Shared posts

20 Feb 05:02

Warren opens Democratic debate with show-stopping takedown of billionaire Michael Bloomberg

by Kerry Eleveld

After being shorted on speaking time in the last debate, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren jumped into the conversation early Wednesday night and came out swinging at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in her first statement of the evening. 

"I'd like to talk about who we're running against," Warren said, "a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg."

"Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk.”

Warren said she would support whoever becomes the nominee, but added, “Understand this, Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. This country has worked for the rich for a long time and left everyone else in the dirt. It is time to have a president who will be on the side of working families and be willing get out there and fight for them. That is why I am in this race and that is why I will beat Donald Trump." Warren came to play.

Watch it below.

Here's that early Warren haymaker. "I'd like to talk about who we're running against, a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse faced lesbians. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg." pic.twitter.com/AS9XVbTthz

— Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) February 20, 2020

20 Feb 01:32

IRS Sues Facebook For $9 Billion, Says Company Offshored Profits To Ireland

by BeauHD
James.galbraith

Well that'll be fun

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fox Business: Facebook is slated to begin a tax trial in a San Francisco court on Tuesday, as the Internal Revenue Service tries to convince a judge the world's largest social media company owes more than $9 billion linked to its decision to shift profits to Ireland. The trial, which Facebook expects will take three to four weeks, could see top executives including hardware chief Andrew Bosworth and Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer called to testify, according to a document the company filed in January. The witness list also includes Naomi Gleit and Javier Olivan, veterans of Facebook's aggressive growth team, and Chief Revenue Officer David Fischer. The IRS argues that Facebook understated the value of the intellectual property it sold to an Irish subsidiary in 2010 while building out global operations, a move common among U.S. multinationals. Ireland has lower corporate tax rates than the United States, so the move reduced the company's tax bill. Under the arrangement, Facebook's subsidiaries pay royalties to the U.S.-based parent for access to its trademark, users and platform technologies. From 2010 to 2016, Facebook Ireland paid Facebook U.S. more than $14 billion in royalties and cost-sharing payments, according to the court filing. The company said the low valuation reflected the risks associated with Facebook's international expansion, which took place in 2010 before its IPO and the development of its most lucrative digital advertising products.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

20 Feb 01:32

Picking Bad Stocks

On the news a few days later: "Buzz is building around the so-called 'camping Roomba' after a big investment. Preorders have spiked, and..."
19 Feb 22:38

Republican voter suppression efforts suffer a big setback

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

Thank goodness

A federal court strikes down a poll tax in Florida.
19 Feb 21:56

Mike Pompeo, now a laughingstock, condemns China for retaliating against a free press

by Hunter
James.galbraith

Irony is truly dead

It's now a given that the U.S. secretary of state is a living, breathing joke. The nation's supposed top diplomat has no credibility outside the United States, and no credibility inside the country. He's a laughingstock, at best. And yet: "The United States condemns the move by China to expel three @WSJ journalists. Mature, responsible countries understand that a free press reports facts and expresses opinions. China should not restrict #freespeech," tweeted Secretary Mike Pompeo this morning.

You know what's coming next, right? Of course you do. Mike Pompeo, who AS WE ALL REMEMBER recently expelled a National Public Radio reporter from his government plane because he didn't like a different NPR reporter asking him a question he didn't want to answer, was immediately mocked by responders as the worst possible person to be piping up on this one.

Mike Pompeo has continued to respond to his own reported involvement with the Ukraine scandal by dodging questions, lying to the public, and demanding interviewers not ask him about any of it as a condition for their interviews. He's a pathetic, cowardly man whose plight would almost be sympathy-inducing, given how utterly irrelevant he and his entire government agency have become in an administration in which foreign policy is dictated by a delusional manchild's tweeted fiats, until you remember that no, the ex-House Republican has always been a terrible person, continues to be a terrible person, may or may not have done something criminal in the ouster of a U.S. ambassador whose anti-corruption efforts were thwarting a president's lawyer's very important efforts to be corrupt, and continues to cling to political power by mirroring his crackpot boss' every anti-democratic, anti-press move.

So verily, sod off with that.

That the United States has lost all credibility on the world stage, on issues from press freedoms to election integrity to the simple question of whether we will sell out our allies for the sake of small, petty corruption, is a very real problem. Mike Pompeo being a damn laughingstock, in the eyes of the entire world, is a very real problem.

Having Pompeo and other top United States officials burping out statements about "fake news" by media outlets that the United States’ Dear Leader has declared "enemies of the people" means, among other things, that the United States now has far, far lower credibility in condemning genuine attacks on press freedom by other nations. How is China retaliating against the Wall Street Journal for its reporting substantively different from Mike Pompeo retaliating against National Public Radio for the same? Is it that one is owned by the kingmaker of Fox News, and the other is not?

Why do some countries get to carve up Washington Post reporters with bone saws and still get deferential, positively royal treatment from the United States administration—including, for example, this very week—and others do not? Is it the military contracts?

The State Department is now an empty shell. It serves, for the moment, no purpose that cannot be undone by Dear Leader for Dear Leader's own gain. It is led by a man considered either self-servingly malevolent, a pudding-head, or both. And the United States regains its credibility, presuming it ever does ... how?

The United States condemns the move by China to expel three @WSJ journalists. Mature, responsible countries understand that a free press reports facts and expresses opinions. China should not restrict #freespeech. https://t.co/szm0ujq2Ua

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) February 19, 2020

19 Feb 20:43

Don’t look now, but Bernie Sanders’s coalition is expanding

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

whatever it takes to get everyone out to vote

The Vermont senator is improving among groups thought to be hostile to him.
19 Feb 20:32

Julian Assange alleges Trump offered him a 'deal': Say Russia didn't hack DNC, get a free pardon

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

No surprise there

At a London pretrial hearing in the extradition case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday, the court was informed that Assange will be calling a witness with explosive testimony. According to Assange’s legal team, that witness will report that Assange was approached while in exile and offered a pardon by the U.S. government if he would claim that Russia was not involved in the theft and release of documents from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election.

The visitor bringing this offer, according to Assange’s attorney, was former California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. But the claim is also that Rohrabacher was there on behalf of Donald Trump, to let Assange walk if he would only say that Russia was not involved. 

Offering Assange a pass to say that Russia wasn’t involved seems more than a little odd, because that was what Assange was claiming all along. He was perfectly willing to help cover up his sources among Russian intelligence and to go along with theories that put the blame at someone else’s door—other nations, rival Democrats, Hillary Clinton, deliberately laying a snare for Trump. Why offer Assange something as huge as a pardon for what he was already doing on his own?

On the other hand, the Rohrabacher connection is very real. It wasn’t just House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy’s famous claim, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” It was that consistently pro-Russia Rohrabacher suggested a deal that appeared to be exactly what Assange is now claiming.

In 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Republican representative had attempted to broker a deal with Assange: Assange would get a pardon, and in return, the paper said, he would “probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia.” 

According to the Journal’s reporting, Rohrabacher said, “He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof.” If Assange provided something and it failed to satisfy Trump’s need for proof that someone else was behind the hacking, the fact that a pardon didn’t come through seems reasonable. And since Russia definitely did do it, it’s hard to see what kind of proof Assange might have offered. There’s even the chance—in those days, before Attorney General William Barr wiped away the Mueller report and Senate Republicans made it clear that Trump was free to do as he pleased—that there might have been some concern over just how obvious it was to be handing Assange a pass.

But The Wall Street Journal emphatically reported in 2017 that Rohrabacher did propose such a deal. The only thing that’s missing is the definitive proof that Trump was behind that offer. Which makes this April 2019 post from journalist Marcy Wheeler particularly interesting. In running through Trump’s written responses to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team, she noted one question where the response was … a little off.

Question: Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).

Trump: I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.

