in chains before the cameras.
Threatening public school teachers with prison for simply teaching history.
Lying about medical science regarding vaccines to suck up to the Trump base, resulting in fewer Floridians being protected from a disease that is killing literally hundreds of Americans every day.
Using rhetoric that feeds bigotry and hate against gay, lesbian, and trans people.
Intimidating the college board so they strip the Black Lives Matter movement out of their advanced placement African-American Studies curriculum.
Lying to asylum-seekers to get them on a plane to Martha’s Vineyard as a stunt to elevate his own political fortunes.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with all of this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Ignoring the health and safety of his state’s citizens, DeSantis led Florida into a veritable Covid Armageddon, letting (as of January 16th) 84,176 of his citizens die from the disease. As former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CBS’ Face The Nation:
“They let the virus spread largely unchecked in terms of personal mitigation. People weren't wearing masks. They weren't encouraged to wear masks. Vaccination was encouraged for the elderly population, but not widely… So they made policy choices, and the consequence was an infection that largely engulfed most parts of the state.”
After this orgy of death and disease, at the end of 2021 about 12 percent of Florida’s population — almost 2.6 million — still lacked any form of medical insurance because of DeSantis’ refusal to expand Medicaid for low-income people.
And now as many as 2 million more Floridians will join the ranks of the uninsured in the coming months.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.


rawstory--2020-01-11--Impeachment should be the least of Trump worries as he faces a flood of lawsuits and federal investi

Impeachment should be the least of Trump worries as he faces a flood of lawsuits and federal investigations: report

According to a report at Bloomberg , the possibility that Donald Trump will be ousted from office after the House impeached him should concern his less than the multiple federal investigations and lawsuits awaiting him in 2020 .
As the Senate awaits the articles of impeachment expected to be delivered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Trump and his family have a minefield of court cases facing them — three of them to be heard by the Supreme Court .
“ The impeachment trial starts as soon as next week , while the court cases are running on separate tracks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records , a New York prosecutor wants his income tax returns , and public officials and private watchdogs say he ’ s unlawfully profiting from foreign government business , ” the report states .
“ The House Judiciary Committee is suing to get the records of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation , and a court is being asked if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify.
” Bloomberg reports , “ The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments in late March or early April on two lawsuits filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ subpoenas for his financial records .
A ruling is likely by the end of June.
” Additionally , “ The Supreme Court also plans to hear arguments this spring on Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. ’ s subpoena for the president ’ s personal tax returns and business records .
A ruling is due by the end of June .
Vance subpoenaed the president ’ s financial records to investigate whether the Trump Organization falsified its business records to cover up hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and onetime Playboy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The records are held by the Mazars accounting firm.
” The president is also faced with a lawsuit from the House Ways and Means Committee filed in July demanding the Treasury Department and the IRS turn over six years of Trump ’ s personal income tax records to confirm that the IRS is following its practice of auditing the president annually .
What could be very concerning to the president is a lawsuit demanding secret grand jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation .
“ The Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and claiming the House wasn ’ t engaged in a ‘ judicial proceeding ’ warranting release of the information .
Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled for the House in October , citing a need for records for the impeachment inquiry , ” Bloomberg reports .
Hovering over all of that is a lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before congressional investigators .
Bloomberg notes , “ Democrats said Mueller ’ s report showed that McGahn witnessed multiple acts of potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can read more here ( subscription required . )

According to a report at Bloomberg, the possibility that Donald Trump will be ousted from office after the House impeached him should concern him less than the multiple federal investigations and lawsuits awaiting him in 2020.
As the Senate awaits the articles of impeachment expected to be delivered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Trump and his family have a minefield of court cases facing them -- three of them to be heard by the Supreme Court.
"The impeachment trial starts as soon as next week, while the court cases are running on separate tracks. House committees are seeking his financial records, a New York prosecutor wants his income tax returns, and public officials and private watchdogs say he’s unlawfully profiting from foreign government business," the report states. "The House Judiciary Committee is suing to get the records of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and a court is being asked if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify."
Bloomberg reports, "The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments in late March or early April on two lawsuits filed by Trump seeking to block House committees’ subpoenas for his financial records. A ruling is likely by the end of June."
Additionally, "The Supreme Court also plans to hear arguments this spring on Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s subpoena for the president’s personal tax returns and business records. A ruling is due by the end of June. Vance subpoenaed the president’s financial records to investigate whether the Trump Organization falsified its business records to cover up hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and onetime Playboy playmate Karen McDougal before the 2016 election. The records are held by the Mazars accounting firm."
The president is also faced with a lawsuit from the House Ways and Means Committee filed in July demanding the Treasury Department and the IRS turn over six years of Trump’s personal income tax records to confirm that the IRS is following its practice of auditing the president annually.
What could be very concerning to the president is a lawsuit demanding secret grand jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
"The Justice Department objected, citing the need for secrecy and claiming the House wasn’t engaged in a 'judicial proceeding' warranting release of the information. Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled for the House in October, citing a need for records for the impeachment inquiry," Bloomberg reports.
Hovering over all of that is a lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before congressional investigators. Bloomberg notes, "Democrats said Mueller’s report showed that McGahn witnessed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by the president."
You can read more here (subscription required.)


