motherjones--2020-06-18--How a Trump-Connected Lobbyist Is Cashing In on the Coronavirus

Steve Gareleck had a problem .
His company , NanoPure , had developed an aerosol disinfectant that , it claims , could be an effective weapon against the coronavirus .
But he couldn ’ t start selling it without approval from the EPA .
“ I need help politically to get this thing to the right people , ” Gareleck told me in March .
So he forked over $ 30,000 to a firm run by Brian Ballard , a high-powered lobbyist who is also a top fundraiser for President Donald Trump .
Ballard ’ s team got to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and the Health and Human Services Department about the product , according to federal filings .
As COVID-19 started wreaking havoc , K Street lobbyists rushed to scoop up business from companies seeking to market their health products or score federal relief money .
Ballard isn ’ t the only associate of the president who is getting in on the action , but his ability to drum up business in Trump ’ s swamp has stood out .
In 2019 , his firm , Ballard Partners , raked in $ 19.1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t include its work on behalf of foreign governments .
When it comes to selling influence over the most corrupt administration in living memory , the man Politico dubbed “ the most powerful lobbyist in Trump ’ s Washington ” has few peers .
“ He ’ s playing the K Street lobbyist game , buying access to this administration and enjoying that access , ” said Craig Holman , who works on ethics and lobbying issues for the watchdog group Public Citizen .
Holman added that Ballard may not be breaking any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t leave the firm beyond reproach , especially given its ties to the scandal-plagued president .
“ This White House rewards corruption and self-dealing , and Ballard seems to be playing that game , ” he said .
Ballard Partners rejects any complaints that it peddles access to the Trump administration .
“ Any such claims about Ballard Partners are completely baseless , ” the firm said in a statement .
But there ’ s little question that Ballard has a ready line to the president .
“ One call to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I knew I was on the stage with the president , ” Rep. Matt Gaetz told Mother Jones in 2017 about his effort to be seen with Trump at a rally in Florida .
Gaetz noted that he was struck by the “ speed with which [ Ballard is ] able to access the Trump apparatus.
” Ballard—a square-faced , brown-haired , 58-year old who tends to be photographed tieless in well-tailored suits—has said he first met Trump in the 1980s after reading The Art of the Deal .
He wrote the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two struck up a relationship .
After working as the chief of staff for Florida Gov .
Bob Martinez ( R ) , he launched a lobbying practice in Tallahassee in 1990s .
Among his clients was Trump , who owns several properties in the state , including Mar-a-Lago .
Ballard reportedly helped the future president push unsuccessfully for Florida to allow resorts to act as casinos .
In 2016 , Ballard backed former Florida Gov .
Jeb Bush and , then , Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once he was on board , he led the campaign ’ s fundraising efforts in Florida and chaired the Trump Victory committee , helping raise $ 108 million for Trump and other Republicans .
His firm ’ s website notes that he “ had the honor of serving as a member of the Electoral College casting his vote for President Trump.
” A month after Trump was sworn in , Ballard opened a Washington , DC , office that focuses “ on the White House and Executive Agencies.
” He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Pam Bondi—the former Florida attorney general .
In 2013 , Bondi infamously accepted a $ 25,000 donation from Trump before deciding not to act on complaints filed against Trump University or join New York state in a lawsuit alleging that it had used false advertising and high-pressure sales to push students to pay for expensive—and often useless—real estate seminars .
( Bondi and Trump have said there was no connection between the donation and Trump University ’ s legal issues . )
Trump agreed shortly after his 2016 election to pay $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t acknowledge any wrongdoing .
Earlier this year , Bondi briefly left Ballard ’ s firm—where her controversial clients include the government of Qatar—to join Trump ’ s impeachment defense team .
Other firm employees include Trump transition official Dan McFaul and Justin Sayfie , who lobbies for Ballard while also serving on a Trump-appointed commission on White House fellowships .
Raj Shah , a former White House spokesperson , worked for Ballard in 2019 .
Susie Wiles , who ran Trump ’ s Florida campaign in 2016 , worked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons .
Former Rep. Robert Wexler ( D-Fla. ) and Jamie Rubin , who served as a State Department spokesperson under President Bill Clinton , have boosted the firm ’ s sway with Democrats .
Meanwhile , Brian Ballard has raised more than $ 1 million in bundled donations for Trump ’ s reelection bid and has personally contributed around $ 200,000 to Trump and the Republican National Committee in the current election cycle .
He also serves as a regional vice-chair for the RNC , likely putting him in the position of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-heeled Republicans he courts as clients .
While Ballard chaired the Trump Victory Committee in 2016 , it received a $ 100,000 donation from Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs .
Jacobs chairs Delaware North , a Buffalo-based casino , resorts , and food services company .
In April , Ballard registered to lobby on behalf of Delaware North as it seeks coronavirus relief money from the Trump administration .
Ballard ’ s firm insists there ’ s nothing wrong with him raising money for Trump while lobbying the White House .
And though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican fundraising efforts , the firm says its employees “ keep our efforts as campaign volunteers and supporters completely separate from our professional work as advocates for our clients.
” Ballard has worked for a host of big-name companies , including Amazon , American Airlines , and Uber .
The firm lobbies on behalf of the American Health Care Association , an industry group that represents nursing homes .
The AHCA has been pressing states to grant its members immunity from lawsuits over coronavirus deaths in their facilities , though there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that specific issue .
Ballard also represents the GEO Group , the nation ’ s largest private prison company .
It hired Ballard in early 2017 , around the time the Justice Department reversed an Obama-era decision to end the use of private prisons for federal inmates .
That April , GEO won a $ 110 million contract to build an immigration detention complex in Texas .
A few months later , it held its annual conference at Trump ’ s Doral golf club in Florida—one of several Ballard clients to shell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Ballard has also built a thriving roster of overseas clients .
Those have included Russian billionaire David Yakobashvili , a founder of a food conglomerate , who paid the firm $ 450,000 to lobby on immigration and trade policy .
The firm represents a slew of foreign governments , including Kosovo , which is currently under pressure from the White House to agree to a land swap with Serbia .
In 2018 , Politico reported that Ballard personally lobbied Trump while the president was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to secure a meeting between Kosovo ’ s president and Trump .
Some of the firm ’ s foreign clients have had serious legal problems .
In 2018 Ballard lobbied the White House in an effort to stop the Justice Department from indicting its client Halkbank , a state-run Turkish bank , for violating US sanctions on Iran .
After Trump asked Attorney General Bill Barr to review the matter , Barr pressed the US attorney in Manhattan to reach a settlement with the bank that would avert an indictment , CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged last year , but only after Turkey invaded Syria—an invasion that caused an uproar in Washington and embarrassed Trump .
Ballard terminated its representation of Halkbank after the indictment was announced .
( In his forthcoming book , former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly alleges that in May 2018 , Trump told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he would intervene with the DOJ on behalf of a Turkish firm—apparently Halkbank .
Trump “ told Erdogan he would take care of things , explaining that the…prosecutors were not his people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people , ” Bolton writes , according to the Washington Post . )
Ballard ’ s work for Turkey also appears to have intersected with the scandal that resulted in Trump ’ s impeachment .
In November , federal prosecutors subpoenaed the firm for information related to Lev Parnas , the Rudy Giuliani associate who is facing charges for campaign finance violations .
Ballard ’ s attorney said that Parnas , a major GOP donor , had met Ballard through Republican politics in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a client .
Ballard paid Parnas at least $ 22,500 for the referral .
In January , Parnas gave Congress handwritten notes describing what he says were instructions he received from Giuliani in May 2019 , while they were in Europe trying to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden .
On a Ritz-Carlton Vienna pad , Parnas wrote , “ Get Zalensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated ” —a reference to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
A few pages later , Parnas added , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ties— “ or Brian Ballard.
” Neither Stryk nor Ballard was hired .
“ We have no idea what it means , ” William Taylor , an attorney representing Ballard , said in an email at the time .
“ Nobody reached out to Brian.
” Ballard has represented clients with ties authoritarian regimes and other questionable connections—information the firm hasn ’ t always initially revealed to the public .
In 2018 , it reported that it was paid $ 100,000 to lobby for REC Americas , a solar energy firm that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
It did not disclose that the Norwegian company was , in turn , a subsidiary of a state-owned Chinese company , ChemChina .
A REC spokesperson said the firm hired Ballard for advice as it sought an exemption from tariffs that Trump imposed in June 2018 on solar panels .
The application didn ’ t succeed .
Following inquiries from Mother Jones , Ballard Partners filed an amendment to its lobbying registration for REC Americas .
The amendment , which came about two years after the work was completed , lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republic of China itself , as foreign entities with an interest in the lobbying activity .
William Farah , a lawyer who handles compliance issues for Ballard , said these parties were accidentally omitted .
The firm “ takes its reporting and compliance obligations very seriously .
The oversight was inadvertent , and once it was discovered , a corrective amendment was immediately filed to disclose the additional information , ” Farah said .
In April 2018 , Ballard registered to lobby for a company called ASM International General Trading .
But after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wealthy Syrian man , Samer Foz , with ties to the dictator Bashar al-Assad , Ballard dropped the client .
Ballard said that ASM ’ s background had escaped his team ’ s notice .
“ We ’ re not the CIA , ” he told the Daily Beast .
In June 2019 , the Treasury Department ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed financial sanctions on ASM , Foz , two of his brothers , and a dozen corporate entities connected to them , due to their work benefitting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting the murderous Assad regime and building luxury developments on land stolen from those fleeing his brutality , ” Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker said at the time .
In 2017 , a subsidiary of Globovisión—a Venezuelan television station owned by Raúl Gorrín—hired Ballard to help the company expand into US markets .
But the Miami Herald reported that Gorrín hoped to establish himself as a broker between Trump and the regime of Nicolás Maduro , to negotiate a transition to a new government , while suggesting he had authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department later indicted Gorrín on corruption charges .
Ballard said it terminated its work for the company after learning of the investigation ; the firm has said it was unaware of Gorrín ’ s alleged diplomatic machinations .
“ We do the best job we can ” on due diligence , a Ballard Partners employee told Mother Jones .
“ When we represent someone and we learn of something we weren ’ t aware of , our record shows we drop them as soon as something comes out.
” In 2017 , Ballard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sunglasses company .
Hawkers paid Ballard $ 430,000 to work on “ general government , tax , and trade issues , policies , and regulations , ” according to the firm .
Ballard did not note in its disclosure forms that Hawkers is a subsidiary of a Spanish company , the Saldum Ventures group .
The president and controlling shareholder of that company is Alejandro Betancourt Lopez , a wealthy Venezuelan , who , according to the Herald and the Washington Post , was among unnamed alleged conspirators in a federal criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to Venezuela ’ s national oil company .
Last year Betancourt hired Giuliani , who then met with Justice Department officials to argue that Betancourt should not be charged , the New York Times reported .
In August , with Parnas in tow , Giuliani reportedly stayed at an estate owned by Betancourt in Spain , part of a trip in which Giuliani also met secretly with Ukrainian officials in Madrid .
So far Betancourt has not been charged .
Jon Sale , an attorney for Betancourt , said his client “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to other questions .
Giuliani and an attorney for Parnas did not respond to requests for comment .
Bizarrely , Ballard ’ s representation of Hawkers began just three days after the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lawsuit brought by Otto Reich , who was then a Ballard employee .
Reich—who once served as ambassador to Venezuela and was a minor player in the Iran Contra scandal—had sued Betancourt and two other Venezuelan men in 2013 , alleging they had defamed him by claiming he had done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit , which was thrown out on procedural grounds , also charged that Betancourt and two other men had paid millions of dollars in bribes to win Venezuelan government contracts , awarded in 2010 , to build power plants .
They denied Reich ’ s allegations .
In a statement , Ballard Partners said none of its employees ever communicated with Betancourt or Giuliani regarding Betancourt ’ s “ personal , legal or business matters.
” The firm said its work had “ no relationship in any respect ” to Reich ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has continued signing up clients looking for coronavirus business .
Laundrylux , a commercial laundry machine supplier in Long Island , hired Ballard to help get its industry designated “ essential ” by the Homeland Security Department .
A Baltimore health technology firm called Audacious Inquiry hired Ballard to help sell the White House on its system for tracking pandemic data entered by medical providers .
After retaining Ballard , it appears , the company ’ s pitch went directly to Vice President Mike Pence , Health and Human Services Secretary Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s son-in-law .
On June 5 , Ballard Partners disclosed that it had , since May 15 , been helping the city of Washington , DC , seek pandemic relief funds from the Trump administration .
But on the same day that work was revealed , Brian Ballard announced that the firm was withdrawing from the contract amid a dispute between DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and Trump over the president ’ s deployment of National Guard troops and unidentified federal law enforcement officers in response to protests in the District against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making progress , we are no longer in a position to deliver effective representation , so we have respectfully withdrawn our engagement , ” the firm said in a tweet .
As for Garelek , the NanoPure CEO , he ’ s still waiting on EPA approval for his disinfectant mist .
“ We ’ re getting close , ” he told me in March , “ and we ’ re talking to right people now .
”

