motherjones--2020-10-23--Yes, Trump Was Calmer in Debate No. 2. He’s Still a Narcissist With No Sense of Empathy.

In the second presidential debate of 2020 , the sitting president running for reelection was not bonkers .
He was only occasionally rude , and his rants were intermittent , not constant .
So compared with his maniacal performance in the first debate , Donald Trump scored .
But he still sent the message : He doesn ’ t care that much about other people .
Not about COVID victims .
Not about children separated from their parents ( and those who are horrified by that ) .
Not about Dreamers .
Not about families of color who have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans who sit at the kitchen table worrying about their health care , jobs , and bills .
Almost every time Trump had the opportunity to connect with others beyond the debate stage , he took a pass .
His focus was mainly on slamming—and smearing—Joe Biden .
And that mission was largely untempered by any demonstrable concern for the citizenry .
Biden had that territory all to himself—and he seized it .
This was clear right out of the chute , as NBC News ’ Kristen Welker , an even-keeled and effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ query about the pandemic .
Throughout the discussion of this ongoing crisis , which is claiming thousands of American lives a week , Trump evinced not an iota of empathy .
With over 220,000 dead , he boasted—if that ’ s what you can call it—that 2.2 million were not dead .
That ’ s the number of people who probably would have lost their lives to the coronavirus if absolutely no government action had been taken .
( This is akin to a firefighter saying , “ Imagine all the folks who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the hoses.
” ) And Trump stuck to his usual BS , insisting he had done a grand job , claiming his own medical treatment was a cure ( it wasn ’ t ) , and declaring a vaccine was weeks away ( it is not ) .
“ We ’ re rounding the turn , ” Trump proclaimed .
“ It ’ s going away.
” He said the nation was “ learning to live with it.
” There wasn ’ t a word of sympathy for those stricken , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their dearest , and for those Americans who have lost jobs , livelihoods , and precious moments .
Biden had an easy opening .
Noting the high and rising death toll , the former vice president asserted , “ Anyone responsible for that many deaths should not remain president of the United States of America.
” He presented his plan for how handling the pandemic .
( Trump offered none . )
And Biden did that thing he did so well in the first debate : He sought to connect with folks affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He talked about those people who have experienced the deep loss of the pandemic : “ You folks home who have an empty chair at the kitchen table this morning , that man or wife going to bed tonight and reaching over to try to touch their—out of habit—where their wife or husband was , is gone .
Learning to live with it ?
Come on .
We ’ re dying with it.
” Biden was acknowledging the awful reality of the killer virus .
Trump responded by claiming Biden would shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It seemed the only reality for Trump was the fight he is now in to retain power and the threat posed to him by Biden .
This dynamic continued throughout the evening .
Trump tried to inject Hunter Biden—and confusing and unproven allegations about his business deals—into the conversation as much as he could .
( While doing so , Trump claimed he had never gotten any money from Russia , which was a lie .
A Russian oligarch paid Trump millions of dollars in 2013 when Trump staged the Miss Universe contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 million in profit when another Russian oligarch bought a run-down Palm Beach mansion from Trump in a deal that Trump himself believed was tied to Vladimir Putin . )
It ’ s unlikely that non-Fox watchers could follow Trump ’ s convoluted accusations .
Biden ’ s retort was more plainspoken : “ Release your tax returns or stop talking about corruption.
” With this back and forth often impenetrable , the overall debate did generate an impression of who gives a damn about someone other than himself .
When a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s policy of separating migrant children from their families at the border , Trump defended the measure and acted as if it was no biggie .
He callously observed the kids are “ so well taken care of ” in “ facilities that were so “ clean.
” Biden countered with heartfelt outrage : “ Those kids are alone .
Nowhere to go .
It ’ s criminal.
” Biden also spoke earnestly about Dreamers , people who were brought to the United States as children without documentation and shielded from deportation but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Many of them are model citizens .
Over 20,000 of them are first responders out there taking care of people during this crisis .
We owe them.
” During one of those Trump attempts to make Hunter the main focus , Biden spoke into the camera : “ There ’ s a reason why he ’ s bringing up all this malarkey .
He doesn ’ t want to talk about the substantive issues .
It ’ s not about his family and my family .
It ’ s about your family.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was a cliché for a politician to resort to “ kitchen table ” issues .
“ I ’ m not a typical politician , ” Trump sneered .
“ That ’ s why I got elected.
” This fundamental difference between the two candidates was again illuminated when Welker asked them about the Talk : that discussion Black parents have with their children regarding how to behave so they won ’ t be shot by police officers .
Biden got personal .
Referring to his daughter , a social worker , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell my daughter , if she ’ s pulled over , make sure she puts—for a traffic stop—put both hands on top of the wheel and don ’ t reach for the glove box , because someone may shoot you .
But a Black parent , no matter how wealthy or how poor they are , has to teach their child : When you are walking down the street , don ’ t have a hoodie on when you go across the street .
Making sure that you in fact , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sir , ’ ‘ no sir , ’ hands on top of the wheel.
” He added , “ The fact of the matter is , there is institutional racism in America.
” Trump responded with an ego-driven and false boast : He has done more for Black people than any president with the “ possible exception ” of Abraham Lincoln .
( He also insisted he was “ the least racist person in the room.
” ) It was no shocker that a man with a long record of racism could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition .
But Trump didn ’ t even bother to try .
Trump ’ s advisers were likely ecstatic that in these 90 minutes he did not come across as a madman .
And if there are any voters out there who were put off by his previous outing on the debate stage but looking to stick with him , Thursday night might have provided them justification for doing so .
Yet though Trump had managed to dial back the erratic behavior and extremism—while still lying a mile a minute—this face-off again showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even in a subdued state , Trump was every bit the narcissist he has always been .
Some things just can ’ t be dialed back .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the second presidential debate of 2020, the sitting president running for reelection was not bonkers. He was only occasionally rude, and his rants were intermittent, not constant. So compared with his maniacal performance in the first debate, Donald Trump scored. But he still sent the message: He doesn’t care that much about other people. Not about COVID victims. Not about children separated from their parents (and those who are horrified by that). Not about Dreamers. Not about families of color who have to contend with police violence. Not about Americans who sit at the kitchen table worrying about their health care, jobs, and bills.
Almost every time Trump had the opportunity to connect with others beyond the debate stage, he took a pass. His focus was mainly on slamming—and smearing—Joe Biden. And that mission was largely untempered by any demonstrable concern for the citizenry. Biden had that territory all to himself—and he seized it.
This was clear right out of the chute, as NBC News’ Kristen Welker, an even-keeled and effective moderator, opened the questioning with a query about the pandemic. Throughout the discussion of this ongoing crisis, which is claiming thousands of American lives a week, Trump evinced not an iota of empathy. With over 220,000 dead, he boasted—if that’s what you can call it—that 2.2 million were not dead. That’s the number of people who probably would have lost their lives to the coronavirus if absolutely no government action had been taken. (This is akin to a firefighter saying, “Imagine all the folks who would have died had we not turned on the hoses.”) And Trump stuck to his usual BS, insisting he had done a grand job, claiming his own medical treatment was a cure (it wasn’t), and declaring a vaccine was weeks away (it is not). “We’re rounding the turn,” Trump proclaimed. “It’s going away.” He said the nation was “learning to live with it.” There wasn’t a word of sympathy for those stricken, for the families who have said goodbye to their dearest, and for those Americans who have lost jobs, livelihoods, and precious moments.
