Cleaning up Trump's mess

Rudy's squirming

And I assume getting his passport papers in order. 

Rudy Giuliani gave his first interview on Thursday following the FBI searches of his home and office, telling Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the DOJ had “spied on me.”

During a sprawling interview, the former lawyer to the former president spun a yarn in which the DOJ was engaged in a multi-year, politically motivated prosecution.

[...]

Giuliani said twice during the show, however, that he had a way out: since exiting the New York City mayoralty in 2001, he had inserted into his contracts with various foreign businessmen and governments a provision that declared that, whatever he was doing for them, it wasn’t lobbying.

  TPM

LOLOLOL

“I never, ever represented a foreign national,” Giuliani said. “In fact, I have in my contracts a refusal to do it because from the time I got out of being mayor, I did not want to lobby.”

Giuliani added that “I’ve had contracts in countries like Ukraine, in the contract there is a clause that says I will not engage in lobbying or foreign representation.”

“I don’t do it because I felt it would be too compromising,” the former mayor said.

The FBI warned Rudolph W. Giuliani in late 2019 that he was the target of a Russian influence operation aimed at circulating falsehoods intended to damage President Biden politically ahead of last year’s election, according to people familiar with the matter.

The warning was part of an extensive effort by the bureau to alert members of Congress and at least one conservative media outlet, One America News, that they faced a risk of being used to further Russia’s attempt to influence the election’s outcome, said several current and former U.S. officials.

[...]

Defensive briefings are given to people to alert them that they are being targeted by foreign governments for malign purposes, former officials said. But they’re also used “to see how they respond to that,” said Frank Figliuzzi, a former senior FBI counterintelligence official. “They’re now on notice.”

[...]

The warning, made by counterintelligence agents, was separate from the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal probe, but it reflects a broader concern by U.S. intelligence and federal investigators that Giuliani — among other influential Americans and U.S. institutions — was being manipulated by the Russian government to promote its interests and that he appears to have brazenly disregarded such fears.

Despite the alert, Giuliani went forward in December 2019 with a planned trip to Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, where he met with a Ukrainian lawmaker whom the U.S. government later labeled “an active Russian agent” and sanctioned on grounds he was running an “influence campaign” against Biden. That operation, officials said, involved Ukrainian officials and political consultants who the U.S. intelligence community has since concluded were acting as Russian proxies not only to smear Biden and derail his candidacy but also to curtail U.S. support for Ukraine.

[...]

The FBI last summer also gave what is known as a defensive briefing to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who ahead of the election used his perch as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to investigate Biden’s dealings with Ukraine while he was vice president and his son Hunter Biden held a lucrative seat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, recalled receiving a vague warning from FBI briefers in August, but he said Thursday that there was no substance to their cautionary message and that he did not view the meeting as a “defensive briefing” on his oversight of the Biden family’s foreign business ventures.

  WaPo

Dirtbag.   [See *Update below]

Johnson and staffers to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), another Trump ally in the Senate who aided Johnson with his probe, said that in separate briefings earlier in 2020, FBI officials assured them there was no reason to discontinue their inquiry into Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. It is not the bureau’s place to tell lawmakers what to investigate or not, or whether to stop or start an investigation, former FBI officials said.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Jesus Christ, the man is a lawyer, ffs.*

UPDATE:

Oooh, boy.  I'm guessing the investigators have this just about sewed up. 

*UPDATE:

/2 First let's review what a federal search warrant means. It means that the feds provided a sworn affidavit to a magistrate judge showing that there is probable cause to believe these specific locations have evidence of a specified federal crime.

/3 Note there the difference between a criminal complaint and a search warrant -- they don't have to show proof that a particular person committed the crime, just proof that this LOCATION will have EVIDENCE of the commission of the federal crime.

/3 Note there the difference between a criminal complaint and a search warrant -- they don't have to show proof that a particular person committed the crime, just proof that this LOCATION will have EVIDENCE of the commission of the federal crime.

/4 Federal magistrate judges are, in my experience, **decent** at reviewing search warrant applications, particularly for problem locations like a lawyer's office. That means they are not as rubber-stampy as they might be in other circumstances and sometimes turn it down....

/5 ....at least in part, for instance, by rejecting a particular location or a request to look for a particular set of items or documents, or not allowing it to be done at night. Sometimes they make the feds go back and rework it a bit.

/6 This is in sharp contrast to state judges, who in my experience will sign a warrant even if the entirety of the probable cause statement is "you have beautiful thighs."

/7 So ANYWAY, we know that a federal magistrate judge was convinced there's probable cause that Rudy's home and office had evidence of a federal crime. But which crime, and based on what?

/8 Well, RUDY knows better than we do -- because RUDY now has a copy of the warrant -- the document saying "you can search these locations for this evidence of violation of these laws." Note that's NOT the affidavit -- he doesn't get that unless someone screws up.

/9 If we see the warrant -- someone leaks it, or Rudy hands it out because he's legally incontinent -- we'll see what specific federal laws they think were broken, which will tell us something about the investigation. We should also see what they searched for, which tells more.

