Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Mar 18, 2025
Jan 28, 2025
That IG Thing
Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
202-224-4751
TwiXter Republicans: @HSGAC_GOP
TwiXter Democrats: @HSGAC
Hi - my name is ______________, and I'm calling from ______________.
I expect the committee to investigate Mr Trump's illegal firing of the Inspectors General, which was in direct violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.
I need to know if you'll be doing anything about it, or if we just have to sit here and let Trump and the GOP screw us with our pants on - again.
An Act to reorganize the executive branch of the Government and increase its economy and efficiency by establishing Offices of Inspector General within the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and within the Community Services Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Veterans' Administration, and for other purposes.
- Enacted by the 95th United States Congress
- Effective October 1, 1978
- Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1978
The Act specifically creates Inspector General positions and offices in more than a dozen specific departments and agencies. The Act gave these inspectors general the authority to review the internal documents of their departments or offices. They were given responsibility to investigate fraud, to give policy advice (5 U.S.C. § 404; IG Act, sec. 4), to handle certain complaints by employees, and to report to the heads of their agencies and to Congress on their activities every six months (5 U.S.C. § 405; IG Act, sec. 5).
Many existing offices with names like Office of Audit, Office of Investigations, or similar were transferred, renamed, folded into the new IG offices.
The core of the law is in 5 U.S.C. § 403 (IG Act, sec. 3(a)): "There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.
Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation."
The Act and the Inspector General role were amended thirty years later by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,[3] which created the umbrella IG agency, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
In May 2020, after a series of IG firings for questionable causes, several House Democrats introduced a bill, H.R.6984, to amend the original act to protect against political retaliation and require just cause for IG dismissal.
The Act and the Inspector General role were amended thirty years later by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,[3] which created the umbrella IG agency, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
In May 2020, after a series of IG firings for questionable causes, several House Democrats introduced a bill, H.R.6984, to amend the original act to protect against political retaliation and require just cause for IG dismissal.
Jan 18, 2025
Remember This
The last paragraph from Jack Smith's report:
"The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."
Dec 23, 2024
Gaetz
The fact that Gaetz paid for sex is not such a big deal to me. If it's a fair transaction, and everybody's able to give their consent, and no harm done - OK, do your thing.
But it takes a special kind of dirtbag to then turn around and show off pictures and videos to the gang at the office.
That's not the kind of thing an honorable man does, Matty. You need to keep your shit to yourself - especially when you're a sitting member of Congress, and you're supposed to be setting a good example of decent, law-abiding behavior for the folks back home.
And one of your "service providers" was underage? Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck - I realize there are people out there who're 17-goin'-on-35, but holy fuck, dude - you're a lawmaker and a lawyer, you stoopid fucking fuck.
Former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) regularly paid for sex, possessed illegal drugs and paid a 17-year-old girl for sex in 2017, according to a 42-page report released by the House Ethics Committee on Monday on President-elect Donald Trump’s former pick for attorney general.
The report cited “substantial evidence” that from 2017 to 2020, Gaetz “regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him,” and from 2017 to 2019, possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on “multiple different occasions.” The Ethics Committee also investigated a 2018 trip Gaetz made to the Bahamas where the panel found he accepted transportation and lodging in violation of the House rules and laws on gifts.
The GOP-led committee concluded in the document that Gaetz “violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”
The release of the report was temporarily delayed after Gaetz filed a lawsuit to halt the release of the panel’s findings, according to two people familiar with the panel’s internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. Gaetz’s lawyers requested a restraining order and injunction against the committee, arguing that its actions amounted to an “unconstitutional” attempt to “exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations,” according to the complaint.
The committee’s release of the hotly anticipated report, which came three days after Congress adjourned for the holidays Friday evening, reversed an earlier decision not to make public the results of its investigation. The report is the culmination of years-long scrutiny surrounding Gaetz and the allegations against him. The panel wrote that Gaetz was “uncooperative” throughout its review and found that he “knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.”
It also concluded that he misused House resources when he employed his then-chief of staff to “assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.”
Rep. Michael Guest (R-Mississippi), who chairs the Ethics Committee, and others had opposed publicizing the report, arguing that Gaetz was no longer up for attorney general or a member of Congress. Democrats wanted to force its release, leading to a contentious debate. In the report on Monday, Guest wrote on behalf of the members who did not support the release, arguing that “the majority deviated from the Committee’s well-established standards” on releasing a report on “an individual no longer under the Committee’s jurisdiction, an action the Committee has not taken since 2006.”
But Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Maryland) told The Washington Post in a brief interview that there was precedent for releasing a report after a member has left office. And he argued that the panel’s work was an important public good that provided “guidance to current members of the House as to what conduct is across the line and what’s permissible.”
“The public has a right to know,” said Ivey. “Whether [Gaetz] seeks public office of a different type, or whether he seeks employment in the private sector, I think this is the type of information, given the nature of these issues, that those folks should have a right to know before they make a decision.”
In 2020, while Trump was still in office, the Justice Department began investigating Gaetz over the alleged relationship with a 17-year-old girl and sex-trafficking allegations that related to whether he had paid for her travel. The Justice Department did not bring charges. Gaetz has denied all the allegations against him and pointed to the Justice Department’s decision not to charge him.
Gaetz said on X last week that he has never been charged and never had sexual contact with a minor. He posted that his behavior was “embarrassing, though not criminal” and that he had in the past “probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have.” He also said he “often” sent money to women he dated when he was single, as well as some he did not date.
On Monday, Gaetz criticized the committee for releasing the report without giving him recourse to a courtroom, “where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses,” he posted on X. “This is testimony from one of the alleged ‘prostitutes’ that you won’t see in the report!” Gaetz added, sharing a screenshot of testimony from one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and said she “never charged anyone anything.”
The report cited “substantial evidence” that from 2017 to 2020, Gaetz “regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him,” and from 2017 to 2019, possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on “multiple different occasions.” The Ethics Committee also investigated a 2018 trip Gaetz made to the Bahamas where the panel found he accepted transportation and lodging in violation of the House rules and laws on gifts.
The GOP-led committee concluded in the document that Gaetz “violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”
The release of the report was temporarily delayed after Gaetz filed a lawsuit to halt the release of the panel’s findings, according to two people familiar with the panel’s internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. Gaetz’s lawyers requested a restraining order and injunction against the committee, arguing that its actions amounted to an “unconstitutional” attempt to “exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations,” according to the complaint.
The committee’s release of the hotly anticipated report, which came three days after Congress adjourned for the holidays Friday evening, reversed an earlier decision not to make public the results of its investigation. The report is the culmination of years-long scrutiny surrounding Gaetz and the allegations against him. The panel wrote that Gaetz was “uncooperative” throughout its review and found that he “knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.”
It also concluded that he misused House resources when he employed his then-chief of staff to “assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.”
Rep. Michael Guest (R-Mississippi), who chairs the Ethics Committee, and others had opposed publicizing the report, arguing that Gaetz was no longer up for attorney general or a member of Congress. Democrats wanted to force its release, leading to a contentious debate. In the report on Monday, Guest wrote on behalf of the members who did not support the release, arguing that “the majority deviated from the Committee’s well-established standards” on releasing a report on “an individual no longer under the Committee’s jurisdiction, an action the Committee has not taken since 2006.”
But Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Maryland) told The Washington Post in a brief interview that there was precedent for releasing a report after a member has left office. And he argued that the panel’s work was an important public good that provided “guidance to current members of the House as to what conduct is across the line and what’s permissible.”
“The public has a right to know,” said Ivey. “Whether [Gaetz] seeks public office of a different type, or whether he seeks employment in the private sector, I think this is the type of information, given the nature of these issues, that those folks should have a right to know before they make a decision.”
In 2020, while Trump was still in office, the Justice Department began investigating Gaetz over the alleged relationship with a 17-year-old girl and sex-trafficking allegations that related to whether he had paid for her travel. The Justice Department did not bring charges. Gaetz has denied all the allegations against him and pointed to the Justice Department’s decision not to charge him.
Gaetz said on X last week that he has never been charged and never had sexual contact with a minor. He posted that his behavior was “embarrassing, though not criminal” and that he had in the past “probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have.” He also said he “often” sent money to women he dated when he was single, as well as some he did not date.
On Monday, Gaetz criticized the committee for releasing the report without giving him recourse to a courtroom, “where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses,” he posted on X. “This is testimony from one of the alleged ‘prostitutes’ that you won’t see in the report!” Gaetz added, sharing a screenshot of testimony from one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and said she “never charged anyone anything.”
