I literally was just laughing so damn hard to myself I almost shit myself. Holy fuck.
So yes or no odds are -180/+140 that at least one person from this forum if not multiple are talking madddddd shit to Heather Cox Richardson ever since I started posting. LMFAOOOO. I just seen a video she did. I was just dying because I swear to God it was like she was talking straight to you guys. It was straight up like some of you read these(not going to say any names) and went on your social media hate tantrum tirade.
Im willing to bet I know who it was too but I’m not going to say any names. Too funny. She was bitch slapping a lot of people here it sounded like. Classic.
And btw she also did a Q&A. First question....”are you a liberal or a conservative?”
Her answer.....”I’m grounded in history. And I’m neither.”
She’s great.
So yes or no odds are -180/+140 that at least one person from this forum if not multiple are talking madddddd shit to Heather Cox Richardson ever since I started posting. LMFAOOOO. I just seen a video she did. I was just dying because I swear to God it was like she was talking straight to you guys. It was straight up like some of you read these(not going to say any names) and went on your social media hate tantrum tirade.
Im willing to bet I know who it was too but I’m not going to say any names. Too funny. She was bitch slapping a lot of people here it sounded like. Classic.
And btw she also did a Q&A. First question....”are you a liberal or a conservative?”
Her answer.....”I’m grounded in history. And I’m neither.”
She’s great.
She goes.....
People don’t have to like what I am saying. I’m thrilled when people don’t like what I’m saying. But don’t come at me with, “you’re an idiot, you’re a libtard, you’re a feminist,” any of these ad hominem attacks because that doesn’t say anything. Come at me with, “these documents prove you’re wrong.” And convince me those documents matter more than the documents I have or the speeches I have or the laws I have or the court decisions I have. Because I’m a historian. We keep the records. I want to see the records. I don’t want to hear...”well...Sean Hannity says...” I don’t care what Sean Hannity says. I want to care what document Sean Hannity is building from.”
Holy fuck. Wow. Lmfaoooooooooooo bahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahah Ohhhhhh shit
People don’t have to like what I am saying. I’m thrilled when people don’t like what I’m saying. But don’t come at me with, “you’re an idiot, you’re a libtard, you’re a feminist,” any of these ad hominem attacks because that doesn’t say anything. Come at me with, “these documents prove you’re wrong.” And convince me those documents matter more than the documents I have or the speeches I have or the laws I have or the court decisions I have. Because I’m a historian. We keep the records. I want to see the records. I don’t want to hear...”well...Sean Hannity says...” I don’t care what Sean Hannity says. I want to care what document Sean Hannity is building from.”
Holy fuck. Wow. Lmfaoooooooooooo bahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahah Ohhhhhh shit
I’m speechless really. Like wow. This lady is something special man. She could literally shit on this entire forum in a debate 1 vs everybody like some Michael Jordan shit. Kind of how like I do you guys now already but I’ve got some help. She wouldn’t need any help. Fucking Jordan of this shit
Well of course she would say that. It’s her thought process. Why wouldn't she?
Her views and books lean left. That’s been determined and discussed. But as you said doesn’t matter to you or should matter to anyone if she interests one In her writings.
One could easily say Trump takes a dump on fake news when he blasts and they come at him
One could say Pelosi takes a dump on poor struggling people boasting of her ice cream
She paints her view but we both know it’s not “world truth”.
Her views and books lean left. That’s been determined and discussed. But as you said doesn’t matter to you or should matter to anyone if she interests one In her writings.
One could easily say Trump takes a dump on fake news when he blasts and they come at him
One could say Pelosi takes a dump on poor struggling people boasting of her ice cream
She paints her view but we both know it’s not “world truth”.
Like I’ve said many times Stevie....it is as good of American news that you’re going to read in all of the country.
Still, literally nothing she has said has proved she leans left.
If you consider showing people respect, providing records(facts) to backup her points, as leaning left.....then I think you are just being disingenuous at this point.
She literally bases her speeches off of records aka facts. Records are factual things. You get that right? She’s basing it off of what people are saying. Also fact. And she’s putting context around those things. To give you a big picture. It’s not a liberal way of thinking. It’s a intellectual impartial way of thinking. You don’t get that do you?
We can go over this again if you like.
Find me one person in life who is somebody where someone hasn’t said something negative them.
It doesn’t happen.
But that’s my point about there not being any anymore. If more historians approached shit like she did....I am sure I wouldn’t just be saying “she’s the best American news source.”
Im not saying you shouldn’t check in on the news in other areas. But as far as reading articles that has to do with politics. No thanks. I’ll stick with this. Nobody I have come across articulates the contrast between image and reality in American politics better. I’ve yet to see it.
Her being a historian has a lot to do with it. Her knowledge of history runs deep and that’s useful when putting in context the news. Her shit isn’t like others. I don’t just read it, I respect it and her abilities to keep it impartial and informative.
A lot happened today, but I am grappling with just two things tonight.