/10 Rudy will also get a receipt of the things taken. Again, if that gets leaked or dropped by Rudy, we'll see the feds' (usually unhelpfully vague) descriptions of what they took.

/11 We can also tell things from the fact that there was also a search warrant for Victoria Toensing's home, apparently for her phone. That helps us narrow down what the search could be about.

/12 All of this may be corroborated by grand jury subpoenas (if they are leaked or publicized by people who get them), which will further detail what docs are being sought and what statutes are allegedly violated.

/13 Because Rudy is a lawyer, technically, we also know that the warrant required high-level approval. This could not be just some local AUSA power tripping. This went up the chain and got approved.

/14 Beyond that, we enter into the realm of (a) speculation (b) statements by unnamed sources of uncertain reliability and (c) talking head bullshit. /end

Toensing is widely presumed to have elicited federal interest viz. the Giuliani investigation due to her own representation of Ukrainian billionaire Dmytro Firtash and other Ukrainian nationals who played a role in attempting to disseminate information deemed harmful to then-candidate Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

“This makes sense because, during the Ukraine impeachment investigation, we obtained draft retainer agreements between a Ukrainian official and Toensing and diGenova that Giuliani brokered,” Daniel Goldman, former lead counsel for the House impeachment inquiry, said on Twitter.

Firtash himself is currently under a federal indictment, but the role played by Toensing and diGenova is believed to go a bit further than a typical attorney-client relationship.

  Law & Crime

UPDATE: So here's an article regarding the specifics of the search warrant, according to "people familiar with the matter" :

The search warrants executed by federal investigators on Wednesday at Mr. Giuliani’s New York City apartment and office sought evidence related to Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine whom Mr. Giuliani pushed to oust in the spring of 2019, as well as communications with any U.S. government officials or employees regarding the former ambassador or her position, the people said.

[...]

The warrants also sought communications with or regarding associates who worked with Mr. Giuliani to push for Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster and for an investigation by Ukrainian authorities into the Biden family’s activities in the country, the people familiar with the warrants said.

[...]

The warrants specifically sought evidence related to former Ukrainian prosecutors general Viktor Shokin and Yuriy Lutsenko, former Ukrainian prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, the people said.

[...]

The warrant also sought evidence related to three Giuliani associates who were arrested in 2019 on campaign-finance charges— Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and David Correia—as well as two lawyers close to Mr. Giuliani, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, and conservative columnist John Solomon. Investigators on Wednesday executed a search warrant for Ms. Toensing’s phone.

[...]

Messrs. Parnas and Fruman have pleaded not guilty to the campaign-finance charges and are tentatively scheduled to go to trial later this year.

Mr. Correia pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced in February to a year and a day in prison for lying to federal election authorities and for duping investors in a fraud-insurance company.

  WSJ

*UPDATE:

UPDATE 9/11/21:

Igor Fruman found guilty in Trump campaign charge

UPDATE 10/24/21:

Lev Parnas found guilty in Trump campaign charge

It's getting hot down at Mar-A-Lago

It's not really what they're looking for that he's worried about.  It's what he knows they might find while looking for it.

UPDATE:  LOLOLOLOL

Matt Gaetz' crime partner has decided he's not going down alone

A confession letter written by Joel Greenberg in the final months of the Trump presidency claims that he and close associate Rep. Matt Gaetz paid for sex with multiple women—as well as a girl who was 17 at the time.

“On more than one occasion, this individual was involved in sexual activities with several of the other girls, the congressman from Florida’s 1st Congressional District and myself,” Greenberg wrote in reference to the 17-year-old.

“From time to time, gas money or gifts, rent or partial tuition payments were made to several of these girls, including the individual who was not yet 18. I did see the acts occur firsthand and Venmo transactions, Cash App or other payments were made to these girls on behalf of the Congressman.”

  Daily Beast

Does Gaetz have his passport up to date?

The letter, which The Daily Beast recently obtained, was written after Greenberg—who was under federal indictment—asked Roger Stone to help him secure a pardon from then-President Donald Trump.

A series of private messages starting in late 2020—also recently obtained by The Daily Beast—shows a number of exchanges between Greenberg and Stone conducted over the encrypted-messaging app Signal, with communications set to disappear. However, Greenberg appears to have taken screenshots of a number of their conversations.

Sounds like Greenberg knew Stone well.

“My lawyers that I fired, know the whole story about MG’s involvement,” Greenberg wrote to Stone on Dec. 21. “They know he paid me to pay the girls and that he and I both had sex with the girl who was underage.”

[...]

“If I get you $250k in Bitcoin would that help or is this not a financial matter,” Greenberg wrote to Stone, one message shows.

“I understand all of this and have taken it into consideration,” Stone replied. “I will know more in the next 24 hours I cannot push too hard because of the nonsense surrounding pardons.”

“I hope you are prepared to wire me $250,000 because I am feeling confident,” Stone wrote to Greenberg on Jan. 13.

In a text message to The Daily Beast, Stone said that Greenberg had tried to hire him to assist with a pardon, but he denied asking for or receiving payment or interceding on his behalf.

So...hoping to get $250,000 because he was confident was about what exactly?

