motherjones--2020-02-06--“A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts

Lee O ’ Connor has been in his courtroom for all of two minutes before a look of annoyance washes over his face .
Eleven children and six adults—all of them from Central America , all of them in court for the first time—sit on the wooden benches before him .
They ’ ve been awake since well before dawn so they could line up at the US-Mexico border to board government buses headed to immigration court in downtown San Diego , Kevlar-vested federal agents in tow .
Like the dozens of families jam-packed into the lobby and the six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting out their asylum cases in Mexico , often for months , as part of the Trump administration ’ s controversial border policy , the Migrant Protection Protocols .
O ’ Connor has a docket full of MPP cases today , like every day .
Before he gets to them , though , he quickly postpones a non-MPP case to January 2021 , explaining to a man and his attorney that he simply doesn ’ t have time for them today , motioning to the families in the gallery .
While he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of me keeps asking her mom if she can put on the headphones that play a Spanish translation of the proceedings .
A guard motions the little girl to be quiet .
For months , immigration attorneys and judges have been complaining that there ’ s no fair way to hear the cases of the tens of thousands of Central Americans who have been forced to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their claims inch through the courts .
MPP has further overwhelmed dockets across the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a crippling backlog that ’ s a million cases deep , stranding immigration judges in a bureaucratic morass and families with little hope for closure anytime in the near future .
I went last month to San Diego—home to one of the busiest MPP courts , thanks to its proximity to Tijuana and the more than 20,000 asylum seekers who now live in shelters and tent cities there—expecting to see logistical chaos .
But I was still surprised at how fed up immigration judges like O ’ Connor were by the MPP-driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands were tied to do anything about it .
Once O ’ Connor is done rescheduling his non-MPP case , he leans forward to adjust his microphone , rubs his forehead , and starts the group removal hearing .
The interpreter translates into Spanish , and he asks if the adults understand .
“ Sí , ” they say nervously from the back of the courtroom .
O ’ Connor goes down his list , reading their names aloud with a slight Spaniard accent , asking people to identify themselves when their names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not speak up loud enough for him to hear .
O ’ Connor , who was appointed to the bench in 2010 , is known for being tough : Between 2014 and 2019 , he has denied 96 percent of asylum cases .
He explains to the migrants that they have the right to an attorney , although one will not be provided—there are no public defenders in immigration court .
O ’ Connor acknowledges finding legal representation from afar is difficult , but he tells them it ’ s not impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five pro bono legal providers listed on a sheet of paper they received that day .
The moms sitting in front of me have their eyes locked on the Spanish interpreter , trying to absorb every bit of information .
Their kids try their best to sit quietly .
As he thumbs through the case files , O ’ Connor grows increasingly frustrated : None of them has an address listed .
“ The government isn ’ t even bothering to do this , ” he grumbles .
The documents for MPP cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Domicilio Conocido , ” which translates to “ Known Address.
” This happens even when people say they can provide an address to a shelter in Mexico or when they have the address of a relative in the United States who can receive their paperwork .
“ I ’ ve seen them do this in 2,000 cases since May , ” O ’ Connor says , and the Department of Homeland Security “ hasn ’ t even bothered to investigate.
” He looks up at the DHS attorney with a stern look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shuffling paperwork around at her desk .
O ’ Connor picks up a blue form and explains to the group that they have to change their address to a physical location .
The form is only in English ; many of the adults seem confused and keep flipping over their copies as he tells them how to fill it out .
O ’ Connor tells them they have to file within a week—perhaps better to do it that day , he says—but it ’ s unclear to me how they could follow his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney .
He points out other mistakes in the paperwork filed by DHS and wraps up the hearing after about 45 minutes .
The families don ’ t know that ’ s typical for a first hearing and seem perplexed when it ends .
O ’ Connor schedules the group to come back for their next hearing in five weeks at 8:30 a.m. That will mean showing up at the San Ysidro port of entry at 4:30 a.m. ; the alternative , he says , is being barred from entering the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
“ Do you understand ?
” he asks .
The group responds with a hesitant “ Sí.
” The Trump administration designed MPP to prevent people like them from receiving asylum , and beyond that , from even seeking it in the first place .
First implemented in San Diego in late January 2019 to help stem the flow of people showing up at the southern border , the policy has since sent somewhere between 57,000 and 62,000 people to dangerous Mexican cities where migrants have been preyed upon for decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immigration court that already has a backlog of 1,057,811 cases—up from 600,000 at the time when Obama left office—according to data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University .
According to immigration judge Ashley Tabaddor , who spoke to me in her capacity as union president of the National Association of Immigration Judges , MPP has constituted a fundamental change to the way courts are run .
DHS , she says , is “ creating a situation where they ’ re physically , logistically , and systematically creating all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The MPP program has left the court powerless , “ speeding up the process of dehumanizing the individuals who are before the court and deterring anyone from the right to seek protection ” All this while the Department of Justice is trying to decertify Tabbador ’ s union—the only protection judges have , and the only avenue for speaking publicly about these issues—by claiming its members are managers and no longer eligible for union membership .
Tabaddor says the extreme number of cases combined with the pressure to process them quickly is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOJ ’ s demands with their oath of office .
Immigration attorneys in El Paso , San Antonio , and San Diego have told me they are disturbed by the courtroom disarray : the unanswered phones , unopened mail , and unprocessed filings .
Some of their clients are showing up at border in the middle of the night only to find that their cases have been rescheduled .
That ’ s not only unfair , one attorney told me , “ it ’ s dangerous.
” Central Americans who speak only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings with Spanish interpreters .
One attorney in El Paso had an 800-age filing for an asylum case that she filed with plenty of time for the judge to review , but it didn ’ t make it to the judge in time .
As another lawyer put it , “ The whole thing is a fucking disaster that is designed to fail.
” Down the hall , a Honduran woman I ’ ll call Mari stands up next to her attorney and five-year-old son , raises her right hand , and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t much of a hearing at all .
Stephanie Blumberg , an attorney with Jewish Family Service of San Diego , who is working the case pro bono , asks for more time because she only recently took the case ; Judge Philip Law says he will consolidate the cases of mother and child into one ; and he schedules her next hearing for the following week at 7:30 a.m. , with a call time of 3:30 a.m. at the border .
Just as it ’ s about to wrap up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to Mexico .
“ I want to know what is going to happen with me .
I don ’ t want to go back to Mexico—it ’ s terrible , ” Mari says in Spanish , an interpreter translating for the judge .
“ I have no jurisdiction over that , ” Law says .
“ That ’ s between you and the Department of Homeland Security.
” Law then turns to the DHS attorney , who says he ’ ll flag the case and “ pass it along.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mari tells me back in the waiting room that she and her son crossed the border in Texas and then asked for asylum .
They were detained for two days and then transported by plane to San Diego , where she was given a piece of paper with a date and time for court and then released in Tijuana .
She didn ’ t know anyone , barely knew where she was , and , trying to find safety in numbers , stuck with the group released that day .
Two days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tijuana , she was raped .
Mari ’ s voice gets shaky , and she tries to wipe the tears from her eyes , but even the cotton gloves she ’ s wearing aren ’ t enough to keep her face dry .
I tell her we can end the conversation and apologize for making her relive those moments .
She looks at her son from across the room and says she ’ d like to continue talking .
“ I thought about suicide , ” she whispers .
“ I carried my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bridge.
” Instead , she ended up walking for a long time , not knowing what to do or what would happen to them because they didn ’ t have a safe place to go .
“ I haven ’ t talked to my family back home—it ’ s so embarrassing because of the dream I had coming here , and now look , ” she says .
“ We ’ re discriminated against in Mexico ; people make fun of us and the way we talk.
” Her boy was already shy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent months .
In the last year , I ’ ve spoken to dozens of migrants in border cities like Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana who share similarly horrific stories .
Human Rights First has tracked more than 800 public reports of torture , kidnapping , rape , and murder against asylum seekers sent to Mexico in the last year .
A lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union , Southern Poverty Law Center , and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies is challenging MPP on the grounds that it violates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ United States ’ duty under international human rights law ” not to return people to dangerous conditions .
“ The system has not been set up to handle this in any way , ” says Kate Clark , senior director of immigration services with Jewish Family Service of San Diego , one of the groups listed on the pro bono sheet Judge O ’ Connor handed out earlier in the day .
They ’ re the only ones with a WhatsApp number listed , and their phones are constantly ringing because “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what ’ s going on or what to expect—and they ’ re in fear for their lives , ” Clark says .
Still , her 8-person team working MPP cases can only help a small percentage of the people coming through the courtroom every day .
Later that afternoon , shortly after 5 , two large white buses pull up to the court ’ s loading dock .
Guards in green uniforms escort about 60 people out from the loading dock .
Moms , dads , and dozens of little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get on a bus .
They are driven down to the border and sent back to Tijuana later that night .
A few days later , Mari ’ s attorney tells me that despite raising a fear of retuning to Mexico in court , US port officials sent Mari back to Tijuana that night .
I find myself back in O ’ Connor ’ s courtroom for his afternoon MPP hearings .
