Just before midnight yesterday, ProPublica reporters Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, and Alex Mierjeski published a story reporting that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2008 flew on a private jet to a luxury fishing vacation in Alaska thanks to the hospitality of hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, whose business was based on hard-hitting litigation. Since that trip, Singer has had that litigation before the Supreme Court at least ten times. Alito neither disclosed the gift of the flight on the private jet nor recused himself from ruling on those cases.
“You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Those words are likely to outlive him. Classy and to the point.
We have a system that essentially requires those running for office to “beg for money.” Anyone can opt out of receiving them by replying “STOP” to the text. But this time, I believe I’ll send a few bucks as a token of my gratitude for Schiff’s integrity and service. He warned us all about the dangers of the cult of Trump.
I wish we could make “campaigning” illegal. No 💵💵 spent to get elected. Rather, a resume distributed and interviews and debates. Same as for any other job. No dark money, no lies, no glitzy ritzy coded language to brainwash the masses. Just a simple, this is what I’ve done, this is what I would do “for the people” and how I would do it. Stop spoon feeding people garbage.
Schiff? Integrity? I've never heard those words in the same sentence?
Schiff pedaled the Steele Dossier as proof of Russian collusion when he knew it was untrue. He accused the President of being a Russian agent and claimed he had proof, which he never produced.
I scroll on by and if by chance, he answers a post of mine and then it appears in my email, it goes directly to trash where it can find company with other dreck.
Thanks, Jennifer. No, he did not read the conclusion Durham stated at the hearing in regards to his own investigation and report, namely, "Nothing came of it." James A is clearly a "selective reader," at best. Talk about integrity, jeezh!
3) Christopher Steele was a offered a 1MM by the FBI to verify anything in the dossier and couldn't
4) Danchenko was Steele's source for the dossier was paid $300K by the FBI yet couldn't
confirm anything in the dossier
5) The FBI used a unverified dossier as the basis to get A FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump campaign).
6) Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application,
7) Michael Sussman, A DNC lawyer claims alleges that the Trump campaign is colluding
with the Russians through a secret communications with Alpha Bank.
8) FBI Analyst Hellman testified said the allegations claimed there was a “secret communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank, were rejected within a day.
James I’m not going to ridicule you but I find pragmatism and intellectualism sometimes at odds with each other. Perhaps you might research an awareness of the dark side of pragmatism and find a reconciliation with intellectual argument. You might become less belligerent and more persuasive hence buy more traction.
I can’t teach you this. You actually have to learn it. I simply provided a key going forward. An example would be that any one learning to walk must take their own steps. I hope that helps.
Adam Schiff is a man of such high integrity that he can claimed being censured by the craven wing of the Republican Party is actually a badge of honor. There, now you have seen these words together in a sentence. Hope it helps. Re-reading Schiff’s work on the extent of corruption the Republicans in Congress participate in, might also help you understand it.
He lied about Russian collusion. He Repeatedly received 4 Pinocchio's from the Washington Post for lying about Russia-gate. He lied about having evidence regarding Russian collusion, he lied about speaking to witnesses in advance, and he lied about Trump's role in Russian collusion.
He is a political HACK. He would say anything to advance his politics. Its disgraceful and embarrassing.
As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took $1 million from a left-wing group. It's important to critically evaluate the sources and information you come across, especially when it comes to controversial or potentially false claims. Without verifiable evidence, it is advisable to approach such assertions with skepticism. If any new information has emerged since September 2021, I may not be aware of it.
I'm starting to think so. It appears that everything posted by this account is vacuous anti-intellectual content that could easily be coming from a rudimentary generative AI trained on talking points from Gateway Pundit
he deserves our support and the money for being brave and doing his job...how would you like to have to be re-elected every 2 years to do your job ? Calling it "begging" just demeans what he has done. It sounds like he's on a corner with a cardboard sign.
I do not disapprove of Adam Schiff, I admire him and have since he was leading the impeachment trial of Trump. I disapprove of the amount of money given to Corporate Media for campaigns. I object to 24/7/365 days of "begging" for money. Politicians have accepted donations since day 1, That is expected. But I do not believe we need the ceaseless campaigning we have seen in the 21st Century. Part of this is probably my age (90). When I was actively working on campaign in my 20's through my 60's campaigns didn't start the day after election day and never end. Politicians did not run for office in order to increase their wealth, they ran because it was their civic duty.
Times have changed, and strategies along with it. Schiff's fundraising may seem in poor taste, but it is no different from anything that all the others must do to simply stay in office. If Schiff doesn't use every possible opportunity for fundraising, his political career will die. This is especially true of those who scrutinize the sources of campaign donations.
Let's advocate for laws that change this broken system rather than attacking one of the good guys trying to operate effectively within that system.
I don't see any legislation coming up to combat Citizens United. Even if Corporations equal a person (with which logic would disagree) there was a law limiting the amount of the donation to $2500 per year per person. Greed is what changed it to "sky's the limit"
I agree times have changed - but not for the better. I should not have been picking on Adam Schiff, whom I actually like. I'm just fed up with this system. No they don't have to beg for money nationwide. No they don't have to pour billions into Corporate media. They can spend that time and energy meeting with their own constituents like they used to. They can have phone banks 6 weeks prior to the election. They can have scores of volunteers knocking on doors. All the politicians coast to coast have fallen into line, foisted on them by their National Campaign Committees. We keep urging voters to think for themselves, to critically analyze positions, platforms, and make decisions based on that. Well, the same thing applies to candidates. Instead of angering their constituents with 24/7 emails and texts, try talking to those in your own State, in your own district, most of us are willing to listen.
The times they are a changing- always, every day. One constant is that Fay Reid is on top of it. Still. Always. I am a tough unabashed old codger but I am comforted somehow by knowing she is here. Her voice and others today quiet a tension I didn’t even know was there. I am awash somewhat in admiration that came on unexpectedly. I’m gonna quit with awed.
Bless you Fay. I agree with your point of view. I'm 70 and I walked away from active involvement in political campaigns 20 years ago. Things have changed and first TV and now social media is to blame for the change. I produce TV and now social media content. I don't support either party with my $$. I do support candidates and causes. Adam & Raskin need our support. They are are the tip of the spear fighting against big, dark money...that just never rests. I really dislike what this has become...but it's here. I just don't want to see Adam characterized as a "begger". He's just doing what he has to do...for our survival...not his.
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I honestly don't know how he survives there and certainly will support him with a donation (not a loan).
I am only 83 (or will be within a month), but I can still remember from my student days the complaints of members of Congress about the amount of time they had to devote to the raising of funds for re-election. That is why there has been talk about pub public funding of campaigns, There are rules against use of campaign donations for non election purposes -- rules that the unethical violate. A problem is the development of the internet which allows those appeals to have become so intrusive. I spend an awful lot of time hitting the delete button. My biggest gripe is those "surveys" which are appeals in disguise!
Dave, you provided my first smile of the day with your opening statement that you are "only" 83. Long may you live with energy and enthusiasm and this perspective of not being old.
Those surveys are also often a way to sow disinformation. I received one the other day from extreme-rightwing Hillsdale College, which I decided to answer in order to see what they were peddling, but I had to stop halfway through because the questions were presented in such a way that every answer would damn progressive issues. There was no option for a different point of view.
They finally stopped sending their surverys to me but it took awhile. I actually sent one back with all of their questions revised to eliminate the bias; perhaps that's what did it. I'm sure they tout their survey results as if the heavily skewed data is relevant.
No, Fay, you are quite correct, the 24/7/365 began with Citizens United decision wherein SCOTUS considered corporations and PACS to be citizens and money a form of free speech.
Fay Reid. I'm a year and a half away from 90. I'm an American citizen (actually, dual) living in Canada, voting for the last 36 years through Colorado (my last US residence). I never gave to a political candidate until Donald Trump entered the scene via that elevator. Now I do, to whomever needs it the most. Notably, Senators Warnock and Ossoff, and various Democratic Representatives wherever they're from. I've been a huge fan of Adam Schiff for many years, so he will get some donations from me. I don't need reminders from his campaign to to this, so will "unsubscribe" from everything as it hits my email In Box! Good luck to all of us!
Fay, please keep in mind that Citizens United changed the entire landscape, sponsored by the right wing, and pushed through by Republicans. It is now a sad reality, and galling as it is, we now have Koch, Walton, and a plethora of oligarchs, most of whom head huge industries and possess unlimited resources. Look at the havoc that news outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and others have unleashed to assist the oligarchs.
I didn't really understand politics until last year. The current owner of the local radio station told me the story about his run for the US House of Representives. He was excited about being on the various committees. He was informed that his staff would do the work while he would be out campaigning for the next election. He was not elected which was our loss.
Mike, what adds insult to injury is that dollars donated simply go right back into sending ever more requests for money. To respond with money seems to guarantee that one will be targeted by all who "need" more money; all of them.
Surely, this can't be what our founding fathers intended.
I learned that awhile back. Once you send $2 to Move on, or the Dem party or anything, you are on the list forever. I've limited my $ contributions to a very few candidates who I feel make a real difference, or causes that really need it in the moment. I'm more prone to do some video work for something I believe in and post it around, so that folks can share it.
I think the two-year term for House members is a, maybe the, major factor in this need to be constantly asking for money. I would like to see representatives’ terms expanded to four years but with term limits, perhaps three or four maximum. As for senators, keep the six-year terms but limit them to perhaps three terms. I believe many polls show the population wants term limits, too bad none of our representatives, left or right, will bring a bill forward to consider them.
Agreed, Mary. 4 year House terms, and 24 years of service (this would be either four six year terms, or six four year terms.) If they've completed 3 terms and switch chambers they'd qualify for a second "new chamber" term.
I don't, yet. Substack started it for me to entice me to their platform. I had been thinking about starting one, but I really don't have the time to prepare decent essays these days. I hope to write about some of the law enforcement issues as they come up, or impacts of legislation on the LGBTQ+ community--stuff I know about.
Substack told me I wrote "Ally's Substack". I change the name to "Views From the Back Row" for a couple reasons. One, that is where the tubas sit, and another is that is where the cops sit (any training class, the back of the room fills up first. EVERY TIME).
Gee, I'm hoping to keep representative's to two and term limits for both rep's and Senators to two. They treat this like it's a job. It isn't. It's civic duty. Maybe then we could get people that really look out for our interests instead of lining their pockets.
Good lord, Mary, think of MTG, Lauren Boebert, Paul "bullseye on AOC" Gosar, Andrew "normal tourist visit" Clyde, Matt "let them entertain me" Gaetz, Anna "Give us MORE, Kevin" Luna, Mary "Hitler was right about the youth" Miller and no doubt, the pack grows. I shudder to think of them settling in with a longer tenure and the damage they could do if they weren't peddling constantly.
Fair point, but there also are many representatives who are reasonable people (and I’ll include some of those on the right in that characterization) trying to do a complex job. I don’t think two years, with at least a third of it dedicated to fund raising, is enough time to learn the in and outs of it.
Yes from me too. But this bit of using censure to ask for more reeks of Trump. Right now I'm supporting Katie Porter, but Adam will be my second choice.
THAT choice between two bastions of integrity and clear speaking for the same seat since redistricting seems one of the toughest choices voters face this next cycle!
Congresswoman Barbara Lee is also running for Feinstein's seat. She's also a smart, honest person. I still will continue to support Adam Schiff for his brave patriotism and hope that Katie Porter and Barbara Lee get into the Senate in the future.
Fay, the number of solicitations I receive each day - from politicians I admire - provides me with a part time job. Delete, delete, delete. Have a slug of coffee, then delete, delete...
I think it is worth considering that all these emails are sent to lowly citizens like us who have supported someone or some party in the past. Small donations should be the only donations, IMO. But I also find it really intrusive and irritating. My other part time job is to "unsubscribe".
Consider the amount of dark money that is fueling the lies from Oligarchs like Koch, Mercer, Leo, Crow and Singer, etc. Maybe in our small way we can try to counter balance that evil, selfish, autocratic influence.
But I share your irritation. I feel the same way when I open our mailbox. Every day I throw out envelopes w/o opening them - from organizations I love and support. I donate to them every November. And the irony of non-profits cutting down trees to send endless streams requests for more money shouldn't be lost on us. I wish they had been emails. Save a tree.
It is a torturous process. We at at an income level that requires vigorous stewardship of expenses and controlled purchasing. By writing to various public entities and causes I support, the recycled mail w/o opening is incredible but realistic. I don’t even glance at the daily AARP Insurance envelopes.
But I see no way out of it as long as the Evil Empire of wealth insists on making money the basis of controlling their agendas.
But to me our most spectacular failure we demonstrate is the billionaires of the fossil fuel industries who pour money into products that guarantee our developing human self destruction.
As I mentioned before, with texts, you can reply "STOP" one time to end the solicitations from that candidate. With emails, scroll down to the very bottom to find "unsubscribe." There is no need to take on this particular part time job ; - )
Quite true. And that is part of the project. But here's the thing. Once you donate via "Act Blue", for instance, it generates a sharing of email addresses.
For instance, I have unsubscribed to Sherrod Brown, Gavin Newsom and and Tammy Duckworth. Then after awhile they reappear. The sharing of donor lists and potential donors is just life in the good old US of A.
Don't get me wrong. I love what these three stand for. I admire them.
But we should have more to say about how our email addresses are shared.
I go through the same process of frustration but I think we are bound by a common interest with those we support to use their recommended fund sources.
I can’t imagine anyone managing millions of separate individual donations. Any system is better.
What bothers me is we the people with incomes less than $250k compete with the money of the billionaire set especially the super profitable fossil fuel industries when our focus is human good and their’s is profit at any cost to humanity.
Here’s a fundraising gambit (from politicians and good nonprofits) that always frosts me. I struggle a bit to send $100 (or occasional even more) to a cause. I quickly receive mail asking for more donations and the lowest “suggested donation” is more than I just gave. This happens far to often; it’s not an accident. And I find it demeaning and ungrateful. (We all have our triggers.) oh, and if the envelope says “please send your donation by (date)” or “deadline date” that envelope goes into the trash.
We ignore pleas and support those candidates we like and organizations we feel we want to help. I confess that a big part of our donations go to All Classical, the wonderful radio station in Portland, Oregon, who have made it part of their goals to be inclusive and they celebrate all the special months and days. The range of music is way beyond Bach, Mozart, etc. Even their fund raising times are fun. They can be accessed on line and I encourage people to listen.
Fay, well, as little citizens, we cannot write the huge dark money checks our representatives need to stay elected in the face of JD Vance type support. We need Schiff, he needs us. Money is an equalizer
I know money is the equalizer, but it doesn't have to be. We don't need 20 lobbyists, for every legislator. And we can go back to maximum donations of $2500 per donor per year. The billions spent on campaigns now goes into the greedy maws of Corporate Media. That is not ok with me.
Dave I respectfully disagree. Should it not be votes rather than money which decides our elections. It would appear that having more money than the other guy allows one to peddle what are essentially lies, distortions and half-truths into votes. That seems a great problem in our democracy.
when is he up for reelection? How is the case the young plaintiffs are in, suing state of Montana for climate related damages, going? Not much about it in national news.
Currently, pragmatic acknowledgement of our current election system is required to elect the people we believe can fulfill your more idealized worldview imo
Fay, this money-begging represents THE main crack in the checks and balances of our democracy ever since the Citizens United decision by our newly activated SCOTUS. This decision, especially when accompanied by the system of anonymous donation has turned bribery into an essential ingredient in current politics, bribery now endemic in all 3 branches of our government.
He had been asking for money even before the vote was taken. Actually he started asking for money when it became evident that the GQP was going to go ahead with the censure vote.
Not Schiff himself but his campaign. I never respond to those emails, but this time I donated. And will again. In this political world in which we find ourselves, that is how our voices are heard.
Problem is, Rick, that was the way we used to be heard. Before this endless need to collect money, when I emailed by Congressman or Senators, I received a personal answer to my question. Now I receive a standard form letter that addresses nothing close to what I asked or commented. So although I continue to support my own Congressman and Senator I don't feel I'm being represented. They, and their assistants, are far more interested in collecting money than in serving their constituency.
Adam Schiff hasn't left Congress. Are you thinking of Adam Kinzinger? Adam Schiff is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. senator from California. As others have noted, running for office, especially statewide office in a state the size of California, costs money. A lot of money.
The request for money I got from Adam Schiff was that he was being threatened by a $16 million dollar fine. No one thinks Adam Schiff is taking money under the table from anyone, which is why he is hated by the shifty grifters. You are working awfully hard to find something to criticize him for. He is not independently wealthy, is he? What would you do in these circumstances, Fay? This is a rare time where I don’t agree with you. A request for help with a groundless waste of time and money attack was very reasonable, from my point of view.
The first text I received was the only one I read and it didn't mention a 16 million dollar fine. I admit I was angry and just deleted the next 3 texts unread. If Adam Schiff is fined any amount one of the Democratic Committees should defend him and pay the fine if he loses the suit. Frankly I have never heard of one political party successfully suing the other parties elected members. The Congress itself can only get money back from Legislators if they have been convicted of theft of Congressional funds or fraud. I would think George Santos would be more in danger of that than Adam Schiff, who is clean as a whistle. The attack on him by whatever her name, was groundless, vindictive, and only passed because the MAGA dumdums control the house by 7 or 8 votes. I am not criticizing Adam Schiff. (I admit it appeared that way) I am criticizing the whole damn Congress, both houses. While people like Adam do accomplish much, most of them are so busy begging for money (and many of them, are feeding from the same trough as the Republicans - namely Wall Street, Corporate American and persons of obscene wealth. If they are not begging for themselves they are begging for the DCCC, DNC, and DSCC. Those untrustworthy committees have been conning or forcing the Members of the Senate and House to collect large sums for them, since a lot of us former card carrying members were so disgusted by them supporting Trump MAGA candidates that we will no longer give them a dime.
He needs the bucks. He has formidable challengers in the primary for Feinstein’s Senate seat, and both are unwilling to step aside.the primary will be very costly, in a high campaign cost state.
Yesterday was a very sad day for the Congress of the United States. The Republicans demonstrated that even though many people who have worked directly with Trump, and many who had been in elected office but have left, have come out and have clearly stated that Trump is a threat to national security and a threat to the world. However, none of the elected Republicans in the House of Representatives had the nerve or integrity to stand up for the truth.