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump administration threatens to deny Iraq access to their own money if they boot out US military:

Trump administration threatens to deny Iraq access to their own money if they boot out US military: report

On Saturday , the Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department is threatening to revoke Iraq ’ s access @ @ @ @ @ at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if the country moves to push U.S. @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Iraq , like other countries , maintains government accounts at the New York @ @ @ @ @ of managing the country ’ s finances , including revenue from oil sales , ” @ @ @ @ @ Isabel Coles .
“ Loss of access to the accounts could restrict Iraq ’ s @ @ @ @ @ creating a cash crunch in Iraq ’ s financial system and constricting a critical lubricant @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi parliament has moved to call for the expulsion of U.S. troops in the wake @ @ @ @ @ out Iranian general Qassim Suleimani in Baghdad .
The Trump administration , however , has @ @ @ @ @ , who have been attempting to contain ISIS and monitor the escalating tensions in Iran @ @ @ @ @ here ( requires subscription ) .

Vance explained that "some of the most interesting and powerful evidence comes from" Coffee County.
Those charges will come from "this notion that [Donald] Trump forces were trying to access voting machines and were trying to engage in election obstruction there," she continued. "And that's why this RICO charge we've heard about so much makes sense. It allows her to bring in a lot of different participants in this scheme. It allows her to bring in wide-ranging conduct, particularly Georgia conduct. And that's likely what we will see a RICO indictment later this week."
Earlier this week, it was reported that Willis is likely to indict a number of Trump’s associates, in addition to the former president, in the coming days.
“It really seems like they’re coming for everyone,” one lawyer, who has spoken with prosecutors, told Rolling Stone. "Based on what I know, Willis and her team do not seem to be stopping at Donald Trump. The scope for this [likely coming indictment] is probably going to be a hell of a lot wider than that… and round up a significant number of people."
POLL: Should Trump be convicted?
Doing it as a RICO charge, however, they will likely look different from special counsel Jack Smith's indictments.
"This is a very different prosecution," Vance explained, "with very different motivations than the one that Jack Smith is doing. His is a prosecution designed for speed. I suspect what we'll see here is the prosecution designed for completeness. The Georgia RICO statute is complicated. The longest trial that ever took place in Georgia took a couple of months; a trial that took place under this particular statute. There are a lot of moving parts. Add in additional defendants, and you've got more complexity. We've all seen in the Mar-a-Lago prosecution that it's taken time just to get lawyers just to arrange the defendants. [Georgia] is a state that's usually so routine that it happens days following arraignment. But in Florida, that's still ongoing. Now, multiply that out. You've got a dozen or so defendants, and you can understand the complexities that come into play."
She noted that the "dance" being seen now is whether Trump allies will be defendants or witnesses.
"This weekend is the time to make that choice," Vance said.
Trump disputed reports that prosecutors have text messages linking his campaign's legal team to a voting system breach in Coffee County, posting the comments on his social media site Sunday.
See the full interview with Vance in the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump’s plan to bar Bolton from testifying by using executive privilege dismantled by ex-federal pro

Trump’s plan to bar Bolton from testifying by using executive privilege dismantled by ex-federal prosecutor

Appearing on MSNBC on Saturday morning , former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne brushed aside Donald Trump ’ s assertion that he could bar former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying before Congress by claiming executive privilege .
Speaking with host Geoff Bennett , Alksne pointed out that invoking executive privilege is not all-encompassing when it comes to criminal testimony .
“ You heard President Trump say if Bolton is allowed to testify , he ’ d invoke executive privilege , ” Benett began .
“ That ’ s not how executive privilege works .
Typically what happens is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then if there ’ s specific questions he or she can ’ t answer , then you invoke executive privilege .
explain this for us.
” “ Well , the first thing we know is that all of the talk that the president had for so long about he ’ d love to have Bolton testify — that was not true , that was a lie , number one , ” Alksne replied .
“ Number two , the White House has used this notion of executive privilege or some kind of absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come at all , not to even sit in the chair and have to face the questions .
The idea with executive privilege is we want to protect important discussions between members of the executive about matters of policy so that a person would come , sit in the chair , be asked a question .
if it had to do with a real policy issue , then the question could be blocked.
” “ But there are limits to executive privilege , ” she continued .
“ For instance , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover up a crime , and what we have here is extortion , and so executive privilege does not apply to the questions about the Ukraine extortion.
” “ It doesn ’ t also apply to people who are outside the executive branch , so conversations with [ Rudy ] Giuliani , conversations he had with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , what they were going to do to extort Zelensky , none of that is covered by executive privilege , ” she added .

Appearing on MSNBC on Saturday morning, former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne brushed aside Donald Trump's assertion that he could bar former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying before Congress by claiming executive privilege.
Speaking with host Geoff Bennett, Alksne pointed out that invoking executive privilege is not all-encompassing when it comes to criminal testimony.
"You heard President Trump say if Bolton is allowed to testify, he'd invoke executive privilege," Benett began. "That's not how executive privilege works. Typically what happens is the witness at least shows up, and then if there's specific questions he or she can't answer, then you invoke executive privilege. explain this for us."
"Well, the first thing we know is that all of the talk that the president had for so long about he'd love to have Bolton testify -- that was not true, that was a lie, number one," Alksne replied. "Number two, the White House has used this notion of executive privilege or some kind of absolute immunity to try to get people not to come at all, not to even sit in the chair and have to face the questions. The idea with executive privilege is we want to protect important discussions between members of the executive about matters of policy so that a person would come, sit in the chair, be asked a question. if it had to do with a real policy issue, then the question could be blocked."
"But there are limits to executive privilege," she continued. "For instance, you can't use executive privilege to cover up a crime, and what we have here is extortion, and so executive privilege does not apply to the questions about the Ukraine extortion."
"It doesn't also apply to people who are outside the executive branch, so conversations with [Rudy] Giuliani, conversations he had with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, what they were going to do to extort Zelensky, none of that is covered by executive privilege," she added.
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-11--Stephanie Grisham can’t claim to be White House press secretary if she has never actually done her j