Dec 10, 2024
Today's (Not So) Weird Shit
The standard thing here would be something like - "There's something wrong with this guy". But we know that. We've known that for a long time now.
And we know that he craves the attention so he'll do whatever weird thing he can think of to get it. Plus, we know he craves the attention because that's how he gains power and money - and money and power - and first one and then the other - and sometimes both at the same time.
So if we just blow him off, it could mean we're ignoring a signal of real danger.
We have to keep looking for the method of his madness, which may be nefarious (probable), or benign (doubtful), or just plain looney because there is, in fact, something wrong with that son of a bitch.
But we also get to watch out for his madness being used as cover for the extreme plutocratic shit that his henchmen and supporters are trying to inflict on us.
I hate living in interesting times.
Nov 20, 2024
From The Daily Show
Johnson's bit about "Pandora's box" could be MTG's threat to spill the beans on everybody.
Now maybe she's got something and maybe she doesn't, but it points to Daddy State Awareness Guide, Rule 6:
Total criminalization
If we're all guilty, then you can't hold me responsible without the risk of exposing your own culpability.
I'm just so fucking sick of all the Intrigue At The Palace.
Nov 1, 2024
You Silly Old Russia
$20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
That's how much Russia wants Goggle to pay them for - something.
Can you say "shakedown"? I knew you could.
Google fined $20 decillion — more than world’s total wealth — by Russian court
The fine, imposed after certain channels were blocked on YouTube, which Google owns, has reached more than 2 undecillion rubles, Russian business newspaper RBC reported this week. That’s about $20 decillion — a two followed by 34 zeros.
The fine is significantly more money than the combined total global net wealth of $477 trillion, according to Boston Consulting Group, and the worldwide gross domestic product last year of about $105 trillion, according to the World Bank.
Google’s parent company, Alphabet — one of the five most valuable companies in the world — is valued at about $2 trillion. The fine is about 10 billion trillion times the company’s value.
In a case of verbal symmetry, the penalty could soon reach a googol, a 1 followed by 100 zeros, the mathematical term that inspired the name of the search engine.
Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told reporters Thursday that the figure was symbolic and should be a reason for Google to pay attention to the Moscow Arbitration Court’s order to restore access to the YouTube channels.
“I actually can’t even pronounce that number,” Peskov said. “Rather, this sum is filled with symbolism. These demands demonstrate the essence of our channels’ grievances against Google.”
Google did not respond to a request for comment.
The sum grew so large because the fine increases with time in noncompliance, with no upper limit. The order was made after 17 blocked channels joined a lawsuit against Google’s American, Irish and Russia-based companies, according to RBC. The lawsuit predates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and was initiated in 2020 by a channel that YouTube blocked to comply with U.S. sanctions.
But the invasion escalated hostilities between Russian authorities and Western social media platforms. Google’s Russian subsidiary filed for bankruptcy in 2022 after its assets were seized in response to fines.
YouTube and other platforms blocked some Russian media to viewers outside of the country in response to the war in Ukraine. The platform banned more than 3,000 channels this year linked to pro-invasion voices including Russian celebrities, according to Google’s Threat Analysis Group.
Russia’s media regulator and censor, Roskomnadzor, has repeatedly ordered Google to unblock particular YouTube accounts. Roskomnadzor has also fined Google for failing to remove YouTube content, such as videos uploaded by Ukrainian groups.
However, YouTube continued to be accessible in Russia after other Western social media platforms were blocked following the invasion of Ukraine. But in recent months, users say the platform has dramatically slowed or ceased loading videos altogether, which experts told The Washington Post was probably linked to state censorship, though Russia blamed Google for the problem.
Sep 1, 2024
Representative Government
Jaimie Raskin nails it perfectly - starting at about 11:05.
And there's a lot more, but let's be clear - Republicans have no intention of allowing autonomy of any kind anywhere at any time. They're in the process of strangling democracy little by little.
Jul 23, 2024
Jul 9, 2024
Here's A Fun One
Jair Bolsonaro has been copying Trump almost shit-for-shit.
Brazilian police indict ex-President Bolsonaro in undeclared diamonds case, sources say
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil’s Federal Police have indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro for money laundering and criminal association in connection with undeclared diamonds the far-right leader received from Saudi Arabia during his time in office, according to a source with knowledge of the accusations.