Some of the crazies, such as Matt Gaetz, attacked John Durham for not using his office to do a hit job when he had the chance but not proof. But then they went on to site his report as evidence that Adam Schiff lied and misled the American public. They attacked Schiff for the second time because Donald Trump ordered it. It has become clear that the Republicans in the House have been trained to act like the Supreme Soviet. They will rubber stamp anything Trump proposes. The work that Kevin McCarthy attempted to show them how to legislate has all been washed away. They are all in for lies and vengeance. This is very frightening and it shows how much control Trump still has over the Republican Party, despite all of his lies and lunacy.
It is cool to keep your cool, especially when shouldering critical adult responsibilities, but emotion is not necessarily bad when not out of control or fake. Check out recent video of Jackie Goldberg commenting on demagoguery against gays. She is very passionate and pushes the edge, but remains logical and civil. Adult, focused and factual anger can be powerful, as we have seen in some of the passionate speech of Greta Thunberg. The is also hyped-up hate speech and tantrums, that we are wise to reject. Some of the most memorable and laudable speeches have been very passionate, but in a good way.
Is this a joke. The title of the column should be how I cherry pick events and then spin them with sanctimony.
Here are the facts from the Oregon Chronicle:
"Thomas (& Alito) have been far from alone on the court in enjoying the largesse of the uber-wealthy.
Late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.
Late Justice Antonin Scalia took at least 258 subsidized trips while he was on the court and he was on one when he suddenly died in 2016.
Scalia’s more-liberal colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, took at least 225 subsidized trips between 2004 and 2016. They include a 2013 trip to the exclusive island of Nantucket compliments of private-equity billionaire David Rubenstein, Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court, reported.
Those were some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019, according to a list compiled by the watchdog group Open Secrets. That’s nine trips per justice, per year, and it’s unlikely they stayed at the Holiday Inn on most of them.
AGAIN BEYER TOOK 225 trips? Not a word about that.
An omission is just as dishonest as a lie. As a historian that's even more disgraceful.
But when you are the Leni Riefenstahl of Democratic politics, context and history don't matter.
You failed to mention that the article you cited in the Oregon Capitol Chronicle also said this:, referring to the
"... some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019..." :
'And those are just the ones that justices have disclosed. It’s unclear how many — like decades of Thomas’ travels — have been unreported, or whether the justices will suffer any consequences for not reporting them.'
The problem with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Gorsuch is that they failed to disclose their trips, spouse commissions, favorable real estate deals and other gifts, such as the Crowe donation to Thomas' grand nephew's private school. So apparently context doesn't matter to you, either .
Comparing Prof. Richardson to Leni Riefenstahl puts you in the troll class. Goodbye.
I'm not here to support the largesse ALL public officials enjoy.
On the other hand its completely dishonest to OMIT the fact that liberal judges have enjoyed the same benefits. FURTHERMORE Alito didn't violate any law when he didn't report his TRIP in 2008.
Ginsburg took a $1MM gift from a leftwing group and expensive trips. Breyer went on 225 trips.
YES you become Leni Riefenstahl when you OMIT major facts to SPIN the narrative.
She cherry picked a single trip and tried to frame it as "CONSERVATIVE" problem.
This is my last reply to you: no, Alito *didn't* violate any law in failing to disclose gifts. The SC is self-regulated, and depends upon the willingness of the justices to be transparent in their financial affairs, and certainly to recuse themselves if they have certain relationships with people or entities who may come before the Court. Thomas and Alito, especially, flout their duty to disclose benefits they have received, (and other justices have misled through their disclosures) and have caused a smell of rot to emanate from the hallowed halls. If you can't smell that, shame on you. (Though I suspect if the donor were George Soros giving undisclosed largesse to say, Sotomayor, you'd be indignant.)
I don't care which justice -- D- or R-appointed, receives benefits and neither discloses nor recuses -- the stink is the same, and clings to all their robes. Congress should indeed require greater transparency, in order to restore some dignity to the Court. Roberts appears to have no interest.
Alito reported none of this on his required disclosures. Additionally, after the lavish trips, Paul Singer or his companies appeared before the Supreme Court “at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media.” That is the issue. You are being purposefully obtuse, cherry picking, and using false equivalencies. If you put this much effort into holding those in power accountable then you'd find that more people would agree with you. You come here every day to troll it seems like.
I'm not a "Leftist" you throw that word around but I don't think you know what that means....
Again, I think all the Justices shouldn't be allowed to take trips from billionaire donors. I think they should be truly separate. We as private citizens are held to higher standards than those in power. That should be the real issue. Prof. Richardson is commenting on the reporting on Pro Publica... It wasn't the other way around.
Again, whether something is legally required by law vs what is ethical or moral is 2 different things. Additionally, you keep missing the point, Ginsburg and Breyer weren't accepting gifts and not reporting them where they had billionaires bringing cases before the Court and not recusing themselves.
For your information in Canon 2A of the Judicial Code of Conduct, it states; "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”
So like most normal people who hold positions of power, we cannot even have the appearance of impropriety. Maybe we can start to try and find something we both agree on, that all Supreme Court Justices should by law be required to disclose any gifts and that if they don't they should recuse and step down. Or better yet, no gifts from billionaires who appear before the court. That should be easy no? You keep making everything a partisan issue but it doesn't have to be? Why is that? Alito and Thomas are clearly corrupt and you trying to defend their behavior is just putting party before country in my opinion.
These are frightening times in America, when the GOP has no problem with its own members that were elected with false resumes who would then in turn move to censure an honest member of the opposition party ... It may be time to ask ourselves if identifying as a Republican is a mental health condition worthy of listing in the DSM-5-TR?
Leonard Leo has been a major force in turning the country’s judiciary right. Now he has an even bigger plan and that is to transform American culture. Who is this man?
'Who is conservative activist Leonard Leo? A friend of Clarence Thomas.'
From an article by in The Washington Post, Timothy Bella reports, ‘In the more than 30 years since he became friends with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo — who once described himself to The Washington Post as “a leader of the conservative legal movement” — has used his influence to help bring a right-leaning majority to the Supreme Court.’
‘Leo’s relationship with Thomas is under scrutiny after Leo arranged for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the Supreme Court justice’s wife, to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing records, according to documents reviewed by The Post.
'Who is Leonard Leo?'
'Leo was born in November 1965 on Long Island and raised in an Italian American family of Catholics. His father died of cancer when he was in preschool, according to a 2017 profile in the New Yorker. After his mother remarried when Leo was 5, the family moved to central New Jersey. His nickname in high school was “Moneybags kid,” and a yearbook photo shows him holding a handful of cash, The Post reported in a 2019 profile.'
‘Leo attended Cornell University and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1986 before landing an internship with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). He returned to Cornell Law School and got a law degree in 1989.’
'He has credited his father, who emigrated from Italy and went from being a tailor to a vice president at Brooks Brothers, as a major influence in his political life.
“He understood America as being a land of opportunity, understood the value of capitalism, the value of hard work, personal responsibility,” Leo said to the New Yorker. “My grandparents were deeply religious people, they were daily Mass attendees. So I got all of that.”
'What made Leo ‘a leader of the conservative legal movement’?
'For nearly three decades, Leo has helped and led campaigns in support of the Supreme Court nominations of all the conservative judges now on the high court — John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.'
'He also has had the ears of the most recent Republican presidents.'
'At a 2017 speech, Kris Mauren of the right-leaning think tank Acton Institute, introduced Leo as having “a significant leadership role in the selection and successful confirmation of a third of the currently sitting justices on the Supreme Court” after Gorsuch was confirmed earlier in the year, according to the Examiner. The introduction made Leo grin, but he insisted there was more work to do.'
'In 2018, Thomas jokingly said Leo had helped reshape the nation’s court, becoming “the Number Three most powerful person in the world.”
'But perhaps the most important piece of Leo’s rise is his fundraising ability. Between 2014 and 2017, Leo helped conservative nonprofits raise $250 million from mostly undisclosed donors — such funds are sometimes known as “dark money” — according to a Post analysis in 2019. The money was used in part to support conservative policies and judges, through advertising and funding for groups whose executives appeared as television pundits.'
'He left the Federalist Society in 2020 to start a new group, CRC Advisors, but kept his seat on the society’s board of directors. Last year, Leo and CRC Advisors scored a $1.6 billion donation from Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul, that was among the largest contributions ever made to a political nonprofit, according to the New York Times. The donation was possible thanks to an introduction from the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism, Politico reported.' (WAPO) For complete article see gifted link below.
'Leonard Leo used Federalist Society contact to obtain $1.6B donation (excerpts)
‘In Politico, HEIDI PRZYBYLA wrote, 'The society’s close ties to Leo’s network raise questions about its nonpartisan, non-political status.'
'Leonard Leo, who helped to choose judicial nominees for former President Donald Trump, obtained a historic $1.6 billion gift for his conservative legal network via an introduction through the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism.'
'Leo first met Barre Seid, the now 91-year-old manufacturing magnate turned donor, through an introduction arranged by Eugene Meyer, the longtime director of the Federalist Society. At the time, Leo was the society’s executive vice president, and he is currently its co-chair. Meyer envisioned Seid as a contributor to the society, according to a person familiar with the introduction. Instead, Leo cultivated Seid as a funder of his own dark money network. The result was a $1.6 billion gift announced last year — which is believed to be the largest political donation ever.'
'The unusual arrangement in which Leo met his top donor through the prestigious Federalist Society — which describes itself as a nonpartisan educational organization — suggests closer ties between the society and Leo’s activist network than previously known. Leo has used the dark money network to donate millions of dollars to the society and to pay at least $1.54 million to one Federalist Society employee and $775,000 to an entity run by another, according to federal disclosure forms.'
'Interviews with people familiar with the internal workings of the Federalist Society, including two board members, paint a picture of a symbiotic relationship in which Leo uses his connection to the vast network of scholars in the society to earn credibility with donors, who then contribute to dark money operations that engage in the kind of partisanship the society officially eschews.'
'Leo’s political activism and his use of donor money to enhance his own wealth have prompted increasing tensions between him and his fellow co-chair, Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi, and Meyer, who has been executive director or president for more than 30 years, according to three people familiar with the society. But they said Leo’s ties to the conservative donor base fans fears that a rift would leave the society struggling for funds, while members also worry that any breach in the facade of the conservative legal movement would only empower the liberals that all sides disdain.'
'Leo appears to be planning to use Seid’s money to create a new ecosystem of conservative activism that he’s likening to a Federalist Society for cultural institutions from schools to boardrooms. That he and a small circle of his friends appear to be getting wealthy in the process is all the more in contrast with many of the society’s largely academic members who’ve spent 40 years building the group’s pedigree as the nation’s premier debating society, which is above the political fray.'
'Leo’s dual roles have served to attract one key backer — Trump. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump promised that his nominees would “all [be] picked by the Federalist Society.” Yet, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, the list of Supreme Court nominees that Trump drew from in creating a conservative supermajority was devised by Leo alone. Neither the organization’s top brass nor its board directors had any official role in crafting it.'
'It is another example of how Leo’s association with the society helped Leo build his brand with donors and politicians.'
'The rise of Leo’s dark money groups has coincided with an increase in his personal wealth and an expansion of his lavish lifestyle, beginning in 2016, when Trump came into office, as POLITICO reported previously.'
'During this period, Leo’s network also facilitated millions of dollars in combined payments to at least two co-workers at the Federalist Society, both of whom have since joined him at his private company, CRC Advisors. An entity listing Maria Marshall, previously director of operations at the society, as its sole officer received $775,000 over three years from the Leo-connected Rule of Law Trust, while Jonathan Bunch, now president at CRC Advisors, received $1.54 million from the same nonprofit, which lists Leo as its principal officer, according to federal disclosure forms.' (Politico) See link to article below.
'The Right’s Obsession With Wokeness Is a Sign of Weakness' (excerpt)
In Michelle Goldberg’s Opinion in The New York Times, she writes, ‘Leonard Leo, a leader of the right-wing Federalist Society, an extraordinarily effective legal organization, is broadening his ambitions. Leo is hoping to transform American culture the way he transformed the judiciary. In the words of an investigative report produced by ProPublica and Documented, he aims to build a sort of “Federalist Society for everything,” devoted to helping reactionaries consolidate power in realms like Wall Street, Silicon Valley, journalism, Hollywood and academia.’
“I spent close to 30 years, if not more, helping to build the conservative legal movement,” Leo said in a video for the organization at the heart of his strategy, the Teneo Network. “And at some point or another, I just said to myself, ‘If this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?’” That includes “wokeism in the corporate environment, in the educational environment,” biased media and “entertainment that is really corrupting our youth.” (NYTimes) For complete Opinion, sorry no gift option is available.
You did it again. Excellent comment about one of our leading fascists. This statement is a declaration of war on democracy, inclusion, diversity and the Constitution itself.
"If this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?"
If that sentence and $1.2 billion doesn't scare the Hell out of us, nothing will.
The issue that angers me the most is his belief that HIS religious views are somehow to be spread across the nation like butter on toast. Leonard Leo is a very dangerous monster. I wonder if his Italian heritage has a DNA connection with Mussolini.
Majority of Americans to Leonard Leo: "The really messed up area of American life is people like you who are effectively IMPOSING your values on the rest of us. We, the majority think you are invading our lives with your religious views. That's not American. That's totalitarian."
Bill, Leo Leonard's ambition and skill are notable. In order to have a sense of his reach, I hope subscribers read the full comment to learn about his fundraising abilities. While not a fan of the Catholic Church, I wouldn't lay Leo's danger to democracy at the foot of the Church or his Italian roots, while they were building blocks. It is sensible to be wary of scapegoating __Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians..., we know where that leads. Putin, Trump...Leo and others, now and in the past___ what is the alchemy that makes the monster? They are not the same, but what, perhaps, do they have in common?
Fern, thank you as always for your deeply researched and detailed commentary. I suspect that the real threat to our democracy as well as to our entire planet lies not in his religious views but in the sources of the money which gives him his power. SO MANY, the majority I suspect, of his largest donors derive their money from industries and organizations which continue to actively despoil earth's resources and climate. THAT is what I fear from the likes of Leonard Leo!
I DO NOT lay the responsibility for Leonard Leo's influence at the feet of Italians or Catholics. I love Italians and I have had a Catholic wife. Please don't misinterpret me.
What is outrageous, unacceptable and dangerous is ANYONE imposing their religious views on others. And that is exactly what this Extreme Court is doing. I refer to Mussolini because he was an early promoter of present day fascism. Leo having an Italian heritage is simply a fact - not a condemnation.
Bill, my intention was not to blame you for scapegoating, you did no such thing, instead it was to point to a general inclination to pin a person's outsized ambition on race, religion, ethnic group, etc.
Bill, after thinking some more about our exchange, it occurred to me that your line, 'I wonder if his Italian heritage has a DNA connection with Mussolini.' may have triggered my scapegoating alert. In addition, your, 'Italian heritage - is a simple fact' rang another bell. 'Italian heritage' can be connected to how many well known good and bad Italians? Why go that route? I am reminded of that song 'dem bones', in an amusing way.
I think it is also dangerous to look the other way when so many Catholics have been enablers of Trump and the takeover of SCOTUS, all to drive Catholic religious agendas and weaken the firm separation of church and state our founders envisioned. Leo's religious background is most certainly an integral part of his networking and fundraising skills, and his goals. He wouldn't be targeting culture next, otherwise.
It is not a cabal, more a cynical conniving con game that enriched Leo, but clearly this is an extremely strong, well-organized and funded drive by one group inside the Catholic Community, and it is designed to shred our Democratic institutions and has made frightening progress on that goal.
We must call it out--and directly challenge highly educated Catholics who so frequently serve in the most powerful roles in our government, ask why their religion should dictate how American women are regarded and treated (as abortion has been such a blatantly cynical ploy), why their religion should rule all others.
I'm depressed talking to conservative Catholic friends, smart, well-read, who just don't want to buck the cynical Opus Dei types in their church. They stay meek and quiet, and in the end, do seem to think they are superior to others, 'born to rule' and consequently seem willing to allow the Bully Billy Barr types and Leo Leonards run rampant without criticism from the flock because it will be 'better for the country'.
One friend even told me she was safe, because she is Catholic, and she figures she will get special treatment if she gets pregnant and needs an abortion for health reasons. She also seems to think it is fine to get that special dispensation--I told her I am not sure she would get it, which was the only moment she wavered and wondered about the consequences.
That is a truly serious problem for this country. Catholics need to choose--religious freedom for everyone--not just Catholics--or a Catholic dictatorship.
I don't think the rest of us should let this group of influential people off the hook. It really is not, with recent events, an exaggeration to say American Catholics are now at the point where they must choose between Democracy or a religious oligarchy led by a 'big man'. Remember, Hitler used the Catholic church heavily in his efforts to further his power, and Putin uses the Russian Orthodox church all the time to polish his image. There is plenty of dangerous precedence for ungodly alliances.
We should carefully remember the history of collusion and remind our friends, and we should all pay careful attention as the next couple years unfold. Confronting this is not comfortable, but absolutely necessary.
Fern, thank you for distinguishing the "building blocks" from the.main structure. Leo's public "religion"
is, in my view, a politically partisan distortion of the faith tradition which may have been part of his formative years. But he is aping the stance and bankrolling those U.S. Bishops who have chosen to politicize and weaponize church sacraments and scripture in their alignment with other right leaning, anti-woke political, cultural and faith groups. When this happens "religion" becomes one more handy label in a culture war. It loses its connection to the transcendent sacred. The practice of faith, thankfully, is a fuller spectrum than the point on which Leonard Leo or some U.S. Bishops are standing. So, the "religious beliefs" Leo is trying to force down others throats may be more
" Leo-beliefs" than "faith beliefs". There are many Catholics, I am one, who practice a less culturized, less partisan coopted faith.... on a part of the spectrum far from Leo.
Carol, your words are the first to be read this early morning. I have some understanding in my heart of what you are sharing with us. Your being and faith are one. Thank you for bringing us to this understanding.
Good morning and thank you, Fern. The distortions of religion are present within the " institutions" of religion as well as without. I call out the distortions from within. My faith finds its ground despite the human failures and systemic issues. It is not an easy place to be. I thank you for seeing that.
Leo-Leo is da’ man! The Koch bros amongst others provide the $$$$ and Leo-Leo spreads the money around!
Capitalism he says! Well capitalism is suppose to rely on competitors to balance the ‘free market’! Ha! The mega billionaires buy up their competitors or ruin them!
A devout Catholic? Somewhere in the Bible is a story about ‘passing through the eye of a needle’! Leo-Leo must believe that he can take his ill obtained wealth with him, but he may find that the alleged pearly gates are locked!