First, what happened today: White House coronavirus task force medical expert Anthony Fauci testified remotely before a Senate health committee. He warned that reopening states too aggressively would lead to “needless suffering and death.” He also said the death toll from coronavirus—currently more than 80,000-- was “almost certainly” higher than known.
The other big event was that the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether Congress or state prosecutors can subpoena information from the president or from his accountants or his bankers. The questioning appeared to go poorly for Trump’s lawyers, who had to argue against precedent and in favor of the idea that the president can largely act without oversight, but we will not know for a while—until June, at least—how the court will decide.
Less momentous, but still eye-opening, was the president’s tweeted suggestion that MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough had murdered an aide in 2001 when he was a congressman from Florida. It’s mind boggling that a president would make this sort of unhinged allegation, but here we are.
To me, the two big stories from today were about what I see as a gamble on the part of Trump and his sycophants to grab power of the national government, and a surprising move on the part of a judge to undercut that power grab.
Tonight we learned that Trump’s acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, has declassified the names of the Obama administration officials who interviewed Michael Flynn in January 2017. Grenell handed over the names to the Department of Justice.
Trump has lately been pushing the idea of “Obamagate” as a terrible political scandal. While he has been unable to define exactly what he means by that term, it appears to be the idea that the entire apparatus of government that investigated the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian operatives in 2016 was somehow not a legitimate attempt to protect the nation but was instead an attempt to undercut the Trump campaign.
Last week, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General William Barr, attempted to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, a member of the Trump campaign and transition team who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The argument for this dismissal was that the investigation into Russian dealings with the Trump campaign was illegitimate, and thus Flynn’s lying to federal officials immaterial. Since this idea of “Obamagate” gained a popular foothold, a number of pro-Trump officials have been calling for the prosecution of Obama officials who participated in the Russia investigation.
Grenell has been vocal in his defense of Trump, insisting that Russia did not, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election, despite the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. For him now to declassify the names of the F.B.I. officials who interviewed Flynn and to hand those names to the Department of Justice, overseen by Trump supporter Attorney General William Barr, is ominous.
It suggests that the Trump administration really is contemplating legal action against F.B.I. officials who were investigating the attack on the 2016 election. This is unprecedented. More, though, it suggests that the Trump administration does not anticipate a Democratic presidency following this one, since it could expect any precedent it now sets to be used against its own people. That it is willing to weaponize intelligence information from a previous administration suggests it is not concerned that the next administration will weaponize intelligence information against Trump officials. That confidence concerns me.
But that’s only one side of the story with the Flynn case. The other side is just as interesting. The Justice Department’s move to drop the case against Flynn had to be approved by a judge. Tonight, that judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, moved… sideways. It was a really interesting move. Rather than deciding the issue at hand, the U.S. District Judge, who is known as a stickler for institutions, said he would receive briefs from interested third parties to offer opinions about the case. This means that the 2000 former Department of Justice employees (of both parties) who demanded Barr’s resignation over the Flynn case can now be heard. It will invite public scrutiny of the case, and means the case will not get swept under the rug.
Flynn’s lawyers instantly cried foul. Not only do they not want more attention to the facts of the case, but also it is possible that Sullivan’s order will permit him to require both sides to revisit the case, producing evidence and calling witnesses. Rather than enabling Trump to turn the tables on the original Russia investigation and invert it so that it serves his purposes, Sullivan’s move could remind people that there was a reason for the Russia investigation in the first place and rehash some of the stories of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian operatives.
Both of these stories seem to me a preview of the 2020 election. Trump is going to attack his predecessor and argue that Obama officials engaged in an illegal underground campaign to weaken him. He might even try to prosecute officials who were part of the investigation into Russia’s actions in 2016. Sullivan’s unexpected move suggests that not everyone will let this attempt to sway the 2020 election go unchallenged.
5/12- Heather Cox Richardson aka beast mode
First, what happened today: White House coronavirus task force medical expert Anthony Fauci testified remotely before a Senate health committee. He warned that reopening states too aggressively would lead to “needless suffering and death.” He also said the death toll from coronavirus—currently more than 80,000-- was “almost certainly” higher than known.
The other big event was that the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether Congress or state prosecutors can subpoena information from the president or from his accountants or his bankers. The questioning appeared to go poorly for Trump’s lawyers, who had to argue against precedent and in favor of the idea that the president can largely act without oversight, but we will not know for a while—until June, at least—how the court will decide.
Less momentous, but still eye-opening, was the president’s tweeted suggestion that MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough had murdered an aide in 2001 when he was a congressman from Florida. It’s mind boggling that a president would make this sort of unhinged allegation, but here we are.
To me, the two big stories from today were about what I see as a gamble on the part of Trump and his sycophants to grab power of the national government, and a surprising move on the part of a judge to undercut that power grab.
Tonight we learned that Trump’s acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, has declassified the names of the Obama administration officials who interviewed Michael Flynn in January 2017. Grenell handed over the names to the Department of Justice.