A second source confirmed the indictment, although not for which specific crimes. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.
Brazil’s Supreme Court has yet to receive the police report with the indictment. Once it does, the country’s prosecutor-general, Paulo Gonet, will analyze the document and decide whether to file charges and force Bolsonaro to stand trial.
This is Bolsonaro’s second indictment since leaving office, following another in March for allegedly falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination certificate. But this indictment dramatically raises the legal threats facing the divisive ex-leader that are applauded by his opponents but denounced as political persecution by his supporters.
Bolsonaro did not immediately comment, but he and his lawyers have previously denied any wrongdoing in both those cases, as well as other investigations into the former president. One is probing his possible involvement in inciting an uprising in capital Brasilia on Jan. 8, 2023 that sought to oust his successor from power.
Last year, Federal Police accused Bolsonaro of attempting to sneak in diamond jewelry reportedly worth $3 million and selling two luxury watches.
Police said in August that Bolsonaro received cash from the nearly $70,000 sale of two luxury watches he received as gifts from Saudi Arabia. Brazil requires its citizens arriving by plane from abroad to declare goods worth more than $1,000 and, for any amount above that exemption, pay a tax equal to 50% of their value.
The jewelry would have been exempt from tax had it been a gift from Saudi Arabia to Brazil, but not Bolsonaro’s to keep for himself. Rather, it would have been added to the presidential collection.
The investigation showed that Mauro Cid, Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp who allegedly falsified his COVID-19 records, in June 2022 sold a Rolex watch and a Patek Philippe watch to a store in the U.S for a total $68,000. They were gifted by Saudi Arabia’s government in 2019. Cid later signed a plea bargain with authorities and confirmed it all.
Flávio Bolsonaro, the former president’s eldest son and a sitting senator, said on X after Thursday’s indictment that persecution against his father was “blatant and shameless.”
In addition to Bolsonaro, police indicted 10 others, including Cid and two of his lawyers, Frederick Wassef and Fábio Wajngarten, according to one of the sources. Wassef said in a statement that he didn’t have access to the final report of the investigation, and decried selective leaks to the press of an investigation that is supposed to be proceeding under seal.
“I am going through all of this solely for practicing law in defense of Jair Bolsonaro,” he wrote.
On X, Wajngarten said police have found no evidence implicating him. “The Federal Police knows I did nothing related to what they are investigating, but they still want to punish me because I provide unwavering and permanent defense for former President Bolsonaro,” he said.
Bolsonaro retains staunch allegiance among his political base, as shown by an outpouring of support in February, when an estimated 185,000 people clogged Sao Paulo’s main boulevard to protest what the former president calls political persecution.
His critics, particularly members of his rival President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s political party, have cheered every advance of investigations and repeatedly called for his arrest.
Psychologist Deborah Santos watched news of Bolsonaro’s indictment in a bakery in Sao Paulo’s up-market Vila Madalena neighborhood.
“This is great, because it breaks a pattern. Bolsonaro supporters love to say how honest he is; everyone else is dishonest, but them,” said Santos, 52. “There you have it: the police think he steals diamonds. That should end any politician’s career.”
The 69-year-old former army captain started his political career as a staunch advocate of Brazil’s military dictatorship, and was a lawmaker for nearly three decades. When he bid for the presidency for the first time, in 2018, he was widely dismissed as an outsider and too radically conservative. But he surprised analysts with a decisive victory, in no small part due to his self-portrayal as an upstanding citizen in the years following a sprawling corruption probe that ensnared hundreds of politicians and executives.
Bolsonaro insulted adversaries since his earliest days in office while garnering critics with his divisive policies, attacks on the Supreme Court and efforts to undermine health restrictions during the pandemic. He lost his reelection bid in the closest finish since Brazil’s return to democracy in 1985.
Carlos Melo, a political science professor at the Insper University in Sao Paulo, believes Brazil’s Supreme Court and the justice overseeing several investigations targeting Bolsonaro, Alexandre de Moraes, will not risk sending the former president to prison or imposing other harsh measures with any haste. The objective, he said, is to avoid instigating supporters of the far-right leader and so make cases against him more politically sensitive to prosecute.
“This is a year of mayoral elections. Moraes and his fellow justices know that prosecuting a former president who remains a popular man would be even tougher in a year like this,” Melo said. “This indictment is another piece of the puzzle. It gives one more problem to Bolsonaro. There will be more.”
