Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
March 12, 2019
Kevin McCarthy Is Lying About Ilhan Omar
He says she made derogatory comments about Jews. He’s really covering for his party.
By William Saletan
March 12, 2019
2:55 PM
snip//
When McCarthy said on Friday that Omar had “questioned the ability of an American to have allegiance to America if they were Jewish,” he was responding to a reporter’s query. The reporter had asked whether Republicans were hypocritical to accuse Omar of invoking anti-Semitic tropes, given that “those very same tropes were advanced by Republicans in attacking people like George Soros.” One of the guilty Republicans is McCarthy, who tweeted just before the November midterms, “We cannot allow Soros, [Tom] Steyer, and [Michael] Bloomberg to BUY this election!” Another is Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who accused a Jewish congressman last week of jumping “to Tom $teyer’s conclusion.” If Omar’s tweet about “the Benjamins” was anti-Semitic, so were Jordan’s and McCarthy’s.
McCarthy doesn’t want to admit that. So he pretends that Omar, unlike Jordan and himself, has explicitly targeted Jews.
Republicans aren’t just hypocritical about alluding to Jewish money. They’re also hypocritical about questioning people’s allegiance based on ethnicity. In June 2016, Donald Trump, who was then a candidate for president, accused a Mexican-American judge of treating him unfairly because “We’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican.” A month later, McCarthy went to the Republican National Convention as a delegate for Trump. Alongside McCarthy in Trump’s California delegation was Rep. Duncan Hunter, who won re-election last fall by airing an ad that accused his “Palestinian Mexican” opponent of plotting to “infiltrate Congress.” Hunter also distributed a letter that suggested his opponent might “compromise U.S. operations” to protect his “family in the Middle East.” If McCarthy had any scruples about questioning the allegiance of Americans, he would have spoken up. He said nothing.
If you want to know what McCarthy really believes, don’t listen to what he says about Omar. Listen to what he says about himself. Last month on Fox News, he was asked to explain his tweet about Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg. McCarthy said he had only meant to point out that Bloomberg had spent a lot of money to help Democrats. “That had nothing to do about faith,” the congressman insisted.
Omar has a lot to learn. She’s an ideologue, and like her counterparts on the right, she can be self-righteous and mean. She seems obtuse to the fears of American Jews, who worry that the Democratic Party, like Britain’s Labour Party, could become a forum for anti-Semites. But the points she’s raising about Israeli policies, pro-Israel donors, and unconditional American support for Israel are legitimate. She has condemned bigotry, and she has never disparaged Jews. Yes, she should have spoken more carefully. But if she deserves censure, so do her Republican colleagues.
Kevin McCarthy Is Lying About Ilhan Omar
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/kevin-mccarthy-is-lying-about-ilhan-omar.htmlKevin McCarthy Is Lying About Ilhan Omar
He says she made derogatory comments about Jews. He’s really covering for his party.
By William Saletan
March 12, 2019
2:55 PM
snip//
When McCarthy said on Friday that Omar had “questioned the ability of an American to have allegiance to America if they were Jewish,” he was responding to a reporter’s query. The reporter had asked whether Republicans were hypocritical to accuse Omar of invoking anti-Semitic tropes, given that “those very same tropes were advanced by Republicans in attacking people like George Soros.” One of the guilty Republicans is McCarthy, who tweeted just before the November midterms, “We cannot allow Soros, [Tom] Steyer, and [Michael] Bloomberg to BUY this election!” Another is Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who accused a Jewish congressman last week of jumping “to Tom $teyer’s conclusion.” If Omar’s tweet about “the Benjamins” was anti-Semitic, so were Jordan’s and McCarthy’s.
McCarthy doesn’t want to admit that. So he pretends that Omar, unlike Jordan and himself, has explicitly targeted Jews.
