JANUARY 16 AND
17, 2020
NEWS AND VIEWS
WARREN VS
SANDERS -- SEVEN ARTICLES
THE FEUD
CONTINUES. THESE ARE TWO VERY INTENSE COMPETITORS, AND THE STAKES ARE YUUUGE.
AS THE REPORTER SAID, THOUGH, IT WAS INEVITABLE. THEY ARE TOO SIMILAR AND THEIR
BASES ARE ALSO. SANDERS IS GOING FOR SEVERAL THINGS, AND REMAKING THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS ONE OF THEM. THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP MAY BE A CASUALTY
IN THAT IDEOLOGICAL AND TACTICAL BATTLE. I HOPE THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN. I
HOPE THEY WILL RETAIN POSITIVITY TOWARD EACH OTHER WHILE VYING FOR THE SAME
POSITION.
AS FOR THE NOTION
THAT “A WOMAN” CAN’T BECOME PRESIDENT, THE TRENDS OF THE TIMES BELIE THAT; AND
WHILE AT THIS POINT IN AMERICAN HISTORY IT COULD BE TRUE, I WILL CONTINUE TO
FIGHT FOR FAIRNESS IN ALL WAYS, INCLUDING MY RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE BASIS OF
IDEAS RATHER THAN GENDER. I’M JUST NOT GROUP ORIENTED ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR A
WOMAN BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE, WHEN THERE IS A MAN WHOM I LIKE OR TRUST MORE DUE
TO THEIR IDEAS. POLITICS IS NOT A GAME.
Hot mic catches
tense exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders after debate
59,394 views • Jan
16, 2020
THUMBS UP 467
THUMBS DOWN 482
DURATION 1:15
CBS This
Morning
1.13M
subscribers
A tense moment
between Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders was caught on a hot mic after
Tuesday’s Democratic debate. Warren was clearly not happy after Sanders denied
the story that he told her in 2018 that a woman couldn't be elected president.
Ed O’Keefe reports on the rift between the longtime allies.
Watch "CBS
This Morning" HERE: http://bit.ly/1T88yAR
Category
News &
Politics
FORMER GOVERNOR
SHUMLIN IS QUOTED IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE AS SAYING THAT SANDERS “ULTIMATELY
DID NOT FEEL LOYALTY TO DEMOCRATS”. I APPLAUD SENATOR SANDERS FOR REMAINING
FREE TO SPEAK HIS OWN WISDOM, FEELINGS, AND PRIORITIES. TOO MUCH “LOYALTY” IS
AS CORRUPTING AS TOO MUCH POWER. HE IS NOT NEARLY AS DEEPLY ENTRENCHED INTO
“GROUP-THINK” AS ARE MOST MEMBERS OF ANY GROUP, INCLUDING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AND
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; THEREFORE, HE CAN BE DEPENDED UPON TO FIGHT FOR ALL OF
THE ECONOMIC UNDERCLASSES LIKE A MOTHER LION WHEN SO MANY ARE AFRAID TO DO IT,
OR ARE SIMPLY, BEING PRIVILEGED, LACKING IN COMPASSION. “THAT’S NOT MY
PROBLEM,” THEY SAY. BERNIE DOESN’T TAKE THAT STANCE.
HE HAS OPEN
EYES TO THE TRUE SITUATION IN OUR COUNTRY, HAVING GROWN UP IN IT, AND DOES NOT
FEEL THAT BEING POOR OR WORKING CLASS SHOULD MEAN A SUBSTANDARD LIFE: THAT
INCLUDES BEING BULLIED OR SHAMED, LACK OF ACCESS TO MEDICAL OR DENTAL CARE, THE
INABILITY TO FINANCE A HIGHER EDUCATION, POOR HOUSING AND SANITATION, POOR
NUTRITION, A LACK OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN THE HOME FROM BOOKS AND GOOD
DICTIONARIES TO THE INTERNET, ALL OF WHICH ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR GROWING
CHILDREN.
IF WE ARE TO
HAVE A DECENT AND GENUINELY PROSPEROUS NATION, WE MUST GROW OUR CITIZENS BETTER
AND MORE HEALTHFULLY, RATHER THAN HIRING MORE, OR MORE AGGRESSIVE, POLICE
OFFICERS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY MORE OF OUR PEOPLE ARE IN JAILS AND PRISONS
THAN THOSE IN MOST OTHER DEVELOPED NATION AND THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IS SOCIOLOGICAL
RATHER THAN GENETIC. UNTIL WE SOLVE THE HUMAN PROBLEMS, THOUGH, WE SHOULD BE
WORKING ON FAIRNESS IN THE WHOLE COURT SYSTEM, WHICH JAILS MORE PEOPLE OF COLOR
THAN WHITES, AND MORE WHO ARE POOR THAN THOSE OF SUFFICIENT INCOME TO PAY BAIL.
THAT IS WHY BERNIE IS VOWING TO ELIMINATE THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM.
THE LACK OF
BASIC CONDITIONS THAT BRING EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL COMFORT AND ADVANTAGE IS DEEPLY
DISCOURAGING AND TRULY DAMAGING. FOR A GREAT MANY AMERICANS, THAT IS AND HAS
BEEN AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. GROWING UP IN A WORKING CLASS TOWN MADE IT
CLEAR TO ME. A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING POOR MENTAL HEALTH, INCLUDING DRUG
ADDICTION, GOES ALONG WITH DEPRIVATION, WHICH CAN MAKE CHILDREN BECOME SUICIDAL
OR EVEN DANGEROUS ADULTS. BERNIE FIGHTS FOR THE DOWNTRODDEN, WHATEVER THEIR
SKIN COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR THOSE FROM ANY OTHER SHUNNED AND
SHORT-CHANGED CLUSTER OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO SEE IN A
POLITICIAN / STATESMAN, AND TO ME HE IS THE LATTER.
YES, GROUP-THINK
IS NECESSARY TO FORM A FIGHTING FORCE FOR ANY CAUSE, BUT IT IS MORE LIKELY TO
INTRODUCE STATUS RANKING AS A DOMINANT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE CULTURE, AS
OPPOSED TO AN EGALITARIAN COOPERATION; AND IT PRODUCES OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE
VERY WORST OF THE SOCIAL ABUSES THAT POP UP IN EVERY COUNTRY WHEN THE PEOPLE PERSISTENTLY
FEEL A NEED TO PUNISH SOMEONE ELSE FOR THEIR OWN SADNESS AND LACK OF HOPE.
2020 ELECTIONS
Bernie 'will
play dirty': Ex-Vermont governor slams Sanders
Democrat Peter
Shumlin, who has endorsed Joe Biden, weighed in on the disagreement between
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
By NATASHA
KORECKI
01/16/2020
04:49 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH -- Tensions
between Elizabeth Warren, left, and Bernie Sanders, right, came to a head at
Tuesday’s debate, when a hot mic caught Warren asking Sanders after the debate
if he was calling her a liar on TV. | Patrick Semansky/AP Photo
A former
Vermont governor and ex-chair of the Democratic Governors Association is taking
aim at Bernie Sanders and his campaign, accusing the senator of trying to
“Hillarize” Elizabeth Warren.
In an interview
with POLITICO, Peter Shumlin — who has endorsed Joe Biden for president in
2020 and served as Vermont’s governor from 2011 to 2017, while Sanders
represented the state in the Senate — warned that Sanders, an independent
and a self-described democratic socialist, ultimately did not feel loyalty
to Democrats.
“What I’ve seen
in Bernie’s politics is he and his team feel they’re holier than the rest.
In the end, they will play dirty because they think that they pass a
purity test that Republicans and most Democrats don’t pass,” said Shumlin.
“What you’re seeing now is, in the end, even if he considers you a friend,
like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie will come first. That’s the pattern we’ve seen
over the years in Vermont, and that’s what we are seeing now nationally.”
Sanders’
campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The salvo from
Shumlin is the latest reaction to an ongoing spat between Sanders and Warren,
two longtime friends who had taken part in a nonaggression pact before entering
the 2020 presidential primary. But tensions have been building slowly between
the two, coming to a head at Tuesday’s debate, when a hot mic caught Warren
asking Sanders after the debate if he was calling her a liar on TV, after he
denied saying in an earlier private conversation that a woman could not be
elected president.
Shumlin, who
also served two terms as DGA [Democratic Governors’ Association] chair, slammed
Sanders’ recent campaign tactics, reported by POLITICO, that cast Warren as
elite. Sanders’ campaign briefly distributed talking points for supporters
to use door-to-door, saying that Warren supporters “are highly-educated,
more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter
what” and that “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
And the day
after Warren clashed with Sanders following a Democratic debate in Des Moines, #Warrenisasnake
was among the hashtags trending on Twitter.
Shumlin accused
Sanders of trying to “Hillarize” Warren, saying the senator had cast
Hillary Clinton, too, as an elitist, contributing to divisions in the
Democratic electorate.
“We should be
weakening Donald Trump, not each other,” Shumlin said. “I’m concerned that
we’re seeing a replay of the kind of dynamics that didn’t allow Hillary to
win.”
Shumlin said
his critique of Sanders is not sour grapes, noting that Sanders endorsed him
and campaigned for him in Vermont. Shumlin also had attempted to enact a
single-payer health care system in the state, an effort that ultimately
failed.
Still, Shumlin
teed off on Sanders’ relationship with Vermont Democrats.
“Don’t forget,
the first office he won was beating the Democratic mayor of Burlington.