[In a draft letter, Greenberg] claimed that he, Gaetz, and others had sex with a minor they believed to be 19 at the time. Greenberg said he learned she was underage on Sept. 4, 2017, from “an anonymous tip” and quickly contacted Gaetz.

“Immediately I called the congressman and warned him to stay clear of this person and informed him she was underage,” Greenberg wrote. “He was equally shocked and disturbed by this revelation.”

Greenberg continued in the handwritten draft that he “confronted” the then-17-year-old and explained to her “how serious of a situation this was, how many people she put in danger.”

“She apologized and recognized that by lying about her age, she endangered many people,” he continued. “There was no further contact with this individual until after her 18th birthday.”

[...]

But after she reached the age of legal consent in Florida, Greenberg re-established contact. As The Daily Beast previously reported, about five months after her 18th birthday, Gaetz sent Greenberg $900 in two Venmo transactions—one titled “Test” and the other titled “hit up ___.” The blank contained a nickname for this girl, and Greenberg paid her and two other women a total of $900 about six hours later.

In his confession letter, Greenberg also admitted he facilitated Gaetz’s interactions with college students—and paid them on his behalf.

I'm confused. Is this the same girl he claimed in the first reported letter, admitting she was 17? Or another girl?

The Daily Beast also talked to 12 of the more than 40 different women who received money, and they all said they understood Greenberg was paying them at least in part for sex.

Greenberg, a disgraced local politician in Florida, currently faces a sweeping 33-count indictment that ranges from stalking to sex trafficking.

[...]

The messages [between Greenberg and Stone] show that in November, the pair discussed putting together a “document,” which later took the form of a confession letter and background missive about all the ways in which Greenberg had been loyal to Trump. In their early conversations, Greenberg told Stone that the letter was “about 8-10 pages” and asked if it should be shortened.

“No,” Stone replied, “use as much space as you need to tell the story fully but be certain to include your leader ship [sic] for Trump prominently.”

[...]

The letter went through multiple drafts and detailed Greenberg’s encounters with Gaetz, but it also focused on Greenberg’s early support of Trump’s run in 2016, such as posting a “Super Trump” highway billboard on Interstate 4. (A version of the letter actually includes the image Greenberg used for the billboard.)

On Nov. 20, 2020, Stone told Greenberg he had received “the document” and would show it to the team that “got me my commutation.”

“I will review it with them and give you a budget. This is very doable and the time is now,” Stone wrote.Federal prosecutors have not criminally charged Gaetz—or even publicly confirmed the expansion of their probe.

[...]

An update from Stone came just after midnight on Dec. 8: “Your thing is being looked at and I will have an answer by Saturday as to whether you have a viable shot for justice and how to go about it.”

“Thank you so much Roger,” Greenberg replied. “I am very thankful for you. I pray that the Lord will help. I remain optimistic and will wait to hear back from you.”

Stone quickly sought to dampen expectations surrounding “the whole pardon circus.”

“This is treacherous territory with a lot of different players such as Jared and Giuliani playing a hand,” Stone wrote, presumably referring to Trump adviser Jared Kushner and the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. “I have two things I’m trying to get done. Sit tight.”

So...he wasn't involved in interceding for Greenberg, eh? If true, that would mean he was just lying to Greenberg and hoping for money. Would that be extortion?

A distressed Greenberg told Stone that he felt “abandoned" by his allies, but emphasized that Gaetz—who was “like a son” to the president of the United States—could save him: “One conversation with POTUS and he can get this done and it all goes away.”

Greenberg said that while he had discussed pardons with Gaetz’s lawyer, he had not heard a reply and would “have to do what’s best for me and my family” after Trump left office.

[...]

It’s unclear if money was ever exchanged, but Greenberg offered to pay extra if Stone could, in fact, get him a pardon.“If you can get this done today I’ll add another 50k,” Greenberg texted Stone. In a subsequent message, Stone wrote that White House lawyer Pat Cipollone had taken Greenberg’s name out of the list of hundreds of people who might be pardoned. Cipollone didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment Thursday, but according to three people familiar with the matter, Greenberg’s name repeatedly made it to the Trump White House for a presidential pardon. The Daily Beast was shown an image of one such list, and Greenberg’s name and a favorable mini-profile were indeed included.

[...]

“What I don’t understand is why [Gaetz] would not help me at all and actually told me not to help you which I tried to do anyway. In the end it would not have mattered. Cipollone killed everything we wanted to get done and that includes stuff MG wanted,” Stone wrote.

[...]

“Ok. He actually said not to help me? Wow,” Greenberg replied.

“If you repeat it you’re really going to hurt me,” Stone warned.

“I won’t Roger. I don’t and haven’t talked to him. I won’t,” Greenberg said.

Nobody would help poor Joel Greenberg. The ride was over.

“Urge you to be very careful,” Stone said at the end of his text [to this reporter]. “I will take any appropriate legal action in the event that you publish anything that is false or defamatory. Sounds to me like you have been presented some kind of cut and paste record.”

Sure, Roger. Sure.

