motherjones--2020-02-13--VA Secretary Looked for Dirt on a House Staffer Who Reported Sexual Assault, Complaint Says

This story was originally published by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie personally sought damaging information about a congressional aide who said she was sexually assaulted in a VA hospital , according to an anonymous complaint to the House committee the woman works for .
The written complaint was obtained by ProPublica .
In addition , a former senior official with direct knowledge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he collected about the aide and suggested using it to discredit her .
Another person said he spoke with other officials who were in those discussions , and they corroborated the former senior official ’ s and the written complaint ’ s account .
The people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity , saying they feared retaliation .
Wilkie denied inquiring into the aide ’ s past .
“ I never would do that to a fellow officer , ” he said in a statement .
“ It is a breach of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a Navy reserve intelligence officer and a senior policy adviser for the House Veterans ’ Affairs Committee ’ s Women Veterans Task Force .
In September , she said she was sexually assaulted at the VA medical center in Washington .
According to Goldstein ’ s account reported in The New York Times , she was buying a snack in the cafeteria when a man slammed his body into hers , pressed against her and told her , “ You look like you could use a good time.
” Goldstein said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , but he was not an employee .
As required by VA regulations , Goldstein ’ s allegation was turned over to the department ’ s inspector general to conduct an independent criminal investigation , working with federal prosecutors .
But the complaint alleges that while the inspector general and prosecutors investigated Goldstein ’ s allegation , Wilkie initiated what the complaint described as “ his own investigation into Ms. Goldstein ’ s credibility and military record.
” The House committee said it is considering how to respond to the complaint , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee has oversight jurisdiction over the VA and often fields complaints from employees and patients , it is in an unusual position since this complaint relates to one of its staff members .
“ We have been contacted about possible actions taken within VA which may have utilized government time and resources to attempt to tarnish a member of our staff ’ s character , discredit her and spread false information about her past in retaliation for her reporting of a sexual assault at VA , ” Geurink said .
“ This ordeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goldstein.
” According to the complaint and the former senior official , Wilkie repeatedly shared the information he had gathered about Goldstein with his senior staff , including officials responsible for public relations , between October 2019 and January 2020 .
One of the officials present , Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs James E. Hutton , did not respond to requests for comment .
“ Wilkie ’ s energies are directed toward attacking her character , ” the complaint said .
Wilkie did not specify the source of his information but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to undermine Goldstein ’ s account of the assault in the Washington VA , the complaint and the former senior official said .
While Wilkie did not direct anyone to do anything with the information , he wondered aloud about how it might become public , according to the complaint and the former senior official .
Wilkie , through a spokeswoman , denied saying that .
Wilkie also met in his office with Rep. Dan Crenshaw , R-Texas , who is a former Navy commando .
After the meeting , Wilkie told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations that Wilkie made about Goldstein ’ s credibility , according to the complaint , the former senior official and the other person with knowledge of the meeting .
Wilkie denied discussing Goldstein with Crenshaw .
Crenshaw , in a brief interview in the Capitol , confirmed that he met with Wilkie .
“ I had breakfast with him once , ” Crenshaw said .
“ I know where this rumor ’ s coming from .
So you have a bunch of Democrat staffers who are leading you guys down a really stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about the case , never been told about the case.
” Wilkie and his staff have not publicized the information he collected about Goldstein ’ s past .
But after the inspector general concluded its investigation and federal prosecutors declined to bring charges , Wilkie sent a Jan. 15 letter to Congress calling Goldstein ’ s complaint “ unsubstantiated ” and saying it “ could deter our veterans from seeking the care they need and deserve.
” Wilkie ’ s letter prompted an objection from the VA ’ s inspector general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s allegations “ unsubstantiated ” was “ not an accurate description of the results of our investigation.
” The Times reported that the criminal probe was hindered because video cameras that might have captured the incident at the hospital weren ’ t working .
“ Neither I nor my staff told you or anyone else that the allegations were unsubstantiated , ” Missal wrote to Wilkie .
“ Reaching a decision to close the investigation with no criminal charges does not mean the underlying allegation is unsubstantiated.
” Goldstein , in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , criticized Wilkie , saying that his letter to Congress was retaliation for her reporting the assault and that she had also faced retaliation from a military commander when she reported sexual harassment while on active duty .
She said she receives treatment at the VA for conditions related to sexual trauma during her military service .
“ He used coded language , but the words still stung , ” Goldstein wrote .
“ The Secretary of the second largest federal agency knew how his words would resonate .
He was implying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was implying that I was a liar.
” Asked about the subject at a post-State of the Union press conference on Wednesday , Wilkie said he was “ not satisfied with the resolution of the Goldstein case ” and wants to reexamine it .
“ I met with the [ inspector general ] yesterday , ” he said .
“ We ’ re going to make a renewed push to get answers.
” But the inspector general ’ s office later said the investigation remains closed .
“ We are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this time , ” a spokesman said .
A spokeswoman for Wilkie later clarified that he wasn ’ t asking to reopen the investigation but wants to receive more details of the inspector general ’ s findings .
“ At a minimum , the IG should let VA and committee leaders know if its investigation found any wrongdoing so the department can take action to protect and safeguard our patients , ” VA press secretary Christina Mandreucci said .
“ We need this help to make sure our facilities are safe .
@

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was originally published by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie personally sought damaging information about a congressional aide who said she was sexually assaulted in a VA hospital, according to an anonymous complaint to the House committee the woman works for.
The written complaint was obtained by ProPublica. In addition, a former senior official with direct knowledge of the matter said Wilkie discussed damaging information he collected about the aide and suggested using it to discredit her. Another person said he spoke with other officials who were in those discussions, and they corroborated the former senior official’s and the written complaint’s account. The people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying they feared retaliation.
Wilkie denied inquiring into the aide’s past. “I never would do that to a fellow officer,” he said in a statement. “It is a breach of honor.”
The aide, Andrea Goldstein, is a Navy reserve intelligence officer and a senior policy adviser for the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s Women Veterans Task Force. In September, she said she was sexually assaulted at the VA medical center in Washington. According to Goldstein’s account reported in The New York Times, she was buying a snack in the cafeteria when a man slammed his body into hers, pressed against her and told her, “You look like you could use a good time.” Goldstein said she did not know who the man was, but he was not an employee.
As required by VA regulations, Goldstein’s allegation was turned over to the department’s inspector general to conduct an independent criminal investigation, working with federal prosecutors.
But the complaint alleges that while the inspector general and prosecutors investigated Goldstein’s allegation, Wilkie initiated what the complaint described as “his own investigation into Ms. Goldstein’s credibility and military record.”
The House committee said it is considering how to respond to the complaint, spokeswoman Jenni Geurink said. While the committee has oversight jurisdiction over the VA and often fields complaints from employees and patients, it is in an unusual position since this complaint relates to one of its staff members.
“We have been contacted about possible actions taken within VA which may have utilized government time and resources to attempt to tarnish a member of our staff’s character, discredit her and spread false information about her past in retaliation for her reporting of a sexual assault at VA,” Geurink said. “This ordeal has been draining and unfair to Ms. Goldstein.”
According to the complaint and the former senior official, Wilkie repeatedly shared the information he had gathered about Goldstein with his senior staff, including officials responsible for public relations, between October 2019 and January 2020. One of the officials present, Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs James E. Hutton, did not respond to requests for comment.
“Wilkie’s energies are directed toward attacking her character,” the complaint said.
Wilkie did not specify the source of his information but said he wished his findings could be used to undermine Goldstein’s account of the assault in the Washington VA, the complaint and the former senior official said. While Wilkie did not direct anyone to do anything with the information, he wondered aloud about how it might become public, according to the complaint and the former senior official.
Wilkie, through a spokeswoman, denied saying that.
Wilkie also met in his office with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who is a former Navy commando. After the meeting, Wilkie told his staff that Crenshaw agreed with the allegations that Wilkie made about Goldstein’s credibility, according to the complaint, the former senior official and the other person with knowledge of the meeting.
Wilkie denied discussing Goldstein with Crenshaw. Crenshaw, in a brief interview in the Capitol, confirmed that he met with Wilkie. “I had breakfast with him once,” Crenshaw said. “I know where this rumor’s coming from. So you have a bunch of Democrat staffers who are leading you guys down a really stupid path. I’ve never been asked about the case, never been told about the case.”