He never endorsed most Democrats until his Senate career,” Shumlin said. “The
only way he could win the Senate seat and avoid a Democrat winning the
nomination and splitting the vote in the general election has been to run for
the Democratic nomination, win it and immediately turn it down.”
In 2016, Sanders
drew criticism for initially not campaigning for the Democratic nominee in
the general election race in Vermont. He did later cut an ad for the candidate.
During the 2018
midterms, Sanders stumped for Democratic candidates across nine
battleground states.
FILED UNDER:
ELIZABETH WARREN, ELIZABETH WARREN 2020, BERNIE SANDERS, BERNIE SANDERS 2020,
KRYSTAL BALL REALLY
GETS IT, PER KILPATRICK, AND I AGREE. WHEN I FIRST STARTED PAYING ATTENTION TO
BERNIE SANDERS WAS AROUND 2014 WHEN HE BEGAN A PUSH TO 2016. I WAS THEN AND AM
TODAY ATTRACTED TO THE GENEROSITY AND FAIRNESS OF HIS IDEAS, THE CLEAR-SIGHTED
VIEW OF OUR PROBLEMS, THE BREADTH OF HIS CONCERNS, AND THE STRENGTH OF HIS
PERSONALITY. FOR BEING SOMETIMES PRICKLY, I FORGIVE HIM. IS HE THE BEST
CANDIDATE TO BEAT DONALD TRUMP? THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT I BELIEVE HE
PROBABLY IS. AT ANY RATE, A GROUNDSWELL OF ENLIVENED VOTERS CAN’T BE A BAD
THING.
Krystal Ball Is
the Anti–Rachel Maddow Bernie Fans Have Been Waiting For
BY
CONNOR
KILPATRICK
12.19.2019
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Connor
Kilpatrick is the story editor at Jacobin.
Krystal Ball
was once an MSNBC star. Now she’s one of the few mainstream media figures who
gets why Bernie Sanders matters and why liberal professionals shouldn’t be
allowed to dominate progressive politics.
Krystal Ball,
cohost of TheHill.com's political talk show Rising with Krystal & Saagar.
Our new issue,
on populism, is out now. Get a discounted $20 print subscription!
Is This the
Future Liberals Want?
Matt Karp
The Little Man
on the Big Screen
Eileen Jones
Modi Might Have
Finally Gone Too Far
Achin Vanaik
Adam McKay Is
Mad as Hell
Connor
Kilpatrick
Krystal Ball
looks like she belongs on TV. She sounds like it, too — if you’re not paying
attention.
“Good morning,
everyone! Welcome to Rising. Saagar, what kind of show do we have today?” she
asks her cohost.
“We have an
amazing show for everyone today,” he replies.
On Rising with
Krystal & Saagar, Ball’s political talk show at TheHill.com, it is always a
good morning. And Ball and her conservative cohost, Saagar Enjeti, are always
happy to bring us an amazing show. The studio is sleek and modern in that Star
Trek–bridge sort of way with impeccably designed graphics easily up to CNN’s
standards. The music is bright and upbeat, as if threatening to break into a
Mighty Mighty Bosstones cover. Both Ball and Enjeti are always smartly dressed,
gleaming smiles all around, with Ball’s colorful wardrobe crushing the
competition.
“I guess I’d
call it conventional but playful,” she tells me. “But these days, I must
confess, it’s also a little tongue in cheek.”
If you were to
watch it all in the manner that millions of Americans catch morning news
broadcasts (in the background, while making coffee and toast), you could be
forgiven for thinking you were tuning in to one of any dozen Good Morning
America clones. Democracy Now! this is not.
But when you
start listening to what they’re saying, that’s when Rising becomes a very
surreal experience.
“3 NEOLIBERALS
OUT — WHO’S NEXT?”
That’s how
Ball’s “On My Radar” graphic read the morning after Kamala Harris dropped out.
The “Radar” segment is a kind of aggressive left-populist take on Bill
O’Reilly’s infamous Talking Points Memo. “Prepare for a holiday season of
neoliberal tears,” she said, closing it out with a huge grin. Another recent
monologue focused on whether or not Obama would step up to stop Sanders. “Many
of the elite preservers of the status quo in the Democratic Party would rather
see Trump re-elected than Bernie as president,” Ball said. “Remember,
they’re all making money under Trump. That includes Obama. That includes
the oligarchs. That includes the professional managerial class,” or PMC. (Her
“On My Radar” bullet points that morning: “They Prefer Trump,” “Wake-Up
Call”).
The effect is
something like if Robin Roberts and George Stephanopoulos suddenly burst into
trash-talking ‘neoliberals’ and chuckling about ‘the PMC.’
After the
Democrats won back the Kentucky governor’s mansion in November, she turned the
show over to a heavily accented Kentucky Teamster official. The bullet point
read: “Ditch Ukraine. Embrace class.” The effect is something like if Robin
Roberts and George Stephanopoulos suddenly burst into trash-talking
“neoliberals” and chuckling about “the PMC.”
“I do think
part of the power of it is that it looks mainstream,” Ball says as we sit in
the café at the Newseum* in Washington, DC. She’s just finished shooting
Rising for the day, still in makeup and wardrobe. “There we are, sitting behind
an anchor desk. I’m wearing my jewel-colored sheath, or whatever, with my
professional makeup and hair done. And then we start talking, and it sounds
way, way different. From the topics we choose, to the way that we think about
them, to the way that we engage with each other, and with guests, to the type
of debates we have.”
Krystal Ball
with cohost Saagar Enjeti on the set of Rising with Krystal & Saagar.
Watching Rising
is like you just woke up a decade into some mass political realignment, in
which the Bloombergians, the Paul Ryans, the Clintonites, and even the
Obamicans have all been swept into the dustbin of history, leaving only two
poles standing: Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon.
And for a
growing segment of the American public — disproportionately online — it’s exactly
what they’ve been waiting for. In June, the show started off with 6,000 of them
subscribing on YouTube. After a mere six months, subscribers now number over
172,000. (Ball has more than 220,000 followers on Twitter, quickly climbing.)
And despite a feisty yet traditional polish that’s closer to Fox News than
Vice, Ball is more and more shaping up to be their champion.
“I was
completely non-political growing up,” Ball says as we stroll by a chunk of the
Berlin Wall at the Newseum. An actual rifle tower from Checkpoint Charlie looms
over us. “I couldn’t have even told you the difference between a Democrat and a
Republican until probably close to college.”
She grew up in
King George County, Virginia, where she still lives, commuting an hour and a
half to work. (“It’s awesome to go to the grocery store and run into someone I
grew up with who does not give a shit at all about the things that we’re
fixated on every day.”)
After
graduating from the University of Virginia with a degree in economics, she moved
to East Liverpool, Ohio, once known as “the pottery capital of the world,” a
time Ball calls “most influential for me, politically.” Steel mills in the
surrounding Mahoning Valley kept the region steady with nearly 10,000 jobs —
until they began to vanish in the 1980s.
“Today,” she
tells me, “the thing that East Liverpool is most known for is this horrible
photo that went viral of two adults who had OD’d in the front seat with a child
strapped into the backseat.” A police officer, she points out, shared the photo
on social media.
At
twenty-eight, she ran for congress in Virginia as a Democrat at the height of
the Tea Party movement in one of the most conservative districts in the state,
going door-to-door with her two-year-old daughter in a stroller. And while that
campaign was closer to Obamaism than the economic populism she would later
embrace, it seems to have sparked the beginning of a leftward trajectory.
“The DCCC [The
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] literally will take your phone and
go through it. They call it rolodexing, and see if you have enough wealthy
people in your phone to be able to raise $200,000 or $300,000 right out of the
gates.” I ask her if they did that to her. “Yes, they did.”
A few months
into the race in the fall of 2010, photos surfaced of Ball in a bawdy college
Halloween costume. The photos were silly, innocuous, and thoroughly PG-13, but
in the media climate still stuck in the conservative W years, they were more
than enough to finish off her insurgent campaign.
“For a brief
moment, I was one of the most googled people in the world,” as she put it on a
recent episode of Rising.
But the
attention and sympathy from liberals led to regular spots on MSNBC. And then as
a host on The Cycle, part of an attempt by the network to cultivate Millennial
talent. But Ball might’ve been more than they bargained for. It was there in
2014 that she delivered a powerful and prescient monologue urging Clinton not
to run for president.
“We’re now at a
moment of existential crisis as a country. We’re recovering slowly from the
Great Recession, but as we pick our heads up at where we’re heading, we don’t
like what we see.”
Krystal Ball
(second from left) cohosting the MSNBC talk show The Cycle in 2013.
While the rest
of the Democratic Party elites were still patting themselves on the back for
reelecting Obama, Ball alone at MSNBC saw the fires on the horizon. She cited
inequality statistics, the decline of workers’ rights, the rise of a ruling class,
and Clinton’s complicity in all of it.
“Don’t run,
Hillary,” she said. “Don’t run.”
Shortly after
it aired, she was called into her boss’s office. Clinton World, it seems, was
not at all pleased.
“After that,
every time I was going to do another monologue on Hillary Clinton, I had to get
it approved by the president of the network,” she tells me. “That’s not a
normal thing.” Ball’s show was canceled in the summer of 2015.
“I would do
these MSNBC pieces on inequality, or the plutonomy, or Piketty, or how I
thought Hillary Clinton was going to lose, and it felt very lonely. Honestly,
it has felt very lonely until basically this moment,” she tells me. “But it’s
also kind of funny that it would be so radical to just actually talk about
class politics, and actually not go out of your way to smear Bernie Sanders
every day.”