While Gaetz acknowledges the existence of the investigation, he denies having sex with an underage teen. But at some point, Greenberg began to cooperate with investigators, a development his lawyer has suggested poses a serious problem for Gaetz.

Get that passport read, Matt.

And perhaps you, too, Roger.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Does it end in Argentina?

Kudos

More than half of the roughly 1,500 political appointees in the Biden administration are women and nearly one-third are naturalized or children of immigrants, according to data released Thursday by the White House.

[...]

Fifty-eight percent of Biden's appointees are women, 18 percent identify as Black, 15 percent identify as Latino or Hispanic and 15 percent identify as Asian American or Pacific Islander, according to the Office of Presidential Personnel. Fourteen percent identify as LGBTQ, 15 percent were the first in their families to attend college, and 32 percent of appointees are naturalized citizens or children of immigrants.

[...]

The White House Office of Presidential Personnel issued a diversity report on Biden's 100th day in office to tout the administration's commitment to filling the administration with women and people of color. Biden has tapped roughly 1,500 appointees to various agencies so far.

  The Hill

Rudy under a microscope

Federal investigators have executed a search warrant at a New York office and private apartment belonging to Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of the city and personal lawyer to Donald Trump.

Federal authorities have been examining whether Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump administration in 2019 on behalf of Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, who at the same time were helping him search for dirt on Trump’s political rivals.

[...]

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (Fara) makes it a federal crime to try to influence or lobby the US government at the request of a foreign official without informing the justice department.

[...]

Investigators had seized some of Giuliani’s electronic devices from the Upper East Side residence, and from his law office on Park Avenue, early on Wednesday, the New York Times reported.

[...]

“What they did today was legal thuggery. Why would you do this to anyone, let alone someone who was the associate attorney general, United States attorney, the mayor of New York City and the personal lawyer to the 45th president of the United States,” [Giuliani’s own lawyer, Robert Costello,] told the Wall Street Journal.

  Guardian

Because, supposedly, in this country, nobody is above the law.

The Wall Street Journal said Costello told its reporters that authorities arrived at Giuliani’s apartment at 6am and seized his devices.

[...]

Giuliani posted, then deleted, a tweet saying he would be giving a live statement about the raids during his afternoon radio show on WABC radio. When the show started at 3pm, Giuliani was missing and a guest host, Dominic Carter, was presenting.

Too bad Rudy wasn't given a pre-pardon from his best pal. And I wonder why he wasn't.

UPDATE:

I think we need to expand the investigation to include Bill Barr.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Compare and contrast

According to Post fact-checkers...

Sixty-seven is still way too many.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

There's more than one way to skin a cat

I'd like to see the data on how many anti-covid-19-vaccination Virginians suddenly lose their objection.

Junior's testimony perjury

The matter at hand was a lawsuit filed in 2020 against Donald Trump’s inauguration committee and the Trump Organization by Karl Racine, the attorney general of Washington, DC. The suit claims that the inauguration committee misused charitable funds to enrich the Trump family. As the attorney general put it, the lawsuit “alleges that the Inaugural Committee, a nonprofit corporation, coordinated with the Trump family to grossly overpay for event space in the Trump International Hotel. Although the Inaugural Committee was aware that it was paying far above market rates, it never considered less expensive alternatives, and even paid for space on days when it did not hold events. The Committee also improperly used non-profit funds to throw a private party [at the Trump Hotel] for the Trump family costing several hundred thousand dollars.” In short, the attorney general has accused the Trump clan and its company of major grifting [...] .

[...]

During his deposition, Trump Jr. frequently replied, “I don’t recall,” and he downplayed his involvement in preparation for his father’s inauguration in January 2017. In several exchanges, he made statements that are contradicted by documents or the recollections of others and that appear to be false.

  Mother Jones

Surprise, surprise.

During the deposition, Trump Jr. was asked, “Did you attend an event at Union Station [during the inauguration]?” This was a reference to that fancy candlelight dinner. He replied, “I don’t know.” The video shows Trump Jr. was at this celebration, which was also attended by his father, his adult siblings, Melania, and many Trump world luminaries. In the video, Trump Jr. ebulliently proclaims that this dinner “will go down in history.”

[...]

Trump Jr. also had trouble during the deposition remembering whether on the night of the inauguration he attended that exclusive bash at the Trump Hotel that the DC attorney general says was improperly paid for by the Trump inauguration committee and describes as a “private party for the Trump children” and guests of the hotel. According to Racine, Gates, with Ivanka Trump’s knowledge, “allowed the [inauguration committee’s] nonprofit funds to pay for a private after-hours party for the Trump family at their Hotel, even after [the committee’s] staff initially canceled this event over concerns of improper use of funds. Gates allowed the event to move forward after Trump Hotel staff complained that canceling it would hurt the Hotel’s bottom line.”

[...]

In recently submitted legal filings in the case, Racine provides more evidence this was indeed a private affair for the Trump children and hotel guests. “Attendance was by invitation only, and guests were limited to friends and family of the President-elect and guests of the Hotel,” he maintains in one filing. And he adds, “Incredibly, the final decision to proceed with the event was not even made by the [inauguration committee], but by Donald Trump, Jr.”

[...]