This time , the only people with legal representation is a Cuban family who crossed in Arizona in July 2019 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is their first time in court , and their attorney calls in from out of state .
Right away , O ’ Connor wants to address a different kind of clerical error from the one that bothered him earlier in the day—and one that he thinks matters even more .
It involves the first document that DHS issues to “ removable ” immigrants , known as a Notice to Appear ( NTA ) form .
Although the form allows agents to check a box to categorize people based on how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out that in this case it was left blank—and that “ this is fairly typical of the overwhelming majority of these cases.
” He isn ’ t the first or only judge to notice this ; I heard others bring up inconsistent and incomplete NTAs .
Border officials are supposed to note on the form if the people taken into custody are “ arriving aliens , ” meaning they presented at the port of entry asking for asylum , or “ aliens present in the United States who have not been admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered illegally in between ports of entry .
Thousands of MPP cases have forms without a marked category .
As far as O ’ Connor is concerned , that ’ s a crucial distinction .
He believes that this Trump administration policy shouldn ’ t apply to people who entered the country without authorization—meaning countless immigrants who applied for MPP should be disqualified from the get-go .
In the case of the Cuban family , like dozens more that day , the DHS attorney filed an amended NTA classifying them as “ arriving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not how they entered the United States .
The DHS attorney is unphased by the judge ’ s stern tone and came prepared with piles of new forms for the other cases of incomplete NTAs .
The family ’ s lawyer says maybe the government made a mistake .
O ’ Connor , unsatisfied , interrupts her : “ There was no confusion .
I ’ ve seen 2,000 of these…the government is not bothering to spend the time.
” After a lengthy back-and-forth , a testy O ’ Connor schedules the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
O ’ Connor ’ s stance and rulings on this issue have broader implications .
He terminated a case in October because a woman had entered the country illegally before turning herself in and wrote in his decision that DHS had “ inappropriately subjected respondent to MPP.
” He is among the loudest voices on this issue , saying that MPP is legal only when applied to asylum-seekers presenting at legal ports of entry—though it ’ s unclear to many lawyers what it might mean for their clients to have their cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asylum seekers end up in immigration detention facilities ?
Would they be released under supervision in the United States ?
Would they be deported back to their home countries ?
Since MPP cases hit the courts last March , asylum attorneys have been critical of DHS for not answering these questions .
I was present for the very first MPP hearing in San Diego and saw how confused and frustrated all sides were that DHS didn ’ t seem to have a plan for handling these cases .
Now , almost a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the union president , tells me that “ there are definitely legal issues that the MPP program has presented ” and that judges are having to decide whether the documents “ are legally sufficient.
” “ The issue with DHS—frankly , from what I ’ ve heard—is that it seems like they ’ re making it up as they go , ” she says .
Last week , Tabaddor testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee and for the independence of immigration courts from the political pressures of federal law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across more than 60 courts nationwide , and almost half of those judges have been appointed during the Trump era .
( According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times , dozens of judges are quitting or retiring early because their jobs have become “ unbearable ” under Trump . )
California Democrat Zoe Lofgren , an immigrants ’ rights supporter in Congress , argued during the hearing that the immigration courts are in crisis and the issue requires urgent congressional attention .
“ In order to be fully effective , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like any other judicial institution , ” she said .
“ Immigration judges should have the time and resources to conduct full and fair hearings , but for too long , the courts have not functioned as they should—pushing the system to the brink.
” “ I don ’ t want any more court , ” a woman from Guatemala pleads just before lunchtime .
“ No more hearings , please.
” Unlike many of the people who were there for their first hearing when I observed court in San Diego , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since mid-2019 .
No matter how hard she tried , she couldn ’ t find a lawyer , she tells Judge Scott Simpson .
She ’ s had enough .
“ We ’ ve reached a fork on the road , ma ’ am , ” Simpson says in a warm , calm tone .
“ You either ask for more time for an attorney to help you or you represent yourself.
” “ No , it ’ d be a loss since I don ’ t know anything about the law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting both louder and shakier .
Simpson explains to her again the benefits of taking time to find an attorney .
“ It ’ s been almost a year .
I don ’ t want to continue the case .
I want to leave it as is , ” she tells him .
After more explanation from the judge , the woman says she ’ d like to represent herself today so that decisions can be made .
Simpson asks what she would like to do next , and the woman says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This woman ’ s pleas are increasingly common .
Tabaddor says MPP has taken “ an already very challenging situation and [ made ] it exponentially worse.
” The new reality in immigration courts “ is logistically and systematically designed to just deter people from seeking or availing themselves of the right to request protection , ” Tabaddor says .
After hearing the Guatemalan woman ask for the case to be closed multiple times , Simpson takes a deep breath , claps his hands , and says there are four options : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or termination .
He explains each one , and after 10 minutes the woman asks for her case to be administratively closed .
The DHS attorney , however , denies that request .
Simpson ’ s hands are tied .
The judge tells the woman that because DHS filed paperwork on her case that day , and because it ’ s only in English , that he ’ s going to give her time to review it , because “ as the judge I don ’ t think it would be fair for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to object to that.
” He schedules her to come back in a month .
“ MPP is not a program I created , ” he says .
“ That decision was made by someone else .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION COURT, COURTROOM #2;
PRESIDING: JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR
Lee O’Connor has been in his courtroom for all of two minutes before a look of annoyance washes over his face.
Eleven children and six adults—all of them from Central America, all of them in court for the first time—sit on the wooden benches before him. They’ve been awake since well before dawn so they could line up at the US-Mexico border to board government buses headed to immigration court in downtown San Diego, Kevlar-vested federal agents in tow. Like the dozens of families jam-packed into the lobby and the six other courtrooms, they’ve been waiting out their asylum cases in Mexico, often for months, as part of the Trump administration’s controversial border policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols.
O’Connor has a docket full of MPP cases today, like every day. Before he gets to them, though, he quickly postpones a non-MPP case to January 2021, explaining to a man and his attorney that he simply doesn’t have time for them today, motioning to the families in the gallery. While he’s doing this, the little girl in front of me keeps asking her mom if she can put on the headphones that play a Spanish translation of the proceedings. A guard motions the little girl to be quiet.
For months, immigration attorneys and judges have been complaining that there’s no fair way to hear the cases of the tens of thousands of Central Americans who have been forced to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their claims inch through the courts. MPP has further overwhelmed dockets across the country and pushed aside cases that already were up against a crippling backlog that’s a million cases deep, stranding immigration judges in a bureaucratic morass and families with little hope for closure anytime in the near future.
I went last month to San Diego—home to one of the busiest MPP courts, thanks to its proximity to Tijuana and the more than 20,000 asylum seekers who now live in shelters and tent cities there—expecting to see logistical chaos. But I was still surprised at how fed up immigration judges like O’Connor were by the MPP-driven speedup—and by the extent to which their hands were tied to do anything about it.
Once O’Connor is done rescheduling his non-MPP case, he leans forward to adjust his microphone, rubs his forehead, and starts the group removal hearing. The interpreter translates into Spanish, and he asks if the adults understand. “Sí,” they say nervously from the back of the courtroom. O’Connor goes down his list, reading their names aloud with a slight Spaniard accent, asking people to identify themselves when their names are called. He reprimands those who do not speak up loud enough for him to hear.
O’Connor, who was appointed to the bench in 2010, is known for being tough: Between 2014 and 2019, he has denied 96 percent of asylum cases. He explains to the migrants that they have the right to an attorney, although one will not be provided—there are no public defenders in immigration court. O’Connor acknowledges finding legal representation from afar is difficult, but he tells them it’s not impossible. He encourages them to call the five pro bono legal providers listed on a sheet of paper they received that day. The moms sitting in front of me have their eyes locked on the Spanish interpreter, trying to absorb every bit of information. Their kids try their best to sit quietly.
As he thumbs through the case files, O’Connor grows increasingly frustrated: None of them has an address listed. “The government isn’t even bothering to do this,” he grumbles. The documents for MPP cases list people’s addresses as simply “Domicilio Conocido,” which translates to “Known Address.” This happens even when people say they can provide an address to a shelter in Mexico or when they have the address of a relative in the United States who can receive their paperwork. “I’ve seen them do this in 2,000 cases since May,” O’Connor says, and the Department of Homeland Security “hasn’t even bothered to investigate.” He looks up at the DHS attorney with a stern look on his face, but she continues shuffling paperwork around at her desk.
The judge looks up at the DHS attorney with a stern look on his face, but she continues shuffling paperwork around at her desk.
O’Connor picks up a blue form and explains to the group that they have to change their address to a physical location. The form is only in English; many of the adults seem confused and keep flipping over their copies as he tells them how to fill it out. O’Connor tells them they have to file within a week—perhaps better to do it that day, he says—but it’s unclear to me how they could follow his exacting instructions without the help of an attorney. He points out other mistakes in the paperwork filed by DHS and wraps up the hearing after about 45 minutes. The families don’t know that’s typical for a first hearing and seem perplexed when it ends.