Stephanie Grisham can’t claim to be White House press secretary if she has never actually done her job: columnist

On Saturday , Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan penned a scathing op-ed suggesting that Stephanie Grisham isn ’ t actually the worst White House press secretary in history — because she really can ’ t be considered a “ press secretary ” in any meaningful way at all .
“ Hearing Joe Lockhart talk about his old job as [ Clinton ] White House press secretary almost seems quaint , ” wrote Sullivan .
“ Given that the 30th person to hold the job , Stephanie Grisham , has never held a briefing since she got the title in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary ?
‘ That ’ s an easy one , ’ Lockhart told me .
‘ She doesn ’ t do any of the important parts of the job , so no . '
” “ She aggressively tweets , of course — often disparaging journalists — and frequently makes appearances on the Trump propaganda network , Fox News , or the even more right wing and equally friendly OANN .
( She ’ s made only a few more mainstream appearances . )
She even co-wrote an offensive op-ed piece harshly criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story that Trump didn ’ t like , ” continued Sullivan .
However , even in the midst of impeachment and the military standoff with Iran , ” when it comes to publicly answering questions on behalf of the White House , from the official podium and with the world watching , Grisham remains silent .
Cowardly.
” “ Grisham , of course , took her place in a less-than-distinguished line of Trump-era press secretaries or communications directors .
Sean Spicer peddled lies about the inauguration crowd on his first day .
Sarah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flamed out in days , ” wrote Sullivan .
“ But they did hold briefings , though an ever-dwindling number of them.
” “ There ’ s little in Grisham ’ s background to suggest she would perform well on the podium under assertive questioning seeking detailed , credible information , ” added Sullivan .
“ She is , however , a terrific sycophant , quick to say about former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly : ‘ He was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his critics are ‘ human scum . '
” “ Pure fealty is not anything close to an adequate job description for the White House press secretary , ” concluded Sullivan .
“ Which , along with Grisham ’ s performance to date , is why [ she ] can ’ t be described as the worst ever .
She may hold the title but she ’ s not doing the job.
” You can read more here .

On Saturday, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan penned a scathing op-ed suggesting that Stephanie Grisham isn't actually the worst White House press secretary in history — because she really can't be considered a "press secretary" in any meaningful way at all.
"Hearing Joe Lockhart talk about his old job as [Clinton] White House press secretary almost seems quaint," wrote Sullivan. "Given that the 30th person to hold the job, Stephanie Grisham, has never held a briefing since she got the title in July, is she really a press secretary? 'That's an easy one,' Lockhart told me. 'She doesn't do any of the important parts of the job, so no.'"
"She aggressively tweets, of course — often disparaging journalists — and frequently makes appearances on the Trump propaganda network, Fox News, or the even more right wing and equally friendly OANN. (She's made only a few more mainstream appearances.) She even co-wrote an offensive op-ed piece harshly criticizing two Washington Post reporters for an accurate story that Trump didn’t like," continued Sullivan. However, even in the midst of impeachment and the military standoff with Iran, " when it comes to publicly answering questions on behalf of the White House, from the official podium and with the world watching, Grisham remains silent. Cowardly."
"Grisham, of course, took her place in a less-than-distinguished line of Trump-era press secretaries or communications directors. Sean Spicer peddled lies about the inauguration crowd on his first day. Sarah Sanders exuded contempt. And Anthony Scaramucci flamed out in days," wrote Sullivan. "But they did hold briefings, though an ever-dwindling number of them."
"There’s little in Grisham’s background to suggest she would perform well on the podium under assertive questioning seeking detailed, credible information," added Sullivan. "She is, however, a terrific sycophant, quick to say about former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly: 'He was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.' Or to eagerly agree with Trump that his critics are 'human scum.'"
"Pure fealty is not anything close to an adequate job description for the White House press secretary," concluded Sullivan. "Which, along with Grisham's performance to date, is why [she] can't be described as the worst ever. She may hold the title but she’s not doing the job."
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump and his aides lie all the time — why are they so bad at it?