Republicans aren’t just hypocritical about alluding to Jewish money. They’re also hypocritical about questioning people’s allegiance based on ethnicity. In June 2016, Donald Trump, who was then a candidate for president, accused a Mexican-American judge of treating him unfairly because “We’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican.” A month later, McCarthy went to the Republican National Convention as a delegate for Trump. Alongside McCarthy in Trump’s California delegation was Rep. Duncan Hunter, who won re-election last fall by airing an ad that accused his “Palestinian Mexican” opponent of plotting to “infiltrate Congress.” Hunter also distributed a letter that suggested his opponent might “compromise U.S. operations” to protect his “family in the Middle East.” If McCarthy had any scruples about questioning the allegiance of Americans, he would have spoken up. He said nothing.
If you want to know what McCarthy really believes, don’t listen to what he says about Omar. Listen to what he says about himself. Last month on Fox News, he was asked to explain his tweet about Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg. McCarthy said he had only meant to point out that Bloomberg had spent a lot of money to help Democrats. “That had nothing to do about faith,” the congressman insisted.
Omar has a lot to learn. She’s an ideologue, and like her counterparts on the right, she can be self-righteous and mean. She seems obtuse to the fears of American Jews, who worry that the Democratic Party, like Britain’s Labour Party, could become a forum for anti-Semites. But the points she’s raising about Israeli policies, pro-Israel donors, and unconditional American support for Israel are legitimate. She has condemned bigotry, and she has never disparaged Jews. Yes, she should have spoken more carefully. But if she deserves censure, so do her Republican colleagues.
March 12, 2019
Trump’s new budget abandons all pretense of being fiscally responsible
It doesn't even call for a balanced budget in ten years.
Ryan Koronowski
Mar 11, 2019, 2:28 pm
President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal for the fiscal year 2020, which was released on Monday, breaks with his repeated campaign promises to rein in the debt and eliminate the deficit.
The newly released budget document — which has very little chance of being enacted wholesale, but nevertheless kicks off the annual federal budget process by articulating the administration’s priorities — calls for massive cuts in domestic programs, increases defense spending, and renews the president’s traditional call for billions of dollars to be allocated for the purpose of building a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has been continually rebuffed by Congress on that last request.
Nonetheless, the document’s intended message contends to be one of fiscal discipline.
“My 2020 Budget builds on the tremendous progress we have made and provides a clear roadmap for the Congress to bring Federal spending and debt under control. We must protect future generations from Washington’s habitual deficit spending,” Trump writes in the “budget message of the president” the precedes the budget document’s accounting.
However, increasing the larger defense budget while simultaneously cutting the relatively small domestic programs and maintaining lower corporate taxes is not a recipe for fiscal security, according to the numbers actually contained within the administration’s proposal.
The stark fiscal reality is not what candidate Trump promised before he was elected.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-budget-broken-promises-deficit-debt-d09489905303/
Trump's new budget abandons all pretense of being fiscally responsible
Trump’s new budget abandons all pretense of being fiscally responsible
It doesn't even call for a balanced budget in ten years.
Ryan Koronowski
Mar 11, 2019, 2:28 pm
President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal for the fiscal year 2020, which was released on Monday, breaks with his repeated campaign promises to rein in the debt and eliminate the deficit.
The newly released budget document — which has very little chance of being enacted wholesale, but nevertheless kicks off the annual federal budget process by articulating the administration’s priorities — calls for massive cuts in domestic programs, increases defense spending, and renews the president’s traditional call for billions of dollars to be allocated for the purpose of building a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has been continually rebuffed by Congress on that last request.
Nonetheless, the document’s intended message contends to be one of fiscal discipline.
“My 2020 Budget builds on the tremendous progress we have made and provides a clear roadmap for the Congress to bring Federal spending and debt under control. We must protect future generations from Washington’s habitual deficit spending,” Trump writes in the “budget message of the president” the precedes the budget document’s accounting.
However, increasing the larger defense budget while simultaneously cutting the relatively small domestic programs and maintaining lower corporate taxes is not a recipe for fiscal security, according to the numbers actually contained within the administration’s proposal.
