motherjones--2020-01-25--The Guy Who’s Running Trump’s Fight to Hide Evidence Said Democrats “Hid Evidence”

Of all the whoppers President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers jammed into their relatively brief launch of his defense Saturday , White House Counsel Pat Cipollone may have made the most brazen claim .
Cipollone , in his opening remarks , said House impeachment managers “ hid evidence ” from the Senate during their three days of presenting arguments for Trump ’ s removal .
What he meant , ensuing arguments showed , is that Democrats did not present information that Trump ’ s lawyers claim exonerates the president .
It is , of course , not the responsibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not mentioning something “ hiding ” it .
But Cipollone ’ s remark isn ’ t just wrong but a breathtaking example of hypocrisy .
This is the man who personally oversaw Trump ’ s complete stonewalling of the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
Cipollone wrote the October 11 letter , widely mocked for its partisan tone and dearth of legal reasoning , in which he flatly refused to provide any evidence the Democrats ’ sought .
“ Trump and his Administration can not participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Cipollone has overseen the administration ’ s battle in court to stop the House from enforcing subpoenas .
This all out stonewalling of congressional oversight , which critics call unprecedented , resulted in Trump ’ s impeachment for obstruction of justice .
Democrats have accused Cipollone of personally hiding evidence given his “ instrumental role ” in Trump ’ s efforts to obstruct the investigation and his knowledge , as White House counsel , of concerns raised by White House aides about Trump ’ s conduct toward Ukraine .
These factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the charges against Trump , Democrats have argued .
“ You must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President ’ s legal advocate , ” Democratic impeachment managers wrote in a letter Tuesday to Cipollone , “ so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues , conflicts , or biases.
” On Tuesday , Cipollone and his team argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which Senate Republicans rejected Democratic amendments that would have forced the Senate to seek documents and testimony from witnesses such as White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton , who have first-hand knowledge of Trump ’ s actions .
On Saturday , in an impressive display of chutzpah , Trump ’ s attorneys then cited the absence of eyewitnesses to argue for Trump ’ s innocence .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Of all the whoppers President Donald Trump’s lawyers jammed into their relatively brief launch of his defense Saturday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone may have made the most brazen claim. Cipollone, in his opening remarks, said House impeachment managers “hid evidence” from the Senate during their three days of presenting arguments for Trump’s removal.
What he meant, ensuing arguments showed, is that Democrats did not present information that Trump’s lawyers claim exonerates the president. It is, of course, not the responsibility of prosecutors to mount a defense, nor is not mentioning something “hiding” it.
But Cipollone’s remark isn’t just wrong but a breathtaking example of hypocrisy.
This is the man who personally oversaw Trump’s complete stonewalling of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Cipollone wrote the October 11 letter, widely mocked for its partisan tone and dearth of legal reasoning, in which he flatly refused to provide any evidence the Democrats’ sought. “Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances,” he wrote. And Cipollone has overseen the administration’s battle in court to stop the House from enforcing subpoenas. This all out stonewalling of congressional oversight, which critics call unprecedented, resulted in Trump’s impeachment for obstruction of justice.
Democrats have accused Cipollone of personally hiding evidence given his “instrumental role” in Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation and his knowledge, as White House counsel, of concerns raised by White House aides about Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. These factors make him a “material witness” to the charges against Trump, Democrats have argued. “You must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President’s legal advocate,” Democratic impeachment managers wrote in a letter Tuesday to Cipollone, “so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases.”
On Tuesday, Cipollone and his team argued in favor of a series of votes in which Senate Republicans rejected Democratic amendments that would have forced the Senate to seek documents and testimony from witnesses such as White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton, who have first-hand knowledge of Trump’s actions. On Saturday, in an impressive display of chutzpah, Trump’s attorneys then cited the absence of eyewitnesses to argue for Trump’s innocence.


motherjones--2020-01-25--Trump’s Legal Team Opened Their Impeachment Defense With a Blizzard of Lies

President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers launched their defense Saturday morning with a blizzard of false claims .
It started with the president ’ s critical July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
White House Deputy Counsel Michael Purpura referred repeatedly to how what he called “ the actual transcript ” and “ the real transcript ” of this call led to an investigation that resulted in Trump ’ s impeachment .
But the document Purpura quoted is not a transcript .
It is a “ memorandum of telephone conversation , ” which means that it reflects the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but may exclude significant parts of Trump and Zelensky ’ s conversation .
Purpura should know the difference .
Trump and his lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , are accused of withholding a White House meeting from Zelensky to try to force him to announce investigations into Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter , as well as an investigation into a false conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee server is secretly stored in Ukraine When that didn ’ t work , Trump is accused of withholding nearly $ 400 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leverage in forcing Zelensky to announce the probes .
That adds up to two quid pro quos , but Purpura on Saturday simply ignored the first one .
He played a clip that showed US Ambassador the European Union Gordon Sondland saying that while he believed Trump had conditioned the release of aid on Zelensky announcing investigations , he didn ’ t know for sure .
But Purpura simply ignored Sondland ’ s unqualified statement that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting for Zelensky on his announcing investigations .
“ Was there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sondland said in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in November .
“ With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting , the answer is yes.
” Purpura also ignored the part of Sondland testimony in which the ambassador said he had told Zelensky ’ s top aide on September 1 that US aid would not resume until Ukraine announced the investigations .
That is , Sondland , believing he was acting on Trump ’ s behalf , actually offered this supposed trade .
Having pretended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quos Trump is accused of did not not exist , Purpura attacked the existence of the second one with additional false claims .
“ The Ukrainians did not know that the security assistance was paused until the end of August , ” he said , arguing Ukraine couldn ’ t have been extorted if they didn ’ t know of the hold .
But evidence Purpura blew off suggests they did .
Olena Zerkal , Ukraine ’ s former deputy foreign minister says Ukrainians knew of the hold in July .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times last month .
And that ’ s not all .
Laura Cooper , a deputy assistant secretary of Defense , in testimony before the House last fall , said that her staff received an email on July 23 indicating that Ukrainians were asking about the delay in delivery of aid .
Trump ’ s lawyers also rolled out the litany of their favorite old arguments .
They noted that “ security assistance flowed ” to Ukraine in September without Zelensky announcing the investigations Trump wanted .
The release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came after a whistleblower complaint drew intense media scrutiny .
As House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , one of Democrats ’ impeachment managers , memorably put it : The Trump administration released the aid because “ they got caught.
” Trump ’ s lawyers simply pretended the release of the aid came without public pressure .
Purpura also argued that Trump had increased lethal US support for Ukraine , an argument that overlooks the president ’ s alleged subverting of that very policy to benefit his presidential campaign .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The president did absolutely nothing wrong , ” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone , said in his opening remarks on Saturday .
That ’ s what they ’ re going with when the next phase of the White House defense begins Monday afternoon .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers launched their defense Saturday morning with a blizzard of false claims.
It started with the president’s critical July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. White House Deputy Counsel Michael Purpura referred repeatedly to how what he called “the actual transcript” and “the real transcript” of this call led to an investigation that resulted in Trump’s impeachment. But the document Purpura quoted is not a transcript. It is a “memorandum of telephone conversation,” which means that it reflects the memories of aides who listened in, but may exclude significant parts of Trump and Zelensky’s conversation. Purpura should know the difference.
Trump and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, are accused of withholding a White House meeting from Zelensky to try to force him to announce investigations into Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as an investigation into a false conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee server is secretly stored in Ukraine When that didn’t work, Trump is accused of withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine to increase his leverage in forcing Zelensky to announce the probes.
That adds up to two quid pro quos, but Purpura on Saturday simply ignored the first one. He played a clip that showed US Ambassador the European Union Gordon Sondland saying that while he believed Trump had conditioned the release of aid on Zelensky announcing investigations, he didn’t know for sure. But Purpura didn’t mention Sondland’s unqualified statement that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting for Zelensky on his announcing investigations. “Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in November. “With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Purpura also ignored the part of Sondland testimony in which the ambassador said he had told Zelensky’s top aide on September 1 that US aid would not resume until Ukraine announced the investigations. That is, Sondland, believing he was acting on Trump’s behalf, actually offered this supposed trade.
Having pretended that one of the proposed quid pro quos Trump is accused of did not exist, Purpura attacked the existence of the second one with additional false claims. “The Ukrainians did not know that the security assistance was paused until the end of August,” he said, arguing Ukraine couldn’t have been extorted if they didn’t know of the hold. But evidence Purpura blew off suggests they did. Olena Zerkal, Ukraine’s former deputy foreign minister says Ukrainians knew of the hold in July. “We had this information,” Zerkal told the New York Times last month. And that’s not all. Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of Defense, in testimony before the House last fall, said that her staff received an email on July 23 indicating that Ukrainians were asking about the delay in delivery of aid.
Trump’s lawyers also rolled out the litany of their favorite old arguments. They noted that “security assistance flowed” to Ukraine in September without Zelensky announcing the investigations Trump wanted. The release of the aid, of course, only came after a whistleblower complaint drew intense media scrutiny. As House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of Democrats’ impeachment managers, memorably put it: The Trump administration released the aid because “they got caught.” Trump’s lawyers simply pretended the release of the aid came without public pressure. Purpura also argued that Trump had increased lethal US support for Ukraine, an argument that overlooks the president’s alleged subverting of that very policy to benefit his presidential campaign.
But the attorneys real argument is more basic. “The president did absolutely nothing wrong,” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, said in his opening remarks on Saturday. That’s what they’re going with when the next phase of the White House defense begins Monday afternoon.