Steve Gareleck had a problem. His company, NanoPure, had developed an aerosol disinfectant that, it claims, could be an effective weapon against the coronavirus. But he couldn’t start selling it without approval from the EPA. “I need help politically to get this thing to the right people,” Gareleck told me in March. So he forked over $30,000 to a firm run by Brian Ballard, a high-powered lobbyist who is also a top fundraiser for President Donald Trump. Ballard’s team got to work quickly, reaching out directly to the White House and the Health and Human Services Department about the product, according to federal filings.
“He’s playing the K Street lobbyist game, buying access to this administration and enjoying that access.”
As COVID-19 started wreaking havoc, K Street lobbyists rushed to scoop up business from companies seeking to market their health products or score federal relief money. Ballard isn’t the only associate of the president who is getting in on the action, but his ability to drum up business in Trump’s swamp has stood out. In 2019, his firm, Ballard Partners, raked in $19.1 million in reported fees—and that doesn’t include its work on behalf of foreign governments. When it comes to selling influence over the most corrupt administration in living memory, the man Politico dubbed “the most powerful lobbyist in Trump’s Washington” has few peers.
“He’s playing the K Street lobbyist game, buying access to this administration and enjoying that access,” said Craig Holman, who works on ethics and lobbying issues for the watchdog group Public Citizen. Holman added that Ballard may not be breaking any laws or ethics rules, but that doesn’t leave the firm beyond reproach, especially given its ties to the scandal-plagued president. “This White House rewards corruption and self-dealing, and Ballard seems to be playing that game,” he said.
Ballard Partners rejects any complaints that it peddles access to the Trump administration. “Any such claims about Ballard Partners are completely baseless,” the firm said in a statement.
But there’s little question that Ballard has a ready line to the president. “One call to Brian Ballard, and the next thing I knew I was on the stage with the president,” Rep. Matt Gaetz told Mother Jones in 2017 about his effort to be seen with Trump at a rally in Florida. Gaetz noted that he was struck by the “speed with which [Ballard is] able to access the Trump apparatus.”
Ballard—a square-faced, brown-haired, 58-year old who tends to be photographed tieless in well-tailored suits—has said he first met Trump in the 1980s after reading The Art of the Deal. He wrote the real estate mogul an admiring letter, and the two struck up a relationship. After working as the chief of staff for Florida Gov. Bob Martinez (R), he launched a lobbying practice in Tallahassee in 1990s. Among his clients was Trump, who owns several properties in the state, including Mar-a-Lago. Ballard reportedly helped the future president push unsuccessfully for Florida to allow resorts to act as casinos.
In 2016, Ballard backed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and, then, Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential race, before finally falling in line behind Trump. Once he was on board, he led the campaign’s fundraising efforts in Florida and chaired the Trump Victory committee, helping raise $108 million for Trump and other Republicans. His firm’s website notes that he “had the honor of serving as a member of the Electoral College casting his vote for President Trump.”
A month after Trump was sworn in, Ballard opened a Washington, DC, office that focuses “on the White House and Executive Agencies.” He’s stocked the firm with Trump associates, including Pam Bondi—the former Florida attorney general. In 2013, Bondi infamously accepted a $25,000 donation from Trump before deciding not to act on complaints filed against Trump University or join New York state in a lawsuit alleging that it had used false advertising and high-pressure sales to push students to pay for expensive—and often useless—real estate seminars. (Bondi and Trump have said there was no connection between the donation and Trump University’s legal issues.) Trump agreed shortly after his 2016 election to pay $25 million to settle the suit but didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Earlier this year, Bondi briefly left Ballard’s firm—where her controversial clients include the government of Qatar—to join Trump’s impeachment defense team.
Other firm employees include Trump transition official Dan McFaul and Justin Sayfie, who lobbies for Ballard while also serving on a Trump-appointed commission on White House fellowships. Raj Shah, a former White House spokesperson, worked for Ballard in 2019. Susie Wiles, who ran Trump’s Florida campaign in 2016, worked for Ballard until leaving last fall for health reasons. Former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Jamie Rubin, who served as a State Department spokesperson under President Bill Clinton, have boosted the firm’s sway with Democrats.
Meanwhile, Brian Ballard has raised more than $1 million in bundled donations for Trump’s reelection bid and has personally contributed around $200,000 to Trump and the Republican National Committee in the current election cycle. He also serves as a regional vice-chair for the RNC, likely putting him in the position of soliciting donations from some of the same well-heeled Republicans he courts as clients. While Ballard chaired the Trump Victory Committee in 2016, it received a $100,000 donation from Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs. Jacobs chairs Delaware North, a Buffalo-based casino, resorts, and food services company. In April, Ballard registered to lobby on behalf of Delaware North as it seeks coronavirus relief money from the Trump administration.
Ballard’s firm insists there’s nothing wrong with him raising money for Trump while lobbying the White House. And though its website touts its founder’s Republican fundraising efforts, the firm says its employees “keep our efforts as campaign volunteers and supporters completely separate from our professional work as advocates for our clients.”
Ballard has worked for a host of big-name companies, including Amazon, American Airlines, and Uber. The firm lobbies on behalf of the American Health Care Association, an industry group that represents nursing homes. The AHCA has been pressing states to grant its members immunity from lawsuits over coronavirus deaths in their facilities, though there’s no indication that Ballard Partners has worked on that specific issue.
Ballard also represents the GEO Group, the nation’s largest private prison company. It hired Ballard in early 2017, around the time the Justice Department reversed an Obama-era decision to end the use of private prisons for federal inmates. That April, GEO won a $110 million contract to build an immigration detention complex in Texas. A few months later, it held its annual conference at Trump’s Doral golf club in Florida—one of several Ballard clients to shell out money to Trump-owned properties, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Ballard has also built a thriving roster of overseas clients. Those have included Russian billionaire David Yakobashvili, a founder of a food conglomerate, who paid the firm $450,000 to lobby on immigration and trade policy. The firm represents a slew of foreign governments, including Kosovo, which is currently under pressure from the White House to agree to a land swap with Serbia. In 2018, Politico reported that Ballard personally lobbied Trump while the president was staying at Mar-a-Lago, in an unsuccessful effort to secure a meeting between Kosovo’s president and Trump.
“Hire Robert Stryk…or Brian Ballard.”
Some of the firm’s foreign clients have had serious legal problems. In 2018 Ballard lobbied the White House in an effort to stop the Justice Department from indicting its client Halkbank, a state-run Turkish bank, for violating US sanctions on Iran. After Trump asked Attorney General Bill Barr to review the matter, Barr pressed the US attorney in Manhattan to reach a settlement with the bank that would avert an indictment, CNN has reported. The bank was finally charged last year, but only after Turkey invaded Syria—an invasion that caused an uproar in Washington and embarrassed Trump. Ballard terminated its representation of Halkbank after the indictment was announced. (In his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly alleges that in May 2018, Trump told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he would intervene with the DOJ on behalf of a Turkish firm—apparently Halkbank. Trump “told Erdogan he would take care of things, explaining that the…prosecutors were not his people, but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people,” Bolton writes, according to the Washington Post.)
Ballard’s work for Turkey also appears to have intersected with the scandal that resulted in Trump’s impeachment. In November, federal prosecutors subpoenaed the firm for information related to Lev Parnas, the Rudy Giuliani associate who is facing charges for campaign finance violations. Ballard’s attorney said that Parnas, a major GOP donor, had met Ballard through Republican politics in Florida and had helped Ballard land Turkey as a client. Ballard paid Parnas at least $22,500 for the referral.
In January, Parnas gave Congress handwritten notes describing what he says were instructions he received from Giuliani in May 2019, while they were in Europe trying to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. On a Ritz-Carlton Vienna pad, Parnas wrote, “Get Zalensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated”—a reference to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A few pages later, Parnas added, “Hire Robert Stryk”—another lobbyist with Trump ties—“or Brian Ballard.” Neither Stryk nor Ballard was hired. “We have no idea what it means,” William Taylor, an attorney representing Ballard, said in an email at the time. “Nobody reached out to Brian.”
Ballard has represented clients with ties authoritarian regimes and other questionable connections—information the firm hasn’t always initially revealed to the public. In 2018, it reported that it was paid $100,000 to lobby for REC Americas, a solar energy firm that it said was owned by a Norwegian company. It did not disclose that the Norwegian company was, in turn, a subsidiary of a state-owned Chinese company, ChemChina. A REC spokesperson said the firm hired Ballard for advice as it sought an exemption from tariffs that Trump imposed in June 2018 on solar panels. The application didn’t succeed.
Following inquiries from Mother Jones, Ballard Partners filed an amendment to its lobbying registration for REC Americas. The amendment, which came about two years after the work was completed, lists ChemChina, and the People’s Republic of China itself, as foreign entities with an interest in the lobbying activity. William Farah, a lawyer who handles compliance issues for Ballard, said these parties were accidentally omitted. The firm “takes its reporting and compliance obligations very seriously. The oversight was inadvertent, and once it was discovered, a corrective amendment was immediately filed to disclose the additional information,” Farah said.
In April 2018, Ballard registered to lobby for a company called ASM International General Trading. But after the Daily Beast linked that firm to a wealthy Syrian man, Samer Foz, with ties to the dictator Bashar al-Assad, Ballard dropped the client. Ballard said that ASM’s background had escaped his team’s notice. “We’re not the CIA,” he told the Daily Beast.
In June 2019, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed financial sanctions on ASM, Foz, two of his brothers, and a dozen corporate entities connected to them, due to their work benefitting the Assad regime. Foz “is directly supporting the murderous Assad regime and building luxury developments on land stolen from those fleeing his brutality,” Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker said at the time.
In 2017, a subsidiary of Globovisión—a Venezuelan television station owned by Raúl Gorrín—hired Ballard to help the company expand into US markets. But the Miami Herald reported that Gorrín hoped to establish himself as a broker between Trump and the regime of Nicolás Maduro, to negotiate a transition to a new government, while suggesting he had authority to speak for Maduro. The Justice Department later indicted Gorrín on corruption charges. Ballard said it terminated its work for the company after learning of the investigation; the firm has said it was unaware of Gorrín’s alleged diplomatic machinations.
“We do the best job we can” on due diligence, a Ballard Partners employee told Mother Jones. “When we represent someone and we learn of something we weren’t aware of, our record shows we drop them as soon as something comes out.”
In 2017, Ballard registered to lobby for Hawkers USA, a sunglasses company. Hawkers paid Ballard $430,000 to work on “general government, tax, and trade issues, policies, and regulations,” according to the firm. Ballard did not note in its disclosure forms that Hawkers is a subsidiary of a Spanish company, the Saldum Ventures group. The president and controlling shareholder of that company is Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, a wealthy Venezuelan, who, according to the Herald and the Washington Post, was among unnamed alleged conspirators in a federal criminal complaint detailing an embezzlement and bribery scheme related to Venezuela’s national oil company. Last year Betancourt hired Giuliani, who then met with Justice Department officials to argue that Betancourt should not be charged, the New York Times reported. In August, with Parnas in tow, Giuliani reportedly stayed at an estate owned by Betancourt in Spain, part of a trip in which Giuliani also met secretly with Ukrainian officials in Madrid.
So far Betancourt has not been charged. Jon Sale, an attorney for Betancourt, said his client “denies any wrongdoing” but did not respond to other questions. Giuliani and an attorney for Parnas did not respond to requests for comment.
Bizarrely, Ballard’s representation of Hawkers began just three days after the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lawsuit brought by Otto Reich, who was then a Ballard employee. Reich—who once served as ambassador to Venezuela and was a minor player in the Iran Contra scandal—had sued Betancourt and two other Venezuelan men in 2013, alleging they had defamed him by claiming he had done work for them. Reich’s suit, which was thrown out on procedural grounds, also charged that Betancourt and two other men had paid millions of dollars in bribes to win Venezuelan government contracts, awarded in 2010, to build power plants. They denied Reich’s allegations.
In a statement, Ballard Partners said none of its employees ever communicated with Betancourt or Giuliani regarding Betancourt’s “personal, legal or business matters.” The firm said its work had “no relationship in any respect” to Reich’s lawsuit against Betancourt.
Ballard, meanwhile, has continued signing up clients looking for coronavirus business. Laundrylux, a commercial laundry machine supplier in Long Island, hired Ballard to help get its industry designated “essential” by the Homeland Security Department. A Baltimore health technology firm called Audacious Inquiry hired Ballard to help sell the White House on its system for tracking pandemic data entered by medical providers. After retaining Ballard, it appears, the company’s pitch went directly to Vice President Mike Pence, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
On June 5, Ballard Partners disclosed that it had, since May 15, been helping the city of Washington, DC, seek pandemic relief funds from the Trump administration. But on the same day that work was revealed, Brian Ballard announced that the firm was withdrawing from the contract amid a dispute between DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and Trump over the president’s deployment of National Guard troops and unidentified federal law enforcement officers in response to protests in the District against police brutality. “While we were making progress, we are no longer in a position to deliver effective representation, so we have respectfully withdrawn our engagement,” the firm said in a tweet.
As for Garelek, the NanoPure CEO, he’s still waiting on EPA approval for his disinfectant mist. “We’re getting close,” he told me in March, “and we’re talking to right people now.”
Noah Lanard contributed reporting.