Warren has
leaned more and more into gender and identity and less into the core of her
critique of power,” Ball says. “I mean, she actually said that Deval Patrick of
Ameriquest and Bain Capital would be a ‘must have’ in her cabinet. What?!
After MSNBC,
she started a PAC called the People’s House Project (PHP), dedicated to the
goal of putting working-class candidates in Congress. PHP backed the Marine vet
and severely crew-cut Rich Ojeda for West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District
— who introduced himself to voters with an intense four-minute video of him
pumping iron — as well as former ironworker Randy Bryce in Wisconsin’s 1st.
Both men looked and sounded about as far from a 2010s Ivy League Democrat as
one could get — at one of Ojeda’s earlier campaign BBQs, a childhood
acquaintance beat him with brass knuckles, then attempted to run him over with
a truck. Both men won their primaries, too — but lost in the general.
Ojeda, however,
received the largest swing of Trump voters toward Democrats in any
congressional district that year, likely due in part to his prominent role in
supporting the West Virginia teachers’ strike.
“They have been
a godsend,” Ojeda said of Ball’s support.
While
mainstream Democrats saw little more than a redneck state senator who openly
admitted to voting for Trump — less an error of judgment than an unforgivable
sin for many — Ball saw something else entirely: a spark of working-class
populism that might catch on in Trumpland. And the total opposite of the MSNBC
green rooms she knew so well.
“Ojeda is a guy
who, in his community, had a ton of credibility and trust, and was a true
working-class guy, and just got that to his core. It was instinctive. I could
not have told him, in southern West Virginia, what to say, or how to say it, or
whatever. He just knew how to talk to people.”
That she was
drawn to a candidacy like Ojeda’s after her time at MSNBC shows just how
unlikely Ball’s career is. And how far she’s moved from her congressional run.
“If her views
have accelerated,” her cohost, Enjeti, says, “it’s not a result of her
departure. It’s a result of the times we live in.”
Because Krystal
Ball is very good at what she does. It’s just surprising that what she does
even exists.
Whereas MSNBC
celebrates the Democratic Party’s takeover by affluent moderates, Rising seems
to revel in attacking anyone or anything that smacks of “PMC.” Just as liberals
tune in to Rachel Maddow to have a well-dressed wonk make them feel smart,
Rising fans live to roast (and troll) that very demographic. With Harris out,
Pete Buttiegieg is now a favorite punching bag of Ball’s, calling him the
candidate of “generational change, which really just means the status quo, only
from a younger dude.” (Her “On My Radar” bullet point for the candidate: “OK
Boomer.”)
“I guess it
comes from always having a foot in both worlds, so to speak,” she tells me. “I
grew up in rural Virginia, where I actually live now to this day, in a place
that Trump won by something like thirty points.” (In a recent podcast
interview, she video-chatted in from her car, apologizing because there was
little broadband access in her hometown.)
But look no
further than her take on Elizabeth Warren, a candidate she once gave a
thumbs-up to in her MSNBC days, but who Ball now eviscerates regularly on her show
as “a perfect candidate for the type of liberal that the media is,” and — even
more damning in the world of Rising — the winner of “the Rachel Maddow vote.”
(Maddow, despite being a former colleague, has been the target of heavy
criticism on Rising for spreading what Ball calls “feverish, Russian conspiracy
theories.”)
Warren, for
Ball, is someone “relentlessly cheerful and unflappable. Never cross. Always
ready with a plan or a folksy quip. Or a tale from her upbringing on the ragged
edge of the middle class. A sort of peppy, silver-sneakers cheerleader with the
right answer always ready to go,” she said in November. “But every once in a
while, Warren’s mask slips.”
For a former
supporter, it’s quite a turn. “I practically begged her to run against Hillary
in 2016,” Ball says. At the time, “Warren seemed to be an antidote.” She cites
Warren’s failure to endorse Sanders in the last election plus her recent
rhetorical shifts. “She’s leaned more and more into gender and identity and
less into the core of her critique of power,” Ball says. “I mean, she actually
said that Deval Patrick of Ameriquest and Bain Capital would be a ‘must have’
in her cabinet. What?!”
But sometimes,
it sounds like Ball’s skepticism is rooted in an intimate familiarity with
Warren’s appeal — and her own professional-class instincts: “Warren can’t get a
B on the test, she has to get an A. As a natural pleaser, ‘A’ student, rule
follower? I get it,” she said in a recent Rising monologue. “I really do.”
Ball doesn’t
dispute it. “I’ve absorbed all the ‘good girl’ cultural programming that comes
with being raised in an American middle-class household,” Ball tells me. “My
natural mode is rule worshipper, pleaser. I still hate confrontation, and I
hate making people uncomfortable.” She points out a tic she has on Rising — a
nervous laugh to break the tension after she goes on the attack. “Ultimately,
though, you’ve got to be willing to fight for the things and the people you say
you are fighting for, whether it’s personally comfortable or not. I guess that
is why I have so much scorn for the kind of civility politics of the PMC crowd.
The lives of working people literally depend on those of us with a modicum of
power being willing to be uncomfortable.”
Krystal Ball at
the fourth Annual WIE Symposium at Center 548 on September 20, 2013 in New York
City. Laura Cavanaugh / Getty
The morning we
met in her Washington studio, shortly after Sanders’s fiery, post–heart attack
debate, numerous media outlets including NBC, New York magazine, and the
Washington Post had mysteriously misattributed Sanders’s searing attack on the
health insurance industry to Elizabeth Warren.
“Maybe it’s an
honest mistake, but then you look at all the outlets that repeated his honest
mistake, you look at the overall tone of his coverage and the direction that it
always goes in,” she says, rolling her eyes. “I think a lot of it with Bernie
Sanders is the fact that his support is disproportionately working class. These
aren’t the people that newsrooms are filled with. They just genuinely don’t
understand his appeal or think that he has an appeal, really, to speak of.”
Ball’s
familiarity with that green-room world though is what makes watching Rising so
much fun. She’s the anti-Maddow. It’s as if she’s defected from the enemy,
ready to spill all their secrets.
In a segment on
CNN’s selling of Buttigieg as the new Obama, Ball gives us an insider’s view as
to how exactly cable news picks favorites: “Basically, the reporter and the
producer decide whatever angle they’re looking for. Then they find someone
willing to parrot that angle that they’ve devised back to them. Just watch and
learn.” (“On My Radar” headline this time: “LOL CNN” with a “Condolences to the
Media” bullet point.)
“I’m going to
be on CNN this weekend, actually,” she says, sighing. “We’re going to talk
about impeachment and Ukraine.”
But “defector”
is maybe the wrong way to describe Ball. That would imply she’s split from the
mainstream for a subculture, and she seems to have her eye on something much
bigger than that. Instead, she’s shaping up to be the Normie Queen of the new,
Sanders-friendly media sphere.
As with Sanders
himself, Ball is an unlikely envoy to the very online Millennial and Zoomer
socialist set. And she doesn’t share many of the lefty shibboleths of other
fellow travelers.
She unashamedly
believes “you start with class.” She certainly doesn’t shy away from pointing
out when the politics of identity are deployed for anti-socialist purposes.
Perhaps even more controversially for certain online quarters, she believes
“cancel culture”* is, in fact, real — and a weapon capable of being used by the
powerful to smear the Left. And she doesn’t believe in writing off workers who
voted for Trump or Brexit either. (“No one is going to vote for a party who
looks down their nose at them.”)
What you see
with Ball’s polished style is a kind of shaking off of subcultural
paraphernalia, accumulated detritus from a half century of political defeat.
“We like to see
professionalism, we like to see preparation, we like to see our views espoused
by someone articulate and well dressed,” Enjeti says of Ball’s popularity.
“It’s a very validating experience. The goal of being antiestablishment is,
after all, to ultimately take power.”
She’s shaping
up to be the Normie Queen of the new, Sanders-friendly media sphere.
It’s a
perspective that better reflects the actual divisions in America more than
anything you’d hear from Ball’s old colleagues on MSNBC. And with Sanders’s
surging poll numbers, it seems more and more of the country is in agreement.
“I think the
most important divide in the American public is between people who are
fundamentally treated as human beings in their work, the ‘creative class’ that
Richard Florida named, and people who are basically disposable commodities. You
get sick, you don’t show up for work one day, sorry, get out,” she says. “The
idea that you’re there just as a cog to deliver sushi to the creative class at
2:00 a.m., or whatever their whims desire.”
Before we leave
the Newseum, we head up to the roof, with a gorgeous view of Washington at
dusk. It all looks so well-manicured and sturdy, the opposite of the disarray
and distress that much of the country finds itself in today.
From up there,
the Sanders incursion, even if he were to win the White House, seems even more
daunting: How in the hell is a single administration with a historically weak
working class going to challenge — let alone uproot — all of this?
“Some of the
wealthiest counties in the nation, the wealthiest zip codes, are right here,”
Ball says, not exactly sharing my pessimism. “That’s one of the fun things
about our show — doing it from the city. It feels extra subversive.”
But when I push
a little harder, asking her how a Berniecrat insurrection — even with a less
hostile media — can possibly seize control of this town, she sees that same
“bourgeois stability” as another reason not to hold back. And to remember just
what the stakes are — professional-class norms be damned.
She brings up
John Weigel, the Navy Air Force veteran who stood up at one of Sanders’s events
and announced that, due to his medical debt racked up by Huntington’s disease,
he was going to kill himself. It was a moment that anyone who saw could never
forget — a reminder of what’s at stake in America but rarely heard on cable
news.
