Muckraker Farm

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 8 March 2019, Day 778:

 

House Passes Democrats’ Centerpiece Anti-Corruption and Voting Rights Bill, The New York Times, Catie Edmondson, Friday, 8 March 2019: “The House passed the Democrats’ showcase anti-corruption and voting rights legislation on Friday, an expansive measure that aims to dismantle barriers to the ballot box, end big money in politics and impose stricter ethics rules on federal officials. The sweeping legislation, passed 234-193, makes good on the campaign pledge to clean up Washington that helped catapult Democrats into the majority. It also serves as a campaign platform for Democrats ahead of 2020. It has virtually no chance of passing the Senate…. The ambitious compendium, at nearly 700 pages, includes proposals designating Election Day as a federal holiday, automatically registering citizens to vote, and restoring voting rights to people who have served felony sentences. It also creates a six-to-one matching system for donations of up to $200 to congressional and presidential candidates who reject high-dollar contributions, funded by an additional fine on corporations found to have broken the law.” See also, House Democrats pass H.R. 1, their answer to draining the swamp, The Washington Post, Mike DeBonis and John Wagner, Friday, 8 March 2019: “The House approved a far-reaching elections and ethics bill Friday — one that would change the way congressional elections are funded, impose new voter-access mandates on states and, in one of several provisions targeting President Trump, force disclosure of presidential candidates’ tax returns. Democrats dubbed the bill H.R. 1, a designation meant to signal its place as a centerpiece of their congressional agenda. The measure, which has more than 500 pages, contains dozens of provisions favored by liberal advocacy groups, labor unions and other Democratic allies.” See also, House Passes the Most Significant Democracy Reform Bill in a Generation, Mother Jones, Ari Berman, Friday, 8 March 2019: “The House of Representatives on Friday passed the most significant democracy reform bill introduced in Congress since the Watergate era by a vote of 234 to 193. The sweeping bill, known as HR 1: the For the People Act, would massively expand voting rights, crack down on gerrymandering, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and require sitting presidents and presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns.” See also, House passes sweeping election reform bill, Politico, Zach Montellaro, Friday, 8 March 2019. See also, House Passes Extensive Election and Campaign Finance Overhaul Bill, NPR, Miles Parks, Friday, 8 March 2019.

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon and Facebook, The New York Times, Astead W. Herndon, Friday, 8 March 2019: “Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is bidding to be the policy pacesetter in the Democratic presidential primary, championed another expansive idea on Friday evening in front of a crowd of thousands in Queens: a regulatory plan aimed at breaking up some of America’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook…. Ms. Warren’s policy announcement sent reverberations from New York to Silicon Valley, as she further cemented herself as one of the Democratic candidates most willing to call for large-scale changes to the country’s structure in the name of equality.” See also, Elizabeth Warren’s new plan: Break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, CNN, MJ Lee, Lydia DePillis, and Gregory Krieg, Friday, 8 March 2019: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren released an aggressive plan on Friday to break up tech giants like Amazon, Google and Facebook, targeting the power of Silicon Valley with her populist message as sprawling Internet giants face mounting political backlash ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The far-reaching proposal would impose new rules on certain kinds of tech companies with $25 billion or more in annual revenue, forcing Amazon and Google to spin off parts of their companies and relinquish their overwhelming control over online commerce. The plan also aims to unwind some of the highest profile mergers in the industry, like the combinations of Amazon and Whole Foods, and Google and DoubleClick, as well as Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp.” See also, Elizabeth Warren Calls for the Breakup of Amazon, Google, and Facebook, The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jacob Schlesinger, Friday, 8 March 2019: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat running for president, on Friday called for the breakup of Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google,  and Facebook Inc., taking an aggressive populist stance against some of the nation’s most powerful companies. ‘Today’s big tech companies have too much power—too much power over our economy, our society and our democracy,’ Ms. Warren said in an online post. ‘They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation. My administration will make big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition—including breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google,’ Ms. Warren said.”