Wilkie and his staff have not publicized the information he collected about Goldstein’s past. But after the inspector general concluded its investigation and federal prosecutors declined to bring charges, Wilkie sent a Jan. 15 letter to Congress calling Goldstein’s complaint “unsubstantiated” and saying it “could deter our veterans from seeking the care they need and deserve.”
Wilkie’s letter prompted an objection from the VA’s inspector general, Michael Missal, who said calling Goldstein’s allegations “unsubstantiated” was “not an accurate description of the results of our investigation.” The Times reported that the criminal probe was hindered because video cameras that might have captured the incident at the hospital weren’t working.
“Neither I nor my staff told you or anyone else that the allegations were unsubstantiated,” Missal wrote to Wilkie. “Reaching a decision to close the investigation with no criminal charges does not mean the underlying allegation is unsubstantiated.”
Goldstein, in an op-ed published Monday on the website Jezebel, criticized Wilkie, saying that his letter to Congress was retaliation for her reporting the assault and that she had also faced retaliation from a military commander when she reported sexual harassment while on active duty. She said she receives treatment at the VA for conditions related to sexual trauma during her military service.
“He used coded language, but the words still stung,” Goldstein wrote. “The Secretary of the second largest federal agency knew how his words would resonate. He was implying that a fellow Navy veteran was a liar. He was implying that I was a liar.”
Asked about the subject at a post-State of the Union press conference on Wednesday, Wilkie said he was “not satisfied with the resolution of the Goldstein case” and wants to reexamine it.
“I met with the [inspector general] yesterday,” he said. “We’re going to make a renewed push to get answers.”
But the inspector general’s office later said the investigation remains closed. “We are not working with anyone to seek additional information at this time,” a spokesman said.
A spokeswoman for Wilkie later clarified that he wasn’t asking to reopen the investigation but wants to receive more details of the inspector general’s findings. “At a minimum, the IG should let VA and committee leaders know if its investigation found any wrongdoing so the department can take action to protect and safeguard our patients,” VA press secretary Christina Mandreucci said. “We need this help to make sure our facilities are safe.”


motherjones--2020-02-13--Trump Unleashed: The Trump Presidency Enters Its Most Dangerous Phase

Through the Trump Era , it ’ s been fashionable for some of his critics—especially on Twitter—to assail his actions as the coming of kleptocracy , autocracy , authoritarianism , and , yes , fascism to the United States .
Recently , in an airport , an elderly women stopped me to say that she survived the Holocaust in a camp and now fears she is experiencing what her mother went through eighty-five years ago as the catastrophe approached in Germany .
I tried to persuade her that as bad as things are now , there remains institutions , organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not accept what is happening to the nation ’ s democratic institutions and who can oppose a complete power-grab from Trump and his cult ( a.k.a .
the Republican Party ) .
I still believe that .
But Trump ’ s hostile take-over of the Justice Department this week is yet another sign that the task of countering Trump ’ s extremism is becoming both harder and more crucial .
By now , you know the basics : After the Justice Department requested a seven-to-nine years sentence for Roger Stone , a longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Congress and witness-tampering ( to protect Trump in the Russia scandal ) , Trump tweet-whined that this sentence would be too harsh , and the DoJ dutifully rescinded it .
Four federal prosecutors , apparently in protest , withdrew from the Stone case , with one quitting the department .
Then Trump attacked the federal judge handling the case .
Still on the rampage the next day , Trump—again in a tweet—threatened to withhold assistance for New York State if it did not smother investigations related to Trump .
On Thursday afternoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuke Trump by saying he would not “ be bullied or influenced by anybody , ” including the president .
But Barr has already done so much of Trump ’ s bidding—undermining the Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report , opening investigations that appeared designed to unearth information that support Trump ’ s favorite conspiracy theories—his declaration of independence was too late , if not ludicrous .
With the impeachment behind him , Trump has been acting like Michael Corleone on steroids , intent on settling all the “ family business.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland .
Next he moved onto the Justice Department and the judiciary .
At the same time , Barr set up a special “ intake ” channel at the department for Trump ’ s henchman Rudy Giuliani to feed rumors , dirt , and supposed leads about Trump ’ s rivals .
All this is crooked and horrific .
Trump is rigging the justice system , trashing norms that have been in place for decades , and attacking the notion that the rule of law is essential for democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing the Russia investigation being run by the FBI , Trump exclaimed , “ Where is my Roy Cohn ?
” He was referring to the thuggish mob lawyer who had been red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy ’ s chief hatchet-man years before becoming a mentor and consigliere for the young Trump .
Though Trump placed Barr , his own lapdog , in charge of the Justice Department last year , Trump has become his own Roy Cohn , consolidating power and seeking vengeance .
And extracting revenge has long been one of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I first explained before he was elected president .
But this crusade of revenge does more than just feed Trump ’ s dark soul .
It undermines the safeguards that are supposed to thwart despotic power .
During the impeachment trial , Trump ’ s celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz essentially argued that Trump , as president , can get away with any act of corruption that is not a clear violation of federal criminal law .
This view is far outside the mainstream of constitutional law , and under it , Trump could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have been indicted for attacking the 2016 election ( to help Trump ) , signal to them they should stage a repeat in 2020 , and still be invulnerable to impeachment .
With his unfounded contention , Dershowitz was establishing the theoretical foundation for Trumpism .
With these outrageous actions since impeachment , Trump has aimed to fully implement it .
The Justice Department , c ’ est moi .
The Trumpficiation of this crucial part of the executive branch is a literally an abomination of justice in all these individual instances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department and his long-running assault on the FBI ( which is part of it ) does more than effect the particular cases and matters he targets .
It intimidates the whole system .
Imagine an FBI agent , or a Justice Department prosecutor , or an investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission , or an IRS agent , or a Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives official , or you-get-the-picture , who comes across possible wrongdoing that involves Trump , a Trump family member , a Trump company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump donor , or a Trump political ally .
How much guts would it take for someone in this position that to investigate the matter ?
How much courage would it take for that person ’ s supervisors to approve such an investigation ?
The investigators and the entire agency could face the wrath of a rage-filled president .
He could start tweeting about the officers and officials involved .
Maybe use their names .
Put them in the spotlight .
And Fox News , other rightwing media outlets , and an army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up dirt on these government officials , looking not only to discredit them but to destroy them .
Who needs that shit ?
Who can survive it ?
Anyone in this position only need to think for a moment about FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page—or to consider the prosecutors in the Stone case .
You devote time and energy to doing a tough job , and you end up at best overruled and at the worst pilloried on national television and placed in the line of fire .
Your career could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be shredded .
You could receive death threats .
Just for doing your job .
As it happened , while I was in line to buy a sandwich for lunch today , two Treasury Department employees said hello to me .
One was involved in an office that works with investigations .
When I noted my concern that these extreme Trump moves could paralyze people in various federal agencies , one of them said , “ Man , that ’ s the whole damn point .
You think we all don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower who first raised questions about Trump ’ s attempt to pressure the Ukrainian president to initiate political investigations that benefit Trump .
The president and his devotees in Congress and the media mounted a blitzkrieg against this CIA analyst who had followed appropriate procedure and privately reported his concerns to the intelligence community ’ s inspector general .
The whistleblower was crucified by GOPers at the House impeachment hearings .
During the impeachment trial , Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) , looking to suck up to Trump , displayed a poster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump has repeatedly tweeted about the whistleblower .
And the whistleblower and his lawyers have received death threats .
The message to other would-be whistleblowers who might reveal improbity or corruption within the Trump administration : If you say anything , your life could become hell .
Hell , your life could be in peril .
This is the real danger .
Trump is not merely interfering in a few incidents that directly interest him .
He is creating an environment in which he and his cronies and associates are above and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has turned the Justice Department into a subsidiary of his political operation .
Not only does this protect Trump , it makes it harder for the department to perform other necessary functions .
Barr has placed a welcome sign on his department ’ s door for foreign governments and intelligence services to intervene in US politics by shoving disinformation into the investigative system of the United States .
It ’ s simple : Slip Giuliani a phony document or a compromised source ; he hands that bad information to the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time and resources chasing the false lead .
And here ’ s the bonus : Someone at the department could leak to the media that it is examining a report that a Democratic candidate once took illegal funds from a Chinese source—whether or not that report has any legitimacy—and , presto , Fox News has an exclusive .