“I think about
that man, and I’m like, okay, you’re willing to do anything to make it better
for him? Then you need to accept risking the wrath of someone on Twitter,” she
says. “There are a lot of places in the world where, if you’re a dissident, you
get knocked off. You’re actually risking your life. Here, you’re worried about,
oh, my mentions on Twitter are going to be ugly for a day? Give me a break.”
“CANCEL CULTURE”*
Call-out
culture
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Call-out
culture (also known as outrage culture) is a form of public shaming that
aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions by calling
attention to behavior that is perceived to be problematic, usually on social media.[1][2][3] A
variant of the term, cancel culture, describes a form of boycott in
which someone (usually a celebrity) who has shared a questionable or unpopular
opinion, or has had behavior in their past that is perceived to be either
offensive or problematic called out on social media, is "canceled";
they are completely boycotted by many of their followers or supporters, often
leading to massive declines in celebrities' (almost always social media
personalities) careers and fanbase.[4][5]
Description
Michael Bérubé,
a professor of literature at Pennsylvania State University, states, "in
social media, what is known as 'callout culture' and 'ally theater' (in which
people demonstrate their bona fides as allies of a vulnerable population) often
produces a swell of online outrage that demands that a post or a tweet be taken
down or deleted".[6]
Lisa Nakamura,
a professor at the University of Michigan, described cancel culture as a
"cultural boycott", adding that "when you deprive someone of
your attention, you're depriving them of a livelihood."[7]
THE NEWSEUM*
ABOUT THE
NEWSEUM
For 22 years,
the Freedom Forum educated people about the five freedoms of the First
Amendment and the importance of a free and fair press through an innovative
interactive museum called the Newseum.
The brainchild
of Freedom Forum and USA TODAY founder Al Neuharth, the first Newseum was
located in Rosslyn, Va., just outside Washington, D.C., from 1997-2002. It
featured eight sections of the Berlin Wall, a gallery of Pulitzer Prize-winning
photographs and the News History Gallery, displaying 500 years of print news
history. Interactive exhibits invited visitors to weigh in on ethical debates
journalists face, and play TV anchor in the Be a TV Reporter experience.
At the Newseum,
visitors experienced the story of news, the role of a free press in major
events in history, and how the core freedoms of the First Amendment — religion,
speech, press, assembly and petition — apply to their lives.
After five
successful years in Rosslyn, the Freedom Forum purchased a prominent location
on historic Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., enlisting award-winning
architect James Stewart Polshek to design a building, with exhibits by Ralph
Appelbaum.
Located halfway
between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, the building made a powerful
statement, the 45 words of the First Amendment etched into a 75-foot tall
tablet of Tennessee marble facing Pennsylvania Avenue. With 15 galleries and 15
theaters, the Newseum opened April 11, 2008, to great fanfare. It had two
state-of-the-art television studios and was a sought-after spot for
conferences, weddings, movie premieres and other special events.
Visitors, who
embraced the Newseum experience, enjoyed exhibits including the 9/11 Gallery
Sponsored by Comcast, which displayed the broadcast antennae from the top of
the World Trade Center; the Berlin Wall Gallery, whose eight concrete sections
are one of the largest displays of the original wall outside Germany; and the
Pulitzer Prize Photographs Gallery, which features photographs from every
Pulitzer Prize–winning entry dating back to 1942.
More than 60
changing exhibits explored such topics as the FBI and the press; news coverage
of Hurricane Katrina; the hunt for the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln;
early photographs of presidential
candidate John F. Kennedy and press coverage of his 1963 assassination; major
moments in the civil rights movement from 1963 to 1968; Stonewall and the rise of
the LGBTQ rights movement; as well as a several exhibits featuring the winners
of the prestigious worldwide Pictures of the Year competition. Exhibits
focusing on popular culture and the news media included “Anchorman: The
Exhibit,” based on the comedy film about women entering TV newsrooms in the
1970s, and “Seriously Funny: From the Desk of ‘The Daily Show with Jon
Stewart.’”
In 2019, Time
magazine named the Newseum one of the “world’s greatest places.”
But the
financial obligations associated with operating the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue
were burdensome, and in January 2019 the Freedom Forum entered into an
agreement to sell the building to Johns Hopkins University. After 11 years and
11 million visitors, the Newseum closed its doors on Pennsylvania Avenue on
Dec. 31, 2019. The Freedom Forum hopes to find a suitable location to serve as
the Newseum’s next home but that process will take time.
The Freedom
Forum will move to temporary offices in downtown Washington, D.C. in 2020,
where the organization will continue to carry out its mission to foster First
Amendment freedoms for all.
TODAY,
TRAVELING EXHIBITS AND A WORLD-CLASS COLLECTION
Today, the
Newseum hosts traveling exhibits that have been displayed in galleries around
the globe.
The Newseum
collection of more than 40,000 print news items, 200,000-plus photographic
prints and negatives and more than 22,000 objects related to news gathering and
First Amendment freedoms is available for loan to institutions whose criteria
meet lending guidelines. The bulk of the photographic collection is photographs
by freelance photojournalist Ted Polumbaum, who covered anti-Vietnam War and
civil rights protests, the political career of Sen. Ted Kennedy, chef Julia
Child and sporting events including boxer Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston and the
1967 Boston Red Sox.
RISING TO THE
ISSUE OF THE MOMENT
Hill.TV's
Krystal Ball rips Warren over feud with Sanders
RISING KRYSTAL BALL 1/16/2020
VIDEO -- [LW
NOTE: In this Rising report, 1/16/2020, Ms. Ball correctly criticizes CNN for
the manner of questioning both Sanders and Warren at the debate – and very intelligently;
but you will only see it if you can tolerate the ridiculous way The Hill
has inserted a 13 second ad literally every 10 seconds, chopping the news video
into very small sound bites. Is this another form of censorship, or did the ad
sponsor ask for a large amount of air time with a tiny ad? Whatever happened,
it’s irritating.]
Hill.TV host
Krystal Ball is doubling down on her criticism of Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) amid the ongoing feud between the Massachusetts senator fellow
progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Ball, who is a
vocal supporter of the Vermont independent, on Thursday pointed to Sanders’s
long history of being supportive of women’s rights and hit Warren over her past
affiliation with the Republican Party.
“Please explain
to me how it serves the cause of women to kneecap a senator who has
consistently stood up for the economic and human rights of women since the time
that Elizabeth Warren was a Republican,” Ball said.
“Help me
understand white [sic?] feminists, why whether or not Bernie Sanders was
sufficiently woke and PC in that conversation should matter more to women than
whether they have health care, are bankrupt from student debt, have access to
free childcare,” she continued.
“Explain it
slow so I really get it because this makes no sense,” she added.
The two
progressive firebrands have yet to make peace following their clash during the
Democratic presidential primary debate this week.
Sanders told
reporters Thursday that they had not spoken since the dust-up.
During
Tuesday’s debate, the pair sparred over a CNN report that claimed that
Sanders had told Warren in a 2018 private meeting that a woman couldn’t
win the White House. While Warren stood by her corroboration of the report,
Sanders vehemently denied making such a comment.
Warren was seen
approaching Sanders after the debate and appeared furious at the Vermont
senator for denying her claim.
“I think you
called me a liar on national TV,” Warren said, according to audio released
later by CNN.
ENJETI MORE OR
LESS QUESTIONS SANDERS’ MASCULINITY FOR FAILING TO MAKE A BIG FIGHT WITH HER ON
NATIONAL TV. SOME SAY HE’S TOO PASSIVE, OTHERS SAY HE’S TOO AGGRESSIVE. I THINK
HE’S PRETTY WELL MODULATED, PERSONALLY. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW THE HEY CNN
GOT THEIR HANDS ON THAT STORY IN THE FIRST PLACE. COULD IT HAVE COME FROM
ANYWHERE EXCEPT THE WARREN CAMP? WHO ELSE WAS IN THAT MEETING, IF ANYONE?
Hill.TV's
Saagar Enjeti rips Sanders over handling of feud with Warren
1/17/2020
Video – RISING,
Ro Khanna interviewed. 1:24 duration.
Hill.TV host
Saagar Enjeti criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday for his handling
of this week's CNN report that the Vermont independent said a woman couldn’t
win a presidential election during a private meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass) in 2018.
“How do you sit
there as a man and somebody calls you a sexist and then a liar … and you’re a
front-runner in the Democratic race and you just sit there and take it?” Enjeti
asked.
“I mean is that
how you’re going to run?” he added.
Tensions
between Warren and Sanders reached a new high during Tuesday night’s Democratic
debate when the candidates were asked about the CNN report.
Sanders flatly
denied ever making such a statement, saying “anyone who knows me know that it
is incomprehensible that I do not think a woman could be president of the
United States.”
Warren, who
confirmed the report, doubled down on her position following Sanders’s denial
and confronted him about the issue following the debate.
"I think
you called me a liar on national TV," Warren said to Sanders, according to
audio released a day after the exchange.
The senators
have yet to make amends, even as a number of progressive groups call for unity.
RO KHANNA
SPEAKS FOR INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOR
Sanders
campaign co-chair calls for progressive unity amid senators' fallout
RISING, KRYSTAL
BALL
1/17/2020
A co-chair of
Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign came to Sen. Elizabeth
Warren’s (D-Mass.) defense amid a public fallout between the two progressive
firebrands and joined calls for unity.
“There are ups
and downs in campaigns, but I have tremendous admiration and respect for
Senator Warren,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Hill.TV, noting Warren’s record
on anti-corruption and founding of the Consumer Protection Bureau.
“You have to look
at campaigns for what they are, and I have no doubt that the progressive
movement needs her leadership as well,” he added.