motherjones--2020-01-25--Donald Trump Tweets His Defense by Attacking AOC

President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers , who launched his defense at his impeachment trial in the Senate Saturday morning , have claimed that they will respond substantively to Democrats ’ methodical case for why the president should be removed from office .
But shortly before the Senate convened for the first day of the White House defense , the president teed up the proceedings with a tweet strong on name calling and short on evidence .
His targets include two lawmakers , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) , who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump also posted tweets quoting Fox Business News host Lou Dobbs praising him .
Trump ’ s defenders thus far have not disputed the facts of the case against him .
Senate Republicans have complained about comments by Democratic impeachment managers and launched attacks on President Obama ’ s foreign policy and other topics that are at best tangental .
Trump ’ s lawyers on Saturday have said they will focus on Vice President Joe Biden ’ s actions related to Ukraine in 2016 , and that the president did “ nothing wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his opening remarks that Trump ’ s team will focus on evidence that the House impeachment managers did not include .
But their boss appears to have another strategy .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers, who launched his defense at his impeachment trial in the Senate Saturday morning, have claimed that they will respond substantively to Democrats’ methodical case for why the president should be removed from office. But shortly before the Senate convened for the first day of the White House defense, the president teed up the proceedings with a tweet strong on name calling and short on evidence.
Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020
His targets include two lawmakers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who have no role in the impeachment trial. Trump also posted tweets quoting Fox Business News host Lou Dobbs praising him.
The Great @LouDobbs: “People know, after 3 years of this President, the most historic President in our Country’s history, that there is no one who can touch what he’s done in 3 years, foreign policy, domestic policy, you name it, it’s amazing. Just to have the guts not to be….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020
….intimidated by this national left wing media, that reduces most politicians and most public figures to whining, crying, puddles of cowardice – it is really something to have a man in the White House who has a courageous heart and does what he says he will do.” — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020
Trump’s defenders thus far have not disputed the facts of the case against him. Senate Republicans have complained about comments by Democratic impeachment managers and launched attacks on President Obama’s foreign policy and other topics that are at best tangental. Trump’s lawyers on Saturday have said they will focus on Vice President Joe Biden’s actions related to Ukraine in 2016, and that the president did “nothing wrong. White House counsel Pat Cipollone promised in his opening remarks that Trump’s team will focus on evidence that the House impeachment managers did not include. But their boss appears to have another strategy.


motherjones--2020-01-26--Trump Threatens to Cut NPR’s Funding After Pompeo Meltdown

Two days ago , NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly revealed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had berated her with expletives after she asked him about the Ukraine scandal .
Today , President Donald Trump chimed in—by appearing to threaten to cut off NPR ’ s federal funding .
Trump retweeted a comment from right-wing radio host Mark Levin , who had highlighted a Fox News story about the Pompeo controversy and asked : “ Why does NPR still exist ?
We have thousands of radio stations in the U.S. Plus Satellite radio .
Podcasts .
Why are we paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation.
” Trump added that Levin ’ s tweet raised a “ very good question !
” Conservatives complaining about NPR ’ s government funding is nothing new .
In his budget proposals , Trump has repeatedly signaled a desire to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , which distributes government funds to public TV and radio stations .
So far , that hasn ’ t happened .
It ’ s also important to note that only a small portion of NPR ’ s funding actually comes from tax dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 1 percent of its annual operating budget consists of “ grants from Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies and departments.
” Most of its funding comes from corporate sponsorships and dues paid by member stations across the country .
Those member stations in turn receive about 12 percent of their funding from the CPB and other federal , state , and local government sources .
Some stations also receive money from colleges and universities .
Still , if Trump did decide to retaliate against NPR because of its coverage of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage—at least if he can convince Congress to go along .
“ Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs , less journalism—especially local journalism—and eventually the loss of public radio stations , particularly in rural and economically distressed communities , ” NPR notes on its website .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Two days ago, NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly revealed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had berated her with expletives after she asked him about the Ukraine scandal. Today, President Donald Trump chimed in—by appearing to threaten to cut off NPR’s federal funding.
Trump retweeted a comment from right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who had highlighted a Fox News story about the Pompeo controversy and asked: “Why does NPR still exist? We have thousands of radio stations in the U.S. Plus Satellite radio. Podcasts. Why are we paying for this big-government, Democrat Party propaganda operation.” Trump added that Levin’s tweet raised a “very good question!”
A very good question! https://t.co/8z6uQLKz8M — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2020
Conservatives complaining about NPR’s government funding is nothing new. In his budget proposals, Trump has repeatedly signaled a desire to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes government funds to public TV and radio stations. So far, that hasn’t happened.
It’s also important to note that only a small portion of NPR’s funding actually comes from tax dollars. According to its latest financial report, just 1 percent of its annual operating budget consists of “grants from Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies and departments.” Most of its funding comes from corporate sponsorships and dues paid by member stations across the country. Those member stations in turn receive about 12 percent of their funding from the CPB and other federal, state, and local government sources. Some stations also receive money from colleges and universities.
Still, if Trump did decide to retaliate against NPR because of its coverage of his administration, he could do some serious damage—at least if he can convince Congress to go along. “Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs, less journalism—especially local journalism—and eventually the loss of public radio stations, particularly in rural and economically distressed communities,” NPR notes on its website.


motherjones--2020-01-27--Who’s Afraid of the IRS? Not Facebook.

Who’s Afraid of the IRS? Not Facebook.