Trump has lately been pushing the idea of “Obamagate” as a terrible political scandal. While he has been unable to define exactly what he means by that term, it appears to be the idea that the entire apparatus of government that investigated the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian operatives in 2016 was somehow not a legitimate attempt to protect the nation but was instead an attempt to undercut the Trump campaign.
Last week, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General William Barr, attempted to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, a member of the Trump campaign and transition team who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The argument for this dismissal was that the investigation into Russian dealings with the Trump campaign was illegitimate, and thus Flynn’s lying to federal officials immaterial. Since this idea of “Obamagate” gained a popular foothold, a number of pro-Trump officials have been calling for the prosecution of Obama officials who participated in the Russia investigation.
Grenell has been vocal in his defense of Trump, insisting that Russia did not, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election, despite the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. For him now to declassify the names of the F.B.I. officials who interviewed Flynn and to hand those names to the Department of Justice, overseen by Trump supporter Attorney General William Barr, is ominous.
It suggests that the Trump administration really is contemplating legal action against F.B.I. officials who were investigating the attack on the 2016 election. This is unprecedented. More, though, it suggests that the Trump administration does not anticipate a Democratic presidency following this one, since it could expect any precedent it now sets to be used against its own people. That it is willing to weaponize intelligence information from a previous administration suggests it is not concerned that the next administration will weaponize intelligence information against Trump officials. That confidence concerns me.
But that’s only one side of the story with the Flynn case. The other side is just as interesting. The Justice Department’s move to drop the case against Flynn had to be approved by a judge. Tonight, that judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, moved… sideways. It was a really interesting move. Rather than deciding the issue at hand, the U.S. District Judge, who is known as a stickler for institutions, said he would receive briefs from interested third parties to offer opinions about the case. This means that the 2000 former Department of Justice employees (of both parties) who demanded Barr’s resignation over the Flynn case can now be heard. It will invite public scrutiny of the case, and means the case will not get swept under the rug.
Flynn’s lawyers instantly cried foul. Not only do they not want more attention to the facts of the case, but also it is possible that Sullivan’s order will permit him to require both sides to revisit the case, producing evidence and calling witnesses. Rather than enabling Trump to turn the tables on the original Russia investigation and invert it so that it serves his purposes, Sullivan’s move could remind people that there was a reason for the Russia investigation in the first place and rehash some of the stories of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian operatives.
Both of these stories seem to me a preview of the 2020 election. Trump is going to attack his predecessor and argue that Obama officials engaged in an illegal underground campaign to weaken him. He might even try to prosecute officials who were part of the investigation into Russia’s actions in 2016. Sullivan’s unexpected move suggests that not everyone will let this attempt to sway the 2020 election go unchallenged.
5/12- Heather Cox Richardson aka beast mode
<cite id="CITEREFRichardson" class="citation web" style="font-style: inherit; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Richardson, Heather Cox. "How did this monster get created? The decades of GOP lies that brought us Donald Trump, Republican front-runner". Salon.com. Retrieved 17 November 2018.
Not biased at all, just facts</cite>
Not biased at all, just facts</cite>
Oh you’ve been searching, haven’t you?
I just read that. It was from 2015. Before Donald was president.
This was an article, wasn’t one of her speeches but still sounded fine to me other than the title being a little harsh....maybe. But with what we have seen. Can’t say she was wrong by any means.
To me it looks like she saw the future back then. The dude lies more than Pinocchio
What else have you found in the vault?
As predicted, today North Carolina Senator Richard Burr resigned his chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee after being served a warrant by the FBI. Burr is being investigated for what appeared to be insider trading in stocks after receiving a classified briefing on the dangers of the novel coronavirus.
But Burr was also the chair of a bipartisan committee that had endorsed the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, concluding that Russians did, in fact, attack America in 2016. The committee went beyond Mueller’s conclusions to suggest that members of the Trump campaign had welcomed that intervention. The committee is due to issue its final report soon. Now, with Burr out of the chairmanship, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will appoint a successor. It seems likely that the new chair will change the forthcoming report to support Trump’s new narrative that the Russian investigation was illegitimate rather than to accept the findings of the intelligence community and Robert Mueller’s team.
The attempt of Trump’s party to reinforce the president’s new narrative that somehow the Obama administration attacked his presidency showed today in another way, too. Under pressure from Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chairs, would begin hearings in June on the origins of the Russia investigation. Although the Justice Department’s own inspector general has agreed that the investigation was legitimate, Trump continues to insist that it was not, and lately he has had the support of Attorney General William Barr in that assertion. The Senate investigation will begin with the case of Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials but whose case the Justice Department is now seeking to abandon on the ground the investigation itself was illegitimate.
While Graham agreed to call senior officials to testify, he has drawn the line at demanding that former President Barack Obama appear. Trump tweeted today: “If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it [Lindsey Graham], just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!” To this, Graham responded that he would not do so. “[H]auling a former president before an oversight committee, I don’t think that’s been done before. And presidentially, I’d be careful what I wish for,” he said.