Khanna went on
to join progressive calls for the party to remain unified.
“I agree with a
lot of the groups who have been saying let’s get the progressives all marching
in the same direction.
Eighteen
leading progressive groups with ties to both candidates have signed a unity
pledge calling for solidarity.
The three-part
pledge says the groups will focus their fight for the nomination against
candidates on the “corporate wing” of the Democratic Party and ensure that a
progressive candidate wins the party’s presidential nomination.
“When
progressives fight each other, the establishment wins,” said Charles
Chamberlain, the chairman for Democracy for America.
Sanders and
Warren have not spoken since their contentious exchange following Tuesday’s
Democratic debate.
Warren
approached Sanders after the debate in Iowa and accused him of calling her a
liar on national television.
Sanders
appeared to try to defuse the situation by offering to talk about it later.
“You know,
let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that
discussion,” he said, before telling Warren she had also called him a liar.
Their feud is
centered on a CNN report claiming that Sanders had told Warren that he didn’t
believe a woman could win the White House. While Warren confirmed the report,
Sanders has denied making such a statement and both dug into their positions
during the debate.
The pair also
clashed earlier this week after reports surfaced on Sunday that the Sanders
campaign was urging volunteers to tell voters that Warren only appealed to the
wealthy elite.
—Tess Bonn
I THINK, JUST
MAYBE, WE ARE SEEING WHAT I HAVE BEEN YAMMERING FOR SINCE THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC
DEBACLE – A SEPARABLE, AND IF WE’RE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH, SEPARATE PROGRESSIVE
PARTY. WE COULD ACT WITH THE DEMOCRATS, BUT NOT BE WITHIN THEIR ORGANIZATION. AT
LEAST I HAVE HOPES FOR THAT. IF WE’RE HONEST ABOUT WHAT THE MAINSTREAM
DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME, IT’S THE ONLY ANSWER TO MAINTAINING ANY PROGRESSIVE
STRUCTURE AT ALL.
18 progressive
groups sign unity pledge amid Sanders-Warren feud
BY JONATHAN
EASLEY - 01/16/20 07:00 AM EST
PHOTOGRAPHS –
Warren and Sanders, smiling © Getty
Images
Eighteen
progressive groups have signed a unity pledge vowing to keep their fire trained
on the “corporate wing” of the Democratic Party amid a burgeoning feud between
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that has split the
left.
The signers
include seven groups who back Sanders's 2020 presidential bid and two that back
Warren's. The remaining nine groups are either supportive of both candidates,
such as Democracy for America, or have not endorsed anyone yet.
The three-part
pledge says the groups will “focus our fight for the nomination against
candidates supported by the corporate wing, instead of fighting each other.”
The groups say they’re committed to ensuring a progressive candidate wins the
Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and that they’ll join forces to
ensure that candidate ultimately defeats President Trump.
“When
progressives fight each other, the establishment wins,” said Charles
Chamberlain, the chairman for Democracy for America. “We saw it in 2004 when
progressives took each other out and John Kerry slipped through to win Iowa and
then went on to lose in November to a very unpopular Republican incumbent.
We’re determined to not let that happen again.”
Sanders and
Warren had agreed to not attack one another and stuck to that pledge for all of
2019.
But the detente
exploded in spectacular fashion earlier this week after reports that the
Sanders campaign was instructing volunteers to question whether Warren is
electable.
Warren later
alleged that Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018 that a woman could
not win the White House. Sanders, however, denies ever saying that.
The allegations
and denials escalated between the two at Tuesday night’s debate in Des Moines,
culminating in a post-debate exchange in which Warren confronted Sanders and
accused him of calling her a “liar on national TV.”
Sanders and
Warren are at the top of many polls of Iowa with the caucuses only weeks away,
and liberals are fearful that the bitter dispute will hurt both candidates and
potentially pave the way for a centrist contender, such as former Vice
President Joe Biden or former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, to emerge
victorious.
“We need a bold
progressive president. In our opinion, the most inspirational and electable
Democrat we could nominate is Elizabeth Warren,” the Progressive Change
Campaign Committee said in a statement. “We are joining this effort out of a
belief that it represents leaders in the progressive movement urging everyone
from campaign staff to Twitter commenters to focus on defeating a corporate,
establishment Democrat like Joe Biden. This effort inherently includes standing
opposed to sexism and bad-faith arguments in the primary process. We look
forward to working with our friends to enforce these principles."
The unity
effort, called “Progressives Unite 2020,” features a website where members can
sign the pledge and commit to voting for either Sanders or Warren at their
caucus or primary.
That’s
particularly important in Iowa, where candidates must reach a 15-percent
threshold at a caucus site to win delegates. Organizers will be seeking to
ensure that if one of the progressive candidates does not hit that threshold,
those voters move to back the progressive candidate that does.
“We need a
President who will put the interests of everyday people ahead of those of the
wealthy elite and big corporations,” said Bree Carlson, the deputy director of
People’s Action, which backs Sanders. “Our members voted to endorse Senator
Sanders as the best choice for President because he is ready to work side by
side with us to do just that. Senator Warren is our clear second choice, both
Senator Sanders and Senator Warren stand heads and shoulders above the
candidates seeking only to prop up the status quo of corporate interests."
A full list of
the groups that signed on to the effort and the candidates they support is
below:
1. Be A Hero
Action Fund
2. Black Male
Voter Project
3. Black Voters
Matter Fund
4. Center for
Popular Democracy Action (Sanders)
5. Democracy
for America
6. Dream
Defenders (Sanders)
7. Inequality
Media Civic Action
8. Justice
Democrats
9. Our
Revolution (Sanders)
10. People’s
Action (Sanders)
11. Presente
Action
12. Progress
America
13. Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (Warren)
14. Progressive
Democrats of America (Sanders)
15. Roots Action
(Sanders)
16. Social
Security Works
17. Sunrise
Movement (Sanders)
18. Working
Families Party (Warren)
TAGS ELIZABETH
WARREN PETE BUTTIGIEG BERNIE SANDERS DONALD TRUMP JOHN KERRY JOE BIDEN
IMPEACHMENT -- SEVEN
ARTICLES
MORE MUELLER
DOCUMENTS FROM THE DOJ MAY WELL BE A RESPONSE TO DEMOCRATIC PRESSURE, INCLUDING
BAD PUBLICITY, IT SEEMS TO ME. THERE IS APPARENTLY ANOTHER LOAD OF DOCUMENTS
THAT CAME FROM LEV PARNAS.
DOJ releases
new tranche of Mueller witness documents
BY TAL AXELROD
- 01/17/20 11:05 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH –
ROBERT MUELLER © Greg Nash
The Justice
Department on Friday released a new tranche of documents from witness
interviews from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The documents,
obtained by CNN as part of a joint lawsuit with BuzzFeed News, were compiled by
FBI agents or prosecutors after they questioned each witness.
However,
despite a court order, the outlet said the Department of Justice (DOJ) withheld
memos related to interviews Mueller’s team conducted with Jared Kushner, the president’s
son-in-law and a White House senior staffer.
Among the
witness interviews included in the release are those conducted with Russian
oligarch Petr Aven, former Trump campaign aides George Papadopoulos and Carter
Page, and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
The memo from
the interview with Aven, who is known to have close ties with Russian President
Vladimir Putin, showed the two discussed U.S. sanctions and the prospect of
engaging with members of the Trump transition team to ameliorate relations
between Moscow and Washington and end the sanctions.
Papadopoulos,
who has faced legal scrutiny over his dealings with Russia, told investigators
that former Trump campaign national co-chairman Sam Clovis told him Russia
would be important to the campaign.
"Papadopoulos
recalled the topic of Russia came up during his phone call with Clovis, in the
context that Clovis had mentioned that Russia would be a very important aspect
of the Trump campaign," investigators wrote in 2017. The surrounding
sentences of the quote are redacted.
Of all the
memos released, those from Page shine the brightest light into the
investigation. The former campaign aide met with agents several times without
an attorney present and prepared presentations for them.
Among other
things, agents discussed with Page how Russia may have been molding him to
become a witting or unwitting informant for Moscow’s intelligence agents, an
effort that may have been ramped up when he joined the campaign.
"PAGE
referenced himself being 'on the books' of Russian Intelligence Services,"
an FBI agent wrote. Page later added that "he is probably the highest
level contact" for the Russians.
Page also
“suspected” Manafort of being responsible for a controversial change to the
Republican Party platform during the 2016 convention that blocked a provision
calling for the providing of lethal weapons to Ukraine to help defend against
Russian aggression.
A redacted copy
of an October 2016 arrest warrant for page showed that FBI officials believed
him to be “the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.”
The Justice
Department has released two prior tranches of documents from the Mueller probe.
The investigation closed last year, finding insufficient evidence of a
conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia in 2016 but declining
to make a prosecutorial decision as to whether the president obstructed justice
by trying to hinder subsequent probes into collusion.
TAGS GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS VLADIMIR PUTIN ROBERT MUELLER PAUL MANAFORT JARED KUSHNER
2 + 2 = 4
Democratic
lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it'
BY TAL AXELROD
- 01/17/20 08:42 PM EST
Rep. Ted Lieu
(D-Calif.) on Friday dismissed what he said was the threat of a lawsuit from fellow
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), telling a lawyer for Nunes to “shove it.”
The Democrat
shared on Twitter the first page of a letter sent by Nunes’s counsel and dated
Dec. 31 in which the lawyer cited the right to maintain an "unimpaired
reputation." The letter was mentioned by Lieu on Twitter earlier this
week.
