motherjones--2020-01-14--This Jaw-Dropping Interview Shows How the Media Still Struggles With Trump’s Lies

Every once in a while , a moment comes that crystallizes what is so wrong with the political-media universe in the era of Donald Trump .
And one such moment occurred on Sunday morning .
It was not flashy or headline-generating .
This moment lasted only seconds .
Its significance may not have even been noticed by the participants or those who witnessed it .
But it deserves attention for showing how Trump and his crew have been able to get away with brazen lying and acts of treachery—and how Trumpian dishonesty has been normalized or , at least , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many important Washington actions transpire : on one of the Sunday morning news shows .
Midway into ABC News ’ This Week , longtime host George Stephanopoulos welcomed Robert O ’ Brien , Trump ’ s low-profile national security adviser , to the broadcast .
Not surprisingly , O ’ Brien defended Trump ’ s lethal military strike against Qassem Soleimani , the Iranian general , and hailed Trump ’ s policy regarding Iran .
When Stephanopoulos pressed him on Trump ’ s assertion that Soleimani was about to launch attacks against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some commentators have argued was a false statement—O ’ Brien sidestepped the question : “ Well , I think the American people are behind this president .
He ’ s shown incredible restraint in the face of provocation after provocation from Iran…So he ’ s shown he ’ s—he ’ s modest in his—his dealings with other countries .
But when you threaten to kill or to maim Americans , that ’ s something this president won ’ t put up with.
” He then insisted , “ We had very good intelligence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ love ” to release it , but he maintained the administration could not make public the information without threatening the flow of similar intelligence .
All of this was the average Washington spin that commonly appears on such shows : The policy was great , we did the right thing , the critics are wrong , and so on .
Next , Stephanopoulos turned to a recent Bloomberg article that reported US intelligence and law enforcement officials have been examining whether Russia has been mounting a disinformation campaign to undermine Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Brien , “ Has the president told Vladimir Putin to cut out this election interference in 2016 , and will he continue to do that even if it appears the Russians are trying to hurt Joe Biden ?
” Here ’ s where O ’ Brien moved from the zone of spin to pitching an Orwellian anti-reality .
He replied , “ He ’ s absolutely told Putin to make sure that that doesn ’ t happen .
And the idea that the president of the United States would collude with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan fantasy that ’ s been—the flames which have been fanned for three years now .
There ’ s zero truth to it.
” Let ’ s break this down .
There is no evidence that Trump has sent Putin a clear message : Don ’ t intervene in the next US election .
His last call with Putin occurred in late December , and the White House readout of the call contained no reference to any such warning .
Moreover , Trump has repeatedly expressed doubt about the US intelligence community ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , most famously when he was standing next to Putin at a joint press conference in Helsinki in July 2018 .
In doing so , he has provided cover for Putin .
Moreover , the Washington Post reported in September that Trump had told two senior Russian officials , during an Oval Office meeting in May 2017 , that he was not concerned about the Russian assault on the 2016 election .
( That hardly sounds like a warning . )
And the New York Times reported last year that senior government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Moscow interference with Trump because he believed any discussion of the matter cast doubt on the legitimacy of his electoral victory .
O ’ Brien was portraying Trump as a normal president handling a national security threat as any president ought to do .
But his meant-to-be-reassuring assertion that Trump has confronted Putin on this critical matter is contradicted by the public record .
In fact , there have been no signs that Trump , who won ’ t fully acknowledge Putin ’ s 2016 attack , gives a damn about thwarting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet Stephanopoulos did not challenge O ’ Brien on this point .
And you will note that O ’ Brien quickly tried to change the subject to the topic of collusion .
Special counsel Robert Mueller did report that his investigation did not uncover evidence of a direct criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians in 2016 .
But the record is clear : Trump encouraged and exploited the attack , helped Putin cover it up , and , as president , has essentially ignored this assault on the United States .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was presenting to millions of viewers was the precise opposite of the truth .
Stephanopoulos did not interrupt O ’ Brien , and Trump ’ s chief national security aide continued : “ There are a bunch of countries that would like to interfere with our elections .
There are the Chinese , the Iranians , the Russians .
And trust me , most of them would like to see President Trump leave and have a more malleable leader coming after him , where they could go back to the—the status quo before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute .
The Russians attacked the US election in 2016 in part to help Trump .
They wanted him—not Hillary Clinton—in the White House .
Who says so ?
The US intelligence community , Mueller ’ s investigation , and the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee .
O ’ Brien was not only conveniently ignoring this basic point .
He was turning it upside down .
Once again , he had moved from the boundaries of the usual spin to outright black-is-white falsification .
Without slowing down , O ’ Brien slid into this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want Russians , or Chinese , or Iranians , or any others interfering with the Trump campaign , with the Biden campaign , with any campaign .
And I think the president feels absolutely the same way.
” Trump doesn ’ t want foreign powers influencing the election ?
Uh , no .
That ain ’ t so .
We know this because Trump has said so himself .
In public .
Three months ago , Trump called on China to investigate Joe Biden .
And he said the same regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference , Trump urged Russian hackers to target Clinton—and , according to Mueller , the Russians immediately tried to do what Trump requested . )
Moreover , Trump last summer said that he would accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government—and he said that during an interview with Stephanopoulos .
So O ’ Brien was being extremely disingenuous .
Trump has demonstrated he would indeed like to see China and Ukraine take steps to undermine a potential rival of his .
He has made it clear to every foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be delighted to accept any negative information they might want to share on whoever runs against him .
Yet the O ’ Brien interview did not come to a screeching halt .
Instead , O ’ Brien used this platform to turn the question of Trump ’ s solicitation of foreign interference on its head : “ And to suggest [ Trump would welcome foreign involvement ] is unfair and frankly a bit dangerous .
That ’ s the sort of thing that I think the Russians try to foment , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
We need to stand together and put—put that sort of language aside for sure.
” That is , to note that Trump has asked other countries to meddle in the election would , in and of itself , be dangerous for American democracy and helpful to Moscow .
This was crazy .
Stephanopoulos did not tell his audience that O ’ Brien was massacring the truth .
But he served up a slice of push-back , referencing Trump ’ s nutty and unfounded claim that Ukraine ( not Russia ) was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s computer servers in 2016 .
He asked O ’ Brien , “ If the president is repeating conspiracy theories that are consistent with Russian propaganda , isn ’ t that helping the Russian effort ?
” O ’ Brien shot back : “ I don ’ t see that .
We ’ ve been very clear on our position with respect to the Russians and that ’ s to stay out of our elections .
We ’ ve been very clear with the Chinese , and we ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use these things for some partisan—sort of partisan advantage is really disappointing.
” ( Once again , Trump directly asked China to become involved in the 2020 race . )
And that was it .
Stephanopoulos concluded the interview with , “ Mr .
O ’ Brien , thanks for your time this morning , ” My aim here is not to pick on Stephanopoulos .
In June , he aired a devastating interview with Trump .
He is not the bad-faith actor in this scene .
The problem here is both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
O ’ Brien was lying his head off—and he was doing so to cover for his boss ’ s own lies and misdeeds .
It is undeniable that Trump has signal-boosted Moscow ’ s we-didn ’ t-do-it disinformation about the 2016 attack and has called on other foreign powers to mess with the 2020 election .
These are actions that subvert American democracy—arguably profound acts of betrayal .
They are Trump ’ s most consequential wrongdoing because they corrupt the most fundamental element of the US political system .
Yet the political-media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a clash of competing narratives that deserve equal attention—has not elevated these Trump transgressions to a primary spot in the national conversation .
Instead , they are frequently depicted as contentions that exist within a huge roiling ocean of other contentions .
Stephanopoulos—faced with the demands of covering the week ’ s news and of keeping the interview to the allotted time slot—was not going to suddenly change all that Sunday morning .
Consequently , when O ’ Brien misleads the public on all this , it ’ s just another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t read him the riot act .
And there are no subsequent , front-page headlines : “ Trump ’ s National Security Adviser Misleads Public About President ’ s Role in Russia Scandal , ” or “ Top Trump Aide Falsely Claims Trump Hasn ’ t Asked Foreign Governments to Intervene in 2020.
” This is not how the machine operates .
There is a baseline courtesy built into these interactions .
And that favors someone who is willing to pervert the truth .
He or she can take advantage of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not polite to call out every single prevarication .
So O ’ Brien can spout several highly significant lies or misstatements in a short spate of time , and there is no gong .
No buzzer goes off .
He comes across as a reasonable advocate for his side and the president , even if he is covering up profound misconduct .
In other words , he gets away with it .
Maybe a fact checker at a news outlet or website will later take a poke at him .
But those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much these days .
There are instances when such a culprit does get hammered .
In early December , Chuck Todd on Meet the Press took Sen. John Kennedy ( R-La . )
to task for mouthing Trump ’ s nutty conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election interference in 2016 .
And soon after , Todd noted in a Rolling Stone interview that he had been “ naive ” to underestimate the extent to which Trump and his Republican defenders would resort to false statements and disinformation .
But the question is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conventional media , reflecting the values of conventional Washington , has long advanced the notion that both sides ( meaning the Ds and the Rs ) deserve a hearing .