motherjones--2020-06-18--Say It Under Oath, Asshole

Say It Under Oath, Asshole

Last October , President Donald Trump said , on television , that “ China should start an investigation into the Bidens ” and reiterated his previously private push for Ukraine to investigate the former vice president and his son Hunter .
That may have seemed to many people like a public confession to the misconduct that would lead to Trump ’ s impeachment : soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election .
Some of Trump ’ s defenders , however , said that Trump wasn ’ t seriously asking China for election help , or something like that .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s moment .
Bolton—who , a month earlier , either quit or was fired as Trump ’ s national security adviser , depending on who you believe—was invited on October 30 to give a deposition as part of the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
He refused .
( Bolton later offered to testify as part of the Senate ’ s impeachment trial if subpoenaed , but only after it was fairly evident that Senate Republicans would refuse to call any witnesses .
Some damning details from his book leaked during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton , who is hawking a memoir about his time in “ The Room Where it Happened , ” told the world that he knows something about Trump ’ s efforts to seek assistance from the Chinese government for his reelection campaign .
According to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post , Bolton writes that in a June 29 , 2019 , meeting , Trump pleaded with Chinese President Xi Jinping to help Trump ’ s electoral prospects by purchasing US agricultural products—and thus improving Trump ’ s standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war with China .
The newspapers obtained Bolton ’ s book a day after the Justice Department sued Bolton to try to block its publication .
The administration asserts the book reveals classified information , a claim that Bolton disputes .
Bolton also shared this information in an excerpt published by the Wall Street Journal : In their meeting in Osaka on June 29 , Xi told Trump that the U.S.-China relationship was the most important in the world .
He said that some ( unnamed ) American political figures were making erroneous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war with China .
Whether Xi meant to finger the Democrats or some of us sitting on the U.S. side of the table , I don ’ t know , but Trump immediately assumed that Xi meant the Democrats .
Trump said approvingly that there was great hostility to China among the Democrats .
Trump then , stunningly , turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election , alluding to China ’ s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he ’ d win .
He stressed the importance of farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wheat in the electoral outcome .
Bolton added that he “ would print Trump ’ s exact words , but the government ’ s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.
” Bolton also writes that Trump told Xi that China ’ s decision to detain Uighur Muslims in concentration camps was , in Bolton ’ s paraphrasing , “ exactly the right thing to do.
” Trump , according to Bolton , encouraged the Chinese leader “ go ahead with building the camps.
” That ’ s not all .
Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop US criminal investigations “ to , in effect , give personal favors to dictators he liked , ” according to the Times .
“ The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life , which we couldn ’ t accept , ” Bolton writes .
Bolton says Trump told Xi he would intervene with the Justice Department to help Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE , which agreed in 2017 to plead guilty to violating American sanctions on doing business with North Korea , Iran , and other countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tayyip Erdogan in May 2018 that he would intervene to block the DOJ ’ s prosecution of a Turkish state-owned bank , which was accused of violating US sanctions on Iran .
Trump “ told Erdogan he would take care of things , explaining that the Southern District [ of New York ] prosecutors were not his people , but were Obama people , a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people , ” Bolton writes , according to the Post .
CNN has reported that Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did try to stave off Halkbank ’ s indictment by federal prosecutors in Manhattan .
Bolton apparently feels that the House , rather than impeaching Trump merely for pressuring Ukraine , should have investigated the president over the various other instances in which he meddled with law enforcement or sought electoral assistance from foreign powers .
In this , Bolton shares the view of many liberal critics who believed the House should have impeached Trump for a broader swath of crimes and misconduct .
The House Intelligence Committee could still subpoena Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Judiciary , given his claims about DOJ investigations .
Spokespersons for those panels declined to comment on whether they might do so .
But it appears likely that Bolton missed his chance to tell lawmakers under oath why they should remove the president from office .
Bolton is trying to publish a book , prior to Election Day , that details why Trump is a bad president .
That earns him support from Trump ’ s critics .
Bolton is indeed a kind of whistleblower .
But he might be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Times calls him a “ complicated , controversial figure.
” Not really .
He ’ s a jerk promoting himself—one who waited far too long to tell the truth .
Last fall , patriotic civil servants—including former Bolton subordinates Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman and former US ambassadors to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor—risked their careers and endured slander to testify truthfully about Trump ’ s efforts to corrupt US foreign policy .
The witnesses appeared in the House Ways and Means hearing room .
That was “ the room where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show up .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last October, President Donald Trump said, on television, that “China should start an investigation into the Bidens” and reiterated his previously private push for Ukraine to investigate the former vice president and his son Hunter. That may have seemed to many people like a public confession to the misconduct that would lead to Trump’s impeachment: soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election. Some of Trump’s defenders, however, said that Trump wasn’t seriously asking China for election help, or something like that.
Bolton is indeed a kind of whistleblower. But he might be the least courageous one in American history.
That, it turns out, could have been John Bolton’s moment. Bolton—who, a month earlier, either quit or was fired as Trump’s national security adviser, depending on who you believe—was invited on October 30 to give a deposition as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry. He refused. (Bolton later offered to testify as part of the Senate’s impeachment trial if subpoenaed, but only after it was fairly evident that Senate Republicans would refuse to call any witnesses. Some damning details from his book leaked during the trial.)
On Wednesday, Bolton, who is hawking a memoir about his time in “The Room Where it Happened,” told the world that he knows something about Trump’s efforts to seek assistance from the Chinese government for his reelection campaign. According to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post, Bolton writes that in a June 29, 2019, meeting, Trump pleaded with Chinese President Xi Jinping to help Trump’s electoral prospects by purchasing US agricultural products—and thus improving Trump’s standing in rural states hurt by his trade war with China. The newspapers obtained Bolton’s book a day after the Justice Department sued Bolton to try to block its publication. The administration asserts the book reveals classified information, a claim that Bolton disputes.
Bolton also shared this information in an excerpt published by the Wall Street Journal:
In their meeting in Osaka on June 29, Xi told Trump that the U.S.-China relationship was the most important in the world. He said that some (unnamed) American political figures were making erroneous judgments by calling for a new cold war with China.
Whether Xi meant to finger the Democrats or some of us sitting on the U.S. side of the table, I don’t know, but Trump immediately assumed that Xi meant the Democrats. Trump said approvingly that there was great hostility to China among the Democrats. Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.
Bolton added that he “would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.”
Bolton also writes that Trump told Xi that China’s decision to detain Uighur Muslims in concentration camps was, in Bolton’s paraphrasing, “exactly the right thing to do.” Trump, according to Bolton, encouraged the Chinese leader “go ahead with building the camps.”
That’s not all. Bolton’s book alleges that Trump expressed a willingness to stop US criminal investigations “to, in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked,” according to the Times. “The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Bolton writes.
Bolton says Trump told Xi he would intervene with the Justice Department to help Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE, which agreed in 2017 to plead guilty to violating American sanctions on doing business with North Korea, Iran, and other countries. Bolton says Trump told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in May 2018 that he would intervene to block the DOJ’s prosecution of a Turkish state-owned bank, which was accused of violating US sanctions on Iran. Trump “told Erdogan he would take care of things, explaining that the Southern District [of New York] prosecutors were not his people, but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people,” Bolton writes, according to the Post. CNN has reported that Attorney General William Barr, under pressure from Trump, did try to stave off Halkbank’s indictment by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.
My only request for coverage of John Bolton’s book is for news outlets to use this GIF of him in their stories. pic.twitter.com/BSUVVS7Jvq — Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) June 17, 2020
Bolton apparently feels that the House, rather than impeaching Trump merely for pressuring Ukraine, should have investigated the president over the various other instances in which he meddled with law enforcement or sought electoral assistance from foreign powers. In this, Bolton shares the view of many liberal critics who believed the House should have impeached Trump for a broader swath of crimes and misconduct.
The House Intelligence Committee could still subpoena Bolton. So could other House committees, such as Judiciary, given his claims about DOJ investigations. Spokespersons for those panels declined to comment on whether they might do so. But it appears likely that Bolton missed his chance to tell lawmakers under oath why they should remove the president from office.
Bolton is trying to publish a book, prior to Election Day, that details why Trump is a bad president. That earns him support from Trump’s critics. Bolton is indeed a kind of whistleblower. But he might be the least courageous one in American history. The Times calls him a “complicated, controversial figure.” Not really. He’s a jerk promoting himself—one who waited far too long to tell the truth.
Last fall, patriotic civil servants—including former Bolton subordinates Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman and former US ambassadors to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor—risked their careers and endured slander to testify truthfully about Trump’s efforts to corrupt US foreign policy. The witnesses appeared in the House Ways and Means hearing room. That was “the room where it happened.” Bolton didn’t show up.


motherjones--2020-06-17--400 Tweets. 585 Miles. $9 Billion: Trump’s Border Wall Boondoggle

“ We need the wall more than ever !
” President Trump tweeted on March 10—one day before the WHO declared the coronavirus a global pandemic—just another of his more than 400 tweets about his dream of building a wall along the US-Mexico border .
According to a Mother Jones analysis of government contracts , the Trump administration has so far doled out over $ 9 billion to build about 585 miles of wall—285 miles of replacement fencing and 300 miles of new construction .
In Trumpian fashion , the project has been characterized by cost overruns , lawsuits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and incomplete ) final product .
1 .
Near San Diego , California : In March 2018 , Trump reviewed eight wall prototypes in San Diego .
The Government Accountability Office noted that many , if not all , of the designs would be difficult to build along much of the border ; Customs and Border Protection found that all were vulnerable to breaching .
In the end , none were adopted , and the $ 3 million samples were destroyed in early 2019 .
On a September 2019 trip to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he saw “ virtually impenetrable.
” Two months later , the Washington Post reported that Mexican drug smugglers had been cutting through them .
2 .
Near Calexico , California : A viral tweet in December 2019 showed a 16-year-old using a rope ladder to scale a newly replaced section of the wall .
Border Patrol officials insisted “ the border wall system worked exactly as designed , ” and that the boy was apprehended .
In January , several recently installed panels of the wall collapsed in high winds in Calexico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Monument , Arizona : Contractors have been blasting ground for the wall in Monument Hill , an area of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that contains burial grounds of the Indigenous O ’ odham people .
“ This is a total desecration of Native land , ” one activist said .
4 .
Sunland Park , New Mexico : After raising $ 20 million on GoFundMe , a group called We Build the Wall put up a half-mile of wall on private property in New Mexico in May 2019 .
The group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was reportedly negotiating with the White House to build and “ donate ” more walls .
5 .
McAllen , Texas : In late 2017 , Hidalgo County , Texas , sued several companies owned by a former county official , his wife , and their two sons for being part of a kickback scheme tied to a $ 232 million Homeland Security wall construction project .
6 .
Near McAllen , Texas : Plans to build a wall through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge could degrade the habitat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and jaguarundis , as well as mountain lions , bobcats , collared peccaries , nine-banded armadillos , chachalacas , plains blind snakes , Texas earless lizards , Texas horned lizards , barred tiger salamanders , Rio Grande chirping frogs , southern yellow bats , and 400 species of birds .
Besides falsely claiming Mexico will foot the bill , Trump has consistently lowballed the price of his wall .
Trump originally said his wall should be solid— “ no windows , no nothing , precast concrete going very high.
” But that wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to New York Times reporters .
As for the slatted steel wall that ’ s actually being built ?
“ He thinks it ’ s ugly , ” a White House official told the Washington Post .
How one company laid a foundation for cashing in on the wall 2017 : Fisher Sand & Gravel , a North Dakota construction company , is contracted by the US Army Corps of Engineers to develop an all-concrete border wall prototype , but its model isn ’ t selected .
2018 : Fisher spends $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times what it spent in 2017 .
January 2018 : Then-Rep. Kevin Cramer ( R-N.D. ) invites company CEO Tommy Fisher—whose family had donated $ 8,000 to Cramer over the years—to attend the State of the Union address , in which Trump again calls for building a wall .
March 2018 : In one of his at least 10 Fox News appearances between January 2018 and May 2019 , Tommy Fisher touts his company ’ s wall-building skills on The Ingraham Angle : “ If [ Trump ] allows our team , Fisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no different than Tom Brady—once we get in we never come out , and if we don ’ t perform , the president can fire us.
” May 2019 : The Washington Post reports that Cramer , now a senator , and Jared Kushner are lobbying to get Fisher Industries a border wall contract .
Cramer says Trump had twice mentioned wanting Fisher to build some of the wall .
“ He always brings them up , ” Cramer says .
November 2019 : Fisher starts building a $ 40 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land in South Texas .
( We Build the Wall kicks in $ 2 million . )
The project is put on hold when Fisher is sued by federal prosecutors and a butterfly sanctuary .
Fisher tells Texas Monthly the plans to sell the wall to the government .
December 2019 : Fisher Sand & Gravel is awarded a $ 400 million Pentagon contract for wall construction in Yuma County , Arizona .
Rep. Bennie Thompson ( D-Miss . )
, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee , asks for an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ inappropriate influence.
” April 2020 : Fisher scores a $ 7.6 million contract to build 800 more feet of wall near Yuma .
“ Army Corps resources should be put to better use responding to the coronavirus pandemic , ” Thompson tells the Daily Beast .
May 2020 : The Washington Post reports that Trump is still pushing the idea of painting the fence black , which could add at least $ 500 million to the cost of the project .
The Post also reports that Trump asked his aides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Later in the month , the Army Corps of Engineers awards one of its largest Trump border wall contracts to Fisher— $ 1.28 billion to build about 42 miles of wall in Arizona .