Bill Shine Resigns as White House Communications Director, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, Friday, 8 March 2019: “Bill Shine, the former Fox News executive who joined the White House staff last summer to manage President Trump’s communications operation, has resigned and will move to the president’s re-election campaign, the White House announced Friday…. Mr. Shine’s presence in the White House was seen as emblematic of how closely Mr. Trump has aligned himself with Fox, a symbiotic relationship that drew a critical appraisal in a much-read New Yorker article published this week. Mr. Trump has given the network about 45 interviews as president, using it to communicate with his most fervent supporters even as he embraces lines of argument that its hosts advance…. Mr. Shine had spent more than a year searching for another job after he was ousted from Fox [in May 2017] amid the scandal surrounding Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly and the accusations of sexual harassment that were made against them. Mr. Shine was not himself accused of improper behavior, but was faulted for a culture that sought to cover it up. The White House became his road to redemption.” See also, Bill Shine abruptly resigns as White House communications chief, The Washington Post, Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey, and David Nakamura, Friday, 8 March 2019.

Continue reading Week 112, Friday, 8 March – Thursday, 14 March 2019 (Days 778-784)

Continue reading...

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 22 February 2019, Day 764:

 

Trump Administration Blocks Funds for Planned Parenthood and Others Over Abortion Referrals, The New York Times, Pam Belluck, Friday, 22 February 2019: “The Trump administration announced on Friday that it will bar organizations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money, a step that could strip millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood and direct it toward religiously-based, anti-abortion groups. The new federal rule is almost certain to be challenged in court. Clinics will be able to talk to patients about abortion, but not where they can get one. And clinics will no longer have to counsel women on all reproductive options, including abortion, a change that will make anti-abortion providers eligible for funding. The rule, which has been expected for months, is the most recent step by the Trump administration to shift the direction of federal health programs in a conservative direction. The administration has expanded the ability of employers to claim religious or moral objections to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that they offer employees insurance coverage for contraception. It has channeled funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and family planning grants into programs that emphasize sexual abstinence over contraception.” See also, Trump administration bars clinics that provide abortions or abortion referrals from federal funding, The Washington Post, Ariana Eunjung Cha, Friday, 22 February 2019: “The Trump administration took aim at Planned Parenthood Friday, issuing a rule barring groups that provide abortions or abortion referrals from participating in the $286 million federal family planning program — a move expected to redirect tens of millions of dollars from the women’s health provider to faith-based groups. The change means federally funded family planning clinics can no longer refer a patient for abortion and must maintain a “clear physical and financial separation” between services funded by the government and any organization that provides abortions or abortion referrals. Groups receiving money under the Title X program, which serves an estimated 4 million low-income women, were already prohibited from performing abortions with those funds.” See also, Trump administration issues rule to strip millions from Planned Parenthood, Politico, Alice Miranda Ollstein, Friday, 22 February 2019: “The Trump administration issued a final rule on Friday that could effectively cut off tens of millions of federal family planning dollars to Planned Parenthood and steer some of that funding towards anti-abortion, faith-based care providers. While the revamp of the Title X program does not accomplish the full defunding of Planned Parenthood that Republicans have called for, it is a major step in that direction, and marks another major policy win for social conservatives looking to prohibit access to abortion. Under the rule, clinics would still have to provide an array of contraceptive services but could partner or subcontract with groups that stress abstinence only or natural family planning. It would also bar Planned Parenthood and other health care providers that accept the funding from making any abortion referrals or performing abortions — regardless of the funding source — at the same facilities where they provide Title X services like birth control, mammograms and cancer screenings. If not put on hold by a court injunction, the rule will go into effect 60 days after it is published in the federal register in the coming days. Planned Parenthood executives said they will fight in court to block or overturn the rule, and indicated they won’t apply for Title X funding if it does go into effect.”