These “I do not recall”-type answers were the sort of response Trump gave to almost everything. However, in this case he qualified it by saying “during the campaign.” Which leaves out the period between the election and the inauguration. Rohrabacher’s efforts were still underway in September 2017, but it’s not clear when they began.

That also neatly dodges a period in December 2016 when, The Atlantic reports, WikiLeaks was sending messages to Donald Trump Jr. saying things like, “Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well! In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.”

It’s starting to seem that Assange’s extradition hearing might be a don’t-miss event.

19 Feb 20:31

Undersecretary of Defense is out as purge of those who pushed back on Trump's Ukraine plot continues

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Of course it will continue, because the GOP is fine with this

Multiple sources are reporting that Undersecretary of Defense John Rood has been asked to submit his resignation. CNN says that Rood has “lost support among senior national security leadership,” but there may be a simpler reason for the undersecretary’s departure: Rood was the person who signed off on the Defense Department’s examination of corruption in Ukraine. That review said that Ukraine had met all the goals set forward in legislation to combat corruption and promote democracy and was eligible to receive military funding allocated to it by Congress.

Throughout the impeachment hearings, members of the Defense Department, such as Laura Cooper, testified that investigations of Ukraine had found no reason to withhold military assistance funding. Subsequent letters revealed by filings under the Freedom of Information Act have made it clear that when Donald Trump’s demand to freeze the aid was passed to the Pentagon by officials in the Office of Management and Budget, those officials knew they were breaking the law. And now Rood is the next one to pay the price for being honest when Trump is in charge.

Rood made another mistake when it comes to hanging around Washington in the Age of Trump. Shortly after Trump’s “perfect” call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Rood emailed his boss, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, to inform him that "placing a hold on security assistance at this time would jeopardize this unique window of opportunity and undermine our defense priorities with a key partner in the strategic competition with Russia."

Rood also made Esper aware that a group of Pentagon officials were meeting to figure out how they could deal with Trump’s demands.

So Rood both:

Validated that Ukraine had met the required commitments to fighting corruption and supporting democracy that were the only test included in the legislation authorizing the military assistance. Made it clear that placing a hold on the assistance was a threat to the national security of both Ukraine and the United States.

That’s not the kind of truth-telling that’s allowed in either the White House or the Pentagon under Trump. During the impeachment proceedings, Republicans in the House and the Senate repeatedly maintained that Trump had the right to place a hold on the assistance for any reason. He doesn’t. And they claimed that the hold did not represent a threat to Ukrainian security. It did.

The purge of Rood from the Pentagon shows that the general housecleaning of anyone who dared to speak the truth during Trump’s impeachment is far from over. 

19 Feb 20:30

Barr isn't about to quit, he's not trying to stop Trump, and he's not concerned about justice

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Bingo, and the media should stop reporting anything Barr says as accurate. He just lies so he can continue doing Trumps bidding.

Attorney General William Barr has been going public this week, expressing his frustration with Donald Trump. Barr is so upset about Trump placing his stubby vulgarian fingers on the scales of justice that he worries that he can’t do his job. He has even thought about quitting.

Don’t you believe it. The manual of the Justice Department says, “The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence. It is imperative that the Department’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers be exercised free from partisan consideration.” But Barr doesn’t believe any of that. He’s not leaving. And he’s not going to stop turning the Department of Justice into a blunt instrument in Trump’s undersized hands.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Barr had considered resigning in response to Trump’s never-ending tweets about federal judges, prosecutors, and jurors. But on Tuesday night, Barr’s spokesperson made it clear that he wasn’t going anywhere. And no matter how many times the Post quoted “people close” to Trump or Barr about the White House friction over Trump’s Twitter habit, this definitely seems like a moment when it makes more sense to believe what Barr’s spokesperson is saying rather than the media accounts.

The idea that the Department of Justice is supposed to be apolitical and insulated from political decisions isn’t hidden away or just a matter of obscure tradition. That’s the first paragraph of the manual that every member of the department is required to read. That’s what the DOJ is supposed to be—impartial, insulated, free to seek genuine justice rather than be influenced by politics.

All of that is exactly the opposite of what Barr has done from the very moment the Senate blessed his return to the attorney general position. Barr has made it clear, in both words and deeds, that he sees the DOJ as a wholly owned subsidiary of Trumpism, Inc. And he’s not about to back away from using his powers to blunt a blade that cuts deep against Trump’s political opponents.

Since moving his stuff back into the Department of Justice, Barr has:

Butchered the Mueller report, creating a false narrative especially designed to replace the actual results in the media spotlight with claims that Trump had been exonerated. To do this, Barr rewrote the conclusion on collaboration with Russia to disguise more than 100 points of active contact. But Barr’s action on the second half of the report was even more amazing: He took 10 instances of clear obstruction of justice and simply declared them okay, based on nothing more than his own opinion.  Extended the idea that Trump cannot be charged with a crime while in office—an already controversial ruling—to the even more astounding claim that Trump cannot be named in a criminal proceeding or even considered as part of a criminal investigation.  Attempted to hide the intelligence community whistleblower report by issuing a ruling that what the inspector general had determined was a critical issue was not critical at all. Attorneys working for Barr made an unprecedented decision that the whistleblower report did not have to be shared with Congress, despite clear law that said otherwise. That this decision failed to hold was entirely because the inspector general refused to be silent. Pretended during the impeachment proceedings that he was uninvolved in the Ukraine plot, even though he was clearly named by Trump as a conduit between the White House and Ukrainian officials. By refusing to testify before the House, Barr hid any actions he or the DOJ may have taken at Trump’s request … right up until the impeachment was over, when he announced an official pipeline between Trump’s personal attorney and the Department of Justice.  Created a special team lead by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham to seek evidence for conspiracy theories voiced by Trump and Fox News. This has included attempting to get intelligence services in Australia, Italy, and the U.K. to provide information that could be used to attack the FBI and CIA. It has also included specifically seeking support for conspiracy theories meant to harm those Trump sees as enemies—from Hillary Clinton to James Comey to Andrew McCabe—despite a lack of genuine evidence. Created a second special team of hand-selected attorneys specifically to harass and undercut U.S. attorneys involved in cases that “interest Trump.” The latter have been subject to questioning about their loyalties and motives even as their cases have been put through additional review and second-guessed by Barr’s Trumpist hit squad. Directly interfered in the sentencing of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone by withdrawing sentencing suggestions and replacing them with much milder alternatives and by removing the U.S. attorney in charge of the Washington, D.C., office—an attorney who had been a member of Trump’s transition team and who was selected for that role by Trump personally—and replacing her with someone who would ignore career prosecutors and go along with Barr’s interference.

The Post story may claim that Barr “has his limits” when it comes to doing what Trump demands. If that’s so, those limits are yet to be tested. Because Barr is not a believer in a “unitary executive,” where all the departments of the executive branch are the responsibility of the president; he is a monarchist, who sees Trump as the owner of not just the Justice Department, but justice itself.

If he has limits, they won’t be found in the manual of the Department of Justice. Their basis might be found in actions of the Committee of Public Safety … or maybe not.

19 Feb 18:02

Bloomberg Refers To Transgender People as ‘It’ in Newly Uncovered Video

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Yeah, no. Looks like he's just performing the part of a liberal but he's a traditional rich bigot

Mike Bloomberg referred to transgender people as “it” and “some guy wearing a dress” in a clip from a March 2019 forum hosted by the Bermuda Business Development Agency in Manhattan.

In the clip, uncovered by Buzzfeed News, Bloomberg asserted that pushing transgender rights is not a winning formula for Democratic candidates and they should take a more moderate path.

Said Bloomberg: “If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people.”

Buzzfeed adds: “Bloomberg made a similar remark about a ‘man wearing a dress’ in 2016, but his comments uncovered Tuesday — remarks he made less than a year ago — came amid the early stages of the 2020 Democratic primary.”

