motherjones--2020-09-15--The Trump Administration Orders an Al Jazeera Affiliate to Register as a Foreign Agent

The US Justice Department on Monday declared that the Al Jazeera Media Network—the international news organization based in Doha— ” is an agent of the Government of Qatar.
” The DOJ has ordered the network ’ s US-based social media division , AJ+ , to register as a foreign agent , a step the news outlet says will hobble its journalism .
AJ+ acts “ at the direction and control ” of Qatar ’ s rulers , Jay Bratt , chief of the DOJ ’ s counterintelligence and export control section , wrote in a September 14 letter obtained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial independence and freedom of expression , Al Jazeera Media Network and its affiliates are controlled and funded by the Government of Qatar , ” Bratt stated .
The designation follows a years-long push by lobbyists hired by the autocratic government of the United Arab Emirates , which has long resented the critical coverage it receives from Al Jazeera .
That effort has been led by Akin Gump , a large law firm and a registered foreign agent for the UAE .
Its employees , including former House Foreign Relations Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their work related to Al Jazeera this year , issuing a lengthy report in July and contacting scores of lawmakers and legislative aides , according to Akin Gump ’ s federal filings .
Since 2018 , Republican members of Congress have sent three letters asking the DOJ force Al Jazeera to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , better known as FARA .
The network “ engages in political activities and disseminates information in the United States that advance the interests of Qatar , ” Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an August 7 letter to Attorney General Bill Barr .
Sens .
Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) and Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
and Rep. Liz Cheney ( R-Wyo . )
also signed on .
In June 2017 , the UAE , along with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states , imposed a blockade on Qatar .
They also reportedly considered invading Qatar , until senior US officials—including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis—dissuaded them .
The blockade , which remains in place , harmed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its citizens ’ travel .
The UAE has said it will only lift the blockade if Qatar agrees , among other things , to shut down Al Jazeera .
“ The UAE dislikes Al Jazeera partly for the narrative that the network provides across the Arab and Islamic world that exposes audiences to a point of view that is very different from the messaging the Emiratis have been trying to impose on the region since the Arab Spring , ” said Kristian Ulrichsen , a Middle Eastern politics scholar at the Rice University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In the eyes of Qatar ’ s critics , Al Jazeera has also become so synonymous with Qatar in the regional and international mindset that any setback to Al Jazeera can not but be perceived as a blow to Qatar.
” Akin Gump and other lobbyists have reported receiving more than $ 56 million in fees from the UAE since 2017 , when the blockade began , according to records filed with the DOJ .
Akin Gump ’ s most recent disclosure of its lobbying contacts cites extensive outreach to lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qatar government-owned media ” and the “ influence on US politics by Mideast regional media outlets and other groups.
” A spokesperson for Akin Gump did not respond substantively to questions about the firm ’ s work .
The offices of Zeldin , Rubio , Cotton , Cruz , and Cheney did not respond to inquiries .
In a statement Tuesday , a spokesperson for Al Jazeera argued that the DOJ had essentially helped the UAE accomplish its goal of maiming the news outlet .
He noted that the network ’ s attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter since June 2018 and that Al Jazeera received Bratt ’ s FARA letter “ the day before ” the UAE signed a diplomatic deal with Israel that was brokered by the Trump administration .
The spokesperson suggested the two developments might be linked , but he didn ’ t offer evidence proving that .
“ Hobbling Al Jazeera was one of the top conditions of the UAE ’ s blockade against Qatar and the Justice Department just gave the UAE what it wanted , ” the spokesperson said .
“ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , which runs counter to the extensive factual record we provided demonstrating that FARA registration is not applicable to AJ+ .
The legal structure , editorial structure , editorial policies , budgeting process and content of AJ+ clearly demonstrate its independence .
We are reviewing the determination and considering our options.
” Bratt ’ s involvement is unusual .
Comparable letters instructing other news organizations to register under FARA were sent by the head of the DOJ ’ s FARA unit , not by national security officials such as Bratt .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bratt ’ s letter focuses on Al Jazeera ’ s funding and structure , asserting that the Qatari government “ could and may withdraw or limit funding at any time ” and stating that the Emir of Qatar controls the network by appointing its board .
Al Jazeera says that the same criteria would dictate that other state-funded news organizations , such as the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation , would have to register under FARA .
Those outlets are not currently required to register , but the DOJ has required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sputnik , Turkish public broadcaster TRT , and five Chinese media outlets—to do so .
Bratt ’ s letter also argues that AJ+ publishes articles that invite its audience to question “ what conduct constitutes terrorism ; demonstrate a disdain for the term ‘ Islamist Terror ; ’ adopt a positive view of Iran ; show support for the Palestinian cause and question US support for Israel ; reflect a critical position on the war in Yemen [ where the UAE and Saudi Arabia have bombed forces backed by Iran to assist their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and [ promote ] a Qatari-sympathetic view of the Saudi Arabian-led embargo against Qatar.
” Al Jazeera disputes this characterization and points to a study it commissioned that found that 93 percent of AJ+ content is on issues other than those DOJ asked the outlet about .
FARA , a 1938 law intended to force anyone working to advance the interests of foreign states to publicly disclose their activity , is not supposed to be used to punish outlets for political perspectives reflected in their reporting .
The DOJ letter says that Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting the views of the Qatari government .
But the litany of apparent political sins also echoes the talking points of the UAE and its lobbyists , who argue that the network ’ s perspective is too critical of US allies and too friendly to America ’ s foes .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The US Justice Department on Monday declared that the Al Jazeera Media Network—the international news organization based in Doha—”is an agent of the Government of Qatar.” The DOJ has ordered the network’s US-based social media division, AJ+, to register as a foreign agent, a step the news outlet says will hobble its journalism.
AJ+ acts “at the direction and control” of Qatar’s rulers, Jay Bratt, chief of the DOJ’s counterintelligence and export control section, wrote in a September 14 letter obtained by Mother Jones. “Despite assertions of editorial independence and freedom of expression, Al Jazeera Media Network and its affiliates are controlled and funded by the Government of Qatar,” Bratt stated.
“Hobbling Al Jazeera was one of the top conditions of the UAE’s blockade against Qatar and the Justice Department just gave the UAE what it wanted.”
The designation follows a years-long push by lobbyists hired by the autocratic government of the United Arab Emirates, which has long resented the critical coverage it receives from Al Jazeera. That effort has been led by Akin Gump, a large law firm and a registered foreign agent for the UAE. Its employees, including former House Foreign Relations Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, amped up their work related to Al Jazeera this year, issuing a lengthy report in July and contacting scores of lawmakers and legislative aides, according to Akin Gump’s federal filings.
Since 2018, Republican members of Congress have sent three letters asking the DOJ force Al Jazeera to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, better known as FARA. The network “engages in political activities and disseminates information in the United States that advance the interests of Qatar,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) wrote in an August 7 letter to Attorney General Bill Barr. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) also signed on.
In June 2017, the UAE, along with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states, imposed a blockade on Qatar. They also reportedly considered invading Qatar, until senior US officials—including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis—dissuaded them. The blockade, which remains in place, harmed the small state’s economy and restricted its citizens’ travel. The UAE has said it will only lift the blockade if Qatar agrees, among other things, to shut down Al Jazeera.
“The UAE dislikes Al Jazeera partly for the narrative that the network provides across the Arab and Islamic world that exposes audiences to a point of view that is very different from the messaging the Emiratis have been trying to impose on the region since the Arab Spring,” said Kristian Ulrichsen, a Middle Eastern politics scholar at the Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “In the eyes of Qatar’s critics, Al Jazeera has also become so synonymous with Qatar in the regional and international mindset that any setback to Al Jazeera cannot but be perceived as a blow to Qatar.”
Akin Gump and other lobbyists have reported receiving more than $56 million in fees from the UAE since 2017, when the blockade began, according to records filed with the DOJ. Akin Gump’s most recent disclosure of its lobbying contacts cites extensive outreach to lawmakers regarding the “accuracy and transparency of Qatar government-owned media” and the “influence on US politics by Mideast regional media outlets and other groups.”
A spokesperson for Akin Gump did not respond substantively to questions about the firm’s work. The offices of Zeldin, Rubio, Cotton, Cruz, and Cheney did not respond to inquiries.
In a statement Tuesday, a spokesperson for Al Jazeera argued that the DOJ had essentially helped the UAE accomplish its goal of maiming the news outlet. He noted that the network’s attorneys have corresponded with the DOJ about this matter since June 2018 and that Al Jazeera received Bratt’s FARA letter “the day before” the UAE signed a diplomatic deal with Israel that was brokered by the Trump administration. The spokesperson suggested the two developments might be linked.
“Hobbling Al Jazeera was one of the top conditions of the UAE’s blockade against Qatar and the Justice Department just gave the UAE what it wanted,” the spokesperson said. “We are deeply disappointed by the Department’s decision, which runs counter to the extensive factual record we provided demonstrating that FARA registration is not applicable to AJ+. The legal structure, editorial structure, editorial policies, budgeting process and content of AJ+ clearly demonstrate its independence. We are reviewing the determination and considering our options.”
Bratt’s involvement is unusual. Comparable letters instructing other news organizations to register under FARA were sent by the head of the DOJ’s FARA unit, not by national security officials such as Bratt. The Justice Department did not respond to questions.
Bratt’s letter focuses on Al Jazeera’s funding and structure, asserting that the Qatari government “could and may withdraw or limit funding at any time” and stating that the Emir of Qatar controls the network by appointing its board. Al Jazeera says that the same criteria would dictate that other state-funded news organizations, such as the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would have to register under FARA. Those outlets are not currently required to register, but the DOJ has required several others—including Russia’s RT and Sputnik, Turkish public broadcaster TRT, and five Chinese media outlets—to do so.
Bratt’s letter also argues that AJ+ publishes articles that invite its audience to question “what conduct constitutes terrorism; demonstrate a disdain for the term ‘Islamist Terror;’ adopt a positive view of Iran; show support for the Palestinian cause and question US support for Israel; reflect a critical position on the war in Yemen [where the UAE and Saudi Arabia have bombed forces backed by Iran to assist their own proxies on the ground]; and [promote] a Qatari-sympathetic view of the Saudi Arabian-led embargo against Qatar.”
Al Jazeera disputes this characterization and points to a study it commissioned that found that 93 percent of AJ+ content is on issues other than those DOJ asked the outlet about.
FARA, a 1938 law intended to force anyone working to advance the interests of foreign states to publicly disclose their activity, is not supposed to be used to punish outlets for political perspectives reflected in their reporting. The DOJ letter says that Al Jazeera’s content shows it is promoting the views of the Qatari government. But the litany of apparent political sins also echoes the talking points of the UAE and its lobbyists, who argue that the network’s perspective is too critical of US allies and too friendly to America’s foes.