Last year, Brazil’s top electoral court ruled that Bolsonaro abused his presidential powers during his 2022 reelection bid, which rendered him ineligible for any elections until 2030. The case focused on a meeting during which Bolsonaro used government staffers, the state television channel and the presidential palace in Brasilia to tell foreign ambassadors that the country’s electronic voting system was rigged.
Bolsonaro is expected to meet Argentinian President Javier Milei this weekend at a conservative conference in Balneario Camboriu, in Brazil’s south.
- Accepting personal "gifts"
- Falsifying documents
- Inciting a Jan6-style coup attempt (complete with "shaman")
- His lawyers and aides are headed for prison
The guy's a real peach.
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil’s Federal Police have indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro for money laundering and criminal association in connection with undeclared diamonds the far-right leader received from Saudi Arabia during his time in office, according to a source with knowledge of the accusations.
A second source confirmed the indictment, although not for which specific crimes. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.
Brazil’s Supreme Court has yet to receive the police report with the indictment. Once it does, the country’s prosecutor-general, Paulo Gonet, will analyze the document and decide whether to file charges and force Bolsonaro to stand trial.
This is Bolsonaro’s second indictment since leaving office, following another in March for allegedly falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination certificate. But this indictment dramatically raises the legal threats facing the divisive ex-leader that are applauded by his opponents but denounced as political persecution by his supporters.
Bolsonaro did not immediately comment, but he and his lawyers have previously denied any wrongdoing in both those cases, as well as other investigations into the former president. One is probing his possible involvement in inciting an uprising in capital Brasilia on Jan. 8, 2023 that sought to oust his successor from power.
Last year, Federal Police accused Bolsonaro of attempting to sneak in diamond jewelry reportedly worth $3 million and selling two luxury watches.
Police said in August that Bolsonaro received cash from the nearly $70,000 sale of two luxury watches he received as gifts from Saudi Arabia. Brazil requires its citizens arriving by plane from abroad to declare goods worth more than $1,000 and, for any amount above that exemption, pay a tax equal to 50% of their value.
The jewelry would have been exempt from tax had it been a gift from Saudi Arabia to Brazil, but not Bolsonaro’s to keep for himself. Rather, it would have been added to the presidential collection.
The investigation showed that Mauro Cid, Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp who allegedly falsified his COVID-19 records, in June 2022 sold a Rolex watch and a Patek Philippe watch to a store in the U.S for a total $68,000. They were gifted by Saudi Arabia’s government in 2019. Cid later signed a plea bargain with authorities and confirmed it all.
Flávio Bolsonaro, the former president’s eldest son and a sitting senator, said on X after Thursday’s indictment that persecution against his father was “blatant and shameless.”
In addition to Bolsonaro, police indicted 10 others, including Cid and two of his lawyers, Frederick Wassef and Fábio Wajngarten, according to one of the sources. Wassef said in a statement that he didn’t have access to the final report of the investigation, and decried selective leaks to the press of an investigation that is supposed to be proceeding under seal.
“I am going through all of this solely for practicing law in defense of Jair Bolsonaro,” he wrote.
On X, Wajngarten said police have found no evidence implicating him. “The Federal Police knows I did nothing related to what they are investigating, but they still want to punish me because I provide unwavering and permanent defense for former President Bolsonaro,” he said.
Bolsonaro retains staunch allegiance among his political base, as shown by an outpouring of support in February, when an estimated 185,000 people clogged Sao Paulo’s main boulevard to protest what the former president calls political persecution.
His critics, particularly members of his rival President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s political party, have cheered every advance of investigations and repeatedly called for his arrest.
Psychologist Deborah Santos watched news of Bolsonaro’s indictment in a bakery in Sao Paulo’s up-market Vila Madalena neighborhood.
“This is great, because it breaks a pattern. Bolsonaro supporters love to say how honest he is; everyone else is dishonest, but them,” said Santos, 52. “There you have it: the police think he steals diamonds. That should end any politician’s career.”
The 69-year-old former army captain started his political career as a staunch advocate of Brazil’s military dictatorship, and was a lawmaker for nearly three decades. When he bid for the presidency for the first time, in 2018, he was widely dismissed as an outsider and too radically conservative. But he surprised analysts with a decisive victory, in no small part due to his self-portrayal as an upstanding citizen in the years following a sprawling corruption probe that ensnared hundreds of politicians and executives.