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell ?
, Raw Story ’ s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime , but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls , unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House .
Everyone knows that the proper response to “ how do I get to Carnegie Hall ?
” is “ practice.
” Baseball ’ s all-time hits leader , Pete Rose , once said , “ my father taught me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good at anything is to practice , and then practice some more.
” And kung fu legend Bruce Lee promised that , “ after a long time of practicing , our work will become natural , skillful , swift , and steady.
” Benjamin Franklin is believed to have coined the phrase , “ practice makes perfect.
” But that cliché raises a question : How might one explain the Trump regime ’ s inability to lie convincingly ?
According to The Washington Post ’ s fact-checker , which “ analyzes , categorizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uttered , ” Donald Trump had made 15,413 “ false or misleading claims ” through December 10 of last year .
During the previous two months , he had averaged 32 lies per day so he ’ s probably closing in on 16,000 as of this writing .
He lies about important things , but he also lies about meaningless stuff–like the size of the crowds at his inauguration or whether a hurricane was likely to hit Alabama .
And that doesn ’ t count all of the bullshit that members of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretaries have offered to the American public .
Imagine what the total would be including their mendacity , and then consider that they don ’ t even conduct press briefings anymore .
And yet small children caught in the act of stealing sweets are better liars than this crew of miscreants .
Their floundering attempts to justify Trump ’ s drone attack on Iranian general Qassim Suleimani at the Baghdad airport is just the latest example .
A US defense official told The New York Times that “ intelligence indicated [ that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Middle East ’ — Dec. 30 — and General Suleimani ’ s travels amounted to ‘ business as usual ’ , ” but Trump and his apologists have lurched from one story of imminent threat to another .
“ Again and again , ” reported CNN , “ Trump ’ s national security officials have contradicted each other about how imminent a threat Qasem Soleimani posed , whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was , with Trump saying one thing then another , while officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently settled on the claim that Suleimani was planning to attack four US embassies , which nobody but the members of his cult could possibly take seriously given his track record and all the fumbling around for a justification that preceded it .
Why couldn ’ t they just get their stories straight ?
Are they just lazy ?
Is it impossible to coordinate their messaging because Trump ’ s short attention span doesn ’ t permit it ?
Or do they simply not care about being viewed credibly outside the Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be well-received within it ?
It ’ s a mystery , but one thing is clear : Lying over and over again all the time doesn ’ t hone one ’ s skills at deception .
Apparently , practice doesn ’ t always make perfect .
Speaking of Trump ’ s blundering Mideast policy , The New York Times reported that “ the American-led coalition in Iraq and Syria halted its yearslong campaign against the Islamic State ” while it prepared for retaliation from Iran , and that ’ s not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely regarded as among most brutal terror organizations in the world… As you probably know , a group of red state attorneys general are trying to get the courts to kill the Affordable Care Act based on the ludicrous argument that Congress zeroing out the penalty for not carrying insurance coverage rendered the whole enchilada unconstitutional .
And the Trump regime is on board , refusing to defend the law .
But they don ’ t want the highest court in the land to hear the case before the election .
Politico reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ argued the Supreme Court has no pressing need to intervene since the law remains in effect while it ’ s on appeal.
” If you ’ re sensing a pattern here , you ’ re not alone .
“ The Trump administration is seeking to delay a Democratic effort to require the Secret Service to disclose how much it spends protecting President Trump and his family when they travel — until after the 2020 election , ” reported WaPo .
The government spent about $ 96 million on travel by Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch .
A report by the Government Accountability Office , which serves as the congressional watchdog on federal spending , estimated that Trump ’ s travel cost $ 13.6 million in just one month in early 2017 .
Remember that most of those taxpayer dollars are being dropped at Trump ’ s own properties and end up in his pocket .
Speaking of which , ProPublica reports that “ New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said Friday that he had asked Manhattan ’ s district attorney to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s company reported in filings to city tax officials and what it reported in loan filings .
The discrepancies made his properties seem more profitable to a lender and less profitable to the city ’ s tax authorities.
” NBC reports : “ Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott on Friday became the first governor in the country to refuse to take in refugees , but 18 of his 26 Republican counterparts have chosen to open the door to refugees , much to the surprise of the Trump administration.
” Daily Beast : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expand its travel ban — which bars individuals from seven countries from entering the US — to restrict certain immigrants from several more nations around the world , according to internal government documents.
” Donald Trump has signed another executive order aimed at eliminating regulations that he claims are damaging to the U.S. economy , but some worry that the measure will roll back critical environmental protections .
The order , called “ Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda , ” directs each government agency to create a task force to evaluate existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be kept , repealed or modified .
The president was flanked by leaders of major U.S. corporations , including Lockheed Martin , Johnson & Johnson , Dow Chemical Co. and Campbell Soup .
Dow Chemical Co. chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris , who leads Trump ’ s advisory council on manufacturing and received the presidential signing pen .
Just yesterday , Liveris praised the Trump administration for being “ the most pro-business administration since the Founding Fathers.
” [ Via : EcoWatch ] The cruelty is the point… After 31 years in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had built a life and raised three children , including a son now in the United States Army , Ms. Gomez was deported to Tijuana , Mexico , where she had little family left .
That son , Second Lt. Gibram Cruz , 30 , who has been in the Army for five years and rushed to be with her the day after Christmas , said he was “ shocked ” at the way his mother was treated and called the actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement “ completely inhumane.
” Ms. Gomez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self deport and that plan was known to ICE , the family ’ s lawyer , Tessa Cabrera , said on Friday .
Instead , as the family went to an ICE office to discuss her case , Ms. Gomez was taken across the border to Tijuana without a chance to say goodbye , Ms. Cabrera said .
[ NYT ] Speaking of cruelty being the point , if history is any guide , this will probably cost more to administer than it saves from kicking people off of their benefits .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheese , lost 10 % of its dairy farms in 2019 , Dairy Herd Management reported on Thursday .
The loss of 818 dairies was the largest decline in Wisconsin history .
Trouble for dairy farmers started in 2018 , when Donald Trump engaged in a protracted trade war with China .
In retaliation for increased tariffs from the United States , China placed tariffs on a number of U.S. agricultural exports .
[ American Independent ] And the story that should have gotten more attention this week , given how significant it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that the Justice Department probe of the investigation into Hillary Clinton , the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One that Donald Trump promised would unearth all sorts of serious crimes turned up bupkis , because of course it did .
More details at The Washington Post .