Lieu hinted in
his response that the threat centered on his comments tying Nunes to Lev
Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman and former associate of President Trump's
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who is at the heart of the impeachment
proceedings.
“I received
your letter dated December 31, 2019 in which you state your client Congressman
Devin Nunes will sue me if I don’t, among other actions, issue a public apology
to Devin Nunes,” Lieu wrote in his own letter dated Thursday. “It is true that
I stated Congressman Nunes worked with Lev Parnas and conspired to undermine
our own government.”
“I welcome any
lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman
Nunes. Or, you can take your letter and shove it.”
LIEU’S TWEET
AND PDF OF LETTER
Ted Lieu
Verified
account
@tedlieu
Follow Follow
@tedlieu
More
Attached is the
first page of a five page letter in which the lawyer for @DevinNunes threatens
that Rep Nunes will sue me.
Attached is my
response.
Lieu pointed to
recent evidence released by the House in its impeachment investigation and
Parnas's MSNBC interview earlier this week, noting Parnas and Nunes
communicated amid efforts by Trump allies to convince Ukraine to investigate
his political rivals.
Neither Lieu
nor Nunes immediately responded to requests for comment from The Hill on Friday
evening.
Nunes has
emerged as one of Trump’s top allies in the House from his perch as the top
Republican on the Intelligence Committee, maintaining that the president acted
appropriately in his dealings with Ukraine despite testimony from several
current and former officials that they were alarmed by the president's efforts
to push Kyiv to conduct investigations desired by Trump.
TAGS DONALD
TRUMP DEVIN NUNES TED LIEU
LOAD COMMENTS
(1,003)
Dems plan marathon
prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process
BY MIKE LILLIS
- 01/17/20 09:24 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH –
PRESIDENT TRUMP © Getty Images
The House
Democrats prosecuting the impeachment of President Trump are planning a
marathon preparation session ahead of next week's Senate trial, using the long
holiday weekend to polish their case that the president abused his power in his
dealings with Ukraine.
The seven impeachment
managers tapped to make the Democrats' case before the Senate will return
to Washington on Sunday to dig through the extensive record built over the
course of the months-long investigation that led to Trump's impeachment last
month, according to aides working on impeachment.
They'll be
joined by staffers and counselors for the Intelligence, Judiciary and Oversight
committees, all working to "refine" their arguments before taking
their case to the Senate trial, with launches in earnest on Tuesday. The
extensive preparations will include a walk-through of the Senate chamber.
"The case
is not a complicated one," said one Democratic aide working on the
process. "The safety and security of the United States, of our
Constitution ... [and] our democracy domestically rests on elections. And when
the president invites a foreign government to announce investigations attacking
a political opponent, he's undermining our democracy."
Aside from the
legal merits of the case, much of the Democrats' argument will also delve into
process.
Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has resisted the notion of considering any
evidence, or hearing witness testimony, outside of that examined in the House
investigation. That position has gained outsize prominence — and stirred
outsize controversy — with the emergence of beguiling new details surrounding
Trump's efforts to press Ukrainian leaders to find dirt on his political
opponents.
In recent days,
Democrats have received a trove of documents from Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born
Florida businessman and close associate of Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, who led the pressure campaign on Ukrainian officials. Parnas, who was
on the front lines of the unsuccessful effort to launch the Ukrainian
investigations, has alleged that Trump was privy to that campaign from the
start, along with other top administration officials that include Vice
President Pence, Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo.
"President
Trump knew exactly what was going on," Parnas told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow
this week.
Trump has
denied any association with Parnas, while attacking the Democrats' impeachment
effort as a politically motivated "hoax."
Democrats have
also found ammunition in John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser,
who had refused to testify in the House investigation but is now offering his
insights under Senate subpoena.
McConnell has
agreed to Senate rules allowing votes on potential witnesses, but not before
the Democrats make their opening arguments and Trump's defense team offers its
rebuttal. That chronology has outraged Democrats, who want all the evidence
presented at the outset of the debate.
"When in a
trial do you address witnesses' testimony at the end of the trial and not at
the beginning?" a second Democratic aide told reporters Friday evening. "We're
talking about specific witnesses, and specific documents from specific agencies
that the president has acted to blockade from Congress and to suppress."
While House
investigators heard testimony from 17 diplomats and national security officials
with experience in Ukrainian affairs, at least a dozen others obeyed a White
House directive to refuse participation in the process. Separately, the
administration, defying House subpoenas, rebuffed all Democratic requests for documents
related to the Ukraine episode.
Democrats have
pounced on the White House recalcitrance to hammer McConnell's argument that
he's simply conducting the process according to the same parameters that
governed President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999. Then, the Democrats
note, the president allowed all requested witnesses to testify, while providing
tens-of-thousands of pages of documents to the special prosecutor managing the
investigation. Additionally, three witnesses who had previously testified in
the special prosecutor's probe into Clinton were interviewed again during the
Senate trial — a process backed by Republicans, including McConnell, at the
time.
"There was
no argument about documents in Clinton because President Clinton had provided
those 90,000 documents. How many documents has President Trump provided in
response to House subpoenas? Zero," said the first Democratic aide.
"We ought to start with that right away. It speaks to the fundamental
fairness of the trial, and it is out of sync with precedent, with law and with
what the American people want."
Democrats are
also wary that the administration's blanket withholding of related documents
gives Trump a wild card in the coming fight. They're voicing concerns that the
president's defense team will try to slip some of that evidence into the trial,
cherry-picking only the documents that boost Trump's case.
"One thing
we'll be watching very closely is whether the president is seeking to game the
system by selectively introducing documents or [other] material here and there
in order to suggest a misleading narrative," said the second Democratic
aide. "That's something we're very keenly aware of."
The release of
documents from both sides ahead of the Senate trial will follow two streams in
the coming days. The Democratic impeachment managers, led by Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), presented their articles to the
fully packed Senate on Thursday. Trump's team is slated to provide their
response to those charges on Saturday at 6 p.m., and Democrats will then offer
their own formal counter-argument to the administration at noon on Monday.
Separately,
House Democrats will release their trial brief on Saturday at 5 p.m. That will
be followed by the president's trial brief, due Monday at noon. Democrats will
then have exactly 24 hours to formulate their response to the White House
brief.
Meanwhile,
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday posted all the information
that will be transmitted to the Senate as part of the trial, including all the
closed-door depositions, public hearing transcripts, notices of those witnesses
who refused to testify, and supplemental information that includes the recent
trove of photos and documents provided by Parnas.
Despite McConnell's
resistance to hearing evidence that wasn't presented during the House
investigation, Democrats say they're ready to lean on that supplementary
information as they make their oral arguments before the Senate. If the
majority leader intends to follow the Clinton model, they argue, that evidence should
be permitted.
"The House
Judiciary Committee ... can produce the record which will consist of publicly
available material," said the first Democratic aide, citing the Clinton
rules. "There is no reason why the same that precedent should not apply. We
fully expect that it will apply. And if it does not apply, you'll hear about it
from us."
TAGS MITCH
MCCONNELL RUDY GIULIANI RACHEL MADDOW WILLIAM BARR DONALD TRUMP ADAM SCHIFF
JOHN BOLTON MIKE POMPEO
THIS SOUNDS
LIKE THE COLD WAR ERA RUSSIAN / USA SPYING. AS FAR AS I HAVE READ OR HEARD, RUSSIA
HASN’T POISONED OR OTHERWISE ASSASSINATED ANYONE HERE, AS THEY HAVE IN AT LEAST
THREE CASES IN BRITAIN. MAYBE HACKING BURISMA, THOUGH, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TO
DO WITH TRYING TO DAMAGE THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION IN UKRAINE, AS VOX STATES,
WITH TAMPERING WITH OUR 2020 PRESIDENTIAL RACE AS THEY DID FOUR YEARS AGO. THEY
DON’T LIKE COMPETITION MUCH, AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF TRUMP TURNS OUT TO
BE INVOLVED AGAIN, NOT JUST WITH UKRAINE, BUT RUSSIA. THAT SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. SEE ALSO THE RECENT ARTICLE BELOW ON THE RUSSIAN HACK,
WHICH GIVES MORE DETAIL. [https://www.vox.com/2020/1/13/21064818/russia-hacks-burisma-biden-hunter]
Ukrainian
authorities ask FBI for help investigating Russian hack on Burisma
BY MAGGIE
MILLER - 01/16/20 12:43 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH –
UKRAINIAN FLAG © Getty
PHOTOGRAPH -- Ukrainian
authorities ask FBI for help investigating Russian hack on Burisma © Getty
Ukraine’s
Ministry of Internal Affairs on Thursday announced that the country’s cyber
police had started "criminal proceedings" around the recent
hacking of gas company Burisma, and noted that authorities were seeking the
assistance of the FBI in pursuing the case.
The ministry
wrote in a statement that criminal proceedings had been launched, and that “persons
involved in committing this criminal offense are being identified.”
The company has
been propelled into the spotlight in recent months due to the impeachment
inquiry into President Trump, which began after an anonymous whistleblower
report alleged that Trump had tried to pressure Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and
his son Hunter Biden, who served on the company's board between 2014 and 2019.
The proceedings
were launched following a story from The New York Times earlier this week,
which reported findings by cyber group Area 1 Security that Russian military
hackers had launched email phishing attacks designed to steal credentials of Burisma
employees and gain access to the company’s systems.
The attack
reportedly came amid impeachment hearings in November.
According to
the Times, the Russian hackers successfully got into at least one server,
although it is unclear what they were able to access or whether anything was
stolen.