motherjones--2020-09-18--Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died , the Supreme Court announced Friday night .
Ginsburg ’ s passing gives President Donald Trump the opportunity to radically remake the Supreme Court for a generation by replacing the liberal feminist icon with a staunch conservative .
If Trump succeeds in filling Ginsburg ’ s seat with a justice in the mold of his two other appointees to the court , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , it will be the court ’ s most extreme ideological shift since President George H.W .
Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace legendary civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ginsburg , who was 87 , had recently dictated a statement to her granddaughter .
“ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” Adam Feldman , who runs the Empirical SCOTUS blog , wrote recently that Ginsburg ’ s departure could be the left ’ s “ biggest loss yet.
” He pointed to some of the recent liberal victories on the court that would presumably have gone the other way if Ginsburg had been replaced with a conservative .
Those cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. University of Texas ; Obergefell v. Hodges , which legalized same-sex marriage ; National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , which upheld most of Obamacare ; and Women ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , which struck down restrictive abortion laws in Texas .
For this reason , the confirmation fight over Ginsburg ’ s replacement promises to be every bit as brutal as that of Kavanaugh , whose nomination was marred by allegations that he had sexually assaulted a woman in high school .
The fact that it will take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a presidential election promises to make the fight an ugly one , especially given that Senate Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from confirming a nominee to the court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 .
Court-watchers have speculated that Trump may try to appoint a woman as his third high-court nominee to avoid any risk of another # MeToo moment in a confirmation hearing .
At the top of the list is 48-year old Amy Coney Barrett , whom Trump appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years as a law professor at Notre Dame , her alma mater , after clerking for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and working for a couple of years in a corporate law firm .
Barrett couldn ’ t be more different from the woman she might replace .
She is popular with evangelicals and conservative Christians because she ’ s a devout Catholic with seven children , two who were adopted from Haiti .
She is viewed as staunchly anti-abortion , thanks to her association with Faculty for Life at Notre Dame and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Affordable Care Act , which she called “ a grave infringement on religious liberty.
” Barrett is also affiliated with a charismatic Christian group called People of Praise , in which female members were until recently assigned personal advisers called “ handmaids.
” Members of the group swear a lifelong loyalty oath to each other and donate 5 percent of their income to the group , which teaches that men have authority over the family , including their wives .
They believe in prophecy , divine healing , and speaking in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interesting confirmation hearing .
( Barrett did not disclose her membership in People of Praise before her 7th Circuit confirmation . )
Other potential replacements for Ginsburg include Britt Grant , a former clerk to Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals whom Trump nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last year ; Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman , whom Trump considered as a replacement for Scalia in 2017 ; and Neomi Rao , who ran the Trump administration ’ s deregulatory efforts as administrator of the Office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kavanaugh ’ s old DC Circuit seat in March 2019 .
The White House has reportedly been preparing for Ginsburg ’ s departure for more than a year , as her health appeared to be faltering .
In early November 2018 , the 87-year-old justice fell in her office and broke three ribs .
While Ginsburg was being treated for the broken ribs , doctors discovered two cancerous growths in her left lung .
Just before Christmas that year , the justice underwent surgery to remove the nodules and was declared cancer-free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to have been harder on Ginsberg than in her previous brushes with cancer .
Ginsburg had had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer , and she had never missed a day on the bench .
But the lung cancer surgery kept her off the bench for the first week of oral arguments in 2019 , for the first time in her 25 years on the court .
In July , after being admitted to the hospital for an infection , Ginsburg announced that she had been undergoing chemotherapy to treat lesions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Born in 1933 in New York City , Ginsburg was the second woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court .
President Bill Clinton nominated her for the job in 1993 .
Although the Senate ultimately confirmed her on a 96-3 vote , her nomination wasn ’ t always a given .
According to a recent biography by Jane Sherron De Hart , Ginsburg ’ s nomination required a sustained campaign organized by her late husband Martin Ginsburg , who fought to overcome the perception among feminists that Ginsburg might be too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ’ s rights lawyer working for the ACLU had shifted after President Jimmy Carter nominated her to the DC Circuit in 1980 .
She served on that court for 13 years , where she befriended Scalia and also Judge Robert Bork , the conservative lawyer famous for having his Supreme Court nomination rejected in 1987 .
Ginsburg ’ s record as an appeals court judge was far more restrained than her work as an advocate .
Once on the Supreme Court , however , she didn ’ t disappoint feminists .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Virginia , in which the court held that the male-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute violated the Constitution ’ s Equal Protection Clause .
The decision also rejected a proposal by Virginia to create a separate but equal women ’ s military institution as a substitute for admitting women to VMI .
Despite writing nearly 200 opinions during her tenure on the court , Ginsburg leaves behind few such landmark majority opinions .
That ’ s because she spent virtually all of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s liberal minority .
One of her most notable dissents came in the 2007 case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , a case in which the court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter , a woman who discovered as she neared retirement that over the 19 years of her career , she ’ d been paid far less than her male counterparts .
Once she discovered the discrepancy , Ledbetter filed an equal pay lawsuit but the court ruled against her , saying Ledbetter should have brought the lawsuit within 180 days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had no idea at the time she was being shortchanged .
The 5-4 decision came at a time when Ginsburg was the only woman on the high court , and she was furious about the outcome .
In her dissent , which she read from the bench , Ginsburg fumed , “ The Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.
” She called on Congress to pass legislation to make it easier for women to bring lawsuits over pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009 .
Ginsburg also wrote forceful dissents objecting to the court ’ s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder , which helped gut the Voting Rights Act , and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores , a decision that endowed corporations with religious freedom rights and allowed them to deny their employees health insurance that covers contraception .
After the court shifted farther to the right with the appointments of Justice Samuel Alito and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seen as the voice of the resistance to conservative efforts to roll back reproductive rights , civil rights , and women ’ s rights .
But it wasn ’ t a place she always enjoyed .
In 2005 , after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor , she became the court ’ s only woman , a four-year stretch she has said was “ lonely.
” She told NPR ’ s Nina Totenberg in 2014 , “ No one wants to be a one-at-a-time curiosity , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only one .
It wasn ’ t the way the court should be at this time in our history.
” In the same interview , Ginsburg also said that people frequently asked her how many women on the Supreme Court would be “ enough.
” She famously replied , “ When there are nine.
” Such comments helped fuel her status as a cultural icon as the Notorious RBG .
Towards the end of her tenure , she became the subject of a documentary and a feature film and a wide array @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collar ” pins to action figures to a LEGO figure minifigure that appeared in “ LEGO Movie 2 ” in 2019 .
Ginsburg ’ s political affiliation became more controversial in the summer of 2016 , when she publicly criticized Donald Trump , who was then the presumptive GOP presidential nominee .
She told CNN ’ s Joan Biskupic that Trump was a “ faker ” and that “ He has no consistency about him .
He says whatever comes into his head at the moment .
He really has an ego .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not turning over his tax returns ?
The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.
” Her comments created a small scandal , particularly among conservatives .
Trump called on Ginsburg to resign , and she ended up issuing a statement calling her criticism of Trump “ ill-advised ” and promising to be “ more circumspect ” in the future .
Some Democrats had urged Ginsburg to retire in 2013 , during the administration of President Barack Obama , fearing that Republicans would take control of the Senate and Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees confirmed , and eventually a Republican president would end up naming her replacement .