Leo’s political activism and his use of donor money to enhance his own wealth have prompted increasing tensions between him and his fellow co-chair, Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi, and Meyer, who has been executive director or president for more than 30 years, according to three people familiar with the society. But they said Leo’s ties to the conservative donor base fans fears that a rift would leave the society struggling for funds, while members also worry that any breach in the facade of the conservative legal movement would only empower the liberals that all sides disdain.'
That says it all. Money and power rule this Syndicate.
Wow! Thanks for posting this info here. We all need to know who we are dealing with/against in so many areas now. He definitely was the tie between SInger and Alito in the trip to Alaska. Our fish are big here but we can catch one of those on the river for free or off the beach just by being a resident. Personally, I don't like king salmon; prefer reds.
Two pieces come to my mind to explain the present day MAGA Republicans, who are, in my view, a re-emergence of the 1920's Ku Klux Klan: 1) "The Anger Games, Who Voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Election, and Why?" [ google it] and Timothy Egan's "A Fever in the Heartland." White theocratic racism. Remember Charlottesville in 2017 and the marchers shouting "Jews will not replace us?" That's Klan talk.
Richard, your reading list looks exactly like the one on my Kindle. These books come from different perspectives but all come to the same frightening conclusions. This white theocratic patriarchal racism has to be pulled out by the root. While the next generation thankfully rejects their ideas, the MAGAs have fallen back on authoritarians to force compliance.
Clearly, more important to them than individual liberties, freedom of thought and expression, is the exclusion of all non-white, non-Protestant folks from the political process. Another book in my arsenal: The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S.
I believe there are existing diagnoses among the so-called “Axis 2” personality disorders that would fit the bill, such as passive dependent personality and paranoid personality. Certainly, all the characteristics of a cult would apply.
Agree. Republicans voters seem to show a pattern worthy of several forms of mental illness. Complete lack of self awareness and delusional thinking. Perhaps there is a more nuanced way of saying “basket of deplorable(s). At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt (unemployment, poor education, etc). But since their leaders have shown their “true colors”. I have given up. They are now the front line of Fascist propaganda. VOTE BLUE!
Roy, Jim, Maureen and Nancy, I suspect we needn't refer to any DSM of psychiatric diagnoses but rather to many people's need to identify with a cause which is both powerful as well as self-serving. The grand irony lies in the fact that right-wing cause rarely serves the majority of people who vote for it out of their need for identity. That they vote for it suggests even ore strongly that they aren't really thinking but rather identifying with accumulated feelings of displacement, outrage and unfair treatment they feel powerless to change.
Heather, what would it take to expand the SCOTUS? I hope the dems pound away at getting an ethics law passed asap. They are even nice enough to say "You, SC, make the rules, but then, follow them!" The shamefulness of the corrupt six right wingers is mind boggling. Thank you, as always, for shining bright light on all the dark corners.
Congressional Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to expand the SSCOTUS from nine to 13 justices. The Democratic Bill is being led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and [Chair of the House Judiciary Committee] Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York. There are two co-sponsors – Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York. See" Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (nbcnews.com)"
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated “I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step." According to the NBC article, “The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.”
Thank you. And rotate the terms so every president has an opportunity to nominate justices. The job of Supreme Court Justice should not be a "life sentence"! They should have a retirement like all the rest of us.
The original idea of a lifetime appointment was to provide some sort of independence of the court - to avoid what we are now experiencing. The founders didn't envision a Leo, Singer or Crow attempting to run the country by ramming partisan hacks into the court.
I also think that there should be some restriction on the number of justices that practice a particular religion. What we have now is something between The Handmaids Tale and a Dan Brown novel! Gilead meets Opus Dei. Terrifying.
I suspect restricting the justices' practice of religion would violate the First Amendment, but I'm right on track with you about term limits and rotation.
Agreed. A "litmus test" for religious views would be problematic. I guess it has to fall to the Senate to be logical and fair minded. Which is a leap, of course. If I were a Senator (FSM forbid) I would look at the makeup of the court and ask myself, does this look like a reasonably balanced representation of religious and political persuasions?
Today, we have something from a bad dystopian movie.
Recently heard an interesting podcast with Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, another attorney and Congressman Hank Johnson. I was pleasantly surprised by the latter, who spoke at length about the SCOTUS and ways to get it re-balanced.
The first part of the podcast is with an ACLU lawyer working on trans issues. I don't think I've ever heard anyone so well spoken,, maybe ever -- and I've been at meeting with Nobel Laureates. The Hank Johnson segment is second.
I have mixed feelings about expanding SCOTUS, but the lack of integrity - OK, let's just say corruption - among certain justices sickens me. They should know better!
I think there is a good argument to be made with each Federal Circuit having its own "overseeing" SCOTUS Justice; there are (as I understand it) 13 Federal Circuit Courts. I also think either an age limit or a term limit is a good idea; in Oregon, our judges "age out" at 75. In my 35 year exposure to the Lane County Circuit Court, I have seen 3 Judges that "shoulda gone sooner" and 1 Judge that was still at the top of his game age out. I'm thinking 30 years or age 70, whichever comes first.
Interesting -- I didn't know Oregon had the "age out" limit. If there was a term limit, would a judge serve only one term, or could it be renewed? I like the idea of each Federal Circuit having oversight from its own SCOTUS justice and would consider having the justices cycle through the Federal Circuits rather than sticking with one for an entire term.
I don't even think it's that. I think the Federalist Society groomed justices are so convinced that they are the Chosen Ones in the biblical sense that whatever they do is well and good.
So does the manbaby maniac and his enablers— including Putin, who brought us to this place. Remember how he held the Bible up while protestors were being attacked.
Justices have so much power in the present unfettered system that they can act with impunity once they are confirmed, and the Federalist Society pushed judges who are deeply partisan rather than those with ethics and integrity, as in Kagan’s refusal to accept lox and bagels. This particular system is, in fact, shamefully “rigged.” Bravo to Pro Publica. Alito’s preemptive strike in the conservative-friendly WSJ may yet backfire on him.
I was able to watch the proceedings of Durham and the censure of Schiff today. Schiff and Ted Lieu really did an excellent job of asking important questions to the “I don’t remember; I don’t read newspapers” Durham. He seemed a little annoyed. Good!
Ms. Lunatic is off the charts with her resolution to censure Schiff. She is now 8 months pregnant. I feel she may be giving birth to a future Rosemary’s baby and that is kinda scary. I saw the resolution pass and Schiff’s response. He now can devote his time to campaigning for Senator. Even if he doesn’t win, I think Biden will put his name in the hat for the Supreme Court. At least, I hope he will.
Also saw the interview on MSNBC with one of the ProPublica journalists who broke the Alito story. My gawwwwd...there are so many who come from the same evil pod! Leonard Leo be damned!
I told Ms. Luna on her FB page that her actions were shameful, and that perhaps she find herself something better to do. Not fit to shine Schiff’s shoes.
"But Democrats on the committee pressed Durham on the facts of the Russia investigation itself, and he, seemingly somewhat reluctantly, agreed under oath in response to questions by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) that the facts of the Mueller report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report were correct: Russia interfered in the 2016 election for the benefit of Trump, Trump’s campaign welcomed the help and shared information and secret meetings with Russian operatives, and the FBI was justified in investigating that interference."
I am inclined to question that summary of Durham's testimony, especially as HCR appears to have used as a source the disreputable New York Times. Quoting former New York Times editor John Swinton, found at this website:
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.
Sophistry. HCR cited a report by New York Times reporter John Savage, dated, uh, yesterday, and, in rebuttal, you cite a quote from a former NYT editor who has been dead since 1901. Nice try.
My point was to question HCR's summary of Durham's testimony. HCR didn't provide any quotation from Durham, which is always suspicious.
p.s. I have no reason to think that things have changed at the sleazy, disreputable New York Times, a propaganda rag favored by Establishment minions who assiduously practice self-censorship to protect their seven-figure salaries.
My point was to question HCR's summary of Durham's testimony. HCR didn't provide any quotation from Durham, which is always suspicious.
p.s. I have no reason to think that things have changed at the sleazy, disreputable New York Times, a propaganda rag favored by Establishment minions who assiduously practice self-censorship to protect their seven-figure salaries.
I saw the excerpt of the hearing. As the whole project was suspect (anyone who didn’t believe that DT and the Russians were in cahoots was not paying attention to DT), I found both Congressmen’s questions totally appropriate. Durham is obviously not up to the task -exactly one the Republicans could count on to get the “results” they needed. And so he was set up to fail.
Regardless, the report is here, it has dropped. And it might have not produced everything of what some Republicans hope for, it is regardless devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.
Let's bring in CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.
Evan, what exactly did Durham find in this report?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the bottom line finding from John Durham's four-year investigation is that the FBI moved very quickly to investigate these allegations of connections of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that they did so by ignoring a lot of evidence that would have led them to drop that altogether.
He's saying that they may have had reason to open a preliminary investigation, an assessment. Perhaps these are very, very low-level investigations. But certainly, what he finds is that there wasn't enough there to support the FBI's decision to open a full-blown investigation of this -- of the Trump-Russia ties back in 2016. I'll tell you one part of what he writes here.
He says that it seems highly likely that at a minimum, confirmation bias played a significant role in the FBI's acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis that the FBI usually uses.
He goes on to say that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. There was a lot of very sharp criticism here of the former FBI leadership, James Comey, Andy McCabe, who were running the FBI and oversaw a lot of these -- a lot of the steps that the report goes into, Jake.
But as you pointed out, bottom line, there are no additional charges. Nobody is bringing charges against Comey or anybody else that former President Trump kept saying he expected them to.
HCR’s “spin” merely shows that she, unlike Durham, has kept up with the goings on of the former president. If Durham had seen the 2013 film of Trump with his beauty pageant in Moscow (I did), he might not have taken on a useless venture unless it was for money or “fame.” He looked the bought idiot under honest questioning.
Following the career of the former president is a lesson in how not to take fame and fortune as criteria for selecting a president. Fortunately Jack Smith may teach US that.
I was focused on the question of what Durham said, as opposed to the underlying reality. Politico seems to be more guarded in their choice of words than HCR. Perhaps the biggest issue, regarding choice of words, is HCR's statement that Durham said that the FBI was justified in investigating.
You question the difference in intensity if the FBI’s investigation it seems. Durham acknowledged an impetus to look into Carter Page’s loose mouth. You cry foul that the FBI pursued as it did. Using unverified sources from anderciver investigator is part of the tradecraft. It can certainly lead an investigation toward more substantial findings. This was exactly what (and no more) what the Steele dossier provided. And remember, this research was originated by a Republican candidate as opposition research. The candidate dropped out and the project was then offered to Clinton campaign
I am questioning HCR's statement that Durham said that "the FBI was justified in investigating that interference." What exactly did Durham say? Politico says that Durham stood by his report, and CNN says that Durham's report was severely critical of the FBI.
Does HCR's quoted statement contain a half-truth coupled with a lie by omission? That is the stuff of spin doctors.
Durham, for his part, stood by the findings of the report and defended himself from Democratic criticism for the duration of the hearing. He broke with Trump on several key points, praising both Mueller and Barr, both of whom Trump has publicly decried. He also affirmed that there was “substantial evidence” of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
John Durham was supposed to be the great Trump hope — the anti-Mueller, who would blow the lid off something something something. His years-long probe ended with multiple courtroom humiliations and a damp squib of a report.
His testimony before a House committee yesterday didn’t go any better. He stumbled, hedged, and made it clear that he didn’t really know much at all about the Rusia probe. Here’s Jonathan Chait:
Durham seemed to be unaware of the major factual elements of the alliance between the Trump campaign and Russia. This ignorance came through in several awkward exchanges with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee panel.
Eric Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.” This was a deal, described in the Mueller report, in which the Russian government promised Trump several hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk to himself to license a tower in Moscow. The proposed payoff, and Trump’s public lies at the time about it, gave Russia enormous leverage over his campaign. Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”
There was a lot more like that.
When Adam Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts, he replied, “I’m not sure.” Schiff responded, “The answer is yes,” to which Durham reported, “In your mind, it’s yes.”
When Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails, Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.”
When asked if Trump referred to those stolen emails more than 100 times on the campaign trail, Durham answered, “I don’t really read the newspapers and listen to the news.”
And when Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump, Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”
David Corn isn’t having it. He writes, “John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress.”
“The Manafort-Kilimnik connection — which the Senate Intelligence Committee report characterized as a ‘grave counterintelligence threat’ — is one of the most serious and still not fully explained components of the Trump-Russia scandal.
“It is inconceivable that Durham is unaware of this troubling link.”
Corn walks through Durham’s other false statements, including his account of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in which Don Jr. hoped the Russians would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton.
This meeting signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was receptive to Russian endeavors to intervene in the election to boost Trump’s chances, and Schiff expressed surprise that Durham found it insignificant. “Are you really trying to diminish the importance of what happened here?” he asked.
Durham answered: “The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.”
That is not true.
The report produced by special counsel Robert Mueller notes that the Russian emissary, a lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya, did discuss Clinton: “Participants agreed that Veselnitskaya stated that the Ziff brothers [an American family investment firm] had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. She asserted that the Ziff brothers had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering in both the United States and Russia.” (There was no evidence that Ziff Brothers Investments had engaged in wrongdoing.)
The Mueller report points out that Trump Jr. zeroed in on this: “Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States.” The report quotes a participant in the meeting recalling “that Trump Jr. asked what they [the Russians] have on Clinton.”
Durham’s characterization of the meeting—that it had nothing to do with Clinton—lined up with what the Trump camp first claimed when the meeting was revealed a year afterward, in 2017. At that time, Trump Jr. issued a false statement dictated by his father that insisted the conversation had focused “primarily” on the adoption of Russian children by Americans. That was a phony cover story. Later on, when more information came out, even the elder Trump conceded that the point of the meeting was to gather negative information on Clinton from a foreign adversary. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent,” Trump said. Yet years later, Durham was still pushing the original disinformation about the meeting propagated by Trump and his allies.
In saner times this censure would make Mr Schiff a folk hero and highly electable. Now? Not so sure he can be elected to the Senate even in California.
Do the Democrats have an arrangement like the Republicans do where the Rep candidates that are clearly winning share their campaign funds with the Rep candidates that are behind?
Proper governance is not possible in a branch of government that disgraces itself as the House did today by censuring a member who simply pursued appropriate examination of an ‘out of control chief executive’, proper judicial behavior is not possible in a Supreme Court that is literally on the ‘take’ in terms of major fiscal gifts….
Proper presidential elections are profoundly challenged when a major candidate is involved in at least 4 major criminal investigations and currently indicted in two of them….
We have all the charm of an out of control banana republic….
I've re-read Butler's "War is a Racket" many times. But just now I learned that in the early 1930's a group of wealthy industrialists wanted to overthrow FDR and install Butler as a dictator. He testified to Congress about the plan. The coup plotters denied they wanted to do this and the media ripped Butler to shreds but the investigation by the House confirmed Butler's claims.
Smedley Butler was at the time the most highly decorated Marine in US history. He became a staunch anti-war activist and wrote:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives....It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
I think we just got careless, didn’t pay attention to folks who were criticizing and tearing down our institutions …and now we are faced with either saving them or losing them….
Nicole Wallace had the best line today - (i am paraphrasing): Alito's excuse that the seat was empty anyway and therefore had no value means I should be able to sit in first class for free if they have an empty seat...yeah....right....NOT!
Lauren, I say not so much first class but rather on any private jet that happens to be going to your desired destination. 'Yo Elon, I also am going to Berlin Germany, shove over and pass the $1000 bottle of pinot noir so I can take a swig'.
Thanks for the Olbermann rec, Gloria. This is one of these (unsurprising) revelations that is just too distressing to take straight up. I need to hear it from someone blistering.
Among those on the right posing a threat to democracy Leonard Leo stands out. His bold interference in the processes of selecting and advancing extremist judges should shock. This is as corrupt as it is morally bankrupt. It is time to publicize his methods and shine a spotlight on his activities. Though RW extremists support his work in shaping the courts, I dare to hope that the majority of Americans would choose an independent and incorruptible judiciary. 6 of 9 do not pass that bar.
Leonard "Lex Luther" Leo, is the Leonard Zelig (or Forrest Gump) of the 2 Man Corrupt Crew on the Court, Sullen Sam Alito and No Clearance Clarence Thomas.
In every picture of either Thomas or Alito sucking up to their plutocratic beneficiaries and ideological allies in robbing-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich mode, there is L.L.
In direct response to Pro Publica's devastating article, his brazen projection--with Orwellian insouciance---accusing those who have revealed Alito's corruption of seeking to "...damage this Supreme Court and remake it into one that will disregard the law by rubber stamping their disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences" is truly something to behold. Here is a guy who recently accepted over A BILLION DOLLARS from some hitherto secretive Ayn Rand type billionaire Republican funder in Chicago, who is not only talking about "dark money" as if it emanates from the AOCs of the world as opposed to the Paul Singers, Robert Mercers and Harlan Crows from whom it has actually emanated, but has ushered not one, not two, but THREE robotically right wing nominees onto the Court.
And BTW, Mr. Leo, I have some "disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences" for you---
Telling all American women of child bearing capability that they now live within the parameters of the Handmaid's Tale, in that they cannot exercise any reasonable choice respecting their own bodily autonomy;
Telling all Americans that no reasonable gun regulations exist, and that we all must live with the prospect of everyone packing at all times and in all places, and that any Parent's fear for her/his children given the near weekly school shootings across the fruited plain are just something we all have to accept because the loving God that we all believe in gave us the 2nd Amendment;
Telling all Americans that religious rights, defined without limits and applicable everywhere, will always trump any other rights or liberties
Terrific comment. I'd modify the last paragraph to:"Telling all Americans that the religious rights of Christians will always trump other rights, especially the rights of other religions."
That so many religious fanatics have risen to positions of enormous power at the same time is scary. If we don't watch it, their Christofascism will rule this nation for decades. DeSantis is beta-testing these ideas in Florida. My only hope is that they won't be able to settle on whose form of insane religiosity will prevail and the internecine fights will weaken their ability to rule.
Beautiful righteous indignation, Daniel. It is particularly irksome when these dark money right wing fanatics dish out the Orwellian fantasy that their highly unpopular views are the culturally dominant ones.
For what it’s worth Leonard Leo is a Sovereign Knight of Malta a conservative and very wealthy Catholic religious order…..which cares for the poor and sick in clinics nationwide.