Bolsonaro insulted adversaries since his earliest days in office while garnering critics with his divisive policies, attacks on the Supreme Court and efforts to undermine health restrictions during the pandemic. He lost his reelection bid in the closest finish since Brazil’s return to democracy in 1985.
Carlos Melo, a political science professor at the Insper University in Sao Paulo, believes Brazil’s Supreme Court and the justice overseeing several investigations targeting Bolsonaro, Alexandre de Moraes, will not risk sending the former president to prison or imposing other harsh measures with any haste. The objective, he said, is to avoid instigating supporters of the far-right leader and so make cases against him more politically sensitive to prosecute.
“This is a year of mayoral elections. Moraes and his fellow justices know that prosecuting a former president who remains a popular man would be even tougher in a year like this,” Melo said. “This indictment is another piece of the puzzle. It gives one more problem to Bolsonaro. There will be more.”
Last year, Brazil’s top electoral court ruled that Bolsonaro abused his presidential powers during his 2022 reelection bid, which rendered him ineligible for any elections until 2030. The case focused on a meeting during which Bolsonaro used government staffers, the state television channel and the presidential palace in Brasilia to tell foreign ambassadors that the country’s electronic voting system was rigged.
Bolsonaro is expected to meet Argentinian President Javier Milei this weekend at a conservative conference in Balneario Camboriu, in Brazil’s south.
Jun 24, 2024
Today's Dual Purpose
Give your adversary a dilemma
instead of a problem.
He can solve problems, but give him a dilemma, and he can be wrong no matter what he does or how he addresses it.
In politics, it's basically the same, but you want to set it up for yourself so you can benefit no matter the outcome.
Roger Stone:
Evidence Trump has Judge Cannon in his pocket: Lauren Windsor secretly recorded Roger Stone during a March 19 event at Mar-a-Lago. And he commented, "We are beating them. I think the judge is on the verge of dismissing the charges against him in Florida." pic.twitter.com/spHhgAAgeo
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) June 21, 2024
By playing the guy in the know (whether he actually knows anything or not), Stone gets the upfront benefit of perpetuating his "insider" status.
If Cannon blows off the charges against Trump, then Stone can nod knowingly - wink wink nudge nudge - because his reputation and credibility have been burnished. He can claim he's still relevant, and go on collecting fat stacks for being a top-shelf rat-fucker.
If he's "wrong", &/or Cannon gets bumped from the case, then he pivots to Outraged Victim Mode - I hope to fuck we all know what that formula looks like by now - which again includes Stone collecting paychecks, although they may not be quite as heavily gilded.
BTW, none of this should distract from the probability that Judge Cannon really is dirty. There's something at work with her that doesn't jibe.
Dear MAGA
Remember when you donated money to build the wall, and a lot of people figured you were being kinda racist?
Yeah - uhh - those guys played you for a fool, and stole that money - which means you were being kinda stoopid, too.
Jun 13, 2024
WTF SCOTUS?
God-Fuckin'-Dammit, I'm sick of this shit.
Justice Clarence Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to new documents released Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
Details of the private jet flights between 2017 and 2021 were obtained as part of an investigation the committee has been conducting into reports of lavish undisclosed travel and perks provided to justices by Crow and other wealthy benefactors that have sparked calls for reform.
Crow released the information after the committee issued subpoenas in November for him and conservative activist Leonard Leo to provide information to the body. The subpoenas have never been enforced.
Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the documents provided necessary transparency and the trips should have been reported on financial disclosures.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information — like what we’ve revealed today — and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said in a statement.
Crow said in a statement that he had reached an agreement with the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide information going back seven years.
Thomas’s unreported flights include the following:
- A May 2017 private jet trip from St. Louis to Kalispell, Mont., and a return flight to Dallas.
- A March 2019 private jet trip from D.C. to Savannah, Ga., and back.
- A June 2021 private jet trip from D.C. to San Jose and back.
- The documents did not list the cost of the trips or why Thomas took them.
Thomas has complied with new disclosure requirements, Berke said.