“We need the wall more than ever!” President Trump tweeted on March 10—one day before the WHO declared the coronavirus a global pandemic—just another of his more than 400 tweets about his dream of building a wall along the US-Mexico border. According to a Mother Jones analysis of government contracts, the Trump administration has so far doled out over $9 billion to build about 585 miles of wall—285 miles of replacement fencing and 300 miles of new construction. In Trumpian fashion, the project has been characterized by cost overruns, lawsuits, sycophantic contractors, and a notoriously ineffective (and incomplete) final product.
Walking the Line
A tour of the Trump border wall
1. Near San Diego, California: In March 2018, Trump reviewed eight wall prototypes in San Diego. The Government Accountability Office noted that many, if not all, of the designs would be difficult to build along much of the border; Customs and Border Protection found that all were vulnerable to breaching. In the end, none were adopted, and the $3 million samples were destroyed in early 2019.
On a September 2019 trip to the border, Trump called new steel-and-concrete bollards he saw “virtually impenetrable.” Two months later, the Washington Post reported that Mexican drug smugglers had been cutting through them.
2. Near Calexico, California: A viral tweet in December 2019 showed a 16-year-old using a rope ladder to scale a newly replaced section of the wall. Border Patrol officials insisted “the border wall system worked exactly as designed,” and that the boy was apprehended.
In January, several recently installed panels of the wall collapsed in high winds in Calexico, California.
3. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona: Contractors have been blasting ground for the wall in Monument Hill, an area of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that contains burial grounds of the Indigenous O’odham people. “This is a total desecration of Native land,” one activist said.
4. Sunland Park, New Mexico: After raising $20 million on GoFundMe, a group called We Build the Wall put up a half-mile of wall on private property in New Mexico in May 2019. The group, whose advisory board includes Steve Bannon, was reportedly negotiating with the White House to build and “donate” more walls.
5. McAllen, Texas: In late 2017, Hidalgo County, Texas, sued several companies owned by a former county official, his wife, and their two sons for being part of a kickback scheme tied to a $232 million Homeland Security wall construction project.
6. Near McAllen, Texas: Plans to build a wall through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge could degrade the habitat of many animals, including endangered ocelots and jaguarundis, as well as mountain lions, bobcats, collared peccaries, nine-banded armadillos, chachalacas, plains blind snakes, Texas earless lizards, Texas horned lizards, barred tiger salamanders, Rio Grande chirping frogs, southern yellow bats, and 400 species of birds.
Over the Top
The rising cost of a border boondoggle
Besides falsely claiming Mexico will foot the bill, Trump has consistently lowballed the price of his wall.
Off the Wall
Trump’s wildest wall wishes
Trump originally said his wall should be solid—“no windows, no nothing, precast concrete going very high.” But that wasn’t his most unrealistic proposal, according to New York Times reporters. As for the slatted steel wall that’s actually being built? “He thinks it’s ugly,” a White House official told the Washington Post.
Fisher’s Price
How one company laid a foundation for cashing in on the wall
2017: Fisher Sand & Gravel, a North Dakota construction company, is contracted by the US Army Corps of Engineers to develop an all-concrete border wall prototype, but its model isn’t selected.
2018: Fisher spends $75,000 on “homeland security” lobbying—15 times what it spent in 2017.
January 2018: Then-Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) invites company CEO Tommy Fisher—whose family had donated $8,000 to Cramer over the years—to attend the State of the Union address, in which Trump again calls for building a wall.
March 2018: In one of his at least 10 Fox News appearances between January 2018 and May 2019, Tommy Fisher touts his company’s wall-building skills on The Ingraham Angle: “If [Trump] allows our team, Fisher Industries, to play, I guarantee, no different than Tom Brady—once we get in we never come out, and if we don’t perform, the president can fire us.”
May 2019: The Washington Post reports that Cramer, now a senator, and Jared Kushner are lobbying to get Fisher Industries a border wall contract. Cramer says Trump had twice mentioned wanting Fisher to build some of the wall. “He always brings them up,” Cramer says.
November 2019: Fisher starts building a $40 million, 3-mile stretch of border wall on private land in South Texas. (We Build the Wall kicks in $2 million.) The project is put on hold when Fisher is sued by federal prosecutors and a butterfly sanctuary. Fisher tells Texas Monthly the plans to sell the wall to the government.
December 2019: Fisher Sand & Gravel is awarded a $400 million Pentagon contract for wall construction in Yuma County, Arizona. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, asks for an investigation into whether the contract was the result of “inappropriate influence.”
April 2020: Fisher scores a $7.6 million contract to build 800 more feet of wall near Yuma. “Army Corps resources should be put to better use responding to the coronavirus pandemic,” Thompson tells the Daily Beast.
May 2020: The Washington Post reports that Trump is still pushing the idea of painting the fence black, which could add at least $500 million to the cost of the project. The Post also reports that Trump asked his aides to get input from Fisher Sand & Gravel.
Later in the month, the Army Corps of Engineers awards one of its largest Trump border wall contracts to Fisher— $1.28 billion to build about 42 miles of wall in Arizona.


motherjones--2020-06-18--John Bolton Provides a Harrowing Portrait of Trump’s Surrender to Putin