And also especially when the notions of fairness , evenhandedness , and objectivity ingrained within major media organizations cause them to serve as an outlet for each of those sides .
O ’ Brien , the guy in charge of coordinating national security policy for the most powerful man in world , was openly pushing serious disinformation about a most serious matter on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate reaction to that ?
Shut him down on live television ?
Refuse to have him back ?
Should think tanks not invite him to events and discussions ?
After he leaves office , should he be shunned ?
This is a minor episode , but it does raise large questions .
It illuminates how Trump and his posse have often been able to escape major consequences for their cynical use of disinformation .
The system is not designed to weed out serial deceivers who hold positions of power and influence—or to consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is particularly so when it faces a pattern similar to what experts have called the Russian model of propaganda : “ the firehose of falsehoods.
” O ’ Brien was given the opportunity to spray fast and furiously on Sunday morning ; the truth got washed away .
And that ’ s the point .
Mission accomplished .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Every once in a while, a moment comes that crystallizes what is so wrong with the political-media universe in the era of Donald Trump. And one such moment occurred on Sunday morning. It was not flashy or headline-generating. This moment lasted only seconds. Its significance may not have even been noticed by the participants or those who witnessed it. But it deserves attention for showing how Trump and his crew have been able to get away with brazen lying and acts of treachery—and how Trumpian dishonesty has been normalized or, at least, tacitly accepted.
The system is not designed to weed out serial deceivers who hold positions of power and influence—or to consistently sound the alarm on disinformation.
The moment occurred where so many important Washington actions transpire: on one of the Sunday morning news shows. Midway into ABC News’ This Week, longtime host George Stephanopoulos welcomed Robert O’Brien, Trump’s low-profile national security adviser, to the broadcast. Not surprisingly, O’Brien defended Trump’s lethal military strike against Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian general, and hailed Trump’s policy regarding Iran. When Stephanopoulos pressed him on Trump’s assertion that Soleimani was about to launch attacks against four US embassies before he was killed—which some commentators have argued was a false statement—O’Brien sidestepped the question: “Well, I think the American people are behind this president. He’s shown incredible restraint in the face of provocation after provocation from Iran…So he’s shown he’s—he’s modest in his—his dealings with other countries. But when you threaten to kill or to maim Americans, that’s something this president won’t put up with.” He then insisted, “We had very good intelligence.” O’Brien noted he would “love” to release it, but he maintained the administration could not make public the information without threatening the flow of similar intelligence.
All of this was the average Washington spin that commonly appears on such shows: The policy was great, we did the right thing, the critics are wrong, and so on. Next, Stephanopoulos turned to a recent Bloomberg article that reported US intelligence and law enforcement officials have been examining whether Russia has been mounting a disinformation campaign to undermine Joe Biden’s presidential bid. He asked O’Brien, “Has the president told Vladimir Putin to cut out this election interference in 2016, and will he continue to do that even if it appears the Russians are trying to hurt Joe Biden?”
Here’s where O’Brien moved from the zone of spin to pitching an Orwellian anti-reality. He replied, “He’s absolutely told Putin to make sure that that doesn’t happen. And the idea that the president of the United States would collude with the Russians—I mean, this is a partisan fantasy that’s been—the flames which have been fanned for three years now. There’s zero truth to it.”
Let’s break this down. There is no evidence that Trump has sent Putin a clear message: Don’t intervene in the next US election. His last call with Putin occurred in late December, and the White House readout of the call contained no reference to any such warning. Moreover, Trump has repeatedly expressed doubt about the US intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia attacked the 2016 election, most famously when he was standing next to Putin at a joint press conference in Helsinki in July 2018. In doing so, he has provided cover for Putin. Moreover, the Washington Post reported in September that Trump had told two senior Russian officials, during an Oval Office meeting in May 2017, that he was not concerned about the Russian assault on the 2016 election. (That hardly sounds like a warning.) And the New York Times reported last year that senior government officials could not bring up the issue of Moscow interference with Trump because he believed any discussion of the matter cast doubt on the legitimacy of his electoral victory.
O’Brien was portraying Trump as a normal president handling a national security threat as any president ought to do. But his meant-to-be-reassuring assertion that Trump has confronted Putin on this critical matter is contradicted by the public record. In fact, there have been no signs that Trump, who won’t fully acknowledge Putin’s 2016 attack, gives a damn about thwarting further Russian interference in US politics. Yet Stephanopoulos did not challenge O’Brien on this point. And you will note that O’Brien quickly tried to change the subject to the topic of collusion. Special counsel Robert Mueller did report that his investigation did not uncover evidence of a direct criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians in 2016. But the record is clear: Trump encouraged and exploited the attack, helped Putin cover it up, and, as president, has essentially ignored this assault on the United States. The image of Trump that O’Brien was presenting to millions of viewers was the precise opposite of the truth.
There is a baseline courtesy built into these interactions. And that favors someone who is willing to pervert the truth.
Stephanopoulos did not interrupt O’Brien, and Trump’s chief national security aide continued: “There are a bunch of countries that would like to interfere with our elections. There are the Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians. And trust me, most of them would like to see President Trump leave and have a more malleable leader coming after him, where they could go back to the—the status quo before the president came in.”
Wait a minute. The Russians attacked the US election in 2016 in part to help Trump. They wanted him—not Hillary Clinton—in the White House. Who says so? The US intelligence community, Mueller’s investigation, and the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee. O’Brien was not only conveniently ignoring this basic point. He was turning it upside down. Once again, he had moved from the boundaries of the usual spin to outright black-is-white falsification.
Without slowing down, O’Brien slid into this whopper: “Look, I don’t want Russians, or Chinese, or Iranians, or any others interfering with the Trump campaign, with the Biden campaign, with any campaign. And I think the president feels absolutely the same way.” Trump doesn’t want foreign powers influencing the election? Uh, no. That ain’t so. We know this because Trump has said so himself. In public. Three months ago, Trump called on China to investigate Joe Biden. And he said the same regarding Ukraine. (During a 2016 campaign press conference, Trump urged Russian hackers to target Clinton—and, according to Mueller, the Russians immediately tried to do what Trump requested.) Moreover, Trump last summer said that he would accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government—and he said that during an interview with Stephanopoulos.
So O’Brien was being extremely disingenuous. Trump has demonstrated he would indeed like to see China and Ukraine take steps to undermine a potential rival of his. He has made it clear to every foreign government in the world that he would be delighted to accept any negative information they might want to share on whoever runs against him. Yet the O’Brien interview did not come to a screeching halt. Instead, O’Brien used this platform to turn the question of Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference on its head: “And to suggest [Trump would welcome foreign involvement] is unfair and frankly a bit dangerous. That’s the sort of thing that I think the Russians try to foment, you know, and others, is divisions in America. We need to stand together and put—put that sort of language aside for sure.” That is, to note that Trump has asked other countries to meddle in the election would, in and of itself, be dangerous for American democracy and helpful to Moscow. This was crazy.
Stephanopoulos did not tell his audience that O’Brien was massacring the truth. But he served up a slice of push-back, referencing Trump’s nutty and unfounded claim that Ukraine (not Russia) was involved in the hacking of the Democratic Party’s computer servers in 2016. He asked O’Brien, “If the president is repeating conspiracy theories that are consistent with Russian propaganda, isn’t that helping the Russian effort?” O’Brien shot back: “I don’t see that. We’ve been very clear on our position with respect to the Russians and that’s to stay out of our elections. We’ve been very clear with the Chinese, and we’ve been very clear with the Iranians…But trying to use these things for some partisan—sort of partisan advantage is really disappointing.” (Once again, Trump directly asked China to become involved in the 2020 race.) And that was it. Stephanopoulos concluded the interview with, “Mr. O’Brien, thanks for your time this morning,”
My aim here is not to pick on Stephanopoulos. In June, he aired a devastating interview with Trump. He is not the bad-faith actor in this scene. The problem here is both the format of the exchange and its sociology. O’Brien was lying his head off—and he was doing so to cover for his boss’s own lies and misdeeds. It is undeniable that Trump has signal-boosted Moscow’s we-didn’t-do-it disinformation about the 2016 attack and has called on other foreign powers to mess with the 2020 election. These are actions that subvert American democracy—arguably profound acts of betrayal. They are Trump’s most consequential wrongdoing because they corrupt the most fundamental element of the US political system. Yet the political-media world—too often organized on the idea that there is a clash of competing narratives that deserve equal attention—has not elevated these Trump transgressions to a primary spot in the national conversation. Instead, they are frequently depicted as contentions that exist within a huge roiling ocean of other contentions. Stephanopoulos—faced with the demands of covering the week’s news and of keeping the interview to the allotted time slot—was not going to suddenly change all that Sunday morning.
Consequently, when O’Brien misleads the public on all this, it’s just another Sunday. Nothing special. Stephanopoulos doesn’t read him the riot act. And there are no subsequent, front-page headlines: “Trump’s National Security Adviser Misleads Public About President’s Role in Russia Scandal,” or “Top Trump Aide Falsely Claims Trump Hasn’t Asked Foreign Governments to Intervene in 2020.” This is not how the machine operates. There is a baseline courtesy built into these interactions. And that favors someone who is willing to pervert the truth. He or she can take advantage of a culture in which it is not possible or not polite to call out every single prevarication. So O’Brien can spout several highly significant lies or misstatements in a short spate of time, and there is no gong. No buzzer goes off. He comes across as a reasonable advocate for his side and the president, even if he is covering up profound misconduct. In other words, he gets away with it. Maybe a fact checker at a news outlet or website will later take a poke at him. But those darts don’t seem to sting too much these days.