Russia , if you ’ re listening… .
These are difficult times .
Disinformation is a threat to the fabric of American democracy .
Trust in government is low .
One party has traded checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For some , the right to vote is under siege .
Trump and his enablers have wrought a slow-burn crisis of democracy .
They have perverted the basic foundation taught in every high school civics course : this is a government of laws , not of men and women .
( Are there still civics courses ? )
For Trump , this is a government of Trump , for Trump , and by Trump .
And his GOP handmaids and tens of millions of Americans are just fine with it .
Roger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades has proudly engaged in dirty tricks and slime-ball actions to win elections .
He is facing prison time for lying to cover up Trump misconduct in the Russia scandal .
( Information produced during Stone ’ s trial suggested that Trump lied to Mueller , which could be a crime . )
But Stone is small potatoes compared to Trump ’ s overall aim : The president seeks the total sublimation of the Justice Department and the whole US government to his will .
If he pulls this off , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I met , and anyone else who cares about preserving the rule of law and democratic values , to worry .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Through the Trump Era, it’s been fashionable for some of his critics—especially on Twitter—to assail his actions as the coming of kleptocracy, autocracy, authoritarianism, and, yes, fascism to the United States. Recently, in an airport, an elderly women stopped me to say that she survived the Holocaust in a camp and now fears she is experiencing what her mother went through eighty-five years ago as the catastrophe approached in Germany. I tried to persuade her that as bad as things are now, there remains institutions, organizations, and millions of people who will not accept what is happening to the nation’s democratic institutions and who can oppose a complete power-grab from Trump and his cult (a.k.a. the Republican Party).
I still believe that. But Trump’s hostile take-over of the Justice Department this week is yet another sign that the task of countering Trump’s extremism is becoming both harder and more crucial.
By now, you know the basics: After the Justice Department requested a seven-to-nine years sentence for Roger Stone, a longtime Trump intimate who was convicted of lying to Congress and witness-tampering (to protect Trump in the Russia scandal), Trump tweet-whined that this sentence would be too harsh, and the DoJ dutifully rescinded it. Four federal prosecutors, apparently in protest, withdrew from the Stone case, with one quitting the department. Then Trump attacked the federal judge handling the case. Still on the rampage the next day, Trump—again in a tweet—threatened to withhold assistance for New York State if it did not smother investigations related to Trump.
On Thursday afternoon, Attorney General Bill Barr seemed to rebuke Trump by saying he would not “be bullied or influenced by anybody,” including the president. But Barr has already done so much of Trump’s bidding—undermining the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, opening investigations that appeared designed to unearth information that support Trump’s favorite conspiracy theories—his declaration of independence was too late, if not ludicrous.
With the impeachment behind him, Trump has been acting like Michael Corleone on steroids, intent on settling all the “family business.”
With the impeachment behind him, Trump has been acting like Michael Corleone on steroids, intent on settling all the “family business.” He sacked impeachment witnesses Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland. Next he moved onto the Justice Department and the judiciary. At the same time, Barr set up a special “intake” channel at the department for Trump’s henchman Rudy Giuliani to feed rumors, dirt, and supposed leads about Trump’s rivals.
All this is crooked and horrific. Trump is rigging the justice system, trashing norms that have been in place for decades, and attacking the notion that the rule of law is essential for democratic governance. Early in his presidency, facing the Russia investigation being run by the FBI, Trump exclaimed, “Where is my Roy Cohn?” He was referring to the thuggish mob lawyer who had been red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy’s chief hatchet-man years before becoming a mentor and consigliere for the young Trump. Though Trump placed Barr, his own lapdog, in charge of the Justice Department last year, Trump has become his own Roy Cohn, consolidating power and seeking vengeance. And extracting revenge has long been one of Trump’s primary psychological motivations, as I first explained before he was elected president.
But this crusade of revenge does more than just feed Trump’s dark soul. It undermines the safeguards that are supposed to thwart despotic power. During the impeachment trial, Trump’s celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz essentially argued that Trump, as president, can get away with any act of corruption that is not a clear violation of federal criminal law. This view is far outside the mainstream of constitutional law, and under it, Trump could, say, pardon the Russian hackers who have been indicted for attacking the 2016 election (to help Trump), signal to them they should stage a repeat in 2020, and still be invulnerable to impeachment. With his unfounded contention, Dershowitz was establishing the theoretical foundation for Trumpism. With these outrageous actions since impeachment, Trump has aimed to fully implement it. The Justice Department, c’est moi.
The Trumpficiation of this crucial part of the executive branch is a literally an abomination of justice in all these individual instances. But Trump’s war on the department and his long-running assault on the FBI (which is part of it) does more than effect the particular cases and matters he targets. It intimidates the whole system.
Imagine an FBI agent, or a Justice Department prosecutor, or an investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission, or an IRS agent, or a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives official, or you-get-the-picture, who comes across possible wrongdoing that involves Trump, a Trump family member, a Trump company, a Trump business associate, a Trump donor, or a Trump political ally. How much guts would it take for someone in this position that to investigate the matter? How much courage would it take for that person’s supervisors to approve such an investigation? The investigators and the entire agency could face the wrath of a rage-filled president. He could start tweeting about the officers and officials involved. Maybe use their names. Put them in the spotlight. And Fox News, other rightwing media outlets, and an army of trolls would follow suit, digging up dirt on these government officials, looking not only to discredit them but to destroy them.
Who needs that shit? Who can survive it? Anyone in this position only need to think for a moment about FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page—or to consider the prosecutors in the Stone case. You devote time and energy to doing a tough job, and you end up at best overruled and at the worst pilloried on national television and placed in the line of fire. Your career could be at risk. Your reputation could be shredded. You could receive death threats. Just for doing your job.
As it happened, while I was in line to buy a sandwich for lunch today, two Treasury Department employees said hello to me. One was involved in an office that works with investigations. When I noted my concern that these extreme Trump moves could paralyze people in various federal agencies, one of them said, “Man, that’s the whole damn point. You think we all don’t get it?”
“Man, that’s the whole damn point. You think we all don’t get it?”
Look at the whistleblower who first raised questions about Trump’s attempt to pressure the Ukrainian president to initiate political investigations that benefit Trump. The president and his devotees in Congress and the media mounted a blitzkrieg against this CIA analyst who had followed appropriate procedure and privately reported his concerns to the intelligence community’s inspector general. The whistleblower was crucified by GOPers at the House impeachment hearings. During the impeachment trial, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), looking to suck up to Trump, displayed a poster with the supposed name of the whistleblower. Trump has repeatedly tweeted about the whistleblower. And the whistleblower and his lawyers have received death threats.
The message to other would-be whistleblowers who might reveal improbity or corruption within the Trump administration: If you say anything, your life could become hell. Hell, your life could be in peril.
This is the real danger. Trump is not merely interfering in a few incidents that directly interest him. He is creating an environment in which he and his cronies and associates are above and beyond the reach of the law. He has turned the Justice Department into a subsidiary of his political operation. Not only does this protect Trump, it makes it harder for the department to perform other necessary functions.
Barr has placed a welcome sign on his department’s door for foreign governments and intelligence services to intervene in US politics by shoving disinformation into the investigative system of the United States. It’s simple: Slip Giuliani a phony document or a compromised source; he hands that bad information to the Justice Department; and US officials have to spend time and resources chasing the false lead. And here’s the bonus: Someone at the department could leak to the media that it is examining a report that a Democratic candidate once took illegal funds from a Chinese source—whether or not that report has any legitimacy—and, presto, Fox News has an exclusive. Russia, if you’re listening….
These are difficult times. Disinformation is a threat to the fabric of American democracy. Trust in government is low. One party has traded checks and balances for tax cuts and judges. For some, the right to vote is under siege. Trump and his enablers have wrought a slow-burn crisis of democracy. They have perverted the basic foundation taught in every high school civics course: this is a government of laws, not of men and women. (Are there still civics courses?) For Trump, this is a government of Trump, for Trump, and by Trump. And his GOP handmaids and tens of millions of Americans are just fine with it.
Roger Stone is a political sleazebag who for decades has proudly engaged in dirty tricks and slime-ball actions to win elections. He is facing prison time for lying to cover up Trump misconduct in the Russia scandal. (Information produced during Stone’s trial suggested that Trump lied to Mueller, which could be a crime.) But Stone is small potatoes compared to Trump’s overall aim: The president seeks the total sublimation of the Justice Department and the whole US government to his will. If he pulls this off, it will be one more reason for that survivor I met, and anyone else who cares about preserving the rule of law and democratic values, to worry.