O’Connor schedules the group to come back for their next hearing in five weeks at 8:30 a.m. That will mean showing up at the San Ysidro port of entry at 4:30 a.m.; the alternative, he says, is being barred from entering the United States and seeking forms of relief for 10 years. “Do you understand?” he asks. The group responds with a hesitant “Sí.”
The Trump administration designed MPP to prevent people like them from receiving asylum, and beyond that, from even seeking it in the first place. First implemented in San Diego in late January 2019 to help stem the flow of people showing up at the southern border, the policy has since sent somewhere between 57,000 and 62,000 people to dangerous Mexican cities where migrants have been preyed upon for decades. Their cases have been added to an immigration court that already has a backlog of 1,057,811 cases—up from 600,000 at the time when Obama left office—according to data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
According to immigration judge Ashley Tabaddor, who spoke to me in her capacity as union president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, MPP has constituted a fundamental change to the way courts are run. DHS, she says, is “creating a situation where they’re physically, logistically, and systematically creating all the obstacles and holding all the cards.” The MPP program has left the court powerless, “speeding up the process of dehumanizing the individuals who are before the court and deterring anyone from the right to seek protection” All this while the Department of Justice is trying to decertify Tabbador’s union—the only protection judges have, and the only avenue for speaking publicly about these issues—by claiming its members are managers and no longer eligible for union membership. Tabaddor says the extreme number of cases combined with the pressure to process them quickly is making it difficult for judges to balance the DOJ’s demands with their oath of office.
Immigration attorneys in El Paso, San Antonio, and San Diego have told me they are disturbed by the courtroom disarray: the unanswered phones, unopened mail, and unprocessed filings. Some of their clients are showing up at border in the middle of the night only to find that their cases have been rescheduled. That’s not only unfair, one attorney told me, “it’s dangerous.” Central Americans who speak only indigenous languages are asked to navigate court proceedings with Spanish interpreters. One attorney in El Paso had an 800-page filing for an asylum case that she filed with plenty of time for the judge to review, but it didn’t make it to the judge in time.
As another lawyer put it, “The whole thing is a fucking disaster that is designed to fail.”
COURTROOM #4; PRESIDING: JUDGE PHILIP LAW
Down the hall, a Honduran woman I’ll call Mari stands up next to her attorney and five-year-old son, raises her right hand, and is sworn in.
Mari’s hearing isn’t much of a hearing at all. Stephanie Blumberg, an attorney with Jewish Family Service of San Diego, who is working the case pro bono, asks for more time because she only recently took the case; Judge Philip Law says he will consolidate the cases of mother and child into one; and he schedules her next hearing for the following week at 7:30 a.m., with a call time of 3:30 a.m. at the border.
Just as it’s about to wrap up, Blumberg says her client is afraid to return to Mexico. “I want to know what is going to happen with me. I don’t want to go back to Mexico—it’s terrible,” Mari says in Spanish, an interpreter translating for the judge. “I have no jurisdiction over that,” Law says. “That’s between you and the Department of Homeland Security.” Law then turns to the DHS attorney, who says he’ll flag the case and “pass it along.”
While nine families begin their MPP group hearing, Mari tells me back in the waiting room that she and her son crossed the border in Texas and then asked for asylum. They were detained for two days and then transported by plane to San Diego, where she was given a piece of paper with a date and time for court and then released in Tijuana. She didn’t know anyone, barely knew where she was, and, trying to find safety in numbers, stuck with the group released that day. Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.
Mari’s voice gets shaky, and she tries to wipe the tears from her eyes, but even the cotton gloves she’s wearing aren’t enough to keep her face dry. I tell her we can end the conversation and apologize for making her relive those moments. She looks at her son from across the room and says she’d like to continue talking.
“I thought about suicide,” she whispers. “I carried my son and thought about jumping off a bridge.” Instead, she ended up walking for a long time, not knowing what to do or what would happen to them because they didn’t have a safe place to go.
“I haven’t talked to my family back home—it’s so embarrassing because of the dream I had coming here, and now look.”
“I haven’t talked to my family back home—it’s so embarrassing because of the dream I had coming here, and now look,” she says. “We’re discriminated against in Mexico; people make fun of us and the way we talk.” Her boy was already shy but has become quieter and more distrusting in recent months.
In the last year, I’ve spoken to dozens of migrants in border cities like Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana who share similarly horrific stories. Human Rights First has tracked more than 800 public reports of torture, kidnapping, rape, and murder against asylum seekers sent to Mexico in the last year. A lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies is challenging MPP on the grounds that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the “United States’ duty under international human rights law” not to return people to dangerous conditions.
“The system has not been set up to handle this in any way,” says Kate Clark, senior director of immigration services with Jewish Family Service of San Diego, one of the groups listed on the pro bono sheet Judge O’Connor handed out earlier in the day. They’re the only ones with a WhatsApp number listed, and their phones are constantly ringing because “it’s clear that people don’t know what’s going on or what to expect—and they’re in fear for their lives,” Clark says. Still, her 8-person team working MPP cases can only help a small percentage of the people coming through the courtroom every day.
Later that afternoon, shortly after 5, two large white buses pull up to the court’s loading dock. Guards in green uniforms escort about 60 people out from the loading dock. Moms, dads, and dozens of little kids walk in a straight light to get on a bus. They are driven down to the border and sent back to Tijuana later that night.
A few days later, Mari’s attorney tells me that despite raising a fear of retuning to Mexico in court, US port officials sent Mari back to Tijuana that night.
Fernanda Echavarri
COURTROOM #2; PRESIDING: JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR
I find myself back in O’Connor’s courtroom for his afternoon MPP hearings. This time, the only people with legal representation is a Cuban family who crossed in Arizona in July 2019 and turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents. This is their first time in court, and their attorney calls in from out of state.
Right away, O’Connor wants to address a different kind of clerical error from the one that bothered him earlier in the day—and one that he thinks matters even more. It involves the first document that DHS issues to “removable” immigrants, known as a Notice to Appear (NTA) form. Although the form allows agents to check a box to categorize people based on how they encountered immigration officials, O’Connor points out that in this case it was left blank—and that “this is fairly typical of the overwhelming majority of these cases.”
He isn’t the first or only judge to notice this; I heard others bring up inconsistent and incomplete NTAs. Border officials are supposed to note on the form if the people taken into custody are “arriving aliens,” meaning they presented at the port of entry asking for asylum, or “aliens present in the United States who have not been admitted or paroled,” meaning they first entered illegally in between ports of entry. Thousands of MPP cases have forms without a marked category. As far as O’Connor is concerned, that’s a crucial distinction. He believes that this Trump administration policy shouldn’t apply to people who entered the country without authorization—meaning countless immigrants who applied for MPP should be disqualified from the get-go.
In the case of the Cuban family, like dozens more that day, the DHS attorney filed an amended NTA classifying them as “arriving aliens.” O’Connor points out is not how they entered the United States. The DHS attorney is unphased by the judge’s stern tone and came prepared with piles of new forms for the other cases of incomplete NTAs. The family’s lawyer says maybe the government made a mistake. O’Connor, unsatisfied, interrupts her: “There was no confusion. I’ve seen 2,000 of these…the government is not bothering to spend the time.” After a lengthy back-and-forth, a testy O’Connor schedules the family to come back in three weeks.
O’Connor’s stance and rulings on this issue have broader implications. He terminated a case in October because a woman had entered the country illegally before turning herself in and wrote in his decision that DHS had “inappropriately subjected respondent to MPP.” He is among the loudest voices on this issue, saying that MPP is legal only when applied to asylum-seekers presenting at legal ports of entry—though it’s unclear to many lawyers what it might mean for their clients to have their cases terminated in this way. Would these asylum seekers end up in immigration detention facilities? Would they be released under supervision in the United States? Would they be deported back to their home countries?
“The issue with DHS—frankly, from what I’ve heard—is that it seems like they’re making it up as they go.”
Since MPP cases hit the courts last March, asylum attorneys have been critical of DHS for not answering these questions. I was present for the very first MPP hearing in San Diego and saw how confused and frustrated all sides were that DHS didn’t seem to have a plan for handling these cases. Now, almost a year later, little has changed.
Tabaddor, the union president, tells me that “there are definitely legal issues that the MPP program has presented” and that judges are having to decide whether the documents “are legally sufficient.” “The issue with DHS—frankly, from what I’ve heard—is that it seems like they’re making it up as they go,” she says.
Last week, Tabaddor testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee and for the independence of immigration courts from the political pressures of federal law enforcement. There are approximately 400 immigration judges across more than 60 courts nationwide, and almost half of those judges have been appointed during the Trump era. (According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, dozens of judges are quitting or retiring early because their jobs have become “unbearable” under Trump.)
California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, an immigrants’ rights supporter in Congress, argued during the hearing that the immigration courts are in crisis and the issue requires urgent congressional attention. “In order to be fully effective, the immigration court system should function just like any other judicial institution,” she said. “Immigration judges should have the time and resources to conduct full and fair hearings, but for too long, the courts have not functioned as they should—pushing the system to the brink.”
COURTROOM #1; PRESIDING: JUDGE SCOTT SIMPSON
“I don’t want any more court,” a woman from Guatemala pleads just before lunchtime. “No more hearings, please.”