This story was originally published by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
In March 2008 , as Facebook was speeding toward 100 million users and emerging as the next big tech company , it announced an important hire .
Sheryl Sandberg was leaving Google to become Facebook ’ s chief operating officer .
CEO Mark Zuckerberg , then 23 years old , told The New York Times that Sandberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next level.
” Based on her time at Google , Sandberg soon decided that one area where Facebook was behind its peers was in its tax dodging .
“ My experience is that by not having a European center and running everything through the US , it is very costly in terms of taxes , ” she wrote other executives in an April 2008 email , which hasn ’ t been previously reported .
Facebook ’ s head of tax agreed , replying that the company needed to find “ a low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that year , Facebook named Dublin as its international headquarters , just as Google had done when Sandberg was there .
And just like Google , Facebook concocted an intra-company deal to “ park profits ” in Ireland , where it would pay a tax rate near zero .
Like its Big Tech peers , Facebook wasn ’ t much afraid of the IRS .
But , as it happened , the same year that Facebook started moving profits to Ireland , the IRS launched a team to crack down on deals like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As we recently reported , the IRS threw everything it had at Microsoft in the largest audit in the agency ’ s history .
But shortly after the IRS showed this new ambition , Republicans in Congress , after taking the House in 2010 , began forcing cuts to the IRS ’ budget .
Over the years , as Facebook grew into one of the world ’ s largest companies , with 2 billion users , the IRS was shrinking .
By the time the IRS finally took on Facebook over its Irish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency was in over its head .
ProPublica pieced together the story of the Facebook audit from court documents filed by the two sides in their yearslong battle .
( Both the IRS and the company declined to comment . )
The picture revealed by the documents provides a crucial window into the IRS ’ struggles to check large corporations ’ tax schemes .
At one point in the audit , the exam stalled for months because there was no money to hire an expert .
Agents tried for five years to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were still scrambling when the statute of limitations expired in July 2016 .
Like a student forced , when the bell rings , to turn in a test with unanswered questions , the IRS sent Facebook the results of its incomplete audit .
Based on the work it had done , the IRS thought Facebook had massively mispriced its Irish deal and should have paid billions more in taxes .
Today the fight continues before the U.S. Tax Court , and the conflict is about to reach a climax : A trial is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is trying to convince a judge that it has a firm basis for its conclusions .
For its part , Facebook has defended its actions in court filings , calling the IRS ’ conclusions “ arbitrary , capricious , or unreasonable.
” If the IRS prevails in court , it could cost Facebook up to $ 9 billion more in taxes , based on estimates in the company ’ s securities filings .
It would be a notable defeat for a company that , when it comes to risky tax avoidance , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other U.S. corporation , ” said Matt Gardner , a senior fellow at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy .
According to Facebook ’ s public filings , from 2010 through 2017 ( when the U.S. corporate tax rate was 35 % ) , the company paid a total of $ 3.9 billion in taxes on $ 50 billion of pre-tax income , a rate of about 8 % .
Still , the IRS hasn ’ t won a clear victory in a major profit-shifting case in court for decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Michigan Law School and an expert on international tax .
The agency , he said , has simply been “ overmatched.
” Given how things have gone so far in its conflict with the IRS , Facebook has good reason to be confident about the coming trial .
From the beginning in 2008 , Facebook laid the foundations of its big profit shift with care , according to internal company emails disclosed by the IRS in court filings .
The first step was to establish a company office in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience helping Google choose Dublin and set up its office there , Ireland was the first option .
Then the question was what and who to put there .
The key was having just enough of a presence in Dublin “ to justify the tax benefits , ” Sandberg wrote in an email at the time .
A Facebook finance executive explained that , to get “ the tax advantages , ” Facebook needed to transfer its intellectual property to the Dublin office .
There needed to be servers there with “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on them in order to “ build the case ” for the transfer .
When a Facebook executive grumbled , “ Ireland is not a first or second choice for a significant data center presence , ” because it was easier to hire people in London , the tax exec responded that the Dublin center wouldn ’ t need to be particularly large .
In other words , it didn ’ t really matter how many people worked in the Dublin office .
Yet , in October 2008 when Facebook publicly announced its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ international headquarters , ” Sandberg was quoted in a press release singing the praises of the Irish workforce .
“ After exploring various locations throughout the region , we decided Ireland was the best place , ” she said .
“ The talent pool in Dublin is world-class and recruiting local talent will help us better understand the needs of local users.
” In a private email to an old Google colleague the previous day , however , she ’ d been frank .
“ Same decision process Google went through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ tax breaks to put international revenue through .
Our operations there will be very small—maybe 10 people by end of this year and 30-50 by end of next year.
” The main pieces now in place , Facebook started constructing its deal to move profits to Ireland .
It set up an Irish company that declared itself to have management in the Cayman Islands .
This was a trick to avoid paying even Ireland ’ s low 12.5 % tax rate on the profits : The company would instead pay close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some profits .
Essentially , Facebook would license its software platform to its Irish subsidiary , and this would in turn entitle the Irish subsidiary to a portion of Facebook ’ s profits .
IRS rules allow such intra-company deals , but the companies are supposed to arrive at a fair , “ arm ’ s-length ” price .
How much the Irish company would pay for the license and what portion of Facebook ’ s profits the Dublin office would get—these are not numbers that companies can just make up .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was highly artificial , without any clear real-world models .
The price is supposed to have some objective basis .
To conjure the prices Facebook should pay in this deal with itself , Facebook hired the giant accounting firm Ernst & Young .
The firm ’ s experts and economists worked for years on the project .
In 2011 , a year after the deal had officially closed , E & Y ’ s team was still crunching figures and generating reports .
In September 2011 , an E & Y economist emailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Facebook ’ s head of tax , and offered to send him three printed copies : two for his team , and one for the IRS , should the agency ever come calling .
Price said that he ’ d take three , but they ’ d all be for his team .
“ I doubt the IRS ever even audits us on this , ” he wrote .
The E & Y economist replied , “ knock on wood.
” ( In a court filing , Facebook said Price ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS began its audit , as it happened , soon afterward .
But it wasn ’ t until 2015 that a team of agents presented preliminary findings to Facebook .
The IRS thought E & Y ’ s estimates were off by billions of dollars .
( E & Y declined to comment . )
A month later , Facebook responded with a presentation of its own that blasted the IRS ’ analysis .
The agency “ had made significant and arbitrary errors , ” Facebook later claimed in legal filings .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed help , the team working the case decided , and for that , it would hire outside experts .
But there was a problem .
In late 2014 , Republicans in Congress had forced through a sudden $ 346 million cut to the IRS ’ budget , and money was tight .
Although billions of dollars were at stake in the Facebook audit , the IRS had no funds to hire an expert .
The audit team had to wait for three months , until the new fiscal year began in October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , because of a lengthy contracting process , it took six more months for the $ 800,000 contract to go through .
The expert , an economist who specializes in analyzing these intra-company deals , finally went to work in March 2016 .
Meanwhile , the IRS was struggling to get all the documents it needed from Facebook .
In January 2016 , the exam team had sent off a broad request for documents about the Irish deal .
Two months later , Facebook turned over three emails in response .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly construed ” the request , one of the agents on the case , Nina Wu Stone , later declared in court , and “ the IRS would have to start over with issuance of a new set of [ requests ] if the IRS wanted a more comprehensive response.
” At the same time , the IRS feared being buried in paper .
In response to another request , Facebook told the IRS the company ’ s systems couldn ’ t efficiently sort for responsive documents , and as a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much that it would “ perhaps overwhelm the IRS , ” as the agency put it in a court filing .
Through all of this , the clock was ticking .
The IRS has three years to assess additional tax on a return , but corporate taxpayers often voluntarily extend the statute of limitations .
In this case , Facebook had done so five times .
Companies do this because they are hoping to avoid having to go to court .
But as the IRS began asking for more time to hire experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like where the audit was headed .
The company played hardball .
It offered to extend the statute again , but on one condition .
The IRS had to commit that Facebook would be able to take its case to the IRS Office of Appeals .
The Office of Appeals offers taxpayers the prospect of a quiet settlement of a tax dispute , and as ProPublica reported in the story about the audit of Microsoft , large corporations often are able to obtain steep reductions in what they owe .
But the IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The agency rarely employs that power , but it had recently done so against other big taxpayers like Coca-Cola and Amazon .
Facebook wanted to make sure that didn ’ t happen .
The IRS refused , and the clock continued to tick .
By May 2016 , with just two months left , the IRS managed to get its second expert working on the case .
Nancy Bronson , an IRS supervisor , asked Facebook to reconsider an extension .
That ’ s when Price , the Facebook executive , offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful tool to compel documents from large corporations that the agency thinks are dragging their feet .
It ’ s called a “ designated summons , ” and it stops the clock until the taxpayer turns over all the requested documents .
This can buy the IRS valuable time , but it angers corporations who must now endure added time to the audit .
Price told Bronson that Facebook would give the IRS six more months if it agreed not to use a designated summons .
Again , Bronson declined .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right given the difficulties in obtaining information in a timely manner and the short period of the proposed statute extension , ” she declared in a court filing .
Despite the apparent utility of designated summonses , the IRS has used them only three times since the mid- ’ 90s .
The most recent instance , against Microsoft in 2014 , provoked a powerful response , and Microsoft and its corporate allies launched a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill .
Soon , lawmakers were introducing bills seeking to curtail the IRS ’ use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Against this added pressure , the IRS decided to take the middle path .
The agency didn ’ t relinquish the ability to use the designated summons , but it didn ’ t take the aggressive step of actually using it , either .
Instead , the IRS issued a conventional summons and then sued in federal district court to enforce it .
This forced Facebook to turn over documents , but the clock continued to run and it would take months for Facebook to comply .
The IRS ’ decision meant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benefit of documents that it characterized in court filings as essential to understanding Facebook ’ s Ireland deal .
So , that ’ s what it did .
Shortly before the statute expired , the IRS sent Facebook an official notice closing the audit .
“ The examination team had not completed its fact-gathering efforts when the notice was issued , ” Bronson said .
The IRS concluded , based on its incomplete analysis , that Facebook ’ s Irish subsidiary had underpaid for Facebook ’ s software platform by $ 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 billion when it should ’ ve paid $ 14 billion .
If the IRS ’ view prevailed , less profit would flow to Ireland and thus more income would be taxable in the U.S. As expected , Facebook soon filed a challenge in U.S. Tax Court .
The IRS said its findings weren ’ t absolutely final , because it could modify them in court as it acquired more evidence .
But agency veterans say such changes are unusual and make the agency ’ s already difficult task—fighting a complex litigation battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think I ’ ve ever seen a case where the IRS increased an assessment after it came out of exam , ” said Ken Wood , a former attorney with the IRS who worked on large corporate audits .
Making any sort of change is “ dangerous , ” he said , because it can undermine the IRS ’ argument that its findings are firmly supported .
Last October , in a legal filing , the IRS disclosed that , having had time to review the millions of pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2016 , it now thought Facebook ’ s Irish company should have paid $ 20 billion in the original transaction .
However , the agency was apparently wary of shaking up its case by officially modifying its earlier findings .
Confusingly , the IRS said it would argue at trial that its earlier estimate was too low , while simultaneously preserving that low estimate as the basis of the trial .
The IRS wasn ’ t definitely saying Facebook should pay more ; It was suggesting to the judge that it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Christmas , the IRS reversed course .
It filed a motion officially changing its earlier findings and made the $ 20 billion valuation its one and only position at trial .
It ’ s unclear just how much tax Facebook ’ s Irish deal has saved the company , because the company has also made other moves to reduce taxes .
Since Facebook refuses to divulge details , back of the envelope calculations based on other company disclosures provide the best guess .
On that basis , ProPublica estimates that Facebook shifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offshore .
If the company ’ s big tax dodge were upended , Facebook could be forced to pay up to $ 9 billion more in taxes , the company recently said , an increase from its earlier estimates of up to $ 5 billion before the IRS changed its demand .
But despite the increased exposure , Facebook ’ s chances in Tax Court are good .
A win would be just another windfall for a company that ’ s clearly reached “ the next level .
”