In a Tense Exchange, Dianne Feinstein Lectures Children Who Want Green New Deal, Portraying It as Untenable, The New York Times, Lisa Friedman, Friday, 22 February 2019: “Senator Dianne Feinstein found herself in a standoff Friday with a group of schoolchildren who confronted her about her refusal to support the Green New Deal. In a video posted by the Sunrise Movement, which encourages young people to combat climate change, an exchange quickly became tense once Ms. Feinstein started to explain her opposition to the Green New Deal, an ambitious Democratic-led proposal that calls for a radical transformation of the United States’ energy sector…. Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, in a statement called Ms. Feinstein ‘out of touch’ and said the interaction shows that the Democratic Party needs ‘fundamental change.'” See also, Video of Dianne Feinstein dismissively rebuffing young climate activists’ calling for Green New Deal, The Guardian, published on Saturday, 23 February 2019: “The California senator has been criticised for her response to a group of children and teenagers asking her to support the Green New Deal. Video footage shows Feinstein flatly rejecting the activists’ request, telling them: ‘I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing.'” See also, Video Shows Dianne Feinstein Dismissing a Group of Children Asking About Green New Deal, HuffPost, Carla Herreria, Friday, 22 February 2019: “A climate advocacy group is calling a foul against Sen. Dianne Feinstein after the California Democrat appeared to lecture and dismiss a group of kids who were urging for her to vote yes on the Green New Deal. Sunrise Movement, a budding environmental organization that urges lawmakers to take action on climate change, tweeted footage of a group of children with some adults at the senator’s office in San Francisco urging her to address the issue. Stephen O’Hanlon, a spokesman for the group, identified the protesters in the video as Sunrise Movement ‘supporters and family members’ in the Bay Area. The children present were between the ages of 7 and 16, according to the organization. In the Twitter video, Feinstein seems to rebuff the kids while boasting about her experience in the Senate. A full version of the encounter was posted to Facebook.” See also, School children debate Dianne Feinstein on ‘Green New Deal.’ Her reply? ‘I know what I’m doing.’ The Washington Post, Michael Brice-Saddler, Saturday, 23 February 2019.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer and Fixer, Gave Prosecutors New Information on the Trump Family Business, The New York Times, Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 22 February 2019: “Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, met last month with federal prosecutors in Manhattan, offering information about possible irregularities within the president’s family business and about a donor to the inaugural committee, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Cohen, who worked at the Trump Organization for a decade, spoke with the prosecutors about insurance claims the company had filed over the years, said the people, who did not elaborate on the nature of the possible irregularities. While it was not clear whether the prosecutors found Mr. Cohen’s information credible and whether they intended to pursue it, the meeting suggests that they are interested in broader aspects of the Trump Organization, beyond their investigation into the company’s role in the hush money payments made before the 2016 election to women claiming to have had affairs with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty last summer to arranging those payments.”

Continue reading Week 110, Friday, 22 February – Thursday, 28 February 2019 (Days 764-770)

Continue reading...

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site daily. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 8 February 2019, Day 750:

 

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Says He Has Not Interfered in the Mueller Investigation, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Nicholas Fandos, and Katie Benner, Friday, 8 February 2019: “Matthew G. Whitaker, the acting attorney general, told Congress on Friday that he had ‘not interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation’ into Russia’s 2016 election-manipulation operation since President Trump installed him atop the Justice Department. During an often contentious oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Whitaker also testified that he had provided no inside information about that inquiry, or related ones in the Southern District of New York, to Mr. Trump or his lawyers and White House aides…. While Mr. Whitaker provided those bottom-line claims up front, he refused to discuss many other things — like his conversations with Mr. Trump, or why he recently said the special counsel inquiry would soon wrap up — as questions about the Russia investigation dominated the hearing. The committee chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, told Mr. Whitaker that he would seek to force him to submit to further questioning in a later deposition…. [T]he hearing focused mainly on the Russia investigation. It quickly became contentious, as Mr. Nadler used his opening statement to blast Mr. Whitaker for refusing to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation despite the recommendation of Justice Department ethics officials that he step aside because of his past public comments criticizing it…. And when Mr. Nadler began questioning Mr. Whitaker, the acting attorney general refused to provide details about when and how many times he had been briefed about the Russia investigation, which is led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Then, when Mr. Nadler asked Mr. Whitaker if he had ever been asked to approve any request for action to be taken by Mr. Mueller, Mr. Whitaker audaciously replied: ‘Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up.’ The room broke into laughter as Mr. Nadler looked up in apparent disbelief at the breach of decorum, but then grinned himself and let it slide, noting that he did not enforce the five-minute rule during Mr. Whitaker’s opening statement. Mr. Nadler then directed Mr. Whitaker to ‘answer the question, please.'” See also, In combative hearing, acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker says he did not discuss Mueller investigation with Trump, but he dodges other inquiries, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky, Friday, 8 February 2019: “In a series of chippy exchanges with Democrats who questioned his credentials, judgment and integrity, Whitaker adopted a confrontational tone that often left lawmakers exasperated. Over and over, he refused to detail his conversations with the president — prompting the committee’s chairman to end the hearing by threatening a subpoena if follow-up questions weren’t answered. Whitaker carefully watched the clock, at one point noting the chairman’s five-minute window to ask questions had expired. More substantively, Whitaker refused to disagree with the president’s characterization of Mueller’s probe as a ‘witch hunt’ — something other top law enforcement officials and Trump nominees have not hesitated to do.” See also, ‘Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up’: Acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker’s very shaky performance before the House Judiciary Committee, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 8 February 2019. See also, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Says He Hasn’t Interfered in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation, The Wall Street Journal, Sadie Gurman and Byron Tau, Friday, 8 February 2019: “Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testified that he hasn’t interfered in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and hasn’t shared information about it with the president or top White House officials, in a heated congressional hearing on Friday. Mr. Whitaker traded barbs with lawmakers and avoided answering questions as he squared off with House Judiciary Committee Democrats, who have voiced concerns that President Trump tapped the former federal prosecutor for the role three months ago in order to undercut special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. Mr. Whitaker had been a public critic of the Mueller probe, which has ensnared several close Trump allies, before getting the job.” See also, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Tries to Stop House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler From Asking About the Mueller Investigation: ‘Your Five Minutes Is Up,’ Daily Beast, Betsy Woodruff, Friday, 8 February 2019. See also, Acting attorney general says he never interfered in Mueller investigation, Politico, Andrew Desiderio and Darren Samuelsohn, Friday, 8 February 2019.