Biden had an easy opening. Noting the high and rising death toll, the former vice president asserted, “Anyone responsible for that many deaths should not remain president of the United States of America.” He presented his plan for how handling the pandemic. (Trump offered none.) And Biden did that thing he did so well in the first debate: He sought to connect with folks affected by this horrific and continuing tragedy. He talked about those people who have experienced the deep loss of the pandemic: “You folks home who have an empty chair at the kitchen table this morning, that man or wife going to bed tonight and reaching over to try to touch their—out of habit—where their wife or husband was, is gone. Learning to live with it? Come on. We’re dying with it.” Biden was acknowledging the awful reality of the killer virus. Trump responded by claiming Biden would shut down the country should he become president.
It seemed the only reality for Trump was the fight he is now in to retain power and the threat posed to him by Biden.
This dynamic continued throughout the evening. Trump tried to inject Hunter Biden—and confusing and unproven allegations about his business deals—into the conversation as much as he could. (While doing so, Trump claimed he had never gotten any money from Russia, which was a lie. A Russian oligarch paid Trump millions of dollars in 2013 when Trump staged the Miss Universe contest there, and Trump pocketed about $50 million in profit when another Russian oligarch bought a run-down Palm Beach mansion from Trump in a deal that Trump himself believed was tied to Vladimir Putin.) It’s unlikely that non-Fox watchers could follow Trump’s convoluted accusations. Biden’s retort was more plainspoken: “Release your tax returns or stop talking about corruption.” With this back and forth often impenetrable, the overall debate did generate an impression of who gives a damn about someone other than himself.
When a question was posed about the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their families at the border, Trump defended the measure and acted as if it was no biggie. He callously observed the kids are “so well taken care of” in “facilities that were so “clean.” Biden countered with heartfelt outrage: “Those kids are alone. Nowhere to go. It’s criminal.” Biden also spoke earnestly about Dreamers, people who were brought to the United States as children without documentation and shielded from deportation but now targeted by the Trump administration: “Many of them are model citizens. Over 20,000 of them are first responders out there taking care of people during this crisis. We owe them.”
During one of those Trump attempts to make Hunter the main focus, Biden spoke into the camera: “There’s a reason why he’s bringing up all this malarkey. He doesn’t want to talk about the substantive issues. It’s not about his family and my family. It’s about your family.” Trump mocked the ex-veep and said it was a cliché for a politician to resort to “kitchen table” issues. “I’m not a typical politician,” Trump sneered. “That’s why I got elected.”
This fundamental difference between the two candidates was again illuminated when Welker asked them about the Talk: that discussion Black parents have with their children regarding how to behave so they won’t be shot by police officers. Biden got personal. Referring to his daughter, a social worker, he said: “I never had to tell my daughter, if she’s pulled over, make sure she puts—for a traffic stop—put both hands on top of the wheel and don’t reach for the glove box, because someone may shoot you. But a Black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child: When you are walking down the street, don’t have a hoodie on when you go across the street. Making sure that you in fact, if you get pulled over, just ‘yes sir,’ ‘no sir,’ hands on top of the wheel.” He added, “The fact of the matter is, there is institutional racism in America.”
Trump responded with an ego-driven and false boast: He has done more for Black people than any president with the “possible exception” of Abraham Lincoln. (He also insisted he was “the least racist person in the room.”) It was no shocker that a man with a long record of racism could not identify with this component of the American condition. But Trump didn’t even bother to try.
Trump’s advisers were likely ecstatic that in these 90 minutes he did not come across as a madman. And if there are any voters out there who were put off by his previous outing on the debate stage but looking to stick with him, Thursday night might have provided them justification for doing so. Yet though Trump had managed to dial back the erratic behavior and extremism—while still lying a mile a minute—this face-off again showed what truly separates these two men. Even in a subdued state, Trump was every bit the narcissist he has always been. Some things just can’t be dialed back.


motherjones--2020-10-23--Kristen Welker Asked Donald Trump About Immigration—and His Answer Was Both Disgusting and False

During Thursday night ’ s debate , President Donald Trump repeated one of his most disgusting lies : The Obama administration , he claimed , created family separation , and his administration ended it .
“ They did it , ” Trump said .
“ We changed the policy.
” There is not even a sliver of truth to that .
Former Vice President Joe Biden responded forcefully , and accurately .
“ They separated them at the border to make it a disincentive to come to begin with , ” Biden said .
“ Coyotes didn ’ t bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
They got separated from their parents .
And it makes us a laughingstock .
And it violates every notion of who we are as a nation.
” The Obama administration did not separate families to deter people from coming to the United States .
In the spring of 2018 , after a similar pilot program the year before , Trump ’ s Justice and Homeland Security Departments launched a “ zero-tolerance ” policy across the US-Mexico border .
Under zero tolerance , parents were prosecuted for the misdemeanor offense of crossing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to parents being separated from their kids , who could not be in jails while their parents awaited trial .
This was not an accidental byproduct .
It was the point .
“ We need to take away children , ” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Justice Department prosecutors .
Following a massive public backlash , the Trump administration abandoned the policy less than two months after it began .
In June 2018 , after a federal judge ordered the administration to reunite separated families , the administration reported that it had separated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The total number of families separated by the Trump administration will likely never be known , since it did not initially keep track of separations .
The government has since said that about 5,500 children were taken from their parents under its watch .
Not surprisingly , Trump managed to fit in more lies during the immigration segment of the debate .
He claimed , for example , that less than 1 percent of immigrants show up for their court dates .
“ Only the really—I hate to say this—but those with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump claimed .
Recent data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse , a research center at Syracuse University , showed that about 99 percent of asylum seekers show up for their court dates .
Data from Trump ’ s own Justice Department showed that about 75 percent of people showed for up their immigration court hearings in 2018 .
On Wednesday , lawyers in the family separation case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union said that the parents of 545 children still haven ’ t been found .
About two-thirds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America without their children .
Typically , their kids would have been released from government custody to live with relatives in the United States , although some likely ended up living with foster families .
“ It ’ s criminal , ” Biden said of the family separations .
“ It ’ s criminal .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
During Thursday night’s debate, President Donald Trump repeated one of his most disgusting lies: The Obama administration, he claimed, created family separation, and his administration ended it. “They did it,” Trump said. “We changed the policy.” There is not even a sliver of truth to that.
Former Vice President Joe Biden responded forcefully, and accurately. “They separated them at the border to make it a disincentive to come to begin with,” Biden said. “Coyotes didn’t bring them over. Their parents were with them. They got separated from their parents. And it makes us a laughingstock. And it violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”
Wow. Donald Trump just said that only immigrants "with the lowest IQ" come back for court hearings under 'catch and release' #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/GP0jfDcd4H — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2020
The Obama administration did not separate families to deter people from coming to the United States. In the spring of 2018, after a similar pilot program the year before, Trump’s Justice and Homeland Security Departments launched a “zero-tolerance” policy across the US-Mexico border. Under zero tolerance, parents were prosecuted for the misdemeanor offense of crossing the border without authorization. That led to parents being separated from their kids, who could not be in jails while their parents awaited trial.
This was not an accidental byproduct. It was the point. “We need to take away children,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Justice Department prosecutors. Following a massive public backlash, the Trump administration abandoned the policy less than two months after it began.
In June 2018, after a federal judge ordered the administration to reunite separated families, the administration reported that it had separated about 2,700 children from their parents.
The total number of families separated by the Trump administration will likely never be known, since it did not initially keep track of separations. The government has since said that about 5,500 children were taken from their parents under its watch.
Not surprisingly, Trump managed to fit in more lies during the immigration segment of the debate. He claimed, for example, that less than 1 percent of immigrants show up for their court dates. “Only the really—I hate to say this—but those with the lowest IQ, they might come back,” Trump claimed.
Recent data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University, showed that about 99 percent of asylum seekers show up for their court dates. Data from Trump’s own Justice Department showed that about 75 percent of people showed for up their immigration court hearings in 2018.