In his sworn testimony, Trump Jr. sidestepped the issue of whether this event was held for him and his siblings. And when he was asked if he had been “involved” in any inauguration events “like dinners, lunches, concerts,” he answered, “Not to my recollection. No.”

[...]

The inauguration committee paid the Trump Hotel $288,367 for this event, according to Racine. And the AG notes in a filing that Trump, Trump Jr., Ivanka, and Eric each profit from Trump Hotel revenues.

[...]

As the lawsuit notes, during the organization of the inauguration, Winston Wolkoff, then a close friend of Melania Trump, had raised concerns with the president-elect, Ivanka Trump, and Gates about the prices the Trump Hotel was charging the inauguration committee for events to be held there. This included a written warning to Ivanka Trump and Gates that Trump’s hotel was trying to charge the committee twice the market rate for event space. (Gates ignored the warning, the lawsuit notes, and the committee struck a contract with the Trump Hotel for $1.03 million, an amount the lawsuit says was far above the hotel’s own pricing guidelines.)

During his deposition, Trump Jr. was asked about Winston Wolkoff: “Do you know her?” He replied, “I know of her. I think I’ve met her, but I don’t know her. If she was in this room I’m not sure I would recognize her.”

Little parrot. Exactly what his father has said numerous times under similar circumstances.

[Mother Jones has video] from a tony candlelight dinner held at Union Station in Washington, DC, the night before Trump’s inauguration. This soiree was one of the official inauguration events. (A million-dollar contribution to the inauguration committee earned a Trump donor a ticket.) Here Trump Jr. can be seen profusely praising Barrack and Winston Wolkoff for the “incredible” work they did. It seems he did know her.

And documents obtained by Mother Jones shows there’s evidence that Trump Jr.’s claim of having “no involvement” with Winston Wolkoff was false. On January 17, 2017, an assistant for Ivanka Trump texted Winston Wolkoff and said that Trump Jr. wanted to speak to her, providing Winston Wolkoff with his cell number.

That same day, Trump Jr. emailed Winston Wolkoff and asked if they could talk. He said he had a contact who “seems to have some very big talent lined up, if we wanted it” for the inauguration events. Winston Wolkoff responded in an email, saying that the inauguration committee was “locked and loaded” for all its events. And Trump Jr. replied, “Thank you Stephanie, I wanted to see if you were still possibly looking for talent. Some friends of mine that are quite big in the industry have been asking around and would be able to put together a pretty impressive roster.”

[...]

Trump Jr. has a spotty record when it comes to telling the truth about scandals. When the news emerged in July 2017 that a year earlier he, Kushner, and Paul Manafort had secretly met in Trump Tower with a Russian emissary who they were told would supply them dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of a covert Kremlin effort to help the Trump campaign, Trump Jr. issued a statement that claimed they had gathered to discuss “a program about the adoption of Russian children.” The statement did not acknowledge that the intent of the meeting was to obtain derogatory material on Trump’s campaign rival from a Russian operative. An earlier draft of Trump Jr.’s statement did mention that the “individual” he met “might have information helpful to the campaign.” But that line was deleted at his father’s instruction, according to the final report of Mueller.

[...]

Trump Jr.’s testimony in Congress during the Trump-Russia investigation in September 2017 also raised questions about his trustworthiness. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was not “aware” of any overseas governments other than Russia offering or providing assistance to the Trump camp in 2016. Yet eight months later, the New York Times revealed that during the 2016 campaign Trump Jr. had a meeting with George Nader, an emissary for the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; Joel Zamel, an Israeli expert in social media manipulation; and Erik Prince, the infamous private security contractor and Trump backer. (Nader is now serving a 10-year sentence on child sex trafficking and pornography charges.) “The meeting,” the newspaper reported, “was convened primarily to offer help to the Trump team.” After the Times story appeared, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) declared, he was “deeply concerned that…Donald Trump Jr. provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Charge these criminals.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Murdoch's Empire of Lies includes the New York Post

The New York Post published a story on 23 April headlined “Kam on in”, which claimed that migrant children were being given a copy of the vice-president’s 2019 book, Superheroes Are Everywhere, as part of a welcome kit in Los Angeles.

Laura Italiano was credited with writing the story but on Tuesday she announced on Twitter that being told to write the “incorrect story” was her “breaking point” over working at the tabloid.

“Today I handed in my resignation to my editors at the New York Post,” she said. “The Kamala Harris story — an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against — was my breaking point.

  

It was very foolish of her to quit AFTER writing the story. That will be on her resumé for the rest of her life.

The story was followed up by several rightwing outlets such as Fox News.

Of course. Another Murdoch property. 

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  

Don't know who's running this account, but the lie has been up for 4 days and counting.

By now, you should know not to take advice from Tucker Carlson

There's a lot of Carlson idiocy in this clip.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Cleaning up Trump's mess

The Biden administration is directing its immigration enforcement agencies to largely steer clear of courthouses, part of an effort to combat a “chilling effect” that left migrants avoiding the legal system for fear of being deported.

A memo from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas directs both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to avoid making arrests near courthouses, with a few exceptions.

[...]