I happen to be an exceedingly liberal Catholic…. I think that it’s the conservative religious..not just Catholic .. ..folks whose theological insights are limited to a very narrow understanding of religious freedom and a very pyramidical authority approach ….these are the guys for whom opposing abortion is a primary goal…the concept that individuals to exercise their personal freedom (necessary in any truly moral decision) must have the freedom to choose EITHER WAY and that such a decision if made in good faith is the end of the discussion….is a concept totally alien to the Leonard Leo’s… of the world….
Sorry for the broad brush, but the self-righteous turds who are intent on, not only the SC, but every aspect of our lives, being manipulated and controlled by their rules, makes me crazy. When JFK was running, I was so sure that fear of Catholic interference was uncalled for. Now it is overwhelming the system, and affects us all. So glad Joe is a sane Catholic. But he is hated with a vengeance. You are right. It is the "conservative" religious nuts who drive much of the narrative. It is the monied religious nuts who truly have the power to change things.
The church emphasizes one’s own well-formed conscience as the final decision maker, not a bunch of whiny guys who truly are some of the “elites” they decry.
I agree with you, Joan. For what it's worth, I too am a liberal Catholic, although I am more un-churched these days, to borrow a phrase from our colleague Alexandra.
My local bishop selected wealthy folks for membership. They look silly in their attire. In fact, the “dames” look like they should be hovering over steaming cauldrons—they’re a little scary actually.
Expiation for their sins. Not unlike the support of the arts, especially the American Ballet Theater, from the likes of Philip Morris Co. years ago. Or like David Koch's support of the arts. Yes, they do good. Not enough to balance that karma, however.
Where are these clinics? I didn't see that in Wikipedia when I looked up the Sovereign Knights of Malta. Thanks for the information. That is very interesting.
You can check with the local Chancery offices of the individual diocese….in the Oakland area the clinic which serves a lot of poor is currently located in the Cathedral property….was originally located at Providence hospital.
Typically these clinics are staffed by retired docs…who are also Catholic and Knights.
Excellent outrage, Daniel. Very satisfying to read, thank you!
But here's a little hope from the NYT today:
"In their new book "The Great Dechurching: Who’s Leaving, Why Are They Going and What Will It Take to Bring Them Back?' Jim Davis and Michael Graham with Ryan Burge argue that the most dramatic change may be in regular attendance at houses of worship. 'We are currently in the middle of the largest and fastest religious shift in the history of our country,' they postulate, because 'about 15 percent of American adults living today (around 40 million people) have effectively stopped going to church, and most of this dechurching has happened in the past 25 years.'"
It doesn’t escape the attention of even partially astute citizens that the reason only Republicans are being investigated is because it’s only Republicans who are so effing corrupt
What possible interest of ordinary Americans is served by censuring Rep. Schiff? All of the theatrics of House Republicans serve only one American, Donald Trump.
In 1948, Truman campaigned against a “do-nothing” Republican Congress. The current House Republicans are do-nothing on steroids.
No, nothing would be better than what they've been doing. How many National problems and disasters have they not either created or made substantially worse? Social and economic inequity? COVID? Climate dysfunction? It's a long list.
And they like to claim that Democrats "hate America"?
Just finished Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s latest book, ‘The Scheme,’ which provides many details of the decades of conspiracy and abuse of financial contributions to corrupt the federal courts, relentlessly, up to SCOTUS. This has been reported over the years, but in sync with so much other grotesque corruption performed publicly, no counter weight has been built that is effective. It’s past time, far, far past time.
best luck to US -- b.rad
source: very highly recommended, except, warning - I had to put it down approximately every 3 pages to stomp around the house and snort and fume, testing even my very progressive wife’s patience . . . <https://thenewpress.com/books/scheme>
hmmm . . . forgot W, Cheney, Iraq, Great Recession . . . ? There’s more . . . Alito . . . too much corruption to keep track of, that’s a key part of the plan . . . thanks for the note, b.rad
"Leo is now in charge of Marble Freedom Trust, a nonprofit organized in May 2020 with a $1.6 billion donation from donor Barre Seid to push right-wing politics at every level.)"
Leo has his own reasons to discredit Pro Publica. This March, Andy Kroll, Andrea Bernstein, and Nick Surgey reported on their investigation of Leo's ties to Teneo, a right wing extremist group founded to support social influencers (from academics to athletes) and elect/appoint officials to every government office.
"Ever since the longtime Federalist Society leader helped create a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, and then received more than a billion dollars from a wealthy Chicago business owner to disburse to conservative causes, Leo’s next moves had been the subject of speculation.
Now, Leo declared in a slick but private video to potential donors, he planned to “crush liberal dominance” across American life. The country was plagued by “woke-ism” in corporations and education, “one-sided journalism” and “entertainment that’s really corrupting our youth,” said Leo amid snippets of cheery music and shots of sunsets and American flags.
Sitting tucked into a couch, with wire-rimmed glasses and hair gone to gray, Leo conveyed his inspiration and intentions: “I just said to myself, ‘Well, if this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?’”
Teneo is building what Leo called in the video “networks of conservatives that can roll back” liberal influence in Wall Street and Silicon Valley, among authors and academics, with pro athletes and Hollywood producers. A Federalist Society for everything."
The founding principles of Teneo were drafted by Josh Hawley. (Who until his January 6 insurrectionst fist bump and later Bambi sprint was a top GOP presidential great white hope.)
"Yet again, the Court-capture operative Leonard Leo appears in the wings as the key to right-wing billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, this time hooking up another Supreme Court justice with billionaire freebie vacations. Leo doesn’t just have business before the Court – his business is the Court – and any ‘reasonable and unbiased person’ understands that Leo’s side hustle as a luxury travel agent for the far-right Court supermajority reeks of corruption."
Be very afraid. There’s that battle against “wokeism,” which is truly a made up problem, and the opposite of what has been happening. The right has been taking over the microphone and the narrative ever since Rupert darkened our door. Deliberately and in cahoots with Reagan. And with more money than most of us can imagine.
Aside: read recently, (in letter to Dallas Morning News) that some republicans are pushing Paul Ryan as presidential candidate, touting him as the “Reaganesque” best bet to lead them now. As I said, be very afraid…
As a former "Repucklican" I say the party is done. (Paul Ryan can not save the "Repucklicans")
I vote only for good solid American Democrats who love our country and freedom here and abroad and work for it. I support leaders who support freedom and those who are willing to lay down their lives for it! Go Ukraine! Thanks to our military everywhere who are supporting freedom....and I pray not misusing our power to support corrupt leaders (probably too much of a hope in every circumstance.)
I vote for Democrats who want to work for cleaner air, water and energy. I want to vote for Democrats who want an excellent education, affordable for everyone and opportunities for being able to make a living wage. I support safe and excellent care for our youngest and afterschool care for our older children so working parents do not have to worry about the safety of their children while they are working. Other qualified teachers or assistants could choose to be available to help students complete their assignments during after school hours.
I support Social Security and Medicare.....this is a way we can care for one another during our older years.
I want to vote for Democrats who respect everyone especially women to have the right to health care that is needed as well as appropriate health care for EVERYONE!
I am grateful for the work of caring, honest and freedom loving leadership. Please may we keep working for these goals to be accomplished for each and every American.
As we work together to accomplish these goals....please may we manage tax dollars in the best, most respectful way....Not STEALING or MISUSING money from hardworing Americans. Everyone should pay a fair share and then those funds should be used properly to "Build Back Better!"
Love every syllable. I have two ex-Repub sisters who feel the same way. Brothers, not so much. Why would decent, hard-working men have any respect for the poorest excuse for a man that we have conjured up.
Jeri….I have a mix of degrees including grad degrees in Developmental psych/education/gerontology, about half of a MDiv ..et al and a regional/statewide and a bit national history within both the Catholic social services system and the more general political world and it’s been my experience that women figure this out faster as a rule then more traditional men do….
Somewhere between the university, and Dobbs I don’t know any women who don’t think ‘Choice’ is their business ..interestingly enough the stats for Catholics using contraception happen to be just about identical with the larger culture (no accident that) …and this was a very immediate phenomenon decades ago, after the Second Vat Council.
The guys on the other hand not so much….I’m guessing, but I think the really mature and independent guys are like the more reasonable women and able to function way beyond ‘Father says’….they are grown ups, socially secure and prescient enough to figure out just how horrible the ‘Orange one is’…..
The others, perhaps your relatives….aren’t there yet….they need the ‘man friend’ support, rather like the anti-feminism deal…can’t afford to grant everyone equal rights and time….need control…are not very developmentally mature….
Probably because Ryan hasn't been tainted by associating with the MAGA crowd (as far as I know). But I'd hardly call him a Rockefeller - or even a Reagan - Republican.
There are big doings afoot for the first anniversary of Dobbs. The long time MDI activists, who have sustained years of protests outside one of Leo's estates, have gathered strength and numbers. (I'm a gadfly, who got caught in a web of Leo's congruence with corrupt players in Bar Harbor government and on The Islander newspaper.) I am away, but I hear there will be lots of chalk.
I watched McCarthy read the statement of censure and was (am still) stunned! The corruption is out in the open. It is not possible to compromise with corruption. You have to stand up to it. I am glad the Democrats yelled shame. Good for them!
If anybody should be censured, it is McCarthy, who made unconscionable deals with the brainless zealot wing of the GOP in order to win the prize of the Speakership.
I love your notes. They are the first thing I read every morning in the UK. I was surprised that you didn’t cover the report about Biden antagonising the Chinese by describing the President of China as a dictator. At least for me your thoughts on events like these are helpful as it makes your notes seem somewhat even handed and not too echo chamber like and it gives me talking points when I have to deal with centre right republicans who are always looking for ways to humiliate Biden. Thanks, Alex
I agree, Alex. Calling Xi a dictator and cutting the legs out from under Blinken after the SOS's apparently useful trip to China was not particularly clever of Biden, however truthful his comment may have been. It gives the Chinese an excuse to misbehave more, and it gives the GOP free talking points going into the 2024 election campaign. Bummer.
All the more reason to talk about the issues a majority of Americans really worry about the most, in no particular order: health care, global overheating, nuclear war, loss of abortion rights, grossly unfair wealth distribution (and associated social ills), gun violence, elder care, inflation, high interest rates, high rents, discrimination against "the other" due to racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, and the list goes on and on and my eyes have already glazed over.
If Biden just had to do a "gaffe", this is far enough from the election that it will be quickly forgotten, there will be plenty of newer news by then (Trump imprisoned for life?) and most Americans think Xi is a dictator anyway. So, small deal, not big deal.
Problem is that Republicans have so little real meat to grab on to and criticize in Biden, any morsel will be made into a BFD. Trump was endlessly lambasting China with petty insults and the Republicans cheered him on.
The Professor limits her essays to 1200 words; what she was reporting on today filled that up. The other thing to know is that she bases her Letters on what is (technically) the day before we read it (at least here on the USA west coast). It'll be covered.
“You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Those words are likely to outlive him. Classy and to the point.
Very Patrick Henry-ish!
Oh, I do agree. Cicero.
A Pillar of Iron
It deserves large print on front page of any news organization that stands for democracy and is conscientious of their duty and responsibility.
My only problem J L, is when Adam left Congress he immediately sent texts begging for money.
We have a system that essentially requires those running for office to “beg for money.” Anyone can opt out of receiving them by replying “STOP” to the text. But this time, I believe I’ll send a few bucks as a token of my gratitude for Schiff’s integrity and service. He warned us all about the dangers of the cult of Trump.
I wish we could make “campaigning” illegal. No 💵💵 spent to get elected. Rather, a resume distributed and interviews and debates. Same as for any other job. No dark money, no lies, no glitzy ritzy coded language to brainwash the masses. Just a simple, this is what I’ve done, this is what I would do “for the people” and how I would do it. Stop spoon feeding people garbage.
I am with you 100%!
Amen. Adam Schiff is a hero
Yes, I hate these repeated requests for money pinging my text in box but, I agree, this time I’ll send in some support money. Then I’ll text STOP.
Schiff? Integrity? I've never heard those words in the same sentence?
Schiff pedaled the Steele Dossier as proof of Russian collusion when he knew it was untrue. He accused the President of being a Russian agent and claimed he had proof, which he never produced.
The word you are looking for is “peddled”. And I still trust the Steele dossier more than the lame Durham report.
Keep drinking the faux nooz koolaid, it will eventually rot your brain.
Don’t reply to this guy and he’ll eventually go away. No likes or replies.
I report him.
Pro tip—don’t feed the trolls
Yes, he is a crazy troll...forget him!
You are either a troll or you did not actually read the article that includes more damning info that Trump's campaign DID collude with Russia.
He’s been on here a few times, lately. Just a troll.
I scroll on by and if by chance, he answers a post of mine and then it appears in my email, it goes directly to trash where it can find company with other dreck.
Thanks, Jennifer. No, he did not read the conclusion Durham stated at the hearing in regards to his own investigation and report, namely, "Nothing came of it." James A is clearly a "selective reader," at best. Talk about integrity, jeezh!
Jennifer. No he is just a garden variety troll looking for "likes". Don't feed him.
Evidence?
1) Brennan briefed Obama in 2016 that the Clinton campaign was planned to create a scandal
tying Trump to Russia
https://www.chathamstartribune.com/state_and_national/article_c83744d0-0968-11eb-9354-bf4878aae96b.html
2) Clinton campaign paid $1MM for the Steele dossier. (Which they later paid a fine for not reporting)
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93
3) Christopher Steele was a offered a 1MM by the FBI to verify anything in the dossier and couldn't
4) Danchenko was Steele's source for the dossier was paid $300K by the FBI yet couldn't
confirm anything in the dossier
5) The FBI used a unverified dossier as the basis to get A FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump campaign).
6) Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application,
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane
7) Michael Sussman, A DNC lawyer claims alleges that the Trump campaign is colluding
with the Russians through a secret communications with Alpha Bank.
8) FBI Analyst Hellman testified said the allegations claimed there was a “secret communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank, were rejected within a day.
https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-jury-indicts-dc-attorney-making-false-statements-fbi-2016-regarding-alleged
What do we know? The Clinton campaign cooked up the scandal, paid for a dossier THAT WAS FALSE.
BTW The Mueller Report concluded the Steele Dossier was false
https://apnews.com/article/3f857308c462aded650b1c8b7799ea58
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON the planet who believes the Steele Dossier was true.
Author - Christopher Steele didn't believe it was true
Source - Danchenko didn't believe it was true.
Mueller Report didn't believe it was true
Durham Report didn't believe it was true
YET YOU BELIEVE IT WAS TRUE. That is embarassing
YOU MAYBE THE ONLY person on planet earth who believes its TRUE.
"Russia, if you're listening..."
It rings in my eeats from time to time unfortunately 🙄
James I’m not going to ridicule you but I find pragmatism and intellectualism sometimes at odds with each other. Perhaps you might research an awareness of the dark side of pragmatism and find a reconciliation with intellectual argument. You might become less belligerent and more persuasive hence buy more traction.
Your comments are EMPTY unless you provide examples.
I can’t teach you this. You actually have to learn it. I simply provided a key going forward. An example would be that any one learning to walk must take their own steps. I hope that helps.
He has his own newsletter. No one reads it so he has to go seeking attention elsewhere. Ignore.
Deflection?
Ever word I wrote is true. That must be unsettling for you.
😂😂😂
Adam Schiff is a man of such high integrity that he can claimed being censured by the craven wing of the Republican Party is actually a badge of honor. There, now you have seen these words together in a sentence. Hope it helps. Re-reading Schiff’s work on the extent of corruption the Republicans in Congress participate in, might also help you understand it.
He lied about Russian collusion. He Repeatedly received 4 Pinocchio's from the Washington Post for lying about Russia-gate. He lied about having evidence regarding Russian collusion, he lied about speaking to witnesses in advance, and he lied about Trump's role in Russian collusion.
He is a political HACK. He would say anything to advance his politics. Its disgraceful and embarrassing.
Shame on you for peddling a lie!
This troll is *such* an ass - like all MAGAt pricks, every accusation he makes is a confession
This maybe the dumbest post I've ever seen.
I just listed facts. The truth is always a lie to a leftist. Its an inverted world.
But the truth has never been a left wing value. Power is all that matters.
AGAIN Breyer took 225 trips. Ginsburg took $1MM from a left wing group and expensive trips YET NOT A WORD.
As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took $1 million from a left-wing group. It's important to critically evaluate the sources and information you come across, especially when it comes to controversial or potentially false claims. Without verifiable evidence, it is advisable to approach such assertions with skepticism. If any new information has emerged since September 2021, I may not be aware of it.
Bot much, James?
I'm starting to think so. It appears that everything posted by this account is vacuous anti-intellectual content that could easily be coming from a rudimentary generative AI trained on talking points from Gateway Pundit
Do you call bullshit where I see it? Yes.
Does that offend your snowflake sensibilities?
You again? Butthurt, much, sad little troll?
To make an argument requires brain power. Since that's in such little supply on your part,
congratulations another stupid rant. To speak in anything other than cliches?
I chipped in! Trump raises millions. Schiff needs to raise funds to compete
I did
$1000 bottles of wine?
My Three Buck Chuck tastes fine and leaves me beholden to no one.
I'm a Katie Porter supporter but I'm also sending some money to Schiff because he's a mensch.
he deserves our support and the money for being brave and doing his job...how would you like to have to be re-elected every 2 years to do your job ? Calling it "begging" just demeans what he has done. It sounds like he's on a corner with a cardboard sign.
I do not disapprove of Adam Schiff, I admire him and have since he was leading the impeachment trial of Trump. I disapprove of the amount of money given to Corporate Media for campaigns. I object to 24/7/365 days of "begging" for money. Politicians have accepted donations since day 1, That is expected. But I do not believe we need the ceaseless campaigning we have seen in the 21st Century. Part of this is probably my age (90). When I was actively working on campaign in my 20's through my 60's campaigns didn't start the day after election day and never end. Politicians did not run for office in order to increase their wealth, they ran because it was their civic duty.
Times have changed, and strategies along with it. Schiff's fundraising may seem in poor taste, but it is no different from anything that all the others must do to simply stay in office. If Schiff doesn't use every possible opportunity for fundraising, his political career will die. This is especially true of those who scrutinize the sources of campaign donations.
Let's advocate for laws that change this broken system rather than attacking one of the good guys trying to operate effectively within that system.
Helga, I agree. They all ask for money because they have to. I don't think any less of Katie Porter because she asks.