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.
Everyone knows that the proper response to "how do I get to Carnegie Hall?" is "practice." Baseball's all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, once said, "my father taught me that the only way you can make good at anything is to practice, and then practice some more." And kung fu legend Bruce Lee promised that, "after a long time of practicing, our work will become natural, skillful, swift, and steady."
Benjamin Franklin is believed to have coined the phrase, "practice makes perfect." But that cliché raises a question: How might one explain the Trump regime's inability to lie convincingly?
According to The Washington Post's fact-checker, which "analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement he has uttered," Donald Trump had made 15,413 "false or misleading claims" through December 10 of last year. During the previous two months, he had averaged 32 lies per day so he's probably closing in on 16,000 as of this writing. He lies about important things, but he also lies about meaningless stuff--like the size of the crowds at his inauguration or whether a hurricane was likely to hit Alabama. And that doesn't count all of the bullshit that members of his cabinet and a series of hapless press secretaries have offered to the American public. Imagine what the total would be including their mendacity, and then consider that they don't even conduct press briefings anymore.
And yet small children caught in the act of stealing sweets are better liars than this crew of miscreants. Their floundering attempts to justify Trump's drone attack on Iranian general Qassim Suleimani at the Baghdad airport is just the latest example. A US defense official told The New York Times that "intelligence indicated [that it was] 'a normal Monday in the Middle East' — Dec. 30 — and General Suleimani’s travels amounted to 'business as usual',” but Trump and his apologists have lurched from one story of imminent threat to another. "Again and again," reported CNN, "Trump's national security officials have contradicted each other about how imminent a threat Qasem Soleimani posed, whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was, with Trump saying one thing then another, while officials offered varying explanations."
Trump has most recently settled on the claim that Suleimani was planning to attack four US embassies, which nobody but the members of his cult could possibly take seriously given his track record and all the fumbling around for a justification that preceded it.
Why couldn't they just get their stories straight? Are they just lazy? Is it impossible to coordinate their messaging because Trump's short attention span doesn't permit it? Or do they simply not care about being viewed credibly outside the Fox News bubble because they know their nonsense will be well-received within it?
It's a mystery, but one thing is clear: Lying over and over again all the time doesn't hone one's skills at deception. Apparently, practice doesn't always make perfect.
*****
Speaking of Trump's blundering Mideast policy, The New York Times reported that "the American-led coalition in Iraq and Syria halted its yearslong campaign against the Islamic State" while it prepared for retaliation from Iran, and that's not the only problem plaguing the fight against what is widely regarded as among most brutal terror organizations in the world...
*****
As you probably know, a group of red state attorneys general are trying to get the courts to kill the Affordable Care Act based on the ludicrous argument that Congress zeroing out the penalty for not carrying insurance coverage rendered the whole enchilada unconstitutional. And the Trump regime is on board, refusing to defend the law.
But they don't want the highest court in the land to hear the case before the election. Politico reports that in a filing this week, they "argued the Supreme Court has no pressing need to intervene since the law remains in effect while it's on appeal."
*****
If you're sensing a pattern here, you're not alone.
"The Trump administration is seeking to delay a Democratic effort to require the Secret Service to disclose how much it spends protecting President Trump and his family when they travel — until after the 2020 election," reported WaPo.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to “rarely leave the White House” and cut back on what he called wasteful travel by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
Since taking office, however, Trump has made more than 50 visits to his properties outside the Washington area, according to a tally kept by The Washington Post.
The government spent about $96 million on travel by Obama over eight years, according to documents obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch. A report by the Government Accountability Office, which serves as the congressional watchdog on federal spending, estimated that Trump’s travel cost $13.6 million in just one month in early 2017. Remember that most of those taxpayer dollars are being dropped at Trump's own properties and end up in his pocket. ***** Speaking of which, ProPublica reports that "New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said Friday that he had asked Manhattan’s district attorney to investigate discrepancies... between what President Donald Trump’s company reported in filings to city tax officials and what it reported in loan filings. The discrepancies made his properties seem more profitable to a lender and less profitable to the city’s tax authorities." ***** NBC reports: "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday became the first governor in the country to refuse to take in refugees, but 18 of his 26 Republican counterparts have chosen to open the door to refugees, much to the surprise of the Trump administration." ***** Daily Beast: "The Trump administration has been preparing to expand its travel ban — which bars individuals from seven countries from entering the US — to restrict certain immigrants from several more nations around the world, according to internal government documents." ***** Note the bolded text--he's trolling us... Donald Trump has signed another executive order aimed at eliminating regulations that he claims are damaging to the U.S. economy, but some worry that the measure will roll back critical environmental protections. The order, called "Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda," directs each government agency to create a task force to evaluate existing federal regulations and recommend whether they should be kept, repealed or modified. The president was flanked by leaders of major U.S. corporations, including Lockheed Martin, Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical Co. and Campbell Soup. Dow Chemical Co. chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris, who leads Trump's advisory council on manufacturing and received the presidential signing pen. Just yesterday, Liveris praised the Trump administration for being "the most pro-business administration since the Founding Fathers." [Via: EcoWatch] ***** The cruelty is the point... After 31 years in the United States, a country where she had built a life and raised three children, including a son now in the United States Army, Ms. Gomez was deported to Tijuana, Mexico, where she had little family left. That son, Second Lt. Gibram Cruz, 30, who has been in the Army for five years and rushed to be with her the day after Christmas, said he was “shocked” at the way his mother was treated and called the actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement “completely inhumane.” Ms. Gomez, 51, was previously scheduled to self deport and that plan was known to ICE, the family’s lawyer, Tessa Cabrera, said on Friday. Instead, as the family went to an ICE office to discuss her case, Ms. Gomez was taken across the border to Tijuana without a chance to say goodbye, Ms. Cabrera said. [NYT] ***** Speaking of cruelty being the point, if history is any guide, this will probably cost more to administer than it saves from kicking people off of their benefits.
Some Americans could lose Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under a recent Trump administration proposal ― a change that could affect thousands of people but that has received little attention since it was first floated in November.
Under the proposed change, the government would look more closely at whether certain disability insurance recipients still qualify as “disabled” after they’ve already been awarded those benefits. While recipients already have to demonstrate their continuing disability every few years, the proposal would ramp up the examinations, potentially running still-eligible beneficiaries out of the program. [Via: The Huffington Post]