But Ginsburg , who believed that her friend Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor had retired too soon , said she would continue to do the job as long as she was able to do it “ full steam , ” a statement she repeated after her fall in December 2018 and again in July when she revealed that her cancer had returned .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, the Supreme Court announced Friday night. Ginsburg’s passing gives President Donald Trump the opportunity to radically remake the Supreme Court for a generation by replacing the liberal feminist icon with a staunch conservative.
If Trump succeeds in filling Ginsburg’s seat with a justice in the mold of his two other appointees to the court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it will be the court’s most extreme ideological shift since President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace legendary civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall in 1991.
Ginsburg, who was 87, had recently dictated a statement to her granddaughter. “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Adam Feldman, who runs the Empirical SCOTUS blog, wrote recently that Ginsburg’s departure could be the left’s “biggest loss yet.” He pointed to some of the recent liberal victories on the court that would presumably have gone the other way if Ginsburg had been replaced with a conservative. Those cases include the affirmative action decision in Fisher v. University of Texas; Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage; National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld most of Obamacare; and Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down restrictive abortion laws in Texas.
For this reason, the confirmation fight over Ginsburg’s replacement promises to be every bit as brutal as that of Kavanaugh, whose nomination was marred by allegations that he had sexually assaulted a woman in high school. The fact that it will take place during a pandemic in the middle of a presidential election promises to make the fight an ugly one, especially given that Senate Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from confirming a nominee to the court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.
Court-watchers have speculated that Trump may try to appoint a woman as his third high-court nominee to avoid any risk of another #MeToo moment in a confirmation hearing. At the top of the list is 48-year old Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Barrett had spent the previous 15 years as a law professor at Notre Dame, her alma mater, after clerking for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and working for a couple of years in a corporate law firm.
Barrett couldn’t be more different from the woman she might replace. She is popular with evangelicals and conservative Christians because she’s a devout Catholic with seven children, two who were adopted from Haiti. She is viewed as staunchly anti-abortion, thanks to her association with Faculty for Life at Notre Dame and her opposition to the birth-control coverage mandated in the Affordable Care Act, which she called “a grave infringement on religious liberty.” Barrett is also affiliated with a charismatic Christian group called People of Praise, in which female members were until recently assigned personal advisers called “handmaids.” Members of the group swear a lifelong loyalty oath to each other and donate 5 percent of their income to the group, which teaches that men have authority over the family, including their wives. They believe in prophecy, divine healing, and speaking in tongues, practices that could make for an interesting confirmation hearing. (Barrett did not disclose her membership in People of Praise before her 7th Circuit confirmation.)
Other potential replacements for Ginsburg include Britt Grant, a former clerk to Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals whom Trump nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last year; Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, whom Trump considered as a replacement for Scalia in 2017; and Neomi Rao, who ran the Trump administration’s deregulatory efforts as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and was confirmed to Kavanaugh’s old DC Circuit seat in March 2019.
The White House has reportedly been preparing for Ginsburg’s departure for more than a year, as her health appeared to be faltering. In early November 2018, the 87-year-old justice fell in her office and broke three ribs. While Ginsburg was being treated for the broken ribs, doctors discovered two cancerous growths in her left lung.
Just before Christmas that year, the justice underwent surgery to remove the nodules and was declared cancer-free not long afterward. But the surgery seems to have been harder on Ginsberg than in her previous brushes with cancer. Ginsburg had had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer, and she had never missed a day on the bench. But the lung cancer surgery kept her off the bench for the first week of oral arguments in 2019, for the first time in her 25 years on the court. In July, after being admitted to the hospital for an infection, Ginsburg announced that she had been undergoing chemotherapy to treat lesions on her liver that were detected in February.
Born in 1933 in New York City, Ginsburg was the second woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. President Bill Clinton nominated her for the job in 1993. Although the Senate ultimately confirmed her on a 96-3 vote, her nomination wasn’t always a given. According to a recent biography by Jane Sherron De Hart, Ginsburg’s nomination required a sustained campaign organized by her late husband Martin Ginsburg, who fought to overcome the perception among feminists that Ginsburg might be too conservative. Her image as the feisty women’s rights lawyer working for the ACLU had shifted after President Jimmy Carter nominated her to the DC Circuit in 1980. She served on that court for 13 years, where she befriended Scalia and also Judge Robert Bork, the conservative lawyer famous for having his Supreme Court nomination rejected in 1987. Ginsburg’s record as an appeals court judge was far more restrained than her work as an advocate.
Once on the Supreme Court, however, she didn’t disappoint feminists. Just three years after her appointment, she wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, in which the court held that the male-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The decision also rejected a proposal by Virginia to create a separate but equal women’s military institution as a substitute for admitting women to VMI.
Despite writing nearly 200 opinions during her tenure on the court, Ginsburg leaves behind few such landmark majority opinions. That’s because she spent virtually all of her career as part of the court’s liberal minority.
One of her most notable dissents came in the 2007 case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a case in which the court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who discovered as she neared retirement that over the 19 years of her career, she’d been paid far less than her male counterparts. Once she discovered the discrepancy, Ledbetter filed an equal pay lawsuit but the court ruled against her, saying Ledbetter should have brought the lawsuit within 180 days of her first discriminatory paycheck, even though she had no idea at the time she was being shortchanged. The 5-4 decision came at a time when Ginsburg was the only woman on the high court, and she was furious about the outcome.
In her dissent, which she read from the bench, Ginsburg fumed, “The Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” She called on Congress to pass legislation to make it easier for women to bring lawsuits over pay discrimination, which it did. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.
Ginsburg also wrote forceful dissents objecting to the court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which helped gut the Voting Rights Act, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, a decision that endowed corporations with religious freedom rights and allowed them to deny their employees health insurance that covers contraception.
After the court shifted farther to the right with the appointments of Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Ginsburg was seen as the voice of the resistance to conservative efforts to roll back reproductive rights, civil rights, and women’s rights. But it wasn’t a place she always enjoyed. In 2005, after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, she became the court’s only woman, a four-year stretch she has said was “lonely.” She told NPR’s Nina Totenberg in 2014, “No one wants to be a one-at-a-time curiosity, and that’s what I was. I was the only one. It wasn’t the way the court should be at this time in our history.” In the same interview, Ginsburg also said that people frequently asked her how many women on the Supreme Court would be “enough.” She famously replied, “When there are nine.” Such comments helped fuel her status as a cultural icon as the Notorious RBG. Towards the end of her tenure, she became the subject of a documentary and a feature film and a wide array of merchandise—from water bottles to “dissent collar” pins to action figures to a LEGO figure minifigure that appeared in “LEGO Movie 2” in 2019.
Ginsburg’s political affiliation became more controversial in the summer of 2016, when she publicly criticized Donald Trump, who was then the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. She told CNN’s Joan Biskupic that Trump was a “faker” and that “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” Her comments created a small scandal, particularly among conservatives. Trump called on Ginsburg to resign, and she ended up issuing a statement calling her criticism of Trump “ill-advised” and promising to be “more circumspect” in the future.
Some Democrats had urged Ginsburg to retire in 2013, during the administration of President Barack Obama, fearing that Republicans would take control of the Senate and Obama would be unable to get any more nominees confirmed, and eventually a Republican president would end up naming her replacement. But Ginsburg, who believed that her friend Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had retired too soon, said she would continue to do the job as long as she was able to do it “full steam,” a statement she repeated after her fall in December 2018 and again in July when she revealed that her cancer had returned.