Unlike many of the people who were there for their first hearing when I observed court in San Diego, this woman has been to court multiple times since mid-2019. No matter how hard she tried, she couldn’t find a lawyer, she tells Judge Scott Simpson. She’s had enough.
“We’ve reached a fork in the road, ma’am,” Simpson says in a warm, calm tone. “You either ask for more time for an attorney to help you or you represent yourself.”
“No, it’d be a loss since I don’t know anything about the law,” the woman responds, her voice getting both louder and shakier. Simpson explains to her again the benefits of taking time to find an attorney.
“It’s been almost a year. I don’t want to continue the case. I want to leave it as is,” she tells him. After more explanation from the judge, the woman says she’d like to represent herself today so that decisions can be made. Simpson asks what she would like to do next, and the woman says, “I want you to end it.”
“It’s been almost a year. I don’t want to continue the case. I want to leave it as is…I want you to end it.”
This woman’s pleas are increasingly common. Tabaddor says MPP has taken “an already very challenging situation and [made] it exponentially worse.” The new reality in immigration courts “is logistically and systematically designed to just deter people from seeking or availing themselves of the right to request protection,” Tabaddor says.
After hearing the Guatemalan woman ask for the case to be closed multiple times, Simpson takes a deep breath, claps his hands, and says there are four options: withdrawal, administrative close, dismissal, or termination. He explains each one, and after 10 minutes the woman asks for her case to be administratively closed. The DHS attorney, however, denies that request. Simpson’s hands are tied.
The judge tells the woman that because DHS filed paperwork on her case that day, and because it’s only in English, that he’s going to give her time to review it, because “as the judge I don’t think it would be fair for you to go forward without the opportunity to object to that.” He schedules her to come back in a month.
“MPP is not a program I created,” he says. “That decision was made by someone else.”
Additional reporting by Noah Lanard.


motherjones--2020-02-06--Democrats Prove No One Has to Hack an Election to Create Chaos

The traveling road show has moved on from Iowa , and the campaigns and most of the media circus that go with them have set up shop in New Hampshire .
Still , the full results of the Iowa caucuses are not yet known .
Numbers have been posted in spurts , and while the state Democratic Party and the designers of an app that was supposed to simplify the caucus-night results reporting process have withheld details about how and why the results were so delayed , they have issued apologies and pledged to figure out how they screwed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been voluminous reporting trying to answer that question , for some security experts , the key lesson from Iowa ’ s meltdown is how the episode illustrates one of their biggest fears : bad actors seeking to interfere in an election don ’ t actually have to rig a voting machine or hack a voter registration database .
They just have to make it look like they did , and chaos will be born and confidence lost .
While in Iowa ’ s case it seems that coding and management errors are behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hacker or malevolent political actor , “ the outcome is the same regardless , ” says Jordan Rae Kelly , a former senior FBI cybersecurity official who is now an executive at FTI Consulting .
“ What we really saw in Iowa was the manifestation of [ the idea that ] you do not actually have to have a cybersecurity incident to really wreak havoc on outcomes in these types of situations .
This isn ’ t just about building something that ’ s secure .
It ’ s about building something secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unimpeachable way that it ’ s secure , ” she says .
Even though Sen. Mark Warner ( D-Va. ) , vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , has said publicly no hacking was involved , “ I highly doubt that that made everyone go , ‘ Oh ok , well then no worries , ' ” she says .
“ Cybersecurity is such a hard thing to get right , and unfortunately we ’ re not even just talking about that .
We ’ re talking about cybersecurity mixed with this perception/trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long for President Donald Trump , his family , and his supporters to exploit the situation to spread disinformation and raise questions that sowed doubt .
And it wasn ’ t just Trump : As the night unfolded , Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party highlighting “ considerable flaws ” in the process and demanding an “ full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing ” before official results were released .
On Wednesday , a senior Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked in a live television interview whether the campaign thought the results slowly being reported by the state party were accurate .
Allies of Bernie Sanders have also spread unsubstantiated claims of rigging .
It didn ’ t help matters when the Iowa Democratic Party released a set of results on Wednesday afternoon , only to have to shortly re-release the numbers after mistakes were noticed and circulated on Twitter .
One of the main goals of the 2016 Russian operation , according to multiple US government reports and analyses of the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the race ’ s outcome .
But who needs the Russian government or a foreign adversary when the president and other self-interested parties are willing to do it for them ?
As Joshua Geltzer , a former National Security Council lawyer recently told Rolling Stone ’ s Andy Kroll , “ There ’ s a counterintelligence threat coming from inside the White House…How do you guard against that ?
” While Iowa ’ s meltdown seems to simply be about the reporting of the results , and not the actual vote totals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produces voluminous paper records , which are being used to verify numbers—experts have warned about the indelible impression early false information can create , even if eventually or quickly corrected .
In September 2019 , Alex Stamos , who headed up Facebook ’ s initial investigations of Russian meddling while serving as its chief information security officer , wrote a blog post fleshing out a vision of what he feared could take place in the 2020 election .
Stamos imagined a series of events in which CNN and Fox News reported completely different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ subtle manipulation of the intermediate counting systems , websites and data links providing vote returns.
” As the scenario went , even though the networks quickly retracted their projections , the incorrect results had been widely tweeted by hacked Twitter accounts representing anchors at both networks , leaving a “ an enduring impression ” ; as a result , Stamos wrote that polling would show that not only did “ 78 percent of Americans believe the election was stolen ” —they couldn ’ t agree who won .
On Tuesday , Stamos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post , warning that the “ largest external risk to American democracy is an attack that combines a technical assault against our widely distributed and poorly secured election infrastructure with disinformation that American partisans will happily amplify.
” While Stamos ’ thought exercise takes these concerns to their logical extreme , national security experts do worry some version of them could one day play out .
Neil Jenkins , a former Obama Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity official , headed up a war room that monitored threats on Election Day 2016 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results reporting was a prime focus : “ [ An attacker wouldn ’ t be ] effecting the certified official results , ” he said , but added that “ one of the worst case scenarios would be the media reporting on a projected winner on the night of and then finding out a couple days later as certified results come in that it ’ s someone different .
All of those things would be extremely disruptive to the American public.
” Michael Daniel , a former Obama White House cybersecurity official who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says disinformation based on unreliable results reporting was “ absolutely ” something the government was concerned about and game-planned for ahead of the 2016 election .
While paper records ensure correct results can eventually be made public , “ in the meantime it ’ s just giving complete fodder for all sorts of disinformation , ” he says .
“ When you go into a general election where the partisan edge will be much sharper , the potential for sowing doubt and discord becomes even higher.
” “ What happens if somebody manipulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a call on a state , but then they have to walk it back ?
” Daniel said .
“ There are those states that are close , and what if you make a call that goes in the wrong direction ?
” While reporting suggesting technical issues are at the root of Iowa ’ s dysfunction , alongside the fact the party has a paper trail , have both dulled claims of intentional manipulation , Daniel warns that “ it ’ s not very hard to construct scenarios where it ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those conspiracy theories.
” “ Imagine a more subtle situation where we can ’ t figure out why it ’ s not working , we can ’ t figure out why our numbers are off , ” Daniel says .
“ That would just feed the conspiracy theories and it will lead to lingering concerns about ‘ Was all of that legitimate in the first place ? '
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The traveling road show has moved on from Iowa, and the campaigns and most of the media circus that go with them have set up shop in New Hampshire. Still, the full results of the Iowa caucuses are not yet known. Numbers have been posted in spurts, and while the state Democratic Party and the designers of an app that was supposed to simplify the caucus-night results reporting process have withheld details about how and why the results were so delayed, they have issued apologies and pledged to figure out how they screwed up so badly.
While there’s been voluminous reporting trying to answer that question, for some security experts, the key lesson from Iowa’s meltdown is how the episode illustrates one of their biggest fears: bad actors seeking to interfere in an election don’t actually have to rig a voting machine or hack a voter registration database. They just have to make it look like they did, and chaos will be born and confidence lost.
“It’s just giving complete fodder for all sorts of disinformation.”
Even though in Iowa’s case it seems that coding and management errors are behind most of the dysfunction, and not some nation-state hacker or malevolent political actor, “the outcome is the same regardless,” says Jordan Rae Kelly, a former senior FBI cybersecurity official who is now an executive at FTI Consulting.
“What we really saw in Iowa was the manifestation of [the idea that] you do not actually have to have a cybersecurity incident to really wreak havoc on outcomes in these types of situations. This isn’t just about building something that’s secure. It’s about building something secure and being able to prove in an unimpeachable way that it’s secure,” she says.
Even though Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said publicly no hacking was involved, “I highly doubt that that made everyone go, ‘Oh ok, well then no worries,'” she says. “Cybersecurity is such a hard thing to get right, and unfortunately we’re not even just talking about that. We’re talking about cybersecurity mixed with this perception/trust issue.”