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 The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
In March 2008, as Facebook was speeding toward 100 million users and emerging as the next big tech company, it announced an important hire. Sheryl Sandberg was leaving Google to become Facebook’s chief operating officer. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, then 23 years old, told The New York Times that Sandberg would take the young company “to the next level.”
Based on her time at Google, Sandberg soon decided that one area where Facebook was behind its peers was in its tax dodging. “My experience is that by not having a European center and running everything through the US, it is very costly in terms of taxes,” she wrote other executives in an April 2008 email, which hasn’t been previously reported. Facebook’s head of tax agreed, replying that the company needed to find “a low taxed jurisdiction to park profits.”
Later that year, Facebook named Dublin as its international headquarters, just as Google had done when Sandberg was there. And just like Google, Facebook concocted an intra-company deal to “park profits” in Ireland, where it would pay a tax rate near zero.
Like its Big Tech peers, Facebook wasn’t much afraid of the IRS. But, as it happened, the same year that Facebook started moving profits to Ireland, the IRS launched a team to crack down on deals like that. The effort started aggressively. As we recently reported, the IRS threw everything it had at Microsoft in the largest audit in the agency’s history.
But shortly after the IRS showed this new ambition, Republicans in Congress, after taking the House in 2010, began forcing cuts to the IRS’ budget. Over the years, as Facebook grew into one of the world’s largest companies, with 2 billion users, the IRS was shrinking. By the time the IRS finally took on Facebook over its Irish deal a few years later, the agency was in over its head.
ProPublica pieced together the story of the Facebook audit from court documents filed by the two sides in their yearslong battle. (Both the IRS and the company declined to comment.) The picture revealed by the documents provides a crucial window into the IRS’ struggles to check large corporations’ tax schemes.
At one point in the audit, the exam stalled for months because there was no money to hire an expert. Agents tried for five years to pick apart the deal’s complexities and were still scrambling when the statute of limitations expired in July 2016. Like a student forced, when the bell rings, to turn in a test with unanswered questions, the IRS sent Facebook the results of its incomplete audit. Based on the work it had done, the IRS thought Facebook had massively mispriced its Irish deal and should have paid billions more in taxes.
Today the fight continues before the U.S. Tax Court, and the conflict is about to reach a climax: A trial is scheduled for February, and the IRS is trying to convince a judge that it has a firm basis for its conclusions. For its part, Facebook has defended its actions in court filings, calling the IRS’ conclusions “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.”
If the IRS prevails in court, it could cost Facebook up to $9 billion more in taxes, based on estimates in the company’s securities filings. It would be a notable defeat for a company that, when it comes to risky tax avoidance, has been more aggressive “than almost any other U.S. corporation,” said Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. According to Facebook’s public filings, from 2010 through 2017 (when the U.S. corporate tax rate was 35%), the company paid a total of $3.9 billion in taxes on $50 billion of pre-tax income, a rate of about 8%.
Still, the IRS hasn’t won a clear victory in a major profit-shifting case in court for decades, said Reuven Avi-Yonah, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and an expert on international tax. The agency, he said, has simply been “overmatched.” Given how things have gone so far in its conflict with the IRS, Facebook has good reason to be confident about the coming trial.
From the beginning in 2008, Facebook laid the foundations of its big profit shift with care, according to internal company emails disclosed by the IRS in court filings. The first step was to establish a company office in a low-tax country. Given Sandberg’s experience helping Google choose Dublin and set up its office there, Ireland was the first option. Then the question was what and who to put there. The key was having just enough of a presence in Dublin “to justify the tax benefits,” Sandberg wrote in an email at the time.
A Facebook finance executive explained that, to get “the tax advantages,” Facebook needed to transfer its intellectual property to the Dublin office. There needed to be servers there with “the key source code and user data” on them in order to “build the case” for the transfer. When a Facebook executive grumbled, “Ireland is not a first or second choice for a significant data center presence,” because it was easier to hire people in London, the tax exec responded that the Dublin center wouldn’t need to be particularly large.
In other words, it didn’t really matter how many people worked in the Dublin office. Yet, in October 2008 when Facebook publicly announced its choice of what it grandly called its “international headquarters,” Sandberg was quoted in a press release singing the praises of the Irish workforce. “After exploring various locations throughout the region, we decided Ireland was the best place,” she said. “The talent pool in Dublin is world-class and recruiting local talent will help us better understand the needs of local users.”
In a private email to an old Google colleague the previous day, however, she’d been frank. “Same decision process Google went through a long time ago,” she wrote: “tax breaks to put international revenue through. Our operations there will be very small—maybe 10 people by end of this year and 30-50 by end of next year.”
The main pieces now in place, Facebook started constructing its deal to move profits to Ireland. It set up an Irish company that declared itself to have management in the Cayman Islands. This was a trick to avoid paying even Ireland’s low 12.5% tax rate on the profits: The company would instead pay close to nothing. Now it just needed some profits. Essentially, Facebook would license its software platform to its Irish subsidiary, and this would in turn entitle the Irish subsidiary to a portion of Facebook’s profits.
IRS rules allow such intra-company deals, but the companies are supposed to arrive at a fair, “arm’s-length” price. How much the Irish company would pay for the license and what portion of Facebook’s profits the Dublin office would get—these are not numbers that companies can just make up. It doesn’t matter that the transaction was highly artificial, without any clear real-world models. The price is supposed to have some objective basis.
To conjure the prices Facebook should pay in this deal with itself, Facebook hired the giant accounting firm Ernst & Young. The firm’s experts and economists worked for years on the project. In 2011, a year after the deal had officially closed, E&Y’s team was still crunching figures and generating reports.
In September 2011, an E&Y economist emailed 600 pages of analysis to Ted Price, Facebook’s head of tax, and offered to send him three printed copies: two for his team, and one for the IRS, should the agency ever come calling. Price said that he’d take three, but they’d all be for his team. “I doubt the IRS ever even audits us on this,” he wrote. The E&Y economist replied, “knock on wood.” (In a court filing, Facebook said Price’s comment was “sarcastic.”)
The IRS began its audit, as it happened, soon afterward. But it wasn’t until 2015 that a team of agents presented preliminary findings to Facebook. The IRS thought E&Y’s estimates were off by billions of dollars. (E&Y declined to comment.)
A month later, Facebook responded with a presentation of its own that blasted the IRS’ analysis. The agency “had made significant and arbitrary errors,” Facebook later claimed in legal filings.
The IRS decided to regroup. The agency needed help, the team working the case decided, and for that, it would hire outside experts.
But there was a problem. In late 2014, Republicans in Congress had forced through a sudden $346 million cut to the IRS’ budget, and money was tight. Although billions of dollars were at stake in the Facebook audit, the IRS had no funds to hire an expert. The audit team had to wait for three months, until the new fiscal year began in October 2015, to even begin looking. Then, because of a lengthy contracting process, it took six more months for the $800,000 contract to go through. The expert, an economist who specializes in analyzing these intra-company deals, finally went to work in March 2016.
Meanwhile, the IRS was struggling to get all the documents it needed from Facebook. In January 2016, the exam team had sent off a broad request for documents about the Irish deal.
Two months later, Facebook turned over three emails in response. The company told the IRS it had “narrowly construed” the request, one of the agents on the case, Nina Wu Stone, later declared in court, and “the IRS would have to start over with issuance of a new set of [requests] if the IRS wanted a more comprehensive response.”
At the same time, the IRS feared being buried in paper. In response to another request, Facebook told the IRS the company’s systems couldn’t efficiently sort for responsive documents, and as a result, Facebook was going to turn over so much that it would “perhaps overwhelm the IRS,” as the agency put it in a court filing.
Through all of this, the clock was ticking. The IRS has three years to assess additional tax on a return, but corporate taxpayers often voluntarily extend the statute of limitations. In this case, Facebook had done so five times. Companies do this because they are hoping to avoid having to go to court.
But as the IRS began asking for more time to hire experts, Facebook decided it didn’t like where the audit was headed. The company played hardball. It offered to extend the statute again, but on one condition. The IRS had to commit that Facebook would be able to take its case to the IRS Office of Appeals.
The Office of Appeals offers taxpayers the prospect of a quiet settlement of a tax dispute, and as ProPublica reported in the story about the audit of Microsoft, large corporations often are able to obtain steep reductions in what they owe. But the IRS does have the power to block appeals. The agency rarely employs that power, but it had recently done so against other big taxpayers like Coca-Cola and Amazon. Facebook wanted to make sure that didn’t happen.
The IRS refused, and the clock continued to tick. By May 2016, with just two months left, the IRS managed to get its second expert working on the case. Nancy Bronson, an IRS supervisor, asked Facebook to reconsider an extension. That’s when Price, the Facebook executive, offered another exchange.
The IRS has a powerful tool to compel documents from large corporations that the agency thinks are dragging their feet. It’s called a “designated summons,” and it stops the clock until the taxpayer turns over all the requested documents. This can buy the IRS valuable time, but it angers corporations who must now endure added time to the audit.
Price told Bronson that Facebook would give the IRS six more months if it agreed not to use a designated summons. Again, Bronson declined. “I explained my reservations with giving up that right given the difficulties in obtaining information in a timely manner and the short period of the proposed statute extension,” she declared in a court filing.
Despite the apparent utility of designated summonses, the IRS has used them only three times since the mid-’90s. The most recent instance, against Microsoft in 2014, provoked a powerful response, and Microsoft and its corporate allies launched a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Soon, lawmakers were introducing bills seeking to curtail the IRS’ use of designated summonses and other tools.
Against this added pressure, the IRS decided to take the middle path. The agency didn’t relinquish the ability to use the designated summons, but it didn’t take the aggressive step of actually using it, either. Instead, the IRS issued a conventional summons and then sued in federal district court to enforce it. This forced Facebook to turn over documents, but the clock continued to run and it would take months for Facebook to comply.
The IRS’ decision meant that it had to finish the audit without the benefit of documents that it characterized in court filings as essential to understanding Facebook’s Ireland deal. So, that’s what it did. Shortly before the statute expired, the IRS sent Facebook an official notice closing the audit. “The examination team had not completed its fact-gathering efforts when the notice was issued,” Bronson said.
The IRS concluded, based on its incomplete analysis, that Facebook’s Irish subsidiary had underpaid for Facebook’s software platform by $7 billion: The subsidiary had paid $7 billion when it should’ve paid $14 billion. If the IRS’ view prevailed, less profit would flow to Ireland and thus more income would be taxable in the U.S. As expected, Facebook soon filed a challenge in U.S. Tax Court.
The IRS said its findings weren’t absolutely final, because it could modify them in court as it acquired more evidence. But agency veterans say such changes are unusual and make the agency’s already difficult task—fighting a complex litigation battle against a better-resourced foe—even harder.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where the IRS increased an assessment after it came out of exam,” said Ken Wood, a former attorney with the IRS who worked on large corporate audits. Making any sort of change is “dangerous,” he said, because it can undermine the IRS’ argument that its findings are firmly supported.
Last October, in a legal filing, the IRS disclosed that, having had time to review the millions of pages of documents that Facebook had turned over since 2016, it now thought Facebook’s Irish company should have paid $20 billion in the original transaction. However, the agency was apparently wary of shaking up its case by officially modifying its earlier findings. Confusingly, the IRS said it would argue at trial that its earlier estimate was too low, while simultaneously preserving that low estimate as the basis of the trial. The IRS wasn’t definitely saying Facebook should pay more; It was suggesting to the judge that it should.
A couple months later, just before Christmas, the IRS reversed course. It filed a motion officially changing its earlier findings and made the $20 billion valuation its one and only position at trial.
It’s unclear just how much tax Facebook’s Irish deal has saved the company, because the company has also made other moves to reduce taxes. Since Facebook refuses to divulge details, back of the envelope calculations based on other company disclosures provide the best guess. On that basis, ProPublica estimates that Facebook shifted at least $19 billion in profits offshore.
If the company’s big tax dodge were upended, Facebook could be forced to pay up to $9 billion more in taxes, the company recently said, an increase from its earlier estimates of up to $5 billion before the IRS changed its demand. But despite the increased exposure, Facebook’s chances in Tax Court are good. A win would be just another windfall for a company that’s clearly reached “the next level.”
Kirsten Berg contributed to this story.