motherjones--2020-02-13--4Chan Trolls Target Scandinavian Airlines With Racist Harassment Campaign

Much of the online harassment directed at a major European airline in recent days appears to have come from users of a controversial 4chan message board , according to a review by Mother Jones .
Earlier this week , the Sweden-based Scandinavian Airlines released a commercial as part of its “ What is truly Scandinavian ?
” marketing campaign .
According to the airline , also referred to as SAS , “ absolutely nothing ” is “ truly Scandinavian.
” The ad explains : “ Our democracy ?
Credit goes to Greece .
Parental leave ?
Thank you , Switzerland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invented in Persia…What about licorice ?
It ’ s Chinese.
” The point , the ad explains , is that “ in a way , Scandinavia was brought here , piece-by-piece , ” by people who traveled abroad .
“ We can ’ t wait to see what wonderful things you ’ ll bring home next , ” it concludes .
The response has been ferocious .
The airline ’ s social media channels have been bombarded with thousands of angry comments from people who disagree with the ad ’ s message .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it believed the outcry was the result of a “ coordinated attack on the campaign.
” SAS ’ suspicions appear to be correct .
While the backlash likely has multiple points of origin , the ad campaign has particularly incensed 4chan ’ s Pol message board , the politics-focused portion of the website that ’ s a known hub for fringe alt-righters and white nationalists .
The commercial directly contradicts bigoted notions of white , European , and Nordic supremacy , which are core beliefs of the internet far-right .
In response , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting the airline and the ad agency that made the video .
As is often the case on the Pol board , the rage is unequivocally racist .
While 4chan is small compared to some other social media platforms , the site still brings in 27 million monthly users , according to its own metrics .
And compared to other 4chan eruptions , the scope of the anti-SAS campaign is massive .
Pol users have created more than a dozen independent threads to gripe about the ad , and many are highly active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Mother Jones posted links to the YouTube video of the ad and encouraged others to “ be sure to let them know how you feel in the comments ” and to “ hit that dislike button.
” SAS disabled comments at some point after posting the video .
However , the “ like ” and “ dislike ” buttons are still available , with dislikes massively outpacing likes , 62,000 to 4,500 .
Pol users also suggested that trolls direct their rage at other , related targets .
“ Community comment section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to a post about the commercial being temporarily removed from YouTube .
“ F–gots turned comments off , ” another poster wrote .
“ Pretty soon they ’ ll turn the like/dislike off too .
But luckily , this ad is mirrored elsewhere where comments AREN ’ T turned off.
” One 4chan poster directed users to “ clog ” SAS ’ s online customer service portal with comments .
“ We should troll the ad agency , ” another 4channer suggested , linking to the website of & Co. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others did troll the agency .
According to 4chan posters , & Co. pulled the reviews section off of its YouTube page .
4channers even posted a list of the agency ’ s staff .
Mother Jones found roughly a dozen instances in which the list was posted on anti-SAS threads .
“ I ’ m glad my kidney failure is going to kill me soon .
I feel bad for the people that are going to live long lives and have to deal with this shit , ” one 4channer wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you are going to die , why not immortalize your name ?
Lol.
” Another asked , “ Any Scandi up for a minecraft exploration ?
” —fringe-internet slang that ’ s a “ way to talk about real-world threats without saying that you ’ re going to commit a crime , ” according to Ben Decker , an internet researcher who runs the media and tech investigations consultancy Memetica .
A few 4chan users appeared to explicitly call for violence .
“ i ’ d recommend all nordics to just pull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote , referencing the far-right Norweigan terrorist Anders Breivik , who murdered 77 people in the country in 2011 .
“ They deserve the Megumin Ryder truck , ” another wrote , likely referencing a 2018 Toronto attack in which a man drove a truck into pedestrians , killing 10 .
The driver claimed that his attack was inspired by incel culture , a toxic and often misogynistic internet community of “ involuntary celibate ” men .
The ad agency declined to comment , and SAS has not yet responded to a request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reminiscent of 2014 ’ s Gamergate , a coordinated harassment campaign that started on 4chan and other platforms .
In that case , online trolls targeted women in the video game industry in a backlash against efforts to make games , and the industry as a whole , more inclusive toward minorities and women .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Much of the online harassment directed at a major European airline in recent days appears to have come from users of a controversial 4chan message board, according to a review by Mother Jones.
Earlier this week, the Sweden-based Scandinavian Airlines released a commercial as part of its “What is truly Scandinavian?” marketing campaign. According to the airline, also referred to as SAS, “absolutely nothing” is “truly Scandinavian.” The ad explains: “Our democracy? Credit goes to Greece. Parental leave? Thank you, Switzerland. The iconic Scandinavian windmills were actually invented in Persia…What about licorice? It’s Chinese.” The point, the ad explains, is that “in a way, Scandinavia was brought here, piece-by-piece,” by people who traveled abroad. “We can’t wait to see what wonderful things you’ll bring home next,” it concludes.
The response has been ferocious. The airline’s social media channels have been bombarded with thousands of angry comments from people who disagree with the ad’s message. SAS told the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet that it believed the outcry was the result of a “coordinated attack on the campaign.”
SAS’ suspicions appear to be correct. While the backlash likely has multiple points of origin, the ad campaign has particularly incensed 4chan’s Pol message board, the politics-focused portion of the website that’s a known hub for fringe alt-righters and white nationalists. The commercial directly contradicts bigoted notions of white, European, and Nordic supremacy, which are core beliefs of the internet far-right. In response, Pol users have launched a coordinated campaign targeting the airline and the ad agency that made the video.
As is often the case on the Pol board, the rage is unequivocally racist. While 4chan is small compared to some other social media platforms, the site still brings in 27 million monthly users, according to its own metrics. And compared to other 4chan eruptions, the scope of the anti-SAS campaign is massive. Pol users have created more than a dozen independent threads to gripe about the ad, and many are highly active.
Users in almost every thread viewed by Mother Jones posted links to the YouTube video of the ad and encouraged others to “be sure to let them know how you feel in the comments” and to “hit that dislike button.” SAS disabled comments at some point after posting the video. However, the “like” and “dislike” buttons are still available, with dislikes massively outpacing likes, 62,000 to 4,500. Pol users also suggested that trolls direct their rage at other, related targets. “Community comment section still open,” one user wrote in response to a post about the commercial being temporarily removed from YouTube.
“F–gots turned comments off,” another poster wrote. “Pretty soon they’ll turn the like/dislike off too. But luckily, this ad is mirrored elsewhere where comments AREN’T turned off.”
One 4chan poster directed users to “clog” SAS’s online customer service portal with comments.
“We should troll the ad agency,” another 4channer suggested, linking to the website of &Co., the Copenhagen-based firm that SAS worked with.
Others did troll the agency. According to 4chan posters, &Co. pulled the reviews section off of its YouTube page. 4channers even posted a list of the agency’s staff. Mother Jones found roughly a dozen instances in which the list was posted on anti-SAS threads.
“I’m glad my kidney failure is going to kill me soon. I feel bad for the people that are going to live long lives and have to deal with this shit,” one 4channer wrote, to which another responded, “If you are going to die, why not immortalize your name? Lol.”
Another asked, “Any Scandi up for a minecraft exploration?”—fringe-internet slang that’s a “way to talk about real-world threats without saying that you’re going to commit a crime,” according to Ben Decker, an internet researcher who runs the media and tech investigations consultancy Memetica.
A few 4chan users appeared to explicitly call for violence.
“i’d recommend all nordics to just pull a fucking brevic,” one poster wrote, referencing the far-right Norweigan terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in the country in 2011.
“They deserve the Megumin Ryder truck,” another wrote, likely referencing a 2018 Toronto attack in which a man drove a truck into pedestrians, killing 10. The driver claimed that his attack was inspired by incel culture, a toxic and often misogynistic internet community of “involuntary celibate” men.
The ad agency declined to comment, and SAS has not yet responded to a request for comment.
The outrage at SAS is reminiscent of 2014’s Gamergate, a coordinated harassment campaign that started on 4chan and other platforms. In that case, online trolls targeted women in the video game industry in a backlash against efforts to make games, and the industry as a whole, more inclusive toward minorities and women.