motherjones--2020-09-18--Donald Trump Wanted to Keep This Video Deposition Secret. We Got a Copy.

During the 2016 campaign , Donald Trump was burdened with lawsuits that accused him and his Trump University of defrauding students who had paid thousands of dollars to learn the supposed secrets of Trump ’ s financial success .
Though the Trump U controversy raised questions about Trump ’ s fitness for office , he managed to score two legal victories in the case as it proceeded .
He won a postponement in the trial until after Election Day , and he managed to seal the video of a six-hour deposition he gave in the case .
That meant voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the stand in a federal civil fraud case or be able to watch this footage of Trump being questioned concerning allegations of fraud .
But Mother Jones has now obtained the full video of Trump ’ s deposition , and though the written transcript of the session was released in June 2016 , the video version includes several exchanges that likely would not have played well for Trump had they become public when he was chasing votes .
Trump sat for this deposition in Trump Tower on December 10 , 2015 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer for the plaintiffs , Jason Forge , over various issues , including false statements made by Trump University employees , and Trump ’ s own memory .
Trump at one point griped , “ It ’ s the most ridiculous lawsuit I ’ ve ever seen.
” He claimed not to remember having boasted that he possessed one of the best memories in the world and repeatedly said he could not recall matters related to the case .
He downplayed false and misleading statements presented by Trump University instructors as merely “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ false.
” He even disavowed a passage from one of his own books in which he had assailed educational institutions for committing “ fraud.
” Had the video deposition been released during the campaign , it may have yielded ammo for anti-Trump ads .
At the start of the deposition , Trump ’ s attorney , Daniel Petrocelli , said he and Trump did not want the transcript “ getting into the hands of the media.
” Regarding the video , they succeeded .
Mother Jones was provided the video by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Art Cohen , a lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits against Trump University and Trump , confirmed that this was the actual video of the deposition .
“ On this video , Trump ’ s shifty memory and dishonest character are exposed when he is faced with questions that demand the truth , ” Cohen says .
( Last month , Mother Jones posted video of a conversation that occurred during a break in these proceedings between Trump and Petrocelli , in which Trump boasted of threatening the Better Business Bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump University to an A . )
Trump ’ s Memory : Best in the World ?
When the written transcript of the deposition video was made public , media attention focused on an exchange about Trump ’ s memory .
Forge had asked him to evaluate his own memory , and Trump said , “ My memory ’ s good.
” Forge reminded Trump that he had once described it as “ one of the all-time great memories , ” and Trump kept calling it “ good ” before acknowledging he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Do you believe you have one of the best memories in the world ?
” Trump replied , “ That I can ’ t tell you.
” Forge noted that Trump had previously stated he indeed possessed one of the best memories in the world and referenced an NBC News report from the previous month in which Trump had declared he had “ the world ’ s greatest memory.
” Trump said , “ I don ’ t remember that.
” Here it is : Trump downplaying his powers of recall—or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest memory in the world—was an important moment during this deposition because he frequently maintained throughout this session that he could not remember details about Trump University , citing the passage of time .
In one stretch , Forge presented Trump with a list of names that included Trump University instructors—in promoting this endeavor Trump had vouched for the instructors and said they were “ handpicked by me ” —and Trump didn ’ t remember the instructors , saying repeatedly , “ Too many years.
” Trump did insist that Trump University had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Yet he couldn ’ t identify a single one .
When Forge asked Trump whether he had any direct personal knowledge that the instructors at Trump University were “ good , ” Trump responded with a common Trumpism : “ I ’ ve heard good things.
” One line of questioning seemed to particularly annoy Trump .
Forge cited Trump ’ s previous praise of Hillary Clinton , Jeb Bush , Rick Perry , and George Pataki—politicians he now was deriding , as he campaigned against them .
The lawyer pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a recent interview he had explained that he had previously made positive comments about particular politicians because “ I needed their support to get projects done.
” Forge asked Trump if that was “ an accurate explanation for why you had said nice things about these folks in the past and now are expressing different views.
” The lawyer seemed to be suggesting that Trump said whatever was necessary—true or not—for the sake of making a buck .
Trump adamantly refused to answer this query , pointing out that “ politics ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Forge tried to trap Trump with Trump ’ s own words .
He cited a book Trump had written in which Trump declared , “ The education industry is delivering less for more money and claiming no ground has been lost .
It ’ s fraud , pure and simple.
” Forge asked Trump , “ Would you agree that when educators deliver less than promised for more money and claim they ’ re doing something great , it ’ s a fraud , pure and simple ?
” Trump , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently could see where this was heading .
After his lawyer objected to the question , Trump said , “ I would say it ’ s…no , it ’ s not a fraud.
” Forge countered : “ So this statement in your book is not accurate ?
” Trump replied , “ It ’ s not accurate , yes .
It ’ s trying to get a point across.
” Trump was disavowing his own past statement and now refusing to describe overpromising and underdelivering by an educational organization as “ fraud.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump dismissed false statements made by Trump University instructors .
Asked by Forge about a script that had been sent to instructors advising them to tell prospective students that they had dinner with Trump and discussed real estate with him—though the instructors had not dined or chatted with him—Trump called this “ hyperbole ” and “ innocent exaggeration.
” Pressed on whether terming this statement “ hyperbole ” was the “ same thing as saying something is not accurate , ” Trump answered , “ It depends on how you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that a thing like that ’ s pretty innocent .
I can see a lot of people doing it.
” That is , Trump would not call a lie a lie .
In a similar vein , Trump was asked about a Trump University instructor who had been told to say—falsely—that Trump had “ personally picked ” him for the position .
Trump conceded that he had not selected this instructor , but he refused to acknowledge that this instructor had made a false statement .
Trump repeatedly said that the person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michael Sexton , had hired this instructor : “ I guess [ the instructor is ] saying I picked him through my representative.
” He added , “ A lot of people would consider that to be an offshoot of me.
” He was apparently justifying another lie .
During one exchange , Trump asserted that he did “ very well ” in another lawsuit—though he had actually lost .
Trump had sued journalist Tim O ’ Brien for libel after O ’ Brien wrote in his 2005 book , TrumpNation : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump was no billionaire and , instead , worth between $ 150 million and $ 250 million .
Trump at the time claimed that he was worth over $ 5 billion .
A New Jersey judge dismissed the case in 2009 , and two years later Trump lost an appeal .
Yet when Forge questioned Trump about this case , the reality TV star claimed he had done “ well ” in it .
Reminded that he had not won , Trump replied , “ I made a very good point with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue had been a question of damages .
But that was not true .
The case had been thrown out by a state judge who rejected Trump ’ s claim that O ’ Brien had acted maliciously .
The case had won Trump nothing .
In depositions for that lawsuit , Trump was forced to admit 30 times that he had lied about assorted matters .
This video deposition depicts Trump contending that Trump University—which was forced by New York State regulators to drop the word “ university ” from its name—was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t wait to see his accusers in court .
At one moment during a break , he perked up when told he would only need one juror out of a jury of six to win the case .
“ I like those odds , ” he said with a grin .
Yet after the election , Trump , who had vowed never to settle the Trump University lawsuits , did just that .
He agreed to pay $ 25 million , without acknowledging any wrongdoing , and avoided a trial .
This video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very good witness for himself .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump was burdened with lawsuits that accused him and his Trump University of defrauding students who had paid thousands of dollars to learn the supposed secrets of Trump’s financial success. Though the Trump U controversy raised questions about Trump’s fitness for office, he managed to score two legal victories in the case as it proceeded. He won a postponement in the trial until after Election Day, and he managed to seal the video of a six-hour deposition he gave in the case. That meant voters would not see news reports of Trump on the stand in a federal civil fraud case or be able to watch this footage of Trump being questioned concerning allegations of fraud. But Mother Jones has now obtained the full video of Trump’s deposition, and though the written transcript of the session was released in June 2016, the video version includes several exchanges that likely would not have played well for Trump had they become public when he was chasing votes.
Trump sat for this deposition in Trump Tower on December 10, 2015. The video shows him parrying with the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jason Forge, over various issues, including false statements made by Trump University employees, and Trump’s own memory. Trump at one point griped, “It’s the most ridiculous lawsuit I’ve ever seen.” He claimed not to remember having boasted that he possessed one of the best memories in the world and repeatedly said he could not recall matters related to the case. He downplayed false and misleading statements presented by Trump University instructors as merely “hyperbole,” refusing to label them “false.” He even disavowed a passage from one of his own books in which he had assailed educational institutions for committing “fraud.” Had the video deposition been released during the campaign, it may have yielded ammo for anti-Trump ads. At the start of the deposition, Trump’s attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, said he and Trump did not want the transcript “getting into the hands of the media.” Regarding the video, they succeeded.
Mother Jones was provided the video by a source who asked not to be identified. Art Cohen, a lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits against Trump University and Trump, confirmed that this was the actual video of the deposition. “On this video, Trump’s shifty memory and dishonest character are exposed when he is faced with questions that demand the truth,” Cohen says. (Last month, Mother Jones posted video of a conversation that occurred during a break in these proceedings between Trump and Petrocelli, in which Trump boasted of threatening the Better Business Bureau to change the D grade it awarded Trump University to an A.)
Trump’s Memory: Best in the World?
When the written transcript of the deposition video was made public, media attention focused on an exchange about Trump’s memory. Forge had asked him to evaluate his own memory, and Trump said, “My memory’s good.” Forge reminded Trump that he had once described it as “one of the all-time great memories,” and Trump kept calling it “good” before acknowledging he had used that phrase. When Forge asked, “Do you believe you have one of the best memories in the world?” Trump replied, “That I can’t tell you.” Forge noted that Trump had previously stated he indeed possessed one of the best memories in the world and referenced an NBC News report from the previous month in which Trump had declared he had “the world’s greatest memory.” Trump said, “I don’t remember that.” Here it is:
The Name Game
Trump downplaying his powers of recall—or no longer bragging that he had the greatest memory in the world—was an important moment during this deposition because he frequently maintained throughout this session that he could not remember details about Trump University, citing the passage of time. In one stretch, Forge presented Trump with a list of names that included Trump University instructors—in promoting this endeavor Trump had vouched for the instructors and said they were “handpicked by me”—and Trump didn’t remember the instructors, saying repeatedly, “Too many years.”
Trump Can’t Name One Instructor
Trump did insist that Trump University had “a lot of very good instructors.” Yet he couldn’t identify a single one.
“I’ve Heard Good Things”
When Forge asked Trump whether he had any direct personal knowledge that the instructors at Trump University were “good,” Trump responded with a common Trumpism: “I’ve heard good things.”
Trump Praises Hillary Clinton
One line of questioning seemed to particularly annoy Trump. Forge cited Trump’s previous praise of Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and George Pataki—politicians he now was deriding, as he campaigned against them. The lawyer pointed out that when Trump was queried about this in a recent interview he had explained that he had previously made positive comments about particular politicians because “I needed their support to get projects done.” Forge asked Trump if that was “an accurate explanation for why you had said nice things about these folks in the past and now are expressing different views.” The lawyer seemed to be suggesting that Trump said whatever was necessary—true or not—for the sake of making a buck. Trump adamantly refused to answer this query, pointing out that “politics” was different from “business.”
Trump’s Fraud Flip-Flop
Next, Forge tried to trap Trump with Trump’s own words. He cited a book Trump had written in which Trump declared, “The education industry is delivering less for more money and claiming no ground has been lost. It’s fraud, pure and simple.” Forge asked Trump, “Would you agree that when educators deliver less than promised for more money and claim they’re doing something great, it’s a fraud, pure and simple?” Trump, who now stood accused of committing fraud, apparently could see where this was heading. After his lawyer objected to the question, Trump said, “I would say it’s…no, it’s not a fraud.” Forge countered: “So this statement in your book is not accurate?” Trump replied, “It’s not accurate, yes. It’s trying to get a point across.” Trump was disavowing his own past statement and now refusing to describe overpromising and underdelivering by an educational organization as “fraud.”
Trump Won’t Call a Lie a Lie
In several instances during the deposition, Trump dismissed false statements made by Trump University instructors. Asked by Forge about a script that had been sent to instructors advising them to tell prospective students that they had dinner with Trump and discussed real estate with him—though the instructors had not dined or chatted with him—Trump called this “hyperbole” and “innocent exaggeration.” Pressed on whether terming this statement “hyperbole” was the “same thing as saying something is not accurate,” Trump answered, “It depends on how you’re talking about ‘accurate.’ But I would say that a thing like that’s pretty innocent. I can see a lot of people doing it.” That is, Trump would not call a lie a lie.
Another Lie Trump Won’t Acknowledge
In a similar vein, Trump was asked about a Trump University instructor who had been told to say—falsely—that Trump had “personally picked” him for the position. Trump conceded that he had not selected this instructor, but he refused to acknowledge that this instructor had made a false statement. Trump repeatedly said that the person he had chosen to run Trump University, Michael Sexton, had hired this instructor: “I guess [the instructor is] saying I picked him through my representative.” He added, “A lot of people would consider that to be an offshoot of me.” He was apparently justifying another lie.
Doing “Well” by Losing
During one exchange, Trump asserted that he did “very well” in another lawsuit—though he had actually lost. Trump had sued journalist Tim O’Brien for libel after O’Brien wrote in his 2005 book, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, that Trump was no billionaire and, instead, worth between $150 million and $250 million. Trump at the time claimed that he was worth over $5 billion. A New Jersey judge dismissed the case in 2009, and two years later Trump lost an appeal. Yet when Forge questioned Trump about this case, the reality TV star claimed he had done “well” in it. Reminded that he had not won, Trump replied, “I made a very good point with that lawsuit.” He maintained that the issue had been a question of damages. But that was not true. The case had been thrown out by a state judge who rejected Trump’s claim that O’Brien had acted maliciously. The case had won Trump nothing. In depositions for that lawsuit, Trump was forced to admit 30 times that he had lied about assorted matters.
This video deposition depicts Trump contending that Trump University—which was forced by New York State regulators to drop the word “university” from its name—was an outstanding venture and saying he couldn’t wait to see his accusers in court. At one moment during a break, he perked up when told he would only need one juror out of a jury of six to win the case. “I like those odds,” he said with a grin. Yet after the election, Trump, who had vowed never to settle the Trump University lawsuits, did just that. He agreed to pay $25 million, without acknowledging any wrongdoing, and avoided a trial. This video suggests he might not have made a very good witness for himself.