Earlier on Tuesday, the Bloomberg campaign published a new video featuring Isaac Mizrahi, touting the candidates sensitivity to LGBTQ rights.

The Bloomberg campaign released a statement to Buzzfeed defending his record and views about trans people: “Mike understands that the transgender community has been under attack for decades and the advance of rights has not been equal. In April 2002, during his first year as mayor, Mike signed a sweeping transgender civil rights bill into law. His company provides comprehensive healthcare coverage for his transgender employees. As president, he has a comprehensive plan to secure rights for transgender Americans, including passing the Equality Act, ensuring transgender people have access to affirming healthcare and working to end the crisis of violence against transgender women. Mike is running to defeat Donald Trump and reverse the many policies he has implemented that attack the rights of the transgender community.”

The post Bloomberg Refers To Transgender People as ‘It’ in Newly Uncovered Video appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

18 Feb 22:34

Collins breaks ethics rules in the most Republican way, while swearing fealty to Trump and McConnell

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

Yes indeed

Susan Collins has a looooong history of questionable campaign contributions from her paid-for-by-your-taxes Senate staff, going back to the 1990s. More on that later, but first, check out this quote from the latest instance of Senate staff acting like campaign staff.

"I can assure you that there's two people that want you to vote for Senator Collins," Collins' Bangor Senate office director, Carol Woodcock told the crowd at a Washington County Republican campaign rally. "One is the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and two is our president, President Trump." So much for that vaunted independence, eh.

Collins' time is up. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

Collins really wants to keep the door to another Republican challenging her in the state's primary firmly shut ahead of the March 16 filing deadline. Collins sure wants this group of Republicans at what was billed as a "Campaign Event" including state, local, and federal candidates, to know she's with Trump and Moscow Mitch all the way! So she sends her Senate staffer, Woodcock, to tell them so. "Does anybody have any questions, either on the federal level or campaign?" Woodcock later asks. As if by saying the words "federal level" she can claim she's not doing campaign work at a campaign event which is not something that Senate staffers are allowed to do under their official titles. That's in the Senate Ethics manual.

This isn't the first time, by a long shot, that Collins has sent Woodcock out to campaign for her at Republican events. It happened last June with the Hancock County Republicans. Woodcock even told them "I work in the senator's Bangor federal office. So, I'm not a campaign worker," making crystal clear that what she's going to say next she probably shouldn't be saying in a campaign event. "The senator's campaign is just up and running a little bit, really on the fundraising side, but we don't have any real campaign staff. But I'm going to give you a little bit of report on the campaign."

That update included the news that Collins' campaign is "working very closely" with the Trump administration. That was after a complaint was lodged by the American Democracy Legal Fund with the Senate Ethic Committee in December 2018, when Collins' Senate press secretary, Annie Clark, wrote an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News criticizing Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, who was soon to enter the Democratic race against Collins.

Turns out, this is a long-standing habit from Collins, using her Senate staff for her campaigns. A report from American Ledger completed last August details instances dating back to 1998 of her campaign violating federal criminal code that makes it illegal for members of Congress to accept campaign contributions—including an "advance of money" from congressional staff, meaning congressional staff could not use their own money to pay for anything campaign related. After the 1998 violation, her chief of staff Steve Abbott swore it would never happen again. And in 2015, guess who was reimbursed $1,327 from campaign funds for "catering" costs. You got it, Steve Abbott.

From 2013-2019 there were five separate instances adding up to more than $2,600, in which Collins' congressional staff was reimbursed for spending money on—contributing to, for purposes of campaign law—her campaign. After her chief of staff swore it would never happen again. That's how you know she's always been a Republican.

18 Feb 22:33

Why Trump is letting a corrupt Democrat out of prison

by Paul Waldman
If he can convince you that everyone is corrupt and the system is beyond help, he wins.
18 Feb 20:50

Trump's pardons again make a mockery of Republican claims that he ever cared about corruption

by Laura Clawson
James.galbraith

And the GOP is fine with this

Remember how Republicans spent months insisting that Donald Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine not because he wanted to cheat on the 2020 elections but because he really, really cared about corruption? Even though he never mentioned corruption in his first phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky? Even though the Pentagon certified that Ukraine was fighting corruption and should get the money?

Ha ha ha, yeah, all those claims Republicans made, against all the evidence, that Trump cared about corruption, and what does he do? Well, first, during his own impeachment trial, Trump stood side by side with a world leader charged with corruption to unveil a major foreign policy plan. Now he’s handing out pardons and sentence commutations to a corrupt politician, a corrupt former law enforcement official, a corrupt lobbyist, and a couple corrupt rich guys. So let’s take a stroll down memory lane all the way back a month or two to hear from Republicans about how much Trump cares about corruption.

Help Democrats retake the Senate! Can you give even $1 to the Democratic nominee in each of these competitive states?

“Corruption is not just prevalent in Ukraine. It’s the system. Our president said time out, time out, let’s check out this new guy,” according to Rep. Jim Jordan, during the impeachment inquiry.

”President Trump had good reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in that country,” said Rep. Devin Nunes.

“When it comes to sending US taxpayer money overseas, the president is focused on burden sharing and corruption,” Trump’s impeachment defense insisted.

Had Trump expressed serious concern about corruption anywhere before he turned his eyes to Ukraine? From Sen. Ron Johnson, “If the subject was Ukraine, he’s expressed his concern about corruption in Ukraine, which everybody understood was endemic―including [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky, who won. So I haven’t talked to the president about other countries where that might have come up.”

Again and again they told us that Trump cared so much about corruption that he held up nearly $400 million in aid that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine and that the Defense Department had signed off on because of Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts. And then Trump goes ahead and commutes the sentence former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich got for trying to sell an open Senate seat to the highest bidder. He plans to pardon former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who committed perjury, tax fraud, and more. 

So it goes. Donald Trump cares about corruption like he cares about anyone not named Donald (or possibly Ivanka) Trump: only when it benefits him to claim he does.

18 Feb 20:49

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Irrational

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
This sort of thing happens about once a week.


Today's News:
18 Feb 20:48

The Rod Blagojevich scandal and Trump’s commutation of his sentence, explained

by Andrew Prokop
James.galbraith

He wants to make sure no corruption actually gets punished

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2012, just before he began his prison sentence. Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2012, just before he began his prison sentence. | Joe Amon/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Why the former Illinois governor is in prison — and why Trump just granted him clemency.

President Donald Trump commuted the remainder of the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) on corruption charges, he announced Tuesday — meaning Blagojevich, who has been in prison for nearly eight years, will be freed.

Blagojevich was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges related to his attempts to essentially sell the Senate seat Barack Obama left open when he won the presidential election in 2008. Blagojevich was also convicted of trying to extort a children’s hospital CEO and a racetrack executive for campaign contributions in exchange for policy changes, and of making false statements to the FBI.

It may seem odd that Trump helped out a corrupt Democrat. But Blagojevich had one major thing going for him: After his ouster from the governorship but before his trials, he appeared as a contestant on the Trump-hosted reality show The Celebrity Apprentice.

Since then, Trump has mused several times that Blagojevich got too harsh a sentence, often giving flat-out false descriptions of the case and the evidence against him. For instance, Trump said last August that Blagojevich has “been in jail for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call which he shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio you would say.”

This is not at all what happened. Prosecutors laid out wiretap evidence and witness testimony that, in many conversations spanning over a month, Blagojevich had schemed about what he could get in return for naming particular people to the Senate seat.

Among the possibilities he dangled were financial benefits for himself and his family — highly paid nonprofit gigs that he imagined Obama could arrange for him, or corporate board seats for his wife. Plus, he was convicted of other corruption offenses having nothing to do with the Senate seat. (You will note that Trump reprised that same basic “it was just one phone call” argument in his own defense, also misleadingly, during impeachment proceedings.)