motherjones--2020-02-13--John Kelly Finally Speaks Out Against Trump

Presidential tweet update , 11:10 am EST : As predicted , Trump is not pleased .
The president responded on Twitter by declaring that he couldn ’ t have fired Kelly “ fast enough.
” But that ’ s questionable , at best .
Kelly served as White House chief of staff for nearly 18 months , making him Trump ’ s longest-serving chief of staff to date .
It took more than a year after his removal as the White House chief of staff , but John Kelly appears to have finally found some courage to speak out against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drew University in New Jersey on Wednesday night , the Atlantic reports that the former Marine Corps general condemned Trump ’ s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the country into opening investigations into Joe Biden .
Kelly also praised Lt .
Colonel Alexander Vindman , the former National Security Council official Trump effectively admitted to firing last week because Vindman had testified in the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
From the Atlantic ‘ s Peter Nicholas : “ [ Vindman ] did exactly what we teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center .
“ He went and told his boss what he just heard.
” Although Trump has long insisted that his call to Zelensky was “ perfect , ” Kelly made clear that Trump indeed conditioned military aid on Zelensky ’ s help digging up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
As for the Trump administration ’ s immigration policy , which as the former Department of Homeland Security head Kelly had been in charge of enforcing , he once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that a border wall “ from sea to shining sea ” was unnecessary .
Immigrants are “ overwhelmingly good people , ” he continued .
“ They ’ re not all rapists and they ’ re not all murderers .
And it ’ s wrong to characterize them that way.
” This isn ’ t the first time Kelly has politely distanced himself from the administration ’ s hardline immigration stance .
But as my colleague Ari Berman noted when Kelly spoke to the Los Angeles Times shortly before his departure from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that effort appeared defensive , rather than some brave takedown of his former boss : Kelly ’ s remarks at the end of his tenure appear to be self-serving , blaming others for policies that he supported .
He aggressively defended the administration ’ s Muslim ban as homeland security secretary , saying “ The thinking was to get it out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that they could jump on an airplane and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of separating immigrant parents from their children , saying it would be “ a tough deterrent ” to migrants thinking of crossing the border .
So , make what you want of Kelly ’ s latest .
But one thing ’ s for sure , Trump isn ’ t going to like it .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Presidential tweet update, 11:10 am EST: As predicted, Trump is not pleased.
The president responded on Twitter by declaring that he couldn’t have fired Kelly “fast enough.” But that’s questionable, at best. Kelly served as White House chief of staff for nearly 18 months, making him Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff to date.
….which he actually has a military and legal obligation to do. His incredible wife, Karen, who I have a lot of respect for, once pulled me aside & said strongly that “John respects you greatly. When we are no longer here, he will only speak well of you.” Wrong! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2020
It took more than a year after his removal as the White House chief of staff, but John Kelly appears to have finally found some courage to speak out against Donald Trump.
In wide-ranging remarks at Drew University in New Jersey on Wednesday night, the Atlantic reports that the former Marine Corps general condemned Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the country into opening investigations into Joe Biden. Kelly also praised Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council official Trump effectively admitted to firing last week because Vindman had testified in the House’s impeachment inquiry. From the Atlantic‘s Peter Nicholas:
“[Vindman] did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.” Although Trump has long insisted that his call to Zelensky was “perfect,” Kelly made clear that Trump indeed conditioned military aid on Zelensky’s help digging up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
As for the Trump administration’s immigration policy, which as the former Department of Homeland Security head Kelly had been in charge of enforcing, he once again pushed back on the president, saying that a border wall “from sea to shining sea” was unnecessary. Immigrants are “overwhelmingly good people,” he continued. “They’re not all rapists and they’re not all murderers. And it’s wrong to characterize them that way.”
This isn’t the first time Kelly has politely distanced himself from the administration’s hardline immigration stance. But as my colleague Ari Berman noted when Kelly spoke to the Los Angeles Times shortly before his departure from the White House in 2018, much of that effort appeared defensive, rather than some brave takedown of his former boss:
Kelly’s remarks at the end of his tenure appear to be self-serving, blaming others for policies that he supported. He aggressively defended the administration’s Muslim ban as homeland security secretary, saying “The thinking was to get it out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that they could jump on an airplane and get here.” He also helped devise the policy of separating immigrant parents from their children, saying it would be “a tough deterrent” to migrants thinking of crossing the border.
So, make what you want of Kelly’s latest. But one thing’s for sure, Trump isn’t going to like it.


motherjones--2020-02-14--Trump Isn’t Waging a War on Poverty. He’s Waging a War on Poor People.

This week , President Donald Trump released a $ 4.8 trillion budget proposal that would further decimate the already weakened social safety net .
Trump ’ s plan would make steep cuts to food stamps , Medicaid , housing assistance , and other welfare programs that millions of Americans rely on .
But the budget is merely a wish list with no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled House .
More quietly , Trump has already rolled out a series of bureaucratic changes that have begun to take a tangible toll on the country ’ s must vulnerable populations and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
The once-robust social safety net has been steadily dismantled by Republican and Democratic administrations alike .
A series of actions , from Ronald Reagan ’ s fear-mongering about the government subsidizing luxurious lifestyles for welfare recipients to Bill Clinton ’ s welfare reform that imposed strict work requirement for benefit recipients , have made it tougher than ever to be poor in America .
Now Trump is making it even harder .
“ There ’ s been an emphasis on attacking the most vulnerable people in our nation , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress .
“ It ’ s just continuous attacks and the creation of additional barriers for people seeking assistance .
Here are the programs that have have taken the biggest hit as a result of this administration ’ s war on the poor , the sick , and the elderly .
Mr. Smith , a 45-year-old man living in Washington , DC , scrapes together what passes for a living selling a local newspaper as a street vendor , for which he earns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each month , he receives $ 194 from the the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , commonly known as SNAP or food stamps .
Free meals at various churches and nonprofits are essential to bolster the food supply he is able to purchase .
When he gets his benefits at the beginning of the month , he buys groceries in bulk , either foods he can store in his freezer or those with a long shelf life .
“ You have to budget , ” he says .
“ You have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three meals a day on $ 6 or $ 7.
” On April 1 , he will stop receiving his monthly infusion of funds .
That ’ s because of a new Trump administration rule that will cause approximately 700,000 people across the country to be kicked off the SNAP rolls .
SNAP , which is administered by the US Department of Agriculture , feeds more than 40 million Americans each year .
Food stamps are vital for low-income people and families and serve as an economic driver across the country , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As part of Clinton ’ s welfare reform , able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 50 with no dependents were limited to three months of assistance before they had to prove that they were working at least 20 hours a week .
At that point , their benefits would lapse , and they would have to meet certain requirements in order to become eligible again .
In the past , governors of states with high unemployment rates could request waivers from the rule , and many able-bodied recipients were able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration ’ s new rule will tighten the requirements for waivers , making it close to impossible for states to request them .
As a result , hundreds of thousands of people will lose SNAP eligibility and have to find new ways to make ends meet .
Without SNAP , Mr. Smith isn ’ t sure how he ’ ll eat .
And he knows the what hunger is like .
“ You ’ re in survival mode instead of productive mode , ” he says of his time without SNAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around like a bear foraging for food.
” But even given SNAP ’ s limitations , “ that three months of being able to eat is a life saver.
” The concept of supporting poor Americans with cash assistance was first established in 1935 as part of the New Deal , when the Great Depression sent 15 million Americans into poverty .
Over the subsequent decades , welfare became a top target of Republican mockery , culminating in President Ronald Reagan ’ s ridicule of so-called “ welfare queens ” living large on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s welfare reform overhauled the program in 1996 and imposed work requirements , what was once welfare became known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families .
Today , 22 of every 100 US families living in poverty receive cash assistance , down from 68 in 1996 .
“ It ends up being families who are really , really desperate and don ’ t have any other options , ” says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities .
For instance , a single woman with two children living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receives just $ 292 each month in cash assistance .
That doesn ’ t cover even a third of the state ’ s average rent for a two-bedroom home , which is $ 898 .
Even in states with more generous benefits—like New Hampshire , where that same family would get $ 1,066—it doesn ’ t cover rent for the average two-bedroom unit .
“ No one is getting wealthy on TANF , ” says CAP ’ s Cawthorne Gaines .