motherjones--2020-09-18--Prosecutors Say a Company Named “Fraud Guarantee” Was a Scam. Rudy Giuliani Got $500K From It.

A federal investigation in New York this week edged closer to Rudy Giuliani , President Trump ’ s personal lawyer , as prosecutors charged two men with engaging in extensive fraud using a scammy company that paid the former New York Mayor $ 500,000 .
On Thursday , prosecutors in New York leveled new charges against Lev Parnas , who played a central role in helping Giuliani ’ s attempt to push Ukrainian officials to boost phony charges against former Vice President Joe Biden .
In an indictment against Parnas and his business partner David Correia , prosecutors assert that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a company called Fraud Guarantee , which they claimed would protect consumers .
But the business was never launched .
Instead the men used the investments for personal expenses , while lying to investors about the business , the indictment says .
“ The funds were largely withdrawn as cash , transferred to accounts in the name of Parnas or Correia or their family members , or spent on various apparently personal expenditures , including hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent for Parnas ’ personal residence and tens of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on “ political donations , ” prosecutors said in a press release Thursday .
Last year , Parnas , Correia , and two other colleagues were charged with campaign finance violations , mostly unrelated to the Ukraine scheme .
On Thursday , prosecutors also added new campaign finance charges to that full group .
Parnas ’ lawyer , Joseph Bondy , said Thursday that the new superseding indictment “ contained no surprises ” and that Parnas is pleased the case , scheduled to go to trial in February , is moving forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 2018 Parnas and Correia agreed to pay Giuliani ’ s consulting firm $ 500,000 in exchange for his public endorsement of Fraud Guarantee .
The men had hoped to replicate Giuliani ’ s work as a pitchman for LifeLock , an identity theft protection company .
( Giuliani has disputed this characterization , claiming he provided legal services to Fraud Guarantee , though he has not specified what he did . )
After struggling to come up with that payment , Parnas and Correia reportedly persuaded Charles Gucciardo , a Long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay Giuliani directly in what they told Gucciardo was an investment in Fraud Guarantee .
The indictment includes an apparent oblique reference to this transaction , describing an unnamed fraud victim “ who invested a total of approximately $ 500,000 in Fraud Guarantee by transmitting the funds to an account held by a consulting firm ” that Parnas and Correia “ had retained.
” Robert Costello , a lawyer representing Giuliani , said it is unclear if this was the payment Guiliani received .
“ We have no way of knowing what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an email Thursday .
“ Mayor Giuliani did not do anything improper or illegal .
There is no reference to Mayor Giuliani or any of his associated companies .
We have no reason to suspect that the SDNY is investigating Mayor Giuliani for anything.
” An attorney for Gucciardo did not respond to a requests for comment .
The same federal prosecutors who brought the new charges against Parnas and Correia have also investigated whether Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of a former Ukrainian prosecutor , according to several reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a footnote in a letter to the judge in the Parnas and Correia case that he had agreed to keep some information secret because of “ an ongoing investigation.
” Costello and Giuliani have questioned if prosecutors are really looking into the former mayor .
“ I don ’ t know that there was ever a Rudy Giuliani investigation , ” Costello told the Times .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A federal investigation in New York this week edged closer to Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, as prosecutors charged two men with engaging in extensive fraud using a scammy company that paid the former New York Mayor $500,000.
On Thursday, prosecutors in New York leveled new charges against Lev Parnas, who played a central role in helping Giuliani’s attempt to push Ukrainian officials to boost phony charges against former Vice President Joe Biden. In an indictment against Parnas and his business partner David Correia, prosecutors assert that starting in 2012 the pair solicited investments in a company called Fraud Guarantee, which they claimed would protect consumers. But the business was never launched. Instead the men used the investments for personal expenses, while lying to investors about the business, the indictment says.
“The funds were largely withdrawn as cash, transferred to accounts in the name of Parnas or Correia or their family members, or spent on various apparently personal expenditures, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent for Parnas’ personal residence and tens of thousands of dollars at luxury car leasing companies” and on “political donations,” prosecutors said in a press release Thursday.
Last year, Parnas, Correia, and two other colleagues were charged with campaign finance violations, mostly unrelated to the Ukraine scheme. On Thursday, prosecutors also added new campaign finance charges to that full group. Parnas’ lawyer, Joseph Bondy, said Thursday that the new superseding indictment “contained no surprises” and that Parnas is pleased the case, scheduled to go to trial in February, is moving forward.
According to the New York Times, in 2018 Parnas and Correia agreed to pay Giuliani’s consulting firm $500,000 in exchange for his public endorsement of Fraud Guarantee. The men had hoped to replicate Giuliani’s work as a pitchman for LifeLock, an identity theft protection company. (Giuliani has disputed this characterization, claiming he provided legal services to Fraud Guarantee, though he has not specified what he did.) After struggling to come up with that payment, Parnas and Correia reportedly persuaded Charles Gucciardo, a Long Island lawyer and Trump backer, to pay Giuliani directly in what they told Gucciardo was an investment in Fraud Guarantee.
The indictment includes an apparent oblique reference to this transaction, describing an unnamed fraud victim “who invested a total of approximately $500,000 in Fraud Guarantee by transmitting the funds to an account held by a consulting firm” that Parnas and Correia “had retained.”
Robert Costello, a lawyer representing Giuliani, said it is unclear if this was the payment Guiliani received. “We have no way of knowing what the reference means,” Costello said in an email Thursday. “Mayor Giuliani did not do anything improper or illegal. There is no reference to Mayor Giuliani or any of his associated companies. We have no reason to suspect that the SDNY is investigating Mayor Giuliani for anything.”
An attorney for Gucciardo did not respond to a requests for comment.
The same federal prosecutors who brought the new charges against Parnas and Correia have also investigated whether Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of a former Ukrainian prosecutor, according to several reports. On Thursday, prosecutors said in a footnote in a letter to the judge in the Parnas and Correia case that he had agreed to keep some information secret because of “an ongoing investigation.”
Costello and Giuliani have questioned if prosecutors are really looking into the former mayor. “I don’t know that there was ever a Rudy Giuliani investigation,” Costello told the Times.