The stark fiscal reality is not what candidate Trump promised before he was elected.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-budget-broken-promises-deficit-debt-d09489905303/
March 12, 2019
Mueller May Drop Second Report That Can’t Be Buried
The special counsel isn’t only looking for crimes: he continues the counterintelligence investigation that started with suspicious Trump-Russia contacts in 2016.
Nelson W. Cunningham
03.12.19 4:11 AM ET
Breathless media alerts notwithstanding, there is reason to be skeptical that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report is imminent. There are just too many loose ends, including the just-begun Roger Stone prosecution and the not-yet-finished litigation over “Corporation A” and other grand jury witnesses, not to mention the glaring absence of any testimony yet from Donald Trump himself. There may certainly be signs the Mueller investigation is entering its final phases—just not this week.
Still, it’s clearly time to consider the shape of what Mueller will produce as he finishes. The reporting requirements of the special counsel regulations have been exhaustively picked over. What must Mueller report to the attorney general? What may the attorney general do with the report? Will Congress and the public ever see it? The ins and outs of the special counsel report regulations played a significant role in Attorney General William Barr’s January confirmation hearings.
But we may be focusing on the wrong report. There may in fact be two Mueller reports. This is because from the very beginning, Mueller has worn two hats and borne two missions relating to the Russia investigation.
The most public and familiar one is as a criminal investigator under the special counsel regulations. But Mueller has also carried a second charge, as a counterintelligence expert, with a much broader charge to determine and report the scope of any interference and any links to the Trump campaign—what Trump himself might refer to as “collusion.”
In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that the Russia investigation was commenced “as part of our counterintelligence mission . . . also includ[ing] an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017 order appointing Mueller special counsel specifically and carefully incorporated this announced scope and mission.
From the start, then, Mueller has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation, while “also” assessing whether any crimes were committed. Not the other way around.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-may-drop-second-report-that-cant-be-buried?ref=home
Mueller May Drop Second Report That Can't Be Buried
Mueller May Drop Second Report That Can’t Be Buried
The special counsel isn’t only looking for crimes: he continues the counterintelligence investigation that started with suspicious Trump-Russia contacts in 2016.
Nelson W. Cunningham
03.12.19 4:11 AM ET
Breathless media alerts notwithstanding, there is reason to be skeptical that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report is imminent. There are just too many loose ends, including the just-begun Roger Stone prosecution and the not-yet-finished litigation over “Corporation A” and other grand jury witnesses, not to mention the glaring absence of any testimony yet from Donald Trump himself. There may certainly be signs the Mueller investigation is entering its final phases—just not this week.
Still, it’s clearly time to consider the shape of what Mueller will produce as he finishes. The reporting requirements of the special counsel regulations have been exhaustively picked over. What must Mueller report to the attorney general? What may the attorney general do with the report? Will Congress and the public ever see it? The ins and outs of the special counsel report regulations played a significant role in Attorney General William Barr’s January confirmation hearings.
But we may be focusing on the wrong report. There may in fact be two Mueller reports. This is because from the very beginning, Mueller has worn two hats and borne two missions relating to the Russia investigation.
The most public and familiar one is as a criminal investigator under the special counsel regulations. But Mueller has also carried a second charge, as a counterintelligence expert, with a much broader charge to determine and report the scope of any interference and any links to the Trump campaign—what Trump himself might refer to as “collusion.”
In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that the Russia investigation was commenced “as part of our counterintelligence mission . . . also includ[ing] an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017 order appointing Mueller special counsel specifically and carefully incorporated this announced scope and mission.
From the start, then, Mueller has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation, while “also” assessing whether any crimes were committed. Not the other way around.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-may-drop-second-report-that-cant-be-buried?ref=home
March 12, 2019
After secret plutonium shipment to Nevada, Senate Democrat puts hold on Energy Department nominees
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Monday March 11, 2019 · 2:13 PM EDT
Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto is going to do her best to get in the way after the Department of Energy secretly shipped a half-ton of weapons-grade plutonium to her state.