There is, of course, a larger story behind this rush to create a dread conspiracy. The manufactured investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails consumed the 2016 election season until even now many Americans believe she broke laws, although last October the State Department’s final report on the issue concluded Clinton engaged in no wrongdoing. Then, of course, Trump tried to strong arm Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky into making a public announcement that his government was investigating Joe Biden’s son Hunter as well as searching for proof that Ukraine, rather than Russia, attacking us in 2016. The Trump campaign is well aware of the power of investigations to sway public opinion.
So, as economist and political advisor Robert Reich put it on Twitter: “How to run for re-election with 85,000 dead in 10 weeks because you denied the problem, and 36 million jobless in 8 weeks because you did squat? Invent a conspiracy against yourself.”
But will this conspiracy theory stick with voters?
Two people today, one a journalist and one a classics professor, independently noted to me that Trump’s recent attack on Obama completes a classic story arc. Trump’s political career began with conspiracy-theory attacks on Obama. Trump’s “birtherism” theory was that Obama was born not in America but in Africa, and thus was ineligible to be president. After four years of promises to his base that have ended up in chaos, now characterized by death and unemployment, Trump has returned to where he began, with a conspiracy-theory attack on Obama. In literature, that narrative arc—the return to the beginning—means the story is nearing its end.
Indeed, it’s a little hard to believe that any but Trump’s staunchest supporters will look around at where we are right now and conclude that the problem is what Obama did four years ago, rather than what Donald Trump is doing now.
-5/14 News- Heather Cox Richardson
But Burr was also the chair of a bipartisan committee that had endorsed the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, concluding that Russians did, in fact, attack America in 2016. The committee went beyond Mueller’s conclusions to suggest that members of the Trump campaign had welcomed that intervention. The committee is due to issue its final report soon. Now, with Burr out of the chairmanship, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will appoint a successor. It seems likely that the new chair will change the forthcoming report to support Trump’s new narrative that the Russian investigation was illegitimate rather than to accept the findings of the intelligence community and Robert Mueller’s team.
The attempt of Trump’s party to reinforce the president’s new narrative that somehow the Obama administration attacked his presidency showed today in another way, too. Under pressure from Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chairs, would begin hearings in June on the origins of the Russia investigation. Although the Justice Department’s own inspector general has agreed that the investigation was legitimate, Trump continues to insist that it was not, and lately he has had the support of Attorney General William Barr in that assertion. The Senate investigation will begin with the case of Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials but whose case the Justice Department is now seeking to abandon on the ground the investigation itself was illegitimate.
While Graham agreed to call senior officials to testify, he has drawn the line at demanding that former President Barack Obama appear. Trump tweeted today: “If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it [Lindsey Graham], just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!” To this, Graham responded that he would not do so. “[H]auling a former president before an oversight committee, I don’t think that’s been done before. And presidentially, I’d be careful what I wish for,” he said.
There is, of course, a larger story behind this rush to create a dread conspiracy. The manufactured investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails consumed the 2016 election season until even now many Americans believe she broke laws, although last October the State Department’s final report on the issue concluded Clinton engaged in no wrongdoing. Then, of course, Trump tried to strong arm Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky into making a public announcement that his government was investigating Joe Biden’s son Hunter as well as searching for proof that Ukraine, rather than Russia, attacking us in 2016. The Trump campaign is well aware of the power of investigations to sway public opinion.
So, as economist and political advisor Robert Reich put it on Twitter: “How to run for re-election with 85,000 dead in 10 weeks because you denied the problem, and 36 million jobless in 8 weeks because you did squat? Invent a conspiracy against yourself.”
But will this conspiracy theory stick with voters?
Two people today, one a journalist and one a classics professor, independently noted to me that Trump’s recent attack on Obama completes a classic story arc. Trump’s political career began with conspiracy-theory attacks on Obama. Trump’s “birtherism” theory was that Obama was born not in America but in Africa, and thus was ineligible to be president. After four years of promises to his base that have ended up in chaos, now characterized by death and unemployment, Trump has returned to where he began, with a conspiracy-theory attack on Obama. In literature, that narrative arc—the return to the beginning—means the story is nearing its end.
Indeed, it’s a little hard to believe that any but Trump’s staunchest supporters will look around at where we are right now and conclude that the problem is what Obama did four years ago, rather than what Donald Trump is doing now.
-5/14 News- Heather Cox Richardson
I've grown to hate Friday nights. Fridays themselves have been quiet lately, and then along about 10:00 pm... wham. The Friday night news dump.
Tonight's news dump was Trump giving notice that he intends to fire yet another inspector general, this one from the State Department. Trump wants to replace Steve Linick, a career official from the Justice Department appointed to his position by President Barack Obama in 2013, with an ally of Vice President Mike Pence. Trump says he no longer has the “fullest confidence” in Linick. Trump plans to replace Linick with Stephen Akard, who was chief of staff for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation when Pence was Indiana governor.