In most states , families that qualify for TANF are automatically eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to sever that relationship through a federal rule to close what it calls a “ loophole.
” In a press release justifying the proposed rule , offering their own version of Reagan ’ s “ welfare queen ” trope , the Trump administration claimed that people who don ’ t need welfare are still claiming it : The Trump administration brags that closing this “ loophole ” will save taxpayers money .
But now , instead of having a streamlined process of receiving TANF and SNAP , families living in poverty will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need to survive .
More than 10 million people in 5.2 million households use government assistance in order to afford housing .
Two-thirds of the recipients are seniors , children , or people with disabilities .
Most of them receive Housing Choice Vouchers , funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by local housing authorities .
But demand for these vouchers far exceeds supply .
Waitlists for vouchers in some cities are years ’ long .
Under a Clinton-era policy , families with mixed immigration statuses were able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as at least one member of the family was eligible .
Federal subsidies covered only the US citizens or authorized immigrants , but undocumented family members were not barred from living there .
The Trump administration proposed a new rule that it claims would shorten waitlists by requiring every member of a voucher-holding household to be a US citizen or legal permanent resident .
The rule could leave more than 50,000 children homeless—without actually shortening waitlists .
The administration ’ s own analysis found that the rule would affect 76,000 people—including 55,000 children—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public housing and result in some mixed-status families becoming homeless .
And as we reported last May , this is why it wouldn ’ t have the intended effect of shortening waiting lists : In his 2016 campaign , Donald Trump promised not to touch Medicaid , which provides health insurance to more than 64 million low-income Americans .
That hasn ’ t stopped his administration from launching an all-out assault on the program and its beneficiaries .
For many Americans , the program ’ s seemingly never ending forms , difficult documentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off their insurance for minor month-to-month changes in income , makes getting and keeping Medicaid even without the administration ’ s interference a nearly insurmountable hurdle .
Now the Trump administration is looking to make that process even more complicated .
In a warning shot fired in 2017 , the administration amended the rules related to section 1115 waivers that allowed states to apply to “ experiment ” with their Medicaid programs outside of the federal guidelines .
The change allowed states to apply for waivers that did not make increasing coverage a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program , as opposed to previous years when increasing coverage had to be a part of the “ objective ” of the change .
The next year , it issued a new guidance allowing states to demand work requirements for accessing Medicaid as a part of section 1115 waivers .
Finally , in the most recent and potentially most devastating blow to Medicaid , the administration proposed changing the program to block grants .
Currently , for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid , the federal government contributes 90 cents , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a fixed amount of money would be made available to the states , but the federal government would make no adjustments to changing needs in the states .
That means the rising cost burden of Medicaid would shift entirely to states , which would have a strong incentive to cut coverage and benefits to prevent spending from spiraling .
Experts warn that a block-grant system would devastate Medicaid by limiting funding .
Dorianne Mason of the National Women ’ s Law Center says that if the proposal were to go forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be cut by $ 1 trillion over 10 years , decimating coverage for vulnerable populations .
Last month , the Trump administration proposed a change that experts believe will deprive thousands of Americans of disability benefits , with children , the elderly , and those with complicated medical cases bearing the brunt .
Created in 1972 , Supplemental Security Income provides monthly cash assistance to low-income Americans who are disabled or elderly .
The majority of the more than 8 million recipients of SSI are eligible due to a severe disability and typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More than 1 million children also receive SSI benefits to help their guardians pay for large medical bills , time off of work to provide care , and other expenses .
For years , conservative lawmakers have attacked SSI benefits , claiming that it is easy to pretend to be disabled .
Some have questioned whether many children who receive SSI are being forced to fake disabilities by their parents .
However , signing up for disability benefits is an arduous process , in which recipients , who may already face extra difficulties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ appointments , are forced to document their entire medical and financial history .
Two-thirds of applicants for SSI are rejected , and even those who are ultimately approved can spend years waiting before they ever receive a penny from the government .
The majority of SSI recipients receive assistance of less than $ 600 a month .
Since many people with SSI have disabilities that prevent them from working , even with their benefits , more than two-fifths of SSI recipients live below the poverty line .
This year , conservatives may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration announced changes in December , to a process known as continuing disability review .
Currently , there are three categories of review that indicate how often an SSI recipient ’ s disability status will be recertified : “ medical improvement not expected , ” “ medical improvement expected , ” and “ medical improvement possible.
” The administration is creating a fourth category : “ medical improvement likely.
” It will comprise people with complex cases—such as those whose disabilities don ’ t fit into the designated categories , people over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 and 12—and require them to resubmit their full medical history every two years .
Many people in this new category are expected to lose their benefits simply because they will be unable to keep up with all of the documentation required .
Katherine Romig , an expert on SSI at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , estimates that the new category could affect half of all SSI recipients .
For recipients whose Medicaid is connected to their SSI status , even temporary gaps in coverage could put their lives at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 could be deliberate , argues Matthew Cortland , a disabled , chronically ill , attorney and policy expert , because that ’ s when children start to use more resources .
In the end , Cortland worries that the administration ’ s assaults on food stamps , Medicaid , housing assistance , and disability benefits , will combine to make it harder for poor Americans to make ends meet .
“ If you were to try to design a policy agenda that had the goal of killing the poorest , most vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , “ I don ’ t know that I could come up with a more effective agenda than what the Trump administration has done over the last three years .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This week, President Donald Trump released a $4.8 trillion budget proposal that would further decimate the already weakened social safety net. Trump’s plan would make steep cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, and other welfare programs that millions of Americans rely on.
But the budget is merely a wish list with no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled House. More quietly, Trump has already rolled out a series of bureaucratic changes that have begun to take a tangible toll on the country’s most vulnerable populations and will only inflict more damage in the coming years.
The once-robust social safety net has been steadily dismantled by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. A series of actions, from Ronald Reagan’s fear-mongering about the government subsidizing luxurious lifestyles for welfare recipients to Bill Clinton’s welfare reform that imposed strict work requirement for benefit recipients, have made it tougher than ever to be poor in America. Now Trump is making it even harder.
“There’s been an emphasis on attacking the most vulnerable people in our nation,” says Alexandra Cawthorne Gaines, vice president of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress. “It’s just continuous attacks and the creation of additional barriers for people seeking assistance.
Here are the programs that have have taken the biggest hit as a result of this administration’s war on the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
Food Stamps
Mr. Smith, a 45-year-old man living in Washington, DC, scrapes together what passes for a living selling a local newspaper as a street vendor, for which he earns $20 a day—on a good day. Each month, he receives $194 from the the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps. Free meals at various churches and nonprofits are essential to bolster the food supply he is able to purchase. When he gets his benefits at the beginning of the month, he buys groceries in bulk, either foods he can store in his freezer or those with a long shelf life.
“You have to budget,” he says. “You have to be really frugal. You have to get three meals a day on $6 or $7.”
On April 1, he will stop receiving his monthly infusion of funds. That’s because of a new Trump administration rule that will cause approximately 700,000 people across the country to be kicked off the SNAP rolls.
SNAP, which is administered by the US Department of Agriculture, feeds more than 40 million Americans each year. Food stamps are vital for low-income people and families and serve as an economic driver across the country, providing customers and revenue for small grocers.
“You’re in survival mode instead of productive mode,” he says of his time without SNAP benefits. “You’re walking around like a bear foraging for food.”
As part of Clinton’s welfare reform, able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 50 with no dependents were limited to three months of assistance before they had to prove that they were working at least 20 hours a week. At that point, their benefits would lapse, and they would have to meet certain requirements in order to become eligible again. In the past, governors of states with high unemployment rates could request waivers from the rule, and many able-bodied recipients were able to continue receiving food benefits. Now, the Trump administration’s new rule will tighten the requirements for waivers, making it close to impossible for states to request them. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people will lose SNAP eligibility and have to find new ways to make ends meet.
Without SNAP, Mr. Smith isn’t sure how he’ll eat. And he knows what hunger is like. “You’re in survival mode instead of productive mode,” he says of his time without SNAP benefits. “You’re walking around like a bear foraging for food.” But even given SNAP’s limitations, “that three months of being able to eat is a life saver.”