It didn’t take long for President Donald Trump, his family, and his supporters to exploit the situation to spread disinformation and raise questions that sowed doubt. And it wasn’t just Trump: As the night unfolded, Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party highlighting “considerable flaws” in the process and demanding an “full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing” before official results were released. On Wednesday, a senior Biden advisor wouldn’t answer when repeatedly asked in a live television interview whether the campaign thought the results slowly being reported by the state party were accurate. Allies of Bernie Sanders have also spread unsubstantiated claims of rigging. It didn’t help matters when the Iowa Democratic Party released a set of results on Wednesday afternoon, only to have to shortly re-release the numbers after mistakes were noticed and circulated on Twitter.
One of the main goals of the 2016 Russian operation, according to multiple US government reports and analyses of the operation, was an attempt to create doubt about the race’s outcome. But who needs the Russian government or a foreign adversary when the president and other self-interested parties are willing to do it for them?
As Joshua Geltzer, a former National Security Council lawyer recently told Rolling Stone’s Andy Kroll, “There’s a counterintelligence threat coming from inside the White House…How do you guard against that?”
While Iowa’s meltdown seems to simply be about the reporting of the results, and not the actual vote totals themselves—the state party’s caucus system produces voluminous paper records, which are being used to verify numbers—experts have warned about the indelible impression early false information can create, even if eventually or quickly corrected. In September 2019, Alex Stamos, who headed up Facebook’s initial investigations of Russian meddling while serving as its chief information security officer, wrote a blog post fleshing out a vision of what he feared could take place in the 2020 election. Stamos imagined a series of events in which CNN and Fox News reported completely different winners from Wisconsin as a result of “subtle manipulation of the intermediate counting systems, websites and data links providing vote returns.” As the scenario went, even though the networks quickly retracted their projections, the incorrect results had been widely tweeted by hacked Twitter accounts representing anchors at both networks, leaving a “an enduring impression”; as a result, Stamos wrote that polling would show that not only did “78 percent of Americans believe the election was stolen”—they couldn’t agree who won.
On Tuesday, Stamos tweeted out a link to his 2019 post, warning that the “largest external risk to American democracy is an attack that combines a technical assault against our widely distributed and poorly secured election infrastructure with disinformation that American partisans will happily amplify.”
In a general election, “the potential for sowing doubt and discord becomes even higher.”
While Stamos’ thought exercise takes these concerns to their logical extreme, national security experts do worry some version of them could one day play out. Neil Jenkins, a former Obama Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity official, headed up a war room that monitored threats on Election Day 2016. In 2018, he told CBS News that results reporting was a prime focus: “[An attacker wouldn’t be] effecting the certified official results,” he said, but added that “one of the worst case scenarios would be the media reporting on a projected winner on the night of and then finding out a couple days later as certified results come in that it’s someone different. All of those things would be extremely disruptive to the American public.”
Michael Daniel, a former Obama White House cybersecurity official who now runs the Cyber Threat Alliance, says disinformation based on unreliable results reporting was “absolutely” something the government was concerned about and game-planned for ahead of the 2016 election. While paper records ensure correct results can eventually be made public, “in the meantime it’s just giving complete fodder for all sorts of disinformation,” he says. “When you go into a general election where the partisan edge will be much sharper, the potential for sowing doubt and discord becomes even higher.”
“What happens if somebody manipulated it so that CNN ends up making a call on a state, but then they have to walk it back?” Daniel said. “There are those states that are close, and what if you make a call that goes in the wrong direction?”
While reporting suggesting technical issues are at the root of Iowa’s dysfunction, alongside the fact the party has a paper trail, have both dulled claims of intentional manipulation, Daniel warns that “it’s not very hard to construct scenarios where it’d be a lot harder to stamp out those conspiracy theories.”
“Imagine a more subtle situation where we can’t figure out why it’s not working, we can’t figure out why our numbers are off,” Daniel says. “That would just feed the conspiracy theories and it will lead to lingering concerns about ‘Was all of that legitimate in the first place?'”


motherjones--2020-02-05--Impeachment and the State of the Union: How Trump Attacks the System with Disinformation

It was rather fitting that Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union speech , which pundits praised as a strong and effective rallying cry for his base , occurred the night before he was acquitted in his impeachment trial , for each of these dubious achievements relied upon the same crucial element : disinformation .
And both the just-concluded impeachment trial and the ongoing election are tests of whether the American political system can adequately handle and reject Trump ’ s never-ending and pervasive disinformation .
In the most showbiz-iest speech of his presidency , Trump drew heavily on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , despite its moniker , is predicated on the falsification of reality .
He orchestrated the reunion of a soldier with his family .
He doled out a scholarship to a needy kid .
And he departed from describing the state of the union to award the nation ’ s highest civilian honor , the Medal of Freedom , to a man who has a long history of hurling racist , misogynistic , and hateful rhetoric .
Trump combined these story segments with an orgy of self-praise , declaring that he single-handedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American manufacturing , that he protected Americans with pre-existing conditions from losing health care , and that he moved millions of low-income people out of poverty and off a dependence on food stamps .
None of that was true .
Fact-checkers immediately reported these were false assertions .
The moment Trump bleated , “ If we had not reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration , the world would not now be witness to America ’ s great economic success , ” tweets went flying to note the obvious : more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of the Obama administration than during Trump ’ s three years as president .
When Trump proclaimed the US economy was moving at an “ unimaginable ” pace , other tweets noted that the US economy grew 2.3 percent in 2019 , matching the average rate for the past decade and far below the 3-percent Trump had promised .
“ We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.
” No , in court cases , the Trump administration has taken steps that would eviscerate or end those protections .
All these lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsehoods Trump has uttered many times before .
This was dog-bites-man stuff .
Nothing to see .
But they serve a purpose beyond pathological self-aggrandizement .
They reinforce Trump ’ s standing with his supporters .
Sure , his political foes and whiners in the media can easily point out the falsity of these statements .
But with his fellow Republicans loudly applauding them , these lies shoot across the information ecosystem—Jake Tapper and Brian Williams can ’ t slow them down—and register with millions who want to believe Trump .
These folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Washington Post columnist will throw at Trump , especially when the entire GOP and the conservative media world of Fox News , Limbaugh , and others are constantly enabling the prevaricator-in-chief .
In Disinformation We Trust—that ’ s the secret motto .
The Trump impeachment has been shaped by a cavalcade of disinformation from Trump and his defenders .
Trump himself has falsely described the overlapping Russia and Ukraine scandals as hoaxes .
That has been his big lie .
Trump could never acknowledge that he helped Russia ’ s attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist Trump ’ s presidential bid ) or that he mounted a mob-like plot to pressure the Ukrainian president to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Ukraine , not Russia , hacked the 2016 election .
The evidence in both of these affairs was clear and overwhelming .
But Trump found that flat-out denials resonated within Trumpland .
And it was easy to repeat and to augment these absurd assertions of complete innocence with paranoiac and demagogic attacks on an imaginary cabal of Deep Staters , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell-bent to destroy him .
That was the real scandal , Trump maintained .
Trump flipped the story : he wasn ’ t the perp , he was the victim .
And his peeps bought his counterfeit concoction .
Disinformation was a critical ingredient of the Republican counter to impeachment .
During the impeachment inquiry hearings in the House , Republicans would not address the simple and basic facts of the Ukraine scandal .
They looked at the quasi-transcript of Trump ’ s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky—in which Trump asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in return for providing arms to Kyiv—and claimed this was not a quid pro quo .
That is , they denied reality .
After Gordon Sondland , the hotelier who gave $ 1 million to Trump ’ s inauguration and who was then appointed US ambassador to the European Union—testified there had been a “ quid pro quo , ” Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) , one of Trump ’ s most dependable bullhorns , yelled at me , “ No quid pro quo !
No quid pro quo !
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his eyes and shouting , “ I can ’ t see you.
” And in this case , Republicans like Jordan were trying to place their hands over the eyes of the entire American public .
Or at least divert the public ’ s attention from the main narrative .
During those hearings , GOPers ranted about the Deep State , the Steele dossier , the whistleblower who helped trigger the Ukraine scandal , and the unfounded notion that the Ukraine government had interfered in the 2016 election to hamper Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of , yes , a Russian disinformation operation ( as White House national security aide Fiona Hill testified to the House impeachment inquiry ) .
Jordan and the others relied on disinformation to distract from the facts of the case .
Their goal was to turn the House ’ s impeachment proceedings into a confusing swirl of contentions and counter-contentions .
They did not have to win the debate .
They only needed to make the debate over impeachment look complicated and messy—that same-old partisan brawl in Washington that people could feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s easy to do that .
It may take two to tango , but one party to the public discourse on its own can muddy waters and transform almost any proceeding into a circus—and then criticize the circus for being a circus in an effort to discredit the proceeding .
Republican disinformation did not triumph in the House , for the Democrats held the majority and voted to approve two articles of impeachment .
But those GOP endeavors established the foundation for the legal team that defended Trump before the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence—that Trump had withheld $ 391 million in military assistance for Ukraine because he was concerned about “ corruption ” in that country .
This was like saying Trump was concerned about women ’ s rights when he bought all those beauty pageants .
His legal mouthpieces falsely maintained the Ukrainians were never aware of Trump ’ s hold on the aid .