Times have changed = Citizens United
I don't see any legislation coming up to combat Citizens United. Even if Corporations equal a person (with which logic would disagree) there was a law limiting the amount of the donation to $2500 per year per person. Greed is what changed it to "sky's the limit"
Boom.
Exactly. REPEAL Citizens United
I agree times have changed - but not for the better. I should not have been picking on Adam Schiff, whom I actually like. I'm just fed up with this system. No they don't have to beg for money nationwide. No they don't have to pour billions into Corporate media. They can spend that time and energy meeting with their own constituents like they used to. They can have phone banks 6 weeks prior to the election. They can have scores of volunteers knocking on doors. All the politicians coast to coast have fallen into line, foisted on them by their National Campaign Committees. We keep urging voters to think for themselves, to critically analyze positions, platforms, and make decisions based on that. Well, the same thing applies to candidates. Instead of angering their constituents with 24/7 emails and texts, try talking to those in your own State, in your own district, most of us are willing to listen.
The times they are a changing- always, every day. One constant is that Fay Reid is on top of it. Still. Always. I am a tough unabashed old codger but I am comforted somehow by knowing she is here. Her voice and others today quiet a tension I didn’t even know was there. I am awash somewhat in admiration that came on unexpectedly. I’m gonna quit with awed.
Bless you Fay. I agree with your point of view. I'm 70 and I walked away from active involvement in political campaigns 20 years ago. Things have changed and first TV and now social media is to blame for the change. I produce TV and now social media content. I don't support either party with my $$. I do support candidates and causes. Adam & Raskin need our support. They are are the tip of the spear fighting against big, dark money...that just never rests. I really dislike what this has become...but it's here. I just don't want to see Adam characterized as a "begger". He's just doing what he has to do...for our survival...not his.
Jon Tester is the loan democrat in MT where the Republican Party has vowed to take him out & make MT a super red majority.
I agree, but the word is lone, as in alone, not loan.
Carole,
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I honestly don't know how he survives there and certainly will support him with a donation (not a loan).
We also donate directly to campaigns and causes and not parties. We would love to see change in this, but right now it is what it is.
Good. Always donate to the candidates directly. They can purchase media time more cheaply than the national orgs. Plus the DNC is….
I am only 83 (or will be within a month), but I can still remember from my student days the complaints of members of Congress about the amount of time they had to devote to the raising of funds for re-election. That is why there has been talk about pub public funding of campaigns, There are rules against use of campaign donations for non election purposes -- rules that the unethical violate. A problem is the development of the internet which allows those appeals to have become so intrusive. I spend an awful lot of time hitting the delete button. My biggest gripe is those "surveys" which are appeals in disguise!
Dave, you provided my first smile of the day with your opening statement that you are "only" 83. Long may you live with energy and enthusiasm and this perspective of not being old.
Thank you. The old vaudeville line was "always leave them laughing!"
Those surveys are also often a way to sow disinformation. I received one the other day from extreme-rightwing Hillsdale College, which I decided to answer in order to see what they were peddling, but I had to stop halfway through because the questions were presented in such a way that every answer would damn progressive issues. There was no option for a different point of view.
They finally stopped sending their surverys to me but it took awhile. I actually sent one back with all of their questions revised to eliminate the bias; perhaps that's what did it. I'm sure they tout their survey results as if the heavily skewed data is relevant.
Happy birthday Dave. Those surveys not me too!
No, Fay, you are quite correct, the 24/7/365 began with Citizens United decision wherein SCOTUS considered corporations and PACS to be citizens and money a form of free speech.
Talk to John Roberts about reversing Citizens United.
As if ...
35 Senate candidates won in 2018 spending an average of 15.7 million to do so. The price of victory is steep.
Fay Reid. I'm a year and a half away from 90. I'm an American citizen (actually, dual) living in Canada, voting for the last 36 years through Colorado (my last US residence). I never gave to a political candidate until Donald Trump entered the scene via that elevator. Now I do, to whomever needs it the most. Notably, Senators Warnock and Ossoff, and various Democratic Representatives wherever they're from. I've been a huge fan of Adam Schiff for many years, so he will get some donations from me. I don't need reminders from his campaign to to this, so will "unsubscribe" from everything as it hits my email In Box! Good luck to all of us!
Fay, please keep in mind that Citizens United changed the entire landscape, sponsored by the right wing, and pushed through by Republicans. It is now a sad reality, and galling as it is, we now have Koch, Walton, and a plethora of oligarchs, most of whom head huge industries and possess unlimited resources. Look at the havoc that news outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and others have unleashed to assist the oligarchs.
I didn't really understand politics until last year. The current owner of the local radio station told me the story about his run for the US House of Representives. He was excited about being on the various committees. He was informed that his staff would do the work while he would be out campaigning for the next election. He was not elected which was our loss.
Mike, what adds insult to injury is that dollars donated simply go right back into sending ever more requests for money. To respond with money seems to guarantee that one will be targeted by all who "need" more money; all of them.
Surely, this can't be what our founding fathers intended.
I learned that awhile back. Once you send $2 to Move on, or the Dem party or anything, you are on the list forever. I've limited my $ contributions to a very few candidates who I feel make a real difference, or causes that really need it in the moment. I'm more prone to do some video work for something I believe in and post it around, so that folks can share it.
I think the two-year term for House members is a, maybe the, major factor in this need to be constantly asking for money. I would like to see representatives’ terms expanded to four years but with term limits, perhaps three or four maximum. As for senators, keep the six-year terms but limit them to perhaps three terms. I believe many polls show the population wants term limits, too bad none of our representatives, left or right, will bring a bill forward to consider them.
Agreed, Mary. 4 year House terms, and 24 years of service (this would be either four six year terms, or six four year terms.) If they've completed 3 terms and switch chambers they'd qualify for a second "new chamber" term.
So Ally, I am going to check out View From the Back Row. I didn't know that you did this.
I don't, yet. Substack started it for me to entice me to their platform. I had been thinking about starting one, but I really don't have the time to prepare decent essays these days. I hope to write about some of the law enforcement issues as they come up, or impacts of legislation on the LGBTQ+ community--stuff I know about.
Substack told me I wrote "Ally's Substack". I change the name to "Views From the Back Row" for a couple reasons. One, that is where the tubas sit, and another is that is where the cops sit (any training class, the back of the room fills up first. EVERY TIME).
18 years of service
Gee, I'm hoping to keep representative's to two and term limits for both rep's and Senators to two. They treat this like it's a job. It isn't. It's civic duty. Maybe then we could get people that really look out for our interests instead of lining their pockets.
Good lord, Mary, think of MTG, Lauren Boebert, Paul "bullseye on AOC" Gosar, Andrew "normal tourist visit" Clyde, Matt "let them entertain me" Gaetz, Anna "Give us MORE, Kevin" Luna, Mary "Hitler was right about the youth" Miller and no doubt, the pack grows. I shudder to think of them settling in with a longer tenure and the damage they could do if they weren't peddling constantly.
Fair point, but there also are many representatives who are reasonable people (and I’ll include some of those on the right in that characterization) trying to do a complex job. I don’t think two years, with at least a third of it dedicated to fund raising, is enough time to learn the in and outs of it.
Congressional Representatives all must spend more time out of the Capitol begging for bucks than getting anything done.
He had been fundraising in my feed long before yesterday, for his Senate campaign. He is terrific.
Schiff is integrity incarnate. Period.
Yes, Frank, Schiff is a man with integrity within a corrupted system.
Yes from me too. But this bit of using censure to ask for more reeks of Trump. Right now I'm supporting Katie Porter, but Adam will be my second choice.
I like Porter too, sort of wish they would stay in the House - i sent $ to Schiff today.
THAT choice between two bastions of integrity and clear speaking for the same seat since redistricting seems one of the toughest choices voters face this next cycle!
And yet, shouldn't that be our dilemma in EVERY election - two incredibly honest, smart, in touch, wise and energetic candidates to choose from?
But, yes, we cannot afford to lose either one in federal office.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee is also running for Feinstein's seat. She's also a smart, honest person. I still will continue to support Adam Schiff for his brave patriotism and hope that Katie Porter and Barbara Lee get into the Senate in the future.
Fay, the number of solicitations I receive each day - from politicians I admire - provides me with a part time job. Delete, delete, delete. Have a slug of coffee, then delete, delete...
I think it is worth considering that all these emails are sent to lowly citizens like us who have supported someone or some party in the past. Small donations should be the only donations, IMO. But I also find it really intrusive and irritating. My other part time job is to "unsubscribe".
Consider the amount of dark money that is fueling the lies from Oligarchs like Koch, Mercer, Leo, Crow and Singer, etc. Maybe in our small way we can try to counter balance that evil, selfish, autocratic influence.
But I share your irritation. I feel the same way when I open our mailbox. Every day I throw out envelopes w/o opening them - from organizations I love and support. I donate to them every November. And the irony of non-profits cutting down trees to send endless streams requests for more money shouldn't be lost on us. I wish they had been emails. Save a tree.
It is a torturous process. We at at an income level that requires vigorous stewardship of expenses and controlled purchasing. By writing to various public entities and causes I support, the recycled mail w/o opening is incredible but realistic. I don’t even glance at the daily AARP Insurance envelopes.
But I see no way out of it as long as the Evil Empire of wealth insists on making money the basis of controlling their agendas.
But to me our most spectacular failure we demonstrate is the billionaires of the fossil fuel industries who pour money into products that guarantee our developing human self destruction.
As I have often said, they think their money will save them, but it won't on an unlivable planet which is where we are heading.
As I mentioned before, with texts, you can reply "STOP" one time to end the solicitations from that candidate. With emails, scroll down to the very bottom to find "unsubscribe." There is no need to take on this particular part time job ; - )
Quite true. And that is part of the project. But here's the thing. Once you donate via "Act Blue", for instance, it generates a sharing of email addresses.
For instance, I have unsubscribed to Sherrod Brown, Gavin Newsom and and Tammy Duckworth. Then after awhile they reappear. The sharing of donor lists and potential donors is just life in the good old US of A.
Don't get me wrong. I love what these three stand for. I admire them.
But we should have more to say about how our email addresses are shared.
I go through the same process of frustration but I think we are bound by a common interest with those we support to use their recommended fund sources.
I can’t imagine anyone managing millions of separate individual donations. Any system is better.
What bothers me is we the people with incomes less than $250k compete with the money of the billionaire set especially the super profitable fossil fuel industries when our focus is human good and their’s is profit at any cost to humanity.
I wonder if there is a way to contribute to an individual person's campaign without having it go through Act Blue.
I believe there is that option. But they still share donor lists. And I suspect some of it happens via the DNC.
It's an irritation, but not as big as the weather forecast for the next couple of weeks. Yikes!
Here’s a fundraising gambit (from politicians and good nonprofits) that always frosts me. I struggle a bit to send $100 (or occasional even more) to a cause. I quickly receive mail asking for more donations and the lowest “suggested donation” is more than I just gave. This happens far to often; it’s not an accident. And I find it demeaning and ungrateful. (We all have our triggers.) oh, and if the envelope says “please send your donation by (date)” or “deadline date” that envelope goes into the trash.
We ignore pleas and support those candidates we like and organizations we feel we want to help. I confess that a big part of our donations go to All Classical, the wonderful radio station in Portland, Oregon, who have made it part of their goals to be inclusive and they celebrate all the special months and days. The range of music is way beyond Bach, Mozart, etc. Even their fund raising times are fun. They can be accessed on line and I encourage people to listen.
Fay, well, as little citizens, we cannot write the huge dark money checks our representatives need to stay elected in the face of JD Vance type support. We need Schiff, he needs us. Money is an equalizer
I know money is the equalizer, but it doesn't have to be. We don't need 20 lobbyists, for every legislator. And we can go back to maximum donations of $2500 per donor per year. The billions spent on campaigns now goes into the greedy maws of Corporate Media. That is not ok with me.
The voting rights legislation that was defeated has a clause in it to stop dark $$$. I suspect that was the reason it was defeated.
I thought your complaint above was that the funds were used to enrich the candidates.
Right now money is required to elect those who want what you stated
Disdaining the current situation is admirable but not pragmatic
Many adjustments to Media required to remove financial incentives to propaganda. Can’t do that until we finance our beliefs
I agree and I especially hate the times just before elections when all the ads are on TV and the mute button works overtime.
Dave I respectfully disagree. Should it not be votes rather than money which decides our elections. It would appear that having more money than the other guy allows one to peddle what are essentially lies, distortions and half-truths into votes. That seems a great problem in our democracy.
It is why Zinke won barely, in MT over a strong Woman Dem. Zinke had more $$$$$
when is he up for reelection? How is the case the young plaintiffs are in, suing state of Montana for climate related damages, going? Not much about it in national news.
I dont know how accessible the newspaper The Missoulian is on line but they have reported on it as well as the Montana Free Press also online.
Currently, pragmatic acknowledgement of our current election system is required to elect the people we believe can fulfill your more idealized worldview imo
So what! He’s running for senate. I support him with a monthly donation. Would you have him accept dark money?
Fay, this money-begging represents THE main crack in the checks and balances of our democracy ever since the Citizens United decision by our newly activated SCOTUS. This decision, especially when accompanied by the system of anonymous donation has turned bribery into an essential ingredient in current politics, bribery now endemic in all 3 branches of our government.
He needs it. There are those who will consider the censure a reason not to vote for him. We need him in Congress!
Thank you for reminding me to make a donation this morning!
Thanks for reminding me that I need to send him more.
Oh, and House Republicans elected him to the Senate yesterday.
He had been asking for money even before the vote was taken. Actually he started asking for money when it became evident that the GQP was going to go ahead with the censure vote.
Not Schiff himself but his campaign. I never respond to those emails, but this time I donated. And will again. In this political world in which we find ourselves, that is how our voices are heard.
Problem is, Rick, that was the way we used to be heard. Before this endless need to collect money, when I emailed by Congressman or Senators, I received a personal answer to my question. Now I receive a standard form letter that addresses nothing close to what I asked or commented. So although I continue to support my own Congressman and Senator I don't feel I'm being represented. They, and their assistants, are far more interested in collecting money than in serving their constituency.
Adam Schiff hasn't left Congress. Are you thinking of Adam Kinzinger? Adam Schiff is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. senator from California. As others have noted, running for office, especially statewide office in a state the size of California, costs money. A lot of money.
The request for money I got from Adam Schiff was that he was being threatened by a $16 million dollar fine. No one thinks Adam Schiff is taking money under the table from anyone, which is why he is hated by the shifty grifters. You are working awfully hard to find something to criticize him for. He is not independently wealthy, is he? What would you do in these circumstances, Fay? This is a rare time where I don’t agree with you. A request for help with a groundless waste of time and money attack was very reasonable, from my point of view.
The first text I received was the only one I read and it didn't mention a 16 million dollar fine. I admit I was angry and just deleted the next 3 texts unread. If Adam Schiff is fined any amount one of the Democratic Committees should defend him and pay the fine if he loses the suit. Frankly I have never heard of one political party successfully suing the other parties elected members. The Congress itself can only get money back from Legislators if they have been convicted of theft of Congressional funds or fraud. I would think George Santos would be more in danger of that than Adam Schiff, who is clean as a whistle. The attack on him by whatever her name, was groundless, vindictive, and only passed because the MAGA dumdums control the house by 7 or 8 votes. I am not criticizing Adam Schiff. (I admit it appeared that way) I am criticizing the whole damn Congress, both houses. While people like Adam do accomplish much, most of them are so busy begging for money (and many of them, are feeding from the same trough as the Republicans - namely Wall Street, Corporate American and persons of obscene wealth. If they are not begging for themselves they are begging for the DCCC, DNC, and DSCC. Those untrustworthy committees have been conning or forcing the Members of the Senate and House to collect large sums for them, since a lot of us former card carrying members were so disgusted by them supporting Trump MAGA candidates that we will no longer give them a dime.
He needs the bucks. He has formidable challengers in the primary for Feinstein’s Senate seat, and both are unwilling to step aside.the primary will be very costly, in a high campaign cost state.
Would you rather have him on the payroll of neonazi fascist billionaires who pull the puppet strings to EVERY Repug in office?
Like his classy words @ the end of the 1st impeachment," RIGHT MATTERS. TRUTH MATERS . DECENCY MATTERS. I will wear this Tshirt with his words today
We love him for the enemies he’s made, as was said of another great American.
Yesterday was a very sad day for the Congress of the United States. The Republicans demonstrated that even though many people who have worked directly with Trump, and many who had been in elected office but have left, have come out and have clearly stated that Trump is a threat to national security and a threat to the world. However, none of the elected Republicans in the House of Representatives had the nerve or integrity to stand up for the truth.
Some of the crazies, such as Matt Gaetz, attacked John Durham for not using his office to do a hit job when he had the chance but not proof. But then they went on to site his report as evidence that Adam Schiff lied and misled the American public. They attacked Schiff for the second time because Donald Trump ordered it. It has become clear that the Republicans in the House have been trained to act like the Supreme Soviet. They will rubber stamp anything Trump proposes. The work that Kevin McCarthy attempted to show them how to legislate has all been washed away. They are all in for lies and vengeance. This is very frightening and it shows how much control Trump still has over the Republican Party, despite all of his lies and lunacy.
Yes, it is frightening. The need to retain power and the fear of blackmail motivate the House Republicans.
Exactly.
As will his heroic and unrelenting defense of Democracy, at great personal cost. History will remember him as a true patriot.
Love Adam and so happy to be in his district!
We are blessed to have Adam in our corner!
The next Senator from the state of California!
Absolutely agree! Democrats lead with calm and facts while the current Republicans lead with emotion.
It is cool to keep your cool, especially when shouldering critical adult responsibilities, but emotion is not necessarily bad when not out of control or fake. Check out recent video of Jackie Goldberg commenting on demagoguery against gays. She is very passionate and pushes the edge, but remains logical and civil. Adult, focused and factual anger can be powerful, as we have seen in some of the passionate speech of Greta Thunberg. The is also hyped-up hate speech and tantrums, that we are wise to reject. Some of the most memorable and laudable speeches have been very passionate, but in a good way.
Is this a joke. The title of the column should be how I cherry pick events and then spin them with sanctimony.
Here are the facts from the Oregon Chronicle:
"Thomas (& Alito) have been far from alone on the court in enjoying the largesse of the uber-wealthy.
Late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.
Late Justice Antonin Scalia took at least 258 subsidized trips while he was on the court and he was on one when he suddenly died in 2016.