motherjones--2020-09-18--A Federal Judge Says USPS Delays Were an “Intentional Effort” to Undermine Fair Elections

A federal judge blocked a series of actions implemented by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that have led to widespread mail delays , calling them “ an intentional effort on the part of the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local , state , and federal elections.
” In a strongly worded opinion released Thursday , District Court Judge Stanley A. Bastian of Washington state issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting DeJoy from implementing changes ranging from cutting overtime to removing 671 mail sorting machines to forcing mail trucks to leave on time even if the mail is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent on the surface , at the heart of DeJoy ’ s and the Postal Service ’ s actions is voter disenfranchisement , ” Bastian wrote .
“ This is evident in President Trump ’ s highly partisan words and tweets , the actual impact of the changes on primary elections that resulted in uncounted ballots , and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump ’ s campaign to stop the States ’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already admitted that he ’ s refusing to support $ 25 billion in funding for the USPS in an attempt to sabotage mail voting , while Bastian noted that “ 72 % of the decommissioned high speed mail sorting machines that were decommissioned were located in counties where Hillary Clinton receive the most votes in 2016.
” It remains to be seen what impact the ruling will have .
Amid public outcry , DeJoy agreed to suspend some of his changes until after the election , such as cutting overtime , reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating election mail as first-class mail .
Other reversals ordered by the court , such as reinstalling the removed sorting machines , could be difficult to achieve since many of the machines have already been taken apart .
Meanwhile , mail delays persist in much of the country—election expert Daniel Smith of the University of Florida tweeted yesterday that mail in Gainesville is running three days behind schedule , according to a local mail driver .
But the scrutiny on DeJoy is playing out in the courts , which in recent days have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Thursday , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots postmarked by Election Day could be counted until three days after the election and the state could set up drop boxes where voters could return mail ballots .
A day earlier , an Ohio court ruled that the secretary of state could not mandate that local boards of elections have only one drop box per county .
Both opinions cited delays under DeJoy as a reason to expand access to the ballot .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A federal judge blocked a series of actions implemented by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that have led to widespread mail delays, calling them “an intentional effort on the part of the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state, and federal elections.”
In a strongly worded opinion released Thursday, District Court Judge Stanley A. Bastian of Washington state issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting DeJoy from implementing changes ranging from cutting overtime to removing 671 mail sorting machines to forcing mail trucks to leave on time even if the mail is not ready .
“Although not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of DeJoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement,” Bastian wrote. “This is evident in President Trump’s highly partisan words and tweets, the actual impact of the changes on primary elections that resulted in uncounted ballots, and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump’s campaign to stop the States’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes, as well as the timing of the changes.”
Trump has already admitted that he’s refusing to support $25 billion in funding for the USPS in an attempt to sabotage mail voting, while Bastian noted that “72% of the decommissioned high speed mail sorting machines that were decommissioned were located in counties where Hillary Clinton receive the most votes in 2016.”
It remains to be seen what impact the ruling will have. Amid public outcry, DeJoy agreed to suspend some of his changes until after the election, such as cutting overtime, reducing post office hours, and no longer treating election mail as first-class mail. Other reversals ordered by the court, such as reinstalling the removed sorting machines, could be difficult to achieve since many of the machines have already been taken apart. Meanwhile, mail delays persist in much of the country—election expert Daniel Smith of the University of Florida tweeted yesterday that mail in Gainesville is running three days behind schedule, according to a local mail driver.
But the scrutiny on DeJoy is playing out in the courts, which in recent days have issued significant rulings to combat mail delays. On Thursday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots postmarked by Election Day could be counted until three days after the election and the state could set up drop boxes where voters could return mail ballots. A day earlier, an Ohio court ruled that the secretary of state could not mandate that local boards of elections have only one drop box per county. Both opinions cited delays under DeJoy as a reason to expand access to the ballot.


motherjones--2020-09-19--To Honor Ginsburg, Democrats Have One Choice: Go Nuclear