There are instances when such a culprit does get hammered. In early December, Chuck Todd on Meet the Press took Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) to task for mouthing Trump’s nutty conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election interference in 2016. And soon after, Todd noted in a Rolling Stone interview that he had been “naive” to underestimate the extent to which Trump and his Republican defenders would resort to false statements and disinformation.
But the question is, what to do about this disinformation—especially when conventional media, reflecting the values of conventional Washington, has long advanced the notion that both sides (meaning the Ds and the Rs) deserve a hearing. And also especially when the notions of fairness, evenhandedness, and objectivity ingrained within major media organizations cause them to serve as an outlet for each of those sides. O’Brien, the guy in charge of coordinating national security policy for the most powerful man in world, was openly pushing serious disinformation about a most serious matter on This Week. What’s the appropriate reaction to that? Shut him down on live television? Refuse to have him back? Should think tanks not invite him to events and discussions? After he leaves office, should he be shunned?
This is a minor episode, but it does raise large questions. It illuminates how Trump and his posse have often been able to escape major consequences for their cynical use of disinformation. The system is not designed to weed out serial deceivers who hold positions of power and influence—or to consistently sound the alarm on disinformation. That is particularly so when it faces a pattern similar to what experts have called the Russian model of propaganda: “the firehose of falsehoods.” O’Brien was given the opportunity to spray fast and furiously on Sunday morning; the truth got washed away. And that’s the point. Mission accomplished.


motherjones--2020-01-15--These Emails Show a Trump Official Helping Her Former Chemical Industry Colleagues

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
In 2017 , Dow Chemical scored a long-sought-after victory : After a push from the U.S. government , China approved the import of the company ’ s genetically modified herbicide-resistant corn seeds .
A grateful Dow lobbyist emailed a senior Agriculture Department official whose support had been critical : “ Thank you for your efforts in support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adcock , was no stranger to Dow .
Before joining the Trump administration , Adcock was the chief lobbyist for the herbicide industry ’ s trade group , of which Dow was a prominent member .
Adcock had helped her former industry colleagues in a variety of ways .
At Dow ’ s request , for example , she had arranged a meeting between a top company official and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue about the seed issue .
Before the May 2017 meeting , a Dow lobbyist emailed Adcock : “ Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” “ Roger , ” the lobbyist , Hunt Shipman , replied .
Then he joked about the potential conflict of a public servant helping former colleagues : “ Maybe you can have a chair on both sides of the table…maybe you can staff them both ?
: ) ” Adcock isn ’ t the only lobbyist who has made her way to the federal government .
Roughly one of every 14 appointments in the Trump administration has been a lobbyist .
But previously unreported emails show Adcock repeatedly trading notes with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s highly inappropriate conduct , ” said Virginia Canter , chief ethics counsel for the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Canter worked as an ethics attorney in the administrations of Bill Clinton , George W. Bush and Barack Obama .
The emails were recently obtained by the Sierra Club and the liberal freedom of information group American Oversight .
The groups requested the communications in response to a ProPublica and New York Times investigation that revealed the industry ties of Adcock and other administration officials .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct that require them to be impartial and to seek authorization before participating in matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned .
“ As a U.S. official , she can not represent any person ’ s interest other than the [ U.S. government ’ s ] in matters in which U.S. interests are at stake , ” Canter said .
Like other officials , Adcock had signed a Trump administration ethics agreement , promising to avoid conflicts of interest .
But the agreement gave Adcock wide berth , allowing her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the herbicide and pesticide trade group she worked for .
Adcock did not respond to requests for comment .
Dow declined to comment .
The Agriculture Department said in a statement that “ Ms .
Adcock has acted in accordance with her ethics agreement ” because she was employed by the industry ’ s trade group instead of by Dow directly .
Adcock enjoys a broad mandate at the Agriculture Department .
She initially ran a team responsible for rolling back regulations deemed overly burdensome to industry .
Since then , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and she has been involved in everything from coordinating Perdue ’ s 2018 rural bus tour in support of an expansive new farm bill to reinterpretingthe federal Clean Water Act .
Industry players have asked Adcock to reach down into the bureaucracy on even small issues .
After a farmer in rural northern Illinois filled and graded a tributary and cleared four acres of forest along a government-protected creek , and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers threatened him with fines of up to $ 37,500 per day until it was improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don Parrish , a senior director at the American Farm Bureau Federation , contacted Adcock .
Emails show Parrish and Adcock repeatedly emailed about a section of the Clean Water Act that prevents companies from draining or filling wetlands and tributaries that flow into navigable water .
Adcock told Parrish she was “ getting answers ” to his questions .
It ’ s unclear if the farmer had to pay any fines .
The ethics agreement Adcock signed said she would not work on “ the impact of crop protection products ( including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water.
” It did not bar Adcock from working with trade groups like the Farm Bureau on Clean Water Act enforcement .
Dow also came to Adcock with a problem that was affecting its bottom line .
The company had been struggling to get approval from China for three years .
“ It ’ s hugely political , ” a top company official said on an investor earnings call in 2017 .
“ So I ’ m spending a thorough amount of my time and my capital to China to get this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that backdrop that , in May 2017 , Shipman , the lobbyist for Dow subsidiary Dow AgroSciences , emailed Adcock seeking a meeting between Dow AgroScience ’ s CEO and the agriculture secretary , Perdue .
In one email exchange , Adcock asked Shipman for background information on trade barriers for seed products and Shipman sent three documents on China ’ s biotechnology crop approvals .
Two days later , China agreed to take steps to reduce approval times , including a process to let U.S. officials request speedier decisions and a commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biotech issues , including those of Dow AgroSciences .
Shipman was registered as a lobbyist for Dow AgroSciences through his firm , Cornerstone Government Affairs .
Lobbying records show he worked on biotechnology approval issues for the company in 2017 , with Cornerstone earning $ 290,000 .
Shipman did not report he was lobbying the Agriculture Department .
Rather , the records indicate he was lobbying the Senate and the House , which carry fewer government lobbying restrictions .
Shipman and Cornerstone did not respond to requests for comment .
One week later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who also represented both Dow and CropLife for Cornerstone — repeatedly emailed Adcock about a regulatory issue for a genetically modified petunia flower .
In the correspondence , he shared questions that Dow wanted a House member to ask Perdue in a hearing the next day .
The questions largely focused on China ’ s slow genetically modified crop import approvals .
The congressman , Rodney Davis ( R-Ill. ) , chairman of a biotechnology subcommittee , ended up asking Perdue questions that mirrored some of the wording the Dow lobbyist had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comment .
After China approved Dow ’ s corn seed , the company spun off its agriculture business into a new subsidiary , Corteva .
The corn was hailed as “ a key growth driver ” for Dow ’ s seed business , for which the company projected sales to increase by $ 600 million by 2020 .
A recent internal analysis shows that the new company is now the top corn seed producer in the Asia-Pacific region .
The Guardian ’ s Emily Holden contributed to this story .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
In 2017, Dow Chemical scored a long-sought-after victory: After a push from the U.S. government, China approved the import of the company’s genetically modified herbicide-resistant corn seeds.
A grateful Dow lobbyist emailed a senior Agriculture Department official whose support had been critical: “Thank you for your efforts in support of U.S. agriculture.”
That official, Rebeckah Adcock, was no stranger to Dow. Before joining the Trump administration, Adcock was the chief lobbyist for the herbicide industry’s trade group, of which Dow was a prominent member.
Adcock had helped her former industry colleagues in a variety of ways. At Dow’s request, for example, she had arranged a meeting between a top company official and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue about the seed issue.
Before the May 2017 meeting, a Dow lobbyist emailed Adcock: “Do you know who will staff the secretary?”
Adcock wrote back, playfully, “Yes and u do too.”
“Roger,” the lobbyist, Hunt Shipman, replied. Then he joked about the potential conflict of a public servant helping former colleagues: “Maybe you can have a chair on both sides of the table…maybe you can staff them both? :)”
Adcock isn’t the only lobbyist who has made her way to the federal government. Roughly one of every 14 appointments in the Trump administration has been a lobbyist. But previously unreported emails show Adcock repeatedly trading notes with industry players to craft policy.
“It’s highly inappropriate conduct,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Canter worked as an ethics attorney in the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The emails were recently obtained by the Sierra Club and the liberal freedom of information group American Oversight. The groups requested the communications in response to a ProPublica and New York Times investigation that revealed the industry ties of Adcock and other administration officials.
All federal employees are subject to standards of conduct that require them to be impartial and to seek authorization before participating in matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned.
“As a U.S. official, she cannot represent any person’s interest other than the [U.S. government’s] in matters in which U.S. interests are at stake,” Canter said.
Like other officials, Adcock had signed a Trump administration ethics agreement, promising to avoid conflicts of interest. But the agreement gave Adcock wide berth, allowing her to offer help to Dow and other clients of the herbicide and pesticide trade group she worked for.