On Wednesday, lawyers in the family separation case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union said that the parents of 545 children still haven’t been found. About two-thirds of those parents were deported to Central America without their children. Typically, their kids would have been released from government custody to live with relatives in the United States, although some likely ended up living with foster families.
“It’s criminal,” Biden said of the family separations. “It’s criminal.”


motherjones--2020-10-23--What Happened to the Investigation Into the FBI’s 2016 Leaks?

What happened to the investigation into leaks by the FBI ’ s New York field office related to the 2016 Hillary Clinton email probe ?
It would be good , right about now , to know .
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has said he ’ s still investigating those alleged leaks , but his office isn ’ t saying where the inquiry stands .
The 2016 leaks controversy is especially relevant these days because it seems to involve a familiar figure : Rudy Giuliani .
On October 25 , 2016 , Giuliani said on Fox News that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left.
” Two days later , he predicted : “ We ’ ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.
” The next day , FBI Director James Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress , announcing that the FBI had reopened its probe into Clinton ’ s emails after discovering new emails on a laptop seized from former Rep. Anthony Weiner , the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin .
Republicans immediately publicized Comey ’ s letter .
In an interview with a conservative radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suggest he had gotten inside information from within the FBI .
He said he had learned from former agents and “ a few active agents who obviously don ’ t want to identify themselves ” of “ a revolution going on inside the FBI ” over Comey ’ s July 2016 announcement that Clinton would not face charges for using a private server for official emails .
Giuliani later backtracked , claiming—not convincingly—that his earlier assertion was based only on speculation by retired agents .
Giuliani , who has since denied receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a request for comment .
Alleged leaks by FBI agents in 2016 were wildly impactful .
According to a June 2018 report by Horowitz , top FBI officials believed the fear of additional leaks from the New York Field Office influenced Comey ’ s decision to send his letter .
Though Comey denied it , FBI general counsel James Baker told the IG ’ s office that the FBI had been confident that “ if we don ’ t put out a letter , somebody is going to leak it .
That definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be innocuous , but the damage was done .
Comey ’ s action is widely considered to have helped secure Donald Trump ’ s electoral victory .
Giuliani is now trying to recreate the 2016 magic .
Earlier this month , he provided to the New York Post material supposedly found on a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop .
Giuliani has since helped the Trump campaign push the issue .
Trump brought up dubious allegations about Hunter Biden extensively at Thursday night ’ s debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has convinced the FBI to “ start investigating ” the contents of Hunter Biden ’ s laptop .
It not at all clear whether the FBI is actually investigating any alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden .
USA Today reported the bureau is looking into whether an alleged Russian effort to damage Joe Biden ’ s campaign resulted in the release of Hunter Biden ’ s correspondence .
On Friday , Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee announced that the FBI had requested an interview with a former business associate of Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is manipulating the FBI dovetails with Trump ’ s overt pressure on FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate and arrest his political enemies .
The effort has alarmed Democrats .
On Thursday , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) urged Wray to resist the pressure .
“ We are deeply concerned about the possibility that in response to these reports the Trump Administration will take actions before Election Day that would seek to damage the Democratic presidential candidate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senators wrote .
Amid this swirl , it would be helpful to know what ’ s going on with the Justice Department inspector general ’ s investigation into the alleged 2016 leaks .
Horowitz ’ s 2018 report said that his office was looking into leaks from the FBI ’ s New York Field Office and that it had “ profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.
” Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2019 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” possible leaks from the FBI field office .
Horowitz said his office was still “ investigating those contacts.
” Ten months later , the office has said no more about the probe .
Asked where that investigation stands , Stephanie Logan , a spokesperson for Horowitz ’ s office , declined to comment .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
What happened to the investigation into leaks by the FBI’s New York field office related to the 2016 Hillary Clinton email probe? It would be good, right about now, to know. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has said he’s still investigating those alleged leaks, but his office isn’t saying where the inquiry stands.
The 2016 leaks controversy is especially relevant these days because it seems to involve a familiar figure: Rudy Giuliani.
On October 25, 2016, Giuliani said on Fox News that Trump backers “had a couple of surprises left.” Two days later, he predicted: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”
The next day, FBI Director James Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress, announcing that the FBI had reopened its probe into Clinton’s emails after discovering new emails on a laptop seized from former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Republicans immediately publicized Comey’s letter.
In an interview with a conservative radio host later that day, Giuliani appeared to suggest he had gotten inside information from within the FBI. He said he had learned from former agents and “a few active agents who obviously don’t want to identify themselves” of “a revolution going on inside the FBI” over Comey’s July 2016 announcement that Clinton would not face charges for using a private server for official emails. Giuliani later backtracked, claiming—not convincingly—that his earlier assertion was based only on speculation by retired agents.
Giuliani, who has since denied receiving FBI leaks, did not respond to a request for comment.
Alleged leaks by FBI agents in 2016 were wildly impactful. According to a June 2018 report by Horowitz, top FBI officials believed the fear of additional leaks from the New York Field Office influenced Comey’s decision to send his letter. Though Comey denied it, FBI general counsel James Baker told the IG’s office that the FBI had been confident that “if we don’t put out a letter, somebody is going to leak it. That definitely was discussed.”
The emails turned out to be innocuous, but the damage was done. Comey’s action is widely considered to have helped secure Donald Trump’s electoral victory.
Giuliani is now trying to recreate the 2016 magic. Earlier this month, he provided to the New York Post material supposedly found on a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop. Giuliani has since helped the Trump campaign push the issue. Trump brought up dubious allegations about Hunter Biden extensively at Thursday night’s debate. Giuliani also claimed late Wednesday that he has convinced the FBI to “start investigating” the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
I finally got the FBI to start investigating a laptop they have had for over 8 months. And it turns out to be valid and incriminates #CrookedBiden the #BidenCrimeFamily. So do we get an apology from Tweeter, Facebook, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN etc. And when does the Censorship end — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) October 22, 2020
It not at all clear whether the FBI is actually investigating any alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. USA Today reported the bureau is looking into whether an alleged Russian effort to damage Joe Biden’s campaign resulted in the release of Hunter Biden’s correspondence. On Friday, Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee announced that the FBI had requested an interview with a former business associate of Hunter Biden.
Giuliani’s claim that he is manipulating the FBI dovetails with Trump’s overt pressure on FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate and arrest his political enemies. The effort has alarmed Democrats.
On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) urged Wray to resist the pressure. “We are deeply concerned about the possibility that in response to these reports the Trump Administration will take actions before Election Day that would seek to damage the Democratic presidential candidate and undermine the rule of law,” the senators wrote.
“As is widely known, Mr. Giuliani for years has partnered with Kremlin-linked individuals in an effort to manufacture dirt on the former Vice President,’ Schumer and Wyden said, citing Giuliani’s association with a Ukrainian legislator who the Treasury Department recently labeled a Russian agent and sanctioned.
Amid this swirl, it would be helpful to know what’s going on with the Justice Department inspector general’s investigation into the alleged 2016 leaks. Horowitz’s 2018 report said that his office was looking into leaks from the FBI’s New York Field Office and that it had “profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.”
Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2019 that his office was “very concerned about” possible leaks from the FBI field office. Horowitz said his office was still “investigating those contacts.” Ten months later, the office has said no more about the probe. Asked where that investigation stands, Stephanie Logan, a spokesperson for Horowitz’s office, declined to comment.


motherjones--2020-10-23--Inside Colorado’s Epic Battle Over a Popular Gun Safety Law

When ex–Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale was tackled , detained , and hospitalized late last month after his wife alleged he was violent and trying to hurt himself , Fort Lauderdale police confiscated 10 firearms from his home .