But Trump has enjoyed using his pardon (and in this case, commutation) power to forgive somewhat notorious, politically controversial individuals: former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, conservative writer and documentarian Dinesh D’Souza, and former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby. And indeed, alongside the commutation for Blagojevich, Trump announced he was granting clemency to former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik and “junk bond king” Michael Milken.

And these latest moves are playing out amid controversy over the impending sentencings for Trump allies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. So they could well serve another purpose — further normalizing the granting of pardons and commutations to Trump’s friends, so Trump can eventually reward his associates who have run afoul of the law but remained “loyal” to him.

Because if you give clemency to the corrupt Democratic governor who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat, who won’t you give clemency to?

What was the Rod Blagojevich scandal?

After Blagojevich served as a Chicago-based prosecutor, state legislator, and Congress member, his political career peaked when he was elected governor of Illinois in 2002 and then won a second term in 2006. But he was quickly overshadowed by another Democratic rising star from his state, Barack Obama, who won a Senate seat in 2004 and then the presidency in 2008.

That latter win meant that Obama would have to resign his Senate seat — and that Gov. Blagojevich would get to appoint his replacement. Media reports claimed that Obama wanted his adviser Valerie Jarrett to get the spot.

But Blagojevich had other ideas. The Senate seat, he told an adviser, “is a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.” In another conversation, he elaborated: “I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing.” He also complained that his consultants were telling him to “suck it up” and give this “motherfucker” — Obama — “his senator.” He added: “For nothing? Fuck him.” (All of these conversations were wiretapped by the FBI.)

So what did Blagojevich want in return for naming Jarrett to the seat? He mused about several ideas:

  • A presidential appointment for him, preferably health and human services secretary
  • Obama could get him named the head of a private foundation (though it had to be for a large salary)
  • Obama could get “Warren Buffett types” to give millions in funding to a new nonprofit that Blagojevich would then run (with a substantial salary)
  • Paid corporate board positions for his wife

Blagojevich had his advisers get in touch with Obama’s to try to convey this information to them. But he didn’t hear back anything encouraging. He then turned to supporters of then-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who wanted Jackson to get the Senate seat — asking them for $1.5 million in “fundraising” in exchange for the appointment (and since Blagojevich had already decided not to run for a third term, prosecutors argued he wanted the money for his personal use). He even mused about naming himself to fill the vacancy.

But on December 5, the scheme came to a halt when the Chicago Tribune reported that Blagojevich had been recorded as part of a criminal investigation. Blagojevich was arrested days later and charged with various offenses related to trying to sell the Senate seat as well as other alleged incidents of corruption (it turns out this incident was representative of how Blagojevich tended to do business generally).

The news caused a national sensation — in part because of the scandal was close to the newly elected president and in part because those Blagojevich wiretap quotes above were so over the top. Blagojevich refused calls from Obama and others for his resignation and named former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the Senate vacancy. But shortly afterward, in January 2009, the state legislature impeached Blagojevich and removed him from office.

Then Blagojevich went on The Celebrity Apprentice

Later that year, while awaiting trial, the former governor made what could prove to be one of the most important decisions of his life: He became a contestant on Donald Trump’s reality TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice.

Blagojevich made it four weeks but stumbled in a challenge to design a Harry Potter 3D experience for Universal Studios. His team’s display called the famed school for witchcraft and wizardry “Hogwards” rather than “Hogwarts” and referred to “classes” rather than “houses.”

“Your Harry Potter facts were not accurate!” Trump thundered. “Who did the research?”

“I wrote a lot of the text,” Blagojevich admitted. “I was the one who said ‘houses’ and ‘classes’ interchangeably, because I was trying to be more explicit, so people can get a concept of it. But it’s Slithering (sic) and it’s Hufflepuff and it’s Ravencloth (sic)...” Anyway, he was fired, but the point is he got to spend some quality time with the future president.

What Blagojevich ended up convicted for

In 2010, Blagojevich had what turned out to be his first trial. There, he was convicted on one count of making false statements to the FBI (he had told them he didn’t keep track of who gave him campaign donations), but the jury couldn’t reach a verdict on 23 other counts. (A juror told the New York Times that some jurors concluded Blagojevich had just been “doing a lot of talking.”)

But the deadlocked jury meant prosecutors had the opportunity to try Blagojevich again. They did so in 2011 — and this time, they got their man. Blagojevich was convicted on 17 counts. Most of these were wire fraud and conspiracy charges related to Obama’s Senate seat. But let’s not forget the other corruption incidents he was convicted of:

  • The hospital shakedown: After lobbyists for Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago asked Blagojevich to increase the reimbursement rate for Medicaid payments, Blagojevich communicated to them that he’d do so in exchange for a “campaign contribution” of $50,000.
  • The racetrack executive shakedown: After the Illinois legislature passed an extension for a program designed to help out racetracks by taxing casinos, Blagojevich delayed signing it to try to get $100,000 in “campaign” contributions from a racetrack executive. He communicated that he wouldn’t sign the bill before he got the donations.

Eventually, Blagojevich got five of these counts thrown out on appeal, due to a technicality related to jury instructions. An appellate panel concluded that it would not, in fact, have been illegal for Blagojevich to try to trade the Senate appointment for a Cabinet appointment for himself, since both are “public acts.” Now, Blagojevich had also sought various financial and private benefits (the nonprofits posts for him and board seats for his wife), and the appellate judges agreed there was “sufficient” evidence to convict him for that reason. But the jury had been told that they could convict him even if only the Cabinet allegation was proven.

This was hardly a resounding vindication for Blagojevich, since the judges also called the “evidence” of his guilt “overwhelming,” pointing out that much of it was “from Blagojevich’s own mouth.” And in the end, it didn’t change his sentence, which turned out to be a hefty 14 years.

This is the latest in Trump’s series of political pardons or commutations

Ordinarily, Blagojevich would have little hope of a pardon or commutation — his offense seems absurdly corrupt, and what president would want to be seen as waving away his crimes?

But then he got extraordinarily lucky when his old reality TV host Donald Trump became president. Trump doesn’t seem particularly disturbed by corruption, when it’s practiced by his friends or allies, at least. And, even more importantly, Trump seems to have discovered that ... he kind of likes pardoning people. There have been three main precursors to the kind of commuted sentence Blagojevich would represent.

1) Joe Arpaio: The former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Arpaio was a favorite of the anti-immigrant right for “cracking down” on unauthorized immigrants (as well as for stunts like making his inmates wear pink underwear). But the Justice Department (under President Obama) found he had been rampantly racially profiling Latinos, so the courts tried to get him to rein in his practices. He refused and was charged with criminal contempt of court, lost reelection, and was convicted.

But in August 2017, before Arpaio was even sentenced, Trump pardoned him, in the first pardon of his presidency. The Arpaio pardon served Trump’s policy aims because he was trying to encourage officials to “get tough” on unauthorized immigrants across the country. Trump was also rewarding a political ally who had endorsed him early in his campaign. And he spun it as mercy — as helping a then-85-year-old man avoid prison.

2) Scooter Libby: Trump’s next big political pardon was for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney during George W. Bush’s administration. Libby had become embroiled in the investigation over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his contacts with journalists over the matter. President Bush commuted Libby’s 30-month prison sentence in 2007, so he never served any time. But Bush notably refused to grant him a full pardon, despite frequent appeals from Cheney.

Trump then decided to grant Libby that full pardon in April 2018. Though Libby had many friends in the conservative movement who long pushed for the move, the pardon was mainly symbolic, since his sentence was already commuted. But many speculated about just what symbolism Trump intended, in the midst of the Mueller investigation. Was he sending a message that aides who remained loyal to him would also be rewarded — even if they lied to the FBI?

3) Dinesh D’Souza: Next came Trump’s pardon for D’Souza, the longtime (and controversial) conservative author and commentator. In 2012, D’Souza had told two people to donate $10,000 each to an old friend’s Senate campaign and promised to pay them back the money himself. This, however, was illegal, and D’Souza eventually pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law for it.