It ’ s a popular sentiment on the left : Don ’ t mourn , organize .
But with the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , that won ’ t be enough .
Ginsburg , a hero of female empowerment and of the Supreme Court , deserves much mourning .
But Democrats and progressives can waste no time prepping for the battle royal that lies ahead .
After all , it took Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mere minutes after the news of RBG ’ s passing to declare that the GOP-controlled Senate will vote on whoever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court vacancy—a direct eff-you to the Democrats after McConnell in 2016 refused to consider President Barack Obama ’ s SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland with the phony-baloney argument that the Senate should not consider new justices during an election year .
So yes , Dems will have to organize , but they must do more : They have to get ready to rumble .
What is coming , at least as the Republicans see it , is a grand political clash .
They have been hellbent on reshaping the entire federal judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locking the highest court into a right-wing course that will last decades and counter demographic trends that favor Democrats .
This is their Holy Grail .
After all , nothing galvanizes conservative evangelical voters more than the courts .
For political consultants , it has long been conventional wisdom that right-wingers obsess over the composition of the courts and the Supreme Court far more than progressives .
So Ginsburg ’ s departure is a gift for Trump .
If there has been any erosion occurring on the edges of his conservative and evangelical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-choice , pro-corporate conservative on to the highest court could certainly shore up that ground for him .
Here ’ s something Trump can campaign on for the next six and a half weeks , without breaking a sweat or fielding a tough question .
It ’ s his lifeline .
A cure for his coronavirus problem .
It will be bare-knuckles politics from the right .
Do or die .
By any means necessary .
To replace Ginsburg with a young right-wing extremist .
And for the Democrats to have a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this fight is not only a matter of persuasion .
They will not win by writing well-reasoned op-eds .
Cable host tirades will be of little use .
Panel discussions will be irrelevant .
Clever ads highlighting GOP hypocrisy won ’ t do the trick .
Angry editorials in the New York Times won ’ t help .
Not even a freckin ’ David Brooks column ( “ conservatives should realize they have an interest in preserving democratic norms !
“ ) will do them any good .
Passionate speeches on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
This is about power .
Sure , the Democrats and influential voices in the political media world might focus on a few GOP senators and , appealing to that good ol ’ American sense of fair play , urge them to preserve institutional norms and refuse to go along with McConnell ’ s night ride against democratic governance .
But that is a long shot .
Susan Collins , hero of the Republic ?
Do you want to bet ?
( She did tell a reporter earlier this month she would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October and would oppose doing so in a lame duck session if Biden wins .
Yet… ) Mitt Romney might be willing to throw his body on the tracks .
And Lisa Murkowski has already said ( before Ginsburg ’ s death ) she won ’ t vote to confirm a new SCOTUS appointee until after the inauguration .
But if the Dems round up this trio , you got a tie , with Veep Mike Pence eager to break the deadlock to please his lord and his Lord .
Are there other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Don ’ t wager the mortgage .
( One interesting wrinkle : If Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly defeats incumbent Sen. Martha McSally on November 3 in what is a special election , he could be immediately sworn in , and the Democrats might pick up a vote .
But don ’ t think for a moment that McConnell hasn ’ t already taken that possibility into account . )
The win-over-reasonable-Republicans-with-reason strategy is weak sauce .
That leaves the Democrats with one other choice : total political warfare .
The Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi—needs to threaten massive retaliation .
Should McConnell try to ram a Trump nominee through , Schumer ought to vow that the Democrats , if they win back the Senate and Biden is elected president , will demolish the filibuster , which will allow the Senate to proceed to make Washington , DC , a state ( two more senators , who are likely to be Democrats ! )
and that they will move to add two or four more seats to the Supreme Court .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits the court ’ s size to the current nine justices . )
In other words : They will implement a Republican nightmare ( which , as it happens , can be justified on arguments of equity and fairness ) .
Schumer should utter this declaration publicly to lock the Democrats in .
Of course , this could further propel Republicans to the polls .
But it might do the same with Democrats .
( The stakes in this election are now higher than they already were . )
Crucially , there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The veteran Washington player will have to put aside his somewhat admirable ( if misguided ) desire to return to the older and more genteel means of legislating and compromising in the nation ’ s capital .
But with conservative voters fired up by the dream of replacing Ginsburg with a thirtysomething right-wing firebrand , the Dems will have to counter with more than a this-isn ’ t-fair argument .
Bring a gun to a knife fight ?
They will need a bazooka .
Sorry if that sounds violent .
But , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are in a fight for the nation ’ s soul .
And sometimes you don ’ t get to choose the weapons or levels of intensity .
Ginsburg was an uplifting force in the ongoing American experiment .
She was a feminist pioneer .
She was an inspiring champion of equality , fairness , and perseverance .
She wrote eloquent opinions that advanced and expanded progressive values and that made the United States a more perfect union .
She penned blistering dissents that kept alive those values , even when they experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passionate remembrances and praiseful eulogies .
It warrants a fight .
And perhaps a fight like one never seen before .
One that will be damn notorious .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It’s a popular sentiment on the left: Don’t mourn, organize. But with the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that won’t be enough. Ginsburg, a hero of female empowerment and of the Supreme Court, deserves much mourning. But Democrats and progressives can waste no time prepping for the battle royale that lies ahead. After all, it took Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mere minutes after the news of RBG’s passing to declare that the GOP-controlled Senate will vote on whoever Donald Trump sends its way to fill the Supreme Court vacancy—a direct eff-you to the Democrats after McConnell in 2016 refused to consider President Barack Obama’s SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland with the phony-baloney argument that the Senate should not consider new justices during an election year. So yes, Dems will have to organize, but they must do more: They have to get ready to rumble.
Yes, Dems will have to organize, but they must do more: They have to get ready to rumble.
What is coming, at least as the Republicans see it, is a grand political clash. They have been hellbent on reshaping the entire federal judiciary and especially drool over the prospect of locking the highest court into a right-wing course that will last decades and counter demographic trends that favor Democrats. This is their Holy Grail. After all, nothing galvanizes conservative evangelical voters more than the courts. For political consultants, it has long been conventional wisdom that right-wingers obsess over the composition of the courts and the Supreme Court far more than progressives. So Ginsburg’s departure is a gift for Trump. If there has been any erosion occurring on the edges of his conservative and evangelical base, his effort to shove another anti-choice, pro-corporate conservative on to the highest court could certainly shore up that ground for him. Here’s something Trump can campaign on for the next six and a half weeks, without breaking a sweat or fielding a tough question. It’s his lifeline. A cure for his coronavirus problem.
It will be bare-knuckles politics from the right. Do or die. By any means necessary. To replace Ginsburg with a young right-wing extremist. And for the Democrats to have a chance of thwarting them, they must realize that this fight is not only a matter of persuasion. They will not win by writing well-reasoned op-eds. Cable host tirades will be of little use. Panel discussions will be irrelevant. Clever ads highlighting GOP hypocrisy won’t do the trick. Angry editorials in the New York Times won’t help. Not even a freckin’ David Brooks column (“conservatives should realize they have an interest in preserving democratic norms!“) will do them any good. Passionate speeches on the floor of the US Senate? Fuggedabout it.
This is about power.
Sure, the Democrats and influential voices in the political media world might focus on a few GOP senators and, appealing to that good ol’ American sense of fair play, urge them to preserve institutional norms and refuse to go along with McConnell’s night ride against democratic governance. But that is a long shot. Susan Collins, hero of the Republic? Do you want to bet? (She did tell a reporter earlier this month she would not seat a Supreme Court justice in October and would oppose doing so in a lame duck session if Biden wins. Yet…) Mitt Romney might be willing to throw his body on the tracks. And Lisa Murkowski has already said (before Ginsburg’s death) she won’t vote to confirm a new SCOTUS appointee until after the inauguration. But if the Dems round up this trio, you got a tie, with Veep Mike Pence eager to break the deadlock to please his lord and his Lord. Are there other Rs willing to derail the Trump-McConnell express? Don’t wager the mortgage. (One interesting wrinkle: If Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly defeats incumbent Sen. Martha McSally on November 3 in what is a special election, he could be immediately sworn in, and the Democrats might pick up a vote. But don’t think for a moment that McConnell hasn’t already taken that possibility into account.)
It will be bare-knuckles politics from the right. Do or die. By any means necessary.
The win-over-reasonable-Republicans-with-reason strategy is weak sauce. That leaves the Democrats with one other choice: total political warfare. The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer—with the backing of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi—needs to threaten massive retaliation. Should McConnell try to ram a Trump nominee through, Schumer ought to vow that the Democrats, if they win back the Senate and Biden is elected president, will demolish the filibuster, which will allow the Senate to proceed to make Washington, DC, a state (two more senators, who are likely to be Democrats!) and that they will move to add two or four more seats to the Supreme Court. (There is nothing in the Constitution that limits the court’s size to the current nine justices.) In other words: They will implement a Republican nightmare (which, as it happens, can be justified on arguments of equity and fairness).
Schumer should utter this declaration publicly to lock the Democrats in. Of course, this could further propel Republicans to the polls. But it might do the same with Democrats. (The stakes in this election are now higher than they already were.) Crucially, there would need to be buy-in from Biden. The veteran Washington player will have to put aside his somewhat admirable (if misguided) desire to return to the older and more genteel means of legislating and compromising in the nation’s capital. But with conservative voters fired up by the dream of replacing Ginsburg with a thirtysomething right-wing firebrand, the Dems will have to counter with more than a this-isn’t-fair argument. Bring a gun to a knife fight? They will need a bazooka. Sorry if that sounds violent. But, as one sage person likes to say, we are in a fight for the nation’s soul. And sometimes you don’t get to choose the weapons or levels of intensity.
Ginsburg was an uplifting force in the ongoing American experiment. She was a feminist pioneer. She was an inspiring champion of equality, fairness, and perseverance. She wrote eloquent opinions that advanced and expanded progressive values and that made the United States a more perfect union. She penned blistering dissents that kept alive those values, even when they experienced setbacks. Her memory deserves more than passionate remembrances and praiseful eulogies. It warrants a fight. And perhaps a fight like one never seen before. One that will be damn notorious.


motherjones--2020-09-19--Biden: The Winner of Election Should Nominate Ginsburg’s Replacement

When news of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke Friday night , Joe Biden did not mince words .
“ Let me be clear , ” Biden told a small gathering of reporters at New Castle Airport in Delaware .
“ The voters should pick the president , and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.
” It was a warning shot for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , who , upon the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia , refused to consider President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell argued at the time that the voters “ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice ” and , as such , declared that the vacancy would not be filled until the next president was seated .
Biden was eager to throw McConnell ’ s words back at him .
He noted that the position he was taking was the same one McConnell took in 2016 .
And by McConnell ’ s own logic , Biden noted , McConnell ’ s precedent has even more salience now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election ; there are now just 46 days until Election Day .
“ I think the fastest justice ever confirmed was 47 days , ” Biden said , “ and the average is closer to 70 days.
” McConnell , of course , has already contradicted his old position .
In a statement Friday night , he promised that “ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
” Biden had heard of Ginsburg ’ s passing on his flight back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of campaigning in Minnesota .
He praised the late justice , calling her “ a giant in the legal profession ” and a “ beloved figure .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When news of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke Friday night, Joe Biden did not mince words. “Let me be clear,” Biden told a small gathering of reporters at New Castle Airport in Delaware. “The voters should pick the president, and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.”
It was a warning shot for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who, upon the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia, refused to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for almost 10 months. McConnell argued at the time that the voters “should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice” and, as such, declared that the vacancy would not be filled until the next president was seated.
Biden was eager to throw McConnell’s words back at him. He noted that the position he was taking was the same one McConnell took in 2016. And by McConnell’s own logic, Biden noted, McConnell’s precedent has even more salience now: Scalia died nearly nine months before the presidential election; there are now just 46 days until Election Day. “I think the fastest justice ever confirmed was 47 days,” Biden said, “and the average is closer to 70 days.”
McConnell, of course, has already contradicted his old position. In a statement Friday night, he promised that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Biden had heard of Ginsburg’s passing on his flight back to his home in Delaware, after a day of campaigning in Minnesota. He praised the late justice, calling her “a giant in the legal profession” and a “beloved figure.”


motherjones--2020-09-19--6 Iconic Photos from the Trailblazing Career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Trailblazing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87 .
The liberal feminist icon made history by becoming @ @ @ @ @ serve on the Supreme Court , to which she was nominated by President Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ , President Jimmy Carter nominated her to a 13-year tenure on the D.C .
Circuit @ @ @ @ @ career , she burnished her credentials as a fierce advocate for women ’ s rights @ @ @ @ @ while working for the ACLU on landmark gender discrimination cases .
This legacy was cemented @ @ @ @ @ Age , as a symbol of judicial resistance , under the moniker gifted to her @ @ @ @ @ world-wide , for her strident dissents : the Notorious RBG .
Here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ of the defining moments from Bader Ginsburg ’ s barrier-breaking career .