motherjones--2020-01-27--Report: John Bolton’s Book Draft Says Trump Conditioned Ukraine Aid on Biden Investigations

President Donald Trump told his former national security adviser John Bolton that he would maintain a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until the country took steps to open investigations into the Bidens , according to an unpublished manuscript by the former senior trump official .
The new details , drawn from draft materials prepared by Bolton for his planned book , were recounted in a bombshell report by the New York Times late on Sunday .
They significantly undermine Trump ’ s impeachment defense and demonstrate the potential importance of Bolton ’ s testimony if it were to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ongoing trial .
In the manuscript , which Bolton circulated to White House officials as part of a standard pre-publication review process , Bolton described a private conversation he had with the president in August about Ukraine .
Trump told Bolton that “ he wanted to continue freezing $ 391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens , ” the Times reported .
Bolton was ousted as national security adviser in September after a series of policy disputes with the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ book deal .
The ensuing manuscript , which he is planning to publish sometime before the 2020 election , not only contains details of his conversation with Trump about Ukraine , but also ties several other administration officials more closely to the hold-up of military aid and casts further doubt on key past public statements .
As the Times noted : Over dozens of pages , Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September .
He described not only the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement .
For example , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president ’ s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients , Mr. Bolton wrote .
Mr. Bolton also said that after the president ’ s July phone call with the president of Ukraine , he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president , and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call .
A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton ; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August .
And the acting White House chief of staff , Mick Mulvaney , was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador , Mr. Bolton wrote .
Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege .
Since House Democrats launched an investigation into Trump ’ s Ukraine policy , Bolton has been a much-sought-after witness .
As a participant in several important meetings with Trump and his policy team related to Ukraine , Bolton could provide direct confirmation of Trump ’ s views toward the eastern European country .
Republicans have defended Trump throughout the impeachment process by claiming that no witnesses brought forth by House Democrats had firsthand knowledge of his actions toward Ukraine .
After declining to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month that he would be willing to testify before the Senate .
The Times report makes clear that any such testimony would be explosive .
Earlier this week , Trump claimed Bolton could not testify before the Senate out of national security concerns .
“ He knows some of my thoughts .
He knows what I think about leaders , ” Trump told reporters while in Davos , Switzerland .
“ What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it ’ s not very positive ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s inner circle was fixated less on any security risk that might result from his testimony , and more on the potential that what Bolton would reveal would damage Trump personally and politically .
Bolton ’ s manuscript “ intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying , ” the newspaper reported .
Only the White House has received a copy of the manuscript , Bolton ’ s spokesperson told Politico .
In the wake of the Times report , the House team trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the revelation to argue that the Senate hear his testimony .
“ There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President ’ s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump , ” the seven impeachment managers said in a joint statement .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump told his former national security adviser John Bolton that he would maintain a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until the country took steps to open investigations into the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former senior trump official. The new details, drawn from draft materials prepared by Bolton for his planned book, were recounted in a bombshell report by the New York Times late on Sunday. They significantly undermine Trump’s impeachment defense and demonstrate the potential importance of Bolton’s testimony if it were to be acquired as part of the Senate’s ongoing trial.
“He wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance.”
In the manuscript, which Bolton circulated to White House officials as part of a standard pre-publication review process, Bolton described a private conversation he had with the president in August about Ukraine. Trump told Bolton that “he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,” the Times reported.
Bolton was ousted as national security adviser in September after a series of policy disputes with the president. Two months later, he inked a book deal. The ensuing manuscript, which he is planning to publish sometime before the 2020 election, not only contains details of his conversation with Trump about Ukraine, but also ties several other administration officials more closely to the hold-up of military aid and casts further doubt on key past public statements. As the Times noted:
Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement. For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August. And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.
Since House Democrats launched an investigation into Trump’s Ukraine policy, Bolton has been a much-sought-after witness. As a participant in several important meetings with Trump and his policy team related to Ukraine, Bolton could provide direct confirmation of Trump’s views toward the eastern European country. Republicans have defended Trump throughout the impeachment process by claiming that no witnesses brought forth by House Democrats had firsthand knowledge of his actions toward Ukraine.
After declining to address House investigators, Bolton said earlier this month that he would be willing to testify before the Senate. The Times report makes clear that any such testimony would be explosive. Earlier this week, Trump claimed Bolton could not testify before the Senate out of national security concerns. “He knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders,” Trump told reporters while in Davos, Switzerland. “What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it’s not very positive?”
But the Times report indicates that Trump’s inner circle was fixated less on any security risk that might result from his testimony, and more on the potential that what Bolton would reveal would damage Trump personally and politically. Bolton’s manuscript “intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying,” the newspaper reported. Only the White House has received a copy of the manuscript, Bolton’s spokesperson told Politico.
In the wake of the Times report, the House team trying Trump’s impeachment case seized on the revelation to argue that the Senate hear his testimony. “There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump,” the seven impeachment managers said in a joint statement.