Trump Defies Congressional Deadline for Report Determining Who Killed Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, The New York Times, Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt, Friday, 8 February 2019: “President Trump refused to provide Congress a report on Friday determining who killed the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, defying a demand by lawmakers intent on establishing whether the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was behind the grisly assassination. Mr. Trump effectively bypassed a deadline set by law as his administration argued that Congress could not impose its will on the president. Critics charged that he was seeking to cover up Saudi complicity in the death of Mr. Khashoggi, an American resident and a columnist for The Washington Post. ‘Consistent with the previous administration’s position and the constitutional separation of powers, the president maintains his discretion to decline to act on congressional committee requests when appropriate,’ the Trump administration said in a statement. The statement said the administration had taken action against the killers and would consult with Congress. But Democrats said Mr. Trump was violating a law known as the Magnitsky Act. It required him to respond 120 days after a request submitted in the fall by committee leaders — including Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — a period that expired Friday.” See also, White House declines to submit report to Congress determining whether Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman is personally responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, The Washington Post, Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung, and Karoun Demirjian, Friday, 8 February 2019: “The Trump administration declined Friday to submit a report to Congress determining whether Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is personally responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Senators had asked for the finding by Friday, with an eye to imposing new human rights sanctions on Saudi Arabia over the journalist’s Oct. 2 killing inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Under the Magnitsky Act, the president has 120 days to respond to a direct request from Congress about possible violations. The request, made Oct. 10 in a letter signed by 11 Democratic and 11 Republican senators, required the administration to make a determination of responsibility for the killing, particularly including involvement by the Saudi royal family, and to act on it by imposing sanctions on responsible individuals.” See also, White House refuses to meet Congress’ deadline on killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, CNN Politics, Nicole Gaouette and Kevin Liptak, Friday, 8 February 2019. See also, White House refuses to meet Senate deadline on killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Politico, Rebecca Morin, Friday, 8 February 2019.

‘My whole town practically lived there’: From Costa Rica to New Jersey, a pipeline of undocumented workers for Trump goes back years, The Washington Post, Joshua Partlow, Nick Miroff, and David A. Fahrenthold, Friday, 8 February 2019: “At his home on the misty slope of Costa Rica’s tallest mountain, Dario Angulo keeps a set of photographs from the years he tended the rolling fairways and clipped greens of a faraway American golf resort. Angulo learned to drive backhoes and bulldozers, carving water hazards and tee boxes out of former horse pastures in Bedminster, N.J., where a famous New Yorker was building a world-class course. Angulo earned $8 an hour, a fraction of what a state-licensed heavy equipment operator would make, with no benefits or overtime pay. But he stayed seven years on the grounds crew, saving enough for a small piece of land and some cattle back home. Now the 34-year-old lives with his wife and daughters in a sturdy house built by ‘Trump money,’ as he put it, with a porch to watch the sun go down. It’s a common story in this small town. Other former employees of President Trump’s company live nearby: men who once raked the sand traps and pushed mowers through thick heat on Trump’s prized golf property — the ‘Summer White House,’ as aides have called it — where his daughter Ivanka got married and where he wants to build a family cemetery. ‘Many of us helped him get what he has today,’ Angulo said. ‘This golf course was built by illegals.’ The Washington Post spoke with 16 men and women from Costa Rica and other Latin American countries, including six in Santa Teresa de Cajon, who said they were employed at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster. All of them said that they worked for Trump without legal status — and that their managers knew.”