Linick had issued a number of reports lately about Trump appointees retaliating against career employees. Even more important to Trump, perhaps, is that at the State Department, Linick oversaw Trump’s loyal Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Tonight, after news broke of Linick’s firing, Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted on an official account that Linick had just opened an investigation into Pompeo. MSNBC reporter Chris Hayes noted that “Engel is an extremely cautious politician. For him to put this out is mind-blowing.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy tweeted: “Using foreign aid to destroy rivals. Weaponizing the judiciary. Firing all the inspectors general. Democracies begin to die when a leader starts to destroy the limits on his power, and his faction decides that he is more important than the republic. Welcome to that moment.”
But Walter Schaub, who used to direct the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, points out that the law requires the president to give 30 days notice of such a removal because Congress intended for its members to be able to prevent exactly the sort of purge in which Trump is engaging. Republican Senators are required by law to stop this behavior… but they refuse. It is a mistake, Schaub points out, to consider this firing a done deal. Trump has to give notice so that Congress can weigh in. He has done so, and now it is in the hands of Congress, just as the previous notice that Trump was removing other inspector generals has been.
In other news, there is mounting pressure on the Justice Department to release the transcripts of the phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russian officials, both from people who believe the transcripts will exonerate him and from those who believe they will confirm his guilt. The Justice Department has released a trove of information about Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, including confidential memos and internal deliberations. But it steadfastly refuses to release the transcripts, despite an order from Judge Emmet Sullivan to do so. Sullivan has recently named retired federal Judge John Gleeson to review Flynn’s case.
A follow up to yesterday’s news about Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) stepping down from his position as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee during his investigation for insider trading: Before he stepped down, Burr submitted the final report of the committee on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the intelligence community for review so it can be declassified. That process could take many months, as it did for previous reports. In those cases, though, the committee did release a set of general findings before the final volume was available. Here… we’ll see.
The other big piece of news is that the House of Representatives has passed a new $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill. Both the president and Senate Republicans have said the bill is a non-starter; as such, it should be seen as a Democratic marker of the party’s priorities. The bill provides nearly $1 trillion for the state, local, and tribal governments that are suffering as the lack of tax revenue during this crisis is forcing them to slash social programs from their budgets. It provides direct payments to individuals, hazard pay for essential workers, money for coronavirus testing and contact tracing, unemployment benefits, housing support, student loan forgiveness, and food stamp money.
It also provides for universal mail-in ballots, and $25 billion for the United States Postal Service.
Meanwhile, White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has suggested reviving the economy not by putting money in the hands of ordinary Americans, but by slashing the 21% corporate tax rate, cutting it in half for companies willing to bring their operations back to the United States. The White House also wants liability protection for businesses that reopen, and a payroll tax cut. Such a cut would inject money into the economy immediately, but only by taking money that would otherwise fund social Security and Medicare.
The two approaches reveal very different visions of the way the economy works.
5/15-HCR
Tonight's news dump was Trump giving notice that he intends to fire yet another inspector general, this one from the State Department. Trump wants to replace Steve Linick, a career official from the Justice Department appointed to his position by President Barack Obama in 2013, with an ally of Vice President Mike Pence. Trump says he no longer has the “fullest confidence” in Linick. Trump plans to replace Linick with Stephen Akard, who was chief of staff for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation when Pence was Indiana governor.
Linick had issued a number of reports lately about Trump appointees retaliating against career employees. Even more important to Trump, perhaps, is that at the State Department, Linick oversaw Trump’s loyal Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Tonight, after news broke of Linick’s firing, Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted on an official account that Linick had just opened an investigation into Pompeo. MSNBC reporter Chris Hayes noted that “Engel is an extremely cautious politician. For him to put this out is mind-blowing.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy tweeted: “Using foreign aid to destroy rivals. Weaponizing the judiciary. Firing all the inspectors general. Democracies begin to die when a leader starts to destroy the limits on his power, and his faction decides that he is more important than the republic. Welcome to that moment.”
But Walter Schaub, who used to direct the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, points out that the law requires the president to give 30 days notice of such a removal because Congress intended for its members to be able to prevent exactly the sort of purge in which Trump is engaging. Republican Senators are required by law to stop this behavior… but they refuse. It is a mistake, Schaub points out, to consider this firing a done deal. Trump has to give notice so that Congress can weigh in. He has done so, and now it is in the hands of Congress, just as the previous notice that Trump was removing other inspector generals has been.
In other news, there is mounting pressure on the Justice Department to release the transcripts of the phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russian officials, both from people who believe the transcripts will exonerate him and from those who believe they will confirm his guilt. The Justice Department has released a trove of information about Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, including confidential memos and internal deliberations. But it steadfastly refuses to release the transcripts, despite an order from Judge Emmet Sullivan to do so. Sullivan has recently named retired federal Judge John Gleeson to review Flynn’s case.