Cortez Masto, a Democrat, told the Nevada Independent that “I will be shining a bright light on the Department of Energy’s secret shipment of weapons-grade plutonium to Nevada,” and to do that, “Until I’ve gotten commitment from [Energy] Secretary [Rick] Perry that his agency will stop any further shipment and set a date for the removal of the plutonium already in the state, I will be putting a hold on all DOE nominees.”
Since Republicans have enough votes to confirm nominees without Democrats, Cortez Masto can’t entirely block them. But she can make the process take longer by forcing roll call votes. While she does that, Nevada has sued to block any more plutonium shipments.
After secret plutonium shipment to Nevada, Senate Democrat puts hold on Energy Department nominees
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/3/11/1841243/-After-secret-plutonium-shipment-to-Nevada-Senate-Democrat-puts-hold-on-Energy-Department-nomineesAfter secret plutonium shipment to Nevada, Senate Democrat puts hold on Energy Department nominees
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Monday March 11, 2019 · 2:13 PM EDT
Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto is going to do her best to get in the way after the Department of Energy secretly shipped a half-ton of weapons-grade plutonium to her state.
Cortez Masto, a Democrat, told the Nevada Independent that “I will be shining a bright light on the Department of Energy’s secret shipment of weapons-grade plutonium to Nevada,” and to do that, “Until I’ve gotten commitment from [Energy] Secretary [Rick] Perry that his agency will stop any further shipment and set a date for the removal of the plutonium already in the state, I will be putting a hold on all DOE nominees.”
Since Republicans have enough votes to confirm nominees without Democrats, Cortez Masto can’t entirely block them. But she can make the process take longer by forcing roll call votes. While she does that, Nevada has sued to block any more plutonium shipments.
March 11, 2019
The VA Is Privatizing Veterans’ Health Care While Launching a Campaign to Deny It
Suzanne Gordon
March 11, 2019
Acutely aware that its privatization plan has little support among veterans, the VA has launched a PR blitz to obscure what it's doing.
The Trump administration’s multipronged effort to privatize the VHA and push millions of veterans out of the VA system remains deeply unpopular among American veterans. But rather than adjust its proposals to meet the needs and wishes of veterans, the administration has a better idea: deny that the changes—which include funding private care at taxpayer expense—amount to privatization at all.
Over the past several weeks, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie and his advisors from the Koch brothers-funded Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) have launched a PR offensive refuting critics who contend that the agency’s plan to funnel money to private care will lead to VHA privatization. In multiple press releases, Wilkie adamantly denied that channeling millions of veterans—and billions of taxpayer dollars—to private-sector health care providers amounts to VA privatization. Wilkie even convinced four former VA secretaries, including one who served under President Obama, to publish an op-ed at FoxNews.com echoing the VA party line. The VA’s Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs followed up with a press release reasserting that, “The former secretaries also pushed back strongly against predictable and false claims that the new standards amount to privatization of the VA.”
VA leadership has also sent out a number of directives instructing VHA public affairs officers and staff to refute veterans’ concerns about VA privatization. A document entitled “Veteran Community Care (VA MISSION Act)—Eligibility and Access Standards,” obtained by the Prospect from several sources who preferred to remain anonymous, has a long section advising how to counter any questions from veterans uneasy about privatization. Staff are directed to respond with, “There is no effort underway by anyone or at any level to privatize the VA.”
In yet another set of talking points delivered to VA staff and public affairs officers, VA leaders claim that outsourcing more and more VHA care doesn’t constitute privatization because privatization only occurs with “the transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector.” It goes on to say, “There has never been a proposal to do this, not from the Administration, Commission on Care or from any Veterans organization, including Concerned Veterans for America.”
more...
https://prospect.org/article/va-privatizing-veterans-health-care-while-launching-campaign-deny-it
The VA Is Privatizing Veterans' Health Care While Launching a Campaign to Deny It
The VA Is Privatizing Veterans’ Health Care While Launching a Campaign to Deny It
Suzanne Gordon
March 11, 2019
Acutely aware that its privatization plan has little support among veterans, the VA has launched a PR blitz to obscure what it's doing.