Cash Assistance
The concept of supporting poor Americans with cash assistance was first established in 1935 as part of the New Deal, when the Great Depression sent 15 million Americans into poverty. Over the subsequent decades, welfare became a top target of Republican mockery, culminating in President Ronald Reagan’s ridicule of so-called “welfare queens” living large on the taxpayers’ dime. After Clinton’s welfare reform overhauled the program in 1996 and imposed work requirements, what was once welfare became known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Today, 22 of every 100 US families living in poverty receive cash assistance, down from 68 in 1996.
“It ends up being families who are really, really desperate and don’t have any other options.”
“It ends up being families who are really, really desperate and don’t have any other options,” says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities.
For instance, a single woman with two children living in South Carolina and collecting TANF benefits receives just $292 each month in cash assistance. That doesn’t cover even a third of the state’s average rent for a two-bedroom home, which is $898. Even in states with more generous benefits—like New Hampshire, where that same family would get $1,066—it doesn’t cover rent for the average two-bedroom unit.
“No one is getting wealthy on TANF,” says CAP’s Cawthorne Gaines.
In most states, families that qualify for TANF are automatically eligible for SNAP. But the Trump administration plans to sever that relationship through a federal rule to close what it calls a “loophole.” In a press release justifying the proposed rule, offering their own version of Reagan’s “welfare queen” trope, the Trump administration claimed that people who don’t need welfare are still claiming it:
The proposed rule would fix a loophole that has expanded SNAP recipients in some states to include people who receive assistance when they clearly don’t need it. In fact, the depth of this specific flexibility has become so egregious that a millionaire living in Minnesota successfully enrolled in the program simply to highlight the waste of taxpayer money.
The Trump administration brags that closing this “loophole” will save taxpayers money. But now, instead of having a streamlined process of receiving TANF and SNAP, families living in poverty will face even more difficulties accessing the funds they need to survive.
Housing Assistance
More than 10 million people in 5.2 million households use government assistance in order to afford housing. Two-thirds of the recipients are seniors, children, or people with disabilities. Most of them receive Housing Choice Vouchers, funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by local housing authorities.
But demand for these vouchers far exceeds supply. Waitlists for vouchers in some cities are years’ long.
Under a Clinton-era policy, families with mixed immigration statuses were able to access public housing, so long as at least one member of the family was eligible. Federal subsidies covered only the US citizens or authorized immigrants, but undocumented family members were not barred from living there. The Trump administration proposed a new rule that it claims would shorten waitlists by requiring every member of a voucher-holding household to be a US citizen or legal permanent resident. The rule could leave more than 50,000 children homeless—without actually shortening waitlists. The administration’s own analysis found that the rule would affect 76,000 people—including 55,000 children—in mixed status families who are living in public housing and result in some mixed-status families becoming homeless. And as we reported last May, this is why it wouldn’t have the intended effect of shortening waiting lists:
The subsidies for mixed-status families are prorated so that they only cover the eligible member of the household. Because of this, those families are paying higher rents than households with occupants who are all American citizens or are legal residents. With the proposed rules, housing costs would increase substantially, because entire families would be eligible for subsidized rent. As HUD says in its analysis, the agency would be forced to reduce the quality and quantity of housing to make up for rising costs.
Medicaid
In his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump promised not to touch Medicaid, which provides health insurance to more than 64 million low-income Americans. That hasn’t stopped his administration from launching an all-out assault on the program and its beneficiaries. For many Americans, the program’s seemingly never ending forms, difficult documentation requirements, and practice of kicking recipients off their insurance for minor month-to-month changes in income, makes getting and keeping Medicaid even without the administration’s interference a nearly insurmountable hurdle.
In his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump promised not to touch Medicaid, which provides health insurance to more than 64 million low-income Americans. That hasn’t stopped his administration from launching an all-out assault on the program and its beneficiaries.
Now the Trump administration is looking to make that process even more complicated. In a warning shot fired in 2017, the administration amended the rules related to section 1115 waivers that allowed states to apply to “experiment” with their Medicaid programs outside of the federal guidelines. The change allowed states to apply for waivers that did not make increasing coverage a goal of the changes to the state program, as opposed to previous years when increasing coverage had to be a part of the “objective” of the change. The next year, it issued a new guidance allowing states to demand work requirements for accessing Medicaid as a part of section 1115 waivers.
Finally, in the most recent and potentially most devastating blow to Medicaid, the administration proposed changing the program to block grants. Currently, in states that expanded Medicaid, for every dollar a state spends on their Medicaid program, the federal government contributes 90 cents. In states that did not expand Medicaid the funds that the federal government matches varies. Under the block-grant system, a fixed amount of money would be made available to the states, but the federal government would make no adjustments to changing needs in the states. That means the rising cost burden of Medicaid would shift entirely to states, which would have a strong incentive to cut coverage and benefits to prevent spending from spiraling.
Experts warn that a block-grant system would devastate Medicaid by limiting funding. Dorianne Mason of the National Women’s Law Center says that if the proposal were to go forward, previous data suggests that Medicaid funding could be cut by $1 trillion over 10 years, decimating coverage for vulnerable populations.
Supplemental Security Income for Disability Benefits
Last month, the Trump administration proposed a change that experts believe will deprive thousands of Americans of disability benefits, with children, the elderly, and those with complicated medical cases bearing the brunt.
Created in 1972, Supplemental Security Income provides monthly cash assistance to low-income Americans who are disabled or elderly. The majority of the more than 8 million recipients of SSI are eligible due to a severe disability and typically have no other source of income. More than 1 million children also receive SSI benefits to help their guardians pay for large medical bills, time off of work to provide care, and other expenses.
For years, conservative lawmakers have attacked SSI benefits, claiming that it is easy to pretend to be disabled. Some have questioned whether many children who receive SSI are being forced to fake disabilities by their parents.
However, signing up for disability benefits is an arduous process, in which recipients, who may already face extra difficulties in filling out paperwork and making doctors’ appointments, are forced to document their entire medical and financial history. Two-thirds of applicants for SSI are rejected, and even those who are ultimately approved can spend years waiting before they ever receive a penny from the government. The majority of SSI recipients receive assistance of less than $600 a month. Since many people with SSI have disabilities that prevent them from working, even with their benefits, more than two-fifths of SSI recipients live below the poverty line.
This year, conservatives may finally get their wish. The Trump administration announced changes in December, to a process known as continuing disability review. Currently, there are three categories of review that indicate how often an SSI recipient’s disability status will be recertified: “medical improvement not expected,” “medical improvement expected,” and “medical improvement possible.”
The administration is creating a fourth category: “medical improvement likely.” It will comprise people with complex cases—such as those whose disabilities don’t fit into the designated categories, people over the age of 55, and children ages 6 and 12—and require them to resubmit their full medical history every two years. Many people in this new category are expected to lose their benefits simply because they will be unable to keep up with all of the documentation required.
Katherine Romig, an expert on SSI at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the new rule could affect hundreds of thousands of disability beneficiaries.* For recipients whose Medicaid is connected to their SSI status, even temporary gaps in coverage could put their lives at risk. Targeting children age 6 and 12 could be deliberate, argues Matthew Cortland, a disabled, chronically ill, attorney and policy expert, because that’s when children start to use more resources.
In the end, Cortland worries that the administration’s assaults on food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, and disability benefits, will combine to make it harder for poor Americans to make ends meet.
“If you were to try to design a policy agenda that had the goal of killing the poorest, most vulnerable Americans,” he said in a statement, “I don’t know that I could come up with a more effective agenda than what the Trump administration has done over the last three years.”
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated how many people could be affected by the new category of review. The new rule could affect hundreds of thousands of disability beneficiaries.


motherjones--2020-02-14--Security Researchers Find Flaws in Online Voting System Tested in Five States

An online voting technology that has been tested in five states can be hacked to alter , block , or expose voters ’ ballots , according to research published Thursday by a trio of MIT researchers .
Voatz , a Boston-based company , claims its app allows for widely accessible and secure voting from smartphones by relying on security features built into the phones themselves .
It has run pilots in several states including West Virginia , where the technology was used during the 2018 midterms to facilitate online voting for Americans living overseas , including military personnel .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections in Denver , Oregon , and Utah .
In 2016 , the Massachusetts Democratic Convention and Utah Republican Convention relied on this technology .
This year , thousands more people in West Virginia were set to use the app under expanded access laws in the state designed to help absentee voters with disabilities , but now officials there are reconsidering their options .
The MIT researchers—graduate students Michael Specter and James Koppel and their adviser Daniel Weitzner—claim in their new paper that they found the vulnerabilities and disclosed them to the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election administrators in the jurisdictions using the app .