motherjones--2020-01-27--Trump’s Lawyer Just Made the Most Misleading Statement I Have Ever Heard

During the Senate impeachment trial Monday , Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow made a bold claim .
“ Not a single witness , ” he declared , “ testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance , a presidential meeting , or anything else.
” While he talked , Trump ’ s legal team displayed a slide making a similar assertion : “ NONE of the Democrats ’ witnesses say President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting.
” And that ’ s true !
Sort of .
While Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo—Ukraine ’ s president would get a meeting at the White House only after he announced investigations into Trump ’ s political foes—he acknowledged that Trump had not told him this directly .
But here ’ s the thing .
Less than 24 hours ago , multiple news outlets reported that John Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that yes , Trump really did link the military aid to an investigation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times , Bolton wrote that Trump told him in August 2019 that “ he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
” And Bolton isn ’ t the only one .
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney last year also appeared to acknowledge—while speaking to reporters on camera—that Trump had linked the Ukraine aid to his demands for an investigation into Democrats .
( Mulvaney later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) So was Sekulow lying ?
Well , not exactly .
Sekulow didn ’ t say that no Trump administration official had said that Trump told them about the quid pro quo .
Instead , Sekulow said that no “ witness ” had “ testified ” that Trump had done so .
You see , Trump ordered Bolton and Mulvaney not to participate in the House impeachment inquiry , and—unlike many other administration officials—they chose to comply with the president ’ s demand .
They were not “ witnesses.
” They have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoena Bolton and Mulvaney last week , but Republicans blocked that effort on a party-line vote .
Democrats will soon have another opportunity to persuade a handful of Republicans to issue those subpoenas .
If they succeed , Sekulow may need to find a new talking point .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
During the Senate impeachment trial Monday, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow made a bold claim. “Not a single witness,” he declared, “testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.” While he talked, Trump’s legal team displayed a slide making a similar assertion: “NONE of the Democrats’ witnesses say President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting.”
Sekulow, less than a day after the Bolton news broke: "Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else." pic.twitter.com/uDv9ZrMnGz — Jeremy Schulman (@jeremyschulman) January 27, 2020
And that’s true! Sort of. While Trump’s EU ambassador, Gordon Sondland, testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo—Ukraine’s president would get a meeting at the White House only after he announced investigations into Trump’s political foes—he acknowledged that Trump had not told him this directly.
But here’s the thing. Less than 24 hours ago, multiple news outlets reported that John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that yes, Trump really did link the military aid to an investigation of Joe Biden. According to the New York Times, Bolton wrote that Trump told him in August 2019 that “he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.”
And Bolton isn’t the only one. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney last year also appeared to acknowledge—while speaking to reporters on camera—that Trump had linked the Ukraine aid to his demands for an investigation into Democrats. (Mulvaney later tried to walk back that admission.)
So was Sekulow lying? Well, not exactly. Sekulow didn’t say that no Trump administration official had said that Trump told them about the quid pro quo. Instead, Sekulow said that no “witness” had “testified” that Trump had done so.
You see, Trump ordered Bolton and Mulvaney not to participate in the House impeachment inquiry, and—unlike many other administration officials—they chose to comply with the president’s demand. They were not “witnesses.” They have not “testified.”
Senate Democrats tried to subpoena Bolton and Mulvaney last week, but Republicans blocked that effort on a party-line vote. Democrats will soon have another opportunity to persuade a handful of Republicans to issue those subpoenas. If they succeed, Sekulow may need to find a new talking point.


motherjones--2020-01-27--Supreme Court Lets Trump Enforce Policy Against Poor Immigrants

The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce a policy designed to make it harder for poor and working-class immigrants to obtain green cards .
The people most likely to be affected come disproportionately from Africa , the Caribbean , and Latin America .
In a 5-4 decision , the Supreme Court opted on Monday to lift a nationwide injunction blocking a regulation that directs immigration officials to deny green cards to people they deem likely to use modest amounts of government aid like Medicaid and food stamps .
The four liberal justices on the court dissented .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block hundreds of thousands of immigrants from obtaining green cards and could be President Donald Trump ’ s most dramatic upheaval of the nation ’ s legal immigration system .
In October , New York district court judge George Daniels issued a nationwide injunction blocking the rule , calling it “ repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.
” The Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his injunction to remain in effect .
( The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge rule dates back to 1882 , when , in response to a nativist backlash , Congress directed immigration officials to keep out immigrants deemed likely to become dependent on government assistance .
Before the Trump administration regulation , people were considered public charges only if most of their income was likely to come from the government , a generous standard that allowed the vast majority of people to pass the public charge test .
( People without green cards are already ineligible for the vast majority of public assistance , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using those benefits after they become legally entitled to them . )
The new rule is an unprecedented expansion of what it means for someone to be a public charge .
As Daniels found in October , Trump officials did not “ articulate why they are changing the public charge definition , why this new definition is needed now , or why the definition set forth in the Rule—which has absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law—is reasonable .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce a policy designed to make it harder for poor and working-class immigrants to obtain green cards. The people most likely to be affected come disproportionately from Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court opted on Monday to lift a nationwide injunction blocking a regulation that directs immigration officials to deny green cards to people they deem likely to use modest amounts of government aid like Medicaid and food stamps. The four liberal justices on the court dissented.
The so-called public charge rule has the potential to block hundreds of thousands of immigrants from obtaining green cards and could be President Donald Trump’s most dramatic upheaval of the nation’s legal immigration system.
In October, New York district court judge George Daniels issued a nationwide injunction blocking the rule, calling it “repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” The Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his injunction to remain in effect. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a similar injunction.)
The public charge rule dates back to 1882, when, in response to a nativist backlash, Congress directed immigration officials to keep out immigrants deemed likely to become dependent on government assistance. Before the Trump administration regulation, people were considered public charges only if most of their income was likely to come from the government, a generous standard that allowed the vast majority of people to pass the public charge test. (People without green cards are already ineligible for the vast majority of public assistance, which is why the rule punishes them for potentially using those benefits after they become legally entitled to them.)
The new rule is an unprecedented expansion of what it means for someone to be a public charge. As Daniels found in October, Trump officials did not “articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the Rule—which has absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law—is reasonable.”


motherjones--2020-01-27--House Dems Now Considering Whether to Call Bolton to Testify in House