The Trump administration’s multipronged effort to privatize the VHA and push millions of veterans out of the VA system remains deeply unpopular among American veterans. But rather than adjust its proposals to meet the needs and wishes of veterans, the administration has a better idea: deny that the changes—which include funding private care at taxpayer expense—amount to privatization at all.
Over the past several weeks, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie and his advisors from the Koch brothers-funded Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) have launched a PR offensive refuting critics who contend that the agency’s plan to funnel money to private care will lead to VHA privatization. In multiple press releases, Wilkie adamantly denied that channeling millions of veterans—and billions of taxpayer dollars—to private-sector health care providers amounts to VA privatization. Wilkie even convinced four former VA secretaries, including one who served under President Obama, to publish an op-ed at FoxNews.com echoing the VA party line. The VA’s Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs followed up with a press release reasserting that, “The former secretaries also pushed back strongly against predictable and false claims that the new standards amount to privatization of the VA.”
VA leadership has also sent out a number of directives instructing VHA public affairs officers and staff to refute veterans’ concerns about VA privatization. A document entitled “Veteran Community Care (VA MISSION Act)—Eligibility and Access Standards,” obtained by the Prospect from several sources who preferred to remain anonymous, has a long section advising how to counter any questions from veterans uneasy about privatization. Staff are directed to respond with, “There is no effort underway by anyone or at any level to privatize the VA.”
In yet another set of talking points delivered to VA staff and public affairs officers, VA leaders claim that outsourcing more and more VHA care doesn’t constitute privatization because privatization only occurs with “the transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector.” It goes on to say, “There has never been a proposal to do this, not from the Administration, Commission on Care or from any Veterans organization, including Concerned Veterans for America.”
more...
https://prospect.org/article/va-privatizing-veterans-health-care-while-launching-campaign-deny-it
March 11, 2019
Court ruling: Trump administration must take responsibility for all children it separated
The lawsuit over family separation grows to encompass up to “thousands” more families separated in 2017 and 2018.
By Dara Linddara@vox.com Mar 11, 2019, 11:50am EDT
A federal judge has declared that the Trump administration is legally responsible for all children who were separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border and placed with relatives or other sponsors after July 1, 2017 — which could amount to “thousands” beyond the 2,800 separations already acknowledged as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of 2017 and 2018.
The order, from Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California, comes as part of the lawsuit that forced the administration to reunify thousands of separated families in the summer of 2018. That order, however, only applied to reuniting children who were in the custody of the federal government as “unaccompanied minors” at that time.
Sabraw is now expanding the lawsuit to cover children who had already left government custody and been placed in the care of other relatives or sponsors before the reunification order came down.
An inspector general report published in January by the Department of Health and Human Services — which is responsible for the care of unaccompanied minors — estimated that there could be many more such children than the government had acknowledged or that the American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the lawsuit against the government, had thought.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18240136/family-separation-news-lawsuit-reunite
Court ruling: Trump administration must take responsibility for all children it separated
Court ruling: Trump administration must take responsibility for all children it separated
The lawsuit over family separation grows to encompass up to “thousands” more families separated in 2017 and 2018.
By Dara Linddara@vox.com Mar 11, 2019, 11:50am EDT
A federal judge has declared that the Trump administration is legally responsible for all children who were separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border and placed with relatives or other sponsors after July 1, 2017 — which could amount to “thousands” beyond the 2,800 separations already acknowledged as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of 2017 and 2018.
The order, from Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California, comes as part of the lawsuit that forced the administration to reunify thousands of separated families in the summer of 2018. That order, however, only applied to reuniting children who were in the custody of the federal government as “unaccompanied minors” at that time.