Candice Parscale later said that her husband “ was not violent towards me that day or any day prior , ” but police began a legal process to try to keep those guns away from Pascale for a longer time under Florida ’ s “ red flag ” law , enacted after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Florida ’ s ( sometimes called “ extreme risk protection orders ” or “ gun violence restraining orders ” ) give authorities varying abilities to temporarily seize guns from someone deemed to be an immediate threat to themselves or others , as reported by family members ( or in some states , others ) .
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws , according to a count by the Trace , with many more proposed—but not without fierce opposition from gun rights groups , county supervisors , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground is Colorado , which became the 17th state to enact a red flag law this year , after voters elected Democratic majorities to both houses of the state legislature .
The law has been used 73 times in its first seven months , but opposition has been swift : In the aftermath , nearly half of the state ’ s counties have declared themselves “ Second Amendment sanctuaries ” and passed local ordinances or other rules that buck the state law .
The fight is now intensifying in Colorado ’ s race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the latest short film in our series of election-year documentaries about gun control , produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures ,  director Brett Story follows a handful of Coloradans with sharply differing perspectives on the controversial issue , including a state legislator and domestic abuse survivor , a member of a local militia , and a Colorado county sheriff .
That sheriff , Weld County ’ s Steve Reams , has become a torch bearer for a “ resistance ” movement against the law , telling a CNN crew in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisoner in his own lockup than abide by something he views as unconstitutional .
His county ’ s board of commissioners passed a resolution to declare itself a “ Second Amendment sanctuary county ” in March .
“ There ’ s just a lot of places in the law where it can be misused or abused in a way that could absolutely negatively impact someone , ” he says in the film .
“ The list of what qualifies as a household member is pretty broad .
So broad that I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to file a red flag petition against me three times in the last , probably six months.
” But state Rep. Daneya Esgar , serving Pueblo County , argues that the law is essential to preventing the escalation of domestic violence .
“ We ’ ve been way too quiet for way too long when it comes to standing up for domestic violence survivors , ” she says in the film .
“ And giving them a tool to keep them safe is absolutely something we need to talk about.
” The film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action , taking her message to the streets to elicit support in the form of honks from passing cars .
“ As a mother of adult biracial men who are seen by society as Black men and who are constantly , from the time they were little boys , targeted , I just couldn ’ t stand by and not do anything , ” she says .
“ I do it for my kids .
I do it for my nieces and nephews .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to face this.
” As these individuals respond to the culture war erupting over this issue in their state , Sanctuary offers a timely meditation on the meaning of safety in the United States today , in a state that is haunted by its own tragic share of mass shootings , from Columbine to Aurora and beyond .
Sanctuary is the newest addition to our library of investigative reporting on the gun violence epidemic .
You can also check out our previous short documentary film in this series produced by Chicken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not Going to Change 400 Years in Four , directed by Angela Tucker and Kristi Jacobson .
It ’ s a profile of Satana Deberry , the progressive district attorney of Durham County , North Carolina .
Her election made history , but now she ’ s grappling with what it means to run a law enforcement system that locks up people who look like her .
More recently , Mother Jones published One Shot One Kill , a documentary that follows a father and two of his sons as they embark on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a deeply held family tradition that connects the Neal family to the beauty of the land , the tradition of hunting , and what it means to be both a hunter and gun owner in 2020 .
When a mid-hunt conversation between them turns to the Second Amendment , the trip becomes an opportunity for Peabody-nominated filmmaker Nancy Schwartzman to train her lens on how one of America ’ s most fraught cultural battles , gun control , plays out in a single family .
Brett Story is a filmmaker and writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screened internationally at festivals such as CPH-DOX , the Viennale , SXSW , True/False , and Sheffield Doc/Fest .
Her 2016 feature documentary , The Prison in Twelve Landscapes ,  was nominated for a Canadian Screen Award , and her most recent feature documentary , The Hottest August , continues to screen around the world .
She is an assistant professor in the School of Image Arts at Ryerson University .

When ex–Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale was tackled, detained, and hospitalized late last month after his wife alleged he was violent and trying to hurt himself, Fort Lauderdale police confiscated 10 firearms from his home. Candice Parscale later said that her husband “was not violent towards me that day or any day prior,” but police began a legal process to try to keep those guns away from Pascale for a longer time under Florida’s “red flag” law, enacted after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Red flag laws like Florida’s (sometimes called “extreme risk protection orders” or “gun violence restraining orders”) give authorities varying abilities to temporarily seize guns from someone deemed to be an immediate threat to themselves or others, as reported by family members (or in some states, others). Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws, according to a count by the Trace, with many more proposed—but not without fierce opposition from gun rights groups, county supervisors, and local sheriffs’ departments.
One such battleground is Colorado, which became the 17th state to enact a red flag law this year, after voters elected Democratic majorities to both houses of the state legislature. The law has been used 73 times in its first seven months, but opposition has been swift: In the aftermath, nearly half of the state’s counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” and passed local ordinances or other rules that buck the state law. The fight is now intensifying in Colorado’s race for the US Senate. In Sanctuary, the latest short film in our series of election-year documentaries about gun control, produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures, director Brett Story follows a handful of Coloradans with sharply differing perspectives on the controversial issue, including a state legislator and domestic abuse survivor, a member of a local militia, and a Colorado county sheriff.
That sheriff, Weld County’s Steve Reams, has become a torch bearer for a “resistance” movement against the law, telling a CNN crew in April that he’d rather be a prisoner in his own lockup than abide by something he views as unconstitutional. His county’s board of commissioners passed a resolution to declare itself a “Second Amendment sanctuary county” in March. “There’s just a lot of places in the law where it can be misused or abused in a way that could absolutely negatively impact someone,” he says in the film. “The list of what qualifies as a household member is pretty broad. So broad that I’ve had an inmate in my jail attempt to file a red flag petition against me three times in the last, probably six months.”
“We’ve been way too quiet for way too long when it comes to standing up for domestic violence survivors.”
But state Rep. Daneya Esgar, serving Pueblo County, argues that the law is essential to preventing the escalation of domestic violence. “We’ve been way too quiet for way too long when it comes to standing up for domestic violence survivors,” she says in the film. “And giving them a tool to keep them safe is absolutely something we need to talk about.”
The film also shows Sandy Anderson, an organizer with the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action, taking her message to the streets to elicit support in the form of honks from passing cars. “As a mother of adult biracial men who are seen by society as Black men and who are constantly, from the time they were little boys, targeted, I just couldn’t stand by and not do anything,” she says. “I do it for my kids. I do it for my nieces and nephews. I do it for my new granddaughter who will have to face this.”
As these individuals respond to the culture war erupting over this issue in their state, Sanctuary offers a timely meditation on the meaning of safety in the United States today, in a state that is haunted by its own tragic share of mass shootings, from Columbine to Aurora and beyond.
Sanctuary is the newest addition to our library of investigative reporting on the gun violence epidemic. You can also check out our previous short documentary film in this series produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures, called I Am Not Going to Change 400 Years in Four, directed by Angela Tucker and Kristi Jacobson. It’s a profile of Satana Deberry, the progressive district attorney of Durham County, North Carolina. Her election made history, but now she’s grappling with what it means to run a law enforcement system that locks up people who look like her. More recently, Mother Jones published One Shot One Kill, a documentary that follows a father and two of his sons as they embark on a deer hunting trip in rural Tennessee, a deeply held family tradition that connects the Neal family to the beauty of the land, the tradition of hunting, and what it means to be both a hunter and gun owner in 2020. When a mid-hunt conversation between them turns to the Second Amendment, the trip becomes an opportunity for Peabody-nominated filmmaker Nancy Schwartzman to train her lens on how one of America’s most fraught cultural battles, gun control, plays out in a single family.