“Ensuring that individuals have access to the courts advances the fair administration of justice, promotes safety for crime victims, and helps to guarantee equal protection under the law,” Mayorkas said in a release.

“The expansion of civil immigration arrests at courthouses during the prior administration had a chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to come to court or work cooperatively with law enforcement."

[...]

The Biden administration policy does allow ICE and CBP officers to pursue courthouse arrests if they involve a national security matter, there is an imminent risk of death or violence, the person poses a threat to public safety or if there is an imminent risk evidence needed for a criminal case may be destroyed.

  The Hill

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Jesus Christ, these people, part 2

I believe WinRed is the Republican answer to ActBlue, which does a lot of good fundraising for Democrats and Democratic activity, in a very nice, inoffensive way.

Do these strong-arm tactics work?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Several.

One is, even their name is telling. ActBlue would like you to behave in a way that helps the planet and equality for all.  WinRed wants to win.

Another step in the right direction

No one could have predicted it

And Biden still hasn't called a halt.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Scrub the Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to recuse from a case Monday involving a conservative group that spent at least a million dollars supporting her Senate confirmation despite Democrats calling on her to do so because of the alleged conflict of interest it posed.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, a case brought by the conservative-leaning Americans for Prosperity Foundation challenging a California policy requiring charities to disclose their donors to the state, which the group alleged violates the First Amendment.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative advocacy group backed by billionaire David Koch—which is separate from but linked to the foundation, which focuses on education—launched a major ad campaign urging senators to back Barrett’s confirmation last year, on which they said they planned to spend “seven figures.”

[...]

Barrett heard the case Monday and did not offer any public statement on her decision to do so, and the Supreme Court has not yet responded to a request for comment on Barrett’s decision not to recuse.

The justice appeared skeptical of the California policy and signaled she may be likely to side with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation during the hearing, telling an attorney for the state of California to “assume that I think these petitioners have shown a substantial burden” the policy imposes on their First Amendment rights.

Whitehouse’s office [...] called the justice’s decision not to recuse “another dent in the Court’s credibility.”

  Forbes

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Labor union revival

President Biden on Monday signed an executive order creating a new White House task force focused on promoting labor unions that will be led by Vice President Harris.

The executive order directs the new task force to make recommendations within 180 days on how already existing federal policies and programs can be used to help workers organize and collectively bargain in the public and private sectors.

The task force, formally known as the “Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment,” will also make recommendations on potential new policies and regulatory changes.

[...]

Among its goals, the task force will aim to bolster the use of labor unions in areas with restrictive labor laws and to empower female workers and people of color. The task force also aims to increase union membership across the country, including by promoting worker organizing and collective bargaining within the federal government.

[...]

Biden has also voiced support for the PRO Act, a bill that would overhaul the nation’s labor laws, which unions consider their top policy priority. The measure has stalled in the Senate after it passed the Democratic-controlled House in March.

  The Hill

Of course it has.

Jesus Christ, these people

Also, he's ignorant about why the pilgrims came to America in the first place.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  From a Princeton professor of history...

Gee, I wonder what side they'll come down on

Must be very bad

UPDATE:

The family members of Andrew Brown Jr., a father of seven, and their attorneys said during a news conference outside the Pasquotank County Sheriff's Department in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, that they were expecting to see the video at 11:30 a.m. ET. But an hour before the meeting they were informed of an unexpected delay.

Harry Daniels, one of the lawyers for the Brown family, said he received an email at 10:29 a.m. on Monday from Pasquotank County Attorney Michael Cox that redactions were being made to the video.

  MSN

A North Carolina deputy shot and killed a Black man while serving a search warrant Wednesday, authorities said, spurring an outcry from community members who demanded the immediate release of body camera footage.

Authorities in Elizabeth City didn't provide details of the shooting. But an eyewitness said that Andrew Brown Jr. was shot while trying to drive away, and that deputies fired at him multiple times. The car skidded out of Brown's yard and eventually hit a tree, said Demetria Williams, who lives on the same street.

  CBS

Sidebar to the Derek Chauvin murder of George Floyd case

GOP projection is intentional

It's also ubiquitous.  And it's been that way since the Newt Gingrich/Karl Rove playbook. Claim the other side is doing the dirty before they catch you at it.  

The Pennsylvania House finished a set of 10 hearings diving into the nitty gritty of the commonwealth’s election law last week.

The hearings were overseen by Rep. Seth Grove.

[...]

“Our caucus was a mess,” Grove told reporters of the internal dissension over how to respond to former President Donald Trump’s push to stay in office despite losing the election.

But Grove did author and collect signatures for a separate December letter asking Congress to reject Pennsylvania’s election results, citing administrative actions and legal rulings that “undermined the lawful certification of Pennsylvania’s delegation to the Electoral College.”

[...]

[Grove] and the committee released a one page report running down their findings, citing a need to upgrade the state’s election registry, upgrade county voting technology, and standardize processes across all 67 counties.

Democrats were quick to point out that the list did not cite time before election for county officials to count mail-in ballots, adjusting ballot application timelines, or funding for local officials to pursue upgrades.