In the aftermath of the John Bolton bombshell—the news that a draft of his upcoming book recounts the president telling Bolton he was withholding military aid from Ukraine to force that country to launch political investigations to benefit him—some House Democrats are considering demanding Bolton appear before a House committee , perhaps as soon as in the next few days .
Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , has become the flashpoint of an impeachment trial fight over whether Democrats can call witnesses who were not questioned during last year ’ s House inquiry into the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats asked Bolton to submit to a voluntary interview .
He did not agree to that .
At the time , Charles Kupperman , a former Bolton deputy in the White House , was seeking a court ruling to determine if he could testify over the objections of the Trump White House .
Bolton said he would wait for that case to be decided .
Democrats ultimately withdrew their subpoena of Kupperman , and the case was dismissed .
Bolton has been the elusive prize for House Democrats .
Trump , his legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly claimed that the House inquiry produced no witness who could say Trump told him or her directly that he was pressuring the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky , by withholding military assistance , to launch investigations to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and to find material to support an unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine , not Russia , had somehow hacked the 2016 election .
Gordon Sondland , the European Union ambassador whom Trump used in his effort to muscle Zelensky , testified there was indeed a “ quid pro quo ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coveted White House visit until Ukraine announced these investigations .
But Sondland said that when it came to the military aid being part of Trump ’ s scheme , for him that was only a “ presumption.
” White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney appeared to say at a press briefing last year that there was indeed a quid pro quo that involved the military aid , but he quickly walked back that admission .
Mulvaney , too , refused to testify in the House inquiry .
So Bolton could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump used the military aid as leverage for his own personal gain .
In response to the news about Bolton ’ s manuscript , some House Democrats started discussing among themselves whether a House committee should immediately call Bolton to testify .
It ’ s not clear that he would now agree to do so .
But Bolton has said publicly that he would testify in the Senate trial if subpoenaed to do so .
The witness issue has not been resolved in the Senate trial .
According to the Republican-written rules for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party-line vote , a final decision on witnesses will not be made until after each side presents its opening arguments , a process that is still under way .
Much attention has focused on whether a handful of Republican senators—including Mitt Romney , Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , Lamar Alexander , and Cory Gardner—will join Democrats in pushing for testimony , with Bolton and Mulvaney being two key witnesses sought by the House managers .
On Monday morning , Romney said it was “ increasingly likely ” there would be enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness .
And Collins put out a statement : “ The reports about John Bolton ’ s books strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.
” With the prospect of Bolton appearing as a witness in the trial unresolved—it ’ s still possible he might not be called—several House Democrats on Monday initiated talks within their caucus about taking the dramatic step of subpoenaing him or once again requesting that he testify before a House committee , according to multiple Democratic sources .
Bolton would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump informed him at the time that he was leaning on Zelensky by withholding the $ 391 million in military assistance Ukraine needed for its ongoing war against Russia .
But , according to these same sources , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the chair of the House intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager , is not in favor of this , believing that Senate Republicans might somehow use such a move as an argument against calling Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial .
“ The onus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a relevant and willing witness before they vote , ” says a Democratic aide working on the impeachment trial .
Several House Democrats raising the idea of calling Bolton to testify in the House note they are sensitive to this , but they say they still intend to raise the matter within the Democratic caucus .
They point out that a Bolton appearance in the House—or his refusal to testify—could put pressure on Senate Republicans to call him as a witness in the Senate trial .
The Bolton revelation could turn the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains many relevant disclosures about the Ukraine scandal .
He writes that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed Rudy Giuliani was trying to get Marie Yovanovitch , the US ambassador to Ukraine , fired perhaps to benefit clients of his other than Trump .
He also reportedly notes that he shared with Attorney General William Barr his concerns about Giuliani .
According to the New York Times , when Bolton on December 30 submitted a copy of his manuscript to the White House to be reviewed for classified material , this “ intensified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the aftermath of the John Bolton bombshell—the news that a draft of his upcoming book recounts the president telling Bolton he was withholding military aid from Ukraine to force that country to launch political investigations to benefit him—some House Democrats are considering demanding Bolton appear before a House committee, perhaps as soon as in the next few days.
Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, has become the flashpoint of an impeachment trial fight over whether Democrats can call witnesses who were not questioned during last year’s House inquiry into the Ukraine scandal. During that inquiry, House Democrats asked Bolton to submit to a voluntary interview. He did not agree to that. At the time, Charles Kupperman, a former Bolton deputy in the White House, was seeking a court ruling to determine if he could testify over the objections of the Trump White House. Bolton said he would wait for that case to be decided. Democrats ultimately withdrew their subpoena of Kupperman, and the case was dismissed.
Bolton has been the elusive prize for House Democrats. Trump, his legal team, and his GOP defenders have repeatedly claimed that the House inquiry produced no witness who could say Trump told him or her directly that he was pressuring the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, by withholding military assistance, to launch investigations to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and to find material to support an unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had somehow hacked the 2016 election. Gordon Sondland, the European Union ambassador whom Trump used in his effort to muscle Zelensky, testified there was indeed a “quid pro quo” in which Trump would not grant Zelensky a coveted White House visit until Ukraine announced these investigations. But Sondland said that when it came to the military aid being part of Trump’s scheme, for him that was only a “presumption.” White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney appeared to say at a press briefing last year that there was indeed a quid pro quo that involved the military aid, but he quickly walked back that admission. Mulvaney, too, refused to testify in the House inquiry.
So Bolton could be the witness who provides first-hand confirmation that Trump used the military aid as leverage for his own personal gain.
In response to the news about Bolton’s manuscript, some House Democrats started discussing among themselves whether a House committee should immediately call Bolton to testify. It’s not clear that he would now agree to do so. But Bolton has said publicly that he would testify in the Senate trial if subpoenaed to do so.
The witness issue has not been resolved in the Senate trial. According to the Republican-written rules for the trial approved by the Senate on a party-line vote, a final decision on witnesses will not be made until after each side presents its opening arguments, a process that is still under way. Much attention has focused on whether a handful of Republican senators—including Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, and Cory Gardner—will join Democrats in pushing for testimony, with Bolton and Mulvaney being two key witnesses sought by the House managers. On Monday morning, Romney said it was “increasingly likely” there would be enough Republican votes to call Bolton as a witness. And Collins put out a statement: “The reports about John Bolton’s books strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”
With the prospect of Bolton appearing as a witness in the trial unresolved—it’s still possible he might not be called—several House Democrats on Monday initiated talks within their caucus about taking the dramatic step of subpoenaing him or once again requesting that he testify before a House committee, according to multiple Democratic sources. Bolton would, under oath, presumably say that Trump informed him at the time that he was leaning on Zelensky by withholding the $391 million in military assistance Ukraine needed for its ongoing war against Russia.
But, according to these same sources, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chair of the House intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager, is not in favor of this, believing that Senate Republicans might somehow use such a move as an argument against calling Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial. “The onus is clearly on the Senate to call a relevant and willing witness before they vote,” says a Democratic aide working on the impeachment trial.
Several House Democrats raising the idea of calling Bolton to testify in the House note they are sensitive to this, but they say they still intend to raise the matter within the Democratic caucus. They point out that a Bolton appearance in the House—or his refusal to testify—could put pressure on Senate Republicans to call him as a witness in the Senate trial.
The Bolton revelation could turn the Trump impeachment trial upside down. His manuscript contains many relevant disclosures about the Ukraine scandal. He writes that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed Rudy Giuliani was trying to get Marie Yovanovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine, fired perhaps to benefit clients of his other than Trump. He also reportedly notes that he shared with Attorney General William Barr his concerns about Giuliani. According to the New York Times, when Bolton on December 30 submitted a copy of his manuscript to the White House to be reviewed for classified material, this “intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying.”


motherjones--2020-01-28--Hear the Bern: Why Bernie Sanders Strikes a Chord With Musicians