About the filmmaker:
Brett Story is a filmmaker and writer based in Toronto. Her films have screened internationally at festivals such as CPH-DOX, the Viennale, SXSW, True/False, and Sheffield Doc/Fest. Her 2016 feature documentary, The Prison in Twelve Landscapes, was nominated for a Canadian Screen Award, and her most recent feature documentary, The Hottest August, continues to screen around the world. She is an assistant professor in the School of Image Arts at Ryerson University.


motherjones--2020-10-24--If Trump Loves Hypersonic Missiles So Much, He Really Should Learn How To Pronounce Their Name

Donald Trump really seems to like hypersonic missiles , an elusive , high-speed weapon that poses problems for even the most sophisticated air defense systems .
He likes them so much that the military asked for $ 3.2 billion from Congress this year to further research the missiles , which have become a key focus for China and Russia ’ s militaries , too .
The only problem ?
He doesn ’ t seem quite able to pronounce their name .
When not referring to them as “ super-dupers , ” Trump seems to conflate the missiles with Hydrosonic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake , perhaps , but a persistent one for him .
Attention to detail does not appear to be a signature feature of either Trump ’ s arms control policy or his oversight of the Defense Department .
Last month , after regularly bragging about the fat budgets he ’ s given the Pentagon , Trump said the top people at the department “ want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much sway at the Pentagon hasn ’ t seemed to stop him from lavishing more money on the defense industry .
After the journalist Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered by agents of Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia , Trump defended the Saudi dictator by noting that the kingdom had committed to spend $ 110 billion on “ military equipment from Boeing , Lockheed Martin , Raytheon and many other great US defense contractors.
” During a meeting with the Vietnamese prime minister , Trump pitched him on importing weapons from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best military equipment in the world by far , whether it ’ s jet fighters or missiles or rockets or anything you want to name , we make , we ’ re acknowledged to have made , we make the best , ” Trump said .
He ’ s also used the White House Twitter feed to promote companies like Lockheed .
For all this investment in stockpiling weapons , the Trump administration has been far less interested in diplomacy .
Under Trump , the White House has retreated from multilateral organizations like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gut the State Department , and exited all but one major arms treaty .
Despite his tough talk , the “ global threat from nuclear weapons and menacing missiles has grown since President Trump entered office , ” the Washington Post reported last week .
Meanwhile , that final arms control agreement , the New START treaty with Russia , is nearing its expiration date in February .
Despite some high-profile negotiations last week , the two sides have not finalized a deal to extend it .
If the treaty does expire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ super-duper ” diplomacy to rein in the ensuing arms race .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Donald Trump really seems to like hypersonic missiles, an elusive, high-speed weapon that poses problems for even the most sophisticated air defense systems. He likes them so much that the military asked for $3.2 billion from Congress this year to further research the missiles, which have become a key focus for China and Russia’s militaries, too. The only problem? He doesn’t seem quite able to pronounce their name.
"I call 'em super-dupers" — here's a supercut of Trump bragging about the military's "Hydrosonic" missiles. ("Hydrosonic" is a toothbrush brand; the word Trump is looking for is "hypersonic," but over a span of many months nobody has bothered correcting him.) pic.twitter.com/RXO3E2PHP3 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 24, 2020
When not referring to them as “super-dupers,” Trump seems to conflate the missiles with Hydrosonic, a brand of toothbrushes. An unfortunate mistake, perhaps, but a persistent one for him. Attention to detail does not appear to be a signature feature of either Trump’s arms control policy or his oversight of the Defense Department. Last month, after regularly bragging about the fat budgets he’s given the Pentagon, Trump said the top people at the department “want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.” That momentary concern with special interests holding too much sway at the Pentagon hasn’t seemed to stop him from lavishing more money on the defense industry.
As I reported last month:
After the journalist Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered by agents of Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Trump defended the Saudi dictator by noting that the kingdom had committed to spend $110 billion on “military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great US defense contractors.” During a meeting with the Vietnamese prime minister, Trump pitched him on importing weapons from the United States. “We make the best military equipment in the world by far, whether it’s jet fighters or missiles or rockets or anything you want to name, we make, we’re acknowledged to have made, we make the best,” Trump said. He’s also used the White House Twitter feed to promote companies like Lockheed.
For all this investment in stockpiling weapons, the Trump administration has been far less interested in diplomacy. Under Trump, the White House has retreated from multilateral organizations like the United Nations, repeatedly tried to gut the State Department, and exited all but one major arms treaty. Despite his tough talk, the “global threat from nuclear weapons and menacing missiles has grown since President Trump entered office,” the Washington Post reported last week.
Meanwhile, that final arms control agreement, the New START treaty with Russia, is nearing its expiration date in February. Despite some high-profile negotiations last week, the two sides have not finalized a deal to extend it. If the treaty does expire, it’ll take a whole lot of “super-duper” diplomacy to rein in the ensuing arms race.


motherjones--2020-10-26--Payday Lenders Gave Trump Millions. Then He Helped Them Cash in on the Working Poor.

This story was reported in partnership with Type Investigations , with support from the Puffin Foundation .
Mike Hodges was still a small fry among payday lenders when Donald Trump visited Hodges ’ s hometown of Nashville , Tennessee , in 2018 .
Hodges and his wife Tina owned somewhere around 100 stores scattered across the state , giving out small-dollar loans for fees that work out to annual interest rates as high as 450 percent .
Their firm , Advance Financial , was puny compared to the chains of 1,000 or more that rose from the industry ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hodges quickly distinguished themselves as major donors to Trump , shelling out more than a million dollars to his campaign and main super PAC .
In January 2018 , Hodges told a reporter for USA Today that he was among those when the president showed up in Nashville to give a speech at the Gaylord Opryland .
The following October , the couple co-sponsored a Nashville appearance by Vice President Mike Pence , where ticket prices ranged between $ 1,000 and $ 100,000 .
By then , Mike Hodges had emerged as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump White House — access he openly boasted about purchasing .
“ Every dollar amount , no matter how small or large it is ” is important , Hodges explained two weeks ahead of the Pence fundraiser , according to an audio recording from an industry webinar obtained by the Washington Post .
Hodges mentioned the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee : “ For example , I ’ ve gone to Ronna McDaniel and said , ‘ Ronna , I need help on something.
’ She ’ s been able to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Hey , we have one of our large givers .
They need an audience.
’ ” America ’ s payday lenders and others selling exploitative financial products to the working poor have enjoyed a string of victories since Trump took over as president .
Enforcement actions against the industry by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have fallen dramatically , and the country ’ s top banking regulators appear to be readying a loophole that would let payday lenders operate even in jurisdictions where local governments have banned their product .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 that his bosses had ordered staff economists to rig a study so that it downplayed harm to consumers who repeatedly take out payday loans .
The biggest losers in this arrangement have been America ’ s working poor — above all , Blacks and Latinos , who are trapped disproportionately by payday lenders ’ exorbitant fees ( typically $ 15 per $ 100 for a loan due back usually in two weeks ) .
The industry foremost sees green , and also operates in white low- and moderate-income communities .
But a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lending showed that predominantly minority communities in Colorado were seven times more likely to have a payday lending store than predominantly white communities .
A 2012 study by Pew Charitable Trusts found that Blacks were three times as likely as whites to have taken out a payday loan .
Hodges and his industry colleagues have gone all-in on a president who claims to “ love the Hispanics , ” be the greatest for Black Americans since Abraham Lincoln , and who has paid essentially no federal income tax for years by manipulating bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly fraudulently .
Even after the coronavirus pandemic hit , the payday moguls could count on Trump .