A follow up to yesterday’s news about Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) stepping down from his position as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee during his investigation for insider trading: Before he stepped down, Burr submitted the final report of the committee on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the intelligence community for review so it can be declassified. That process could take many months, as it did for previous reports. In those cases, though, the committee did release a set of general findings before the final volume was available. Here… we’ll see.
The other big piece of news is that the House of Representatives has passed a new $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill. Both the president and Senate Republicans have said the bill is a non-starter; as such, it should be seen as a Democratic marker of the party’s priorities. The bill provides nearly $1 trillion for the state, local, and tribal governments that are suffering as the lack of tax revenue during this crisis is forcing them to slash social programs from their budgets. It provides direct payments to individuals, hazard pay for essential workers, money for coronavirus testing and contact tracing, unemployment benefits, housing support, student loan forgiveness, and food stamp money.
It also provides for universal mail-in ballots, and $25 billion for the United States Postal Service.
Meanwhile, White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has suggested reviving the economy not by putting money in the hands of ordinary Americans, but by slashing the 21% corporate tax rate, cutting it in half for companies willing to bring their operations back to the United States. The White House also wants liability protection for businesses that reopen, and a payroll tax cut. Such a cut would inject money into the economy immediately, but only by taking money that would otherwise fund social Security and Medicare.
The two approaches reveal very different visions of the way the economy works.
5/15-HCR
Today former President Barack Obama gave two virtual graduation speeches. Midday, he spoke to the graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and in the evening, he spoke to the high school graduates of 2020 in an event called Graduate Together.
Both speeches were a striking contrast to the language we have become accustomed to hearing from today’s White House. And while they were directed at this year’s graduates, they mapped out more generally a new direction for America than the one we have taken since 2017.
The former president noted that we are in a frightening moment, when we are coping with a deadly pandemic and a terrible recession. But he also heralded the enormous possibilities of a time when all the cards have been thrown up into the air, waiting to be gathered up into new patterns.
Obama noted that the pandemic had “fully, finally torn back the curtain on the idea that the folks in charge know what they’re doing. A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” “Turns out that they don’t have all the answers. A lot of them aren’t even asking the right questions.”
He called for today’s youth to honor “honesty, hard work, responsibility, fairness, generosity, respect for others.”
He rejected the aggressive individualism that has defined America since the Reagan years. “t doesn’t matter how much money you make if everyone around you is hungry and sick…. [O]ur society and democracy only works when we think not just about ourselves, but about each other.”
He placed America’s strength in community. “No one does big things by themselves. Right now, when people are scared, it’s easy to be cynical and say let me just look out for myself, or my family, or people who look or think or pray like me. But if we’re going to get through these difficult times; if we’re going to create a world where everybody has the opportunity to find a job, and afford college; if we’re going to save the environment and defeat future pandemics, then we’re going to have to do it together. So be alive to one another’s struggles. Stand up for one another’s rights. Leave behind all the old ways of thinking that divide us — sexism, racial prejudice, status, greed — and set the world on a different path.”
He urged young people to change the world. “If the world’s going to get better, it’s going to be up to you. With everything suddenly feeling like it’s up for grabs, this is your time to seize the initiative. Nobody can tell you anymore that you should be waiting your turn. Nobody can tell you anymore 'this is how it’s always been done.'"
"More than ever," the former president said, "this is your moment—your generation’s world to shape.”
5/16-HCR
Both speeches were a striking contrast to the language we have become accustomed to hearing from today’s White House. And while they were directed at this year’s graduates, they mapped out more generally a new direction for America than the one we have taken since 2017.
The former president noted that we are in a frightening moment, when we are coping with a deadly pandemic and a terrible recession. But he also heralded the enormous possibilities of a time when all the cards have been thrown up into the air, waiting to be gathered up into new patterns.
Obama noted that the pandemic had “fully, finally torn back the curtain on the idea that the folks in charge know what they’re doing. A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” “Turns out that they don’t have all the answers. A lot of them aren’t even asking the right questions.”
He called for today’s youth to honor “honesty, hard work, responsibility, fairness, generosity, respect for others.”
He rejected the aggressive individualism that has defined America since the Reagan years. “t doesn’t matter how much money you make if everyone around you is hungry and sick…. [O]ur society and democracy only works when we think not just about ourselves, but about each other.”
He placed America’s strength in community. “No one does big things by themselves. Right now, when people are scared, it’s easy to be cynical and say let me just look out for myself, or my family, or people who look or think or pray like me. But if we’re going to get through these difficult times; if we’re going to create a world where everybody has the opportunity to find a job, and afford college; if we’re going to save the environment and defeat future pandemics, then we’re going to have to do it together. So be alive to one another’s struggles. Stand up for one another’s rights. Leave behind all the old ways of thinking that divide us — sexism, racial prejudice, status, greed — and set the world on a different path.”
He urged young people to change the world. “If the world’s going to get better, it’s going to be up to you. With everything suddenly feeling like it’s up for grabs, this is your time to seize the initiative. Nobody can tell you anymore that you should be waiting your turn. Nobody can tell you anymore 'this is how it’s always been done.'"