John Bolton ’ s too-late book has produced a string of revelations that warrant headlines and outrage .
President Donald Trump , in this account , encouraged Chinese President Xi Jinping to build concentration camps as part of China ’ s genocidal war on its Uighur population .
Trump beseeched Xi to help him win reelection in 2020 .
He displayed brazen ignorance .
( He didn ’ t know the United Kingdom is a nuclear power or that Finland is not part of Russia . )
And he did indeed withhold military aid to pressure the Ukrainian president—for which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden and promote a nutty conspiracy theory that holds that Ukraine , not Russia , hacked the 2016 presidential election .
Receiving less attention than these made-for-Twitter disclosures is what Bolton says about Trump ’ s response to Vladimir Putin ’ s attack on that election .
But this stuff is important , for here is yet another indication that Trump has no interest in thwarting a Kremlin assault on the current election .
According to Trump ’ s own top intelligence officials , Moscow is currently trying to intervene in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wray and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have said so in congressional testimony , without providing details about the ongoing covert Russian efforts .
So one obvious question is , what is Trump doing about this ?
The answer , per Bolton , is nothing .
In his book , Bolton does not go into great depth on this crucial matter .
But Trump ’ s former national security adviser notes that Trump “ willfully ignored or denied that Russia was meddling globally in US and many other elections.
” This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election and through his years in the White House .
He has downplayed or dismissed the Russian attack , even though the US intelligence community has concluded it occurred and was mounted by Vladimir Putin in part to help Trump win .
( A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report cited an intelligence intercept of a communication from a Russian cyber-operative who described Election Night this way : “ On November 9 , 2016 , a sleepless night was ahead of us .
And when around 8 a.m. the most important result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tiny bottle of champagne…took one gulp each and looked into each other ’ s eyes…We uttered almost in unison : ‘ We made America great . '
” ) Still , even in the privacy of the Oval Office , Trump would not discuss with his top national security aide the Russian intervention—or , worse , the prospect of a repeat performance .
“ Trump believed that acknowledging Russia ’ s meddling in US politics , or in that of many other countries in Europe and elsewhere , would implicitly acknowledge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 campaign , ” Bolton writes .
Trump has long yearned to remove the taint of Russian intervention—the asterisk—from his 2016 election .
That is one reason that Trump , desperate to promote an alternative ( and false ) narrative , pushed the Ukrainians for that investigation—a blatant abuse of power that led to his impeachment .
To clear this real stain , Trump has had to deny the basic reality : Putin mounted a successful campaign of information warfare against the United States .
Trump did this most famously during a joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 2018 .
At this event , Trump appeared to back Putin ’ s we-didn ’ t-do-it disinformation and discount the findings of the US intelligence community .
“ I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today , ” Trump said , adding that Putin “ said it ’ s not Russia .
I will say this .
I don ’ t see any reason why it would be.
” This was a dramatic moment—a US president siding with a foreign adversary who had attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bolton recalls that he and John Kelly , then the White House chief of staff , “ were almost frozen to our seats by Trump ’ s answer.
” ( Neither one quit over this . )
At this press conference , Trump rambled on about the conspiracy theory involving Ukraine , which held that Democratic Party computer servers had somehow been hidden in that country apparently to cover-up the real story that Ukraine or others had hacked the Democratic Party to somehow frame Russia and the Trump campaign .
This bizarre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump .
As Bolton notes , “ It also became increasingly plain , not only to me but to others as well , including Fiona Hill , the NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia , that Trump completely accepted [ Rudy ] Giuliani ’ s line that the ‘ Russia collusion ’ narrative…had been run through Ukraine .
In other words , Trump was buying the idea that the Ukraine was actually responsible for carrying out Moscow ’ s efforts to hack US elections.
” That is , the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Helsinki meeting , Bolton took a shot at nudging Trump to confront Putin ’ s aggression .
He writes : Trump could not even hand Putin a piece of paper to defend the United States against Russia intervention .
This was both a betrayal of the national interest and an abandonment of his obligations as commander in chief .
Bolton confirms that Trump could not bring himself to challenge Putin : “ Trump repeatedly objected to criticizing Russia and pressed us not to be so critical of Russia publicly.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in accordance with legislation , to increase sanctions on Russia , Trump , Bolton says , wanted to rescind them .
There is much in Bolton ’ s book that is disturbing .
This is information about the president that Bolton should have shared with the House impeachment investigators at the time of their probe .
But he did not .
And Republicans blocked him from testifying during the impeachment trial .
Would all the Senate Republicans—except Mitt Romney—have been able to stand by Trump had Bolton testified that Trump did pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection , that Trump had given a green light to genocide in China , and that Trump had requested Chinese assistance for his 2020 campaign ?
Overall , the book illuminates Trump ’ s foremost sin : He has repeatedly placed his own personal interests ahead of the national security of the United States .
Bolton could not even have an honest and straightforward conversation with Trump about this .
In one chilling passage , Bolton recounts that he not once spoke candidly with Trump regarding Putin : “ He never offered an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least in front of me .
I never asked what Trump ’ s view was , perhaps afraid of what I might hear.
” When the national security adviser to the president can not talk to the commander in chief about a paramount threat to the country , it is a sign that neither one of them should continue in their jobs .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
John Bolton’s too-late book has produced a string of revelations that warrant headlines and outrage. President Donald Trump, in this account, encouraged Chinese President Xi Jinping to build concentration camps as part of China’s genocidal war on its Uighur population. Trump beseeched Xi to help him win reelection in 2020. He displayed brazen ignorance. (He didn’t know the United Kingdom is a nuclear power or that Finland is not part of Russia.) And he did indeed withhold military aid to pressure the Ukrainian president—for which he was impeached—to launch investigations to tar Joe Biden and promote a nutty conspiracy theory that holds that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the 2016 presidential election. Receiving less attention than these made-for-Twitter disclosures is what Bolton says about Trump’s response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on that election. But this stuff is important, for here is yet another indication that Trump has no interest in thwarting a Kremlin assault on the current election.
According to Trump’s own top intelligence officials, Moscow is currently trying to intervene in the 2020 campaign. Both FBI Director Chris Wray and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have said so in congressional testimony, without providing details about the ongoing covert Russian efforts. So one obvious question is, what is Trump doing about this? The answer, per Bolton, is nothing.
In his book, Bolton does not go into great depth on this crucial matter. But Trump’s former national security adviser notes that Trump “willfully ignored or denied that Russia was meddling globally in US and many other elections.” This is the public posture Trump has taken since the 2016 election and through his years in the White House. He has downplayed or dismissed the Russian attack, even though the US intelligence community has concluded it occurred and was mounted by Vladimir Putin in part to help Trump win. (A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report cited an intelligence intercept of a communication from a Russian cyber-operative who described Election Night this way: “On November 9, 2016, a sleepless night was ahead of us. And when around 8 a.m. the most important result of our work arrived, we uncorked a tiny bottle of champagne…took one gulp each and looked into each other’s eyes…We uttered almost in unison: ‘We made America great.'”) Still, even in the privacy of the Oval Office, Trump would not discuss with his top national security aide the Russian intervention—or, worse, the prospect of a repeat performance.
“Trump believed that acknowledging Russia’s meddling in US politics, or in that of many other countries in Europe and elsewhere, would implicitly acknowledge that he had colluded with Russia in his 2016 campaign,” Bolton writes.
Trump has long yearned to remove the taint of Russian intervention—the asterisk—from his 2016 election. That is one reason that Trump, desperate to promote an alternative (and false) narrative, pushed the Ukrainians for that investigation—a blatant abuse of power that led to his impeachment. To clear this real stain, Trump has had to deny the basic reality: Putin mounted a successful campaign of information warfare against the United States.
Trump did this most famously during a joint press conference with Putin in Helsinki in July 2018. At this event, Trump appeared to back Putin’s we-didn’t-do-it disinformation and discount the findings of the US intelligence community. “I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said, adding that Putin “said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
This was a dramatic moment—a US president siding with a foreign adversary who had attacked the United States. In his book, Bolton recalls that he and John Kelly, then the White House chief of staff, “were almost frozen to our seats by Trump’s answer.” (Neither one quit over this.)
At this press conference, Trump rambled on about the conspiracy theory involving Ukraine, which held that Democratic Party computer servers had somehow been hidden in that country apparently to cover-up the real story that Ukraine or others had hacked the Democratic Party to somehow frame Russia and the Trump campaign. This bizarre, baseless Ukraine connection was an obsession of Trump. As Bolton notes, “It also became increasingly plain, not only to me but to others as well, including Fiona Hill, the NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia, that Trump completely accepted [Rudy] Giuliani’s line that the ‘Russia collusion’ narrative…had been run through Ukraine. In other words, Trump was buying the idea that the Ukraine was actually responsible for carrying out Moscow’s efforts to hack US elections.”
That is, the president of the United States was delusional.
Prior to the Helsinki meeting, Bolton took a shot at nudging Trump to confront Putin’s aggression. He writes:
I gave Trump a paper I had asked the White House Counsel’s office to draft, laying out our objections to Russian election meddling. Trump made several changes to it, reflecting his general unease with the subject. It was precisely to deal with that unease that I asked for the paper. Trump could make the point of our intense opposition to election interference by handing Putin the paper, obviating the need for a long conversation. Ultimately, Trump decided not to use the document. He wanted me to raise election interference, which I said I would do in the scheduled working lunch, but obviously I wouldn’t be in the one-on-one with Putin he wanted so much.
Trump could not even hand Putin a piece of paper to defend the United States against Russia intervention. This was both a betrayal of the national interest and an abandonment of his obligations as commander in chief. Bolton confirms that Trump could not bring himself to challenge Putin: “Trump repeatedly objected to criticizing Russia and pressed us not to be so critical of Russia publicly.” And when the State Department did take steps, in accordance with legislation, to increase sanctions on Russia, Trump, Bolton says, wanted to rescind them.
There is much in Bolton’s book that is disturbing. This is information about the president that Bolton should have shared with the House impeachment investigators at the time of their probe. But he did not. And Republicans blocked him from testifying during the impeachment trial. Would all the Senate Republicans—except Mitt Romney—have been able to stand by Trump had Bolton testified that Trump did pressure Ukraine to initiate investigations to help his reelection, that Trump had given a green light to genocide in China, and that Trump had requested Chinese assistance for his 2020 campaign?
Overall, the book illuminates Trump’s foremost sin: He has repeatedly placed his own personal interests ahead of the national security of the United States. Bolton could not even have an honest and straightforward conversation with Trump about this. In one chilling passage, Bolton recounts that he not once spoke candidly with Trump regarding Putin: “He never offered an opinion [of Putin], at least in front of me. I never asked what Trump’s view was, perhaps afraid of what I might hear.”
When the national security adviser to the president cannot talk to the commander in chief about a paramount threat to the country, it is a sign that neither one of them should continue in their jobs.


motherjones--2020-06-18--The 3 Best Lines in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s DACA Concurrence