Initially , these storefront lenders were barred from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program designed to bail out small businesses .
Yet after an intense lobbying campaign , the administration apparently shifted course : Records of PPP recipients released in July revealed that dozens of payday lenders and similar businesses received at least $ 9 billion from the program .
( Hodges ’ company , with more than 500 employees , the threshold for PPP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Presumably , none of these companies will pay triple-digit interest rates on any money they might have to payback under the PPP rules .
The industry ’ s biggest win came in July , when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that payday lenders will not have to verify a borrower ’ s ability to repay a loan before lending them money .
The ability-to-repay requirement was hatched ( but not quite finalized ) during the Obama administration .
Under that policy , payday lenders would have a choice : do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ability to pay back a debt , or limit them to no more than six loans per year .
The Trump administration killed the rule before it could take effect , adding to the vulnerability of those hardest hit by the pandemic economy .
“ There is never a good time to enable predatory loans carrying 400 percent interest rates , ” says Michael Calhoun , president of the Center for Responsible Lending .
“ But this is the worst possible time.
” I first encountered Mike Hodges in 2008 while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial crisis was generating boom times for the country ’ s payday lenders , check cashers , and other businesses part of what might be called Poverty , Inc .
In Las Vegas , he and his wife were attending the 20th annual gathering of the what used to be called the National Check Cashers Association , a group which later expanded to include pawnbrokers , auto title lenders ( who charge sky-high rates from borrowers using their cars as loan collateral ) , and others peddling high-priced services to a struggling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Financial Service Centers of America , at once more respectable-sounding and opaque .
Hodges and his wife stuck out when I spotted them sitting alone at a big round lunch table at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the first day of the FiSCA conference .
Like most every other attendee , they were white , but also far younger and more fit than their typical counterparts .
In a sea of polyester and ill-fitting sportcoats , they were dressed in polos and khakis , looking as if they were attending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcomed the chance to share his views on the industry he was breaking his way into .
While the bigger players then were focused on further national expansion , he wanted to convince the wider public that payday lenders were legitimate , not parasitic .
“ They ’ ve put much more effort into lobbying and not enough into public relations , ” he said of the industry ’ s old guard .
So tainted was the term “ payday loan , ” he added , that he called the transaction “ cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on television ads for Advance Financial .
“ The term ‘ payday ’ has become the black skull and cross bones of our industry , ” he said .
Still , business was good , not despite the deep recession that had overtaken much of the world in 2008 , but because of it : “ We ’ re at record loan volumes , ” he boasted then .
Today , as the Hodges operate storefronts across Tennessee and provide online payday loans in another dozen states , they have expanded their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , according to the Federal Election Commission .
In 2018 , Mike and Tina Hodges gave $ 125,000 each to America First Action , Trump ’ s main Super PAC , and Hodges himself chipped in another $ 250,000 in 2019 .
Whereas the Hodges and their employees contributed under $ 10,000 during the 2014 election cycle , the Hodges and others at Advance Financial gave at least $ 410,000 in the 2016 cycle and at least another $ 1,045,000 in the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went into Republican campaign coffers , including the campaigns of individual House and Senate Republicans and various Republican campaign committees .
( Hodges himself donated $ 125,000 to the RNC in 2019 , according to the FEC , and another $ 60,000 to the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees . )
The Hodges and their employees had already contributed another $ 800,000-plus by the time the recording of Hodges boasting of his connections to the Trump White House emerged .
“ It ’ s hard for me to say this number because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , I would have thought you were crazy , ” Hodges told the Post .
“ But we ’ ve donated about $ 1.25 million to [ Trump ’ s ] campaign so far .
So Tina and I have become , I would say , one of the larger donors to the campaign over the last couple of years.
” Since then , the Hodges and employees of Advance Financial have made at least another $ 528,000 in campaign contributions—again , nearly all of it to Republicans .
Hodges declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead to send a quote from Hunter S. Thompson : “ In a democracy , you have to be a PLAYER.
” By the time Trump was elected , the country ’ s payday lenders were used to being under regulatory siege .
A sweeping set of financial reforms President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010 created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , which payday lenders saw as a potentially existential threat to their business .
Phil Locke , who for five years served as president of the pro-payday Michigan Financial Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails from FiSCA warning about a new federal watchdog with the power to crack down on “ unfair , deceptive , or abusive acts or practices.
” Six months after its inception , the CFPB announced its intention to investigate the payday lending industry “ People were petrified of the CFPB , ” Locke said at the time .
The CFPB spent five years considering a new rule to govern what it dubbed “ small-denomination loans.
” Obama himself weighed in on the topic when , in a speech in 2015 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t mind seeing folks make a profit….But if you ’ re making that profit by trapping hardworking Americans into a vicious cycle of debt , you got to find a new business model.
” Researchers working for the CFPB discovered that three in every four payday loans go to borrowers who take out more than ten loans a year .
Three out of every five were made to borrowers who , by the time they had paid off a loan , had spent more in fees than the amount borrowed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 400 needed to scrounge up $ 460 in two weeks to repay the loan .
Yet more than half of payday ’ s customers , their researchers found , were refinancing their loans so many times in a row that they paid at least $ 400 on the original $ 400 loan .
These were people living on the economic margins — and once again , they were disproportionately people of color .
The average payday borrower earns about $ 30,000 per year , according to a 2016 Pew study , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting their monthly expenses without the additional burden of repaying a high-fee , short-term loan .
The CFPB did not have the authority to cap the interest rates a company could charge , so instead it created the ability-to-repay policy .
If implemented , CFPB researchers said , the policy would save consumers $ 7 billion a year .
With that highly profitable cycle of debt under threat since the Obama administration , the donations to Trump began to flow .
Allan Jones , the founder and CEO of payday lender Check Into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company contributed more than $ 65,000 to the 2016 Trump campaign , according to the FEC , and his company gave $ 25,000 to the president ’ s inaugural committee .
Advance America , the country ’ s largest payday chain ( 1,500 stores ) , to Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration .
Rod Aycox , an early champion of auto title loans , gave $ 1 million to the inaugural committee .
In 2018 and 2019 , the Community Financial Services Association of America , a payday trade group , held its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotel outside Miami , pouring roughly $ 1 million into the Trump Organization coffers , according to estimates by ProPublica .
Payday lenders were also spending more than $ 1 million a year on the services of dozens of Washington lobbyists .
Hodges seemed to outdo everyone when in 2017 he hired lobbyist Al Simpson , who had until that year served as Mick Mulvaney ’ s chief of staff in Congress .
As a lawmaker , Mulvaney had dubbed the CFPB a “ joke… in a sick , sad kind of way.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House as Trump ’ s director of the Office of Management and Budget—and soon took on a second role as the CFPB ’ s interim director .
Simpson met repeatedly with Mulvaney , according to the Washington Post , while Mulvaney was doing that double duty .
( Next , Mulvaney would become Trump ’ s third chief of staff . )
As of October , Advance Financial ’ s parent company spent $ 450,000 on Simpson ’ s services , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
( Simpson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment . )
One of Mulvaney ’ s first public acts as the CFPB ’ s acting chief was to suspend the new ability-to-repay standard that the bureau had crafted after a five-year process , announcing the bureau ’ s intention to reconsider it .
One month later , Mulvaney requested a budget of zero dollars .
“ I ’ ve been assured , ” he wrote in the request , that there was enough money already in hand “ sufficient for the bureau to carry out its statutory mandates.
” The CFPB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped a lawsuit against four companies it had charged with running illegal payday lending operations using interest rates of up to 950 percent on an annual basis .
Scores of other cases would also likely fade under this new regime , according to a New York Times investigation .