Adcock did not respond to requests for comment. Dow declined to comment.
The Agriculture Department said in a statement that “Ms. Adcock has acted in accordance with her ethics agreement” because she was employed by the industry’s trade group instead of by Dow directly.
Adcock enjoys a broad mandate at the Agriculture Department. She initially ran a team responsible for rolling back regulations deemed overly burdensome to industry. Since then, she has become a close confidante of Perdue, and she has been involved in everything from coordinating Perdue’s 2018 rural bus tour in support of an expansive new farm bill to reinterpretingthe federal Clean Water Act.
Industry players have asked Adcock to reach down into the bureaucracy on even small issues. After a farmer in rural northern Illinois filled and graded a tributary and cleared four acres of forest along a government-protected creek, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers threatened him with fines of up to $37,500 per day until it was improved to the government’s liking, Don Parrish, a senior director at the American Farm Bureau Federation, contacted Adcock.
Emails show Parrish and Adcock repeatedly emailed about a section of the Clean Water Act that prevents companies from draining or filling wetlands and tributaries that flow into navigable water. Adcock told Parrish she was “getting answers” to his questions. It’s unclear if the farmer had to pay any fines.
The ethics agreement Adcock signed said she would not work on “the impact of crop protection products (including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) on water.” It did not bar Adcock from working with trade groups like the Farm Bureau on Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dow also came to Adcock with a problem that was affecting its bottom line.
The company had been struggling to get approval from China for three years. “It’s hugely political,” a top company official said on an investor earnings call in 2017. “So I’m spending a thorough amount of my time and my capital to China to get this one over the line.”
It was against that backdrop that, in May 2017, Shipman, the lobbyist for Dow subsidiary Dow AgroSciences, emailed Adcock seeking a meeting between Dow AgroScience’s CEO and the agriculture secretary, Perdue.
In one email exchange, Adcock asked Shipman for background information on trade barriers for seed products and Shipman sent three documents on China’s biotechnology crop approvals.
Two days later, China agreed to take steps to reduce approval times, including a process to let U.S. officials request speedier decisions and a commitment by China to rule on several outstanding biotech issues, including those of Dow AgroSciences.
Shipman was registered as a lobbyist for Dow AgroSciences through his firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs. Lobbying records show he worked on biotechnology approval issues for the company in 2017, with Cornerstone earning $290,000. Shipman did not report he was lobbying the Agriculture Department. Rather, the records indicate he was lobbying the Senate and the House, which carry fewer government lobbying restrictions.
Shipman and Cornerstone did not respond to requests for comment.
One week later, a different lobbyist — Joe Bischoff, who also represented both Dow and CropLife for Cornerstone — repeatedly emailed Adcock about a regulatory issue for a genetically modified petunia flower.
In the correspondence, he shared questions that Dow wanted a House member to ask Perdue in a hearing the next day. The questions largely focused on China’s slow genetically modified crop import approvals. The congressman, Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), chairman of a biotechnology subcommittee, ended up asking Perdue questions that mirrored some of the wording the Dow lobbyist had emailed. Davis’s office declined to comment.
After China approved Dow’s corn seed, the company spun off its agriculture business into a new subsidiary, Corteva. The corn was hailed as “a key growth driver” for Dow’s seed business, for which the company projected sales to increase by $600 million by 2020. A recent internal analysis shows that the new company is now the top corn seed producer in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Guardian’s Emily Holden contributed to this story.


motherjones--2020-01-15--Australia’s Nightmare Fires Are on Track to Spew an Entire Year’s Worth of the Country’s Emissions

The bushfires raging for months across Australia have devastated communities and wildlife , but they pose another major but less visible threat—this one to the global fight against climate change .
Australia needs to cut its emissions by 695 million tons over the next decade to meet its global climate commitment to limit its emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 ( a target it could very well miss ) .
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been , let ’ s say , resistant to acknowledge or confront global warming .
While he repeats his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his country ’ s emissions , the administration has been pushing dubious climate accounting on the world stage .
In reality , since 2014 when the national carbon pricing scheme there was repealed , Australia ’ s emissions have increased every year .
This has been driven in large part by increased natural gas production and a refusal to cut back on coal , one of the worst sources of greenhouse gases .
Australia is currently the world ’ s leading coal exporter , and that likely won ’ t change as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adani coal mine , which environmentalists describe as a “ carbon bomb ” and warn will further degrade the Great Barrier Reef .
The prime minister has received fierce criticism for his handling of the fires ; he was slow to accept and react to their severity , deflected on the climate connection , and left on vacation to Hawaii days after declaring a national emergency .
“ There is no argument about the links between broader issues of global climate change and weather events around the world , but I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to any single fire event , it ’ s not a credible suggestion to make that link , ” Morrison said recently when pressed .
“ We must take action on climate change , and we ’ ll do it without economy wrecking or job destroying reckless targets.
” This isn ’ t just a problem for Australia .
On a broader scale , the emissions from the Australian fires represent a very small slice of global emissions : just about 1 percent .
Some of that is offset by the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s released is then drawn back down when the vegetation regrows , says Stephen Pyne , a professor at Arizona State University who studies fires—and that happens fairly quickly with brush .
“ That ’ s different than burning fossil fuel where you ’ re taking stuff out of the geologic past and you ’ re basically putting it into the geologic future , ” Pyne says .
“ That ’ s not recycling .
After we burn it , we ’ re not putting it back in the ground.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worsening fires in Australia and elsewhere jeopardize valuable natural carbon sinks by burning up trees and vegetation and degrading soil that would otherwise absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere .
This all will make it harder to reign in emissions on the global scale moving forward .
“ A place like Australia doesn ’ t have the carbon stock that by [ itself ] are large enough to be a major concern , ” Field says .
“ But if we see the same kind of feedback loop in forests in Brazil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subtropic or the boreal forest like Canada ’ s and Russia ’ s , then we could really run into serious problems with this vicious cycle.
” Massive fires in recent years—driven in part by drought and heatwaves—have shown that we may be well on our way to such a future .
“ They just keep coming in succession , not unlike in California .
Australia is unique in many ways , but the fact that these fires are going on for so long over every part of the country is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen to us , ” Pyne says .
“ When you add up all of our combustion habits , we ’ re creating the fire equivalent of an ice age.
” In a recent issue of Mother Jones , Jeffrey Ball wrote about how the cycle of destruction plays out in California specifically .
This doesn ’ t bode well for Australians , or for anyone else , unfortunately .
“ The lesson from these fires is it doesn ’ t take a lot of warming to dramatically change the risk , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusually hot year in Australia and an unusually dry year , but the amount of warming that was required to transition from an ordinary serious year to a devastating one is not very much .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The bushfires raging for months across Australia have devastated communities and wildlife, but they pose another major but less visible threat—this one to the global fight against climate change.
While the fires are made worse by climate change, they’re actually part of a disruptive and dangerous cycle: As trees and brush burn, they’re also releasing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, estimates that emissions from these few months of fires in Australia are nearing the country’s manmade carbon emissions for a full year, which are about 540 million tons. “The fires are an indication of the way that nature can make it harder for us to tackle climate change if we don’t act proactively,” he says. As a result of the fires, smoke has plunged major cities in Australia (and even New Zealand) into darkness, with air quality in Melbourne becoming the worst in the world on Monday. Emissions have reached as far as South America, according to Mark Parrington, the senior scientist for the atmospheric monitoring service at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts—all of which will also have devastating consequences for public health.
Sydney: Poor air quality from bushfire smoke coming from the New South Wales south coast. #NSWfires #7NEWS https://t.co/ARsPabIpOZ — 7NEWS Sydney (@7NewsSydney) January 11, 2020
Australia needs to cut its emissions by 695 million tons over the next decade to meet its global climate commitment to limit its emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 (a target it could very well miss).
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been, let’s say, resistant to acknowledge or confront global warming. While he repeats his “meet and beat” mantra about cutting his country’s emissions, the administration has been pushing dubious climate accounting on the world stage. In reality, since 2014 when the national carbon pricing scheme there was repealed, Australia’s emissions have increased every year. This has been driven in large part by increased natural gas production and a refusal to cut back on coal, one of the worst sources of greenhouse gases. Australia is currently the world’s leading coal exporter, and that likely won’t change as the country is moving forward with the controversial Adani coal mine, which environmentalists describe as a “carbon bomb” and warn will further degrade the Great Barrier Reef.
It seems that @SiemensDE have the power to stop, delay or at least interrupt the building of the huge Adani coal mine in Australia. On Monday they will announce their decision. Please help pushing them to make the only right decision. #StopAdani — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 11, 2020
The prime minister has received fierce criticism for his handling of the fires; he was slow to accept and react to their severity, deflected on the climate connection, and left on vacation to Hawaii days after declaring a national emergency. “There is no argument about the links between broader issues of global climate change and weather events around the world, but I’m sure people would acknowledge that the direct connection to any single fire event, it’s not a credible suggestion to make that link,” Morrison said recently when pressed. “We must take action on climate change, and we’ll do it without economy wrecking or job destroying reckless targets.”
This isn’t just a problem for Australia.