They said he “ did absolutely nothing wrong.
” Instead , they spewed the now-predictable hogwash about the Steele memos , the whistleblower , and Hunter Biden and Burisma .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts from entering the case , opposing motions that would allow the House managers to introduce important documents blocked by the Trump White House and to call witnesses , including former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who had reportedly written a book that recounts Trump telling him he delayed the military aid to pressure the Ukrainians to initiate these investigations .
Trump ’ s lawyers also pushed disinformation about the Constitution .
Alan Dershowitz , the star of the team , argued that a president can not be impeached for any actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ abuse of power ” —the centerpiece of the first of two articles of impeachment approved by the House—was not sufficient cause for impeachment .
He maintained that a president could engage in corrupt behavior and remain safe from impeachment , as long as he broke no law .
Under this interpretation , Trump could pardon the Russian hackers indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for attacking the 2016 election , essentially encouraging them to do it all over again in 2020 , and urge other countries to produce dirt ( true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and none of that would be grounds for impeachment .
Dershowitz was presenting a false reading of the Constitution that is challenged by the legal mainstream .
( There were no federal statues for a president to violate at the time the Constitution was written . )
It was a con job .
Trump ’ s impeachment , as I and others have noted , placed the Senate on trial .
Could it deal with a defense founded on disinformation ?
The outcome was not surprising .
The Republicans , by and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Bidens and Burisma , not Trump ’ s actions .
They embraced the distractions and slammed the impeachment as sham .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) shamelessly put up a display with the name of the alleged whistleblower , who , under federal law , has the right to remain anonymous .
All the Republicans , minus two , voted to keep witnesses and new documents out of the trial .
They would not listen to Bolton .
They would not obtain for themselves and the public more facts about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , didn ’ t really matter .
In the end , disinformation won .
A small number of Republicans conceded that Trump had acted inappropriately , but they joined the rest of their gang to vote against removing Trump .
With the exception of Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , who surprisingly both condemned Trump ’ s actions and voted with the Democrats on the first article of impeachment to kick Trump out of the White House .
But as a group , the Republicans endorsed the disinformation and diversions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not allow a fulsome trial with witnesses and new documents .
They would not give full and careful consideration to all the information available .
Sure , Trump received the verdict he desired and expected—not guilty on a 52-48 vote—but the Senate Republicans convicted themselves .
They literally would not handle the truth .
With the Senate Republicans failing this test , the question now is how the larger political-media world—which includes the voters—will confront the disinformation Trump and his handmaids deploy for his reelection .
His State of the Union address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s brand—and that his party , in cult-like fashion , will cravenly and eagerly boost all his false signals .
( According to the Washington Post ‘ s running count , Trump has made over 16,000 false statements since becoming president . )
Politicians—and everybody else—lie because lying gives them an advantage .
And Trump lies more than anyone else .
That was well-known before he ran for president .
Since then , he and his acolytes have honed their skills at disseminating disinformation that goes beyond petty lying about crowd sizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have learned that Trump ’ s legitimacy and standing depends on the production of alternative and false narratives .
He ’ s always been pretty good at issuing fake and often implausible denials about his frequent mistakes and misdeeds .
( As a developer in New York City , he pretended to be his own spokesmen in order to plant stories in the media . )
But through his impeachment and with his State of the Union address , Trump has demonstrated a keen ability to concoct reality-defying cover stories and phony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that are amplified by his amen choir in the conservative media , and that register with his voters .
Trump did nothing wrong with Russia and Ukraine ; the real culprits are the Deep State traitors and the nefarious Never-Trumpers .
Trump is an economic savior ; Barack Obama almost destroyed the economy .
In fact , Trump is the Messiah .
And we have all the disinformation to prove it .
It ’ s hard to know how the political-media world will process the flood of disinformation that will hit between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it generally won ’ t remove false content posted by political campaigns . )
Disinformation is a powerful weapon—and it ’ s tough to figure out how to dilute or thwart it .
There ’ s an old line that has falsely been attributed to Mark Twain : “ a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
” This observation was made long before the age of the Internet and social media .
At no time in human history has it been easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bogus information .
And in an era of tribalized politics and fractured media , the penalties for doing so seem diminished .
US society—and the whole world—faces a profound challenge in this regard , as scoundrels , autocrats , and others seek to gain or hold power through the effective utilization of disinformation .
Trump is a one-man stress test for American democracy .
With the impeachment trial , he has shown that before a jury dominated by members of his own party he can escape accountability by drum-beating fictions and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine months will tell whether Trump ’ s fabrications and propaganda can defeat reality when it ’ s the voters who are judging .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It was rather fitting that Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, which pundits praised as a strong and effective rallying cry for his base, occurred the night before he was acquitted in his impeachment trial, for each of these dubious achievements relied upon the same crucial element: disinformation. And both the just-concluded impeachment trial and the ongoing election are tests of whether the American political system can adequately handle and reject Trump’s never-ending and pervasive disinformation.
In the most showbiz-iest speech of his presidency, Trump drew heavily on his experience in reality-TV, a medium that, despite its moniker, is predicated on the falsification of reality. He orchestrated the reunion of a soldier with his family. He doled out a scholarship to a needy kid. And he departed from describing the state of the union to award the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, to a man who has a long history of hurling racist, misogynistic, and hateful rhetoric. Trump combined these story segments with an orgy of self-praise, declaring that he single-handedly rescued the economy, that he revived American manufacturing, that he protected Americans with pre-existing conditions from losing health care, and that he moved millions of low-income people out of poverty and off a dependence on food stamps. None of that was true.
Fact-checkers immediately reported these were false assertions. The moment Trump bleated, “If we had not reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witness to America’s great economic success,” tweets went flying to note the obvious: more jobs were created in the last three years of the Obama administration than during Trump’s three years as president. When Trump proclaimed the US economy was moving at an “unimaginable” pace, other tweets noted that the US economy grew 2.3 percent in 2019, matching the average rate for the past decade and far below the 3-percent Trump had promised. “We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.” No, in court cases, the Trump administration has taken steps that would eviscerate or end those protections.
All these lies were not big news, merely the falsehoods Trump has uttered many times before. This was dog-bites-man stuff. Nothing to see. But they serve a purpose beyond pathological self-aggrandizement. They reinforce Trump’s standing with his supporters. Sure, his political foes and whiners in the media can easily point out the falsity of these statements. But with his fellow Republicans loudly applauding them, these lies shoot across the information ecosystem—Jake Tapper and Brian Williams can’t slow them down—and register with millions who want to believe Trump. These folks don’t care how many Pinocchios a Washington Post columnist will throw at Trump, especially when the entire GOP and the conservative media world of Fox News, Limbaugh, and others are constantly enabling the prevaricator-in-chief. In Disinformation We Trust—that’s the secret motto.
The Trump impeachment has been shaped by a cavalcade of disinformation from Trump and his defenders. Trump himself has falsely described the overlapping Russia and Ukraine scandals as hoaxes. That has been his big lie. Trump could never acknowledge that he helped Russia’s attack on democracy (which the Kremlin waged to assist Trump’s presidential bid) or that he mounted a mob-like plot to pressure the Ukrainian president to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the 2016 election. The evidence in both of these affairs was clear and overwhelming. But Trump found that flat-out denials resonated within Trumpland. And it was easy to repeat and to augment these absurd assertions of complete innocence with paranoiac and demagogic attacks on an imaginary cabal of Deep Staters, the media, and maniacal Democrats that was hell-bent to destroy him. That was the real scandal, Trump maintained. Trump flipped the story: he wasn’t the perp, he was the victim. And his peeps bought his counterfeit concoction.
Disinformation was a critical ingredient of the Republican counter to impeachment. During the impeachment inquiry hearings in the House, Republicans would not address the simple and basic facts of the Ukraine scandal. They looked at the quasi-transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky—in which Trump asked for these investigations as a “favor” in return for providing arms to Kyiv—and claimed this was not a quid pro quo. That is, they denied reality. After Gordon Sondland, the hotelier who gave $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and who was then appointed US ambassador to the European Union—testified there had been a “quid pro quo,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), one of Trump’s most dependable bullhorns, yelled at me, “No quid pro quo! No quid pro quo!” It was like a child placing his hands over his eyes and shouting, “I can’t see you.” And in this case, Republicans like Jordan were trying to place their hands over the eyes of the entire American public.
Or at least divert the public’s attention from the main narrative. During those hearings, GOPers ranted about the Deep State, the Steele dossier, the whistleblower who helped trigger the Ukraine scandal, and the unfounded notion that the Ukraine government had interfered in the 2016 election to hamper Trump. That last bit is a favorite talking point of, yes, a Russian disinformation operation (as White House national security aide Fiona Hill testified to the House impeachment inquiry). Jordan and the others relied on disinformation to distract from the facts of the case. Their goal was to turn the House’s impeachment proceedings into a confusing swirl of contentions and counter-contentions. They did not have to win the debate. They only needed to make the debate over impeachment look complicated and messy—that same-old partisan brawl in Washington that people could feel free to ignore or dismiss. And it’s easy to do that. It may take two to tango, but one party to the public discourse on its own can muddy waters and transform almost any proceeding into a circus—and then criticize the circus for being a circus in an effort to discredit the proceeding.