An analysis by the Consumer Federation of America showed that under the previous ( and first ) CFPB director , Richard Cordray , consumers received $ 43 million a week in relief from the CFPB , but that the amount had fallen to under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Mulvaney was named Trump ’ s acting chief of staff in December 2018 , his deputy at the Office of Management and Budget , Kathy Kraninger , took over the helm of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .
Her background was in homeland security .
She had no experience working in the world of financial services .
Yet by a vote of 50-49 , the Senate approved Kraninger as the CFPB ’ s permanent director .
She appeared to be a lock for a five-year term that would stretch through the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled in June that a president could fire the bureau ’ s chief without cause ( meaning a new president could replace whoever was running the agency ) .
In February 2019 , Kraninger announced her intention to gut the ability-to-repay rule before it went into effect , claiming there was “ insufficient evidence and legal support ” to justify it .
Federal regulatory agencies didn ’ t typically just toss a new rule born of a five-year process ; studies had be conducted and rationales offered .
But the Trump administration apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rig it .
In April , the New York Times revealed that CFPB economist Jonathan Lanning , on his last day on the job , had written a memo that accused Trump appointees of pressuring career employees to manipulate the research .
That included the use of “ statistical gimmicks to downplay the harm consumers would suffer if the payday restrictions were repealed.
” Matt Leas , a spokesman for the CFPB , said at the time that the agency has “ a fair , transparent and thorough ” process for making rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bureau bought itself more time to bury the ability-to-repay policy by issuing a 15-month delay of compliance These moves were “ a slap in the face to consumers—especially people of color—who have been victims of predatory business practices and abusive lenders , ” said civil rights advocate Vanita Gupta .
Since the pandemic began in March 2020 , says Center for Responsive Lending analyst Graciela Aponte-Diaz , “ we ’ ve seen an administration taking advantage while everyone ’ s attention is on the coronavirus to pass all these rules that make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Indeed , the CFPB in July officially killed the ability-to-repay rule .
The Trump administration seems to have at least one more gift in mind for the industry .
In recent months , regulators at both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have been laying the groundwork for a policy known as “ rent-a-bank , ” which would allow payday lenders to arrange loans through out-of-state banks , allowing them to bypass state laws imposing interest rate caps .
That latest “ scheme , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the next payoff for a big investment in the current occupant of the White House .
“ You ’ ve got people suffering , but this is another example of the Trump administration helping the payday lenders .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was reported in partnership with Type Investigations, with support from the Puffin Foundation.
Mike Hodges was still a small fry among payday lenders when Donald Trump visited Hodges’ hometown of Nashville in 2018. Hodges and his wife, Tina, owned somewhere around 100 stores scattered across the state, giving out small-dollar loans for fees that work out to annual interest rates as high as 450 percent. Their firm, Advance Financial, was puny compared to the chains of 1,000 or more that rose from the industry’s pioneers in the 1990s. But the Hodges quickly distinguished themselves as major donors to Trump, shelling out more than a million dollars to his campaign and main super-PAC. In January 2018, Hodges told a reporter for USA Today that he was among those granted a private audience with Trump when the president showed up in Nashville to give a speech at the Gaylord Opryland. The following October, the couple co-sponsored a Nashville appearance by Vice President Mike Pence, where ticket prices ranged between $1,000 and $100,000.
By then, Mike Hodges had emerged as the industry’s point person with the Trump White House—access he openly boasted about purchasing.
“Every dollar amount, no matter how small or large it is” is important, Hodges said two weeks ahead of the Pence fundraiser, according to an audio recording from an industry webinar obtained by the Washington Post. Hodges mentioned the chair of the Republican National Committee: “For example, I’ve gone to Ronna McDaniel and said, ‘Ronna, I need help on something.’ She’s been able to call over to the White House and say, ‘Hey, we have one of our large givers. They need an audience.’”
America’s payday lenders and others selling exploitative financial products to the working poor have enjoyed a string of victories since Trump took over as president. Enforcement actions against the industry by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have fallen dramatically, and the country’s top banking regulators appear to be readying a loophole that would let payday lenders operate even in jurisdictions where local governments have banned their product. A whistleblower inside the CFPB charged in August 2019 that his bosses had ordered staff economists to rig a study so that it downplayed harm to consumers who repeatedly take out payday loans.
The biggest losers in this arrangement have been America’s working poor—above all, Black and Latino workers, who are trapped disproportionately by payday lenders’ exorbitant fees (typically $15 per $100 for a loan due back usually in two weeks). The industry foremost sees green, and also operates in white low- and moderate-income communities. But a 2017 study by the Center for Responsible Lending showed that communities predominantly of people of color in Colorado were seven times more likely to have a payday lending store than predominantly white communities. A 2012 study by Pew Charitable Trusts found that Black people were three times as likely as white people to have taken out a payday loan.
Hodges and his industry colleagues have gone all-in on a president who claims to “love the Hispanics” and be the greatest for Black Americans since Abraham Lincoln, and who has paid essentially no federal income tax for years by manipulating bank loans and the tax system, quite possibly fraudulently. Even after the coronavirus pandemic hit, the payday moguls could count on Trump. Initially, these storefront lenders were barred from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program designed to bail out small businesses. Yet after an intense lobbying campaign, the administration apparently shifted course: Records of PPP recipients released in July revealed that dozens of payday lenders and similar businesses received at least $9 billion from the program. (Hodges’ company, with more than 500 employees, the threshold for PPP, was not eligible for the program.) Presumably, none of these companies will pay triple-digit interest rates on any money they might have to pay back under the PPP rules.
The industry’s biggest win came in July, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that payday lenders will not have to verify a borrower’s ability to repay a loan before lending them money. The ability-to-repay requirement was hatched (but not quite finalized) during the Obama administration. Under that policy, payday lenders would have a choice: Do the necessary underwriting to determine a borrower’s ability to pay back a debt, or limit them to no more than six loans per year.
The Trump administration killed the rule before it could take effect, adding to the vulnerability of those hardest hit by the pandemic economy. “There is never a good time to enable predatory loans carrying 400 percent interest rates,” says Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. “But this is the worst possible time.”
I first encountered Mike Hodges in 2008 while working on a book about how the financial crisis was generating boom times for the country’s payday lenders, check cashers, and other businesses as part of what might be called Poverty, Inc. In Las Vegas, he and his wife were attending the 20th annual gathering of the what used to be called the National Check Cashers Association, a group that later expanded to include pawnbrokers, auto title lenders (who charge sky-high rates from borrowers using their cars as loan collateral), and others peddling high-priced services to a struggling, down-market clientele. The organization rebranded itself the Financial Service Centers of America, at once more respectable-sounding and opaque.
Hodges and his wife stuck out when I spotted them sitting alone at a big round lunch table at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the first day of the FiSCA conference. Like most every other attendee, they were white, but also far younger and more fit than their typical counterparts. In a sea of polyester and ill-fitting sport coats, they were dressed in polos and khakis, looking as if they were attending a stockbroker’s convention. Hodges welcomed the chance to share his views on the industry he was breaking his way into. While the bigger players then were focused on further national expansion, he wanted to convince the wider public that payday lenders were legitimate, not parasitic. “They’ve put much more effort into lobbying and not enough into public relations,” he said of the industry’s old guard. So tainted was the term “payday loan,” he added, that he called the transaction “cash advance,” both at his stores and on television ads for Advance Financial. “The term ‘payday’ has become the black skull and cross bones of our industry,” he said. Still, business was good, not despite the deep recession that had overtaken much of the world in 2008, but because of it: “We’re at record loan volumes,” he boasted then.
Before Trump, payday moguls “were petrified” about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said one industry representative.