On a broader scale, the emissions from the Australian fires represent a very small slice of global emissions: just about 1 percent. Some of that is offset by the fact that a lot of the carbon that’s released is then drawn back down when the vegetation regrows, says Stephen Pyne, a professor at Arizona State University who studies fires—and that happens fairly quickly with brush. “That’s different than burning fossil fuel where you’re taking stuff out of the geologic past and you’re basically putting it into the geologic future,” Pyne says. “That’s not recycling. After we burn it, we’re not putting it back in the ground.”
But beyond releasing carbon into the atmosphere, the worsening fires in Australia and elsewhere jeopardize valuable natural carbon sinks by burning up trees and vegetation and degrading soil that would otherwise absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This all will make it harder to reign in emissions on the global scale moving forward.
“A place like Australia doesn’t have the carbon stock that by [itself] are large enough to be a major concern,” Field says. “But if we see the same kind of feedback loop in forests in Brazil and Indonesia, or wide areas of the subtropic or the boreal forest like Canada’s and Russia’s, then we could really run into serious problems with this vicious cycle.”
Massive fires in recent years—driven in part by drought and heatwaves—have shown that we may be well on our way to such a future. “They just keep coming in succession, not unlike in California. Australia is unique in many ways, but the fact that these fires are going on for so long over every part of the country is a warning that something similar could very easily happen to us,” Pyne says. “When you add up all of our combustion habits, we’re creating the fire equivalent of an ice age.” In a recent issue of Mother Jones, Jeffrey Ball wrote about how the cycle of destruction plays out in California specifically.
Some perspective on the devastating scale of the #AustralianFires: -100s of fires are blanketing a country the size of the US or Europe -5 million hectares of land have burned. That’s 5x the size of the Amazon fires & 50x the California fires#AustraliaBurns #AustraliaFires pic.twitter.com/ALddUzpUPb — Dr. Lucky Tran 🐨 (@luckytran) December 31, 2019
This doesn’t bode well for Australians, or for anyone else, unfortunately. “The lesson from these fires is it doesn’t take a lot of warming to dramatically change the risk,” Field says. “It is an unusually hot year in Australia and an unusually dry year, but the amount of warming that was required to transition from an ordinary serious year to a devastating one is not very much.”


motherjones--2020-01-15--Trump Is an “Existential” Threat: Ilana Glazer, Eric Holder, and 2020

Voting is power , says Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman .
But since the nation ’ s birth , those with actual legislative power have disenfranchised people of color , low-income Americans , and women to prevent their interests from being represented .
And the stakes are only getting higher : As the 2020 presidential election approaches—and with the first votes in the Democratic primary about to be cast—voter suppression tactics remain endemic throughout our democracy .
In this week ’ s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast , Berman joins President Barack Obama ’ s attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter suppression tactics , from draconian voter ID laws to partisan and racial gerrymandering , for a conversation moderated by Broad City star Ilana Glazer .
The comedian runs a live event program called the Generator Series , during which she attempts to break down complex ideas about democracy , policy , and being a good American citizen .
She describes the events as defining “ minimum civic engagement.
” For this shindig , co-presented by Mother Jones , Glazer invited Holder to talk about his recently launched national campaign , the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create fair voting districts , alongside Berman , whose work illuminates the history of why we vote the way we do in the United States—and identifies flashpoints in the ongoing battle for this foundational American right .
Below is an edited , condensed version of the conversation , taped in front of a live audience at New York Public Radio ’ s Greene Space , in downtown Manhattan .
You can also listen to the show below : Ilana Glazer : So voter suppression 101 .
What is voter suppression ?
Ari Berman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly , which is voter suppression is preventing people from voting .
And I think you can define it broadly and historically , which is excluding people or making it difficult for people to participate in the political process altogether .
The vote has always been about power .
That ’ s why it ’ s so contested , because both sides are aware of the power that it has .
Those who don ’ t have it have clamored for it above all other rights .
The civil rights movement knew that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights they were going to win because that would be the one thing they could use to tangibly change people ’ s lives .
And those who had power knew the vote was the one thing that could cause them to lose power .
In the Constitution , there is no affirmative right to vote .
There are things you can ’ t do .
You can ’ t theoretically prevent people of color from voting .
You can ’ t theoretically prevent women from voting .
You can ’ t theoretically prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if you pass a law and you say , “ Oh , I didn ’ t pass this law to disenfranchise African Americans or Latinos or women , but that has that effect , ” that ’ s where things get dicey .
That ’ s the kind of thing we ’ re seeing today , where you pass a law to require ID to vote .
Everyone says that doesn ’ t seem racist , but you dig in and realize that some groups of people lack the forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hits certain people harder .
And in fact that ’ s the intent of the law .
But it takes a little bit of peeling back the onion to realize that that ’ s what ’ s going on .
Glazer : Why not just collect the data , which is everyone ’ s vote , to see what would make would work for the most people ?
Berman : The problem is we ’ re not approaching voting as forensic scientists and saying , “ What can we do to get 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at some people trying to get more people to participate , but a lot of people don ’ t want more people to participate .
We have a lot of the tools that we need to increase voter turnout .
We could just automatically register everyone to vote in the same way that I am automatically enrolled in the Selective Service if there would ever be another draft .
Sixteen states now have automatic registration .
But I mean , you saw this as attorney general .
You could do it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done .
Holder : I don ’ t want to get partisan right off the bat , but let ’ s get real [ laughter ] .
Democrats want as many people to vote as possible .
We want to make it easy for people to vote , whether it ’ s vote by mail , whether it ’ s extended voting periods .
Republicans—at least this iteration of the Republican Party—have made a determination that they want to restrict the number of people who get access to the polls .
The Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is concerned about having too many people vote because their policies won ’ t attract sufficient numbers of people to win at the polls .
So they ’ re gon na try to pick their voters instead of having voters decide who their representatives are gon na be , and that ’ s what I ’ m determined to not let happen .
Glazer : Do you think the coded , systematic , oppressive nature of these laws is starting to be exposed ?
Like the ’ 90s were so dumb !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grownups knew .
Now it feels like it ’ s more exposed .
The layers are more transparent .
Do you think that ’ s true ?
Holder : I think in some ways it ’ s more apparent , but as Ari pointed out , a lot of things are done .
You have to have a photo ID to vote , that ’ s been passed in some states , and people say , “ Well , what ’ s wrong with that ?
You got to show a picture ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t you have a picture ID to vote ?
” First off , you don ’ t have the right to get on an airplane .
You have the right to vote .
There is that fundamental difference .
You have to peel it back .
You say , “ Everybody ’ s got a driver ’ s license.
” No , everybody doesn ’ t have a driver ’ s license .
And poorer folks , people of color , tend not to have driver ’ s licenses .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems .
And that is in some ways the genius and the insidiousness of these measures that have been put in place to try to maintain power for a party that I think is , in essence , a minority party when it comes to its views , but wants to retain power in spite of those minority views .
Let ’ s not forget , 2.8 million more Americans said we want Hillary Clinton to be president than Donald Trump .
So we ’ ve got an Electoral College that also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but can skew things .
There are any number of mechanisms in place to prevent us from being a true and pure democracy , where the people decide the direction of the country .
Berman : If we had a popular vote election , there would be no doubt that Donald Trump would lose .
We would be debating how much he ’ s going to lose by .
But now it ’ s : Can he win 20,000 votes in Wisconsin ?
Can he win 10,000 votes in Michigan ?
Can he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s the system we ’ re living in .
If you understand a lot of the institutional problems in our democratic system , you understand why in many ways our democracy is so screwed up today .
Glazer : What is the Electoral College ?
What and why ?
And is it forever ?
Holder : If you look at the Federalist Papers , they talk about the Electoral College as a check on the popular vote out of concern that these people who are not maybe extremely well-off—regular people—might make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , in the White House .
The people will cast their votes .
And if the thing doesn ’ t turn out the way it should—if somebody who is unqualified , you know , has narcissistic personality disorder , a weird hairstyle—if a person like that is selected , the electors can then come up with a way in which they will reverse the will of the people .
The Electoral College didn ’ t really work three years ago .
Glazer : I want to talk about gerrymandering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Redistricting is something that happens every 10 years that is mandated by the Constitution .
We conduct a census every 10 years to figure out how many people live in the country and then we draw districts to reflect that population .
So there ’ s nothing inherently wrong with redistricting .
It ’ s how you do it .
Holder : You ’ d think that districts should generally be drawn in fair ways , have roughly the same number of people , and they do .
But you can manipulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you put maybe all the Democrats in one district and then you don ’ t have Democratic representation in all the other districts .
And Republicans can therefore win more districts than perhaps they are entitled to .
They ’ re drawn in all kinds of weird ways so you capture—and that ’ s called packing people together—or you can crack , which is to disperse a certain group in such a way that you diminish their power .
Berman : I ’ ll give you a really good example of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college campus in North Carolina : North Carolina A & T .
It ’ s a historically black university and has a lot of significance in the civil rights movement because it ’ s in Greensboro , North Carolina , where the sit-ins began in the 1960s .
What Republicans did is they drew a line and they cut North Carolina A & T in half , so one half of the campus is in one congressional district and the other is in another congressional district .