Chief Justice John Roberts , a conservative , joined his liberal colleagues on Thursday to preserve a program that allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain in the country , handing a significant victory to hundreds of thousands of migrants .
But Roberts ’ majority opinion didn ’ t get everything right , according to liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor .
In her concurrence , she laid out where she believes Roberts went too easy on Donald Trump , suggesting that the president ’ s history of vicious and racist comments about immigrants provided vital legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
Her writing has already been hailed .
“ I thought I could not love Justice Sotomayor any more than I did already , ” tweeted former Justice Department civil rights official Sam Bagenstos .
“ Then I read her DACA concurrence.
” Roberts ’ approach to the case was technical .
He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security , which rescinded the policy , had failed to adhere to the required steps that federal agencies must go through before making or rolling back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goofed , but chided the chief justice for taking an approach that ignored ample evidence of illegal bias from the president targeting Mexican Americans and migrants .
Roberts and a plurality of the court , she argues , ignores this track record , and thus “ prematurely disposes of respondents ’ equal protection claims by overlooking the strength of their complaints.
” First , Sotomayor writes , Roberts was wrong to discount Trump ’ s myriad racist comments about Mexican immigrants as “ people who have lots of problems , ” “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug dealers , [ and ] rapists , ” and his comparison of undocumented immigrants to “ animals.
” As she wrote , Relatedly , Sotomayor criticizes Roberts for minimizing the disproportionate impact that ending DACA would have on Latinos given the president ’ s expressed views : Third , Sotomayor chided Roberts for dismissing the idea that DHS ’ s handling of the DACA recision raised red flags .
As late as June 2017 , DHS insisted it remained committed to DACA… But a mere three months later , DHS terminated DACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering important aspects of the termination .
The abrupt change in position plausibly suggests that something other than questions about the legality of DACA motivated the rescission decision .
Accordingly , it raises the possibility of a “ significant mismatch between the decision…made and the rationale…provided.
” While Roberts ’ s ruling protects DACA recipients for now , the decision suggests a better-designed rollback by the Department of Homeland Security would almost certainly win support from a court majority—and a dissent from Sotomayor , who says Trump ’ s demonstrated racism targeting people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his actions harming that community .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined his liberal colleagues on Thursday to preserve a program that allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain in the country, handing a significant victory to hundreds of thousands of migrants. But Roberts’ majority opinion didn’t get everything right, according to liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor. In her concurrence, she laid out where she believes Roberts went too easy on Donald Trump, suggesting that the president’s history of vicious and racist comments about immigrants provided vital legal context necessary to judge his attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Sotomayor says Roberts was wrong to discount Trump’s racist comments about Mexican immigrants.
Her writing has already been hailed. “I thought I could not love Justice Sotomayor any more than I did already,” tweeted former Justice Department civil rights official Sam Bagenstos. “Then I read her DACA concurrence.”
Roberts’ approach to the case was technical. He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security, which rescinded the policy, had failed to adhere to the required steps that federal agencies must go through before making or rolling back rules. Sotomayor agreed the government had goofed, but chided the chief justice for taking an approach that ignored ample evidence of illegal bias from the president targeting Mexican Americans and migrants. Roberts and a plurality of the court, she argues, ignores this track record, and thus “prematurely disposes of respondents’ equal protection claims by overlooking the strength of their complaints.”
First, Sotomayor writes, Roberts was wrong to discount Trump’s myriad racist comments about Mexican immigrants as “people who have lots of problems,” “the bad ones,” “criminals, drug dealers, [and] rapists,” and his comparison of undocumented immigrants to “animals.” As she wrote,
Taken together, “the words of the President” help to “create the strong perception” that the rescission decision was “contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus.”
Relatedly, Sotomayor criticizes Roberts for minimizing the disproportionate impact that ending DACA would have on Latinos given the president’s expressed views:
I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an executive decision disproportionately harms the same racial group that the President branded as less desirable mere months earlier.
Third, Sotomayor chided Roberts for dismissing the idea that DHS’s handling of the DACA recision raised red flags.
As late as June 2017, DHS insisted it remained committed to DACA… But a mere three months later, DHS terminated DACA without, as the plurality acknowledges, considering important aspects of the termination. The abrupt change in position plausibly suggests that something other than questions about the legality of DACA motivated the rescission decision. Accordingly, it raises the possibility of a “significant mismatch between the decision…made and the rationale…provided.”
While Roberts’s ruling protects DACA recipients for now, the decision suggests a better-designed rollback by the Department of Homeland Security would almost certainly win support from a court majority—and a dissent from Sotomayor, who says Trump’s demonstrated racism targeting people of Mexican origin cannot be separated from his actions harming that community.


motherjones--2020-06-18--Congress Can’t Decide How to Fix the Pandemic Economy, But Is Still Throwing Cash at the Pentagon

For anyone hoping to rein in the military ’ s excesses , this year of unrelenting crisis and outrage should have presented a rare opportunity .
In lieu of the usual business of forking over billions to the Defense Department for needless submarines or nuclear weapons , Congress had a chance to craft a spending bill that reckons with the ongoing ( and future ) threat of pandemics , climate change , and global migration .
Instead , the Republican-controlled Senate just doubled down on the type of spending lawmakers from both parties love best .
In its markup of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Armed Services Committee approved a $ 740.5 billion proposal that includes the purchase of 95 stealth fighter jets , 14 more than the Trump administration requested , to the tune of $ 9.1 billion .
To support the Navy ’ s quixotic goal of assembling 355 battle-ready ships , the Senate committee approved $ 21.3 billion toward shipbuilding , nearly $ 1.5 billion more than the Department of Defense requested .
The Pentagon has never been shy about asking for money , but in a year where the coronavirus has reset priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress have been hesitant to fund more stimulus to help people suffering during the massive job losses following the pandemic , it ’ s unusual , even baffling , to see the same old issues reign supreme for lawmakers when it comes to defense spending .
Since 2000 , the defense budget has more than doubled and , despite a series of budget caps during the Obama administration that limited overall spending , lawmakers have maintained an annual commitment to defense that exceeds what the next seven countries combined pay .
A bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off another government shutdown has ensured defense spending will increase by $ 24 billion within two years .
The Senate committee ’ s bill is still only one small piece of the puzzle when it comes to finalizing next year ’ s defense policy bill , which is formally known as the National Defense Authorization Act .
Other senators might be able to amend the bill once it comes for a vote on the Senate floor , though , as I reported earlier this month , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial votes .
The House , which is controlled by Democrats , will also pass a more liberal , if not necessarily progressive , bill that must be squared with the Senate ’ s version before reaching Donald Trump ’ s desk .
The problem for progressives , who have already renewed an annual fight to cut overall defense spending , is that lining the Pentagon ’ s coffers has never been a traditional left-right issue .
Only two senators voted against the committee ’ s bill last week ; twenty-five others supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flank of the new Democratic majority in the House fought to lower overall defense spending and inserted several policy provisions into the draft bill , including limits on Trump ’ s war powers and a reversal of his administration ’ s transgender military ban , but none of those wishlist items made the final law .
The resulting legislation was so favorable to Republicans that Sen. James Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) , chair of the Armed Services Committee , flouted a list of rejected Democratic proposals with the title , “ Progressive Agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lunch in December .
Democrats were able to secure a few significant victories in the Senate bill this year .
The Republican-controlled committee voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases that were named for Confederate generals , a break with Trump , who vowed on Twitter to never “ consider ” changing the names of these “ Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.
” A widely-criticized lobbying provision , which would have made it easier for ex-Pentagon officials to secure lucrative jobs in the defense industry , was struck from the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which encompasses the Pentagon and related agencies , was $ 740.5 billion , nearly $ 10 billion fewer than what Inhofe ’ s committee approved last year , but still in line with what the Pentagon requested and what congressional leaders agreed to in last year ’ s budget deal .
William Hartung , director of the Arms and Security program at the Center for International Policy , told me the committee approving “ $ 740 billion is politically and strategically tone deaf , ” given that the major national security challenges facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature , but fueled by climate change , pandemics , and rampant inequality due to race and income .
“ None of these challenges will be solved by spending more on the Pentagon , ” he said .
Since the coronavirus pandemic started , lawmakers have given the Pentagon more than $ 10 billion as part of the CARES Act , which the department has only just begun to spend .
According to spending plans provided to Congress , the Pentagon intends to use the bulk of its emergency funding on programs with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including hundreds of millions for hypersonic missiles , body armor , and shipbuilders .
More coronavirus relief money will almost certainly be on its way .
Ellen Lord , the Pentagon ’ s acquisition chief , told lawmakers earlier this month that the department still needed “ billions ” to cover defense companies hurt by the virus , and Rep. Adam Smith ( D-Wash. ) , chair of the House Armed Services panel , is reportedly planning to include a $ 1 billion pandemic preparation plan in his committee ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported last week , which would boost production of medical equipment needed as part of the response to the pandemic .
But during such a unique period of crisis , Congress still seems unable to reckon with changing landscape of defense priorities .
The F-35 fighter jet program , easily the most expensive and troubled weapons program in history , received another endorsement from legislators when Inhofe ’ s panel authorized the Pentagon to produce 14 more jets than the department requested .
Lockheed Martin , the program ’ s key contractor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and expects delivery to slow in future months .
“ One thing our experience with COVID-19 has shown us is that nothing will get in the way of business as usual in the military industrial congressional complex , ” Dan Grazier , who has discovered systemic flaws in the F-35 program as a fellow at the Project on Government Oversight , told me .
“ Authorizing more weapons beyond the Pentagon ’ s request is what members of Congress do .
They want to make sure tax dollars flow into their districts so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shore up the industrial base and please their constituents.
” Not even a pandemic can stop that .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For anyone hoping to rein in the military’s excesses, this year of unrelenting crisis and outrage should have presented a rare opportunity. In lieu of the usual business of forking over billions to the Defense Department for needless submarines or nuclear weapons, Congress had a chance to craft a spending bill that reckons with the ongoing (and future) threat of pandemics, climate change, and global migration.
Instead, the Republican-controlled Senate just doubled down on the type of spending lawmakers from both parties love best. In its markup of the annual defense policy bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a $740.5 billion proposal that includes the purchase of 95 stealth fighter jets, 14 more than the Trump administration requested, to the tune of $9.1 billion. To support the Navy’s quixotic goal of assembling 355 battle-ready ships, the Senate committee approved $21.3 billion toward shipbuilding, nearly $1.5 billion more than the Department of Defense requested. The Pentagon has never been shy about asking for money, but in a year where the coronavirus has reset priorities across the federal government and Republicans in Congress have been hesitant to fund more stimulus to help people suffering during the massive job losses following the pandemic, it’s unusual, even baffling, to see the same old issues reign supreme for lawmakers when it comes to defense spending.
Since 2000, the defense budget has more than doubled and, despite a series of budget caps during the Obama administration that limited overall spending, lawmakers have maintained an annual commitment to defense that exceeds what the next seven countries combined pay. A bipartisan budget deal crafted last year to stave off another government shutdown has ensured defense spending will increase by $24 billion within two years.
The Senate committee’s bill is still only one small piece of the puzzle when it comes to finalizing next year’s defense policy bill, which is formally known as the National Defense Authorization Act. Other senators might be able to amend the bill once it comes for a vote on the Senate floor, though, as I reported earlier this month, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is not expected to permit any controversial votes. The House, which is controlled by Democrats, will also pass a more liberal, if not necessarily progressive, bill that must be squared with the Senate’s version before reaching Donald Trump’s desk. The problem for progressives, who have already renewed an annual fight to cut overall defense spending, is that lining the Pentagon’s coffers has never been a traditional left-right issue. Only two senators voted against the committee’s bill last week; twenty-five others supported it.
Last year, the progressive flank of the new Democratic majority in the House fought to lower overall defense spending and inserted several policy provisions into the draft bill, including limits on Trump’s war powers and a reversal of his administration’s transgender military ban, but none of those wishlist items made the final law. The resulting legislation was so favorable to Republicans that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, flouted a list of rejected Democratic proposals with the title, “Progressive Agenda Halted,” at a GOP caucus lunch in December.
Democrats were able to secure a few significant victories in the Senate bill this year. The Republican-controlled committee voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases that were named for Confederate generals, a break with Trump, who vowed on Twitter to never “consider” changing the names of these “Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.” A widely-criticized lobbying provision, which would have made it easier for ex-Pentagon officials to secure lucrative jobs in the defense industry, was struck from the bill. The overall defense spending figure, which encompasses the Pentagon and related agencies, was $740.5 billion, nearly $10 billion fewer than what Inhofe’s committee approved last year, but still in line with what the Pentagon requested and what congressional leaders agreed to in last year’s budget deal.
William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security program at the Center for International Policy, told me the committee approving “$740 billion is politically and strategically tone deaf,” given that the major national security challenges facing the United States are not military in nature, but fueled by climate change, pandemics, and rampant inequality due to race and income. “None of these challenges will be solved by spending more on the Pentagon,” he said.
Since the coronavirus pandemic started, lawmakers have given the Pentagon more than $10 billion as part of the CARES Act, which the department has only just begun to spend. According to spending plans provided to Congress, the Pentagon intends to use the bulk of its emergency funding on programs with only the thinnest connection to the virus, including hundreds of millions for hypersonic missiles, body armor, and shipbuilders. More coronavirus relief money will almost certainly be on its way. Ellen Lord, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, told lawmakers earlier this month that the department still needed “billions” to cover defense companies hurt by the virus, and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services panel, is reportedly planning to include a $1 billion pandemic preparation plan in his committee’s own markup of the NDAA, Defense News reported last week, which would boost production of medical equipment needed as part of the response to the pandemic.
But during such a unique period of crisis, Congress still seems unable to reckon with changing landscape of defense priorities. The F-35 fighter jet program, easily the most expensive and troubled weapons program in history, received another endorsement from legislators when Inhofe’s panel authorized the Pentagon to produce 14 more jets than the department requested. Lockheed Martin, the program’s key contractor, has already halted production of the jets and expects delivery to slow in future months. “One thing our experience with COVID-19 has shown us is that nothing will get in the way of business as usual in the military industrial congressional complex,” Dan Grazier, who has discovered systemic flaws in the F-35 program as a fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, told me. “Authorizing more weapons beyond the Pentagon’s request is what members of Congress do. They want to make sure tax dollars flow into their districts so they can show they did their part to shore up the industrial base and please their constituents.” Not even a pandemic can stop that.


motherjones--2020-06-18--The Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Attempt to End DACA—for Now

In a major and unexpected win for immigrants , the Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration ’ s attempt to end protections from deportation for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children .
In a complex 5-4 decision , Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Department of Homeland Security ’ s September 2017 move to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was made in an “ arbitrary and capricious ” manner .
The decision does not permanently block DHS from ending protections for the undocumented immigrants often called as Dreamers .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for further consideration—it ’ s unclear if Trump will try again to end the program and , if so , how quickly that could happen .
President Barack Obama launched the DACA program in 2012 .
It allowed those who at the time were between the ages of 16 and 31 , who were brought to the country as children , and who didn ’ t otherwise have immigration status , to apply for renewable two-year work permits that protected them from deportation .
The immigrants also had to meet a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are approximately 700,000 DACA recipients in the country .
Roughly 200,000 of them have been working essential jobs amidst the pandemic .
DACA had bipartisan support in Congress , but Trump threatened to end it on the campaign trail in 2016 , calling it an overreach by Obama .
In September 2017 , the Trump administration announced it would kill the program , leaving many DACA recipients scared and confused by their uncertain future .
They were particularly vulnerable to deportation because , thanks to the program , the government already had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afraid for their undocumented family members , who were now also exposed .
Courts quickly ruled that the administration did not have the authority to end DACA so abruptly and without adequate explanation , and the government was compelled to renew the program for those who had already been granted temporary protected status .
Since then , lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration , saying its effort to end the program was “ arbitrary and capricious.
” In November , the issue finally reached the Supreme Court .
Immigrations rights advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the future of the program still unclear , they also called on Congress to pass legislation to prevent Trump from deporting DACA recipients .
“ Today , we celebrate but know that the fight is not over , ” said Andrea Flores of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement .
“ For nearly three years , DACA recipients have lived in a legal limbo brought on by the Trump administration .
The House of Representatives has already passed H.R .
6 , the American Dream and Promise Act , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the same to permanently protect Dreamers .
We won ’ t rest until Dreamers can.
” In the next seven months , the Trump administration could , “ if it chose , try to end the DACA program , again , and throw the lives of more than 700,000 Dreamers into limbo , ” Flores added .
After the news broke Thursday , I spoke with Juan Escalante , a DACA recipient and immigrant rights activist .
He sighed deeply before celebrating this “ decisive moment.
” The ruling “ reaffirms what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : that Dreamers and DACA have had the backing of the America public throughout this journey.
” “ I ’ m still conflicted , trying to process this moment ” he told me , adding that he had been filled with anxiety and fear over how the court would rule after years of dealing with “ the most xenophobic and anti-immigrant administration.
” Now , he said , the Trump administration must recognize that it lost , and “ back off from any further attack on our community.
” “ We will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games they try to pull ahead of the election , ” Escalante said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In a major and unexpected win for immigrants, the Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end protections from deportation for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children.
In a complex 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Department of Homeland Security’s September 2017 move to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was made in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. The decision does not permanently block DHS from ending protections for the undocumented immigrants often called as Dreamers. Instead, Roberts sent the matter back to DHS for further consideration—it’s unclear if Trump will try again to end the program and, if so, how quickly that could happen.
One very important caveat to today's good news. No court has ever said that Trump *can't* end DACA. He definitely can. It's just that he ended it the wrong way. So, as always, the Trump administration can go back and do it "right." But politically, will they? https://t.co/wY6fJaVZWO — Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) June 18, 2020
President Barack Obama launched the DACA program in 2012. It allowed those who at the time were between the ages of 16 and 31, who were brought to the country as children, and who didn’t otherwise have immigration status, to apply for renewable two-year work permits that protected them from deportation. The immigrants also had to meet a series of requirements and have no criminal record. There are approximately 700,000 DACA recipients in the country. Roughly 200,000 of them have been working essential jobs amidst the pandemic.
DACA had bipartisan support in Congress, but Trump threatened to end it on the campaign trail in 2016, calling it an overreach by Obama. In September 2017, the Trump administration announced it would kill the program, leaving many DACA recipients scared and confused by their uncertain future. They were particularly vulnerable to deportation because, thanks to the program, the government already had all of their information. Many were afraid for their undocumented family members, who were now also exposed.
Courts quickly ruled that the administration did not have the authority to end DACA so abruptly and without adequate explanation, and the government was compelled to renew the program for those who had already been granted temporary protected status. Since then, lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration, saying its effort to end the program was “arbitrary and capricious.” In November, the issue finally reached the Supreme Court.
Immigrations rights advocates applauded Thursday’s ruling. But with the future of the program still unclear, they also called on Congress to pass legislation to prevent Trump from deporting DACA recipients.
“Today, we celebrate but know that the fight is not over,” said Andrea Flores of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement. “For nearly three years, DACA recipients have lived in a legal limbo brought on by the Trump administration. The House of Representatives has already passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, and it is incumbent upon the Senate to do the same to permanently protect Dreamers. We won’t rest until Dreamers can.”
In the next seven months, the Trump administration could, “if it chose, try to end the DACA program, again, and throw the lives of more than 700,000 Dreamers into limbo,” Flores added.
After the news broke Thursday, I spoke with Juan Escalante, a DACA recipient and immigrant rights activist. He sighed deeply before celebrating this “decisive moment.” The ruling “reaffirms what we have always known to be true: that Dreamers and DACA have had the backing of the America public throughout this journey.”
“I’m still conflicted, trying to process this moment” he told me, adding that he had been filled with anxiety and fear over how the court would rule after years of dealing with “the most xenophobic and anti-immigrant administration.”
Now, he said, the Trump administration must recognize that it lost, and “back off from any further attack on our community.”
“We will not be bargaining chips used for any political games they try to pull ahead of the election,” Escalante said.
Noah Lanard contributed to this story.