Today, as the Hodges operate storefronts across Tennessee and provide online payday loans in another dozen states, they have expanded their political patronage. Hodges contributed more than $150,000 to the Trump campaign in 2016, according to the Federal Election Commission. In 2018, Mike and Tina Hodges gave $125,000 each to America First Action, Trump’s main super-PAC, and Hodges himself chipped in another $250,000 in 2019. Whereas the Hodges and their employees contributed under $10,000 during the 2014 election cycle, the Hodges and others at Advance Financial gave at least $410,000 in the 2016 cycle and at least another $1,045,000 in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections, according to the FEC. The vast majority of that money went into Republican campaign coffers, including the campaigns of individual House and Senate Republicans and various Republican campaign committees. (Hodges himself donated $125,000 to the RNC in 2019, according to the FEC, and another $60,000 to the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees.) The Hodges and their employees had already contributed another $800,000-plus by the time the recording of Hodges boasting of his connections to the Trump White House emerged.
“It’s hard for me to say this number because if you told me this five years ago, I would have thought you were crazy,” Hodges told the Post. “But we’ve donated about $1.25 million to [Trump’s] campaign so far. So Tina and I have become, I would say, one of the larger donors to the campaign over the last couple of years.” Since then, the Hodges and employees of Advance Financial have made at least another $528,000 in campaign contributions—again, nearly all of it to Republicans. Hodges declined to be interviewed for this story, opting instead to send a quote from Hunter S. Thompson: “In a democracy, you have to be a PLAYER.”
By the time Trump was elected, the country’s payday lenders were used to being under regulatory siege. A sweeping set of financial reforms President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010 created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which payday lenders saw as a potentially existential threat to their business. Phil Locke, who for five years served as president of the pro-payday Michigan Financial Service Centers Association, recalled “constant” emails from FiSCA warning about a new federal watchdog with the power to crack down on “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.” Six months after its inception, the CFPB announced its intention to investigate the payday lending industry . “People were petrified of the CFPB,” Locke said at the time.
The CFPB spent five years considering a new rule to govern what it dubbed “small-denomination loans.” Obama himself weighed in on the topic when, in a speech in 2015, he said, “As Americans, we don’t mind seeing folks make a profit…But if you’re making that profit by trapping hardworking Americans into a vicious cycle of debt, you got to find a new business model.”
Researchers working for the CFPB discovered that three in every four payday loans go to borrowers who take out more than 10 loans a year. Three out of every five were made to borrowers who, by the time they had paid off a loan, had spent more in fees than the amount borrowed. A person who borrowed a typical sum of $400 needed to scrounge up $460 in two weeks to repay the loan. Yet more than half of payday customers, their researchers found, were refinancing their loans so many times in a row that they paid at least $400 on the original $400 loan. These were people living on the economic margins—and, once again, they were disproportionately people of color.
The average payday borrower earns about $30,000 per year, according to a 2016 Pew study, and 58 percent were already having trouble meeting their monthly expenses without the additional burden of repaying a high-fee, short-term loan. The CFPB did not have the authority to cap the interest rates a company could charge, so instead it created the ability-to-repay policy. If implemented, CFPB researchers said, the policy would save consumers $7 billion a year.
In 2018 and 2019, a payday trade group held its annual meeting at the Trump National Doral hotel outside Miami, pouring roughly $1 million into the Trump Organization coffers.
With that highly profitable cycle of debt under threat since the Obama administration, the donations to Trump began to flow. Allan Jones, the founder and CEO of payday lender Check Into Cash, and other executives at his management company contributed more than $65,000 to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to the FEC, and his company gave $25,000 to the president’s inaugural committee. Advance America, the country’s largest payday chain (1,500 stores), contributed at least $250,000 to Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Rod Aycox, an early champion of auto title loans, gave $1 million to the inaugural committee. In 2018 and 2019, the Community Financial Services Association of America, a payday trade group, held its annual meeting at the Trump National Doral hotel outside Miami, pouring roughly $1 million into the Trump Organization coffers, according to estimates by ProPublica.
Payday lenders were also spending more than $1 million a year on the services of dozens of Washington lobbyists. Hodges seemed to outdo everyone when in 2017 he hired lobbyist Al Simpson, who had until that year served as Mick Mulvaney’s chief of staff in Congress. As a lawmaker, Mulvaney had dubbed the CFPB a “joke…in a sick, sad kind of way.” He had since gone to the White House as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget—and soon took on a second role as the CFPB’s interim director. Simpson met repeatedly with Mulvaney , according to the Washington Post, while Mulvaney was doing that double duty. (Next, Mulvaney would become Trump’s third chief of staff.) As of October, Advance Financial’s parent company spent $450,000 on Simpson’s services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Simpson and Mulvaney did not respond to requests for comment.)
One of Mulvaney’s first public acts as the CFPB’s acting chief was to suspend the new ability-to-repay standard that the bureau had crafted after a five-year process, announcing the bureau’s intention to reconsider it. One month later, Mulvaney requested a budget of zero dollars. “I’ve been assured,” he wrote in the request, that there was enough money already in hand “sufficient for the bureau to carry out its statutory mandates.” The CFPB froze new investigations and announced it had dropped a lawsuit against four companies it had charged with running illegal payday lending operations using interest rates of up to 950 percent on an annual basis. Scores of other cases would also likely fade under this new regime, according to a New York Times investigation. An analysis by the Consumer Federation of America showed that under the previous (and first) CFPB director, Richard Cordray, consumers received $43 million a week in relief from the CFPB, but that the amount had fallen to under $500,000 a week under Mulvaney.
When Mulvaney was named Trump’s acting chief of staff in December 2018, his deputy at the Office of Management and Budget, Kathy Kraninger, took over the helm of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her background was in homeland security. She had no experience working in the world of financial services. Yet by a vote of 50–49, the Senate approved Kraninger as the CFPB’s permanent director. She appeared to be a lock for a five-year term that would stretch through the end of 2023, until the Supreme Court ruled in June that a president could fire the bureau’s chief without cause (meaning a new president could replace whoever was running the agency).
In February 2019, Kraninger announced her intention to gut the ability-to-repay rule before it went into effect, claiming there was “insufficient evidence and legal support” to justify it. Federal regulatory agencies didn’t typically just toss a new rule born of a five-year process; studies had be conducted and rationales offered. But the Trump administration apparently had a solution for that process: rig it. In April, the New York Times revealed that CFPB economist Jonathan Lanning, on his last day on the job, had written a memo that accused Trump appointees of pressuring career employees to manipulate the research. That included the use of “statistical gimmicks to downplay the harm consumers would suffer if the payday restrictions were repealed.” Matt Leas, a spokesperson for the CFPB, said at the time that the agency has “a fair, transparent and thorough” process for making rules.
By June of last year, the bureau bought itself more time to bury the ability-to-repay policy by issuing a 15-month delay of compliance.
These moves were “a slap in the face to consumers—especially people of color—who have been victims of predatory business practices and abusive lenders,” said civil rights advocate Vanita Gupta.
Since the pandemic began in March 2020, says Center for Responsible Lending analyst Graciela Aponte-Diaz, “we’ve seen an administration taking advantage while everyone’s attention is on the coronavirus to pass all these rules that make it easier for corporations to harm consumers.” Indeed, the CFPB in July officially killed the ability-to-repay rule.
The Trump administration seems to have at least one more gift in mind for the industry. In recent months, regulators at both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have been laying the groundwork for a policy known as “rent-a-bank,” which would allow payday lenders to arrange loans through out-of-state banks, allowing them to bypass state laws imposing interest rate caps.
That latest “scheme,” as Aponte-Diaz called it, is perhaps the next payoff for a big investment in the current occupant of the White House. “You’ve got people suffering, but this is another example of the Trump administration helping the payday lenders.”
Research assistance by Mary Retta and Maha Ahmed.