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


motherjones--2020-09-19--Susan Collins Says Senate Should Wait to Pick RBG’s Replacement

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis , the election , and more , subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily @ @ @ @ @ Collins , who is facing an uphill battle against a Democratic challenger , announced on @ @ @ @ @ the winner of November ’ s presidential election should get to pick the next Supreme @ @ @ @ @ hope to block Donald Trump from picking another justice , they need three more Republican @ @ @ @ @ party .


motherjones--2020-09-19--Democrats Warn Republicans Not to Rush SCOTUS Vote

Democrats signaled that they would present a united front and strongly oppose any Republican effort to ram through a quick confirmation of a Supreme Court nomination by President Donald Trump .
On a conference call with Democratic senators on Saturday morning , minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer ( New York ) , warned that if Republicans did try to approve a Trump nominee before the election , there would be consequences .
The threat is likely a reference to the idea that a Democratic president and Democratically-controlled Senate might try to expand the Supreme Court—an idea that has been percolating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowly picking up support from the party ’ s center .
It ’ s hardly a given that all Democrats would back the move .
Democratic senators are , however , presenting a united front in opposition to holding hearings on a Trump nominee .
All ten Democratic members of the Senate ’ s Judiciary committee—the one that would hold hearings on any potential Supreme Court justice nominee made by President Donald Trump—signed a letter urging Republican Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham to stick to his own promise , made in 2016 when roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a video of Graham being interviewed in 2016 when he staunchly insisted he would treat a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court during an election year the same way he opposed confirming President Barack Obama ’ s pick of Merrick Garland in early 2016 .
Despite this , Graham tweeted on Saturday that he would support confirmation of a Trump nominee before the election because he felt the situation had changed since he made that promise—notably that Democrats had grilled Brett Kavanaugh over allegations he had assaulted a woman when he was in @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Democrats signaled that they would present a united front and strongly oppose any Republican effort to ram through a quick confirmation of a Supreme Court nomination by President Donald Trump. On a conference call with Democratic senators on Saturday morning, minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (New York), warned that if Republicans did try to approve a Trump nominee before the election, there would be consequences.
Schumer to Senate Dems on a conference call today, per source: “Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.” — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) September 19, 2020
The threat is likely a reference to the idea that a Democratic president and Democratically-controlled Senate might try to expand the Supreme Court—an idea that has been percolating through progressive circles for awhile now and slowly picking up support from the party’s center.
House Judiciary chair @RepJerryNadler just tweeted his support of court expansion if McConnell holds a confirmation vote on a Trump nominee. The once-fringe idea has gained steam over the last few years. And a number of Democrats have joined it:https://t.co/4ir9PjBKAX — Kara Voght (@karavoght) September 19, 2020
It’s hardly a given that all Democrats would back the move. Democratic senators are, however, presenting a united front in opposition to holding hearings on a Trump nominee. All ten Democratic members of the Senate’s Judiciary committee—the one that would hold hearings on any potential Supreme Court justice nominee made by President Donald Trump—signed a letter urging Republican Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham to stick to his own promise, made in 2016 when roles were reversed.
New – All 10 Democrats on Senate Judiciary Cmte demand @LindseyGrahamSC delay any vote on SCOTUS nominee until next year pic.twitter.com/8SwseWPyyT — John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) September 19, 2020
Democrats have been circulating a video of Graham being interviewed in 2016 when he staunchly insisted he would treat a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court during an election year the same way he opposed confirming President Barack Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland in early 2016.
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." pic.twitter.com/quD1K5j9pz — Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 19, 2020
Despite this, Graham tweeted on Saturday that he would support confirmation of a Trump nominee before the election because he felt the situation had changed since he made that promise—notably that Democrats had grilled Brett Kavanaugh over allegations he had assaulted a woman when he was in high school.


motherjones--2020-09-19--After RBG’s Death, Democrats Are Donating Record Amounts

When news broke that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died , the first instinct of many Democratic donors was to open their wallets—in the first hour after her death became public , Democratic fundraising outfit ActBlue said it raised $ 6.2 million , and the following hour $ 6.3 million .
The blistering pace continued overnight and through Saturday afternoon had raised a total of $ 56 million .
ActBlue raises money for campaigns and PACs , so it will be a while before it shakes out exactly which groups or candidates are benefitting from the surge in donor interest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pod Save America hosts , claimed it had raised $ 13 million through ActBlue by early afternoon on Saturday .
The PAC notably does not actually target Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in his reelection bid against Democrat Amy McGrath , but rather ten key races where Democrats have the best chance of flipping a seat .
For some context , in 2018 , the average winning Senate campaign cost about $ 15.7 million , so $ 13 million in 18 hours is a tremendous haul for Senate Democrats .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a floor vote on a Trump nominee for the Senate before the election , that hasn ’ t stopped Democrats ( and some Republicans ) from quickly jumping on Ginsburg ’ s death as a fundraising opportunity .
In fact , Republican Sen. Joni Ernst ( Iowa ) , launched her first appeal even before Trump was informed of Ginsburg ’ s death .
Notably , all of this fundraising focuses on relatively small dollar amounts—campaigns and regular PACs are limited to donations of just $ 2,800 .
As the fight in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , a large part of the battle will be the television ad war , which will likely be funded by dark money groups , on both sides , who can rely on deep-pocketed donors who have no limits on how much they can give .
Already , by Saturday morning , the sense that the fight would hinge largely on money was striking , with public statements over preparations for the fight sounding more like a high-stakes auction : Demand Justice , a progressive dark money group founded by a former Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to block any Trump nomination , and a spokesperson for Judicial Watch , a conservative dark money group , told the New York Times , “ We will match their $ 10 million and whatever it takes .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When news broke that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died, the first instinct of many Democratic donors was to open their wallets—in the first hour after her death became public, Democratic fundraising outfit ActBlue said it raised $6.2 million, and the following hour $6.3 million. The blistering pace continued overnight and through Saturday afternoon had raised a total of $56 million.
NEW: ActBlue has taken in $56 million and counting for Democratic candidates and causes since Ginsburg’s death was announced last night. https://t.co/k9fmwRt8Ga — Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) September 19, 2020
ActBlue raises money for campaigns and PACs, so it will be a while before it shakes out exactly which groups or candidates are benefitting from the surge in donor interest, but the Get Mitch or Die Trying, a campaign organized by the Pod Save America hosts, claimed it had raised $13 million through ActBlue by early afternoon on Saturday.
The group notably does not actually target Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in his reelection bid against Democrat Amy McGrath, but rather sends money to 13 key races where Democrats have the best chance of flipping a seat.
For some context, in 2018, the average winning Senate campaign cost about $15.7 million, so $13 million in 18 hours is a tremendous haul for Senate Democrats.
While the money may not stop McConnell from pushing through a floor vote on a Trump nominee for the Senate before the election, that hasn’t stopped Democrats (and some Republicans) from quickly jumping on Ginsburg’s death as a fundraising opportunity. In fact, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa), launched her first appeal even before Trump was informed of Ginsburg’s death.
“BREAKING: the future of the Supreme Court is on the line,” Joni Ernst’s campaign blasted out in a fundraising email about a half hour after RGB’s death was announced #IASenhttps://t.co/0POXARp5CH — Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) September 19, 2020
Notably, all of this fundraising focuses on relatively small dollar amounts—campaigns and regular PACs are limited to donations of just $2,800. As the fight in the Senate develops over the next few weeks, a large part of the battle will be the television ad war, which will likely be funded by dark money groups, on both sides, who can rely on deep-pocketed donors who have no limits on how much they can give. Already, by Saturday morning, the sense that the fight would hinge largely on money was striking, with public statements over preparations for the fight sounding more like a high-stakes auction: Demand Justice, a progressive dark money group founded by a former Biden aide, pledged to spend $10 million to block any Trump nomination, and a spokesperson for Judicial Watch, a conservative dark money group, told the New York Times, “We will match their $10 million and whatever it takes.”