Scalia’s more-liberal colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, took at least 225 subsidized trips between 2004 and 2016. They include a 2013 trip to the exclusive island of Nantucket compliments of private-equity billionaire David Rubenstein, Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court, reported.
Those were some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019, according to a list compiled by the watchdog group Open Secrets. That’s nine trips per justice, per year, and it’s unlikely they stayed at the Holiday Inn on most of them.
AGAIN BEYER TOOK 225 trips? Not a word about that.
An omission is just as dishonest as a lie. As a historian that's even more disgraceful.
But when you are the Leni Riefenstahl of Democratic politics, context and history don't matter.
You failed to mention that the article you cited in the Oregon Capitol Chronicle also said this:, referring to the
"... some of the 1,309 trips Supreme Court justices took compliments of others between 2004 and 2019..." :
'And those are just the ones that justices have disclosed. It’s unclear how many — like decades of Thomas’ travels — have been unreported, or whether the justices will suffer any consequences for not reporting them.'
The problem with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Gorsuch is that they failed to disclose their trips, spouse commissions, favorable real estate deals and other gifts, such as the Crowe donation to Thomas' grand nephew's private school. So apparently context doesn't matter to you, either .
Comparing Prof. Richardson to Leni Riefenstahl puts you in the troll class. Goodbye.
I'm not here to support the largesse ALL public officials enjoy.
On the other hand its completely dishonest to OMIT the fact that liberal judges have enjoyed the same benefits. FURTHERMORE Alito didn't violate any law when he didn't report his TRIP in 2008.
Ginsburg took a $1MM gift from a leftwing group and expensive trips. Breyer went on 225 trips.
YES you become Leni Riefenstahl when you OMIT major facts to SPIN the narrative.
She cherry picked a single trip and tried to frame it as "CONSERVATIVE" problem.
THAT IS A LIE
This is my last reply to you: no, Alito *didn't* violate any law in failing to disclose gifts. The SC is self-regulated, and depends upon the willingness of the justices to be transparent in their financial affairs, and certainly to recuse themselves if they have certain relationships with people or entities who may come before the Court. Thomas and Alito, especially, flout their duty to disclose benefits they have received, (and other justices have misled through their disclosures) and have caused a smell of rot to emanate from the hallowed halls. If you can't smell that, shame on you. (Though I suspect if the donor were George Soros giving undisclosed largesse to say, Sotomayor, you'd be indignant.)
I don't care which justice -- D- or R-appointed, receives benefits and neither discloses nor recuses -- the stink is the same, and clings to all their robes. Congress should indeed require greater transparency, in order to restore some dignity to the Court. Roberts appears to have no interest.
I'm defending the truth.
It was dishonest of Heather to spin this problem as partisan. THEY ALL have enjoyed the perks of public life.
Alito reported none of this on his required disclosures. Additionally, after the lavish trips, Paul Singer or his companies appeared before the Supreme Court “at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media.” That is the issue. You are being purposefully obtuse, cherry picking, and using false equivalencies. If you put this much effort into holding those in power accountable then you'd find that more people would agree with you. You come here every day to troll it seems like.
Let me help you out here since Heather refuses to be intellectually honest.
Alito wasn't required by law to report the TRIP!
The sanctimony is disgraceful. AGAIN Breyer took 225 trips, NOT A WORD. Ginsburg received $1MM dollars from a leftwing group, and took expense trips.
I'm sorry the TRUTH is inconvenient to your leftist sensibilities.
I'm not a "Leftist" you throw that word around but I don't think you know what that means....
Again, I think all the Justices shouldn't be allowed to take trips from billionaire donors. I think they should be truly separate. We as private citizens are held to higher standards than those in power. That should be the real issue. Prof. Richardson is commenting on the reporting on Pro Publica... It wasn't the other way around.
Again, whether something is legally required by law vs what is ethical or moral is 2 different things. Additionally, you keep missing the point, Ginsburg and Breyer weren't accepting gifts and not reporting them where they had billionaires bringing cases before the Court and not recusing themselves.
For your information in Canon 2A of the Judicial Code of Conduct, it states; "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”
So like most normal people who hold positions of power, we cannot even have the appearance of impropriety. Maybe we can start to try and find something we both agree on, that all Supreme Court Justices should by law be required to disclose any gifts and that if they don't they should recuse and step down. Or better yet, no gifts from billionaires who appear before the court. That should be easy no? You keep making everything a partisan issue but it doesn't have to be? Why is that? Alito and Thomas are clearly corrupt and you trying to defend their behavior is just putting party before country in my opinion.
These are frightening times in America, when the GOP has no problem with its own members that were elected with false resumes who would then in turn move to censure an honest member of the opposition party ... It may be time to ask ourselves if identifying as a Republican is a mental health condition worthy of listing in the DSM-5-TR?
Leonard Leo has been a major force in turning the country’s judiciary right. Now he has an even bigger plan and that is to transform American culture. Who is this man?
'Who is conservative activist Leonard Leo? A friend of Clarence Thomas.'
From an article by in The Washington Post, Timothy Bella reports, ‘In the more than 30 years since he became friends with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo — who once described himself to The Washington Post as “a leader of the conservative legal movement” — has used his influence to help bring a right-leaning majority to the Supreme Court.’
‘Leo’s relationship with Thomas is under scrutiny after Leo arranged for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the Supreme Court justice’s wife, to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing records, according to documents reviewed by The Post.
'Who is Leonard Leo?'
'Leo was born in November 1965 on Long Island and raised in an Italian American family of Catholics. His father died of cancer when he was in preschool, according to a 2017 profile in the New Yorker. After his mother remarried when Leo was 5, the family moved to central New Jersey. His nickname in high school was “Moneybags kid,” and a yearbook photo shows him holding a handful of cash, The Post reported in a 2019 profile.'
‘Leo attended Cornell University and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1986 before landing an internship with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). He returned to Cornell Law School and got a law degree in 1989.’
'He has credited his father, who emigrated from Italy and went from being a tailor to a vice president at Brooks Brothers, as a major influence in his political life.
“He understood America as being a land of opportunity, understood the value of capitalism, the value of hard work, personal responsibility,” Leo said to the New Yorker. “My grandparents were deeply religious people, they were daily Mass attendees. So I got all of that.”
'What made Leo ‘a leader of the conservative legal movement’?
'For nearly three decades, Leo has helped and led campaigns in support of the Supreme Court nominations of all the conservative judges now on the high court — John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.'
'He also has had the ears of the most recent Republican presidents.'
'At a 2017 speech, Kris Mauren of the right-leaning think tank Acton Institute, introduced Leo as having “a significant leadership role in the selection and successful confirmation of a third of the currently sitting justices on the Supreme Court” after Gorsuch was confirmed earlier in the year, according to the Examiner. The introduction made Leo grin, but he insisted there was more work to do.'
'In 2018, Thomas jokingly said Leo had helped reshape the nation’s court, becoming “the Number Three most powerful person in the world.”
'But perhaps the most important piece of Leo’s rise is his fundraising ability. Between 2014 and 2017, Leo helped conservative nonprofits raise $250 million from mostly undisclosed donors — such funds are sometimes known as “dark money” — according to a Post analysis in 2019. The money was used in part to support conservative policies and judges, through advertising and funding for groups whose executives appeared as television pundits.'
'He left the Federalist Society in 2020 to start a new group, CRC Advisors, but kept his seat on the society’s board of directors. Last year, Leo and CRC Advisors scored a $1.6 billion donation from Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul, that was among the largest contributions ever made to a political nonprofit, according to the New York Times. The donation was possible thanks to an introduction from the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism, Politico reported.' (WAPO) For complete article see gifted link below.
https://wapo.st/3CEBPQq
'Leonard Leo used Federalist Society contact to obtain $1.6B donation (excerpts)
‘In Politico, HEIDI PRZYBYLA wrote, 'The society’s close ties to Leo’s network raise questions about its nonpartisan, non-political status.'
'Leonard Leo, who helped to choose judicial nominees for former President Donald Trump, obtained a historic $1.6 billion gift for his conservative legal network via an introduction through the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism.'
'Leo first met Barre Seid, the now 91-year-old manufacturing magnate turned donor, through an introduction arranged by Eugene Meyer, the longtime director of the Federalist Society. At the time, Leo was the society’s executive vice president, and he is currently its co-chair. Meyer envisioned Seid as a contributor to the society, according to a person familiar with the introduction. Instead, Leo cultivated Seid as a funder of his own dark money network. The result was a $1.6 billion gift announced last year — which is believed to be the largest political donation ever.'
'The unusual arrangement in which Leo met his top donor through the prestigious Federalist Society — which describes itself as a nonpartisan educational organization — suggests closer ties between the society and Leo’s activist network than previously known. Leo has used the dark money network to donate millions of dollars to the society and to pay at least $1.54 million to one Federalist Society employee and $775,000 to an entity run by another, according to federal disclosure forms.'
'Interviews with people familiar with the internal workings of the Federalist Society, including two board members, paint a picture of a symbiotic relationship in which Leo uses his connection to the vast network of scholars in the society to earn credibility with donors, who then contribute to dark money operations that engage in the kind of partisanship the society officially eschews.'
'Leo’s political activism and his use of donor money to enhance his own wealth have prompted increasing tensions between him and his fellow co-chair, Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi, and Meyer, who has been executive director or president for more than 30 years, according to three people familiar with the society. But they said Leo’s ties to the conservative donor base fans fears that a rift would leave the society struggling for funds, while members also worry that any breach in the facade of the conservative legal movement would only empower the liberals that all sides disdain.'
'Leo appears to be planning to use Seid’s money to create a new ecosystem of conservative activism that he’s likening to a Federalist Society for cultural institutions from schools to boardrooms. That he and a small circle of his friends appear to be getting wealthy in the process is all the more in contrast with many of the society’s largely academic members who’ve spent 40 years building the group’s pedigree as the nation’s premier debating society, which is above the political fray.'
'Leo’s dual roles have served to attract one key backer — Trump. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump promised that his nominees would “all [be] picked by the Federalist Society.” Yet, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, the list of Supreme Court nominees that Trump drew from in creating a conservative supermajority was devised by Leo alone. Neither the organization’s top brass nor its board directors had any official role in crafting it.'
'It is another example of how Leo’s association with the society helped Leo build his brand with donors and politicians.'
'The rise of Leo’s dark money groups has coincided with an increase in his personal wealth and an expansion of his lavish lifestyle, beginning in 2016, when Trump came into office, as POLITICO reported previously.'
'During this period, Leo’s network also facilitated millions of dollars in combined payments to at least two co-workers at the Federalist Society, both of whom have since joined him at his private company, CRC Advisors. An entity listing Maria Marshall, previously director of operations at the society, as its sole officer received $775,000 over three years from the Leo-connected Rule of Law Trust, while Jonathan Bunch, now president at CRC Advisors, received $1.54 million from the same nonprofit, which lists Leo as its principal officer, according to federal disclosure forms.' (Politico) See link to article below.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/02/leonard-leo-federalist-society-00094761
'The Right’s Obsession With Wokeness Is a Sign of Weakness' (excerpt)
In Michelle Goldberg’s Opinion in The New York Times, she writes, ‘Leonard Leo, a leader of the right-wing Federalist Society, an extraordinarily effective legal organization, is broadening his ambitions. Leo is hoping to transform American culture the way he transformed the judiciary. In the words of an investigative report produced by ProPublica and Documented, he aims to build a sort of “Federalist Society for everything,” devoted to helping reactionaries consolidate power in realms like Wall Street, Silicon Valley, journalism, Hollywood and academia.’
“I spent close to 30 years, if not more, helping to build the conservative legal movement,” Leo said in a video for the organization at the heart of his strategy, the Teneo Network. “And at some point or another, I just said to myself, ‘If this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?’” That includes “wokeism in the corporate environment, in the educational environment,” biased media and “entertainment that is really corrupting our youth.” (NYTimes) For complete Opinion, sorry no gift option is available.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/republican-woke-focus.html
Fern,
You did it again. Excellent comment about one of our leading fascists. This statement is a declaration of war on democracy, inclusion, diversity and the Constitution itself.
"If this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?"
If that sentence and $1.2 billion doesn't scare the Hell out of us, nothing will.
The issue that angers me the most is his belief that HIS religious views are somehow to be spread across the nation like butter on toast. Leonard Leo is a very dangerous monster. I wonder if his Italian heritage has a DNA connection with Mussolini.
Majority of Americans to Leonard Leo: "The really messed up area of American life is people like you who are effectively IMPOSING your values on the rest of us. We, the majority think you are invading our lives with your religious views. That's not American. That's totalitarian."
Bill, Leo Leonard's ambition and skill are notable. In order to have a sense of his reach, I hope subscribers read the full comment to learn about his fundraising abilities. While not a fan of the Catholic Church, I wouldn't lay Leo's danger to democracy at the foot of the Church or his Italian roots, while they were building blocks. It is sensible to be wary of scapegoating __Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians..., we know where that leads. Putin, Trump...Leo and others, now and in the past___ what is the alchemy that makes the monster? They are not the same, but what, perhaps, do they have in common?
Fern, thank you as always for your deeply researched and detailed commentary. I suspect that the real threat to our democracy as well as to our entire planet lies not in his religious views but in the sources of the money which gives him his power. SO MANY, the majority I suspect, of his largest donors derive their money from industries and organizations which continue to actively despoil earth's resources and climate. THAT is what I fear from the likes of Leonard Leo!
I DO NOT lay the responsibility for Leonard Leo's influence at the feet of Italians or Catholics. I love Italians and I have had a Catholic wife. Please don't misinterpret me.
What is outrageous, unacceptable and dangerous is ANYONE imposing their religious views on others. And that is exactly what this Extreme Court is doing. I refer to Mussolini because he was an early promoter of present day fascism. Leo having an Italian heritage is simply a fact - not a condemnation.
Bill, my intention was not to blame you for scapegoating, you did no such thing, instead it was to point to a general inclination to pin a person's outsized ambition on race, religion, ethnic group, etc.
Bill, after thinking some more about our exchange, it occurred to me that your line, 'I wonder if his Italian heritage has a DNA connection with Mussolini.' may have triggered my scapegoating alert. In addition, your, 'Italian heritage - is a simple fact' rang another bell. 'Italian heritage' can be connected to how many well known good and bad Italians? Why go that route? I am reminded of that song 'dem bones', in an amusing way.
I think it is also dangerous to look the other way when so many Catholics have been enablers of Trump and the takeover of SCOTUS, all to drive Catholic religious agendas and weaken the firm separation of church and state our founders envisioned. Leo's religious background is most certainly an integral part of his networking and fundraising skills, and his goals. He wouldn't be targeting culture next, otherwise.
It is not a cabal, more a cynical conniving con game that enriched Leo, but clearly this is an extremely strong, well-organized and funded drive by one group inside the Catholic Community, and it is designed to shred our Democratic institutions and has made frightening progress on that goal.
We must call it out--and directly challenge highly educated Catholics who so frequently serve in the most powerful roles in our government, ask why their religion should dictate how American women are regarded and treated (as abortion has been such a blatantly cynical ploy), why their religion should rule all others.
I'm depressed talking to conservative Catholic friends, smart, well-read, who just don't want to buck the cynical Opus Dei types in their church. They stay meek and quiet, and in the end, do seem to think they are superior to others, 'born to rule' and consequently seem willing to allow the Bully Billy Barr types and Leo Leonards run rampant without criticism from the flock because it will be 'better for the country'.
One friend even told me she was safe, because she is Catholic, and she figures she will get special treatment if she gets pregnant and needs an abortion for health reasons. She also seems to think it is fine to get that special dispensation--I told her I am not sure she would get it, which was the only moment she wavered and wondered about the consequences.
That is a truly serious problem for this country. Catholics need to choose--religious freedom for everyone--not just Catholics--or a Catholic dictatorship.
I don't think the rest of us should let this group of influential people off the hook. It really is not, with recent events, an exaggeration to say American Catholics are now at the point where they must choose between Democracy or a religious oligarchy led by a 'big man'. Remember, Hitler used the Catholic church heavily in his efforts to further his power, and Putin uses the Russian Orthodox church all the time to polish his image. There is plenty of dangerous precedence for ungodly alliances.
We should carefully remember the history of collusion and remind our friends, and we should all pay careful attention as the next couple years unfold. Confronting this is not comfortable, but absolutely necessary.
Giant inflated egos and a shit ton of money!
Fern, thank you for distinguishing the "building blocks" from the.main structure. Leo's public "religion"
is, in my view, a politically partisan distortion of the faith tradition which may have been part of his formative years. But he is aping the stance and bankrolling those U.S. Bishops who have chosen to politicize and weaponize church sacraments and scripture in their alignment with other right leaning, anti-woke political, cultural and faith groups. When this happens "religion" becomes one more handy label in a culture war. It loses its connection to the transcendent sacred. The practice of faith, thankfully, is a fuller spectrum than the point on which Leonard Leo or some U.S. Bishops are standing. So, the "religious beliefs" Leo is trying to force down others throats may be more
" Leo-beliefs" than "faith beliefs". There are many Catholics, I am one, who practice a less culturized, less partisan coopted faith.... on a part of the spectrum far from Leo.
Carol, your words are the first to be read this early morning. I have some understanding in my heart of what you are sharing with us. Your being and faith are one. Thank you for bringing us to this understanding.
Good morning and thank you, Fern. The distortions of religion are present within the " institutions" of religion as well as without. I call out the distortions from within. My faith finds its ground despite the human failures and systemic issues. It is not an easy place to be. I thank you for seeing that.
Leo-Leo is da’ man! The Koch bros amongst others provide the $$$$ and Leo-Leo spreads the money around!
Capitalism he says! Well capitalism is suppose to rely on competitors to balance the ‘free market’! Ha! The mega billionaires buy up their competitors or ruin them!
A devout Catholic? Somewhere in the Bible is a story about ‘passing through the eye of a needle’! Leo-Leo must believe that he can take his ill obtained wealth with him, but he may find that the alleged pearly gates are locked!
He needs to be investigated
Scary, very scary!
Leo’s political activism and his use of donor money to enhance his own wealth have prompted increasing tensions between him and his fellow co-chair, Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi, and Meyer, who has been executive director or president for more than 30 years, according to three people familiar with the society. But they said Leo’s ties to the conservative donor base fans fears that a rift would leave the society struggling for funds, while members also worry that any breach in the facade of the conservative legal movement would only empower the liberals that all sides disdain.'
That says it all. Money and power rule this Syndicate.