rawstory--2020-01-11--CNN’s Blackwell shuts down Trump apologist trying to push ‘imminent threat’ talking point

On CNN Saturday , former Obama campaign official Aaron Johnson confronted Republican strategist Brian Robinson for defending President Donald Trump ’ s controversial claims that Iran posed an “ imminent threat ” that justified the strike on Iranian general Qassim Suleimani .
“ You do need to defend the argument that it ’ s imminent , right ?
” said anchor Victor Blackwell .
“ You have to defend that element .
Otherwise it ’ s illegal.
” “ I think he can go out and say it was imminent , ” said Robinson .
“ We had good intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this guy ’ s record is .
Even Democrats admit this guy is a terrorist and murderer of innocents .
We know he was a bad guy.
” “ Bad guy , killer , he should be dead — none of that equals imminent , ” said Blackwell .
“ Two , three weeks is imminent when you only get so many opportunities , ” said Robinson .
“ It was not imminent , and at the end of the day we ’ re playing with national security , ” said Johnson .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the homeland .
Keep American lives safe .
For him to basically , I believe , just act off belief or a feeling , not the intelligence , not the numbers , not the departments that are there to make sure they give him the intelligence to make these decisions , I think you see a waffling flip-flop from this president .
Again , I think he needs to today , tomorrow show this imminent factual evidence that made him go over and attack Iran .
If he can prove it , great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve got to call it what it is , that he ’ s lying and taking us to war , putting American troops ’ lives on the line basically on re-election efforts and political beliefs .
If it ’ s not imminent or factual and based on intelligence , what is it ?
”

On CNN Saturday, former Obama campaign official Aaron Johnson confronted Republican strategist Brian Robinson for defending President Donald Trump's controversial claims that Iran posed an "imminent threat" that justified the strike on Iranian general Qassim Suleimani.
"You do need to defend the argument that it's imminent, right?" said anchor Victor Blackwell. "You have to defend that element. Otherwise it's illegal."
"I think he can go out and say it was imminent," said Robinson. "We had good intelligence to work on. We know what this guy's record is. Even Democrats admit this guy is a terrorist and murderer of innocents. We know he was a bad guy."
"Bad guy, killer, he should be dead — none of that equals imminent," said Blackwell.
"Two, three weeks is imminent when you only get so many opportunities," said Robinson.
"It was not imminent, and at the end of the day we're playing with national security," said Johnson. "The number one objective is protect the homeland. Keep American lives safe. For him to basically, I believe, just act off belief or a feeling, not the intelligence, not the numbers, not the departments that are there to make sure they give him the intelligence to make these decisions, I think you see a waffling flip-flop from this president. Again, I think he needs to today, tomorrow show this imminent factual evidence that made him go over and attack Iran. If he can prove it, great. If he can't, we've got to call it what it is, that he's lying and taking us to war, putting American troops' lives on the line basically on re-election efforts and political beliefs. If it's not imminent or factual and based on intelligence, what is it?"
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump snarls at Nancy Pelosi for ‘impeachment hoax’ in Twitter meltdown

Donald Trump kicked off Saturday morning by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and the Democrats in a @ @ @ @ @ what he called the “ impeachment hoax.
” After a fairly quiet morning , the @ @ @ @ @ tweets as House Democrats prepare to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a @ @ @ @ @ shows that the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax is going nowhere .
A vast majority want @ @ @ @ @ move on to other things now , ” he wrote before adding , “ Nancy @ @ @ @ @ the absolute worst Speaker of the House in U.S. history !
” He then tweeted @ @ @ @ @ Left , Do Nothing Democrats , are asking @ senatemajldr Mitch McConnell to do the @ @ @ @ @ to do .
They proved NOTHING but my total innocence in the House , despite @ @ @ @ @ hearings in the history of Congress .
Now they demand fairness !
” You can @ @ @ @ @