Sabraw is now expanding the lawsuit to cover children who had already left government custody and been placed in the care of other relatives or sponsors before the reunification order came down.
An inspector general report published in January by the Department of Health and Human Services — which is responsible for the care of unaccompanied minors — estimated that there could be many more such children than the government had acknowledged or that the American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the lawsuit against the government, had thought.
“The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders,” Sabraw wrote in the Friday night ruling. “That [the Trump administration] may have to change course and undertake additional effort to address these issues does not render modification of the class definition unfair; it only serves to underscore the unquestionable importance of the effort and why it is necessary (and worthwhile).”
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18240136/family-separation-news-lawsuit-reunite
March 11, 2019
Posted on Mon, Mar 11th, 2019 by Leo Vidal
Two More Trump Lawyers May Be Forced to Testify
House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings wants to talk to two new attorneys in the Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels hush money probe.
The lawyers — Sheri Dillon and Stefan Passantino — were formerly employed in the White House and responsible for the president’s ethics and financial disclosures.
Their testimony could be critical to figuring out whether or not the president was guilty of committing crimes when he made hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
According to NBC News:
Neither lawyer has agreed to cooperate with Cummings’ committee, however. They have consistently disregarded a March 6 deadline that the committee chairman set to provide transcribed interviews to his committee. He is now hoping to receive the transcripts later next week, according to his congressional aides.
As the process plays out it will be a test of the ability of House Democrats to force Trump administration officials and allies to provide information to Congress.
As Trump people keep dragging their feet and refusing to comply, Cummings will probably be forced to play hardball. Nobody will be surprised if he has to issue subpoenas to get them to give him the information he has requested.
Passantino and Dillon are the first targets Cummings is publicly pursuing since Michael Cohen testified in front of the Oversight Committee on February 27.
According to documents sent by the committee to the two attorneys, they “appeared to provide false information” to federal officials about payments to Cohen to keep the alleged Trump affair from becoming public.
In other words, it looks like they filed false financial disclosure forms with the Office of Government Ethics.
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/11/two-more-trump-lawyers-may-be-forced-to-testify.html
Two More Trump Lawyers May Be Forced to Testify
Posted on Mon, Mar 11th, 2019 by Leo Vidal
Two More Trump Lawyers May Be Forced to Testify
House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings wants to talk to two new attorneys in the Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels hush money probe.
The lawyers — Sheri Dillon and Stefan Passantino — were formerly employed in the White House and responsible for the president’s ethics and financial disclosures.
Their testimony could be critical to figuring out whether or not the president was guilty of committing crimes when he made hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
According to NBC News:
“These two relatively unknown figures could soon emerge as key players in the congressional investigations into President Donald Trump.”
Neither lawyer has agreed to cooperate with Cummings’ committee, however. They have consistently disregarded a March 6 deadline that the committee chairman set to provide transcribed interviews to his committee. He is now hoping to receive the transcripts later next week, according to his congressional aides.
As the process plays out it will be a test of the ability of House Democrats to force Trump administration officials and allies to provide information to Congress.
As Trump people keep dragging their feet and refusing to comply, Cummings will probably be forced to play hardball. Nobody will be surprised if he has to issue subpoenas to get them to give him the information he has requested.
Passantino and Dillon are the first targets Cummings is publicly pursuing since Michael Cohen testified in front of the Oversight Committee on February 27.
According to documents sent by the committee to the two attorneys, they “appeared to provide false information” to federal officials about payments to Cohen to keep the alleged Trump affair from becoming public.
In other words, it looks like they filed false financial disclosure forms with the Office of Government Ethics.
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/11/two-more-trump-lawyers-may-be-forced-to-testify.html
March 11, 2019
Video at link~
3/10/19 1:19pm
Read time: 1 minute
Fox News Host Drums GOP Pundit For False Election Spin: 'A Dozen Intel Agencies Confirmed Russia Interfered'
Fox News host Arthel Neville on Sunday reminded a conservative pundit that it was wrong to claim that Democrats have lied about Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election.