They did this because it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to vote Democratic .
So if the students vote as one campus , they would presumably vote for a Democratic congressman .
But by splitting it in two , they ’ re doing what Eric called cracking .
They are making it so that the black population ’ s votes are diluted .
So instead of one Democratic member , there are now two white Republican members representing that area .
That ’ s how gerrymandering works .
And that was the map that was just thrown out by state court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Glazer : So who ’ s drawing the lines and who do you wish were reviewing them ?
Berman : The problem is there ’ s an inherent conflict of interest .
The state legislatures are drawing lines for themselves .
This is akin to Dick Cheney leading the vice presidential search and then naming himself vice president .
I don ’ t think the average voter much likes this , and I think you could put an anti-gerrymandering amendment on the ballot virtually anywhere and it would have a good shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned that the primaries for the president are different in each state .
Berman : Primaries are often designed to keep participation low .
I mean , in New York , we were a poster child for this .
If you wanted to vote in the Democratic primary for president in 2016 and were not a registered Democrat , you had to change your registration nine months before the primary .
Who was thinking of whether they were going to be a registered Democrat nine months before the primary ?
Holder : Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about nine months ?
I came out of the womb as a Democrat .
Glazer : So , the NDRC .
How are you changing things at that one-to-one level ?
Holder : We have a multipronged strategy .
We file lawsuits where we can use the state laws or the federal laws to challenge gerrymandering .
Glazer : What do you say ?
You ’ re like , “ Bro , this is racist ” ?
Holder : Oh , yeah .
Because we bring cases on the basis of racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , that we brought in Virginia , where federal courts found that in 11 districts within Virginia , the lines were drawn on a racial basis .
And the Supreme Court , including Clarence Thomas , said that is something that ’ s unconstitutional .
The lines were redrawn and as a result of that , for the first time in like 40 years , Democrats now control both houses in the Virginia state legislature .
In 1963 , two black students integrated the University of Alabama .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the schoolhouse door .
Robert Kennedy , attorney general of United States , to Katzenbach , the deputy attorney general of United States , was down there in Tuscaloosa , escort these two black students into the University of Alabama .
And one of those two black students was my late sister in law , Vivian Malone .
Berman : One of the most powerful scenes , I think , in my book , is when I talk about when you went to Selma , Alabama , where John Lewis nearly died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to Brown Chapel Church , the church where Martin Luther King and so many others spoke .
You went there as the first black attorney general and you were introduced by George Wallace ’ s daughter , who voted for Barack Obama .
That still , to this day , gives me chills .
Holder : I think it ’ s something you want to keep in mind , that change is possible .
Just because things are not great right now , we can ’ t give up .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I ’ m tired , I ’ m worn out.
” There ’ s a bunch of patriots who formed this nation and took on the mightiest empire in the world and beat it .
There ’ s a bunch of folks who got their skulls cracked , gave their lives so that we might have the opportunities that we now have .
You can ’ t have Dr. King , John Lewis saying , “ I ’ m tired , it ’ s too hard , I ’ m worn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the moral universe is long , but it bends toward justice .
But here ’ s the reality : It doesn ’ t bend on its own .
It only bends when people like us , people like you , put the hands on that arc and pull it toward justice to get to the place where we need to be .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Voting is power, says Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman. But since the nation’s birth, those with actual legislative power have disenfranchised people of color, low-income Americans, and women to prevent their interests from being represented. And the stakes are only getting higher: As the 2020 presidential election approaches—and with the first votes in the Democratic primary about to be cast—voter suppression tactics remain endemic throughout our democracy.
In this week’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast, Berman joins President Barack Obama’s attorney general Eric Holder for a wide-ranging conversation of voter suppression tactics, from draconian voter ID laws to partisan and racial gerrymandering, for a conversation moderated by Broad City star Ilana Glazer. The comedian runs a live event program called the Generator Series, during which she attempts to break down complex ideas about democracy, policy, and being a good American citizen. She describes the events as defining “minimum civic engagement.” For this shindig, co-presented by Mother Jones, Glazer invited Holder to talk about his recently launched national campaign, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which fights to create fair voting districts, alongside Berman, whose work illuminates the history of why we vote the way we do in the United States—and identifies flashpoints in the ongoing battle for this foundational American right.
Below is an edited, condensed version of the conversation, taped in front of a live audience at New York Public Radio’s Greene Space, in downtown Manhattan. You can also listen to the show below:
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Ilana Glazer: So voter suppression 101. What is voter suppression?
Ari Berman: I think you can define it narrowly, which is voter suppression is preventing people from voting. And I think you can define it broadly and historically, which is excluding people or making it difficult for people to participate in the political process altogether. The vote has always been about power. That’s why it’s so contested, because both sides are aware of the power that it has. Those who don’t have it have clamored for it above all other rights. The civil rights movement knew that it was the most important of all rights they were going to win because that would be the one thing they could use to tangibly change people’s lives. And those who had power knew the vote was the one thing that could cause them to lose power.
In the Constitution, there is no affirmative right to vote. There are things you can’t do. You can’t theoretically prevent people of color from voting. You can’t theoretically prevent women from voting. You can’t theoretically prevent people who are over 18 from voting. But if you pass a law and you say, “Oh, I didn’t pass this law to disenfranchise African Americans or Latinos or women, but that has that effect,” that’s where things get dicey.
That’s the kind of thing we’re seeing today, where you pass a law to require ID to vote. Everyone says that doesn’t seem racist, but you dig in and realize that some groups of people lack the forms of ID more than others, and it hits certain people harder. And in fact that’s the intent of the law. But it takes a little bit of peeling back the onion to realize that that’s what’s going on.
Glazer: Why not just collect the data, which is everyone’s vote, to see what would make would work for the most people?
Berman: The problem is we’re not approaching voting as forensic scientists and saying, “What can we do to get 100 percent participation?” We’re looking at some people trying to get more people to participate, but a lot of people don’t want more people to participate. We have a lot of the tools that we need to increase voter turnout. We could just automatically register everyone to vote in the same way that I am automatically enrolled in the Selective Service if there would ever be another draft. Sixteen states now have automatic registration. But I mean, you saw this as attorney general. You could do it, but people don’t want it done.
Holder: I don’t want to get partisan right off the bat, but let’s get real [laughter]. Democrats want as many people to vote as possible. We want to make it easy for people to vote, whether it’s vote by mail, whether it’s extended voting periods. Republicans—at least this iteration of the Republican Party—have made a determination that they want to restrict the number of people who get access to the polls. The Republican Party has identified itself as a party that is concerned about having too many people vote because their policies won’t attract sufficient numbers of people to win at the polls. So they’re gonna try to pick their voters instead of having voters decide who their representatives are gonna be, and that’s what I’m determined to not let happen.
Glazer: Do you think the coded, systematic, oppressive nature of these laws is starting to be exposed? Like the ’90s were so dumb! It didn’t seem like the grownups knew. Now it feels like it’s more exposed. The layers are more transparent. Do you think that’s true?
Holder: I think in some ways it’s more apparent, but as Ari pointed out, a lot of things are done. You have to have a photo ID to vote, that’s been passed in some states, and people say, “Well, what’s wrong with that? You got to show a picture ID to get on an airplane. Why shouldn’t you have a picture ID to vote?” First off, you don’t have the right to get on an airplane. You have the right to vote. There is that fundamental difference.
You have to peel it back. You say, “Everybody’s got a driver’s license.” No, everybody doesn’t have a driver’s license. And poorer folks, people of color, tend not to have driver’s licenses. So it’s not as obvious as it seems. And that is in some ways the genius and the insidiousness of these measures that have been put in place to try to maintain power for a party that I think is, in essence, a minority party when it comes to its views, but wants to retain power in spite of those minority views.
Let’s not forget, 2.8 million more Americans said we want Hillary Clinton to be president than Donald Trump. So we’ve got an Electoral College that also doesn’t necessarily disenfranchise people, but can skew things. There are any number of mechanisms in place to prevent us from being a true and pure democracy, where the people decide the direction of the country.
Berman: If we had a popular vote election, there would be no doubt that Donald Trump would lose. We would be debating how much he’s going to lose by. But now it’s: Can he win 20,000 votes in Wisconsin? Can he win 10,000 votes in Michigan? Can he win 40,000 votes in Pennsylvania? And that’s the system we’re living in. If you understand a lot of the institutional problems in our democratic system, you understand why in many ways our democracy is so screwed up today.
Glazer: What is the Electoral College? What and why? And is it forever?
Holder: If you look at the Federalist Papers, they talk about the Electoral College as a check on the popular vote out of concern that these people who are not maybe extremely well-off—regular people—might make a wrong decision, put a buffoon, for instance, in the White House.
The people will cast their votes. And if the thing doesn’t turn out the way it should—if somebody who is unqualified, you know, has narcissistic personality disorder, a weird hairstyle—if a person like that is selected, the electors can then come up with a way in which they will reverse the will of the people. The Electoral College didn’t really work three years ago.
Glazer: I want to talk about gerrymandering and redistricting. What is gerrymandering?
Berman: Redistricting is something that happens every 10 years that is mandated by the Constitution. We conduct a census every 10 years to figure out how many people live in the country and then we draw districts to reflect that population. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with redistricting. It’s how you do it.