Republican disinformation did not triumph in the House, for the Democrats held the majority and voted to approve two articles of impeachment. But those GOP endeavors established the foundation for the legal team that defended Trump before the Senate. Trump’s lawyers claimed—against all evidence—that Trump had withheld $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine because he was concerned about “corruption” in that country. This was like saying Trump was concerned about women’s rights when he bought all those beauty pageants. His legal mouthpieces falsely maintained the Ukrainians were never aware of Trump’s hold on the aid. They said he “did absolutely nothing wrong.” Instead, they spewed the now-predictable hogwash about the Steele memos, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden and Burisma. And they fought mightily to prevent additional facts from entering the case, opposing motions that would allow the House managers to introduce important documents blocked by the Trump White House and to call witnesses, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who had reportedly written a book that recounts Trump telling him he delayed the military aid to pressure the Ukrainians to initiate these investigations.
Trump’s lawyers also pushed disinformation about the Constitution. Alan Dershowitz, the star of the team, argued that a president cannot be impeached for any actions that are not crimes. He insisted that “abuse of power”—the centerpiece of the first of two articles of impeachment approved by the House—was not sufficient cause for impeachment. He maintained that a president could engage in corrupt behavior and remain safe from impeachment, as long as he broke no law. Under this interpretation, Trump could pardon the Russian hackers indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for attacking the 2016 election, essentially encouraging them to do it all over again in 2020, and urge other countries to produce dirt (true or false) about his political rivals, and none of that would be grounds for impeachment. Dershowitz was presenting a false reading of the Constitution that is challenged by the legal mainstream. (There were no federal statues for a president to violate at the time the Constitution was written.) It was a con job.
Trump’s impeachment, as I and others have noted, placed the Senate on trial. Could it deal with a defense founded on disinformation? The outcome was not surprising. The Republicans, by and large, chose partisanship. Many focused on the Bidens and Burisma, not Trump’s actions. They embraced the distractions and slammed the impeachment as sham. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shamelessly put up a display with the name of the alleged whistleblower, who, under federal law, has the right to remain anonymous. All the Republicans, minus two, voted to keep witnesses and new documents out of the trial. They would not listen to Bolton. They would not obtain for themselves and the public more facts about the case. Those facts, some said, didn’t really matter.
In the end, disinformation won. A small number of Republicans conceded that Trump had acted inappropriately, but they joined the rest of their gang to vote against removing Trump. With the exception of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who surprisingly both condemned Trump’s actions and voted with the Democrats on the first article of impeachment to kick Trump out of the White House. But as a group, the Republicans endorsed the disinformation and diversions, as they protected their man. They would not allow a fulsome trial with witnesses and new documents. They would not give full and careful consideration to all the information available. Sure, Trump received the verdict he desired and expected—not guilty on a 52-48 vote—but the Senate Republicans convicted themselves. They literally would not handle the truth.
With the Senate Republicans failing this test, the question now is how the larger political-media world—which includes the voters—will confront the disinformation Trump and his handmaids deploy for his reelection. His State of the Union address was a reminder that lying is Trump’s brand—and that his party, in cult-like fashion, will cravenly and eagerly boost all his false signals. (According to the Washington Post‘s running count, Trump has made over 16,000 false statements since becoming president.)
Politicians—and everybody else—lie because lying gives them an advantage. And Trump lies more than anyone else. That was well-known before he ran for president. Since then, he and his acolytes have honed their skills at disseminating disinformation that goes beyond petty lying about crowd sizes and other small and perishable matters. They have learned that Trump’s legitimacy and standing depends on the production of alternative and false narratives. He’s always been pretty good at issuing fake and often implausible denials about his frequent mistakes and misdeeds. (As a developer in New York City, he pretended to be his own spokesmen in order to plant stories in the media.) But through his impeachment and with his State of the Union address, Trump has demonstrated a keen ability to concoct reality-defying cover stories and phony distractions that are embraced by the GOP, that are amplified by his amen choir in the conservative media, and that register with his voters. Trump did nothing wrong with Russia and Ukraine; the real culprits are the Deep State traitors and the nefarious Never-Trumpers. Trump is an economic savior; Barack Obama almost destroyed the economy. In fact, Trump is the Messiah. And we have all the disinformation to prove it.
It’s hard to know how the political-media world will process the flood of disinformation that will hit between now and November. (Facebook has said it generally won’t remove false content posted by political campaigns.) Disinformation is a powerful weapon—and it’s tough to figure out how to dilute or thwart it. There’s an old line that has falsely been attributed to Mark Twain: “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” This observation was made long before the age of the Internet and social media. At no time in human history has it been easier to bombard the public with false data and bogus information. And in an era of tribalized politics and fractured media, the penalties for doing so seem diminished. US society—and the whole world—faces a profound challenge in this regard, as scoundrels, autocrats, and others seek to gain or hold power through the effective utilization of disinformation. Trump is a one-man stress test for American democracy. With the impeachment trial, he has shown that before a jury dominated by members of his own party he can escape accountability by drum-beating fictions and by smothering truth with deception. The coming nine months will tell whether Trump’s fabrications and propaganda can defeat reality when it’s the voters who are judging.


motherjones--2020-02-06--A New Report on Russia’s Election Interference Leaves a Lot Out

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday released the third volume in its review of Russian interference in the 2016 election .
It ’ s a weird document .
The report , which focuses on how the US government reacted to Russian activities , criticizes the Obama administration for its tentative and ineffective response to the election interference .
The committee notes that the “ heavily politicized environment ” faced by the previous administration was one reason for these failures .
But the report it avoids the elephant in the room .
Former Obama administration officials have previously faulted Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other GOP lawmakers for blocking their September 2016 request that Congress issue a bipartisan warning about Russian interference in 2016 .
McConnell reportedly threatened to allege that the White House was misusing intelligence to hurt Donald Trump ’ s presidential campaign—exactly the kind of fight Obama officials wanted to avoid .
These allegations suggest that McConnell feared news that Russia was seeking to aid Trump would hurt Republicans , and that he chose partisan interest over national interest .
McConnell has disputed these accounts and attacked the Obama administration for doing too little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thursday ’ s report does confirm that McConnell and others Republicans pushed back against the Obama administration ’ s request for a bipartisan condemnation of Russian interference .
But the discussion of those incidents is brief and does not delve into the details of that controversy .
The report addresses the flawed interaction between Obama administration officials and the “ Gang of Eight , ” the Democratic and Republican leaders and top intelligence committee members from each chamber .
But it also sidesteps the fact that Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was involved in the interactions the report details .
So was Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) , formerly the committee ’ s top Democrat .
Burr criticized the Obama administration ’ s response to Russia in a statement Thursday .
“ Frozen by ‘ paralysis of analysis , ’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived , Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one , ” Burr said .
The report does not mention that Burr himself , while running for reelection in North Carolina , may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he questioned statements made by the administration and Democrats calling out Russian interference .
According to the report , the Obama administration received new intelligence—characterized by the committee as a “ wake-up call ” —in the summer of 2016 .
The details of this information , including the date , are redacted , but it came after news in June of that year that the Russian intelligence agents had hacked email accounts at the Democratic National Committee .
In early August , CIA director John Brennan “ was dispatched to brief Congressional leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress ’ August recess , Brennan briefed lawmakers individually and reached Republicans only weeks later .
He did not speak to McConnell until September 6 , 2016 .
In a 2018 book , Greg Miller , a Washington Post reporter , wrote that McConnell told Brennan he would respond to any administration claim that Russia was trying to help Trump win by accusing the White House of interfering in the election .
McConnell reportedly made similar statements in a September 8 briefing delivered by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson , White House official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey .
The administration officials wanted the lawmakers to issue a bipartisan statement that warned of Russia interference efforts , hoping the statement would convince state and local officials to seek federal help protecting election infrastructure .
The committee says that Republicans rejected requests for a bipartisan statement and that Monaco recalls McConnell saying : “ You security people should be careful that you ’ re not getting used.
” Monaco said she believed this was a suggestion that reports of Russian interference were being inflated or used for partisan ends .
Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ resisted the administration request ” for a bipartisan statement , but it names only McConnell .
These meetings are central to how the Obama administration dealt with Russian interference .
But the committee ’ s report addressed them in just a few paragraphs .
Of the reported argument between Brennan and McConnell , the report says only that Monaco ’ s description of McConnell ’ s remarks on September 8 “ comported with Director Brennan ’ s account of his interaction with Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
” The report also quotes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee session on a July 17 , 2018 , in which Burr characterized McConnell ’ s argument at the September 8 meeting : “ [ T ] he question that [ Senate Majority Leader McConnell ] raised was : Would this not contribute to Russia ’ s efforts at creating concerns about our election process , if the leadership of the Congress put that letter out ?
” Burr said .
This statement came almost two years after the 2016 meeting in question , and it casts McConnell ’ s argument as far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama officials .