"More than ever," the former president said, "this is your moment—your generation’s world to shape.”
5/16-HCR
So I was right to be suspicious. The story broke today that Steven Linick, the State Department Inspector General Trump has announced he is removing, was not simply looking into whether Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife Susan had used staff members for personal errands.
Linick was finishing up an investigation of Pompeo’s decision last year to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia against the wishes of a bipartisan majority in Congress. State Department officials were recently briefed on the inspector general’s conclusions.
The 2018 Saudi arms deal was important at the time, but has been so eclipsed by other events we could likely all use a refresher. Here’s my best shot at pulling the story together. A warning: I expect that I don’t have all the pieces perfectly in place (I can’t tell yet how many authorizations for sharing nuclear technology were secretly permitted, for example) because there are so many moving pieces. I apologize in advance for errors, and promise I’ll get this material more fine tuned as the story warrants.
It starts with the fact that in 2018, Congress took a stand against the Trump administration’s willingness to look the other way after the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and writer for the Washington Post. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi disappeared in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul where he was going to retrieve documents so he could remarry. Evidence gradually leaked out that Khashoggi had been murdered, and our intelligence agencies concluded that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (often called MBS), had authorized the killing.
But Trump refused to acknowledge that connection, and sidestepped the law requiring him to report to Congress about the murder. This raised questions about the administration’s relationship to the Saudis, especially in two areas: first, the apparent friendship between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and MBS; and second, the efforts of administration officials, originally led by General Michael Flynn during the transition, to work around established channels to export nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. This deal would be worth a lot of money if they could pull it off.
(Multiple whistleblowers warned the House about this, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform published a report on it in February 2019. The administration granted authorizations to two U.S. companies to share the technology for nuclear power plants shortly after Khashoggi’s murder. Members of the administration continued to meet with nuclear power developers for the Middle East, a plan that appears to have been part of Kushner’s Middle East peace plan, prompting bipartisan groups of lawmakers to try to block the deals out of concern that Saudi Arabia would develop a nuclear weapon. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secretly approved six authorizations by March 2019, but as near as I can tell, Pompeo refused to release the names of the companies who got those authorizations.)
Meanwhile, the Saudis were embroiled in a war in Yemen, which was causing a humanitarian crisis. Congress opposed supporting the Saudis in that war. In April 2019, it passed a resolution to withdraw support for the Saudis in that conflict, but Trump vetoed it and Republicans in the Senate refused to override his veto.
There is a law, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires that the president give Congress 30 days notice before selling arms over a certain value to another country, so lawmakers can weigh in on the sales. But the law also permits the president to bypass Congress if he declares that “an emergency exists that requires the proposed sale in the national security interest of the United States.”
In May 2019, Trump abruptly extended a longstanding emergency declaration with regard to Iran, which enabled Pompeo to approve the sales of 8.1 billion dollars worth of arms to three Arab nations, but primarily Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, despite congressional disapproval. Congress members and career Foreign Service officers opposed the sales, which included sensitive national security technology. But Pompeo pushed hard for them. “These sales will support our allies, enhance Middle East stability and help these nations to deter and defend themselves from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said.
Lawmakers of both parties were furious, and both houses voted to block the sales, but Trump vetoed their measures. At this point, In June 2019, the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Linick to launch an investigation into the way that State Department officials, including Pompeo, had handled the arms sales. They saw no credible justification for an emergency that required sidestepping congressional approval, and noted that many of the weapons would not be ready for shipping for a year or more, negating the idea they were for an emergency. Their letter strongly hinted that the decision threw work to defense industries with inappropriate ties to the administration.
Pompeo refused to be interviewed by the inspector general’s office, and asked Trump to fire Linick. Trump claimed he had “never even heard of” Linick, but “many of these people were Obama appointments. So I just got rid of him.”
This story strikes me as big. The arms sales themselves are a big deal, but I wonder if there is a connection between the sales and the attempt to share nuclear technology with the Saudis. Lots and lots of money at stake there. And Flynn-- who is also in the news these days as the Justice Department seeks to drop his case-- was deep into the project, too.
Too many moving pieces to have at all a clear view yet. We’ll see.
Or not. This afternoon, Trump announced he is currently taking the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. The White House physician released a letter that did not confirm the president’s statement. Indeed, it skirted the issue altogether, simply saying that the president and the doctor, Sean P. Conley, had discussed the drug, and “we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.”
It is hard to imagine any doctor would have prescribed a drug whose side effects include heart attack to an older, overweight, president. It seems more likely that he is not actually taking such a drug, but said so because he was looking either to boost the drug again or to grab headlines away from the story about the Saudi arms sales. If so, it worked well; media outlets have prioritized his statement about taking the drug over the story of the Saudi arms sales and their connection to the firing of the State Department’s inspector general. The story has also taken attention from the fact that more than 90,000 American have now died from Covid-19.
A quick follow-up to the story of North Carolina Senator Richard Burr stepping down from his position at the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has replaced him with Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who has, in the past, been a hawk on Russian interference in American elections. This was a better appointment than I feared.