The ministry
noted that it had approached both the FBI and Area 1 Security for assistance in
the probe into the hacking of Burisma.
“In order to
properly investigate the circumstances of the offense, the National Police
is initiating the creation of a joint international investigation team, to
which FBI representatives will be invited,” the ministry wrote.
The announcement
of the criminal proceedings in relation to the Burisma hack came the same
day the ministry also launched a criminal investigation into whether former
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had been tracked by associates of
Lev Parnas, an associate of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, while
serving as ambassador.
According to communications
between Parnas and Republican congressional candidate Robert Hyde that
were made public earlier this week, Yovanovitch may have been followed while
in Ukraine. Hyde has since denied that any spying took place.
A spokesperson
for the FBI declined to comment on whether it would assist Ukrainian
authorities in their investigation.
TAGS UKRAINE
RUSSIA MARIE YOVANOVITCH RUDY GIULIANI DONALD TRUMP JOE BIDEN CYBERSECURITY
HACK
HOW MUCH CLOUT
DOES THE GAO HAVE? SEE THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BELOW.
LEGAL
White House
violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says
House Democrats
have said the Ukraine aid pause is part of a broader “pattern of abuse” by the
White House budget office.
By ANDREW
DESIDERIO, KYLE CHENEY and CAITLIN EMMA
01/16/2020
10:01 AM EST
Updated:
01/16/2020 03:34 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH -- President
Donald Trump. | Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The White House
budget office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the
Government Accountability Office concluded in a new report.
President
Donald Trump ordered the hold on the critical security assistance in July, a
slew of senior White House officials testified to House impeachment
investigators late last year. It was a move that coincided with an effort
by the president and his allies to pressure Ukraine to investigate
Trump’s Democratic rivals.
“Faithful
execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy
priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the GAO wrote
in an eight-page report released on Thursday.
Trump’s
decision to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid, which he
reversed in September after House investigators began probing the move,
is at the heart of the articles of impeachment the House passed last month, and
it will be a central focus in the Senate’s impeachment trial that begins
later Thursday.
The report
undercuts an oft-stated defense of Trump’s decision to hold the
aid back: that it was a lawful exercise of the president’s authority.
“I have never
seen such a damning report in my life,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the
ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I mean, this
is a nonpartisan thing. I read it twice. ... To have something saying this is
such a total disrespect of the law. It’s unprecedented.”
Leahy said the conclusion
“screams” for the need to force impeachment testimony from White House chief
of staff Mick Mulvaney. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also said it “reinforces,
again, the need for documents and eye witnesses in the Senate. You see this
more and more and more in all of this — this tangled web to deceive that the
administration is engaged in.”
But Republicans
were unmoved by the findings, either claiming that they haven’t read GAO’s
analysis or that it doesn’t mean much for the Senate impeachment trial.
“I wouldn’t
think that a GAO opinion, per se, would change anything,” said Senate
Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). “But we’ll listen to it, we’ll
look at it and we’ll evaluate it.“
“I don’t think
they should be deciding who broke the law,” he added.
Sen. John
Cornyn (R-Texas) said the report “identifies OMB, not the president. And it
identifies policy reasons, not political reasons. I think we’re going to
hear some more about it, but I don’t think that changes anything.“
Rep. Tom Cole
(R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the House Labor-HHS-Education
spending panel, conceded that OMB’s action might deserve some scrutiny. But
it doesn’t hurt the president, he said.
“Look, I have a
lot of respect for GAO,” he said. “I look at it this way. The aid got there
within the fiscal year … There are no investigations in the Ukraine.
So if the process wasn’t handled as well as it should have been, then
fair enough and we should look at that and make sure it is handled
appropriately. Do I think this has any impact on impeachment? No I don’t.“
GAO, an independent
nonpartisan government watchdog that responds to congressional requests,
said the White House attempted to justify its decision not to notify
Congress of the hold by claiming it was simply a “programmatic delay.” But
GAO rejected that claim, saying Trump’s decision, carried out by the budget
office, was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which requires notification
to Congress of any such delay in an appropriation of funds.
“OMB’s
assertions have no basis in law,” the GAO argues, referring to
the White House Office of Management and Budget.
OMB spokeswoman
Rachel Semmel pushed back on GAO’s conclusions.
“We disagree with GAO’s
opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure
taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president’s priorities
and with the law.”
The GAO report
also states that OMB and the State Department “failed” to provide all of the
information that was necessary for its investigation. That decision will likely
fuel Democrats’ arguments in the Senate trial that Trump has attempted to
obstruct Congress’ ability to investigate the Ukraine matter, and that he has
been engaged in a “cover-up.” The second impeachment article alleges that
Trump obstructed Congress when he ordered senior officials to refuse
requests and subpoenas seeking testimony and documents.
“The
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has confirmed what congressional
Democrats have understood all along: President Trump abused his power and broke
the law by withholding security assistance to Ukraine,” House Appropriations
Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.
Sen. Chris Van
Hollen (D-Md.) requested GAO’s opinion in a letter last month, noting that several
administration officials have raised concerns about whether the president’s
decision violated federal budget law. The move prompted two White House
budget officials to resign in part out of frustration. Senior officials at
the Pentagon and State Department sought an explanation for the hold, but were
ultimately unsuccessful.
Van Hollen sent
the letter one week after the House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18, charging him
with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for allegedly using his
office and federal resources to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political
rivals — and then resisting the House’s investigation.
At issue in
GAO’s legal opinion is how the Ukraine aid pause gels with the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, a law that sharply curbs the executive branch’s authority
to alter congressionally appropriated funds.
Mark Sandy, a
senior OMB civil servant, told House impeachment investigators last year
that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s office informed OMB
on July 12 that Trump planned to halt Ukraine’s aid without providing an
explanation.
The
administration released its hold on Sept. 11, just hours after a whistleblower
complaint about the matter was circulating around the government, and after
House committees began investigating Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani
and his efforts in Ukraine to spur Trump’s desired investigations.
The funds were
set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, and while
the administration un-paused the money, millions of dollars never made it to
Ukraine by the deadline.
House Democrats
have said the Ukraine aid pause was part of a broader “pattern of abuse” by
OMB, which has disregarded federal budget law and congressional spending
authority.
House Budget
Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) is now drafting a bill aimed at keeping
OMB in check, and Lowey is expected to sign on as a co-sponsor. Yarmuth
said he expects to release the measure in mid-March.
John Bresnahan,
Heather Caygle and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this story.
CORRECTION: A
previous version of this story misidentified Republican Rep. Tom Cole’s home
state. He is from Oklahoma.
LOOSE ENDS WHICH
THE READER MAY WANT TO READ FROM POLITICO:
IMPEACHMENT
TODAY
*The White
House budget office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to
Ukraine, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a new report.
*Who supports
Trump’s conviction in the Senate?
*Meet the
Democrats prosecuting Trump's impeachment
LATEST
DEVELOPMENTS
*Lev Parnas: Trump
‘knew exactly what was going on’ in Ukraine
*The Senate is
prepared to enforce strict measures on reporters' access during the trial. But
not all Republicans are on board.
*Sen. Rand Paul
is threatening fellow Republicans with tough votes if they back Democrats'
demands for new evidence.
*Democrats
delivered impeachment articles to the Senate and appointed prosecutors for the
trial.
*Read all impeachment
coverage »
GAO – IT BEGAN
AS “THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE” AND THEN HAD A NAME CHANGE IN THE 1930S TO
THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WITH A “WATCHDOG” FUNCTION. READ THIS HIGHLY
INFORMATIVE ARTICLE. I THINK IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GAO’S
POWERS ARE LEGITIMATE AND WHETHER IT WILL “MAKE A DIFFERENCE” IN THE TRIAL. IF
OTHER CITIZENS ARE LIKE ME, IT WILL MATTER, AND SOMETIMES I DO GET ON MY EMAIL
ACCOUNT AND MAKE CONTACT WITH MY REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS TO TELL THEM WHAT
I THINK.
Government
Accountability Office
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is a legislative branch government agency
that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for the
United States Congress.[2] It is the supreme audit institution of
the federal government of the United States. It identifies its core "mission
values" as: accountability, integrity, and reliability.[3]
Powers of GAO
Work of GAO is
done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees or
is mandated by public laws or committee reports. It also undertakes
research under the authority of the Comptroller General. It supports
congressional oversight by:
*auditing
agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent
efficiently and effectively;
*investigating
allegations of illegal and improper activities;
*reporting on
how well government programs and policies are meeting their objectives;
*performing
policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration;
*issuing
legal decisions and opinions;
*advising
Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more
efficient and effective.
History
The GAO was
established as the General Accounting Office by the Budget and
Accounting Act of 1921. The act required the head of the GAO to "investigate,
at the seat of government or elsewhere, all matters relating to the receipt,
disbursement, and application of public funds, and shall make to the
President … and to Congress … reports [and] recommendations looking to
greater economy or efficiency in public expenditures".[4]
According to
the GAO's current mission statement, the agency exists to support the Congress
in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the
benefit of the American people.
The name was
changed in 2004 to Government Accountability Office by the GAO
Human Capital Reform Act to better reflect the mission of the
office.[5][6][citation needed] The GAO's auditors conduct not only financial
audits, but also engage in a wide assortment of performance audits.
Over the years,
the GAO has been referred to as "The Congressional Watchdog" and
"The Taxpayers' Best Friend" for its frequent audits and
investigative reports that have uncovered waste and inefficiency in government.