“After more than 10 hearings, I think that Republicans have made it painfully clear that they aren’t interested in stopping the steal, they are more interested in suppressing the vote,” said state Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie.

[...]

Seth Grove: We took a holistic approach to our entire election law. I think there’s room for Pennsylvania to grow in numerous ways. We have a bad law. We have a bad law for disabled people. We have a bad law for accessibility. We have a bad law for integrity.

[...]

C-S: You talked about good faith bargaining. So one thing I have to ask you is — You signed on to, and you organized, the letter to Congress that objected to Pennsylvania’s election results in the 2020 election. You’ve been part of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s election integrity committee. And you are one of many lawmakers who met privately with Kris Kobach, who’s just talking a lot about baseless voter fraud conspiracies. There are a lot of people who are going to be looking at you and saying, ‘you’re not going to be negotiating in good faith, and you are not someone who’s actually trying to make the election code better. You’re gonna be focusing more on the harder to cheat than the easier to vote.’ What would you say to people who are very doubtful of your ability to participate in this conversation?

[Seth Grove]: We’ll see.

C-S: That’s it?

[Seth Grove]: That’s it. We’ll see.

[...]

C-S: I would just push back. You told me that you went to that meeting with Kris Kobach. I understand what you said about that —

[Editor’s note: Grove told the Capital-Star two weeks ago that he “wasn’t really paying attention” to the meeting]

[Seth Grove]: I was invited to dinner.

C-S: You also organized the letter that went to Congress that said ‘we object to the results.’

[...]

C-S: Was there election fraud in 2020?

[Seth Grove]: Yes, there was. They have confirmed cases of election fraud.

C-S: Who committed that fraud in Pennsylvania?

[Seth Grove]: Right, Republicans. But it’s still election fraud. It doesn’t matter who [commits] it. We don’t want that fraud to occur. And to say there wasn’t any is a lie.

[...]

Never once have I ever said there’s 200,000 more ballots than registered voters in this Commonwealth. I’ve never said there are all these deceased voters out there. I’ve always seeked the truth.

[...]

You know, it is what it is. People are going to believe what they believe.

[...]

I can’t help people believe everything on the internet. There are a lot of bad accusations out there. We did our due diligence to try to address them when members had questions.

[...]

You know, it is what it is. People are going to believe what they believe.

  Pennsylvania Capital-Star

What utter bullshit.

"Seeked"?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

WE must retire the phrase "quiet part out loud"

Because it's no longer quiet.

Shameless.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Because they can't win if they don't cheat

The GOP is not just the opposition party to the Democratic Party, it's the Anti-Democratic Party in every sense of the term.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Currently spreading through the Murdochsphere

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Scrub the Supreme Court

The news this week that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has signed a $2 million book deal should strike even capitalists such as myself as unseemly. Barrett has been on the Supreme Court for less than a year and she is already cashing in for seven figures. I publicly supported her confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg but her decision to accept a $2 million advance for a book she could not have sold for $200 before her confirmation casts serious doubt on her judgment, and judges, especially Supreme Court justices, need good judgment.

Technically, Barrett has done nothing wrong. The United States Code limits a judge’s outside earned income at 15 percent of the judge’s salary. Barrett’s current salary as an associate justice of the Supreme Court is $265,600, which means her outside earned income cannot exceed $39,750. Although I do not teach math for a living, I do know that $2 million is a lot more than $39,750. But in a federal statutory schema littered with loopholes, book royalties inexplicably do not count as outside earned income for purposes of government ethics.

  The Hill

It's not inexplicable. It's lawmakers making sure they keep themselves in big money.

Among current members of the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor tops the list, with more than $3 million in book advances in 2010 and 2012 for her memoir “My Beloved World” and for a children’s book. Justice Clarence Thomas received a $1,500,000 advance for his 2007 memoir “My Grandfather’s Son.” Justice Neil Gorsuch was paid $225,000 for “A Republic, If You Can Keep It,” a book about the “essential aspects” of the Constitution, as well as events that shaped his life and outlook.

Justice Barrett’s book is projected to be about how judges should avoid letting their decisions be shaped by personal feelings. Although it is probably fair to say that almost everyone would agree with that proposition, it is equally fair to say that anyone not looking to cash in on a Supreme Court justice’s fame — in Barrett’s case, the publisher is the conservative Sentinel imprint of Penguin Random House — would not pay $2 million for a book about a proposition as obvious as that.

[...]

[S]cholars who write about corruption understand that even more worrisome than the classic quid pro quo, where the publisher for instance pays the justice a big advance in exchange for the justice casting votes strongly protective of freedom of the press, is the use of public office for private purposes or gain, even when legal.

[...]

There is also the issue of the Constitution itself, the fundamental law that Barrett and her colleagues on the Supreme Court have sworn an oath to uphold. The emoluments clause, which rose from obscurity to prominence during Donald Trump’s presidency, forbids public servants from benefiting from their positions while holding their offices.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wouldn't it be nice?

If it DOES work, American politicians, goaded by Big Pharma, will ban it or tax it heavily.