But D’Souza argued he only pleaded guilty to avert more serious charges and portrayed himself as targeted by Obama’s supposedly corrupt Justice Department for political reasons. That is the exact narrative Trump wanted to promote — and so he pardoned D’Souza in May 2018.

The Blagojevich commutation happened after a delay — and as all eyes are turning toward Roger Stone and Michael Flynn

Just after the D’Souza pardon nearly two years ago, Trump told reporters that “there’s another one I’m thinking about, Rod Blagojevich.”

Indeed, Blagojevich’s supporters (most notably his wife Patti) have fashioned several arguments designed to appeal to Trump personally in a campaign that has included a formal clemency petition as well as appeals during Fox News appearances.

The most accurate point Trump has made is simply that Blagojevich has been in prison for a long time. He has: nearly eight years. However, Trump also claimed he got an 18-year sentence, which is wrong; it was 14 years.

Most notably, Blagojevich’s supporters have argued that Blagojevich was a victim of a corrupt and political FBI “deep state,” exaggerating ordinary political behavior into crimes — with the implication being that he’s just like Trump.

This argument seems to have resonated with Trump — he said last August that Blagojevich had been “treated unbelievably unfairly” by “the Comey gang.”

Now, former FBI Director James Comey was not even in the federal government for the time spanning Blagojevich’s 2008 arrest to his 2011 conviction. (The FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller.) But Trump is probably referring to Patrick Fitzgerald, the Northern Illinois US attorney who prosecuted Blagojevich as well as Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald is a close friend of Comey’s, and now that he’s back in private practice, he’s Comey’s lawyer.

Trump also has been repeating a false description of the Blagojevich case, claiming he was only charged for what he said on one phone call that could have been just talk. In fact, the charges related to a month’s worth of discussions and three separate corruption-related incidents. It is true that no money ended up changing hands, but that certainly wasn’t for lack of trying on Blagojevich’s part.

Trump brought up commuting Blagojevich’s sentence unprompted multiple times over the past two years, making clear he wanted to do it. But each time he did so, he faced pushback, as Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported. Republican members of Congress in Illinois were understandably appalled by the idea, and even most White House staff seemed to think it was a bad look. So, for a while, Trump was hesitant to go through with it.

But it seems obvious why the idea was so consistently tempting. Trump wants to normalize corrupt behavior from himself and his allies, he wants to set precedents that pardoning corrupt friends of the president is okay, and he wants to further cement the narrative that any FBI corruption investigations that touch on his allies are “deep state” frame-ups.

That’s particularly relevant to three of his close allies who faced charges in the Mueller investigation: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.

About a year ago, Manafort was sentenced to a combined seven-and-a-half years for tax fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy, and witness tampering. But so far, Trump has done nothing to ameliorate his former campaign chair’s sentence — he remains behind bars, where he has been for nearly two years now (he was jailed before his trials for violating his conditions of release).

Then there was former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Flynn agreed to cooperate with the government, but eventually reneged on the deal and is now seeking to have his guilty plea thrown out. His sentencing was originally scheduled for this month but it has been delayed.

Finally, there’s longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted for obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering. Stone is due to be sentenced this Thursday, and Attorney General Bill Barr controversially intervened to water down prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for him (spurring all four prosecutors to quit the case).

So if Trump gives Blagojevich clemency and the political system yawns (or briefly protests and then moves on to the next thing), it could be less of a stretch for him to pardon Manafort, Flynn, or Stone later.

And there’s one other likely reason the idea appeals to him so much. He probably looks at Rod Blagojevich — wiretapped by the FBI discussing all sorts of corrupt ideas and then convicted and sent to prison — and thinks, There but for the grace of God go I.

18 Feb 20:44

Court blocks North Carolina GOP's voter ID law for intentionally discriminating against black voters

by Stephen Wolf
James.galbraith

No shit

On Tuesday, a panel of three judges on North Carolina's Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower court's ruling and ordered it to grant a preliminary injunction blocking Republicans' voter ID law until the case gets decided on the merits. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in demonstrating that Republicans had enacted the law with the unconstitutional intent to discriminate against black voters.

This ruling is the second time this year that a court has blocked this voter ID law, and a federal court had already issued its own preliminary injunction in a separate case ahead of an upcoming trial. Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein previously announced he would wait until after the March 3 primaries to appeal the federal ruling (Republicans aren't party to that case, but Stein has a general obligation to defend state laws in most instances), so the voter ID requirement was already on hold for next month's vote. However, this latest ruling could mean that it remains suspended through the November general election, too.

Tuesday's ruling comes nearly four years after the GOP's previous voter ID law was struck down for what a federal court described as an effort to target black voters "with almost surgical precision." When passing their first voter ID law, Republicans had ordered data on which types of IDs black voters were disproportionately less likely to possess, then categorically excluded those types of IDs.

Republicans responded to the 2016 ruling by placing a vaguely worded constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2018 to establish a new ID requirement. After voters approved the amendment, GOP lawmakers used their illegally gerrymandered supermajorities to pass a statute implementing it in the lame-duck session of the legislature, over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto.

However, the voter ID constitutional amendment does not require the specific form of voter ID statute that Republicans had enacted, nor does it override the state constitution's other provisions guaranteeing equal protection and the right to vote in free and fair elections. Consequently, the plaintiffs had been arguing that the GOP's statutory requirement violated the state constitution, and Tuesday's ruling strongly suggests that they will prevail on the merits. If the Republican defendants in the state case ultimately appeal to the state Supreme Court, they may have no better odds of success before the high court's 6-1 Democratic majority.

In addition, the amendment itself is facing a lawsuit of its own. In a separate case, the NAACP has argued that because the legislature was improperly constituted since its members had been elected under illegally gerrymandered maps that were later struck down by the courts, lawmakers lacked the authority to amend the constitution. A state court agreed last year and struck down the amendment, but the state Court of Appeals has stayed the ruling while GOP legislators appeal.

18 Feb 20:42

Clone Wars S7 premiere brings the war to Star Wars—and hints of closure

by Ars Staff
James.galbraith

Very excited to see this

Could we squeeze a few more lightsabers into this <em>Clone Wars</em> poster image, Lucasfilm?

Enlarge / Could we squeeze a few more lightsabers into this Clone Wars poster image, Lucasfilm? (credit: Lucasfilm)

After a long road to The Clone Wars’ final season, the animated series returns to wrap up a story over a decade in the making. The opening episodes of the new season—which debuts on Friday, February 21, exclusively on Disney+—are by turns thrilling, funny, and as good as anything the series’ live-action side has ever turned out.

But appreciating how far The Clone Wars has traveled to get to this point is impossible without tracing the series' previous steps.

After cancellation, a return of familiar story arcs

  • The Bad Batch, left to right: Tech, Crosshair, Wrecker. [credit: Lucasfilm ]

Minor plot spoilers for the entire series, and a preview of the new episodes' plot, follow below.

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

18 Feb 20:40

Federal judges call emergency meeting to address 'deepening crisis' in the justice system

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

This is a huge deal

One day after 2,000 former officials of the Department of Justice called on Attorney General William Barr to resign, an association of 1,100 federal judges has called an emergency meeting to address concerns about Barr’s interference in cases for political purposes and the absolute destruction of the the Justice Department’s long tradition of holding itself at a distance from the White House.

Barr has acted to soften sentencing of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. He has launched multiple investigations into the FBI and DOJ personnel involved in the Trump-Russia affair, even though the DOJ inspector general had already addressed those concerns. Barr has even created a hand-selected team of prosecutors to look into cases for purely political purposes—an internal team of political control officers that would fit perfectly into a Stalinist dystopia. 

It’s a master class in corruption, and the whole judiciary system is under threat.

As USA Today reports, the politically independent Federal Judges Association has called for an “emergency meeting” to address issues generated by Barr’s interference and Donald Trump’s continued threats to the judiciary. The president of the group, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, said that the judges could not wait for their normal spring meeting. Instead, they feel the need to gather now to address this “deepening crisis” that threatens the system of justice.

The emergency meeting will be held on Tuesday. It’s not known how the judges will respond to the threat to justice from Barr and Trump, or if they will issue any formal statement at the end of the meeting.

As The Washington Post reports, this meeting is just one part of a “week of turmoil” stemming from the overtly political use of the Department of Justice in the Stone and Flynn cases, and from Barr’s admission that he is personally taking charge of cases of interest to Trump. With Trump continuing to rain down rants and threats against judge, prosecutors, and juries, and Barr publicly tilting the scales of justice, it’s impossible to maintain any faith in an impartial judiciary.

As Barr has been systematically shaping the DOJ into a service that protects Trump’s friends and persecutes his enemies, Trump has been openly attacking federal judges, career prosecutors, and even members of federal juries. The disruption from both directions has already demonstrated that actual justice isn’t possible where Barr and Trump are concerned. Both the Stone and the Flynn trials have seen sentencing guidelines reduced and prosecutors replaced, while Trump hurls invective at the judges, calls the whole system a sham, and broadly hints that he’ll just pardon his cronies if they are convicted.

Barr’s internal assault may be somewhat less visible, but it’s even more insidious and damaging. From the moment he recast the outcome of the Mueller report, Barr has made it clear that his purpose at the Justice Department is to protect Trump and his allies. That includes using the powers of the FBI and DOJ to chase down anyone seen as a threat. Truth and facts are not factors.

The letter from former officials of the Justice Department described Barr’s actions as a “grave threat to the fair administration of justice,” as Barr and his cadre of Trumpist officials fail to uphold the department’s oath to “defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.” The letter lauded the four career prosecutors who resigned after Barr stepped in to change the sentencing proposal for Roger Stone as “heroes,” and made the results of the actions of Trump and Barr absolutely clear, writing, “Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.” By Monday evening, this letter had been signed by more than 2,000 former officials of the DOJ, most of whom had served in Republican administrations.

On Tuesday morning, Trump began the day with tweets once again attacking Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the presiding judge in the Roger Stone case. Despite Stone’s conviction on seven counts, Trump is now demanding a new trial and continuing to charge that the jury was biased against Stone.

18 Feb 20:29

School That Forced Out Two Gay Teachers for Becoming Engaged to be Hit with Massive Protest: WATCH

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Fucking religious nutjobs

Sean Nyberg (left) with his fiancé Paul Danforth.

A student and parent protest is set to take place today at Kennedy Catholic High School in Burien, Washington after two gay teachers were forced from their jobs after becoming engaged to their same-sex partners.

Paul Danforth and Michelle Beattie

The Stranger reports: “The teachers, Paul Danforth and Michelle Beattie, had both been employed by the school for six years. Both became engaged to their partners last year, and according to a source familiar with the matter, when they informed school leadership, they were told they could continue their employment at the school if they agreed to keep their engagements private or they could resign and be bought out of their contracts. The teachers reportedly chose the latter option and were officially dismissed from their positions last week, after several months of turmoil. Danforth, who taught English, is a graduate of KCHS as well as the son of a former faculty member. Beattie taught health and fitness and coached soccer. Both teachers, according to sources, were well-liked by both students and parents, and some alumni have joined the chorus protesting their resignations.”

Students spoke to Q13 FOX about the protests planned for Tuesday.

The Seattle-area school released a statement on Friday claiming the teachers resigned voluntarily: “Two teachers, Paul Danforth and Michelle Beattie, have voluntarily resigned their positions at Kennedy Catholic High School. They are highly capable, gifted, and qualified teachers, who have served our community with dedication and humility. Their loss will be felt deeply by their students and the entire community. We are thankful to Paul and Michelle for their years of service.”

Said Danforth’s fiancé Sean Nyberg in a statement to Q13 FOX News: “This is not only personally painful, it also harms their former students who looked up to them, families that don’t know how to explain this to their children, young LGBT students who will feel even more shame and guilt and will weaken a community that seeks love and acceptance.”

Nyberg’s full statement below:

A fundraiser for the teachers has raised more than $30K. A Change.org petition calling for the Diocese to re-hire the teachers has more than 13,000 signatures.

The post School That Forced Out Two Gay Teachers for Becoming Engaged to be Hit with Massive Protest: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

18 Feb 20:25

Fox News host shuts down strategist who points out Trump has 'cheated on all' of his wives

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

Seriously...

Jessica Tarlov is a senior strategist with Schoen Consulting, a firm that boasts campaign strategy work for people like Mike Bloomberg and HBO. She is also a frequent contributor to Fox News, coming on as a “Democratic Strategist.” On Monday, Tarlov was on America’s Newsroom, a Fox News show that is every bit as newsroom-y as you might expect from Fox. She was there to discuss Pete Buttigieg’s appearance on the Sunday news shows and specifically his responses to Rush Limbaugh’s homophobic attacks on his same-sex marriage. It’s a way for Fox News to keep playing homophobic statements made by right-wing pundits while playing at being a newsroom.

Newsroom co-host Sandra Smith asked Tarlov for her thoughts on the matter. Tarlov started within the boundaries for Fox News, pointing out that Rush Limbaugh and conservatives are a wee bit full of shit and clearly homophobic when talking about the sanctity of marriage, pointing out “You see a loving, monogamous couple like Pete Buttigieg and Chasten, his husband, up there showing what is possible. That someone who is in a same-sex relationship could be running for president and doing as well. And then they’re torn down by Rush Limbaugh, who’s been married four times I think.”

This was all well and good, but Tarlov then added “And we have Donald Trump, three times married, cheated on all of those wives, and you hear—“, this is when Sandra Smith cut in to strangely say “—Let’s not bring in personal relationships.” A stiflingly bizarre thing to say, and something Tarlov pointed out was incongruous as the attack on Buttigieg was clearly “personal” in nature. Smith pivoted to repeating Limbaugh’s homophobic quote, and then threw to another pundit, one who wasn’t going to point out that Donald Trump is a scumbag and the people that support him are scumbags. 

Limbaugh’s comments and his bloated hypocrisy have been a big win in many respects for Pete Buttigieg, allowing the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to go toe-to-toe with Republicans. 

YouTube Video

17 Feb 21:57

For Republicans in Trump's cover-up it wasn't about 'heads on pikes,' it was all about the money

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

And yet it'll go unremarked on by the media at large

In the latest Daily Kos/Civiqs poll, fully 60% of Americans disapprove of how the U.S. Senate conducted Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. The behavior of Senate Republicans following that trial probably won't get many cheers, either. The three most closely watched Republicans during the trial, those who pretended to be open-minded and committed to doing their jobs, have all popped up in the last few days with slathering praise for the Trump administration which let loose all the money once the trial was done. It turns out the issue wasn’t the threat of heads on pikes at all. It was all about the bribes.

Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats end McConnell's career as majority leader.

Retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander tweeted to thank Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Trump for the investment of "$9 million in Tennessee to provide and improve high-speed broadband infrastructure projects for 3,744 rural households, 31 businesses and 41 farms."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski had Transportation Secretary and Moscow Mitch spouse Elaine Chao to thank for "a $20M Port Infrastructure Development Program grant to the Port of Alaska to help offset the 1st phase costs of the Port’s desperately-needed modernization program, enabling safe, cost-effective, & reliable Port operations." That's a whole 1% of the estimated cost for the port. Was it worth a vote to keep the worst president ever to sit in the Oval Office?

You know, of course, who else is getting in on the action:

Great news! 19 Housing Authorities in Maine have been awarded more than $9.5 million to preserve & modernize affordable housing units that serve individuals with disabilities & low-income individuals and families.https://t.co/9FzNcL197P

— Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) February 13, 2020

Could they be more blatant? No. The answer is no. 

17 Feb 21:49

iPad Pro Update Expected 'Around March,' but Production Slow to Ramp Up

by Eric Slivka
James.galbraith

Great, but we've been waiting the better part of a year for an actual update. Come on already.

Rumors have been pointing toward a significant iPad Pro update in the first half of this year, including a new triple-lens rear camera system supporting 3D sensing for immersive augmented reality experiences.

MacRumors concept of ‌‌iPad Pro‌‌ with triple-lens rear camera system
In a new paywalled blurb published today, DigiTimes claims that production on the device has already begun with a launch expected "around March," which is Apple's usual timeframe for a spring media event in years that it chooses to hold one. The blurb also says that production has been slow to ramp up following the Lunar New Year holiday, with impacts from the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic presumably also playing a role.
Apple is scheduled to launch its new ‌iPad Pro‌ series around March, with related suppliers already kicking off production for the model ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday. However, their output has started growing slowly after the extended Lunar New Year break in China with shipments unlikely to peak until after April, according to industry sources.
It's looking like Apple has a fairly significant slate of products ready for updates, so the company may indeed hold a spring media event this year. In addition to updated ‌iPad Pro‌ models, we're also expecting a new low-cost "iPhone SE 2" or "iPhone 9," an updated 13-inch MacBook Pro with the improved scissor-switch keyboard from the 16-inch model, and possibly a few other products.

We'll update this article with any additional details once DigiTimes expands its blurb into a full story.

Related Roundup: iPad Pro

This article, "iPad Pro Update Expected 'Around March,' but Production Slow to Ramp Up" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

17 Feb 21:26

Kellyanne Conway: Bloomberg’s sexist comments ‘far worse’ than Trump’s

by Evan Semones
James.galbraith

Fuck you Conway


White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Sunday slammed sexist remarks Mike Bloomberg reportedly made to women who worked for him, saying they are “far worse” than what President Donald Trump said on the infamous “Access Hollywood“ tape.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that a booklet was given to the Democratic presidential candidate in 1990 that contained a collection of sexist remarks he made during his time at the company he founded. The Post article discussed his history of problematic remarks and behavior to women.

Conway told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that Bloomberg’s comments are “fair game,” even though Trump has faced similar allegations of misogynistic remarks.

“That was fully litigated,” Conway said about profane remarks Trump admitted to making about women in a 2005 “Access Hollywood“ tape that was leaked shortly before the 2016 election. “We want to know the person behind the half a billion dollars worth of ads.”


Trump on Bloomberg: Unlike him 'I'm looking to bring the country together'


Bloomberg, having experienced a rise in national polls, is now facing heightened scrutiny over his political and personal history. He has denied many of the allegations made against him, but Conway predicted they would become a greater issue for the three-term New York mayor.

“The way Michael Bloomberg treated female employees … to have created that kind of culture, that unsafe workplace, to feel that you're being harassed because of your gender, that is problematic,” Conway said. “I think you're going to hear more of it.”

17 Feb 21:23

Farmageddon movie review: Stop-motion sheep > CG hedgehog

by Peter Opaskar
Promotional image for Farmaggedon.

Enlarge / This promotional image isn't actually in Farmaggedon, but it sums up the mood of the movie. (credit: Aardman Animations)

Do you like stop-motion animation? I love stop-motion animation. I can't remember a time when I didn't love stop-motion. From King Kong to the California Raisins—put that good stuff straight into my veins.

The current champion of stop-motion is Aardman Animations, which mostly works in a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine that is equal parts cutting-edge and charmingly handmade. I stumbled across an Aardman short called The Wrong Trousers (1993) on PBS in high school, and I was hooked. The film follows a pathologically British inventor named Wallace and his long-suffering dog, Gromit. In Trousers and their other various adventures, Wallace displays a profound lack of proportionality: he builds Rube Goldberg inventions when a butter knife would do, he buys robotic pants to help paint his walls, and he constructs a rocket to go to the Moon when he runs out of cheese. He also lives in a universe where everyone has more teeth than could possibly fit in their mouths.

I love Aardman's stuff for two big reasons: I love the way it looks, and I love its worldview. An Aardman production combines near-miraculous feats of stop-motion with characters who mostly have resting "durrr" face. Aardman's clay tears glisten like real water, but since running is a physical impossibility for stop-motion figures, they just walk hilariously fast instead. I love that the chickens in Chicken Run (2000) use their "hands" to cram feed into their mouths even though it would probably have been easier to show them pecking like real birds. The animators went out of their way to be inaccurate. In the universe of Aardman, "charming" trumps "realistic." (Also, Aardman did the 1986 music video for Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer" in conjunction with—holy cow—the Brothers Quay.)

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

17 Feb 21:02

Drudge floats the implausible: A Bloomberg-Clinton ticket

by Evan Semones
James.galbraith

World of no


Matt Drudge, the famous news aggregator and internet provocateur, shattered the lull of an otherwise calm Saturday morning with a big-if-true bombshell: “EXCLUSIVE: BLOOMBERG CONSIDERS HILLARY RUNNING MATE.”

“Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...,” the tweet continued, pointing to Drudge’s eponymous website, where the scoop was played in underlined type above the scroll and a bright-red all-caps headline.

Drudge, of course, has a long and complicated history with Clinton-related news, having broken the Monica Lewinsky affair with Bill in 1998 and then given surprisingly favorable treatment to Hillary’s 2008 campaign.

As outlets from CNBC to the New York Post to the U.K.‘s Daily Mail played up Saturday’s story, Bloomberg’s campaign downplayed the report, but didn’t deny it.

“We are focused on the primary and the debate, not VP speculation,’ Jason Schechter, the campaign’s communications director, said in a statement.

Drudge also reported that the billionaire was looking to change his residency from New York, where Clinton also resides, to “homes he owns” in Colorado or Florida. Although subject to interpretation, the Constitution’s 12th Amendment states that presidential and vice presidential candidates shall not be an inhabitant of the same state.

By Saturday afternoon, Drudge was linking from his own homepage to the report carried in the Daily Mail citing Drudge’s own as yet unconfirmed scoop.

News of the possible Bloomberg-Clinton ticket drew swift reaction online, with Trumpworld figures relishing the idea.

“I can think of absolutely NOTHING that would make @realDonaldTrump and his supporters happier,” conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted. “Do it, @HillaryClinton. Make our day.”

Others, including former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller, threw cold water on the prospect of Bloomberg selecting the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate as his running mate, calling it a “smokescreen” to ensure other Democratic candidates don’t receive attention.

“Crooked would add partisan lightning rod dynamic Bloomberg *currently* avoids in the general,” Miller wrote.

Some also pointed out that Drudge had recently lost some legitimacy in Trumpworld after running a series of stories criticizing the president. Could it be a way to get back onside with the president and his supporters — or was it typical Drudge mischief-making?

Others, meanwhile, noted the report clouded the news cycle after the New York Times and Washington Post released deep-dive stories on Saturday morning that detailed Bloomberg’s philanthropy-for-influence network and history of alleged sexist comments respectively.

By Saturday afternoon, Clinton had not publicly responded to the report.

But earlier this month, Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres in an interview that she “probably” wouldn’t be asked to be a vice presidential candidate. “Never say never,” Clinton said, but “it’s not going to happen.”

Meanwhile, Trump himself has yet to weigh in on two of his pet subjects on Saturday: gossip concerning his erstwhile political nemesis, and his newer rivals on the 2020 trail.

17 Feb 19:20

Asked to Name Mexican President by Telemundo, 2 of These 3 Candidates Had Trouble: WATCH

by Towleroad
James.galbraith

At least someone was marginally prepared for the job they're auditioning for

Democratic presidential candidates Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg sat down for interviews with Spanish-language network Telemundo on Friday in Nevada after a candidate forum hosted by the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization.

The AP notes that Steyer, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg were the only candidates to attend while Sanders relayed a video message: “Nevada has a large immigrant population, and Hispanics are a critical constituency for Democrats. The state will be the third to weigh in on the Democratic presidential nomination when it holds its caucuses Feb. 22.”

But only Buttigieg could name the president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The post Asked to Name Mexican President by Telemundo, 2 of These 3 Candidates Had Trouble: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Feb 23:20

Trump's desperation for reelection dirt has made the Justice Department a living hell

by Kerry Eleveld
James.galbraith

Get a hearing or three together NOW

Donald Trump is growing impatient. Following the supposed clean bill of health he got from Senate Republicans' sham trial, Trump thinks it's time for the Justice Department to start producing. For him. And while Trump's overt interventions in the sentencing of his allies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn have garnered the most headlines this week, it's his desperation for the department to manufacture dirt to aid his reelection campaign that's making life a living hell at the agency.

The chief piece of dirt that Trump wants now and has always yearned for is one he can use to claim the Russia investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt all along. But to date, all the probes initiated to prove that have concluded just the opposite. The department's Inspector General found no political bias behind the FBI's initiation of the Russia probe, which included scrutiny of the Trump campaign's ties to the Kremlin. Trump had been counting on that report, but not to worry. Perhaps the other two inquiries into the Russia investigation led by Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber (tapped by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions) and Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham (tapped by current AG William Barr) would deliver. But as the Washington Post reported Thursday, Huber's years-long probe isn't turning up any criminal acts either, leaving Durham as Trump's last great hope for decimating the origins of the Russia probe.

"After learning that the Huber investigation is not likely to produce charges, Trump has become more insistent that Durham finish his work soon," writes the Post. "Trump, these people said, wants to be able to use whatever Durham finds as a cudgel in his reelection campaign."

More than likely, Trump's impatience is what is actually making Barr's work "impossible," as he put it in a new interview with ABC News. Beyond tampering with sentencing in the Flynn and Stone cases, Barr has opened an entirely new investigation into the origins of the investigation into Michael Flynn. Barr reportedly tapped another U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeffrey Jensen, to review the interview FBI agents conducted with Flynn early in Trump's presidency that ultimately led to a felony count of lying to the FBI, according to NBC News. (Yet another Barr investigate the investigators special.) As luck would have it for Trump, that new inquiry about the Flynn case could involve several of Trump's favorite archenemies: former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.  

Parallel to that query, Barr has also assembled a team of prosecutors to comb through cases of interest to Trump, no doubt looking for any toeholds that might produce the outcomes Trump wants. The New York Times mentions the Flynn and Stone cases explicitly but also reports some cases under review aren't public.   

Honestly, goodness knows where this team of apparent interrogators is rooting around, but the strains of this micro-managed oversight came into full public view this week when four prosecutors on the Stone case withdrew from it and one quit the Justice Department altogether.

But Barr, who appears to be on the brink of inspiring an insurrection, doesn't seem particularly concerned about the sudden push back from his staff members. Asked by ABC News about what motivated their withdrawals, Barr gave no indication that he cared.  

BARR: I don't know why they resigned.

ABC NEWS: So you've not had a chance to talk to them?

BARR: No.

One group of people that is showing an interest in the exit of those prosecutors from the Stone case are House Democrats, who are mulling the idea of trying to secure testimony from them. They absolutely should because there's clearly far more lurking beneath the surface here at the Justice Department, and the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia appears to be at the epicenter of it all.

14 Feb 22:58

‘Straight Up Nazi Sh*t’: Trump Deploys Heavily Armed Tactical Units to Sanctuary Cities

by John Wright
James.galbraith

What the fuck

The Trump administration is deploying heavily armed SWAT teams from the Southern border to sanctuary cities across the U.S. to assist with immigration enforcement.

The New York Times reported Friday afternoon that the “supercharged arrest operation” represents “an escalation in the president’s battle against localities that refuse to participate in immigration enforcement.”

From the NYT: The specially trained officers are being sent to cities including Chicago and New York to boost the enforcement power of local ICE officers, according to two officials who are familiar with the secret operation. Additional agents are expected to be sent to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Newark, N.J. The move reflects President Trump’s persistence in cracking down on sanctuary cities, localities that have refused to cooperate in handing over immigrants targeted for deportation to federal authorities. It comes soon after the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a series of measures that will affect both American citizens and immigrants living in those places. Lawrence Payne, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, confirmed the agency was deploying 100 officers to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducts arrests in the interior of the country, “in order to enhance the integrity of the immigration system, protect public safety, and strengthen our national security.”

More from the American Independent: Trump has often attacked and criticized sanctuary cities as part of his anti-immigrant rhetoric. “The state of California passed an outrageous law declaring their whole state to be a sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants — a very terrible sanctuary — with catastrophic results,” Trump said in his recent State of the Union address. At a campaign rally in New Hampshire, Trump complained about “left-wing politicians” who “support sanctuary cities that release criminal aliens directly into the American community.” Under Trump, immigrant communities have expressed fears about agencies like ICE coming into communities and separating families from each other. In some instances, ICE has even apprehended and detained American citizens, despite claims that they only target migrants.

A few reactions from Twitter below.

The post ‘Straight Up Nazi Sh*t’: Trump Deploys Heavily Armed Tactical Units to Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

14 Feb 22:38

House Democrat acts to end Trump's border wall piracy, Senate Republicans look the other way

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

Of course

Rep. Joaquin Castro has, once again, introduced his resolution to terminate the emergency declaration by impeached president Donald Trump that he's using to steal military funding for the border wall. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are keeping mum.

The Texas Democrat has now introduced his resolution three times. In a statement Friday, he said "President Trump's latest power grab is the result of losing a political fight with Congress." Congress has previously voted to terminate his emergency declaration and to stop the diversion of funds. "Raiding these funds to build a wall does nothing to make us safe nor does it address the real humanitarian crisis across our southern border," Castro continued. "Our military families continue to be collateral damage in the President's unending quest to fulfill this bigoted campaign promise."

Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as majority leader.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee points out that the funds being raided are in plenty of vulnerable Republican senators' home states. "Republican Senators on the ballot in 2020 including Thom Tillis, Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Joni Ernst, David Perdue, John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell have all previously voted to uphold the president’s abuse of the national emergency declaration to divert military project funding, including millions from projects in many of their own states."

14 Feb 22:25

9 Senate Democrats call on Barr to resign over 'clear violation of your duty'

by Laura Clawson
James.galbraith

He absolutely needs to go. In the meantime, FUCKING INVESTIGATE.

Trump Attorney General William Barr’s latest abuses of the justice system have nine Senate Democrats calling on him to resign. Their letter describes the “unethical political intervention” of top Justice Department officials in the Roger Stone case as “a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial, and equal justice for all Americans.”

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, Ed Markey, Patty Murray, Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, and Mazie Hirono signed the letter. They point out that, in addition to “interven[ing] in a clearly political fashion to undermine the administration of justice at the President’s behest in order to protect a well-connected political ally,” Barr’s action “demonstrates that you lied to Congress during your confirmation hearing when you stated that you would ‘keep the enforcement process sacrosanct from political influence.’”

Barr will obviously not resign—he’s right where he wants to be, doing exactly what he wants to be doing. But the Democrats can at least draw the media’s attention to the fact that part of what Barr is doing is lying to the media. Along with, of course, causing four prosecutors to quit the Stone case when he dialed back sentencing recommendations for Donald Trump’s buddy and working with Rudy Giuliani to investigate Trump’s political opponents.

Read the whole letter:

9 Sen Ds have sent a ltr to AG Barr calling on him to resign for what they call �a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial, & equal justice� in relation to Roger Stone case. 9 who signed: Warren Blumenthal Markey Murray Merkley Van Hollen Wyden Sanders Hirono pic.twitter.com/V0fVKVighL

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) February 14, 2020