Wow! Thanks for posting this info here. We all need to know who we are dealing with/against in so many areas now. He definitely was the tie between SInger and Alito in the trip to Alaska. Our fish are big here but we can catch one of those on the river for free or off the beach just by being a resident. Personally, I don't like king salmon; prefer reds.
Two pieces come to my mind to explain the present day MAGA Republicans, who are, in my view, a re-emergence of the 1920's Ku Klux Klan: 1) "The Anger Games, Who Voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Election, and Why?" [ google it] and Timothy Egan's "A Fever in the Heartland." White theocratic racism. Remember Charlottesville in 2017 and the marchers shouting "Jews will not replace us?" That's Klan talk.
Richard, your reading list looks exactly like the one on my Kindle. These books come from different perspectives but all come to the same frightening conclusions. This white theocratic patriarchal racism has to be pulled out by the root. While the next generation thankfully rejects their ideas, the MAGAs have fallen back on authoritarians to force compliance.
Clearly, more important to them than individual liberties, freedom of thought and expression, is the exclusion of all non-white, non-Protestant folks from the political process. Another book in my arsenal: The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S.
I believe there are existing diagnoses among the so-called “Axis 2” personality disorders that would fit the bill, such as passive dependent personality and paranoid personality. Certainly, all the characteristics of a cult would apply.
Roy, that time may have been passed some time ago!!!
Agree. Republicans voters seem to show a pattern worthy of several forms of mental illness. Complete lack of self awareness and delusional thinking. Perhaps there is a more nuanced way of saying “basket of deplorable(s). At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt (unemployment, poor education, etc). But since their leaders have shown their “true colors”. I have given up. They are now the front line of Fascist propaganda. VOTE BLUE!
It is already there, Roy: listed right beneath “narcissism” and “pathological double standards”…
There are already a few relevant diagnoses: sociopath, narcissistic personality disorder, oppositional disorder....
Roy, asked and answered
Roy, Jim, Maureen and Nancy, I suspect we needn't refer to any DSM of psychiatric diagnoses but rather to many people's need to identify with a cause which is both powerful as well as self-serving. The grand irony lies in the fact that right-wing cause rarely serves the majority of people who vote for it out of their need for identity. That they vote for it suggests even ore strongly that they aren't really thinking but rather identifying with accumulated feelings of displacement, outrage and unfair treatment they feel powerless to change.
Heather, what would it take to expand the SCOTUS? I hope the dems pound away at getting an ethics law passed asap. They are even nice enough to say "You, SC, make the rules, but then, follow them!" The shamefulness of the corrupt six right wingers is mind boggling. Thank you, as always, for shining bright light on all the dark corners.
There's a viable legislative proposal for 13 Justices, 1 for each Federal Appellate District. Vote in 2024!
Congressional Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to expand the SSCOTUS from nine to 13 justices. The Democratic Bill is being led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and [Chair of the House Judiciary Committee] Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York. There are two co-sponsors – Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York. See" Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (nbcnews.com)"
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated “I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step." According to the NBC article, “The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.”
Each federal jurisdiction deserves a representative on SCOTUS, I believe and I therefore conclude it is a good idea.
And perhaps the increased number of justices could reduce the backload of cases which are currently dumped into "the Shadow Docket."
Indeed!
LINDA Link spot on.
And I heard that Senator Feinstein will be appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court. : )
Bill, I never enjoyed a 'smile face' :) as much as your :) today. :)
: )
We need to give the Senate a 10-vote Democratic majority!!!
... and of course, take back control of the House!!!
Jim, your nose counting is quite sharp, thank you.
And limit SCOTUS terms! 10 years perhaps
Thank you. And rotate the terms so every president has an opportunity to nominate justices. The job of Supreme Court Justice should not be a "life sentence"! They should have a retirement like all the rest of us.
The original idea of a lifetime appointment was to provide some sort of independence of the court - to avoid what we are now experiencing. The founders didn't envision a Leo, Singer or Crow attempting to run the country by ramming partisan hacks into the court.
I also think that there should be some restriction on the number of justices that practice a particular religion. What we have now is something between The Handmaids Tale and a Dan Brown novel! Gilead meets Opus Dei. Terrifying.
I suspect restricting the justices' practice of religion would violate the First Amendment, but I'm right on track with you about term limits and rotation.
Agreed. A "litmus test" for religious views would be problematic. I guess it has to fall to the Senate to be logical and fair minded. Which is a leap, of course. If I were a Senator (FSM forbid) I would look at the makeup of the court and ask myself, does this look like a reasonably balanced representation of religious and political persuasions?
Today, we have something from a bad dystopian movie.
Or less?
It would take a different Congress, at a minimum, which I think has come up in other comments. 2024
I believe we need to be clear: All ‘Federalist Society’ groomed judges must resign, or be removed.
We can’t do it today, but to say, ‘That isn’t realistic’ is not to say that it should not be the goal. That’s how we got here.
It could be a galvanizing rallying call to vote, in my view.
VP Harris and others have said Roe is about freedom, control over our own bodies. That is very powerful to my ear and my mind.
To succeed, we need a new Congress that is overwhelmingly progressive and liberal.
best luck to US, b.rad
I'm not sure the "American public", myopic and divided as it is, will vote in a Congress and Senate up to that task.
Recently heard an interesting podcast with Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, another attorney and Congressman Hank Johnson. I was pleasantly surprised by the latter, who spoke at length about the SCOTUS and ways to get it re-balanced.
Link?
The first part of the podcast is with an ACLU lawyer working on trans issues. I don't think I've ever heard anyone so well spoken,, maybe ever -- and I've been at meeting with Nobel Laureates. The Hank Johnson segment is second.
https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2023/06/supreme-court-assault-on-trans-rights
There's also a transcript of the entire podcast.
True. But if you only read the transcript you'll bypass the pleasure of hearing Chase Strangio speak. I was mesmerized.
And perhaps add a few more territories as states?
The Republicans would never allow it.
And on the puppet strings.
I have mixed feelings about expanding SCOTUS, but the lack of integrity - OK, let's just say corruption - among certain justices sickens me. They should know better!
I think there is a good argument to be made with each Federal Circuit having its own "overseeing" SCOTUS Justice; there are (as I understand it) 13 Federal Circuit Courts. I also think either an age limit or a term limit is a good idea; in Oregon, our judges "age out" at 75. In my 35 year exposure to the Lane County Circuit Court, I have seen 3 Judges that "shoulda gone sooner" and 1 Judge that was still at the top of his game age out. I'm thinking 30 years or age 70, whichever comes first.
Interesting -- I didn't know Oregon had the "age out" limit. If there was a term limit, would a judge serve only one term, or could it be renewed? I like the idea of each Federal Circuit having oversight from its own SCOTUS justice and would consider having the justices cycle through the Federal Circuits rather than sticking with one for an entire term.
I would think age.
The corrupt justices act as if we’re stupid. They remind me of a child obviously lying about a misdeed as the bewildered parents look on with disgust.
The bribery must become a rallying cry to re-elect Biden and elect a Democrat-controlled Congress.
This is the exact response my husband and I had after reading Alito’s op-Ed: these corrupt justices think we are all stupid!
I don't even think it's that. I think the Federalist Society groomed justices are so convinced that they are the Chosen Ones in the biblical sense that whatever they do is well and good.
So does the manbaby maniac and his enablers— including Putin, who brought us to this place. Remember how he held the Bible up while protestors were being attacked.
“Groomed justices” ....ready to hire!
Well, yes, Leo and his wealthy ilk has certainly a tight wrench in the grooming department, that’s for sure.
Justices have so much power in the present unfettered system that they can act with impunity once they are confirmed, and the Federalist Society pushed judges who are deeply partisan rather than those with ethics and integrity, as in Kagan’s refusal to accept lox and bagels. This particular system is, in fact, shamefully “rigged.” Bravo to Pro Publica. Alito’s preemptive strike in the conservative-friendly WSJ may yet backfire on him.
I was able to watch the proceedings of Durham and the censure of Schiff today. Schiff and Ted Lieu really did an excellent job of asking important questions to the “I don’t remember; I don’t read newspapers” Durham. He seemed a little annoyed. Good!
Ms. Lunatic is off the charts with her resolution to censure Schiff. She is now 8 months pregnant. I feel she may be giving birth to a future Rosemary’s baby and that is kinda scary. I saw the resolution pass and Schiff’s response. He now can devote his time to campaigning for Senator. Even if he doesn’t win, I think Biden will put his name in the hat for the Supreme Court. At least, I hope he will.
Also saw the interview on MSNBC with one of the ProPublica journalists who broke the Alito story. My gawwwwd...there are so many who come from the same evil pod! Leonard Leo be damned!
I told Ms. Luna on her FB page that her actions were shameful, and that perhaps she find herself something better to do. Not fit to shine Schiff’s shoes.
Marlene, I just loved what you wrote about Ms. Lunatic and started laughing at your comparison to Rosemary’s Baby!
HCR writes:
"But Democrats on the committee pressed Durham on the facts of the Russia investigation itself, and he, seemingly somewhat reluctantly, agreed under oath in response to questions by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) that the facts of the Mueller report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report were correct: Russia interfered in the 2016 election for the benefit of Trump, Trump’s campaign welcomed the help and shared information and secret meetings with Russian operatives, and the FBI was justified in investigating that interference."
I am inclined to question that summary of Durham's testimony, especially as HCR appears to have used as a source the disreputable New York Times. Quoting former New York Times editor John Swinton, found at this website:
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.
Sophistry. HCR cited a report by New York Times reporter John Savage, dated, uh, yesterday, and, in rebuttal, you cite a quote from a former NYT editor who has been dead since 1901. Nice try.
Ignore idiots, William. There are so few here, they really stand out immediately.
My point was to question HCR's summary of Durham's testimony. HCR didn't provide any quotation from Durham, which is always suspicious.
p.s. I have no reason to think that things have changed at the sleazy, disreputable New York Times, a propaganda rag favored by Establishment minions who assiduously practice self-censorship to protect their seven-figure salaries.
William. Touche’
They try, they fail
To them its theatre
My point was to question HCR's summary of Durham's testimony. HCR didn't provide any quotation from Durham, which is always suspicious.
p.s. I have no reason to think that things have changed at the sleazy, disreputable New York Times, a propaganda rag favored by Establishment minions who assiduously practice self-censorship to protect their seven-figure salaries.
You could watch Durham’s performance without editing, but I’m suspecting that’s counterproductive to your agenda here
I don't have time today. HCR's summary of Durham sounds like some spin doctor's talking points. Did Durham actually say what HCR claims???
HRC's summary matches what I heard Durham testify on tv coverage of the hearing!the tv
Dave Weissbard, what did you hear Durham say?
Here's an alternative view, which I am not endorsing:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/durham-fbi-should-not-have-launched-full-investigation-into-trump-campaign_5346811.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-06-22&src_cmp=mb-2023-06-22&utm_medium=email
If you don’t trust Heather why are you here?
Because she's a useful source of information, just like every other untrustworthy news source.
I saw the excerpt of the hearing. As the whole project was suspect (anyone who didn’t believe that DT and the Russians were in cahoots was not paying attention to DT), I found both Congressmen’s questions totally appropriate. Durham is obviously not up to the task -exactly one the Republicans could count on to get the “results” they needed. And so he was set up to fail.
Here is a partial transcript of coverage by CNN that doesn't quite say what HCR said:
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2023-05-15/segment/01
Regardless, the report is here, it has dropped. And it might have not produced everything of what some Republicans hope for, it is regardless devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.
Let's bring in CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.
Evan, what exactly did Durham find in this report?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the bottom line finding from John Durham's four-year investigation is that the FBI moved very quickly to investigate these allegations of connections of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that they did so by ignoring a lot of evidence that would have led them to drop that altogether.
He's saying that they may have had reason to open a preliminary investigation, an assessment. Perhaps these are very, very low-level investigations. But certainly, what he finds is that there wasn't enough there to support the FBI's decision to open a full-blown investigation of this -- of the Trump-Russia ties back in 2016. I'll tell you one part of what he writes here.
He says that it seems highly likely that at a minimum, confirmation bias played a significant role in the FBI's acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis that the FBI usually uses.
He goes on to say that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. There was a lot of very sharp criticism here of the former FBI leadership, James Comey, Andy McCabe, who were running the FBI and oversaw a lot of these -- a lot of the steps that the report goes into, Jake.
But as you pointed out, bottom line, there are no additional charges. Nobody is bringing charges against Comey or anybody else that former President Trump kept saying he expected them to.
HCR’s “spin” merely shows that she, unlike Durham, has kept up with the goings on of the former president. If Durham had seen the 2013 film of Trump with his beauty pageant in Moscow (I did), he might not have taken on a useless venture unless it was for money or “fame.” He looked the bought idiot under honest questioning.
Following the career of the former president is a lesson in how not to take fame and fortune as criteria for selecting a president. Fortunately Jack Smith may teach US that.
I was focused on the question of what Durham said, as opposed to the underlying reality. Politico seems to be more guarded in their choice of words than HCR. Perhaps the biggest issue, regarding choice of words, is HCR's statement that Durham said that the FBI was justified in investigating.
You question the difference in intensity if the FBI’s investigation it seems. Durham acknowledged an impetus to look into Carter Page’s loose mouth. You cry foul that the FBI pursued as it did. Using unverified sources from anderciver investigator is part of the tradecraft. It can certainly lead an investigation toward more substantial findings. This was exactly what (and no more) what the Steele dossier provided. And remember, this research was originated by a Republican candidate as opposition research. The candidate dropped out and the project was then offered to Clinton campaign
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier
I am questioning HCR's statement that Durham said that "the FBI was justified in investigating that interference." What exactly did Durham say? Politico says that Durham stood by his report, and CNN says that Durham's report was severely critical of the FBI.
Does HCR's quoted statement contain a half-truth coupled with a lie by omission? That is the stuff of spin doctors.
And here is Politico's take, which doesn't seem to match HCR's spin:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/durham-testifies-before-house-judiciary-committee-on-trump-russia-probe-00103006
Durham, for his part, stood by the findings of the report and defended himself from Democratic criticism for the duration of the hearing. He broke with Trump on several key points, praising both Mueller and Barr, both of whom Trump has publicly decried. He also affirmed that there was “substantial evidence” of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
From Steve Schmidt
Did Durham lie?
John Durham was supposed to be the great Trump hope — the anti-Mueller, who would blow the lid off something something something. His years-long probe ended with multiple courtroom humiliations and a damp squib of a report.
His testimony before a House committee yesterday didn’t go any better. He stumbled, hedged, and made it clear that he didn’t really know much at all about the Rusia probe. Here’s Jonathan Chait:
Durham seemed to be unaware of the major factual elements of the alliance between the Trump campaign and Russia. This ignorance came through in several awkward exchanges with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee panel.
Eric Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.” This was a deal, described in the Mueller report, in which the Russian government promised Trump several hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk to himself to license a tower in Moscow. The proposed payoff, and Trump’s public lies at the time about it, gave Russia enormous leverage over his campaign. Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”
There was a lot more like that.
When Adam Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts, he replied, “I’m not sure.” Schiff responded, “The answer is yes,” to which Durham reported, “In your mind, it’s yes.”
When Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails, Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.”
When asked if Trump referred to those stolen emails more than 100 times on the campaign trail, Durham answered, “I don’t really read the newspapers and listen to the news.”
And when Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump, Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”
David Corn isn’t having it. He writes, “John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress.”
“The Manafort-Kilimnik connection — which the Senate Intelligence Committee report characterized as a ‘grave counterintelligence threat’ — is one of the most serious and still not fully explained components of the Trump-Russia scandal.
“It is inconceivable that Durham is unaware of this troubling link.”
Corn walks through Durham’s other false statements, including his account of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in which Don Jr. hoped the Russians would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton.
This meeting signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was receptive to Russian endeavors to intervene in the election to boost Trump’s chances, and Schiff expressed surprise that Durham found it insignificant. “Are you really trying to diminish the importance of what happened here?” he asked.
Durham answered: “The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.”
That is not true.
The report produced by special counsel Robert Mueller notes that the Russian emissary, a lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya, did discuss Clinton: “Participants agreed that Veselnitskaya stated that the Ziff brothers [an American family investment firm] had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. She asserted that the Ziff brothers had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering in both the United States and Russia.” (There was no evidence that Ziff Brothers Investments had engaged in wrongdoing.)
The Mueller report points out that Trump Jr. zeroed in on this: “Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States.” The report quotes a participant in the meeting recalling “that Trump Jr. asked what they [the Russians] have on Clinton.”
Durham’s characterization of the meeting—that it had nothing to do with Clinton—lined up with what the Trump camp first claimed when the meeting was revealed a year afterward, in 2017. At that time, Trump Jr. issued a false statement dictated by his father that insisted the conversation had focused “primarily” on the adoption of Russian children by Americans. That was a phony cover story. Later on, when more information came out, even the elder Trump conceded that the point of the meeting was to gather negative information on Clinton from a foreign adversary. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent,” Trump said. Yet years later, Durham was still pushing the original disinformation about the meeting propagated by Trump and his allies.
Thank you for that. Steve Schmidt makes it sound like Dirham failed to update his talking points.
Schmidt's caracterization of Russia as a "foreign adversary" isn't right; it is arguably vicious propaganda.
Time to send Rep Schiff another donation!
Time to send Schiff to the Senate from CA.
He’s got my vote. I just wish I could vote “no” on Kevin McCarthy.
As he also has mine. Another Californian who would dearly love to be able to vote to get rid of McQarthy.
Feinstein should resign NOW. Newsome should appoint Adam, the first man in the House.
That would be awesome
And another!
In saner times this censure would make Mr Schiff a folk hero and highly electable. Now? Not so sure he can be elected to the Senate even in California.
1st Sen Feinstein must decide if she is going to resign ... unlikely :(
He's worth more than money.
Oh he’ll get my vote too.
Do the Democrats have an arrangement like the Republicans do where the Rep candidates that are clearly winning share their campaign funds with the Rep candidates that are behind?
Every long-serving member of Congress has a war chest out of which they support members of their party. In 2020, Schiff's was about $22 million.
I did.
Proper governance is not possible in a branch of government that disgraces itself as the House did today by censuring a member who simply pursued appropriate examination of an ‘out of control chief executive’, proper judicial behavior is not possible in a Supreme Court that is literally on the ‘take’ in terms of major fiscal gifts….
Proper presidential elections are profoundly challenged when a major candidate is involved in at least 4 major criminal investigations and currently indicted in two of them….
We have all the charm of an out of control banana republic….