News media often draw attention to the GAO's work by publishing stories on
the findings, conclusions and recommendations of its reports. Members of
Congress also frequently cite the GAO's work in statements to the press,
congressional hearings, and floor debates on proposed legislation. In 2007
the Partnership for Public Service ranked the GAO second on its list of
the best places to work in the federal government and Washingtonian magazine
included the GAO on its 2007 list of great places to work in Washington, a
list that encompasses the public, private, and non-profit sectors.
The GAO is
headed by the Comptroller General of the U.S., a professional and non-partisan
position in the U.S. government. The comptroller general is appointed by the
president, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 15-year, non-renewable
term. The president selects a nominee from a list of at least three
individuals recommended by an eight-member bipartisan, bicameral commission
of congressional leaders. During such term, the comptroller general has
standing to pursue litigation to compel access to federal agency information.
The comptroller general may not be removed by the president, but only by
Congress through impeachment or joint resolution for specific reasons.[7]
Since 1921, there have been only seven comptrollers general, and no formal
attempt has ever been made to remove a comptroller general.
Labor-management
relations became fractious during the nine-year tenure of the seventh
comptroller general, David M. Walker. On September 19, 2007, GAO analysts
voted by a margin of two to one (897–445), in a 75% turnout, to establish
the first union in the GAO's 86-year history. The analysts voted to affiliate
with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
(IFPTE), a member union of the AFL-CIO. There are more than 1,800
analysts in the GAO analysts bargaining unit; the local voted to name
itself IFPTE Local 1921, in honor of the date of the GAO's
establishment. On February 14, 2008, the GAO analysts' union approved its
first-ever negotiated pay contract with management; of just over 1,200 votes,
98 percent were in favor of the contract.
Office of
Management and Budget
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is the largest office within the Executive
Office of the President of the United States (EOP). OMB's most prominent
function is to produce the President's Budget,[2] but OMB also measures
the quality of agency programs, policies, and procedures to see if they comply
with the president's policies and coordinates inter-agency policy
initiatives.
. . . . The OMB Director reports to the
President, Vice President and the White House Chief of Staff.
History
The Bureau of
the Budget, OMB's predecessor, was established in 1921 as a part of the
Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which was
signed into law by president Warren G. Harding. The Bureau of the Budget was
moved to the Executive Office of the President in 1939 and was run by Harold D.
Smith during the government's rapid expansion of spending during the Second
World War. James L. Sundquist, a staffer at the Bureau of the Budget described
the relationship between the President and the Bureau as extremely close
and of subsequent Bureau Directors as politicians and not public
administrators.[5]
The Bureau was
reorganized into the Office of Management and Budget in 1970 during the Nixon
administration.[6] The first OMB included Roy Ash (head), Paul O'Neill
(assistant director), Fred Malek (deputy director) and Frank Zarb (associate
director) and two dozen others.
In the 1990s,
OMB was reorganized to remove the distinction between management staff and
budgetary staff by combining the dual roles into each given program
examiner within the Resource Management Offices.[7]
Purpose
OMB prepares
the President's budget proposal to Congress and supervises the administration
of the executive branch agencies. OMB evaluates the effectiveness of
agency programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands
among agencies, and sets funding priorities. OMB ensures that agency
reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the
president's budget and with administration policies.
OMB also
oversees and coordinates the administration's procurement, financial
management, information, and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, OMB's
role is to help improve administrative management, to develop better
performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and to reduce any unnecessary
burdens on the public.
OMB's critical
missions are:[8]
Budget
development and execution is a prominent government-wide process managed
from the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and a device by
which a president implements his policies, priorities, and actions in
everything from the Department of Defense to NASA.
OMB manages
other agencies' financials, paperwork, and IT.
Structure
The Office is made
up mainly of career appointed staff who provide continuity across
changes of party and persons in the White House. Six positions within OMB –
the Director, the Deputy Director, the Deputy Director for Management, and the
administrators of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy, and the Office of Federal Financial Management
are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed positions.
. . . .
“I DON’T KNOW” LEV
PARNAS. IN RESPONSE TO PHOTOS OF THE TWO TOGETHER, HE SAID THAT HE TAKES SO
MANY PHOTOS OF THAT KIND THAT HE CAN’T REMEMBER. IT’S THE PRICE HE PAYS FOR HIS
FAME, I GUESS, HAVING TO TAKE ALL THOSE PICTURES. RIGHT. RIGHT.
IMPEACHMENT
Lev Parnas:
Trump ‘knew exactly what was going on’ in Ukraine
The associate
of Rudy Giuliani also leveled accusations against Vice President Mike Pence and
Attorney General William Barr.
By MATTHEW
CHOI, KYLE CHENEY, DARREN SAMUELSOHN and QUINT FORGEY
01/15/2020
08:05 PM EST
Updated:
01/16/2020 09:55 AM EST
PHOTOGRAPH -- Lev
Parnas said: “I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or
the president.”
Lev Parnas, the
Rudy Giuliani associate caught in the middle of President Donald Trump’s
impeachment, said on Wednesday that the president was fully aware of his
actions in Ukraine, and he leveled a string of potentially damaging accusations
against the president’s closest allies, including Vice President Mike Pence,
Attorney General William Barr and the House Intelligence Committee’s top
Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes.
“President
Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas, who was indicted over an alleged
campaign finance scheme in October, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow when asked to
correct the biggest inaccuracy about his dealings with the president. “He was
aware of all of my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of
Rudy Giuliani or the president.”
Speaking in an
interview aired Wednesday night, Parnas said Trump and Giuliani, the
president’s personal attorney, directed him to urge Ukrainian officials to
publicly open an investigation into a Trump Democratic rival, former Vice
President Joe Biden. Parnas asserted that the ouster of Marie Yovanovitch as
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine last spring was motivated entirely by her
interference in their efforts to start a Biden investigation. And he even
apologized to her for his conduct.
Parnas added
that Pence, Barr and former national security adviser John Bolton were all
aware of or involved in parts of the scheme.
Parnas is a
complicated figure in the unfolding Ukraine saga. He worked closely with
Giuliani as the former New York mayor defended Trump against special counsel
Robert Mueller’s investigation, and he helped lead Giuliani’s monthslong effort
to smear and remove Yovanovitch, who stood in the way of the effort to
investigate Biden and other Democrats. After Parnas was indicted, he
resisted cooperating with the House impeachment inquiry but changed his tune
shortly after Trump disavowed a relationship with him.
Some lawmakers
are wary of relying too much on his account because of the pending charges
against him. But elements of his story are backed up by a trove of
contemporaneous documents he provided to lawmakers in recent days — files that
were seized by law enforcement officials after his indictment and released to
him only last week.
Things get
heated when McCarthy is asked about connection to Lev Parnas
SharePlay Video
Parnas’ latest
comments quickly became fuel for Senate Democrats who said they amplified the
need for the Senate to call witnesses and demand documents from the Trump
administration during the impeachment trial.
Pushing back on
previous defenses from Trump’s team, Parnas said he was sent as an emissary of
Trump himself to the administration of the then-new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, and that Giuliani vouched for him. He said he urged the
administration to open an investigation into Biden’s son Hunter, who sat on the
board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to hurt the 2020 presidential
hopeful politically — not to combat corruption, as Giuliani has repeatedly
claimed.
“It was all
about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden,” Parnas told Maddow. “It was never about
corruption. It was never — it was strictly about Burisma, which included Hunter
Biden and Joe Biden.”
In a separate
interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Parnas said Giuliani was always pursuing
Trump's personal interests — not those of the American government — during his
work in Ukraine.
Giuliani
described his role similarly in a May letter to Zelensky — released this week
by House Democrats — in which he wrote: "Just to be precise, I represent
him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States."
On the pressure
campaign on Ukraine, Parnas told Cooper, "Obviously, now I can see what
the situation, the way it is — I mean, it was strictly for" Trump's
political benefit.
"But
again, I thought he was our leader. He's the chief, he's the president. And it
was all about 2020 to make sure he had another four years," Parnas said.
Trump says
Giuliani letter to Zelensky 'wouldn’t have been a big deal’
SharePlay Video
"That was
the way everybody viewed it," he continued. "I mean, there was — that
was the most important thing, is for him to stay on for another four years and
keep the fight going. I mean, there was no other reason for doing it."
Parnas
dismissed as disingenuous the arguments by administration officials and the
president's Republican defenders in Congress that Trump was legitimately
concerned by systemic corruption in Ukraine and sought to root it out.
"They all
know. They go home at night. They all
have a conscience," he said. "I've been there when they liked him,
when they didn't like him. When they talked behind his back. When they agree
with him and disagree with him. And to see the things that they're doing now
and just blindly, just — I mean, it's a sham. It's a shame."
Giuliani and
another of the president’s personal attorneys, Jay Sekulow, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on Wednesday night. A lawyer for Pence also did
not respond. At the end of her program, Maddow said Giuliani had reached out to
deny that Parnas ever spoke on behalf of the president, calling him a “sad
situation.”
A Justice
Department spokeswoman wrote Parnas’ allegation that Barr was “on the team”
pressing for the Biden investigation was “100% false.”
The
spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, included in an email a statement from last September
in which she said Barr first learned of Trump’s July conversation with
Ukraine’s president several weeks after the call took place and that Trump
hadn’t spoken with Barr about anything related to having Ukraine investigate
the Bidens.
“The President
has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other
matter,” Kupec said at the time. “The Attorney General has not communicated
with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney General
discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.”
Appearing
Thursday on "Fox & Friends," White House press secretary
Stephanie Grisham maintained that Trump "did nothing wrong" with
regard to Ukraine and said the White House was "not too concerned
about" Parnas' allegations.
**** ****
**** ****