By David
20 hours ago by Heather
Fox News host Arthel Neville on Sunday reminded a conservative pundit that it was wrong to claim that Democrats have lied about Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election.
"The Democrats for two years have built the narrative that Trump beat Hillary by virtue of collusion with Russia," conservative attorney John Jordan told the Fox News host. "They invested enormous political capital and it raised expectations enormously."
"They can't allow the story to become -- as it appears to be on the way to becoming -- that [special counsel Robert Mueller] looked away," Jordan explained. "Trump was investigated and collusion didn't happen and there was no wrongdoing. The Democrats can't afford that going into the run-up to the election."
Neville interrupted with a fact check.
"You do realize that more than a dozen intel agencies, committees, they confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election," the Fox News host pointed out. "So, it wasn't just a Democratic narrative."
"Sort of," Jordan replied. "Yes, Russia did interfere but that is a different matter from actual collusion."
"It has been proven by our intel agencies that there was interference," Neville repeated. "And [Russian President Vladimir Putin] himself was on stage before the world saying, 'Yes, I wanted Donald to win.'"
Fox News Host Drums GOP Pundit...: 'A Dozen Intel Agencies Confirmed Russia Interfered'
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/fox-news-host-drums-gop-pundit-falseVideo at link~
3/10/19 1:19pm
Read time: 1 minute
Fox News Host Drums GOP Pundit For False Election Spin: 'A Dozen Intel Agencies Confirmed Russia Interfered'
Fox News host Arthel Neville on Sunday reminded a conservative pundit that it was wrong to claim that Democrats have lied about Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election.
By David
20 hours ago by Heather
Fox News host Arthel Neville on Sunday reminded a conservative pundit that it was wrong to claim that Democrats have lied about Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election.
"The Democrats for two years have built the narrative that Trump beat Hillary by virtue of collusion with Russia," conservative attorney John Jordan told the Fox News host. "They invested enormous political capital and it raised expectations enormously."
"They can't allow the story to become -- as it appears to be on the way to becoming -- that [special counsel Robert Mueller] looked away," Jordan explained. "Trump was investigated and collusion didn't happen and there was no wrongdoing. The Democrats can't afford that going into the run-up to the election."
Neville interrupted with a fact check.
"You do realize that more than a dozen intel agencies, committees, they confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election," the Fox News host pointed out. "So, it wasn't just a Democratic narrative."
"Sort of," Jordan replied. "Yes, Russia did interfere but that is a different matter from actual collusion."
"It has been proven by our intel agencies that there was interference," Neville repeated. "And [Russian President Vladimir Putin] himself was on stage before the world saying, 'Yes, I wanted Donald to win.'"
March 11, 2019
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-named-winner-of-golf-championship-he-didnt-play-in?ref=home
Trump ‘Named Winner of Golf Championship He Didn't Play In’
Reuters / Henry Nicholls
Trump 'Named Winner of Golf Championship He Didn't Play In'
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-named-winner-of-golf-championship-he-didnt-play-in?ref=home
Trump ‘Named Winner of Golf Championship He Didn't Play In’
Reuters / Henry Nicholls
The victory list on Donald Trump's locker at Palm Beach undeniably looks impressive: the gold plaques commemorate his championship triumphs in 1999, 2001, 2009, 2012, 2013, and the recently-added 2018. But there appears to be a problem with the new plaque which claims he was the 2018 men's club champion—because he didn't play in the tournament. Golf magazine reports Trump was actually awarded the title of co-champion as part of a clubhouse joke after the real winner, businessmen Ted Virtue, gambled his championship in a round with Trump after the tournament was long over. Trump—an alleged serial golf cheat—reportedly proposed a nine-hole winner-takes-the-title challenge match with Virtue which, would you believe, he won. He is then reported to have said something along the lines of: “This isn’t fair—we’ll be co-champions.” But Trump appears to have been so proud of his ‘win’ that a plaque was added to his championship roll-call on his locker stating: “2018 — Men's Club Champion.” It's just as well he doesn't have more important things to occupy his mind with.