Read the story here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Deadbeat president

Or, you could maybe take the case to court and get the campaign's income attached.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Brett Kavanaugh is still a disgusting prick

In an appalling 6–3 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court effectively reinstated juvenile life without parole by shredding precedents that had sharply limited the sentence in every state. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in Jones v. Mississippi is one of the most dishonest and cynical decisions in recent memory: While pretending to follow precedent, Kavanaugh tore down judicial restrictions on JLWOP, ensuring that fully rehabilitated individuals who committed their crimes as children will die behind bars. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, pulls no punches in its biting rebuke of Kavanaugh’s duplicity and inhumanity.

[...]

The Supreme Court strictly curtailed the imposition of juvenile life without parole in two landmark decisions: 2012’s Miller v. Alabama and 2016’s Montgomery v. Louisiana. In Miller, the court ruled that mandatory sentences of JLWOP—that is, sentences imposed automatically upon conviction—violate the 8th Amendment’s bar on “cruel and unusual punishments.” It explained that children’s crimes often reflect “transient immaturity”; because their brains are not fully developed, young offenders are “less culpable” than adults and have greater potential for rehabilitation. In Montgomery, the court clarified that discretionary sentences of JLWOP—that is, sentences imposed at the discretion of a judge—are generally unconstitutional, as well. It then applied these rules retroactively, allowing all incarcerated people who were condemned to life without parole as children to contest their sentences.

[...]

[Kavanaugh's] majority opinion in Jones v. Mississippi claims fidelity to Miller and Montgomery while stripping them of all meaning. Kavanaugh wrote that these precedents do not require a judge to “make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility” before imposing JLWOP. Nor, Kavanaugh wrote, do they compel a judge to “at least provide an on-the-record sentencing explanation with an implicit finding of permanent incorrigibility.” Instead, a judge need only be granted “discretion” to sentence a child to less than life without parole. So long as that discretion exists, Kavanaugh held, the 8th Amendment is satisfied—even if the judge provides no indication that they actually considered the defendant’s youth, gauged their potential for rehabilitation, and nonetheless decided their crime reflected “permanent incorrigibility.”

  Slate

That is rich coming from a man who owes his seat on the bench to convincing people that his own juvenile indiscretions - and likely crimes - deserved to be forgiven.

As Sotomayor noted in her extraordinary dissent, “this conclusion would come as a shock to the Courts in Miller and Montgomery.” Those decisions explicitly required the judge to “actually make the judgment” that the child is incorrigible. They also “expressly rejected the notion that sentencing discretion, alone, suffices.” Kavanaugh claimed that he followed these precedents, Sotomayor wrote, but he “is fooling no one.”

[...]

“The Court simply rewrites Miller and Montgomery to say what the Court now wishes they had said, and then denies that it has done any such thing,” Sotomayor declared. “The Court knows what it is doing.” Then she used Kavanaugh’s own words against him, quoting his past statements claiming to support stare decisis, or respect for precedent, to illustrate how he has abandoned his own purported principles. “How low this Court’s respect for stare decisis has sunk,” Sotomayor wrote. “The Court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification. It is hard to see how that approach”—and here, she quoted Kavanaugh himself—“is ‘founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.’ ”

"Activist judges." The very thing Republicans claim to abhor.

Fixing the Trump mess

HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge said the agency will bring back the Obama-era Equal Access Rule, which ensures that no one can be “denied access to housing or other critical services because of their gender identity.”

The Trump administration last year sought to relax those protections by allowing federally funded homeless shelters to exclude transgender clients from single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity.

Under former Secretary Ben Carson, HUD’s rationale for modifying the Equal Access Rule was “anecdotal evidence that some women may fear that non-transgender, biological men may exploit the process” to gain access to women's shelters—though the agency noted at the time it was “not aware of data suggesting that transgender individuals pose an inherent risk to biological women.”

  Forbes

Jesus Tapdancing Christ

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) on Wednesday signed a bill that protect drivers who unintentionally injure or kill protesters while attempting to flee their demonstration.

[...]

House Bill 1674 makes obstructing a public road during a protest a misdemeanor punishable with up to a year in prison and a $5,000 fine. The bill also states that a driver cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring a protester if they have "reasonable belief" that they are in danger and are "fleeing from a riot."

[...]

The measure also increases the penalties for activists who obstruct a public street during a protest.

"We are sending a message today in Oklahoma that rioters who threaten law abiding citizens' safety will not be tolerated. I remain unequivocally committed to protecting every Oklahoman's First Amendment right to peacefully protest as well as their right to feel safe in their community," Stitt said, according to local ABC News station KAKE.

  The Hill

Sounds like it.

But wait! There's more!

Had Nancy Pelosi retired when she should have, this wouldn't have happened...

Jesus Christ, Nancy.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

This is why she can have her job as long as she wants:

Cleaning up Trump's mess

A thousand words about electoral college voting and Senate representation ... and democracy

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rep Kennedy is still a dick

He asks her to give him a list - "specifics" - and stops her by saying, "I get the idea."

If he just wanted 'the idea", why ask for a list?  Asshole.  

"Is that all?"  "What else?"  Sarcastically. He thought he had her, but she had more.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.