Holder: You’d think that districts should generally be drawn in fair ways, have roughly the same number of people, and they do. But you can manipulate the maps in such a way so that you put maybe all the Democrats in one district and then you don’t have Democratic representation in all the other districts. And Republicans can therefore win more districts than perhaps they are entitled to. They’re drawn in all kinds of weird ways so you capture—and that’s called packing people together—or you can crack, which is to disperse a certain group in such a way that you diminish their power.
Berman: I’ll give you a really good example of what gerrymandering looks like. There is a college campus in North Carolina: North Carolina A&T. It’s a historically black university and has a lot of significance in the civil rights movement because it’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, where the sit-ins began in the 1960s.
What Republicans did is they drew a line and they cut North Carolina A&T in half, so one half of the campus is in one congressional district and the other is in another congressional district. They did this because it’s a majority-black campus where the students tend to vote Democratic. So if the students vote as one campus, they would presumably vote for a Democratic congressman. But by splitting it in two, they’re doing what Eric called cracking. They are making it so that the black population’s votes are diluted. So instead of one Democratic member, there are now two white Republican members representing that area. That’s how gerrymandering works. And that was the map that was just thrown out by state court in North Carolina for being an unconstitutional gerrymander.
Glazer: So who’s drawing the lines and who do you wish were reviewing them?
Berman: The problem is there’s an inherent conflict of interest. The state legislatures are drawing lines for themselves. This is akin to Dick Cheney leading the vice presidential search and then naming himself vice president. I don’t think the average voter much likes this, and I think you could put an anti-gerrymandering amendment on the ballot virtually anywhere and it would have a good shot of passing.
Glazer: I recently learned that the primaries for the president are different in each state.
Berman: Primaries are often designed to keep participation low. I mean, in New York, we were a poster child for this. If you wanted to vote in the Democratic primary for president in 2016 and were not a registered Democrat, you had to change your registration nine months before the primary. Who was thinking of whether they were going to be a registered Democrat nine months before the primary?
Holder: Just for the record, you’re talking about nine months? I came out of the womb as a Democrat.
Glazer: So, the NDRC. How are you changing things at that one-to-one level?
Holder: We have a multipronged strategy. We file lawsuits where we can use the state laws or the federal laws to challenge gerrymandering.
Glazer: What do you say? You’re like, “Bro, this is racist”?
Holder: Oh, yeah. Because we bring cases on the basis of racial gerrymandering. Those are the cases, for instance, that we brought in Virginia, where federal courts found that in 11 districts within Virginia, the lines were drawn on a racial basis. And the Supreme Court, including Clarence Thomas, said that is something that’s unconstitutional. The lines were redrawn and as a result of that, for the first time in like 40 years, Democrats now control both houses in the Virginia state legislature.
In 1963, two black students integrated the University of Alabama. It’s a famous scene where George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door. Robert Kennedy, attorney general of United States, to Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general of United States, was down there in Tuscaloosa, escort these two black students into the University of Alabama. And one of those two black students was my late sister in law, Vivian Malone.
Berman: One of the most powerful scenes, I think, in my book, is when I talk about when you went to Selma, Alabama, where John Lewis nearly died marching for voting rights, and you went to Brown Chapel Church, the church where Martin Luther King and so many others spoke. You went there as the first black attorney general and you were introduced by George Wallace’s daughter, who voted for Barack Obama. That still, to this day, gives me chills.
Holder: I think it’s something you want to keep in mind, that change is possible. Just because things are not great right now, we can’t give up. I don’t want to hear people say, “I’m tired, I’m worn out.” There’s a bunch of patriots who formed this nation and took on the mightiest empire in the world and beat it. There’s a bunch of folks who got their skulls cracked, gave their lives so that we might have the opportunities that we now have. You can’t have Dr. King, John Lewis saying, “I’m tired, it’s too hard, I’m worn out.”
Dr. King said the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. But here’s the reality: It doesn’t bend on its own. It only bends when people like us, people like you, put the hands on that arc and pull it toward justice to get to the place where we need to be.


motherjones--2020-01-15--New Documents Appear to Link Ukrainian Oligarch With Trump’s Push for Biden Probe

The same set of notes , a few pages later , mention “ Joe/Victoria ” and “ Lenny Davis ” on either side of a T-chart .
“ Get rid of Lenny Davis ( nicely ) , ” Parnas wrote .
Last July , Firtash replaced Lanny Davis , a criminal defense lawyer and crisis manager who was representing him , with Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova , a husband-wife legal team with close ties to the Trump White House and Giuliani .
Parnas ’ scribblings indicate that Davis ’ replacement may have been engineered by Parnas and Giuliani as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s political interests in Ukraine .
And it supports a claim by Parnas ’ lawyer , Joseph Bondy , that Toensing and diGenova , through Parnas , suggested to Firtash that they could leverage their ties to Trump and Giuliani to help resolve the oligarch ’ s “ extradition problems ” if Firtash hired them and helped them find dirt on the Bidens .
Firtash told the New York Times that he hired Toensing and diGenova to obtain a meeting with Attorney General William Barr .
They achieved that in August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the extradition effort dropped .
Davis on Tuesday told Mother Jones that while representing Firtash , “ I drew a red line over anything approaching politics.
” He added that he is “ sad for Mr. Firtash about this situation .
”

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-01-15--I Can Relate to Tom Steyer Standing Awkwardly Between Sanders and Warren

Have you seen this clip ?
If you ’ re stuck at an airport , or watching CNN of your own free will at any point in the next 24 hours , you probably will !
After a contentious exchange during Tuesday ’ s presidential debate , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeared to have…some sort of interaction afterward .
What did they say ?
I don ’ t know , I ’ m not a lip-reader or a body-language expert ( which is kind of a scam , if we ’ re being honest ) .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up embarrassing us all .
But I can tell you exactly what the third member of this conversation , Tom Steyer , was thinking , because this is how I feel literally every time I am forced to mingle at a social event : First thought : “ Oh , I ’ ll just try to squeeze in here.
” Third thought : “ Have I been standing here too long ?
” Fourth thought : “ Time to pretend to refill my drink !
” Steyer , for his part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two senators were talking about .
Okay , man .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Have you seen this clip? If you’re stuck at an airport, or watching CNN of your own free will at any point in the next 24 hours, you probably will! After a contentious exchange during Tuesday’s presidential debate, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeared to have…some sort of interaction afterward.
What did they say? I don’t know, I’m not a lip-reader or a body-language expert (which is kind of a scam, if we’re being honest). I think the fixation on this moment will end up embarrassing us all. But I can tell you exactly what the third member of this conversation, Tom Steyer, was thinking, because this is how I feel literally every time I am forced to mingle at a social event:
First Warren rejected Bernie's handshake and then they appear to go at it. Steyer didn't know what to do. 😂 #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/hr8EWlI1L2 — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) January 15, 2020
First thought: “Oh, I’ll just try to squeeze in here.”
Second thought: “Hmm, there’s no opening.”
Third thought: “Have I been standing here too long?”
Fourth thought: “Time to pretend to refill my drink!”
Steyer, for his part, says he has no idea what the two senators were talking about. Okay, man.


motherjones--2020-01-15--New Figure in Ukraine Scandal Was Taken Into Police Custody at Trump Resort Last Year

On Tuesday evening , the House Intelligence Committee released a new batch of documents relating to the Ukraine scandal , and the material introduced a new player : Robert F. Hyde , a minor Republican lobbyist and avid Donald Trump supporter who is mounting an against the-odds congressional campaign in Connecticut .
The 40-year-old Hyde is a curious figure .
In recent years , he has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Trump and the Republicans , as he has tried to establish himself as a Washington , DC lobbyist and public affairs operator .
The former owner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2011 after his firm ’ s work led to a tree falling on power lines , according to CT Insider .
( He has said the charges were later dropped and he paid a fine . )
His Facebook , Instagram , and website pages feature a parade of photos of him posing with Trump and other notable Republicans , including Ivanka Trump , Donald Trump Jr. , Eric Trump , Vice President Mike Pence , Rep. Jim Jordan , now-convicted felon Roger Stone , and Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a congressional candidate notes that he did public relations work for a mysterious Trump donor from China ( whom he once introduced Trump to at Mar-a-Lago ) .
In November , he texted a reporter for CT Insider pictures of himself with Rudy Giuliani and two Giuliani associates who have been indicted , Lev Parnas , and Igor Fruman .
It is Hyde ’ s connection to Parnas that has landed him in the news , and a 2019 police report obtained by Mother Jones suggests that Hyde might have been a peculiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Giuliani-led Ukrainian op .
The report notes that Hyde had a disturbing episode at a Trump resort for which he had to be taken into custody by police and brought to a medical facility under a state law that allows for involuntary confinement of people who might pose a risk to themselves .
The new documents , which were provided to Congress this week by Parnas , raise the possibility that Giuliani ’ s pursuit of dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine—a project in which he was assisted by Parnas and Fruman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born in the Soviet Union—was somehow connected to an effort to help Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash escape a US indictment that alleged he had engaged in bribery .