Voatz is not a stranger to national headlines .
In October 2019 , then-CNN reporter Kevin Collier reported that a student from the University of Michigan had been referred to the FBI for investigation after the company claimed the student tried to break into its systems during the 2018 election .
Last week , information security journalist Yael Grauer took a deeper look at the case , reporting how the company may have changed the terms of its bug bounty program—which offers rewards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news broke , suggesting it may have sought to deter research on its tech .
Last November , Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) called for the Department of Defense and the NSA to audit Voatz , after complaining the company wouldn ’ t release security audits and wouldn ’ t identify the security researchers it claimed to be working with .
“ I raised questions about Voatz months ago , because cybersecurity experts have made it clear that internet voting isn ’ t safe , ” Wyden said in a statement Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app is deeply insecure and could allow hackers to change votes .
Americans need confidence in our election system .
It is long past time for Republicans to end their election security embargo and let Congress pass mandatory security standards for the entire election system.
” In a response posted to its blog— ” Chronicles of an Audacious Experiment ” —Voatz called the MIT report “ flawed.
” The company claimed the researchers tested the company ’ s Android app “ that was at least 27 versions old.
” And it said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the company ’ s servers but rather to simulated servers , and therefore made false “ assumptions ” about how the back end of the system works .
“ In short , ” the company said , “ to make claims about a backend server without any evidence or connection to the server negates any degree of credibility on behalf of the researchers.
” The company claimed that past elections using its technology had run smoothly , and it attacked the MIT researchers for seeking “ media attention , ” contending their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election process , to sow doubt in the security of our election infrastructure , and to spread fear and confusion.
” Alex Halderman , an election security expert at the University of Michigan , tweeted Thursday that the findings show “ there ’ s a much greater risk than there should be that a network-based attacker , like a malicious WiFi router or ISP , could access Voatz ’ s private key , impersonate the Voatz API server , and then intercept and change votes.
” He said it was “ shocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is and that “ no responsible jurisdiction should use Voatz in real elections any time soon.
” Of Voatz ’ s rebuttal to the MIT report , Halderman said : “ The Voatz response doesn ’ t seem to dispute any of the specific technical claims in the MIT paper .
That ’ s very telling , in my view .
If any of it is wrong , Voatz should say what , specifically , that is .
They don ’ t seem to even say the more recent version of the app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their analysis shows the app could allow an adversary to see a user ’ s vote or disrupt the transmission of voting data .
An attacker could “ control their vote , ” the researchers claim , and if someone controls of the back-end server they ’ d have “ full power to observe , alter , and add votes as they please.
” This table outlines the researchers ’ summary findings based on the level of access the adversary gains .
The Department of Homeland Security ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers to alert election officials , a CISA spokesperson told Mother Jones , and shared relevant information with Voatz as well .
The election officials “ were able to speak with the researchers and CISA to understand and manage risks to their systems , ” the spokesperson said , adding that “ there is no known exploitation of the vulnerabilities to the bring-your-own-device mobile voting system described in the research.
” Donald Kersey , general counsel for West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner , said in a statement provided to Mother Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ethical reporting of this research through the Department of Homeland Security by the research team at MIT , ” and that Warner hasn ’ t decided which technology to use for the May 12 primary election or the general election in November .
Warner ’ s office also provided a copy of a declassified DHS assessment of the Voatz network .
The audit , conducted in Voatz headquarters last fall , found some security gaps but “ did not identify any threat actor activity within Voatz ’ s network environment.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly , but it does cover the cloud servers used to support it .
While the team saw “ no evidence of malicious activity , ” it did find determine some server settings could “ unintentionally lead to a reduced security posture.
” Voatz reported to DHS that those concerns had been addressed .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
An online voting technology that has been tested in five states can be hacked to alter, block, or expose voters’ ballots, according to research published Thursday by a trio of MIT researchers.
Voatz, a Boston-based company, claims its app allows for widely accessible and secure voting from smartphones by relying on security features built into the phones themselves. It has run pilots in several states including West Virginia, where the technology was used during the 2018 midterms to facilitate online voting for Americans living overseas, including military personnel. The app has also been used in various elections in Denver, Oregon, and Utah. In 2016, the Massachusetts Democratic Convention and Utah Republican Convention relied on this technology. This year, thousands more people in West Virginia were set to use the app under expanded access laws in the state designed to help absentee voters with disabilities, but now officials there are reconsidering their options.
The MIT researchers—graduate students Michael Specter and James Koppel and their adviser Daniel Weitzner—claim in their new paper that they found the vulnerabilities and disclosed them to the Department of Homeland Security in order to alert election administrators in the jurisdictions using the app.
Voatz is not a stranger to national headlines. In October 2019, then-CNN reporter Kevin Collier reported that a student from the University of Michigan had been referred to the FBI for investigation after the company claimed the student tried to break into its systems during the 2018 election. Last week, information security journalist Yael Grauer took a deeper look at the case, reporting how the company may have changed the terms of its bug bounty program—which offers rewards to researchers who find and report vulnerabilities—after the news broke, suggesting it may have sought to deter research on its tech.
Last November, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called for the Department of Defense and the NSA to audit Voatz, after complaining the company wouldn’t release security audits and wouldn’t identify the security researchers it claimed to be working with.
“I raised questions about Voatz months ago, because cybersecurity experts have made it clear that internet voting isn’t safe,” Wyden said in a statement Thursday. “Now MIT researchers say this app is deeply insecure and could allow hackers to change votes. Americans need confidence in our election system. It is long past time for Republicans to end their election security embargo and let Congress pass mandatory security standards for the entire election system.”
In a response posted to its blog—”Chronicles of an Audacious Experiment”—Voatz called the MIT report “flawed.” The company claimed the researchers tested the company’s Android app “that was at least 27 versions old.” And it said the “outdated app” was never connected to the company’s servers but rather to simulated servers, and therefore made false “assumptions” about how the back end of the system works. “In short,” the company said, “to make claims about a backend server without any evidence or connection to the server negates any degree of credibility on behalf of the researchers.”
The company claimed that past elections using its technology had run smoothly, and it attacked the MIT researchers for seeking “media attention,” contending their “true aim is to deliberately disrupt the election process, to sow doubt in the security of our election infrastructure, and to spread fear and confusion.”
Alex Halderman, an election security expert at the University of Michigan, tweeted Thursday that the findings show “there’s a much greater risk than there should be that a network-based attacker, like a malicious WiFi router or ISP, could access Voatz’s private key, impersonate the Voatz API server, and then intercept and change votes.” He said it was “shocking” how “primitive” the app is and that “no responsible jurisdiction should use Voatz in real elections any time soon.”
Of Voatz’s rebuttal to the MIT report, Halderman said: “The Voatz response doesn’t seem to dispute any of the specific technical claims in the MIT paper. That’s very telling, in my view. If any of it is wrong, Voatz should say what, specifically, that is. They don’t seem to even say the more recent version of the app works differently.”
The researchers claim that their analysis shows the app could allow an adversary to see a user’s vote or disrupt the transmission of voting data. An attacker could “control their vote,” the researchers claim, and if someone controls of the back-end server they’d have “full power to observe, alter, and add votes as they please.” This table outlines the researchers’ summary findings based on the level of access the adversary gains.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) worked with the MIT researchers to alert election officials, a CISA spokesperson told Mother Jones, and shared relevant information with Voatz as well. The election officials “were able to speak with the researchers and CISA to understand and manage risks to their systems,” the spokesperson said, adding that “there is no known exploitation of the vulnerabilities to the bring-your-own-device mobile voting system described in the research.”
Donald Kersey, general counsel for West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, said in a statement provided to Mother Jones that the state appreciates “the responsible and ethical reporting of this research through the Department of Homeland Security by the research team at MIT,” and that Warner hasn’t decided which technology to use for the May 12 primary election or the general election in November. Warner’s office also provided a copy of a declassified DHS assessment of the Voatz network. The audit, conducted in Voatz headquarters last fall, found some security gaps but “did not identify any threat actor activity within Voatz’s network environment.”
The report doesn’t examine the app directly, but it does cover the cloud servers used to support it. While the team saw “no evidence of malicious activity,” it did find determine some server settings could “unintentionally lead to a reduced security posture.” Voatz reported to DHS that those concerns had been addressed.