-HCR 5/18
Once again, we’ll see.
Linick was finishing up an investigation of Pompeo’s decision last year to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia against the wishes of a bipartisan majority in Congress. State Department officials were recently briefed on the inspector general’s conclusions.
The 2018 Saudi arms deal was important at the time, but has been so eclipsed by other events we could likely all use a refresher. Here’s my best shot at pulling the story together. A warning: I expect that I don’t have all the pieces perfectly in place (I can’t tell yet how many authorizations for sharing nuclear technology were secretly permitted, for example) because there are so many moving pieces. I apologize in advance for errors, and promise I’ll get this material more fine tuned as the story warrants.
It starts with the fact that in 2018, Congress took a stand against the Trump administration’s willingness to look the other way after the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and writer for the Washington Post. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi disappeared in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul where he was going to retrieve documents so he could remarry. Evidence gradually leaked out that Khashoggi had been murdered, and our intelligence agencies concluded that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (often called MBS), had authorized the killing.
But Trump refused to acknowledge that connection, and sidestepped the law requiring him to report to Congress about the murder. This raised questions about the administration’s relationship to the Saudis, especially in two areas: first, the apparent friendship between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and MBS; and second, the efforts of administration officials, originally led by General Michael Flynn during the transition, to work around established channels to export nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. This deal would be worth a lot of money if they could pull it off.
(Multiple whistleblowers warned the House about this, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform published a report on it in February 2019. The administration granted authorizations to two U.S. companies to share the technology for nuclear power plants shortly after Khashoggi’s murder. Members of the administration continued to meet with nuclear power developers for the Middle East, a plan that appears to have been part of Kushner’s Middle East peace plan, prompting bipartisan groups of lawmakers to try to block the deals out of concern that Saudi Arabia would develop a nuclear weapon. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secretly approved six authorizations by March 2019, but as near as I can tell, Pompeo refused to release the names of the companies who got those authorizations.)
Meanwhile, the Saudis were embroiled in a war in Yemen, which was causing a humanitarian crisis. Congress opposed supporting the Saudis in that war. In April 2019, it passed a resolution to withdraw support for the Saudis in that conflict, but Trump vetoed it and Republicans in the Senate refused to override his veto.
There is a law, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires that the president give Congress 30 days notice before selling arms over a certain value to another country, so lawmakers can weigh in on the sales. But the law also permits the president to bypass Congress if he declares that “an emergency exists that requires the proposed sale in the national security interest of the United States.”
In May 2019, Trump abruptly extended a longstanding emergency declaration with regard to Iran, which enabled Pompeo to approve the sales of 8.1 billion dollars worth of arms to three Arab nations, but primarily Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, despite congressional disapproval. Congress members and career Foreign Service officers opposed the sales, which included sensitive national security technology. But Pompeo pushed hard for them. “These sales will support our allies, enhance Middle East stability and help these nations to deter and defend themselves from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said.
Lawmakers of both parties were furious, and both houses voted to block the sales, but Trump vetoed their measures. At this point, In June 2019, the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Linick to launch an investigation into the way that State Department officials, including Pompeo, had handled the arms sales. They saw no credible justification for an emergency that required sidestepping congressional approval, and noted that many of the weapons would not be ready for shipping for a year or more, negating the idea they were for an emergency. Their letter strongly hinted that the decision threw work to defense industries with inappropriate ties to the administration.
Pompeo refused to be interviewed by the inspector general’s office, and asked Trump to fire Linick. Trump claimed he had “never even heard of” Linick, but “many of these people were Obama appointments. So I just got rid of him.”
This story strikes me as big. The arms sales themselves are a big deal, but I wonder if there is a connection between the sales and the attempt to share nuclear technology with the Saudis. Lots and lots of money at stake there. And Flynn-- who is also in the news these days as the Justice Department seeks to drop his case-- was deep into the project, too.
Too many moving pieces to have at all a clear view yet. We’ll see.
Or not. This afternoon, Trump announced he is currently taking the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. The White House physician released a letter that did not confirm the president’s statement. Indeed, it skirted the issue altogether, simply saying that the president and the doctor, Sean P. Conley, had discussed the drug, and “we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.”
It is hard to imagine any doctor would have prescribed a drug whose side effects include heart attack to an older, overweight, president. It seems more likely that he is not actually taking such a drug, but said so because he was looking either to boost the drug again or to grab headlines away from the story about the Saudi arms sales. If so, it worked well; media outlets have prioritized his statement about taking the drug over the story of the Saudi arms sales and their connection to the firing of the State Department’s inspector general. The story has also taken attention from the fact that more than 90,000 American have now died from Covid-19.
A quick follow-up to the story of North Carolina Senator Richard Burr stepping down from his position at the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has replaced him with Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who has, in the past, been a hawk on Russian interference in American elections. This was a better appointment than I feared.
-HCR 5/18
Once again, we’ll see.