"Trump and Giuliani had a handshake agreement that Giuliani and his team would get paid by the Trump political operation for their post-election work, according to Timothy Parlatore, an attorney for longtime Giuliani ally Bernard Kerik," Schwartz says. "But the Trump campaign and their affiliated committees ultimately did not honor that pledge, according to campaign finance records. The failure to pay Giuliani and his team came up last week in a private interview between prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith's team and Bernard Kerik, a member of Giuliani's team in late 2020, according to Parlatore."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Schwartz recalls that "Federal Election Commission records and testimony from the House January 6th Select Committee hearings reveal that none of the private sector lawyers identified -- but not indicted -- in that case got paid for their post-election work: Not Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman."
Trump reneging on his gentleman's contract with Giuliani, Schartz observes, "is all the more striking" given that Giuliani was charged along with Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for trying to steal the election in Georgia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 — upon which Giuliani built his career as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Trump's fundraising push after he lost to President Joe Biden is also under scrutiny by Smith, whom Politico's Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney explained on August 8th is investigating if Trump's Save America Political Action Committee "violated federal laws by raising money off claims of voter fraud they knew were false."
Those efforts, predicated on Trump's insistence that the election was stolen from him, raked in $250 million, according to the final report released by the House January 6th Select Committee.
READ MORE: Why Trump’s Georgia indictment is a 'reminder of the genius of American federalism': op-ed
"The money came in response to countless fundraising appeals that claimed it was needed to fund Trump's election challenges in court," Schwartz continues. "Yet instead of paying the lawyers who tried unsuccessfully to overturn his loss, the money went into Trump’s leadership PAC."
In fact, "Trump's entire political network, including his joint fundraising committees, spent over $47 million combined from the start of 2020 through the end of 2021 on legal fees, according to a report by OpenSecrets," Schwartz adds. "Today, that money is instead helping Trump pay his own legal bills. The PAC spent over $20 million in the first half of the year alone on legal fees as the president faced the first two of his four indictments."
READ MORE: Judge randomly assigned to Georgia Trump case once worked for Willis: report
Schwartz's report is available at this link.


rawstory--2020-01-11--‘He could win the caucuses,’ Pollster says as Bernie Sanders leads gold-standard Iowa survey for fir

‘He could win the caucuses,’ Pollster says as Bernie Sanders leads gold-standard Iowa survey for first time

With just three weeks until Iowa will hold the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party ’ s presidential primary race , Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the field , according to results released Friday evening .
The “ gold-standard ” poll from Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom has Sanders ( I-Vt. ) at 20 % followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
at 17 % , former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 16 % , and former Vice President Joe Biden at 15 % .
The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , when he secured just 15 % .
This is the first time in either of his runs for president that Sanders has led this poll .
“ There ’ s no denying that this is a good poll for Bernie Sanders , ” J. Ann Selzer , president of Selzer & Co. , which conducted the poll , told the Register .
“ He leads , but it ’ s not an uncontested lead.
” Of the 701 likely Democratic caucusgoers surveyed Jan. 2–8 , 40 % say they have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to support .
Selzer noted that the poll shows Sanders has “ a firmer grip on his supporters than the rest of his compatriots.
” “ There ’ s just the Bernie factor… which is ( even ) stronger than we saw in the last cycle , ” said Selzer .
“ There was a thought that his support was a holdover from when he ran before and that that would evaporate… It certainly has not evaporated.
” “ For real , he could win the caucuses , ” the pollster added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more entrenched.
” Although Warren and Buttigieg still have large “ footprints ” in the state , given the number of caucusgoers who name them as candidates they are considering , the results were still welcomed by Sanders ’ campaign staffers and supporters .
“ Hey everyone , ” tweeted Sanders 2020 speechwriter and senior adviser David Sirota , “ This is exactly why # TrumpFearsBernie.
” Sanders ’ campaign celebrated the development with a fundraising email Friday which declared , “ There ’ s a new leader in Iowa , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have a ton of momentum with just three weeks to go .
Now we have to finish the job , ” the email continued .
“ Because if we do , we will take one GIANT leap forward toward President Bernie Sanders .
”

With just three weeks until Iowa will hold the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party's presidential primary race, Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the field, according to results released Friday evening.
The "gold-standard" poll from Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom has Sanders (I-Vt.) at 20% followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 17%, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 16%, and former Vice President Joe Biden at 15%. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.
Sanders saw a five-point surge in support from November, when he secured just 15%. This is the first time in either of his runs for president that Sanders has led this poll.
"There's no denying that this is a good poll for Bernie Sanders," J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll, told the Register. "He leads, but it's not an uncontested lead."
Of the 701 likely Democratic caucusgoers surveyed Jan. 2–8, 40% say they have made up their minds about which candidates they plan to support. Selzer noted that the poll shows Sanders has "a firmer grip on his supporters than the rest of his compatriots."
As the Register explained:
Sanders' supporters are more likely than those who support the other leading candidates to say their minds are made up (59%), and they are "extremely" enthusiastic about their candidate (49%). Just 32% of Warren's supporters describe themselves as extremely enthusiastic, and 26% each for Biden and Buttigieg.
"There's just the Bernie factor... which is (even) stronger than we saw in the last cycle," said Selzer. "There was a thought that his support was a holdover from when he ran before and that that would evaporate... It certainly has not evaporated."
"For real, he could win the caucuses," the pollster added. "His supporters are more committed and more entrenched."
Although Warren and Buttigieg still have large "footprints" in the state, given the number of caucusgoers who name them as candidates they are considering, the results were still welcomed by Sanders' campaign staffers and supporters.
"Hey everyone," tweeted Sanders 2020 speechwriter and senior adviser David Sirota, "This is exactly why #TrumpFearsBernie."
Sanders' campaign celebrated the development with a fundraising email Friday which declared, "There's a new leader in Iowa, and his name is Bernard Sanders."
"We have a ton of momentum with just three weeks to go. Now we have to finish the job," the email continued. "Because if we do, we will take one GIANT leap forward toward President Bernie Sanders."


rawstory--2020-01-11--Trump trade adviser called out on live TV for trying to blame president’s economic failures on Democ

