Archives for February 2020

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. 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.

 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 28 February 2020, Day 1,134:

 

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy, The New York Times, Caitlin Dickerson, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal court on Friday upended a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, ruling that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their cases weave through American immigration courts. A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco blocked a policy that has required people applying for asylum at the border to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are reviewed, a process that often takes months or years. Since the new restrictions were rolled out early in 2019, more than 59,000 asylum seekers have been turned back by American authorities into Mexican border cities, where kidnappings and violence have surged. Because shelters in Mexico are scant and overrun, many of the migrants are living in vast tent encampments exposed to the elements. Powerful Mexican drug cartels have moved in to exploit them.” See also, Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy blocked in federal court, The Washington Post, Maria Sacchetti and Nick Miroff, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court in California halted the Trump administration’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ immigration policy on Friday, a blow to the president’s restrictive immigration agenda that cripples one of the government’s approaches to curbing migration across the U.S. southern border.” See also, Federal appeals court issues major blow to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, CNN Politics, Priscilla Alvarez, Friday, 28 February 2020. Update: Confusion on the Border as Appeals Court Rules Against Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy and Then Stays Its Decision in Order to Allow the Government Time to Appeal the Ruling, The New York Times, Caitlin Dickerson, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court found a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda legally invalid on Friday, ruling that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their cases weave through American immigration courts. The court stayed its decision, however, in order to allow the government time to appeal the ruling.” See also, Court halts Trump asylum policy and then suspends its own order, Associated Press, Elliot Spagat, Saturday, 29 February 2020: “A Trump administration immigration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts was blocked and then reinstated by a court in the matter of hours, creating chaos at border crossings, courtrooms and legal offices. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the policy on hold midday Friday, delivering a setback to a policy that has become one of President Donald Trump’s signature efforts to restrict immigration. But by the end of the day, the court allowed the program to go back into effect after the Justice Department argued that its suspension will prompt migrants to overrun the border and endanger national security. The White House argued that the suspension of the policy would overwhelm the nation’s immigration system, damage relations with the government of Mexico and increase the risk of outbreak from the new coronavirus.” See also, For Migrants at the Border, a Day of Hopes Uplifted and Dashed, The New York Times, Manny Fernandez, published on Saturday, 29 February 2020.

House Democrats Inquire About Political Interference at the Justice Department, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 28 February 2020: “House Democrats are scrutinizing whether President Trump or his appointees have interfered at the Justice Department for political reasons, a committee chairman said Friday, requesting documents and interviews with 15 U.S. attorneys related to the cases of three Trump associates and a review of the F.B.I.’s Russia inquiry. Among those singled out for interviews in a letter from Democrats to Attorney General William P. Barr were four career prosecutors who quit in protest after senior officials intervened to reverse their recommendation and suggest a shorter sentence for Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump confidant, in line with what the president had publicly demanded. The episode ignited long-smoldering fears that Mr. Trump’s personal and political interests were tilting the scales of justice. ‘These circumstances are deeply troubling,’ Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, wrote in the letter to Mr. Barr. ‘Although you serve at the president’s pleasure, you are also charged with the impartial administration of our laws. In turn, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with holding you to that responsibility.'” See also, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler seeks interviews with prosecutors who quit the Roger Stone case, Politico, Kyle Cheney, Friday, 28 February 2020: “House Democrats are seeking interviews with the four career prosecutors who quit the case of Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump, after Trump and Justice Department leaders intervened to demand a lighter jail sentence. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) requested the interviews in a Friday letter to Attorney General William Barr that also included broader demands for documents and testimony about allegations of political interference by Trump in the work of the Justice Department.”

Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Friday, 28 February 2020: “A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight. In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.” See also, Trump wins appeal to block the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, a key witness in the Russia investigation, Politico, Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 28 February 2020: “President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena for his testimony.” See also, Appeals court finds former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to testify to House, The Washington Post, Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 28 February 2020: “Former White House counsel Donald McGahn may defy a congressional subpoena, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled Friday in a decision siding with President Trump, who had blocked top advisers from testifying as part of the impeachment proceedings. The 2-to-1 ruling, which can be appealed, deals a sweeping blow to Congress’s investigative powers. The decision means Trump’s former lawyer cannot be compelled to appear on Capitol Hill, and it comes after Democrats lost their bid to call additional witnesses during Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.”

Continue reading Week 163, Friday, 28 February – Thursday, 5 March 2020 (Days 1,134-1,140)

[Read more…]

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. 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.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 21 February, Day 1,127:

 

Trump Dismisses as a Democratic ‘Hoax’ the Warning by U.S. Intelligence Officials That Russia Is Meddling in the 2020 U.S. Election, The New York Times, Katie Rogers, Friday, 21 February 2020: “President Trump said Friday that the disclosure by American intelligence officials that Russia was again meddling in a presidential election in his favor was merely another partisan attack against him, continuing a pattern in which he has sought to dismiss warnings of foreign interference in American elections. ‘Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to, after two weeks, count their votes in Iowa,’ Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ‘Hoax number 7!’ He was responding to reports of a classified briefing in which intelligence officials told members of the House Intelligence Committee that Russia was interfering in the 2020 presidential campaign to aid his re-election. Republicans on the committee challenged the conclusions and Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing the briefing to happen. Intelligence officials have also concluded that the Russians are seeking to help Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Democratic presidential primaries.”

Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign, The Washington Post, Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Michael Scherer, and Sean Sullivan, Friday, 21 February 2020: “U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter. President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill also have been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, those people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump. ‘I don’t care, frankly, who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin wants to be president,’ Sanders said in a statement. ‘My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.'” See also, Bernie Sanders Says Intelligence Officials Recently Told Him That Russia Has Been Trying to Intervene in the Democratic Primaries to Aid Him. Sanders Denounced Russia’s Efforts to Attack American Democracy. The New York Times, Julian E. Barnes and Sydney Ember, Friday, 21 February 2020: “Russia has been trying to intervene in the Democratic primaries to aid Senator Bernie Sanders, according to people familiar with the matter, and Mr. Sanders said on Friday that intelligence officials recently briefed him. The disclosure came a day before the Nevada caucuses, where Mr. Sanders is a favorite, and followed revelations a day earlier that Moscow was interfering on President Trump’s behalf this year, as it did in 2016. Mr. Sanders denounced Russia in a statement, calling President Vladimir V. Putin an ‘autocratic thug’ and warning Moscow to stay out of the election. Drawing a contrast with Mr. Trump, he said he would stand against any efforts by Russia or another foreign power to interfere in the vote. ‘The intelligence community is telling us they are interfering in this campaign right now in 2020,’ Mr. Sanders separately told reporters in Bakersfield, Calif., where he held a rally on Friday. ‘And what I say to Mr. Putin: If elected president, trust me, you are not going to be interfering in American elections.’” See also, Bernie Sanders condemns Russian interference in 2020 U.S. elections. ‘Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend,’ Sanders said in a statement. Politico, Myah Ward, Friday, 21 February 2020: “Bernie Sanders on Friday condemned Russian interference in the 2020 election, telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that ‘if elected president, trust me, you are not going to be interfering in American elections.’ Sanders issued a statement in response to The Washington Post’s report that the Vermont senator was briefed by U.S. officials on Russia’s attempt to help his campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic [primary] elections. And in a later gaggle with reporters Friday afternoon, Sanders confirmed that the briefing happened ‘about a month ago.’ ‘Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend,’ the statement said. ‘He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia. Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.'”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Builds Progressive Campaign Arm to Challenge Democrats, The New York Times, Catie Edmondson, Friday, 21 February 2020: “Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday endorsed an all-female slate of progressive candidates through her new political action committee, using her clout in the insurgent left and the considerable campaign funds she has drawn to counter the Democratic establishment in key races around the country. The endorsements of the congressional candidates — including one who is challenging Senate Democrats’ preferred candidate in Texas — amount to a powerful stamp of approval for a diverse group of newcomers. They also are a clear sign that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a celebrity of the liberal left, intends to leverage her influence among activists to try to reshape the Democratic Party. The move also underlines the struggle among Democrats that is defining the race for the presidency, which is pitting Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist, against more moderate candidates who are presenting themselves as better able to appeal to a broad section of voters in taking on President Trump. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has traversed the country to campaign for Mr. Sanders, and her efforts to pull Congress to the left parallel his bid to deploy his progressive message to emerge as the Democratic nominee, an effort that has instilled fear in many centrist lawmakers who believe it could cost them their seats.” See also, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political action committee endorses 7 progressive women candidates, CNN Politics, Clare Foran and Gregory Krieg, Friday, 21 February 2020: “Democratic freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York announced on Friday that her political action committee will endorse a series of progressive women congressional candidates, including challengers to incumbent Democrats. Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter that the group, Courage to Change, is endorsing seven women candidates. Six of them are running for House seats and one is running for a Senate seat.” See also, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorses 7 female progressive candidates to challenge establishment Democrats, The Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 21 February 2020: “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will use her considerable star power to help other progressive women achieve what she did two years ago — take on the Democratic Party establishment. The freshman congresswoman, whose insurgent campaign’s success against a high-ranking member of the Democratic leadership rattled the party in 2018, endorsed seven new female candidates on Friday who are running against party-preferred candidates and two sitting Democratic congressmen.”

Continue reading Week 162, Friday, 21 February – Thursday, 27 February 2020 (Days 1,127-1,133)

[Read more…]

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. 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.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 14 February 2020, Day 1,121:

 

Trump Claims He Has the ‘Legal Right’ to Interfere in Justice Department Cases, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Friday, 14 February 2020: “President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend. In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president ‘has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.’ The president said he had ‘so far chosen’ not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he was not legally bound to do so. ‘This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!’ he said. Though he and Mr. Barr both said the president had not directly asked for any specific inquiries, Mr. Trump has long pressured law enforcement officials both publicly and privately to open investigations into political rivals and to drop inquiries. Mr. Trump also pressed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retake control of the Russia investigation after he recused himself. The assertion by the president, which implicitly rejected a request by Mr. Barr to stop tweeting about the department’s cases, adds to the mounting controversy over the decision by senior Justice Department officials to overrule prosecutors who had recommended a seven- to nine-year sentence for Mr. Stone, who was convicted of seven felonies in a bid to obstruct a congressional investigation that threatened the president…. Past presidents in both parties have respected long standing traditions that are aimed at preventing political influence from the White House on Justice Department investigations, especially criminal inquiries that involved administration officials or friends of the president. The rules have been in place since the Watergate investigation, in which President Richard M. Nixon sought to pressure the F.B.I.” See also, Trump bucks Attorney General William Barr’s request to stop tweeting about the Justice Department, declaring he has a ‘legal right’ to seek intervention in criminal cases, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, John Wagner, Devlin Barrett, and Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 14 February 2020: “President Trump on Friday bucked his attorney general’s public request to stop tweeting about criminal cases just as the department prepared to reveal it would not charge a former FBI official Trump considers a political foe — significantly escalating the tension between the commander in chief and his top law enforcement officer. A day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly warned Trump not to tweet about the Justice Department, Trump did just that, declaring that he has the ‘legal right’ to ask his top law enforcement official to get involved in a criminal case. Just hours later, the department made a move that might be seen as exerting its independence, revealing that it would not charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe with lying to investigators about a media disclosure. McCabe had authorized the bureau to investigate Trump in 2017 and has been a persistent target of presidential attacks.” See also, Trump-Barr divide worsens as Trump bucks a request to stop tweeting, and the Justice Department declines to charge ex-FBI official Andrew McCabe, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, Devlin Barrett, and Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 14 February 2020. See also, Trump claims he has the ‘legal right’ to intervene in criminal cases, The Guardian, Edward Helmore, Friday, 14 February 2020.

Attorney General William Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser, The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Matt Apuzzo, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter. The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors. Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen.” See also, US officials say Attorney General William Barr privately ordered re-examination of Michael Flynn’s case, CNN Politics, Evan Perez, David Shortell, and Katelyn Polantz, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Attorney General William Barr is ordering a re-examination of several high-profile cases, including that of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, US officials briefed on the matter say, in a move that could bring fresh scrutiny of the political motives behind actions at the Justice Department.” See also, Justice Department opens inquiry into FBI interview at heart of Flynn’s guilty plea, NBC News, Carol E. Lee, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Department of Justice recently opened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the FBI’s interview of Michael Flynn while he was serving as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the inquiry. Flynn pleaded guilty to giving false statements to the FBI during that interview, but recently asked to withdraw that plea, further delaying his sentencing.” See also, 9 Democratic senators, including Warren and Sanders, formally call for Attorney General William Barr’s resignation, The Week, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has formalized her call for the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. Following up on her Wednesday insistence that Barr resign over his apparent interference in the criminal case against Roger Stone, Warren led eight other Democratic senators in a formal letter calling for Barr’s departure on Friday. ‘We are writing to express our alarm about and opposition to the unethical political intervention’ by Barr and the Justice Department in the case of President Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone, the senators, including fellow 2020 candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claim in their letter to Barr. ‘The interference … is a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial, and equal justice for all Americans,’ and ‘we call on you to resign immediately,’ the senators wrote to Barr.” See also, Attorney General William Barr Moves to Take the Reins of Politically Charged Cases, The New York Times, Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, Friday, 14 February 2020: “While Attorney General William P. Barr asserted his independence from the White House this week, he has also been quietly intervening in a series of politically charged cases, including against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, people familiar with the matter said on Friday. Mr. Barr installed a phalanx of outside lawyers to re-examine national security cases with the possibility of overruling career prosecutors, a highly unusual move that could prompt more accusations of Justice Department politicization. The case against Mr. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. in the Russia investigation, is a cause célèbre for Mr. Trump and his supporters, who say the retired general was ensnared in a ‘deep state’  plot against the president. The disclosures came as Mr. Trump made clear on Friday that he believes he has free rein over the Justice Department and its cases, rejecting Mr. Barr’s public demand of a day earlier that the president stop commenting on such cases.” See also, How Trump’s Relationship With Attorney General William Barr Got So Complicated, The New York Times, Peter Baker and Kichael D. Shear, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Since taking office, Mr. Trump has searched for an attorney general who would function much as Roy Cohn did for him as his personal lawyer and fixer in the 1970s — a warrior committed to protecting him and going after his foes. The president thought he had found that person in William P. Barr. But now, people close to Mr. Trump say, he is not so sure. The president was cheered this week when Mr. Barr moved to reduce the sentence of a convicted presidential friend, only to be shocked when the attorney general publicly called on Mr. Trump to stop tweeting about it. And after his livid reaction to the Justice Department’s decision to drop a separate case, which he heard about without any advance notice, he learned that Mr. Barr was intervening more favorably on behalf of another presidential ally. The whipsaw events of recent days have bewildered much of Washington, including some of the people around the president and his attorney general…. Critics assume it is all a Kabuki dance, cynical theater meant to preserve Mr. Barr’s credibility as he executes Mr. Trump’s personal political agenda while pretending to look independent. And it is certainly true that, even now, Mr. Barr continues to demonstrate a willingness to personally take charge of cases with Mr. Trump’s interests at stake. But insiders insist the tension is real, with potentially profound consequences for an administration that has redrawn the lines at the intersection of politics and law enforcement. Barely a week after being acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial, Mr. Trump is demanding that some of the people whose actions he believes led to his troubles be charged, convicted and sent to prison, and it is not clear that even Mr. Barr is willing or able to go as far as the president wants.”

Andrew McCabe, Ex-F.B.I. Official, Will Not Be Charged in Lying Case, The New York Times, Adam Goldman, Friday, 14 February 2020: “Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump’s, will not face charges in an investigation into whether he lied to investigators about a media leak, his defense team said on Friday. The decision by prosecutors in Washington ends a case that had left Mr. McCabe in legal limbo for nearly two years. It also appears to be a sign that Attorney General William P. Barr wants to show that the Justice Department is independent from the president: The notification came a day after Mr. Barr publicly challenged Mr. Trump to stop attacking law enforcement officials on Twitter and said the criticisms were making his job more difficult.” See also, The Justice Department won’t charge Andrew McCabe, the former FBI official who authorized the investigation of President Trump, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky, Devlin Barrett, Karoun Demirjian, and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department will not charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe with lying to investigators about a media disclosure, according to people familiar with the matter and McCabe’s legal team, ending a long-running inquiry into a top law enforcement official who authorized the bureau to investigate President Trump and soon became [Trump’s] political punching bag.” See also, Department of Justice drops probe into former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Politico, Josh Gerstein, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department has decided to abandon its efforts to seek criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to a letter sent to his attorneys. McCabe’s lawyers were told last September that he should expect to be indicted on charges stemming from inaccurate statements he made to FBI investigators about his actions around the time of the 2016 election. However, no indictment was ever returned, leading to speculation that the Washington-based grand jury probing the matter took the rare step of rejecting charges. Prosecutors had been cagey since that time about the status of the investigation into McCabe, who has been a frequent subject of public attacks from President Donald Trump. In theory, they could have presented the case to another grand jury, but on Friday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington informed McCabe’s attorneys that it was giving up its quest to charge the FBI veteran.” See also, Justice Department Closes Investigation Into Ex-FBI No. 2 Andrew McCabe, The Wall Street Journal, Aruna Viswanatha, Friday, 14 February 2020: “The Justice Department has closed its investigation into former No. 2 FBI official Andrew McCabe without bringing charges, lawyers for Mr. McCabe said Friday, bringing to an end a controversial investigation into someone President Trump has repeatedly criticized…. The office had been examining whether Mr. McCabe, the former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, misled investigators about his role in providing information related to an investigation into the Clinton Foundation in October 2016 to a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. McCabe has long disputed the allegations.”

Continue reading Week 161, Friday, 14 February – Thursday, 20 February 2020 (Days 1,120-1,126)

[Read more…]

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. 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.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 7 February 2020, Day 1,114:

 

Trump Fires Impeachment Witnesses Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman in Post-Acquittal Purge, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Maggie Haverman, Danny Hakim, and Michael S. Schmidt, Friday, 7 February 2020: “President Trump wasted little time on Friday opening a campaign of retribution against those he blames for his impeachment, firing two of the most prominent witnesses in the House inquiry against him barely 48 hours after being acquitted by the Senate. Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, Mr. Trump ordered Gordon D. Sondland, the founder of a hotel chain who donated $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee, recalled from his post as the ambassador to the European Union on the same day that Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran on the National Security Council staff, was marched out of the White House by security guards. The ousters of Mr. Sondland and Colonel Vindman — along with Mr. Vindman’s brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an Army officer who also worked on the National Security Council staff — may only presage a broader effort to even accounts with the president’s perceived enemies. In the two days since his acquittal in the Senate, Mr. Trump has railed about those who stood against him, calling them ‘evil,’ ‘corrupt’ and ‘crooked,’ while his press secretary declared that those who hurt the president ‘should pay for’ it.” See also, Trump ousts Vindman and Sondland, punishing key impeachment witnesses in post-acquittal campaign of retribution, The Washington Post, Toluse Olorunnipa, Tom Hamburger, Josh Dawsey, and Greg Miller, Friday, 7 February 2020: “President Trump on Friday punished two witnesses who testified in the investigation that led to his impeachment, removing them from their posts in an apparent campaign to exact retribution on his perceived enemies in the wake of his acquittal in the Senate this week. The White House ousted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from his post on the National Security Council and recalled U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, moves that were quickly condemned as vindictive and an attempt to intimidate government officials who speak out against Trump.” See also, Impeachment witnesses ousted amid fears of Trump revenge campaign, Politico, Kyle Cheney, Natasha Bertrand, and Meredith McGraw, Friday, 7 February 2020. See also, Trump fires two major impeachment figures–Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland, CNN Politics, Kaitlan Collins, Kristen Holmes, Katelyn Polantz, Gloria Borger, Kevin Liptak, Jim Acosta, and Devan Cole, Friday, 7 February 2020.

Secret Service has paid rates as high as $650 a night for rooms at Trump’s properties, The Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold, Jonathan O’Connell, Carol D. Leonnig, and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 7 February 2020: “President Trump’s company charges the Secret Service for the rooms agents use while protecting him at his luxury properties — billing U.S. taxpayers at rates as high as $650 per night, according to federal records and people who have seen receipts. Those charges, compiled here for the first time, show that Trump has an unprecedented — and largely hidden — business relationship with his own government. When Trump visits his clubs in Palm Beach, Fla., and Bedminster, N.J., the service needs space to post guards and store equipment. Trump’s company says it charges only minimal fees. But Secret Service records do not show that.”

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations, NBC News, Dareh Gregorian, Friday, 7 February 2020: “A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers’ lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution on technical grounds. In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress. In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers filing the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had done so as a majority. ‘[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury,’ the ruling says. ‘Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members — 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,’ the decision says.” See also, Appeals court tosses Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit against Trump, CNN Politics, Katelyn Polantz, Friday, 7 February 2020. See also, Individual members of Congress barred from suing Trump over business dealings, The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell, Friday, 7 February 2020.

Continue reading Week 160, Friday, 7 February – Thursday, 13 February 2020 (Days 1,114-1,120)

[Read more…]