Evan Weiss was surprised when he got a text message asking if his band could perform at a rally for Bernie Sanders in Coralville , Iowa , in November .
The text came from an old friend of Weiss who works for Sanders ’ campaign as an event coordinator and has a hand in booking the music for campaign rallies .
His band , an emo trio from Chicago called Pet Symmetry , formed in 2012 and has since toured the country several times , performing everywhere from dingy punk basements to big splashy festivals .
But opening a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Weiss and his bandmates—drummer Marcus Nuccio and guitarist Erik Czaja—tell me , is a group of staunch Sanders supporters , but the band has “ never written political songs , or have been outwardly political on our social media , ” Weiss says , which is why he was a bit puzzled by the invite .
Pet Symmetry is hardly the first band that comes to mind as the ideal campaign rally musical guest , and the band readily admits that .
“ It was clear that the crowd we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , ” Nuccio says .
But a smallish indie band performing at a Sanders rally is not an anomaly for the Vermont senator ’ s 2020 presidential campaign .
Music has played an important , if unorthodox , role for Sanders ’ campaign .
He ’ s cornered the market on speaking to the plugged-in , music-obsessed Pitchfork crowd .
He ’ s closing out his push to win Iowa with a pair of major rallies headlined by Bon Iver and Vampire Weekend , superstars of the indie rock scene .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has featured a diverse set of mostly smaller and younger up-and-coming artists at his rallies—the sort of bands that you might know if you keep up with taste-making music blogs like BrooklynVegan and Stereogum , or indie labels like Topshelf Records and Polyvinyl Records .
Musicians whose own community and DIY-focused existence heavily mirror the Vermont senator ’ s populist grassroots campaign .
At a rally in Minneapolis in November , hip-hop guru Brother Ali and Prince ’ s former backing band , New Power Generation , revved the crowd up before Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to a crowd of thousands .
A few weeks earlier at an October rally in Queens , where Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) endorsed him , his campaign played the song “ Expect the Bayonet ” by grungy Philadelphia power-pop rockers Sheer Mag to hype the massive crowd before Sanders and AOC took the stage .
At a different recent Iowa rally , another Chicago indie-emo outfit , Ratboys ( who Nuccio also plays drums in ) performed an acoustic set before Sanders took the stage .
And in East Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ band Ozomatli opened a Sanders rally .
His campaign tried this out four years ago , too , with smaller artists like Tacocat , The Thermals , and Jessie Frye playing at his rallies , along with bigger artists like Killer Mike and Vampire Weekend .
Most of these are not the household names one would expect to open for one of the leading Democratic nominees for president .
( I reached out to Sanders ’ campaign to learn a bit more about what goes into the process for booking the music for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment . )
Few Democratic candidates have galvanized young voters like Sanders .
In the 2016 election , his campaign ’ s rise to prominence had much to do with his vast popularity among voters under 30 .
And for his 2020 campaign , that has held strong , with Sanders winning endorsements from youth-led progressive organizations like the Sunrise Movement and the Dream Defenders .
A poll of Iowa voters released this week found that , among voters under 50 years old , Sanders posts a massive lead with 44 percent support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that group at just 10 percent ) .
For Weiss and his bandmates , being invited to perform at one of Sanders ’ rallies is in line with the grassroots , people-centered message at the heart of his campaign .
And it taps into a younger , more artistically driven culture where a lot of those young supporters are .
“ [ His ] campaign has just surrounded themselves with very young , vibrant , artist-focused people who are really tapped into , I think , what his immediate voter fanbase is like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a singer-songwriter whose songs have been featured in television shows and movies and who has performed at two of Sanders ’ rally , shares that sentiment .
“ Not every artist is going to be a chart-topping superstar , ” she says , “ but they have something to offer and contribute.
” Music has , so far , mostly played a periphery role for the Democrats vying for president .
Warren has used Dolly Parton ’ s “ 9 to 5 ” as her go-to walk-out song to drive home the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and populism that she wants to define her campaign .
Silicon Valley evangelist Andrew Yang is still trying to make “ Return of the Mack ” his thing .
The “ High Hopes ” dance may haunt former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg until the end of time .
But as the 2020 primary shifts into high gear—and the candidate field whittles down—you can count on music to play a much larger role .
The Democratic candidates are starting to rack up endorsements from celebrities ( Cardi B feels the Bern ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out as proud members of the Yang Gang ; Mandy Moore has pledged her loyalty to Mayor Pete ) who will no doubt stump for them on the campaign trail .
And some may even break out a guitar to sing a song or two in support of their preferred candidate , much like Weezer ’ s Rivers Cuomo did at a Yang rally in November .
It shouldn ’ t be surprising that Sanders is hip with indie and punk scenes .
As mayor of Burlington in the 1980s , Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , opened up 242 Main Street , an all-ages government-funded music venue situated in an old administrative building in downtown Burlington .
Over the course of 242 Main ’ s 30-plus-year history ( it doors closed for good in 2016 ) , the venue became a pillar of Burlington ’ s punk scene , occasionally hosting legendary bands like Fugazi , the Misfits , and Operation Ivy , but mostly as a breeding ground for local bands .
This isn ’ t to say that Sanders is a huge indie-rock aficionado , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alt-weekly Seven Days in 2016 for 242 Main ’ s 30th anniversary , O ’ Meara Sanders said her husband is “ not a great fan of rock music.
” For Weiss , it makes perfect sense that Sanders ’ campaign is resonating across various music scenes .
“ He ’ s definitely the most punk-adjacent of the candidates .
His messaging is all about community , ” Weiss tells me .
“ It feels like he ’ s one of us .
He ’ ll wax poetic about not being a Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that really resonates with us .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Evan Weiss was surprised when he got a text message asking if his band could perform at a rally for Bernie Sanders in Coralville, Iowa, in November. The text came from an old friend of Weiss who works for Sanders’ campaign as an event coordinator and has a hand in booking the music for campaign rallies. His band, an emo trio from Chicago called Pet Symmetry, formed in 2012 and has since toured the country several times, performing everywhere from dingy punk basements to big splashy festivals. But opening a political rally was a first. Pet Symmetry, as Weiss and his bandmates—drummer Marcus Nuccio and guitarist Erik Czaja—tell me, is a group of staunch Sanders supporters, but the band has “never written political songs, or have been outwardly political on our social media,” Weiss says, which is why he was a bit puzzled by the invite.
Pet Symmetry is hardly the first band that comes to mind as the ideal campaign rally musical guest, and the band readily admits that. “It was clear that the crowd we were playing for had no idea who we were,” Nuccio says. But a smallish indie band performing at a Sanders rally is not an anomaly for the Vermont senator’s 2020 presidential campaign. Music has played an important, if unorthodox, role for Sanders’ campaign. He’s cornered the market on speaking to the plugged-in, music-obsessed Pitchfork crowd. He’s closing out his push to win Iowa with a pair of major rallies headlined by Bon Iver and Vampire Weekend, superstars of the indie rock scene. And over the past few months his campaign has featured a diverse set of mostly smaller and younger up-and-coming artists at his rallies—the sort of bands that you might know if you keep up with taste-making music blogs like BrooklynVegan and Stereogum, or indie labels like Topshelf Records and Polyvinyl Records. Musicians whose own community and DIY-focused existence heavily mirror the Vermont senator’s populist grassroots campaign.
At a rally in Minneapolis in November, hip-hop guru Brother Ali and Prince’s former backing band, New Power Generation, revved the crowd up before Sanders and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) spoke to a crowd of thousands. A few weeks earlier at an October rally in Queens, where Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) endorsed him, his campaign played the song “Expect the Bayonet” by grungy Philadelphia power-pop rockers Sheer Mag to hype the massive crowd before Sanders and AOC took the stage. At a different recent Iowa rally, another Chicago indie-emo outfit, Ratboys (who Nuccio also plays drums in) performed an acoustic set before Sanders took the stage. And in East Los Angeles in November, Grammy-winning Latin funk/punk/hip-hop band Ozomatli opened a Sanders rally. His campaign tried this out four years ago, too, with smaller artists like Tacocat, The Thermals, and Jessie Frye playing at his rallies, along with bigger artists like Killer Mike and Vampire Weekend. Most of these are not the household names one would expect to open for one of the leading Democratic nominees for president. (I reached out to Sanders’ campaign to learn a bit more about what goes into the process for booking the music for campaign rallies, but they declined to comment.)
Few Democratic candidates have galvanized young voters like Sanders. In the 2016 election, his campaign’s rise to prominence had much to do with his vast popularity among voters under 30. And for his 2020 campaign, that has held strong, with Sanders winning endorsements from youth-led progressive organizations like the Sunrise Movement and the Dream Defenders. A poll of Iowa voters released this week found that, among voters under 50 years old, Sanders posts a massive lead with 44 percent support (Elizabeth Warren was in second among that group at just 10 percent).
For Weiss and his bandmates, being invited to perform at one of Sanders’ rallies is in line with the grassroots, people-centered message at the heart of his campaign. And it taps into a younger, more artistically driven culture where a lot of those young supporters are. “[His] campaign has just surrounded themselves with very young, vibrant, artist-focused people who are really tapped into, I think, what his immediate voter fanbase is like,” Weiss says. Lissie Maurus, a singer-songwriter whose songs have been featured in television shows and movies and who has performed at two of Sanders’ rally, shares that sentiment. “Not every artist is going to be a chart-topping superstar,” she says, “but they have something to offer and contribute.”
Music has, so far, mostly played a periphery role for the Democrats vying for president. Warren has used Dolly Parton’s “9 to 5” as her go-to walk-out song to drive home the themes of class, politics, gender, and populism that she wants to define her campaign. Silicon Valley evangelist Andrew Yang is still trying to make “Return of the Mack” his thing. The “High Hopes” dance may haunt former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg until the end of time.
But as the 2020 primary shifts into high gear—and the candidate field whittles down—you can count on music to play a much larger role. The Democratic candidates are starting to rack up endorsements from celebrities (Cardi B feels the Bern; Dave Chapelle and Donald Glover both came out as proud members of the Yang Gang; Mandy Moore has pledged her loyalty to Mayor Pete) who will no doubt stump for them on the campaign trail. And some may even break out a guitar to sing a song or two in support of their preferred candidate, much like Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo did at a Yang rally in November.
It shouldn’t be surprising that Sanders is hip with indie and punk scenes. As mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, opened up 242 Main Street, an all-ages government-funded music venue situated in an old administrative building in downtown Burlington. Over the course of 242 Main’s 30-plus-year history (it doors closed for good in 2016), the venue became a pillar of Burlington’s punk scene, occasionally hosting legendary bands like Fugazi, the Misfits, and Operation Ivy, but mostly as a breeding ground for local bands. This isn’t to say that Sanders is a huge indie-rock aficionado, though. Speaking to Vermont’s alt-weekly Seven Days in 2016 for 242 Main’s 30th anniversary, O’Meara Sanders said her husband is “not a great fan of rock music.”
For Weiss, it makes perfect sense that Sanders’ campaign is resonating across various music scenes. “He’s definitely the most punk-adjacent of the candidates. His messaging is all about community,” Weiss tells me. “It feels like he’s one of us. He’ll wax poetic about not being a Washington insider ’till the cows come home and that really resonates with us.”