( Firtash now resides in Vienna , where he is fiercely fighting extradition to the United States . )
The cache also included text messages from late March 2019 between Hyde and Parnas in which Hyde appears to be saying he was secretly monitoring the whereabouts of Marie Yovanovitch , then the US ambassador to Ukraine—whom Parnas , Fruman , and Giuliani had been trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hyde had a dark tone .
One read , “ It ’ s confirmed we have a person inside.
” Another text from Hyde to Parnas said , “ Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.
” The texts do not show what exactly Hyde was referencing—and his public record does not hold clues as to what influence or connections he might have had in Ukraine .
Reached by Mother Jones after the texts were released , Hyde would not explain the messages or say how he had hooked up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yovanovitch is now calling for an investigation of whether her movements in Ukraine were monitored by Hyde .
It is not clear if Hyde had any other involvement in the Ukraine scandal or any other Parnas capers .
( Parnas was indicted with Fruman in October for allegedly violating campaign finance law by making illegal donations to Republican candidates as part of a scheme to remove Yovanovitch at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials . )
But weeks after Hyde sent these texts to Parnas , he was involved in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s properties .
According to an “ incident/investigation ” report filed by the Doral , Florida , police department , on May 16 , 2019 , an officer was dispatched to the Trump National Doral Miami to deal with a “ male in distress fearing for his life.
” That man was Hyde .
The report noted that Hyde explained to the police officer that “ he was in fear for his life , was set up and that a hit man was out to get him .
Mr. Hyde spoke about e-mails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life in jeopardy .
Mr. Hyde explained several times that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him.
” The report stated that Hyde cited “ a variety of different names , contacts and provided information in reference to why he felt his life was in danger.
” After being taken into custody by the police , according to the report , “ Mr .
Hyde continued to act paranoid telling us not to stop next to certain vehicles… [ H ] e explained that he was scared due to several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do harm to him because they weren ’ t working .
Additionally Mr. Hyde explained that his computer was being hacked by Secret Service .
And then went on to further explain that the secret service [ sic ] was arrival [ sic ] on the premises watching him.
” The police report said that “ it was determined that Mr. Hyde was suffering from a [ redacted ] , ” that he was “ transported to [ redacted ] for further evaluation , ” and that a “ crisis form was filled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident as “ Baker/Marchman Act.
” In Florida , the Baker Act and the Marchman Act allow for holding people who might harm themselves involuntarily for assessment .
( The Baker Act specifically refers to persons who might be suffering from a mental illness . )
The report did not say what happened with Hyde after he was transported to the redacted location .
But Hyde posted a note on Instagram stating that he had been “ Baker Acted ” for nine days and placed into “ a facility ” where his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” were “ pushed.
” He noted that he had passed “ all medicals , physicals , psych exams and diagnoses with flying colors.
” Hyde , a former Marine , also wrote , “ I ’ m not a traitor or a colluder or a conspiracy theorist.
” And he added , “ eff you and your intelligence agencies or whatever or whoever was or is effing with me.
” Asked about the police report and this episode , Hyde did not comment .
On Tuesday night , he tweeted , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m out to expose their actions .
Attack me all you want , get the facts first .
The media is against me because they ’ re either complicit or have a hand in it , I welcome an investigation .
I ’ ll provide my email password and hand my phone over , bring it on.
” Hyde is one of several Republicans vying to challenge incumbent Rep. Jahana Hayes ( D-Conn. ) .
Last month , prominent Republicans called on him to quit the race after he posted a crude and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-Calif. ) .
Hyde ’ s involvement in the still-murky Ukraine scandal adds another layer of mystery to the affair .
Moreover , the release of the new Parnas documents shows that even as the impeachment case heads toward the Senate for trial , there is much about Trump ’ s and Giuliani ’ s Ukrainian skulduggery that remains unknown .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Tuesday evening, the House Intelligence Committee released a new batch of documents relating to the Ukraine scandal, and the material introduced a new player: Robert F. Hyde, a minor Republican lobbyist and avid Donald Trump supporter who is mounting an against the-odds congressional campaign in Connecticut.
The 40-year-old Hyde is a curious figure. In recent years, he has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Trump and the Republicans, as he has tried to establish himself as a Washington, DC lobbyist and public affairs operator. The former owner of a landscaping company, he was arrested in 2011 after his firm’s work led to a tree falling on power lines, according to CT Insider. (He has said the charges were later dropped and he paid a fine.) His Facebook, Instagram, and website pages feature a parade of photos of him posing with Trump and other notable Republicans, including Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Rep. Jim Jordan, now-convicted felon Roger Stone, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. A financial disclosure form he filed as a congressional candidate notes that he did public relations work for a mysterious Trump donor from China (whom he once introduced Trump to at Mar-a-Lago). In November, he texted a reporter for CT Insider pictures of himself with Rudy Giuliani and two Giuliani associates who have been indicted, Lev Parnas, and Igor Fruman.
It is Hyde’s connection to Parnas that has landed him in the news, and a 2019 police report obtained by Mother Jones suggests that Hyde might have been a peculiar choice for Parnas to work with on his Giuliani-led Ukrainian op. The report notes that Hyde had a disturbing episode at a Trump resort for which he had to be taken into custody by police and brought to a medical facility under a state law that allows for involuntary confinement of people who might pose a risk to themselves.
The new documents, which were provided to Congress this week by Parnas, raise the possibility that Giuliani’s pursuit of dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine—a project in which he was assisted by Parnas and Fruman, two Florida businessmen who were each born in the Soviet Union—was somehow connected to an effort to help Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash escape a US indictment that alleged he had engaged in bribery. (Firtash now resides in Vienna, where he is fiercely fighting extradition to the United States.) The cache also included text messages from late March 2019 between Hyde and Parnas in which Hyde appears to be saying he was secretly monitoring the whereabouts of Marie Yovanovitch, then the US ambassador to Ukraine—whom Parnas, Fruman, and Giuliani had been trying to get fired. The messages from Hyde had a dark tone. One read, “It’s confirmed we have a person inside.” Another text from Hyde to Parnas said, “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.”
The texts do not show what exactly Hyde was referencing—and his public record does not hold clues as to what influence or connections he might have had in Ukraine. Reached by Mother Jones after the texts were released, Hyde would not explain the messages or say how he had hooked up with Parnas. NBC News reported that Yovanovitch is now calling for an investigation of whether her movements in Ukraine were monitored by Hyde.
It is not clear if Hyde had any other involvement in the Ukraine scandal or any other Parnas capers. (Parnas was indicted with Fruman in October for allegedly violating campaign finance law by making illegal donations to Republican candidates as part of a scheme to remove Yovanovitch at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials.) But weeks after Hyde sent these texts to Parnas, he was involved in a bizarre incident at one of Trump’s properties.
According to an “incident/investigation” report filed by the Doral, Florida, police department, on May 16, 2019, an officer was dispatched to the Trump National Doral Miami to deal with a “male in distress fearing for his life.” That man was Hyde. The report noted that Hyde explained to the police officer that “he was in fear for his life, was set up and that a hit man was out to get him. Mr. Hyde spoke about e-mails he sent that may have placed his life in jeopardy. Mr. Hyde explained several times that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him.”
The report stated that Hyde cited “a variety of different names, contacts and provided information in reference to why he felt his life was in danger.” After being taken into custody by the police, according to the report, “Mr. Hyde continued to act paranoid telling us not to stop next to certain vehicles…[H]e explained that he was scared due to several painting workers and landscape workers trying to do harm to him because they weren’t working. Additionally Mr. Hyde explained that his computer was being hacked by Secret Service. And then went on to further explain that the secret service [sic] was arrival [sic] on the premises watching him.”
The police report said that “it was determined that Mr. Hyde was suffering from a [redacted],” that he was “transported to [redacted] for further evaluation,” and that a “crisis form was filled and filed.”
The report classified the incident as “Baker/Marchman Act.” In Florida, the Baker Act and the Marchman Act allow for holding people who might harm themselves involuntarily for assessment. (The Baker Act specifically refers to persons who might be suffering from a mental illness.) The report did not say what happened with Hyde after he was transported to the redacted location. But Hyde posted a note on Instagram stating that he had been “Baker Acted” for nine days and placed into “a facility” where his “mental, emotional, and physical self” were “pushed.” He noted that he had passed “all medicals, physicals, psych exams and diagnoses with flying colors.” Hyde, a former Marine, also wrote, “I’m not a traitor or a colluder or a conspiracy theorist.” And he added, “eff you and your intelligence agencies or whatever or whoever was or is effing with me.”
Asked about the police report and this episode, Hyde did not comment. On Tuesday night, he tweeted, “These are bad people, I’m out to expose their actions. Attack me all you want, get the facts first. The media is against me because they’re either complicit or have a hand in it, I welcome an investigation. I’ll provide my email password and hand my phone over, bring it on.”
Hyde is one of several Republicans vying to challenge incumbent Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.). Last month, prominent Republicans called on him to quit the race after he posted a crude and sexist tweet about Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).
Hyde’s involvement in the still-murky Ukraine scandal adds another layer of mystery to the affair. Moreover, the release of the new Parnas documents shows that even as the impeachment case heads toward the Senate for trial, there is much about Trump’s and Giuliani’s Ukrainian skulduggery that remains unknown.