In a statement included in Thursday ’ s report , Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) faulted the Gang of Eight for failing to create transcripts or notes on these briefings , leaving investigators to rely on interviews conducted almost a year later .
The committee also does not appear to have interviewed or otherwise sought information from members of Congress who were in these briefings , including Burr and Feinstein , who were part of the Gang of Eight at the time .
Asked about this , committee spokespeople @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration ’ s actions .
Wyden ’ s views also highlight the consequences of “ Republican refusal to publicly acknowledge Russian interference ” and the Obama administration ’ s reluctance to speak out without GOP backing .
In Wyden ’ s view , the inaction made Russia ’ s dissemination of the stolen Democratic emails more damaging .
“ If the Administration had informed the public of Russian hacking and dumping earlier than October 7 , and had there been bipartisan condemnation of these operations , the public and the press may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Wyden said .
Without GOP support , Feinstein and Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee , issued their own statement on September 22 , 2016 , warning that “ Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the US election.
” Asked in October about Feinstein and Schiff ’ s statement , Burr said the Democrats , who were in the same briefing he was , “ were probably incorrect.
” At the time , Burr was engaged in a hard-fought reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself tightly to Trump , who disputed reports of Russian interference .
On October 7—the same day that WikiLeaks began to release emails Russian hackers had stolen from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta—DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement that the US intelligence community was “ confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions , including from US political organizations.
” Asked during a debate whether believed the intelligence agencies or Trump , Burr did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not limited to [ Russia ] , ” he said .
“ It ’ s Iran , it ’ s North Korea , it ’ s China.
” He added later that he did not “ think that really had anything to do with the e-mails or the political parties.
” Burr ’ s campaign-trail comments are not cited in Thursday ’ s report .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday released the third volume in its review of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It’s a weird document. The report, which focuses on how the US government reacted to Russian activities, criticizes the Obama administration for its tentative and ineffective response to the election interference. The committee notes that the “heavily politicized environment” faced by the previous administration was one reason for these failures. But the report it avoids the elephant in the room.
Former Obama administration officials have previously faulted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP lawmakers for blocking their September 2016 request that Congress issue a bipartisan warning about Russian interference in 2016. McConnell reportedly threatened to allege that the White House was misusing intelligence to hurt Donald Trump’s presidential campaign—exactly the kind of fight Obama officials wanted to avoid. These allegations suggest that McConnell feared news that Russia was seeking to aid Trump would hurt Republicans, and that he chose partisan interest over national interest. McConnell has disputed these accounts and attacked the Obama administration for doing too little to respond to Russia’s actions.
Thursday’s report does confirm that McConnell and others Republicans pushed back against the Obama administration’s request for a bipartisan condemnation of Russian interference. But the discussion of those incidents is brief and does not delve into the details of that controversy. The report addresses the flawed interaction between Obama administration officials and the “Gang of Eight,” the Democratic and Republican leaders and top intelligence committee members from each chamber. But it also sidesteps the fact that Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) was part of that group and was involved in the interactions the report details. So was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), formerly the committee’s top Democrat.
Burr criticized the Obama administration’s response to Russia in a statement Thursday. “Frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived, Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one,” Burr said. The report does not mention that Burr himself, while running for reelection in North Carolina, may have helped constrain Obama’s response when he questioned statements made by the administration and Democrats calling out Russian interference.
According to the report, the Obama administration received new intelligence—characterized by the committee as a “wake-up call”—in the summer of 2016. The details of this information, including the date, are redacted, but it came after news in June of that year that the Russian intelligence agents had hacked email accounts at the Democratic National Committee. In early August, CIA director John Brennan “was dispatched to brief Congressional leadership” the document says. Due to Congress’ August recess, Brennan briefed lawmakers individually and reached Republicans only weeks later. He did not speak to McConnell until September 6, 2016.
In a 2018 book, Greg Miller, a Washington Post reporter, wrote that McConnell told Brennan he would respond to any administration claim that Russia was trying to help Trump win by accusing the White House of interfering in the election. McConnell reportedly made similar statements in a September 8 briefing delivered by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, White House official Lisa Monaco, and FBI director James Comey. The administration officials wanted the lawmakers to issue a bipartisan statement that warned of Russia interference efforts, hoping the statement would convince state and local officials to seek federal help protecting election infrastructure. The committee says that Republicans rejected requests for a bipartisan statement and that Monaco recalls McConnell saying: “You security people should be careful that you’re not getting used.” Monaco said she believed this was a suggestion that reports of Russian interference were being inflated or used for partisan ends. Thursday’s report says that multiple members “resisted the administration request” for a bipartisan statement, but it names only McConnell.
These meetings are central to how the Obama administration dealt with Russian interference. But the committee’s report addressed them in just a few paragraphs. Of the reported argument between Brennan and McConnell, the report says only that Monaco’s description of McConnell’s remarks on September 8 “comported with Director Brennan’s account of his interaction with Senate Majority Leader McConnell.”
The report also quotes a statement by Burr at a closed-door intel committee session on a July 17, 2018, in which Burr characterized McConnell’s argument at the September 8 meeting : “[T]he question that [Senate Majority Leader McConnell] raised was: Would this not contribute to Russia’s efforts at creating concerns about our election process, if the leadership of the Congress put that letter out?” Burr said. This statement came almost two years after the 2016 meeting in question, and it casts McConnell’s argument as far more benign than in earlier characterizations by Obama officials.
In a statement included in Thursday’s report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) faulted the Gang of Eight for failing to create transcripts or notes on these briefings, leaving investigators to rely on interviews conducted almost a year later. The committee also does not appear to have interviewed or otherwise sought information from members of Congress who were in these briefings, including Burr and Feinstein, who were part of the Gang of Eight at the time. Asked about this, committee spokespeople said the report was focused on the Obama administration’s actions.
Wyden’s views also highlight the consequences of “Republican refusal to publicly acknowledge Russian interference” and the Obama administration’s reluctance to speak out without GOP backing. In Wyden’s view, the inaction made Russia’s dissemination of the stolen Democratic emails more damaging. “If the Administration had informed the public of Russian hacking and dumping earlier than October 7, and had there been bipartisan condemnation of these operations, the public and the press may have reacted differently to the WikiLeaks releases,” Wyden said.
Without GOP support, Feinstein and Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, issued their own statement on September 22, 2016, warning that “Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the US election.” Asked in October about Feinstein and Schiff’s statement, Burr said the Democrats, who were in the same briefing he was, “were probably incorrect.” At the time, Burr was engaged in a hard-fought reelection battle in North Carolina and was linking himself tightly to Trump, who disputed reports of Russian interference.
On October 7—the same day that WikiLeaks began to release emails Russian hackers had stolen from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta—DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement that the US intelligence community was “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”
Asked during a debate whether believed the intelligence agencies or Trump, Burr did not answer clearly. “It’s not limited to [Russia],” he said. “It’s Iran, it’s North Korea, it’s China.” He added later that he did not “think that really had anything to do with the e-mails or the political parties.”
Burr’s campaign-trail comments are not cited in Thursday’s report.


motherjones--2020-02-06--Nancy Pelosi Condemns Trump’s State of the Union as a “Manifesto of Mistruths”

Addressing the press Thursday morning , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union address—which she dramatically and controversially tore up—as a “ manifesto of mistruths.
” Pelosi fact-checked the president ’ s claims on Tuesday night that he had inherited an economic “ mess ” from former President Barack Obama .
“ When President Obama came into office , the unemployment rate was 10 percent , ” she said .
“ When he left , it was 5 percent .
So President Trump did not inherit a mess—he inherited a momentum.
” She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stock market and the reduction in the national debt , which has ballooned as a result of the Trump tax cuts .
“ We do not want the chamber of the House of Representatives to be used as a backdrop for one of his reality shows , ” Pelosi said , “ with unreality in his presentation.
” Pelosi has faced criticism for ripping up her copy of the president ’ s address , but she insisted Thursday that it was the Republicans in Congress who had acted with impropriety .
Referring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump rallies , that erupted from the chamber before Trump spoke , she added , “ And by the way , a serious breach to start shouting , ‘ four more years ’ on the floor of the House .
Totally inappropriate .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Addressing the press Thursday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address—which she dramatically and controversially tore up—as a “manifesto of mistruths.”
Pelosi fact-checked the president’s claims on Tuesday night that he had inherited an economic “mess” from former President Barack Obama. “When President Obama came into office, the unemployment rate was 10 percent,” she said. “When he left, it was 5 percent. So President Trump did not inherit a mess—he inherited a momentum.” She also credited Obama for the boosts to the stock market and the reduction in the national debt, which has ballooned as a result of the Trump tax cuts.
“We do not want the chamber of the House of Representatives to be used as a backdrop for one of his reality shows,” Pelosi said, “with unreality in his presentation.” Pelosi has faced criticism for ripping up her copy of the president’s address, but she insisted Thursday that it was the Republicans in Congress who had acted with impropriety. Referring to the chants, a staple of Trump rallies, that erupted from the chamber before Trump spoke, she added, “And by the way, a serious breach to start shouting, ‘four more years’ on the floor of the House. Totally inappropriate.”
Watch the video below: