motherjones--2020-09-10--Trump Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Worked With an “Active Russian Agent” to Discredit Joe Biden

A Ukrainian parliamentarian who has supplied Rudy Giuliani with information intended to smear Joe Biden has been “ an active Russian agent for over a decade , ” according to the US Treasury Department .
On Thursday , Treasury ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control placed the official , Andriy Derkach , on a list of “ Russia-linked election interference actors ” and slapped him with financial sanctions .
“ Derkach , a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament , has been an active Russian agent for over a decade , maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Derkach has directly or indirectly engaged in , sponsored , concealed , or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 US presidential election.
” Treasury did not say where its information on Derkach comes from , but it is likely based on US intelligence findings .
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently told Congress that Derkach is “ spreading claims about corruption ” as part of a Russian effort to undermine Biden ’ s campaign .
“ Derkach and other Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world , ” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in statement Thursday .
Along with Derkach , Treasury sanctioned three Russians it says are employed by Russia ’ s Internet Research Agency , a so-called troll-factory that took part in interference in the 2016 presidential election .
The department says the IRA remains engaged in “ malign influence operations around the world.
” Late last year—shortly before the House impeached Trump over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to help smear Biden—Giuliani traveled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with Derkach and other Ukrainians who pushed baseless allegations that Biden had acted improperly in 2016 when , as vice president , he had joined an international push for the removal of Ukraine ’ s top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin , who was suspected of corruption .
Derkach held press conferences attacking former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , whose May 2019 ouster Giuliani helped to engineer .
Beginning in May 2020 , Derkach also held press conferences in Kiev during which he played a series of secretly recorded tapes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Petro Poroshenko .
The tapes did not reveal wrongdoing by Biden , but Derkach asserted that they bolstered Trump ’ s and Giuliani ’ s allegations about Biden .
Ukrainians critical of Russia have theorized that the tapes were made by Russian intelligence .
Derkach—who is the son of a former KGB officer and who attended a college in Moscow known for training spies—has denied this .
Giuliani told the Washington Post this summer that he remained in touch with Derkach after his December trip , calling the Ukrainian “ very helpful.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have spoken about Ukraine many times , according to the Post .
Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment Thursday .
In a statement Thursday to BuzzFeed News , Derkach claimed Treasury sanctioned him as “ revenge ” by Biden ’ s “ deep state associates ” and to preempt a new press conference he says he plans to hold early next week to reveal supposed corruption by Democrats .
The New York Times and Politico have reported that Democrats , in a classified portion of a July letter to FBI Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of an effort to launder Russian disinformation through a US Senate investigation overseen by Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) into Biden and Ukraine .
Derkach has also reportedly sent information related to Biden to other congressional Republicans including Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) .
Johnson and Grassley have said they did not receive material from Derkach .
“ Foreign election meddling in all of its forms from any corner of the globe can not be tolerated , ” Johnson and Grassley said in a joint statement Thursday .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetrators of foreign interference , and hope our Democratic colleagues in Congress will finally stop relying on disinformation from the likes of Andriy Derkach to smear their political rivals .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Ukrainian parliamentarian who has supplied Rudy Giuliani with information intended to smear Joe Biden has been “an active Russian agent for over a decade,” according to the US Treasury Department. On Thursday, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control placed the official, Andriy Derkach, on a list of “Russia-linked election interference actors” and slapped him with financial sanctions.
“Derkach, a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, has been an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services,” the department said in an announcement. “Derkach has directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 US presidential election.”
Treasury did not say where its information on Derkach comes from, but it is likely based on US intelligence findings. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently told Congress that Derkach is “spreading claims about corruption” as part of a Russian effort to undermine Biden’s campaign.
“Derkach and other Russian agents employ manipulation and deceit to attempt to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in statement Thursday.
Along with Derkach, Treasury sanctioned three Russians it says are employed by Russia’s Internet Research Agency, a so-called troll-factory that took part in interference in the 2016 presidential election. The department says the IRA remains engaged in “malign influence operations around the world.”
Late last year—shortly before the House impeached Trump over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to help smear Biden—Giuliani traveled to Ukraine. During that trip, Giuliani met with Derkach and other Ukrainians who pushed baseless allegations that Biden had acted improperly in 2016 when, as vice president, he had joined an international push for the removal of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was suspected of corruption.
Derkach held press conferences attacking former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whose May 2019 ouster Giuliani helped to engineer. Beginning in May 2020, Derkach also held press conferences in Kiev during which he played a series of secretly recorded tapes of Biden speaking by phone with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The tapes did not reveal wrongdoing by Biden, but Derkach asserted that they bolstered Trump’s and Giuliani’s allegations about Biden.
Ukrainians critical of Russia have theorized that the tapes were made by Russian intelligence. Derkach—who is the son of a former KGB officer and who attended a college in Moscow known for training spies—has denied this.
Giuliani told the Washington Post this summer that he remained in touch with Derkach after his December trip, calling the Ukrainian “very helpful.” Giuliani acknowledged that he and Derkach have spoken about Ukraine many times, according to the Post. Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
In a statement Thursday to BuzzFeed News, Derkach claimed Treasury sanctioned him as “revenge” by Biden’s “deep state associates” and to preempt a new press conference he says he plans to hold early next week to reveal supposed corruption by Democrats.
The New York Times and Politico have reported that Democrats, in a classified portion of a July letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, alleged that Derkach is part of an effort to launder Russian disinformation through a US Senate investigation overseen by Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) into Biden and Ukraine. Derkach has also reportedly sent information related to Biden to other congressional Republicans including Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Johnson and Grassley have said they did not receive material from Derkach.
“Foreign election meddling in all of its forms from any corner of the globe cannot be tolerated,” Johnson and Grassley said in a joint statement Thursday. “We commend the Trump Administration for holding accountable perpetrators of foreign interference, and hope our Democratic colleagues in Congress will finally stop relying on disinformation from the likes of Andriy Derkach to smear their political rivals.”


motherjones--2020-09-09--Why Is the DOJ Intervening in E. Jean Carroll’s Suit Against Trump? A Former US Attorney Explains.

Yesterday , in what the New York Times dubbed a “ highly unusual legal move , ” the Department of Justice moved to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in the defamation lawsuit filed against him by E. Jean Carroll , a writer and advice columnist , who alleges Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s .
Carroll sued Trump for defamation in New York state court last November , months after New York Magazine first published a story containing her allegations .
Her lawsuit claims that the president defamed her when , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story was published that June , Trump denied it at least three times , saying that her story was fabricated , that he had never met Carroll ( despite a 1987 photograph showing them together at a party ) , and that he would not have assaulted Carroll because she was “ not [ his ] type.
” “ The rape of a woman is a violent crime ; compounding that crime with acts of malicious libel is abhorrent , ” her lawsuit states .
Earlier this summer , Trump tried and failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arguing that under the Constitution , a sitting president was immune from civil lawsuits in state court .
A judge rejected that theory last month ; then yesterday , on the last day for Trump to appeal that ruling , the Department of Justice moved to get involved , theorizing that because Trump was acting as a government employee when he denied Carroll ’ s claims , the “ United States ” is the proper defendant .
If a federal judge permits the move , it would allow government lawyers , paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president—and would likely result in Carroll ’ s case being dismissed .
I chatted with Barbara McQuade , a law professor at the University of Michigan and former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan , to break down what the remarkable motion could mean for Carroll ’ s quest to hold Trump accountable .
Our conversation has been condensed and edited for length and clarity .
Yesterday , the Department of Justice filed a motion to move the case to federal court and substitute the United States in as a defendant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lawsuit .
What does that mean ?
This is a fairly routine thing that the government does from time to time : Somebody who is a government employee gets sued and they take it to the boss and say , “ Look , I got sued for this .
What do we do ?
” The boss takes it , it works its way to DOJ , and DOJ says , “ We got this .
We ’ ll take care of it.
” The Department of Justice routinely will [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal court , and substitute the United States for the individual defendant , if the tort allegedly occurred within the scope of the [ person ’ s ] employment .
A typical case might be a mail carrier who ’ s involved in a car accident with a postal truck .
It was within the scope of her duties , and so the United States will substitute itself for the defendant , and will defend that case [ with ] Department of Justice lawyers instead of private attorneys .
Taxpayers will pay the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should prevail and there is some sort of money judgment , it ’ s the taxpayers who would pay those damages .
That is what DOJ has endeavored to do with Donald Trump .
The question , the legal question , is whether his remarks occurred within the scope of his employment as president of the United States .
I think there will be some legal analysis , and perhaps disagreement , about that view .
Is there a general understanding of what it means to be acting within the scope of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift would be one thing .
For a letter carrier , if they ’ re driving their mail truck after they ’ ve punched in for the morning , that ’ s a pretty easy case to say they ’ re within the scope of their duties .
If the postal employee was driving his personal vehicle on the weekend and was involved in a car accident , I think we could quite clearly say he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time .
But whether you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity , when it comes to the president , can be a little more gray .
The presidency is kind of a 24/7 job .
So it ’ s difficult to say you were off duty when this occurred .
So if you ’ re a politician , and you use an official press conference to say that a woman accusing you of rape is “ not your type , ” the DOJ is saying that that sort of blatant misogyny is within the scope of your office ?
Is that really the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think they look at the content of the statement .
That issue will be litigated .
The question is , when he uttered the words—regardless what those words are—did he do so in the scope of his employment ?
I see three separate statements that Jean Carroll alleges were defamatory .
Two of them occurred in response to questions by members of the press .
I think one could argue that those are within the scope of his employment , because it is part of his duties to be a spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s asked questions , question one is about China , question two is about the coronavirus , and question three is about these allegations , and he denies them , I think one could argue that occurred within the scope of his employment .
But I think the one that will fail to survive scrutiny is [ when ] he issued a written statement denying the allegations and saying it was fabricated .
I don ’ t think one could make a reasonable argument that that was issued in the scope of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks not at what he said , at least at this point in the case , but at the context the statement was made in .
If this motion succeeds—if the federal judge decides , yes , this is within the scope of Trump ’ s employment and the United States is the proper defendant—you have said that the case will likely be dismissed .
Can you explain why ?
There ’ s a concept called sovereign immunity , which says the government can not be sued unless Congress has created an exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are some circumstances where Congress says , “ It is ok to sue the United States.
” One of those things is for negligence—so in the case of the postal worker involved in an accident , that suit could proceed .
But the United States has not consented to be sued for defamation .
So if the DOJ is successful in substituting in the United States for Donald Trump , then its next step will very likely be a motion to dismiss for sovereign immunity .
I think if they get that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win .
That would result in dismissal of the entire case .
That ’ s the whole game , then .
Yep .
It all comes down to scope of employment .
I ’ m definitely not an expert , but this argument seems…bonkers .
How normal is this ?
Very common in routine cases .
Involving the president ?
I ’ ve never heard of one .
Carroll reacted to the filing yesterday by writing on Twitter that Trump has sicced the DOJ on her just at the moment he was required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovery .
What ’ s the significance of the timing here ?
It ’ s odd that this case has been litigated , and lots of activity has occurred in the state court , and only now , 10 months later , has DOJ said , “ Oh , wait , this case belongs in federal court and United States is the real party here.
” It seems to me that they were playing a strategic game : “ Let ’ s see if we can win in state court first , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next step would be discovery , things like turning over DNA samples , sitting for a deposition , and turning over documents .
No doubt those are things that President Trump would like to avoid leading up to an election .
Even if he ultimately loses this argument about scope of employment , by delaying , he has probably won what he really wants to win , which is keeping this languishing past the election .
How much further past the election could this development push things ?
First , this [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , which may occur sometime in the next month or so .
If [ it denies the motion and ] Trump ’ s lawyers appeal that decision , it could take a year to get that decision back .
He could then appeal that to the Supreme Court , which could take another year .
So now we ’ re in , you know , 2022 or somewhere like that , before the case actually gets remanded back to court .
Then it ’ s back to square one .
So I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of years if he wants to .
What does this all mean for Carroll ’ s attempts to get a DNA sample from Trump ?
It certainly delays things .
Ultimately , she may get the sample that she demands , but I think not for a while .
There are lots of creative ways of using DNA in legal cases that have been invented in the last few years—I ’ m thinking about genetic genealogy , the technique used to identify the Golden State Killer through DNA from his distant relatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mary Trump [ Trump ’ s niece who recently wrote a damning book about her uncle ] from spitting in a tube and giving it to Roberta Kaplan , Carroll ’ s lawyer ?
She could do it voluntarily .
That ’ s a really interesting theory .
I don ’ t think there ’ s anything that would preclude her because she has control of her own DNA , even if it might match .
What would happen if Carroll was able to prove that there was a DNA match to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this way ?
Well , she wouldn ’ t be able to use it in court .
She might be able to use it in the court of public opinion to entice Trump to settle the case .
She would share that , as very powerful evidence that she ’ s likely to prevail at the end of the day .
So it might be an incentive for him to resolve the case .
In the meantime , it can ’ t be used .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Yesterday, in what the New York Times dubbed a “highly unusual legal move,” the Department of Justice moved to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in the defamation lawsuit filed against him by E. Jean Carroll, a writer and advice columnist, who alleges Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.
Carroll sued Trump for defamation in New York state court last November, months after New York Magazine first published a story containing her allegations. Her lawsuit claims that the president defamed her when, in the hours and days after the story was published that June, Trump denied it at least three times, saying that her story was fabricated, that he had never met Carroll (despite a 1987 photograph showing them together at a party), and that he would not have assaulted Carroll because she was “not [his] type.” “The rape of a woman is a violent crime; compounding that crime with acts of malicious libel is abhorrent,” her lawsuit states.
“The legal question is whether his remarks occurred within the scope of his employment as president of the United States. I think there will be some legal analysis, and perhaps disagreement, about that view.”
Earlier this summer, Trump tried and failed to have the lawsuit put on hold, arguing that under the Constitution, a sitting president was immune from civil lawsuits in state court. A judge rejected that theory last month; then yesterday, on the last day for Trump to appeal that ruling, the Department of Justice moved to get involved, theorizing that because Trump was acting as a government employee when he denied Carroll’s claims, the “United States” is the proper defendant. If a federal judge permits the move, it would allow government lawyers, paid with taxpayer money, to defend the president—and would likely result in Carroll’s case being dismissed.
I chatted with Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, to break down what the remarkable motion could mean for Carroll’s quest to hold Trump accountable. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for length and clarity.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed a motion to move the case to federal court and substitute the United States in as a defendant for Donald Trump in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit. What does that mean?
This is a fairly routine thing that the government does from time to time: Somebody who is a government employee gets sued and they take it to the boss and say, “Look, I got sued for this. What do we do?” The boss takes it, it works its way to DOJ, and DOJ says, “We got this. We’ll take care of it.”
The Department of Justice routinely will [send] a case from state to federal court, and substitute the United States for the individual defendant, if the tort allegedly occurred within the scope of the [person’s] employment. A typical case might be a mail carrier who’s involved in a car accident with a postal truck. It was within the scope of her duties, and so the United States will substitute itself for the defendant, and will defend that case [with] Department of Justice lawyers instead of private attorneys. Taxpayers will pay the legal defense bills. If the plaintiff should prevail and there is some sort of money judgment, it’s the taxpayers who would pay those damages.
“Whether you’re acting in your personal or official capacity, when it comes to the president, can be a little more gray. The presidency is kind of a 24/7 job.”
That is what DOJ has endeavored to do with Donald Trump. The question, the legal question, is whether his remarks occurred within the scope of his employment as president of the United States. I think there will be some legal analysis, and perhaps disagreement, about that view.
Is there a general understanding of what it means to be acting within the scope of one’s office?
During your job shift would be one thing. For a letter carrier, if they’re driving their mail truck after they’ve punched in for the morning, that’s a pretty easy case to say they’re within the scope of their duties. If the postal employee was driving his personal vehicle on the weekend and was involved in a car accident, I think we could quite clearly say he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time. But whether you’re acting in your personal or official capacity, when it comes to the president, can be a little more gray. The presidency is kind of a 24/7 job. So it’s difficult to say you were off duty when this occurred.
So if you’re a politician, and you use an official press conference to say that a woman accusing you of rape is “not your type,” the DOJ is saying that that sort of blatant misogyny is within the scope of your office? Is that really the argument being made here?
I don’t think they look at the content of the statement. That issue will be litigated. The question is, when he uttered the words—regardless what those words are—did he do so in the scope of his employment?
I see three separate statements that Jean Carroll alleges were defamatory. Two of them occurred in response to questions by members of the press. I think one could argue that those are within the scope of his employment, because it is part of his duties to be a spokesperson for the White House. If he’s asked questions, question one is about China, question two is about the coronavirus, and question three is about these allegations, and he denies them, I think one could argue that occurred within the scope of his employment. But I think the one that will fail to survive scrutiny is [when] he issued a written statement denying the allegations and saying it was fabricated. I don’t think one could make a reasonable argument that that was issued in the scope of his official duties.
So the law looks not at what he said, at least at this point in the case, but at the context the statement was made in.
Right.
“Even if he ultimately loses this argument about scope of employment, by delaying, he has probably won what he really wants to win, which is keeping this languishing past the election.”
If this motion succeeds—if the federal judge decides, yes, this is within the scope of Trump’s employment and the United States is the proper defendant—you have said that the case will likely be dismissed. Can you explain why?
There’s a concept called sovereign immunity, which says the government cannot be sued unless Congress has created an exception to that [with] legislation. There are some circumstances where Congress says, “It is ok to sue the United States.” One of those things is for negligence—so in the case of the postal worker involved in an accident, that suit could proceed. But the United States has not consented to be sued for defamation. So if the DOJ is successful in substituting in the United States for Donald Trump, then its next step will very likely be a motion to dismiss for sovereign immunity. I think if they get that far, that argument is likely to win. That would result in dismissal of the entire case.
That’s the whole game, then.
Yep. It all comes down to scope of employment.
I’m definitely not an expert, but this argument seems…bonkers. How normal is this?
Very common in routine cases. Involving the president? I’ve never heard of one.
Carroll reacted to the filing yesterday by writing on Twitter that Trump has sicced the DOJ on her just at the moment he was required to produce documents, DNA, and discovery. What’s the significance of the timing here?
It’s odd that this case has been litigated, and lots of activity has occurred in the state court, and only now, 10 months later, has DOJ said, “Oh, wait, this case belongs in federal court and United States is the real party here.” It seems to me that they were playing a strategic game: “Let’s see if we can win in state court first, and drag this out for a while.”
The next step would be discovery, things like turning over DNA samples, sitting for a deposition, and turning over documents. No doubt those are things that President Trump would like to avoid leading up to an election. Even if he ultimately loses this argument about scope of employment, by delaying, he has probably won what he really wants to win, which is keeping this languishing past the election.
How much further past the election could this development push things?
First, this [federal] court has to make a decision, which may occur sometime in the next month or so. If [it denies the motion and] Trump’s lawyers appeal that decision, it could take a year to get that decision back. He could then appeal that to the Supreme Court, which could take another year. So now we’re in, you know, 2022 or somewhere like that, before the case actually gets remanded back to court. Then it’s back to square one. So I think he could delay it by a couple of years if he wants to.
“Very common in routine cases. Involving the president? I’ve never heard of one.”
What does this all mean for Carroll’s attempts to get a DNA sample from Trump?
It certainly delays things. Ultimately, she may get the sample that she demands, but I think not for a while.
There are lots of creative ways of using DNA in legal cases that have been invented in the last few years—I’m thinking about genetic genealogy, the technique used to identify the Golden State Killer through DNA from his distant relatives. Does anything preclude, say, Mary Trump [Trump’s niece who recently wrote a damning book about her uncle] from spitting in a tube and giving it to Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer?
She could do it voluntarily. That’s a really interesting theory. I don’t think there’s anything that would preclude her because she has control of her own DNA, even if it might match.
What would happen if Carroll was able to prove that there was a DNA match to Trump while the case was being stalled in this way?
Well, she wouldn’t be able to use it in court. She might be able to use it in the court of public opinion to entice Trump to settle the case. She would share that, as very powerful evidence that she’s likely to prevail at the end of the day. So it might be an incentive for him to resolve the case. In the meantime, it can’t be used.


motherjones--2020-09-11--Coronavirus and Russia: Trump and the GOP’s Double Betrayal

Not since the Civil War—when leaders responsible for the enslavement and brutalization of millions of Americans sought to destroy the United States and took military action that resulted in the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens—has a group of politicians so profoundly betrayed the republic .
And this band—Donald Trump and GOP officials—has done so on two fronts simultaneously .
They have failed to respond effectively to a pair of immense threats : a pandemic that has claimed the lives of close to 200,000 Americans , and a foreign attack on the political foundation of the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and his Republican supporters have done so purposefully .
This has been no accident or act of unintentional incompetence .
In each case , they sacrificed the public interest—including the well-being and the lives of millions of Americans—to serve their own interests .
Trump and his crew have forsaken the United States of America .
It can be easy to lose sight of this big picture , as headlines explode every hour within a political media world cursed by tribalized partisan divisions .
There already exists more than enough information to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piles up each day—perhaps coming so fast as to overwhelm .
The latest revelation ( as I write ) regarding Trump and the coronavirus crisis is that he told reporter Bob Woodward in March , “ I wanted to always play it down.
” Here is confirmation of what Americans had repeatedly seen with their own eyes for months : Trump lied about the dangers posed by this killer virus .
And those lies , mostly unchallenged by his Republican allies and largely echoed by conservative media propagandists , shaped the ineffectual federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed the risks posed by the pandemic .
One example : sticking with this big lie , Trump , who in early February privately told Woodward that the virus was airborne , refused to encourage mask-wearing .
It ’ s likely that thousands—or tens of thousands—have died due to this .
Trump now claims he did not want to spark a panic .
That is clearly another lie .
This man relishes in causing panic when it doesn ’ t exist : the immigrant caravan , antifa , the end of the suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his misguided political calculation he believed such bad news would harm his election prospects .
( Actually , doing his job well in response to this crisis would have been a damn good electoral strategy .
But that did not seem to occur to Trump . )
So he tossed out bullshit while Americans were perishing and the economy was crashing .
He abandoned his solemn duty to protect the citizenry instead holding rallies , focusing on his TV ratings , and dismissing ( and promoting disinformation about ) the gravest threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his me-first dance of denial , Republicans stood by Trump .
They cheered him on at Tulsa .
They watched as he led the nation toward calamity and death .
They accepted this ; they enabled it all .
Trump endangered the nation , and they were just fine with that .
Now the public has confirmation—from Trump !
—that he wantonly neglected his number-one job : to safeguard the United States .
Trump has done the same with Russia .
It may seem like an old story by now , but Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered .
By the end of the 2016 campaign , it was clear that Vladimir Putin had mounted a covert attack on the election to help Trump and that Trump and his henchmen had aided and abetted that operation by falsely denying Russia was behind it .
In the time since—due to media investigation and the Mueller inquiry—the public learned that the Trump campaign tried to collude with a secret Kremlin plot to assist Trump ; that Trump had been secretly negotiating a mega-deal in Russia during the campaign ( and seeking Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were multiple contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia-related actors ; and that Trump actively sought to exploit the Russian attack for his own benefit .
For years , it has been known that Trump lied about much of this , and he has openly refused to hold Putin responsible for undermining American democracy .
Ever sensitive about his electoral victory being tainted , Trump has continued to parrot Moscow ’ s we-didn ’ t-do-it disinformation and embraced bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories that absolve Putin , including the nonsensical notion that Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party computer servers .
This is another blatant abandonment of his responsibility as commander in chief .
The United States was attacked , and Trump sided with the enemy and did nothing .
Worse , his comrades in the Republican Party and right-wing media have covered for him ( and , in a way , for Putin ) .
They act as an amen choir for Trump ’ s claim that the Russia story is a “ hoax.
” They do his dirty work in attempting to divert attention from the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role to other matters : the FBI ’ s mishandling of a surveillance warrant , the unfounded charge that the Obama administration spied on Trump , the Moscow-generated propaganda that Ukraine , not Russia , was somehow the culprit .
And they do this even as evidence emerges that Russia is aiming for a repeat in 2020 , intervening in the election once more to assist Trump .
There has long been bountiful proof for this awful story of appalling betrayal .
But—there ’ s more .
The evidence keeps coming .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee ( which is run by Republicans ) released a report ( endorsed by Republicans ) that confirmed the story to date : Russia attacked in 2016 to boost Trump , and the Trump camp assisted and exploited this assault .
But it went further , disclosing that Trump ’ s campaign manager , Paul Manafort , colluded during the election with a Russian intelligence official who was possibly tied to the Kremlin ’ s hack-and-leak operation that targeted Democrats and Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign .
It reported that Trump tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to WikiLeaks while WikiLeaks was part of the Russian plot , and that Trump likely lied to special counsel Robert Mueller when he said he had no recollection of this .
The report pointed out that Trump and his Republican allies have been advancing Russian disinformation .
The report fully backed up the Mueller report and the 2017 assessment by the intelligence community that Putin had intervened in 2016 to aid Trump .
It undermined Trump ’ s claims of “ hoax ” and “ no collusion.
” ( What else do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign manager and an officer of the intelligence agency of a foreign adversary ? )
It thoroughly undercut right-wing claims—which Attorney General Bill Barr has been trying to bolster—that there was no good reason for the FBI in 2016 to open an investigation of contacts between Trumpers and Russia .
Yet Republicans uttered practically nothing about the main findings .
Instead , when the report was released , Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) , the acting chair of the committee , focused on the FBI ’ s problem-ridden surveillance warrant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy adviser whose 2016 visit to Moscow has still not been fully explained .
The Senate Intelligence Committee report depicts Trump covering up for Putin and exploiting an attack on the United States .
It shows him placing his own priorities far above the welfare of the country .
This is indisputable .
Still , his defenders will point to the sky and insist it is purple .
They are all in it together : placing the nation in jeopardy for partisan and personal gain .
This is treasonous behavior .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump did nothing when reports emerged that Russia had offered Afghan militants rewards for killing American GIs .
He did nothing when it was publicly confirmed that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned by a nerve agent used by Russian operatives .
Nothing .
On Wednesday , yet another explosive data point hit .
The House Intelligence Committee released a whistleblower complaint filed by Brian Murphy , a top official at the Department of Homeland Security who until last month ran its Office of Intelligence and Analysis .
Murphy says he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s acting secretary , to stop providing intelligence assessments on Russia ’ s ongoing interference in the 2020 election and instead focus on China and Iran .
Murphy notes Wolf told him this command came from Trump ’ s national security adviser , Robert O ’ Brien .
So here ’ s a credible allegation that lines up with other accounts of the Trump White House seeking to ignore , dismiss , or hide intelligence related to Moscow ’ s current attempts to sabotage an American election to help Trump .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce intelligence falsely stating that large numbers of suspected terrorists were crossing the southern border into the United States and to lowball intelligence on the domestic threat posed by white supremacists and pump up the possibility of violence from “ left-wing ” groups .
He says he resisted these efforts . )
In Murphy ’ s telling , Trump has essentially ordered the US government to stand down in the face of an attack from an overseas foe .
What can you call this ?
Traitorous ?
The FBI and the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is trying once again to pervert a presidential election .
Trump , who in early 2017 told Russian officials he didn ’ t care about the 2016 attack , is ignoring all this , as he assails voting systems and claims results that have him losing will be rigged .
He is destabilizing the political system , providing Russia even more of an opening for interference .
He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy .
Trump , with the help and backing of his Republican devotees , has allowed two foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In both cases , he would not recognize the gravity of the situation .
In each instance , he explicitly denied a serious threat was real .
He did so because he believed such lying to be in his political interest : Russia didn ’ t intervene to help him , and the coronavirus would magically disappear .
Perpetuating those falsehoods has endangered the nation and its citizens .
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died , and a bedrock of American democracy—presidential elections—is being imperiled .
The politicians who protected Jim Crow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and brought severe harm upon millions .
With their scandals , Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan threatened the constitutional order .
But Trump and his GOP minions top that .
They have literally and seriously become an existential threat : A massive number of Americans are dead because of them , many Americans have lost their livelihoods because of them , and the US political system is at serious risk because of them .
There has been no greater betrayal of the United States since the Confederates took up arms against the Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and his accomplices , too , will deserve no statues and no honor .
They will merit only infamy .

Not since the Civil War—when leaders responsible for the enslavement and brutalization of millions of Americans sought to destroy the United States and took military action that resulted in the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens—has a group of politicians so profoundly betrayed the republic. And this band—Donald Trump and GOP officials—has done so on two fronts simultaneously. They have failed to respond effectively to a pair of immense threats: a pandemic that has claimed the lives of close to 200,000 Americans, and a foreign attack on the political foundation of the country. What exacerbates this double tragedy is that Trump and his Republican supporters have done so purposefully. This has been no accident or act of unintentional incompetence. In each case, they sacrificed the public interest—including the well-being and the lives of millions of Americans—to serve their own interests. Trump and his crew have forsaken the United States of America.
It can be easy to lose sight of this big picture, as headlines explode every hour within a political media world cursed by tribalized partisan divisions. There already exists more than enough information to support such an extreme-sounding verdict. But evidence piles up each day—perhaps coming so fast as to overwhelm. The latest revelation (as I write) regarding Trump and the coronavirus crisis is that he told reporter Bob Woodward in March, “I wanted to always play it down.” Here is confirmation of what Americans had repeatedly seen with their own eyes for months: Trump lied about the dangers posed by this killer virus. And those lies, mostly unchallenged by his Republican allies and largely echoed by conservative media propagandists, shaped the ineffectual federal response and influenced how millions of Americans viewed the risks posed by the pandemic. One example: sticking with this big lie, Trump, who in early February privately told Woodward that the virus was airborne, refused to encourage mask-wearing. It’s likely that thousands—or tens of thousands—have died due to this.
Trump now claims he did not want to spark a panic. That is clearly another lie. This man relishes in causing panic when it doesn’t exist: the immigrant caravan, antifa, the end of the suburbs. He downplayed the pandemic because in his misguided political calculation he believed such bad news would harm his election prospects. (Actually, doing his job well in response to this crisis would have been a damn good electoral strategy. But that did not seem to occur to Trump.) So he tossed out bullshit while Americans were perishing and the economy was crashing. He abandoned his solemn duty to protect the citizenry instead holding rallies, focusing on his TV ratings, and dismissing (and promoting disinformation about) the gravest threat to the nation in decades. All through his me-first dance of denial, Republicans stood by Trump. They cheered him on at Tulsa. They watched as he led the nation toward calamity and death. They accepted this; they enabled it all. Trump endangered the nation, and they were just fine with that.
Now the public has confirmation—from Trump!—that he wantonly neglected his number-one job: to safeguard the United States.
Trump has done the same with Russia. It may seem like an old story by now, but Trump’s colossal betrayal has never fully registered. By the end of the 2016 campaign, it was clear that Vladimir Putin had mounted a covert attack on the election to help Trump and that Trump and his henchmen had aided and abetted that operation by falsely denying Russia was behind it. In the time since—due to media investigation and the Mueller inquiry—the public learned that the Trump campaign tried to collude with a secret Kremlin plot to assist Trump; that Trump had been secretly negotiating a mega-deal in Russia during the campaign (and seeking Putin’s assistance); that there were multiple contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia-related actors; and that Trump actively sought to exploit the Russian attack for his own benefit. For years, it has been known that Trump lied about much of this, and he has openly refused to hold Putin responsible for undermining American democracy. Ever sensitive about his electoral victory being tainted, Trump has continued to parrot Moscow’s we-didn’t-do-it disinformation and embraced bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories that absolve Putin, including the nonsensical notion that Ukraine had mounted the attack and was hiding Democratic Party computer servers.
This is another blatant abandonment of his responsibility as commander in chief. The United States was attacked, and Trump sided with the enemy and did nothing. Worse, his comrades in the Republican Party and right-wing media have covered for him (and, in a way, for Putin). They act as an amen choir for Trump’s claim that the Russia story is a “hoax.” They do his dirty work in attempting to divert attention from the Russian attack and the Trump campaign’s role to other matters: the FBI’s mishandling of a surveillance warrant, the unfounded charge that the Obama administration spied on Trump, the Moscow-generated propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, was somehow the culprit. And they do this even as evidence emerges that Russia is aiming for a repeat in 2020, intervening in the election once more to assist Trump.
There has long been bountiful proof for this awful story of appalling betrayal. But—there’s more. The evidence keeps coming. A few weeks ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee (which is run by Republicans) released a report (endorsed by Republicans) that confirmed the story to date: Russia attacked in 2016 to boost Trump, and the Trump camp assisted and exploited this assault. But it went further, disclosing that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, colluded during the election with a Russian intelligence official who was possibly tied to the Kremlin’s hack-and-leak operation that targeted Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It reported that Trump tried to use Roger Stone as a back channel to WikiLeaks while WikiLeaks was part of the Russian plot, and that Trump likely lied to special counsel Robert Mueller when he said he had no recollection of this. The report pointed out that Trump and his Republican allies have been advancing Russian disinformation.
The report fully backed up the Mueller report and the 2017 assessment by the intelligence community that Putin had intervened in 2016 to aid Trump. It undermined Trump’s claims of “hoax” and “no collusion.” (What else do you call secret meetings and encrypted communications between a campaign manager and an officer of the intelligence agency of a foreign adversary?) It thoroughly undercut right-wing claims—which Attorney General Bill Barr has been trying to bolster—that there was no good reason for the FBI in 2016 to open an investigation of contacts between Trumpers and Russia. Yet Republicans uttered practically nothing about the main findings. Instead, when the report was released, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting chair of the committee, focused on the FBI’s problem-ridden surveillance warrant for Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser whose 2016 visit to Moscow has still not been fully explained.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report depicts Trump covering up for Putin and exploiting an attack on the United States. It shows him placing his own priorities far above the welfare of the country. This is indisputable. Still, his defenders will point to the sky and insist it is purple. They are all in it together: placing the nation in jeopardy for partisan and personal gain. This is treasonous behavior.
And the story doesn’t end. Trump did nothing when reports emerged that Russia had offered Afghan militants rewards for killing American GIs. He did nothing when it was publicly confirmed that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned by a nerve agent used by Russian operatives. Nothing.
On Wednesday, yet another explosive data point hit. The House Intelligence Committee released a whistleblower complaint filed by Brian Murphy, a top official at the Department of Homeland Security who until last month ran its Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Murphy says he was ordered by Chad Wolf, the agency’s acting secretary, to stop providing intelligence assessments on Russia’s ongoing interference in the 2020 election and instead focus on China and Iran. Murphy notes Wolf told him this command came from Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien. So here’s a credible allegation that lines up with other accounts of the Trump White House seeking to ignore, dismiss, or hide intelligence related to Moscow’s current attempts to sabotage an American election to help Trump. (Murphy also notes that he was pressured to produce intelligence falsely stating that large numbers of suspected terrorists were crossing the southern border into the United States and to lowball intelligence on the domestic threat posed by white supremacists and pump up the possibility of violence from “left-wing” groups. He says he resisted these efforts.)
In Murphy’s telling, Trump has essentially ordered the US government to stand down in the face of an attack from an overseas foe. What can you call this? Traitorous? The FBI and the US intelligence community have openly stated that Russia is trying once again to pervert a presidential election. Trump, who in early 2017 told Russian officials he didn’t care about the 2016 attack, is ignoring all this, as he assails voting systems and claims results that have him losing will be rigged. He is destabilizing the political system, providing Russia even more of an opening for interference. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Trump, with the help and backing of his Republican devotees, has allowed two foreign threats to undermine the United States. In both cases, he would not recognize the gravity of the situation. In each instance, he explicitly denied a serious threat was real. He did so because he believed such lying to be in his political interest: Russia didn’t intervene to help him, and the coronavirus would magically disappear. Perpetuating those falsehoods has endangered the nation and its citizens. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, and a bedrock of American democracy—presidential elections—is being imperiled.
The politicians who protected Jim Crow and advocated white supremacy poisoned the nation and brought severe harm upon millions. With their scandals, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan threatened the constitutional order. But Trump and his GOP minions top that. They have literally and seriously become an existential threat: A massive number of Americans are dead because of them, many Americans have lost their livelihoods because of them, and the US political system is at serious risk because of them. There has been no greater betrayal of the United States since the Confederates took up arms against the Union. When all this is done, Trump and his accomplices, too, will deserve no statues and no honor. They will merit only infamy.


motherjones--2020-09-11--Mike Pompeo Plans to Push His Anti-LGBTQ Commission at the UN

Two months after a controversial State Department commission elevated religious freedom at the expense of LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is planning to promote its findings at the United Nations , Mother Jones has learned .
During the UN General Assembly , which begins on September 15 in New York , Pompeo is expected to lead an event centered on human rights and , specifically , the report from the Commission on Unalienable Rights , which he formed last year .
Meanwhile , on September 16 , the commission ’ s chair and secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US ambassador to the UN office in Geneva to present its report to the international community .
Since its formation , the commission has been a Pompeo project through and through , stacked with anti-LGBTQ scholars and headed by his former boss .
Its ostensible purpose , which Pompeo outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed , was to distinguish between unalienable rights , which “ are by nature universal , ” and ad hoc rights created by “ politicians and bureaucrats.
” That argument—and the extremely public , anti-LGBTQ views held by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disavow the commission and its report , which unsurprisingly turned out to prioritize religious freedom while labeling abortion and same-sex marriage as “ divisive social and political controversies.
” The harsh response has not deterred Pompeo in the slightest .
Within weeks of the draft report ’ s publication in July , it had been translated into six languages , including Farsi .
( Given the Trump administration ’ s increasingly hostile stance toward Iran , that was certainly no accident . )
“ It just shows this is Pompeo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to let it go , ” Mark Bromley , chair of the Council on Global Equality , told me .
In an effort to blunt Pompeo ’ s broad promotion of the report , Bromley ’ s group and several other advocacy organizations , including Human Rights Watch , Amnesty International , Equity Forward , and Human Rights First , have been emailing foreign diplomats urging them to reject the report and not support Pompeo ’ s UN event .
“ We are aware that Secretary Pompeo plans to host a high-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week of this year ’ s UN General Assembly , ” reads one email obtained by Mother Jones that was sent to several European Union officials .
“ We are therefore calling on you not to support this event to make clear to the US government and the public that you reject the Commission ’ s dangerous view of selective , nationalized human rights.
” Various advocacy group leaders , including Rob Berschinski , senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First , emailed different diplomats as part of the campaign against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a number of foreign governments that are really concerned by the commission and its work , ” he told me , but acknowledged the difficulty in inspiring any US ally to speak out .
“ This is sensitive .
Anytime democratic governments find themselves needing to criticize the US government on a matter of human rights , it ’ s by definition a complex topic to negotiate.
” A State Department spokesperson declined to comment for this story , but a different department official confirmed that the event in New York is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many world leaders are not traveling in-person for the meeting , but President Trump has said he feels an “ obligation ” to appear in person .
Two sources familiar with the planning of the event said it is not intended to be as direct a promotion of the report as the virtual event on September 16 , which includes an interview with Peter Berkowitz , director of the State Department ’ s Policy Planning Staff , and Commission Chair Mary Ann Glendon , according to an invitation I obtained from Bromley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission ’ s executive secretary , has been among the more prominent State Department officials to publicly back the report , penning a RealClearPolitics op-ed ahead of its release and defending it during a Heritage Foundation virtual panel event last month .
In addition to fears that the commission could be used to undermine LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights , human rights advocates are also concerned about the way dictators might use the report as a way to devalue universal rights .
Pompeo ’ s endorsement of it at the UN does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Helpfully , we ’ ve provided the Chinese a translation so they can quote it back to us in defense of their actions in Hong Kong , ” Bromley said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Two months after a controversial State Department commission elevated religious freedom at the expense of LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is planning to promote its findings at the United Nations, Mother Jones has learned.
During the UN General Assembly, which begins on September 15 in New York, Pompeo is expected to lead an event centered on human rights and, specifically, the report from the Commission on Unalienable Rights, which he formed last year. Meanwhile, on September 16, the commission’s chair and secretary are staging a virtual event with the US ambassador to the UN office in Geneva to present its report to the international community.
Since its formation, the commission has been a Pompeo project through and through, stacked with anti-LGBTQ scholars and headed by his former boss. Its ostensible purpose, which Pompeo outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, was to distinguish between unalienable rights, which “are by nature universal,” and ad hoc rights created by “politicians and bureaucrats.” That argument—and the extremely public, anti-LGBTQ views held by its members—led the human rights advocacy community to disavow the commission and its report, which unsurprisingly turned out to prioritize religious freedom while labeling abortion and same-sex marriage as “divisive social and political controversies.”
The harsh response has not deterred Pompeo in the slightest. Within weeks of the draft report’s publication in July, it had been translated into six languages, including Farsi. (Given the Trump administration’s increasingly hostile stance toward Iran, that was certainly no accident.)
“It just shows this is Pompeo’s pet project and he’s not going to let it go,” Mark Bromley, chair of the Council on Global Equality, told me. In an effort to blunt Pompeo’s broad promotion of the report, Bromley’s group and several other advocacy organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Equity Forward, and Human Rights First, have been emailing foreign diplomats urging them to reject the report and not support Pompeo’s UN event.
“We are aware that Secretary Pompeo plans to host a high-level meeting on the Commission during the opening week of this year’s UN General Assembly,” reads one email obtained by Mother Jones that was sent to several European Union officials. “We are therefore calling on you not to support this event to make clear to the US government and the public that you reject the Commission’s dangerous view of selective, nationalized human rights.”
Various advocacy group leaders, including Rob Berschinski, senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First, emailed different diplomats as part of the campaign against Pompeo’s event. “There are a number of foreign governments that are really concerned by the commission and its work,” he told me, but acknowledged the difficulty in inspiring any US ally to speak out. “This is sensitive. Anytime democratic governments find themselves needing to criticize the US government on a matter of human rights, it’s by definition a complex topic to negotiate.”
A State Department spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but a different department official confirmed that the event in New York is being planned with Pompeo’s participation. Many world leaders are not traveling in-person for the meeting, but President Trump has said he feels an “obligation” to appear in person. Two sources familiar with the planning of the event said it is not intended to be as direct a promotion of the report as the virtual event on September 16, which includes an interview with Peter Berkowitz, director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, and Commission Chair Mary Ann Glendon, according to an invitation I obtained from Bromley.
Berkowitz, who also served as the commission’s executive secretary, has been among the more prominent State Department officials to publicly back the report, penning a RealClearPolitics op-ed ahead of its release and defending it during a Heritage Foundation virtual panel event last month.
In addition to fears that the commission could be used to undermine LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights, human rights advocates are also concerned about the way dictators might use the report as a way to devalue universal rights. Pompeo’s endorsement of it at the UN does nothing to allay those fears. “Helpfully, we’ve provided the Chinese a translation so they can quote it back to us in defense of their actions in Hong Kong,” Bromley said.


motherjones--2020-09-11--The Election Interference Is Coming From Inside the White House

Last week , 11 Democratic senators signed on to a letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin demanding the United States impose new sanctions on Russians who attempt to interfere with the 2020 election .
“ There is virtually no national security threat more serious , ” they wrote , “ than that posed by those who would undermine confidence in , and the effective operation of , our democratic elections.
” After the events of 2016 , when Russian hackers attacked the Democratic National Committee and other high-profile Democratic targets , the prospect of a foreign nation again disrupting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( A Senate report released last month detailed renewed efforts by the Russian government to spread disinformation in order to influence the campaign . )
But this year , there ’ s another hostile power putting its thumb on the scales to help President Donald Trump .
From the United States Postal Service to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Justice Department , Trump has sought to use the federal bureaucracy to advance his own personal ends to a degree that ’ s unprecedented since the days of Richard Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s interfering most aggressively and overtly in the 2020 election isn ’ t Vladimir Putin ’ s—it ’ s Trump ’ s .
Presidents have long used the perks of incumbency to their advantage when campaigning , by showering special attention , for instance , on the states they need to win to secure reelection .
But Trump has reoriented the mission of government itself , using the levers of power to hurt his opponents , suppress damaging information , and bolster his own campaign messaging .
The most infamous example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state for electoral ends was his attempted shakedown of the Ukrainian government—for which Trump was ultimately impeached .
In that case , Trump threatened to withhold military aid to coerce an allied nation to manufacture dirt on a political rival , former vice president Joe Biden .
In other words , he used official diplomatic channels to bait—unsuccessfully—a foreign government into intervening in the 2020 election .
“ Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney said last year , explaining his vote to convict Trump in the Senate .
Democrats warned that if Trump wasn ’ t taught a lesson by way of impeachment , he would simply be emboldened to keep abusing his office for political purposes .
And he has .
Just a few weeks after he was acquitted in the Senate , Trump hired Richard Grenell , a longtime Republican operative who also served as ambassador to Germany , to serve as acting director of national intelligence .
Grenell ’ s main accomplishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has dubbed “ Obamagate.
” Using his rarefied government perch , he selectively declassified intelligence in order to suggest that Biden had illegally spied on Trump ’ s campaign in 2016 .
It was part of an effort to turn the actual misdeeds of Trump ’ s inner circle into a conspiracy theory about his opponent—an electoral disinformation campaign run by the United States government “ I think you ’ ll go down as the all-time great ‘ Acting ’ ever , at any position , ” Trump told him in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenell promptly took a job with the Republican National Committee .
Meanwhile , Attorney General Bill Barr has suggested he might soon release the “ Durham Report , ” the Justice Department ’ s investigation into…the Justice Department ’ s investigation of Russia ’ s intervention in the 2016 election .
The attorney general has made no secret about the timing .
“ I ’ ve said there are going to be developments , significant developments , before the election , ” he said in an interview on Fox News last month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said that he doesn ’ t expect the Durham Report to lead to any criminal investigations of Biden or former president Barack Obama , and has lamented “ increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.
” But in late August—in the middle of the Republican National Convention that was itself held , in part , at the White House—the Justice Department announced it was requesting more information from four Democratic governors on their handling of the Coronavirus pandemic , while “ evaluating whether to initiate investigations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , two swing states at the center of Trump ’ s re-election strategy .
“ This really does smell , ” a former DOJ official told HuffPost .
Barr , meanwhile , has used his position as the nation ’ s chief law enforcement official to spread false information about voter fraud , in an attempt to influence the conduct of the election itself .
On CNN , in an effort to impugn the legitimacy of mail-in voting , he invented a story about a Texas man who voted 1,700 times in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened .
It was a message seemingly ripped from the president ’ s reelection campaign .
Government interference can take the form of promoting disinformation , and it can take the form of suppressing information .
On Tuesday , in a move the New York Times called “ highly unusual , ” the Justice Department intervened in defense of Trump in an ongoing defamation lawsuit brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll , who has alleged that Trump raped her in the 1990s .
Trump denied the charge and claimed she had fabricated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new book.
” The government ’ s official position is that when Trump said Carroll was “ not my type , ” he “ was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time , ” according to the department ’ s court filing .
It ’ s a major assist to Trump , who was facing mounting legal bills from the case , as well as the prospect of having to provide DNA evidence and testify under oath in the coming months .
As the Times put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Trump from any embarrassing disclosures in the middle of his campaign for re-election.
” In 2016 , Trump had Michael Cohen to hush up damaging personal revelations .
Now he has the DOJ .
Few nodes of the administration are immune from being co-opted for campaign purposes .
Not even the Department of Housing and Urban Development , which in July undid an Obama-era rule that gave teeth to a long-unenforced provision of the Fair Housing Act .
Trump made no secret of the political calculation behind the move—he was trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden , who he warned would “ ABOLISH suburban communities ” by letting “ low-income ” residents “ invade ” their neighborhoods .
Some synergy between policy and politics is to be expected—it ’ s natural that someone who violated the Fair Housing Act as a businessman would continue to undermine it as president .
But HUD officials have taken an unusually active part in the fall campaign .
Secretary Ben Carson spoke at the RNC , and HUD Region II Administrator Lynne Patton produced a video for the convention featuring interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who criticized their Democratic mayor , Bill de Blasio , while praising their interactions with the Trump administration .
The New York Times reported the next day that the residents who were interviewed did not realize they were being used as props in a partisan convention video—they thought they were cooperating with a powerful representative of a federal agency .
Such is the problem : In the Trump administration , in 2020 , it is impossible to tell where the government ends and the campaign begins .
The same holds true at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which held a citizenship ceremony at the White House during the convention as part of a stunt to soften the president ’ s image .
( The participants reportedly were not aware that their major life event was part of the president ’ s re-election effort . )
At the same time , the agency was poised to disenfranchise between 200,000 and 300,000 citizens-in-waiting by delaying their naturalization process .
“ The absence of these hundreds of thousands of ‘ missing voters , ’ many of whom live in swing states , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rampell , “ could be sufficient to sway the election.
” Rarely has the government interference been as explicit as it was in August , when Trump bragged that he was starving the United States Postal Service of bailout funds it had requested in the hopes of sabotaging mail-in balloting in the presidential election .
“ They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take these millions and millions of ballots , ” Trump said .
“ But if they don ’ t get those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universal mail-in voting , because they ’ re not equipped to have it.
” ( The USPS subsequently announced that it would continue to prioritize the handling of ballots . )
Trump , after botching the government ’ s response to the pandemic that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans , has also tried to exploit the crisis .
He has repeatedly floated the prospect of making a Covid-19 vaccine available before the election—perhaps , he said last Friday , as early as October .
Thankfully public health officials , at least so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Trump ’ s election schemes .
Although the CDC raised eyebrows last week when it instructed states to be prepared to distribute a vaccine by November 1—two days before the election—the chief adviser for the government ’ s vaccine program clarified to NPR that it was “ unlikely ” a vaccine would be available by then , and that the memo was merely a precautionary measure .
Although Food and Drug Administration officials have insisted their vaccine approval process will not be influenced by the campaign , the Centers for Disease Control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week instructing them to be prepared to distribute a vaccine by November 1—two days before Trump ’ s self-imposed election deadline .
The problem with a president who uses public policy for personal ends is you can never really tell when one becomes another .
Last month , Politico reported that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering spending up to $ 250 million on a media blitz to “ defeat despair and inspire hope ” on the pandemic in the coming months .
While public-service announcements are hardly unusual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar from Rep. Rosa DeLauro ( D-Conn. ) , wondering if it was “ a thinly-veiled effort to use taxpayer dollars on a propaganda campaign to support the President ’ s reelection effort.
” And this summer Trump deployed federal law enforcement agencies and in some cases the military to American cities to suppress protests—in an attempt , once more , to reshape the narrative around which his national campaign is unfolding .
That is , the notion that Americans won ’ t be safe in Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower at the Department of Homeland Security alleged that top officials at the agency used their power to manipulate intelligence reports in order “ to ensure they matched up with the public comments by Trump on the subject of ANTIFA and ‘ anarchist ’ groups ” —in other words , they used federal resources to cook up justification for Trump ’ s campaign attacks against Biden .
According to the same whistleblower , DHS was simultaneously squelching information about Russian interference because it would reflect poorly on the president .
Covering up election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference .
This isn ’ t the first election in which Trump used government resources in an attempt to reshape the outcome .
Just days before the 2018 midterms , Trump sent 5,000 troops to the US–Mexican border in a barely-concealed gambit to force Democrats on the defensive on the subject of border security and immigration .
( The troops withdrew almost as soon as the votes were done being counted . )
But the 2018 ploy was a failure .
And therein lies the silver lining for Democrats .
Trump has demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norms ; with toothless laws like the Hatch Act , and an accommodating Senate , the separation of campaigning and governance exists more or less on the honor system .
It turns out it ’ s incredibly easy to cynically treat the federal bureaucracy like an arm of the RNC .
But when you ’ re doing it all in plain sight , sometimes that becomes the story .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last week, 11 Democratic senators signed on to a letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin demanding the United States impose new sanctions on Russians who attempt to interfere with the 2020 election. “There is virtually no national security threat more serious,” they wrote, “than that posed by those who would undermine confidence in, and the effective operation of, our democratic elections.”
After the events of 2016, when Russian hackers attacked the Democratic National Committee and other high-profile Democratic targets, the prospect of a foreign nation again disrupting the presidential election is a real concern. (A Senate report released last month detailed renewed efforts by the Russian government to spread disinformation in order to influence the campaign.) But this year, there’s another hostile power putting its thumb on the scales to help President Donald Trump. From the United States Postal Service to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Justice Department, Trump has sought to use the federal bureaucracy to advance his own personal ends to a degree that’s unprecedented since the days of Richard Nixon. So far, the government that’s interfering most aggressively and overtly in the 2020 election isn’t Vladimir Putin’s—it’s Trump’s.
Presidents have long used the perks of incumbency to their advantage when campaigning, by showering special attention, for instance, on the states they need to win to secure reelection. But Trump has reoriented the mission of government itself, using the levers of power to hurt his opponents, suppress damaging information, and bolster his own campaign messaging.
The most infamous example of Trump’s use of the powers of state for electoral ends was his attempted shakedown of the Ukrainian government—for which Trump was ultimately impeached. In that case, Trump threatened to withhold military aid to coerce an allied nation to manufacture dirt on a political rival, former vice president Joe Biden. In other words, he used official diplomatic channels to bait—unsuccessfully—a foreign government into intervening in the 2020 election.
So far, the government that’s interfering most aggressively and overtly in the 2020 election isn’t Vladimir Putin’s—it’s Trump’s.
“Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine,” Utah Republican Mitt Romney said last year, explaining his vote to convict Trump in the Senate. Democrats warned that if Trump wasn’t taught a lesson by way of impeachment, he would simply be emboldened to keep abusing his office for political purposes.
And he has. Just a few weeks after he was acquitted in the Senate, Trump hired Richard Grenell, a longtime Republican operative who also served as ambassador to Germany, to serve as acting director of national intelligence. Grenell’s main accomplishment in that position was stoking the conspiracy Trump has dubbed “Obamagate.” Using his rarefied government perch, he selectively declassified intelligence in order to suggest that Biden had illegally spied on Trump’s campaign in 2016. It was part of an effort to turn the actual misdeeds of Trump’s inner circle into a conspiracy theory about his opponent—an electoral disinformation campaign run by the United States government
“I think you’ll go down as the all-time great ‘Acting’ ever, at any position,” Trump told him in May as Grenell exited the DNI role. Grenell promptly took a job with the Republican National Committee.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Bill Barr has suggested he might soon release the “Durham Report,” the Justice Department’s investigation into…the Justice Department’s investigation of Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election. The attorney general has made no secret about the timing.
“I’ve said there are going to be developments, significant developments, before the election,” he said in an interview on Fox News last month.
Despite public pressure from Trump, Barr has said that he doesn’t expect the Durham Report to lead to any criminal investigations of Biden or former president Barack Obama, and has lamented “increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.” But in late August—in the middle of the Republican National Convention that was itself held, in part, at the White House—the Justice Department announced it was requesting more information from four Democratic governors on their handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, while “evaluating whether to initiate investigations.” They included the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania, two swing states at the center of Trump’s re-election strategy. “This really does smell,” a former DOJ official told HuffPost.
Barr, meanwhile, has used his position as the nation’s chief law enforcement official to spread false information about voter fraud, in an attempt to influence the conduct of the election itself. On CNN, in an effort to impugn the legitimacy of mail-in voting, he invented a story about a Texas man who voted 1,700 times in one election—something his office later conceded never happened. It was a message seemingly ripped from the president’s reelection campaign.
Government interference can take the form of promoting disinformation, and it can take the form of suppressing information. On Tuesday, in a move the New York Times called “highly unusual,” the Justice Department intervened in defense of Trump in an ongoing defamation lawsuit brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who has alleged that Trump raped her in the 1990s. Trump denied the charge and claimed she had fabricated the story because she was “selling a new book.” The government’s official position is that when Trump said Carroll was “not my type,” he “was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time,” according to the department’s court filing.
It’s a major assist to Trump, who was facing mounting legal bills from the case, as well as the prospect of having to provide DNA evidence and testify under oath in the coming months. As the Times put it, “The motion also effectively protects Mr. Trump from any embarrassing disclosures in the middle of his campaign for re-election.” In 2016, Trump had Michael Cohen to hush up damaging personal revelations. Now he has the DOJ.
Few nodes of the administration are immune from being co-opted for campaign purposes. Not even the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which in July undid an Obama-era rule that gave teeth to a long-unenforced provision of the Fair Housing Act. Trump made no secret of the political calculation behind the move—he was trying to set up a contrast between himself and Joe Biden, who he warned would “ABOLISH suburban communities” by letting “low-income” residents “invade” their neighborhoods.
Some synergy between policy and politics is to be expected—it’s natural that someone who violated the Fair Housing Act as a businessman would continue to undermine it as president. But HUD officials have taken an unusually active part in the fall campaign. Secretary Ben Carson spoke at the RNC, and HUD Region II Administrator Lynne Patton produced a video for the convention featuring interviews with New York City public housing residents, who criticized their Democratic mayor, Bill de Blasio, while praising their interactions with the Trump administration. The New York Times reported the next day that the residents who were interviewed did not realize they were being used as props in a partisan convention video—they thought they were cooperating with a powerful representative of a federal agency. Such is the problem: In the Trump administration, in 2020, it is impossible to tell where the government ends and the campaign begins.
The same holds true at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which held a citizenship ceremony at the White House during the convention as part of a stunt to soften the president’s image. (The participants reportedly were not aware that their major life event was part of the president’s re-election effort.) At the same time, the agency was poised to disenfranchise between 200,000 and 300,000 citizens-in-waiting by delaying their naturalization process. “The absence of these hundreds of thousands of ‘missing voters,’ many of whom live in swing states,” argued the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, “could be sufficient to sway the election.”
Rarely has the government interference been as explicit as it was in August, when Trump bragged that he was starving the United States Postal Service of bailout funds it had requested in the hopes of sabotaging mail-in balloting in the presidential election. “They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump said. “But if they don’t get those two items…that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting, because they’re not equipped to have it.” (The USPS subsequently announced that it would continue to prioritize the handling of ballots.)
Trump, after botching the government’s response to the pandemic that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans, has also tried to exploit the crisis. He has repeatedly floated the prospect of making a Covid-19 vaccine available before the election—perhaps, he said last Friday, as early as October. Thankfully public health officials, at least so far, sound more reluctant to get involved in Trump’s election schemes. Although the CDC raised eyebrows last week when it instructed states to be prepared to distribute a vaccine by November 1—two days before the election—the chief adviser for the government’s vaccine program clarified to NPR that it was “unlikely” a vaccine would be available by then, and that the memo was merely a precautionary measure.
Although Food and Drug Administration officials have insisted their vaccine approval process will not be influenced by the campaign, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent a memo to states last week instructing them to be prepared to distribute a vaccine by November 1—two days before Trump’s self-imposed election deadline. The problem with a president who uses public policy for personal ends is you can never really tell when one becomes another.
Last month, Politico reported that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering spending up to $250 million on a media blitz to “defeat despair and inspire hope” on the pandemic in the coming months. While public-service announcements are hardly unusual, the spending blitz prompted a concerned letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar from Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), wondering if it was “a thinly-veiled effort to use taxpayer dollars on a propaganda campaign to support the President’s reelection effort.”
And this summer Trump deployed federal law enforcement agencies and in some cases the military to American cities to suppress protests—in an attempt, once more, to reshape the narrative around which his national campaign is unfolding. That is, the notion that Americans won’t be safe in Biden’s America. On Wednesday, a whistleblower at the Department of Homeland Security alleged that top officials at the agency used their power to manipulate intelligence reports in order “to ensure they matched up with the public comments by Trump on the subject of ANTIFA and ‘anarchist’ groups”—in other words, they used federal resources to cook up justification for Trump’s campaign attacks against Biden. According to the same whistleblower, DHS was simultaneously squelching information about Russian interference because it would reflect poorly on the president. Covering up election interference is its own form of election interference.
This isn’t the first election in which Trump used government resources in an attempt to reshape the outcome. Just days before the 2018 midterms, Trump sent 5,000 troops to the US–Mexican border in a barely-concealed gambit to force Democrats on the defensive on the subject of border security and immigration. (The troops withdrew almost as soon as the votes were done being counted.)
But the 2018 ploy was a failure. And therein lies the silver lining for Democrats. Trump has demonstrated practically every day the fragility of political norms; with toothless laws like the Hatch Act, and an accommodating Senate, the separation of campaigning and governance exists more or less on the honor system. It turns out it’s incredibly easy to cynically treat the federal bureaucracy like an arm of the RNC. But when you’re doing it all in plain sight, sometimes that becomes the story.


motherjones--2020-09-12--Right-Wing Conspiracists Linked Antifa to the Wildfires. Then They Got a Big Boost from Russian Medi

Right-Wing Conspiracists Linked Antifa to the Wildfires. Then They Got a Big Boost from Russian Media.

Wildfires have long been weaponized by climate deniers wanting to sow political division .
But this week , the blazes consuming the West Coast became part of an election cycle culture war when claims that antifa started wildfires in Portland went viral .
There ’ s no evidence that antifa started any wildfires , but conservatives on social media ran with the claim anyway , spreading it far and wide in Facebook groups and on YouTube .
It ’ s unclear how the conspiracy theory originated , but its first big boost appears to have come courtesy of RT ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlet known for mixing news with Russian propaganda . )
RT ’ s signal boost came in the form of an article that smashed together separate pieces of information about policing in Portland and the wildfires , insinuating a nefarious ( and non-existent ) link between the two .
“ ‘ Antifa are thrilled to hear this ’ : Portland police ask protesters not to start blazes amid statewide wildfire emergency , ” read a RT headline from September 9th .
The story focused on how the Portland Police Department was imploring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations “ since fire danger is very high right now.
” While the facts of the story are technically true , RT goes out of its way to connect the current wildfire crisis with antifa , by eliding dates , and wrongly conflating incidents .
The Sheriff ’ s call for protesters not to use fire came on September 9 .
The last time protestors set large fires during a protest was on the evening of September 6 , lasting into the early hours of the next day .
Regardless , RT used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( without noting the date the footage ) as the primary art for the story .
The headline is also misleading .
Portland Police never said “ Antifa are thrilled to hear this ” .
That quote was in a tweet from Andy Ngo , a right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group , Patriot Prayer .
Taken together , RT insinuates that antifa , the disparate and splintered group of antifascists , was a catalyst for the wildfires .
No such evidence exists .
But while they signal-boosted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t invent it from whole cloth .
By the time Russian state media ’ s post came out , rumors about antifa intentionally starting wildfires had already spread in online forums like Reddit and Facebook for at least a day .
The most viral post supporting the conspiracy theory that followed RT ’ s article was Law Enforcement Today ’ s now-altered article , initially titled “ Sources : Series of wildfires on the West Coast may be ‘ coordinated and planned ’ attack.
” Law Enforcement Today changed it to “ Arson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires rage on , ” and appended an editor ’ s note , but not before it went viral , further feeding the online right-wing ecosystem .
A day after RT ’ s post , American right-wing websites like The Post Millennial , the right ’ s attempt to create a millennial Breitbart , and the conspiracy-laundering Gateway Pundit , ran their own misleading stories about an alleged arsonist who set a strip of grass in a highway median ablaze in Washington state .
The Gateway Pundit initially published an article with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington State ” on Friday , even though there was no reason to believe that the arson suspect had any ties to antifa ( it later quietly removed “ antifa ” from the headline . )
The Post Millennial ’ s story was only slightly less misleading , blaming the arson on a BLM activist—on the grounds that his Facebook account showed him attending one Black Lives Matter protest .
The publication also claimed he “ led ” the gathering .
A video shows him at the front of a protest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he organized it .
Matt Binder , a journalist who writes a newsletter on misinformation and who noticed RT trying to link antifa to wildfires , noted that this is how Russian political interference often works .
“ A lot of the coverage of the Russia stuff always sort of pushes the idea that Russia is creating narratives and then spreading , ” he explained over the phone .
“ That ’ s not what happens .
They see the stuff already happening online , and then they just help push it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case .
Antifa wildfire rumors started online , and then RT helped provide the framing to give the idea more credence , before more cavalier , domestic right-wing sites blew the conspiracy out of control .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Wildfires have long been weaponized by climate deniers wanting to sow political division. But this week, the blazes consuming the West Coast became part of an election cycle culture war when claims that antifa started wildfires in Portland went viral. There’s no evidence that antifa started any wildfires, but conservatives on social media ran with the claim anyway, spreading it far and wide in Facebook groups and on YouTube.
It’s unclear how the conspiracy theory originated, but its first big boost appears to have come courtesy of RT (formerly Russia Today, a Russian state-controlled media outlet known for mixing news with Russian propaganda.) RT’s signal boost came in the form of an article that smashed together separate pieces of information about policing in Portland and the wildfires, insinuating a nefarious (and non-existent) link between the two.
“‘Antifa are thrilled to hear this’: Portland police ask protesters not to start blazes amid statewide wildfire emergency,” read a RT headline from September 9th. The story focused on how the Portland Police Department was imploring protestors not to use fire during their demonstrations “since fire danger is very high right now.” While the facts of the story are technically true, RT goes out of its way to connect the current wildfire crisis with antifa, by eliding dates, and wrongly conflating incidents. The Sheriff’s call for protesters not to use fire came on September 9. The last time protestors set large fires during a protest was on the evening of September 6, lasting into the early hours of the next day. Regardless, RT used video from that night of the 6th (without noting the date the footage) as the primary art for the story.
The headline is also misleading. Portland Police never said “Antifa are thrilled to hear this”. That quote was in a tweet from Andy Ngo, a right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group, Patriot Prayer.
Taken together, RT insinuates that antifa, the disparate and splintered group of antifascists, was a catalyst for the wildfires. No such evidence exists. But while they signal-boosted that false claim, RT didn’t invent it from whole cloth. By the time Russian state media’s post came out, rumors about antifa intentionally starting wildfires had already spread in online forums like Reddit and Facebook for at least a day.
The most viral post supporting the conspiracy theory that followed RT’s article was Law Enforcement Today’s now-altered article, initially titled “Sources: Series of wildfires on the West Coast may be ‘coordinated and planned’ attack.” Law Enforcement Today changed it to “Arson arrests made across the west coast as fires rage on,” and appended an editor’s note, but not before it went viral, further feeding the online right-wing ecosystem.
“They see the stuff already happening online, and then they just help push it.”
A day after RT’s post, American right-wing websites like The Post Millennial, the right’s attempt to create a millennial Breitbart, and the conspiracy-laundering Gateway Pundit, ran their own misleading stories about an alleged arsonist who set a strip of grass in a highway median ablaze in Washington state. The Gateway Pundit initially published an article with the headline “Antifa Radical Arrested for Arson in Washington State” on Friday, even though there was no reason to believe that the arson suspect had any ties to antifa (it later quietly removed “antifa” from the headline.) The Post Millennial’s story was only slightly less misleading, blaming the arson on a BLM activist—on the grounds that his Facebook account showed him attending one Black Lives Matter protest. The publication also claimed he “led” the gathering. A video shows him at the front of a protest, but there’s no evidence that he organized it.
Matt Binder, a journalist who writes a newsletter on misinformation and who noticed RT trying to link antifa to wildfires, noted that this is how Russian political interference often works. “A lot of the coverage of the Russia stuff always sort of pushes the idea that Russia is creating narratives and then spreading,” he explained over the phone. “That’s not what happens. They see the stuff already happening online, and then they just help push it.”
That’s potentially what happened in this case. Antifa wildfire rumors started online, and then RT helped provide the framing to give the idea more credence, before more cavalier, domestic right-wing sites blew the conspiracy out of control.


motherjones--2020-09-13--After Weeks of Silence, Trump Will Visit Fire-Ravaged California

Nearly one month after fires started to rage across California , President Trump will travel to the state on Monday for a briefing with emergency response officials .
The visit comes amid intense criticism over Trump ’ s near-total silence over the catastrophic fires that have consumed whole communities on the west coast , killing at least 19 people in California and 10 in Oregon , with dozens still missing .
The president ’ s first public statement of support came in a tweet on Friday , in which he thanked firefighters and first responders and appeared to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation .
“ I have approved 37 Stafford Act Declarations , ” he tweeted , referring to a federal law that allows funding assistance for natural disasters , “ including Fire Management Grants to support their brave work.
” But it was difficult to square that show of support with Trump ’ s remarks last month , when he appeared to threaten to withhold emergency funds for the state because he believed the fires had been California ’ s fault .
“ I said , you got ta clean your floors , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump told supporters at a rally in Pennsylvania .
“ There are many , many years of leaves and broken trees and they ’ re like , like , so flammable , you touch them and it goes up.
” He added , “ Maybe we ’ re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don ’ t listen to us.
” In the three weeks since those remarks—a time period that has seen devastating loss to a state already grappling with the threat of the coronavirus pandemic—Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfires .
Instead , he has spent his days relentlessly attacking his political opponents and fighting off controversies sparked by his own remarks , including his lies about the pandemic and his alleged disparaging of American soldiers who died in combat .
By his own admission , the president has also been consumed by television .
In a press conference on Friday , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom condemned Trump for his record on climate change and policies to roll back critical environmental protections .
Trump is all but certain to continue his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he heads to California tomorrow .
Here are reminders from my colleagues of Trump ’ s longstanding climate denial and plans to gut environmental rules .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Nearly one month after fires started to rage across California, President Trump will travel to the state on Monday for a briefing with emergency response officials. The visit comes amid intense criticism over Trump’s near-total silence over the catastrophic fires that have consumed whole communities on the west coast, killing at least 19 people in California and 10 in Oregon, with dozens still missing.
The president’s first public statement of support came in a tweet on Friday, in which he thanked firefighters and first responders and appeared to suggest that he had taken action to alleviate the situation. “I have approved 37 Stafford Act Declarations,” he tweeted, referring to a federal law that allows funding assistance for natural disasters, “including Fire Management Grants to support their brave work.” But it was difficult to square that show of support with Trump’s remarks last month, when he appeared to threaten to withhold emergency funds for the state because he believed the fires had been California’s fault. “I said, you gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests,” Trump told supporters at a rally in Pennsylvania. “There are many, many years of leaves and broken trees and they’re like, like, so flammable, you touch them and it goes up.”
He added, “Maybe we’re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don’t listen to us.”
In the three weeks since those remarks—a time period that has seen devastating loss to a state already grappling with the threat of the coronavirus pandemic—Trump has been occupied with everything but the wildfires. Instead, he has spent his days relentlessly attacking his political opponents and fighting off controversies sparked by his own remarks, including his lies about the pandemic and his alleged disparaging of American soldiers who died in combat. By his own admission, the president has also been consumed by television.
In a press conference on Friday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned Trump for his record on climate change and policies to roll back critical environmental protections. Trump is all but certain to continue his recent efforts to greenwash that record as he heads to California tomorrow. Here are reminders from my colleagues of Trump’s longstanding climate denial and plans to gut environmental rules.