Trump trade adviser called out on live TV for trying to blame president’s economic failures on Democrats

On CNN Saturday , commentator Michael Smerconish pressed President Donald Trump ’ s trade adviser Peter Navarro on the national debt — and after he caught Navarro trying to blame Democrats for a deficit increase Republicans had in fact passed with no Democratic support , he gave a barely comprehensible answer .
“ The difference , Michael , is the culture of the Trump administration is every single day we think about creating jobs for America , particularly for people who work with their hands , ” said Navarro .
“ We do it at the macro level with things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade .
We do it at the micro level by helping shipyards and combat vehicle production facilities and everywhere across this great land.
” “ Okay , question , not to be a Debbie Downer .
I ’ m thrilled about the job numbers , ” said Smerconish .
“ How about this , how about what the folks at the Peterson Foundation say , you know , they remain alarmed about the nature of the federal debt and deficit .
Those numbers continue to escalate .
What about that ?
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party was the party of fiscal prudence.
” “ Well , elections do have consequences , Michael , and we had to negotiate with the Democratic House on this last budget go-round .
and we spent more than we otherwise would have , ” said Navarro .
“ But that sounds like you ’ re laying it off on the D ’ s , even though it ’ s that tax cut , right , that ended up costing more than it was bringing in ?
” said Smerconish .
“ Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Navarro .
“ Again , the culture of the Trump administration , if we want to balance the budget , the best way to do that is grow at 3 percent or 3.5 percent , instead of 2 percent .
That generates trillions of dollars of tax revenues .
That ’ s what our focus is .
In 2019 , if the Federal Reserve hadn ’ t raised rates too fast , too far , and molded them too slowly , we probably wouldn ’ t have had the growth .
viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in 2020 with the economy .
Wages are going to continue to rise .
and the stock market is going to continue to rise .
And this is all about President Trump doing that , again , both at the macro level , and at the micro level , one job at a time .
”

That first false “fact” – a claim in court documents that a San Francisco man, a graphic designer, years ago had reached out to the plaintiff, a Colorado Christian woman, to ask her to design among other items a wedding website for him and his soon-to-be husband, was almost certainly a lie. The man was and is married, to a woman, when the alleged inquiry came in, and had never even heard of the Christian designer, much less crossed state lines and his own Rolodex and personal skill set to ask her to create a wedding website she allegedly had never before even advertised, much less constructed.
The bombshell news on June 29 came via a report by Melissa Gira Grant at The New Republic.
And now, Melissa Gira Grant has more news – more proof of a possible fraudulent claim before the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention all the lower courts that sided with the State of Colorado, and not the Christian designer, Lorie Smith (photo), who allegedly had one request for a same-sex wedding website while allegedly having never created any wedding website at all.
“So,” Grant said on social media Tuesday afternoon, “the Colorado website designer in the fake same-sex wedding website case, 303 Creative, it turns out, had made a wedding website, before filing her legal challenge.”
READ MORE: GOP Congressman Admits ‘Most of What We Do Is Bad’ as McCarthy’s Republicans Push for Federal Government Shutdown
Over at The New Republic, the subhead reads: “An archive shows that the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case did once design a wedding website, contrary to what her lawyers presented during her legal challenge.”
Boom.
“The destination wedding website looks uncontroversial enough. The thumbnail preview of the site shows the happy couple’s names in teal and purple type, a mostly out-of-focus photo of a wedding dress trailing on a sandy beach and a couple’s bare feet, and a date and a location in Mexico,” Grant writes.
“In 2015, a web designer named Lorie Smith featured the wedding website in her portfolio of recent work—you can still access an archived copy of Smith’s site on the Wayback Machine. But you won’t find the wedding website in Smith’s live online portfolio anymore. The page detailing her role in the wedding website’s creation was removed some time before she filed a legal challenge—one that claimed she was unable to enter the wedding website business because Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would compel her to create same-sex wedding websites. The wedding website Smith made before she filed her case—and highlighted in a portfolio on her own site—is being reported for the first time in The New Republic.”
Smith’s legal team, the right-wing Christian nationalist Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups, insists The New Republic’s reporting is simply a “media smear.”
READ MORE: ‘Ghouls’: Fox News Blasted for Declaring Jews ‘Survived’ the Holocaust by Being ‘Useful’
But facts are facts.
The U.S. Supreme Court took a case with what are now two “incorrect” pieces of information, and made a decision that, as the ADF suggests on its website, affects every person in the United States. Not only did the Supreme Court make a landmark decision on, at best, a faulty case, one that some legal experts have made clear it should never have even agreed to review, so did every lower court that ruled against Smith.
Responding to The New Republic’s latest bombshell report, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes, “Lorie Smith and her lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom repeatedly told the Supreme Court that she had never, ever made a wedding website, because she was afraid a same-sex couple might then request her services. That was a lie.”
“The wedding website that Lorie Smith DID make was scrubbed from the internet, though some of it can still be seen via the Wayback Machine,” he adds, pointing to TNR’s reporting.
Alex Aronson former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senate Judiciary Committee, writes: “Evidence continues to mount that the anti-LGBTQ extremist group Alliance Defending Freedom committed a fraud on the Supreme Court in its cooked-up 303 Creative case.”
Drexel University Professor of Law David S. Cohen states simply, “Apparently nothing about this case was true.”
NBC News senior reporter Ben Collins sums it all up: “This case continues to absolutely reek and nothing is being done about it.”