We are riddled with corruption. Mind that it doesn't go septic.
I think it could be fairly argued that it IS SEPTIC right. Now….whether it kills us is the question.
I think it already has. The House republicans are very ill.
How did banana republics become that way? "War is a Racket" by General Smedley D. Butler.
I've re-read Butler's "War is a Racket" many times. But just now I learned that in the early 1930's a group of wealthy industrialists wanted to overthrow FDR and install Butler as a dictator. He testified to Congress about the plan. The coup plotters denied they wanted to do this and the media ripped Butler to shreds but the investigation by the House confirmed Butler's claims.
Smedley Butler was at the time the most highly decorated Marine in US history. He became a staunch anti-war activist and wrote:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives....It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
Thank you. What I don’t known isn’t mind boggling.
Is mind boggling. Algorithms…
I think we just got careless, didn’t pay attention to folks who were criticizing and tearing down our institutions …and now we are faced with either saving them or losing them….
Love Smedley, so glad he is getting his due, a giant of a man
Joan. “Charm”. What an eloquent politeness. Salute
What a sadness to read all these highly educated creeps are sitting in what used to be our most esteemed Court.
Nicole Wallace had the best line today - (i am paraphrasing): Alito's excuse that the seat was empty anyway and therefore had no value means I should be able to sit in first class for free if they have an empty seat...yeah....right....NOT!
Lauren, I say not so much first class but rather on any private jet that happens to be going to your desired destination. 'Yo Elon, I also am going to Berlin Germany, shove over and pass the $1000 bottle of pinot noir so I can take a swig'.
Keith Olbermann's podcast was particularly entertaining yesterday as he ridiculed Alito's excuses.
Thanks for the Olbermann rec, Gloria. This is one of these (unsurprising) revelations that is just too distressing to take straight up. I need to hear it from someone blistering.
Among those on the right posing a threat to democracy Leonard Leo stands out. His bold interference in the processes of selecting and advancing extremist judges should shock. This is as corrupt as it is morally bankrupt. It is time to publicize his methods and shine a spotlight on his activities. Though RW extremists support his work in shaping the courts, I dare to hope that the majority of Americans would choose an independent and incorruptible judiciary. 6 of 9 do not pass that bar.
Damn straight, Carmen!
Leonard "Lex Luther" Leo, is the Leonard Zelig (or Forrest Gump) of the 2 Man Corrupt Crew on the Court, Sullen Sam Alito and No Clearance Clarence Thomas.
In every picture of either Thomas or Alito sucking up to their plutocratic beneficiaries and ideological allies in robbing-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich mode, there is L.L.
In direct response to Pro Publica's devastating article, his brazen projection--with Orwellian insouciance---accusing those who have revealed Alito's corruption of seeking to "...damage this Supreme Court and remake it into one that will disregard the law by rubber stamping their disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences" is truly something to behold. Here is a guy who recently accepted over A BILLION DOLLARS from some hitherto secretive Ayn Rand type billionaire Republican funder in Chicago, who is not only talking about "dark money" as if it emanates from the AOCs of the world as opposed to the Paul Singers, Robert Mercers and Harlan Crows from whom it has actually emanated, but has ushered not one, not two, but THREE robotically right wing nominees onto the Court.
And BTW, Mr. Leo, I have some "disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences" for you---
Telling all American women of child bearing capability that they now live within the parameters of the Handmaid's Tale, in that they cannot exercise any reasonable choice respecting their own bodily autonomy;
Telling all Americans that no reasonable gun regulations exist, and that we all must live with the prospect of everyone packing at all times and in all places, and that any Parent's fear for her/his children given the near weekly school shootings across the fruited plain are just something we all have to accept because the loving God that we all believe in gave us the 2nd Amendment;
Telling all Americans that religious rights, defined without limits and applicable everywhere, will always trump any other rights or liberties
Terrific comment. I'd modify the last paragraph to:"Telling all Americans that the religious rights of Christians will always trump other rights, especially the rights of other religions."
Alito has been very clear in many addresses that he wants to make the USA into a Roman Catholic country..
That so many religious fanatics have risen to positions of enormous power at the same time is scary. If we don't watch it, their Christofascism will rule this nation for decades. DeSantis is beta-testing these ideas in Florida. My only hope is that they won't be able to settle on whose form of insane religiosity will prevail and the internecine fights will weaken their ability to rule.
Right on! I'm not holding my breath that they will self-destruct.
Beautiful righteous indignation, Daniel. It is particularly irksome when these dark money right wing fanatics dish out the Orwellian fantasy that their highly unpopular views are the culturally dominant ones.
"Harlan Crows? No, no. Jim Crows.
For what it’s worth Leonard Leo is a Sovereign Knight of Malta a conservative and very wealthy Catholic religious order…..which cares for the poor and sick in clinics nationwide.
What I love about many Catholics, the image of the Good Samaritan while building roadblocks to decent lives for many
I happen to be an exceedingly liberal Catholic…. I think that it’s the conservative religious..not just Catholic .. ..folks whose theological insights are limited to a very narrow understanding of religious freedom and a very pyramidical authority approach ….these are the guys for whom opposing abortion is a primary goal…the concept that individuals to exercise their personal freedom (necessary in any truly moral decision) must have the freedom to choose EITHER WAY and that such a decision if made in good faith is the end of the discussion….is a concept totally alien to the Leonard Leo’s… of the world….
Sadly, these guys are very often Trumpies….
Sorry for the broad brush, but the self-righteous turds who are intent on, not only the SC, but every aspect of our lives, being manipulated and controlled by their rules, makes me crazy. When JFK was running, I was so sure that fear of Catholic interference was uncalled for. Now it is overwhelming the system, and affects us all. So glad Joe is a sane Catholic. But he is hated with a vengeance. You are right. It is the "conservative" religious nuts who drive much of the narrative. It is the monied religious nuts who truly have the power to change things.
Nancy Pelosi is another ‘sane catholic’!
The church emphasizes one’s own well-formed conscience as the final decision maker, not a bunch of whiny guys who truly are some of the “elites” they decry.
Yup - and my conscience dictated that it was time to quit the RC church.
I agree with you, Joan. For what it's worth, I too am a liberal Catholic, although I am more un-churched these days, to borrow a phrase from our colleague Alexandra.
I fully understand!
Nice try but there isn’t enough lipstick to cover the size of this pig.
My local bishop selected wealthy folks for membership. They look silly in their attire. In fact, the “dames” look like they should be hovering over steaming cauldrons—they’re a little scary actually.
Expiation for their sins. Not unlike the support of the arts, especially the American Ballet Theater, from the likes of Philip Morris Co. years ago. Or like David Koch's support of the arts. Yes, they do good. Not enough to balance that karma, however.
Where are these clinics? I didn't see that in Wikipedia when I looked up the Sovereign Knights of Malta. Thanks for the information. That is very interesting.
You can check with the local Chancery offices of the individual diocese….in the Oakland area the clinic which serves a lot of poor is currently located in the Cathedral property….was originally located at Providence hospital.
Typically these clinics are staffed by retired docs…who are also Catholic and Knights.
Able to confirm Joan on her Oakkand, CA data.
Never heard of clinics …
Excellent outrage, Daniel. Very satisfying to read, thank you!
But here's a little hope from the NYT today:
"In their new book "The Great Dechurching: Who’s Leaving, Why Are They Going and What Will It Take to Bring Them Back?' Jim Davis and Michael Graham with Ryan Burge argue that the most dramatic change may be in regular attendance at houses of worship. 'We are currently in the middle of the largest and fastest religious shift in the history of our country,' they postulate, because 'about 15 percent of American adults living today (around 40 million people) have effectively stopped going to church, and most of this dechurching has happened in the past 25 years.'"
May it continue.
Thank you for your kind comments, Alexandra. Much appreciated.
I will check out the NYT article you noted as well.
Take care
Let's make them 6 of 13.
If only!
His self-righteous fervor is as dangerous as any cretin from the past
It doesn’t escape the attention of even partially astute citizens that the reason only Republicans are being investigated is because it’s only Republicans who are so effing corrupt
well, yeah; but you're not supposed to say so.
What possible interest of ordinary Americans is served by censuring Rep. Schiff? All of the theatrics of House Republicans serve only one American, Donald Trump.
In 1948, Truman campaigned against a “do-nothing” Republican Congress. The current House Republicans are do-nothing on steroids.
No, nothing would be better than what they've been doing. How many National problems and disasters have they not either created or made substantially worse? Social and economic inequity? COVID? Climate dysfunction? It's a long list.
And they like to claim that Democrats "hate America"?
HST knew how to call a spade a spade. Our MSM could take a lesson.
The current House Rethuglicans are ''do nothing'' corrupt criminals in my opinion. In fact most all Rethuglicans are corrupt criminals.
Thanks, daily no less.
Just finished Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s latest book, ‘The Scheme,’ which provides many details of the decades of conspiracy and abuse of financial contributions to corrupt the federal courts, relentlessly, up to SCOTUS. This has been reported over the years, but in sync with so much other grotesque corruption performed publicly, no counter weight has been built that is effective. It’s past time, far, far past time.
best luck to US -- b.rad
source: very highly recommended, except, warning - I had to put it down approximately every 3 pages to stomp around the house and snort and fume, testing even my very progressive wife’s patience . . . <https://thenewpress.com/books/scheme>
Snort and fume - my life
Especially since 2015
ps good source Thom Hartman < https://hartmannreport.com/p/we-cant-let-the-bushcheney-war-lies> We Can’t Let the Bush/Cheney War Lies Go Down the Memory Hole
hmmm . . . forgot W, Cheney, Iraq, Great Recession . . . ? There’s more . . . Alito . . . too much corruption to keep track of, that’s a key part of the plan . . . thanks for the note, b.rad
Whitehouse is a gem. Watching him break down the exact path of corruption is breathtaking. SO easy to follow and understand.
"Leo is now in charge of Marble Freedom Trust, a nonprofit organized in May 2020 with a $1.6 billion donation from donor Barre Seid to push right-wing politics at every level.)"
Leo has his own reasons to discredit Pro Publica. This March, Andy Kroll, Andrea Bernstein, and Nick Surgey reported on their investigation of Leo's ties to Teneo, a right wing extremist group founded to support social influencers (from academics to athletes) and elect/appoint officials to every government office.
"Ever since the longtime Federalist Society leader helped create a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, and then received more than a billion dollars from a wealthy Chicago business owner to disburse to conservative causes, Leo’s next moves had been the subject of speculation.
Now, Leo declared in a slick but private video to potential donors, he planned to “crush liberal dominance” across American life. The country was plagued by “woke-ism” in corporations and education, “one-sided journalism” and “entertainment that’s really corrupting our youth,” said Leo amid snippets of cheery music and shots of sunsets and American flags.
Sitting tucked into a couch, with wire-rimmed glasses and hair gone to gray, Leo conveyed his inspiration and intentions: “I just said to myself, ‘Well, if this can work for law, why can’t it work for lots of other areas of American culture and American life where things are really messed up right now?’”
Teneo is building what Leo called in the video “networks of conservatives that can roll back” liberal influence in Wall Street and Silicon Valley, among authors and academics, with pro athletes and Hollywood producers. A Federalist Society for everything."
The founding principles of Teneo were drafted by Josh Hawley. (Who until his January 6 insurrectionst fist bump and later Bambi sprint was a top GOP presidential great white hope.)
And that's just the start.
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents
From Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:
"Yet again, the Court-capture operative Leonard Leo appears in the wings as the key to right-wing billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, this time hooking up another Supreme Court justice with billionaire freebie vacations. Leo doesn’t just have business before the Court – his business is the Court – and any ‘reasonable and unbiased person’ understands that Leo’s side hustle as a luxury travel agent for the far-right Court supermajority reeks of corruption."
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-statement-on-explosive-propublica-report-on-justice-alitos-free-alaskan-fishing-trip-planned-by-leonard-leo-and-paid-for-by-billionaires
Be very afraid. There’s that battle against “wokeism,” which is truly a made up problem, and the opposite of what has been happening. The right has been taking over the microphone and the narrative ever since Rupert darkened our door. Deliberately and in cahoots with Reagan. And with more money than most of us can imagine.
Aside: read recently, (in letter to Dallas Morning News) that some republicans are pushing Paul Ryan as presidential candidate, touting him as the “Reaganesque” best bet to lead them now. As I said, be very afraid…
As a former "Repucklican" I say the party is done. (Paul Ryan can not save the "Repucklicans")
I vote only for good solid American Democrats who love our country and freedom here and abroad and work for it. I support leaders who support freedom and those who are willing to lay down their lives for it! Go Ukraine! Thanks to our military everywhere who are supporting freedom....and I pray not misusing our power to support corrupt leaders (probably too much of a hope in every circumstance.)
I vote for Democrats who want to work for cleaner air, water and energy. I want to vote for Democrats who want an excellent education, affordable for everyone and opportunities for being able to make a living wage. I support safe and excellent care for our youngest and afterschool care for our older children so working parents do not have to worry about the safety of their children while they are working. Other qualified teachers or assistants could choose to be available to help students complete their assignments during after school hours.
I support Social Security and Medicare.....this is a way we can care for one another during our older years.
I want to vote for Democrats who respect everyone especially women to have the right to health care that is needed as well as appropriate health care for EVERYONE!
I am grateful for the work of caring, honest and freedom loving leadership. Please may we keep working for these goals to be accomplished for each and every American.
As we work together to accomplish these goals....please may we manage tax dollars in the best, most respectful way....Not STEALING or MISUSING money from hardworing Americans. Everyone should pay a fair share and then those funds should be used properly to "Build Back Better!"
Love every syllable. I have two ex-Repub sisters who feel the same way. Brothers, not so much. Why would decent, hard-working men have any respect for the poorest excuse for a man that we have conjured up.
Excellent question!
They are not stupid, but hang with church nuts and, sad to say, volunteer firefighters
Jeri….I have a mix of degrees including grad degrees in Developmental psych/education/gerontology, about half of a MDiv ..et al and a regional/statewide and a bit national history within both the Catholic social services system and the more general political world and it’s been my experience that women figure this out faster as a rule then more traditional men do….
Somewhere between the university, and Dobbs I don’t know any women who don’t think ‘Choice’ is their business ..interestingly enough the stats for Catholics using contraception happen to be just about identical with the larger culture (no accident that) …and this was a very immediate phenomenon decades ago, after the Second Vat Council.
The guys on the other hand not so much….I’m guessing, but I think the really mature and independent guys are like the more reasonable women and able to function way beyond ‘Father says’….they are grown ups, socially secure and prescient enough to figure out just how horrible the ‘Orange one is’…..
The others, perhaps your relatives….aren’t there yet….they need the ‘man friend’ support, rather like the anti-feminism deal…can’t afford to grant everyone equal rights and time….need control…are not very developmentally mature….
My sympathy’s to your sisters-in law.
l
Probably because Ryan hasn't been tainted by associating with the MAGA crowd (as far as I know). But I'd hardly call him a Rockefeller - or even a Reagan - Republican.
I'd call him an Ayn Rand turd, greed to the max is his mantra. Well, that's exactly what makes him like Reagan.
Interesting word choice for a name
Verb
teneō (present infinitive tenēre, perfect active tenuī, supine tentum); second conjugation
I hold, have; I grasp
I possess, occupy, control
I watch, guard, maintain, defend; I retain, keep
I reach, attain; I gain, acquire, obtain
I hold fast, restrain, detain, check, control; I bind, fetter
(reflexive) I keep back, remain, stay, hold position
I know, grasp, understand, conceive
I recollect, retain knowledge of, remember, bear in mind
I insist, uphold
(of laws) I am binding on; I bind, hold, obligate
I arrive at a place, reach
I set, fix, hold on a fixed position
I hold in prison
I comprise, contain, include, hold
I hold someone's interest, I am interesting (to someone)
Hic liber me tenet.
This book interests me; I find this book interesting.
I embrace, hug
The one page website made me think of secret handshake, cult stuff. Sinister...
“Bambi Sprint”!!!! Oh Lord, the perfect description
Thank you for weighing in with your front row perspective on Leo. I was hoping you'd show up in the Comments.
ThankYou Ally House.
There are big doings afoot for the first anniversary of Dobbs. The long time MDI activists, who have sustained years of protests outside one of Leo's estates, have gathered strength and numbers. (I'm a gadfly, who got caught in a web of Leo's congruence with corrupt players in Bar Harbor government and on The Islander newspaper.) I am away, but I hear there will be lots of chalk.
I watched McCarthy read the statement of censure and was (am still) stunned! The corruption is out in the open. It is not possible to compromise with corruption. You have to stand up to it. I am glad the Democrats yelled shame. Good for them!
If anybody should be censured, it is McCarthy, who made unconscionable deals with the brainless zealot wing of the GOP in order to win the prize of the Speakership.
Dear Heather,
I love your notes. They are the first thing I read every morning in the UK. I was surprised that you didn’t cover the report about Biden antagonising the Chinese by describing the President of China as a dictator. At least for me your thoughts on events like these are helpful as it makes your notes seem somewhat even handed and not too echo chamber like and it gives me talking points when I have to deal with centre right republicans who are always looking for ways to humiliate Biden. Thanks, Alex
You have to admit that it was clumsy of Biden. I imagine that Blinken is quietly gnashing his teeth, after all his own efforts.
I agree, Alex. Calling Xi a dictator and cutting the legs out from under Blinken after the SOS's apparently useful trip to China was not particularly clever of Biden, however truthful his comment may have been. It gives the Chinese an excuse to misbehave more, and it gives the GOP free talking points going into the 2024 election campaign. Bummer.
All the more reason to talk about the issues a majority of Americans really worry about the most, in no particular order: health care, global overheating, nuclear war, loss of abortion rights, grossly unfair wealth distribution (and associated social ills), gun violence, elder care, inflation, high interest rates, high rents, discrimination against "the other" due to racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, and the list goes on and on and my eyes have already glazed over.
If Biden just had to do a "gaffe", this is far enough from the election that it will be quickly forgotten, there will be plenty of newer news by then (Trump imprisoned for life?) and most Americans think Xi is a dictator anyway. So, small deal, not big deal.
Problem is that Republicans have so little real meat to grab on to and criticize in Biden, any morsel will be made into a BFD. Trump was endlessly lambasting China with petty insults and the Republicans cheered him on.
The Professor limits her essays to 1200 words; what she was reporting on today filled that up. The other thing to know is that she bases her Letters on what is (technically) the day before we read it (at least here on the USA west coast). It'll be covered.