March 10, 2019
Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro Attacks Rep. Ilhan Omar for Wearing Hijab
She (wrongly) claims the congresswoman’s head covering is “antithetical to the U.S. Constitution”
By Peter Wade
Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro is trying to use Islamophobia to make Americans fear Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). In the opening segment of her show Saturday night, the fear-mongering former judge tried to connect Omar’s hijab to sharia law, which she said is “antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.”
Omar has recently been under attack for making anti-Israel remarks, which many have conflated with anti-Semitism. She also apologized for a tweet that evoked an anti-Semitic trope. But Fox News and other conservative media have been all too happy to misconstrue her remarks to paint Omar as anti-American because she does not unequivocally support the Israeli state. And they’ve been using anti-Muslim stereotypes to do it.
Pirro told her audience: “This is not who your party is. Your party is not anti-Israel, she is. Think about this. She is not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran, 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?”
https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1104567449784123393
This type of Islamophobia is not new, but it has ramped up ever since 9/11. As NBC News reported, anti-sharia law legislation has been introduced in 43 states in the U.S. just since 2010, despite the fact that none of these places are at risk of sharia law being implemented. And sharia law is not what many Americans have been led to believe it is. As law professor Asifa Quraishi-Landes wrote in the Washington Post, “Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life.”
But, sadly, the facts don’t matter on Fox News. All this drummed-up “fear” of sharia law is nothing but a statement to Muslims: you are not welcome here.
Which is exactly Pirro’s point: to her and the viewers of Fox News, Islam is antithetical to America. And therefore, according to Pirro’s logic, Rep. Omar is antithetical to America. It’s disgusting and, frankly, Pirro’s view is the one that is against the Constitution, whose First Amendment protects the right of Americans to worship freely.
Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro Attacks Rep. Ilhan Omar for Wearing Hijab
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jeanine-pirro-ilhan-omar-806293/Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro Attacks Rep. Ilhan Omar for Wearing Hijab
She (wrongly) claims the congresswoman’s head covering is “antithetical to the U.S. Constitution”
By Peter Wade
Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro is trying to use Islamophobia to make Americans fear Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). In the opening segment of her show Saturday night, the fear-mongering former judge tried to connect Omar’s hijab to sharia law, which she said is “antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.”
Omar has recently been under attack for making anti-Israel remarks, which many have conflated with anti-Semitism. She also apologized for a tweet that evoked an anti-Semitic trope. But Fox News and other conservative media have been all too happy to misconstrue her remarks to paint Omar as anti-American because she does not unequivocally support the Israeli state. And they’ve been using anti-Muslim stereotypes to do it.
Pirro told her audience: “This is not who your party is. Your party is not anti-Israel, she is. Think about this. She is not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran, 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?”
https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1104567449784123393
This type of Islamophobia is not new, but it has ramped up ever since 9/11. As NBC News reported, anti-sharia law legislation has been introduced in 43 states in the U.S. just since 2010, despite the fact that none of these places are at risk of sharia law being implemented. And sharia law is not what many Americans have been led to believe it is. As law professor Asifa Quraishi-Landes wrote in the Washington Post, “Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life.”
But, sadly, the facts don’t matter on Fox News. All this drummed-up “fear” of sharia law is nothing but a statement to Muslims: you are not welcome here.
Which is exactly Pirro’s point: to her and the viewers of Fox News, Islam is antithetical to America. And therefore, according to Pirro’s logic, Rep. Omar is antithetical to America. It’s disgusting and, frankly, Pirro’s view is the one that is against the Constitution, whose First Amendment protects the right of Americans to worship freely.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,060