Continue reading Week 108, Friday, 8 February – Thursday, 14 February 2019 (Days 750-756)

Continue reading...

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 25 January 2019, Day 736:

 

Indicting Roger Stone, Special Counsel Robert Mueller Shows Link Between the Trump Campaign and WikiLeaks, The New York Times, Mark Mazzetti, Eileen Sullivan, and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 25 January 2019: “The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, revealed on Friday the most direct link yet between parallel efforts by the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election using Democratic Party material stolen by Russians. A top Trump campaign official dispatched Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser to President Trump, to get information from WikiLeaks about the thousands of hacked Democratic emails, according to an indictment. The effort began weeks after Democratic officials publicly accused Russian intelligence operatives of the theft, which was part of Moscow’s broad campaign to sabotage the 2016 presidential race. The indictment made no mention of whether Mr. Trump played a role in the coordination, though Mr. Mueller did leave a curious clue about how high in the campaign the effort reached: A senior campaign official ‘was directed’ by an unnamed person to contact Mr. Stone about additional WikiLeaks releases that might damage the Clinton campaign, according to the court document. In an indictment filled with colorful details about clandestine meetings, angry texts — even a reference to “The Godfather: Part II” — Mr. Stone was charged with seven counts, including obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering. Mr. Mueller did not say that Mr. Stone’s interactions with WikiLeaks were illegal, nor that the Trump campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the organization.” See also, Here’s What We Learned From Roger Stone’s Indictment, The New York Times, Eileen Sullivan and Sharon LaFraniere, Friday, 25 January 2019: “In Friday’s indictment of Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to President Trump, the special counsel for the first time revealed evidence of efforts by senior Trump campaign officials to learn how emails and other information that had been hacked by Russia and given to WikiLeaks could damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The evidence appeared to contradict Mr. Stone’s assertions that he was acting on his own in his attempts to communicate with WikiLeaks. Senior campaign officials asked Mr. Stone to look into WikiLeaks’ plans, and he kept the campaign abreast of what he found out, the indictment said. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, disclosed new details about his investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference and possible ties to the Trump campaign: The campaign sought to learn how WikiLeaks’ releases might damage Mrs. Clinton;… Someone ‘directed’ a senior Trump campaign aide to contact Mr. Stone;… Mr. Stone is not charged with conspiracy;… Mr. Stone is the latest Trump associate charged with lying.” See also, Roger Stone’s Statement Responding to His Arrest: Full Transcript, The New York Times, Friday, 25 January 2019.  See also, Everyone Who Has Been Charged in Investigations Related to the 2016 Presidential Election, The New York Times, updated on Friday, 25 January 2019. See also, Roger Stone Lied. What Was He Hiding? The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Friday, 25 January 2018: “In his indictment of the Trump torpedo Roger Stone, the special counsel Robert Mueller noted that on June 14, 2016, the Democratic National Committee announced ‘that it had been hacked by Russian government actors.’ According to the indictment, unsealed Friday, Mr. Stone participated in and helped conceal an effort by the Trump campaign to cooperate with WikiLeaks in publicizing thousands of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign, which was done to devastating political effect. Mr. Stone stands accused of obstructing an official proceeding, making multiple false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness.” See also, Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in Russia investigation, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett, Rosalind S. Helderman, Lori Rozsa, and Manuel Roig-Franzia, Friday, 25 January 2019: “Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III unveiled criminal charges Friday against Roger Stone, a longtime friend of President Trump’s, accusing him of lying, obstruction and witness tampering in one of the longest legal sagas of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In charging Stone, Mueller has struck deep inside Trump’s inner circle. The indictment charges that Stone, a seasoned Republican political operative, sought to gather information about hacked Democratic Party emails at the direction of an unidentified senior Trump campaign official and engaged in extensive efforts to keep secret the details of those actions. The 24-page document goes further than Mueller ever has toward answering the core question of his probe: Did Trump or those close to him try to conspire with the Kremlin? The indictment notes that before Stone’s alleged actions in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee announced it had been hacked by Russian government operatives, implying that Stone must have known that. It does not allege Stone conspired with anyone but suggests his mission was to find out how the stolen material would be made public — something that, on its own, would not necessarily constitute a crime.” See also, Timeline: The Roger Stone indictment fills in new details about WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 25 January 2019. See also, 4 takeaways from the Roger Stone indictment, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 25 January 2019. See also, With a Godfather reference and a Nixon quotation, special counsel Robert Mueller accuses Roger Stone of witness tampering, The Washington Post, James Hohmann, Friday, 25 January 2019.  See also, A list of the alleged and admitted crimes undertaken by people associated with the Trump campaign, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 25 January 2019. See also, After being indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller, Roger Stone, longtime adviser to Donald Trump, says he won’t testify against Trump, The Guardian, Jon Swaine, Sabrina Siddiqui, and Paul Owen, Friday, 25 January 2019: “Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump, has said he will not testify against the president after he was arrested by the FBI on Friday morning and indicted on seven criminal charges. Stone, a veteran Republican operative, appeared in federal court in Fort Lauderdale charged by special counsel Robert Mueller with obstruction, lying to Congress and witness tampering. He was released on $250,000 bail and denies wrongdoing.” See also, A Conspiracy or Not? Here’s What We Know About the Mueller Investigation. The New York Times, Sharon LaFraniere and Michael S. Schmidt, Saturday, 26 January 2019. See also, Special Counsel Robert Mueller Got Roger Stone, The New Yorker, Adam Davidson, Friday, 25 January 2019: “Perhaps the most surprising detail of the indictment is that Stone, a famous braggart, often downplayed the significance of his role as a conduit between the Trump campaign and Assange. He was not, as he has previously said, simply guessing and making vague predictions about the actions WikiLeaks was likely to take; he was an active participant in its attempts to cause chaos in the 2016 Presidential election…. The most significant person in the Stone indictment appears in a single line, in the passive voice, and seems to have had more authority than almost anyone on the Trump campaign. According to the indictment, ‘a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign.’ Who did this directing? Why did Mueller avoid naming the person? Could it possibly have been Trump? Or—as one must still allow—was Trump, somehow, an innocent dupe surrounded by scheming scoundrels?” See also, ‘Get Me Roger Stone’: What to Make of the ‘Dirty Trickster’s’ Indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Lawfare, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Lev Sugarman, Benjamin Wittes, Friday, 25 January 2019: “Today, the special counsel … [alleged] that Roger Stone, longtime gadfly political operative, had acted as a kind of back channel between the [Trump] campaign and WikiLeaks—funneling information between Julian Assange and senior officials of the Trump campaign about forthcoming releases of purloined emails. No, this is not the smoking gun many have been waiting for. A lot of the information contained in the indictment has been in the press for a while—and in any event, the relationship it alleges between the campaign and the Russian government is a complicated, and somewhat attenuated, one. But if the Roger Stone indictment doesn’t quite allege ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and the Russians, it unambiguously alleges—in the language of Robert Mueller’s appointment letter—’links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.’ Specifically, the indictment alleges that Stone and WikiLeaks were together coordinating between the Russian government and the Trump campaign over the release of information that, by then, had been publicly reported by Crowdstrike and many press outlets to have been stolen by the Russian government.”

Trump signs bill to open the government, ending the longest shutdown in history, The Washington Post, Erica Werner, Mike DeBonis, and John Wagner, Friday, 25 January 2019: “President Trump on Friday agreed to temporarily reopen the federal government without getting any new money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall, retreating from the central promise of his presidency, for now, in the face of intense public anger. The president’s humbling concession to the new realities of divided government brought the nation’s longest government shutdown to an end on its 35th day. It was a major victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who took charge of a new House Democratic majority just three weeks ago and kept her large caucus unified throughout the standoff. ‘Our diversity is our strength,’ Pelosi told reporters after the agreement was reached. ‘But our unity is our power. And that is what maybe the president underestimated.’ Trump announced the deal in an early afternoon speech in the Rose Garden. By evening the Senate, and then the House, had passed the plan by voice vote, and both chambers adjourned. Trump signed the plan into law later Friday night, bringing an end to weeks of anxiety for 800,000 federal workers who will soon receive back pay after missing two consecutive paychecks. The shutdown had also threatened important government functions, impeding Food and Drug Administration safety inspections and the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to process tax refunds, and — in a final sign that it could continue no longer — causing delays Friday at major East Coast airports as unpaid air traffic controllers failed to report to work. The deal reopens the government through Feb. 15, while also creating a bipartisan, bicameral committee charged with negotiating an agreement on border security as part of a new spending bill for the Homeland Security Department.” See also, Trump Signs Bill Reopening Government for 3 Weeks in Surprise Retreat From Wall, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and Peter Baker, Friday, 25 January 2019: “President Trump agreed on Friday to reopen the federal government for three weeks while negotiations continued over how to secure the nation’s southwestern border, backing down after a monthlong standoff failed to force Democrats to give him billions of dollars for his long-promised wall. The president’s concession paved the way for the House and the Senate to both pass a stopgap spending bill by voice vote. Mr. Trump signed it on Friday night, restoring normal operations at a series of federal agencies until Feb. 15 and opening the way to paying the 800,000 federal workers who have been furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days. The plan includes none of the money for the wall that Mr. Trump had demanded and was essentially the same approach that he rejected at the end of December and that Democrats have advocated since, meaning he won nothing concrete during the impasse. Mr. Trump presented the agreement with congressional leaders as a victory anyway, and indicated in a speech in the Rose Garden that his cease-fire may only be temporary: If Republicans and Democrats cannot reach agreement on wall money by the February deadline, he said that he was ready to renew the confrontation or declare a national emergency to bypass Congress altogether. ‘We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.'” Trump’s Government Shutdown Was a Cruel Joke, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Friday, 25 January 2019: “What a debacle President Trump’s shutdown proved to be — what a toddler’s pageant of foot-stomping and incompetence, of vainglory and self-defeat. Mr. Trump tormented public servants and citizens and wounded the country, and, in conceding on Friday after holding the government hostage for 35 days, could claim to have achieved nothing. He succeeded only in exposing the emptiness of his bully’s bravado, of his ‘I alone can fix it’ posturing. Once upon a time, Mr. Trump promised that Mexico would pay for a wall. He instead made all Americans pay for a partisan fantasy.” See also, Longest government shutdown in history ends after Trump relents on border wall, Politico, Andrew Restuccia, Burgess Everett, and Heather Caygle, Friday, 25 January 2019: “The longest government shutdown in U.S. history came to an end Friday after President Donald Trump and Congress agreed to temporarily reopen shuttered federal agencies without providing any money for the president’s border wall…. The move marks a major reversal for the president, who had insisted for weeks that he wouldn’t reopen the government until lawmakers agreed to fork over more than $5 billion for the border wall.” See also, Trump Repeats Unfounded Arguments in New Appeal for a Border Wall, The New York Times, Linda Qiu and Michael Tackett, Friday, 25 January 2019: “President Trump has addressed the nation in prime time from the Oval Office, delivered remarks from the Rose Garden, met with Democrats in the Situation Room and traveled to the border with Mexico to make his case that the government would not reopen unless he got funding for a border wall. Thirty-five days into the shutdown, the president announced on Friday from the Rose Garden that the government would reopen until at least Feb. 15, giving Congress time to work out a deal on border security. He did not get any funding for a wall. And on Friday, he did not advance any new arguments for building one. In fact, many of the claims he made were recycled heavily from previous comments and contained many of the same misstatements and exaggerations. Also notable was something Mr. Trump did not say, namely that Mexico would pay for the wall, one of the most often repeated, and unsupported, claims he has made on the border funding dispute.” See also, Trump Said a Border Wall Is Needed to Block Illegal Guns, Drugs, and Cash Coming From Mexico. But Much of the Contraband He Pointed to Came Through Legal Ports of Entry. The New York Times, Mitchell Ferman, Friday, 25 January 2019: “President Trump traveled to the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month and made his case for building a wall on the Southern border — needed, he said, to keep America safe from a variety of dangers that are continuing to make their way across the frontier from Mexico. To help make his point, the evidence was laid out on tables: a big bag of cash, bundles of drugs, high-powered firearms, all confiscated by law enforcement agents working the borderlands in South Texas…. But the display at the president’s Jan. 10 round table, it turns out, had little to do with what happens along unfortified reaches of the border. An examination of the seized items suggests that a border wall would not have stopped most of the items from entering the United States, or, in the case of several weapons displayed in front of the president, from leaving the United States for Mexico. Many of the items on display were seized on international bridges on the Texas border, detected by canines and Customs and Border Protection officers. Some of them were found during traffic stops or, in one case, inside a South Texas home, and it’s hard to know how they entered the country.”

As youth anger over climate change mounts, protests spread around the globe, The Washington Post, Rick Noack, Friday, 25 January 2019: “As urban temperature records were broken in Australia on Thursday amid a years-long drought that has turned farms into wastelands across parts of the country, high school students on the opposite side of the world rallied against the driving force behind rising temperatures: climate change. Now in their third week, the Belgian protests against inaction on climate change drew more than 30,000 high school and university students to Brussels, roughly triple the number of protesters last week. ‘The planet can do without us, but we cannot do without the planet,’ one of the signs at the march read, according to the Associated Press. Many of the protests are inspired by 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg, who skipped school last year to protest in front of the Swedish parliament, demanding more decisive action on climate change. Thunberg and others have pointed out in interviews and at rallies that their generation is protesting government inaction on climate change because they are the ones who will live with the effects…. Since Thunberg’s first public appearances, tens of thousands of students in Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Australia and other countries have followed her example. Rallies earlier this month drew thousands of students in more than 50 German cities, with organizers estimating that 30,000 joined the rallies.” See also, ‘I want you to panic’: Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old Swedish climate activist issues climate warning at Davos World Economic Forum–Video, The Guardian, Friday, 25 January 2019: “Greta Thunberg, a Swedish climate activist, has told world leaders: ‘I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day and then I want you to act.’ In an impassioned warning to act now on climate change, Thunberg told her audience at Davos: ‘Either we choose to go on as a civilisation or we don’t.'”

Continue reading Week 106, Friday, 25 January – Thursday, 31 January 2019 (Days 736-742)

Continue reading...

Boston, 21 January 2017

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 11 January 2019, Day 722:

 

After Trump Fired F.B.I. Director James Comey in May 2017, the F.B.I. Opened an Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia, The New York Times, Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt, and Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 11 January 2019: “In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation. The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence. The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice. Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said.” See also, Ex-FBI Officials Say Spy Inquiry into President Trump Is ‘Uncharted Territory,’ Daily Beast, Spencer Ackerman, Erin Banco, and Betsy Woodruff, Friday, 11 January 2019: “The White House is blasting as ‘absurd’ a blockbuster new report that the FBI opened an investigation into whether the president of the United States was working on behalf of the Kremlin. But respected former FBI special agents tell The Daily Beast such a momentous step would not be taken without ‘serious and substantial evidence.’  They told The Daily Beast that the senior-most levels of the FBI and Justice Department would have known about an event they considered without precedent in bureau history. ‘This is uncharted territory,’ said Ali Soufan, a retired FBI counterterrorism special agent. ‘I don’t believe that it has happened before… Ever.’ On Friday night, The New York Times reported that FBI agents opened a counterintelligence investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Trump had been operating ‘on behalf of Russia against American interests.'” See also, FBI’s investigation of Trump included a counterintelligence inquiry, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett and Ellen Nakashima, published on Saturday, 12 January 2019: “The FBI investigation into President Trump that was opened almost immediately after he fired then-director James B. Comey also included a counterintelligence component to determine if the president was seeking to help Russia and if so, why, according to people familiar with the matter. The decision by then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe to open an investigation of a sitting president was a momentous step, but it came after Trump had cited the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election in his decision to fire Comey, these people said. The counterintelligence component of the Trump investigation was first reported by the New York Times.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has no remaining cancer, Supreme Court announces, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 11 January 2019: “Tests revealed that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has no additional cancer following her surgery in December, and no further treatment is needed, the Supreme Court announced Friday. ‘Her recovery from surgery is on track,’ court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said in a statement. ‘Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.'” See also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Cancer Free After Surgery, Supreme Court Says, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 11 January 2019.

Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Politico, Rachael Bade and Heather Caygle, Friday, 11 January 2019: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already making enemies in the House Democratic Caucus — and some of its members are mounting an operation to bring the anti-establishment, democratic socialist with 2.2 million Twitter followers into the fold. The effort, described by nearly 20 lawmakers and aides, is part carrot, part stick: Some lawmakers with ties to Ocasio-Cortez are hoping to coax her into using her star power to unite Democrats and turn her fire on Republicans. Others simultaneously warn Ocasio-Cortez is destined for a lonely, ineffectual career in Congress if she continues to treat her own party as the enemy. ‘I’m sure Ms. Cortez means well, but there’s almost an outstanding rule: Don’t attack your own people,’ said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). ‘We just don’t need sniping in our Democratic Caucus.’ Incumbent Democrats are most annoyed by Ocasio-Cortez’s threat to back primary opponents against members of their ranks she deems too moderate. But their frustration goes beyond that: Democratic leaders are upset that she railed against their new set of House rules on Twitter the first week of the new Congress. Rank and file are peeved that there’s a grassroots movement to try to win her a top committee post they feel she doesn’t deserve.”

Continue reading Week 104, Friday, 11 January – Thursday, 17 January 2019 (Days 722-728)

Continue reading...