The disclosures come after Thomas revealed this month that he failed to report two 2019 trips to California and Indonesia that were also paid for by Crow. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
On Wednesday, Senate Democrats attempted to expedite passage of a bill that would provide a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court, but the effort was scuttled by Republicans who said the legislation’s true aim was to undermine a conservative court whose rulings Democrats don’t like.
Leo said in a statement in November after the subpoenas were issued that he “will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution.” Durbin’s office said the Judiciary Committee’s broader investigation of Supreme Court ethics is ongoing.
The committee probe was prompted by reports in ProPublica and other media outlets that Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took expensive trips without disclosing them in recent years. Crow also paid tuition for a Thomas relative and purchased the home of the justice’s mother.
“It is astonishing that at this late date, there continue to be revelations of gifts to Justice Thomas that he has never disclosed,” said Steven Lubet, a professor and judicial ethics expert at Northwestern University’s law school.
The disclosures come after Thomas revealed this month that he failed to report two 2019 trips to California and Indonesia that were also paid for by Crow. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
On Wednesday, Senate Democrats attempted to expedite passage of a bill that would provide a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court, but the effort was scuttled by Republicans who said the legislation’s true aim was to undermine a conservative court whose rulings Democrats don’t like.
Leo said in a statement in November after the subpoenas were issued that he “will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution.” Durbin’s office said the Judiciary Committee’s broader investigation of Supreme Court ethics is ongoing.
The committee probe was prompted by reports in ProPublica and other media outlets that Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took expensive trips without disclosing them in recent years. Crow also paid tuition for a Thomas relative and purchased the home of the justice’s mother.
“It is astonishing that at this late date, there continue to be revelations of gifts to Justice Thomas that he has never disclosed,” said Steven Lubet, a professor and judicial ethics expert at Northwestern University’s law school.
Jun 6, 2024
About The Flag Flap
It seems apparent that Sam Alito is a liar, and a dickhead.
Alito’s account of the upside-down flag doesn’t fully add up. Here’s why.
A look at the major discrepancies in Justice Samuel Alito’s comments about controversial flags flown at his property and what he still has not fully answered.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has offered multiple accounts of how politically charged flags came to fly outside his homes in Virginia and New Jersey — the type of display that is generally off-limits for judges, who must remain impartial and avoid even the appearance of bias as they handle cases.
Since the public revelation of the flags engulfed the nation’s highest court in criticism last month and prompted calls for Alito’s recusal from certain cases, the justice has said it was his wife who flew the banners, not him, and that she flew one of them after a neighborhood dispute. But his successive explanations — in a statement, an interview with Fox News and letters to Congress — have raised additional questions, and in some cases conflicted with known facts.
Alito has yet to fully explain some key aspects of the controversy: How long did an upside-down American flag fly at the Alitos’ Virginia home? Where did they get the “Appeal to Heaven” flag that flew at their New Jersey beach house? And more.
Here are the major discrepancies in Alito’s telling and what he still has not fully answered. Neither he nor his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, responded to a request for comment.
The neighborhood dispute
Alito has consistently cited the feud between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor as the backdrop for his wife raising the upside-down American flag at their Fairfax County, Va., home in the weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. But his description of the episode is contradicted at significant points by police records, neighbors’ descriptions of events and other facts.
Alito told Fox News reporter Shannon Bream the neighborhood dispute began when his wife went to speak with their neighbor Emily Baden in January 2021. Martha-Ann Alito was upset the woman was displaying an anti-Trump sign, with an expletive, “within 50 feet of where children await the school bus,” as Bream put it on X, formerly Twitter.
But Fairfax County schools were shuttered at the time because of the coronavirus pandemic and had been since March 2020. All but a tiny handful of students were learning virtually. Students did not return to the classroom until Feb. 16, 2021, after the flag episode occurred.
In addition, Baden and her mother said in interviews that the school bus stop near their home was moved before the dispute began and they confirmed no students were catching the bus at the time.
Baden told The Washington Post the row began shortly after Christmas 2020, when Martha-Ann Alito stopped by her home to thank her for taking down an anti-Trump sign featuring an expletive, which the justice’s wife said was offensive.
Baden said she told Alito that the sign would remain on display and had not been taken down, it had simply blown over. She also said Alito never mentioned the school bus stop. The conflict soon escalated.
Justice Alito has portrayed Baden and her then-boyfriend as the aggressors in the dispute, writing in letters to Congress that his neighbors had displayed a sign “attacking” his wife “personally.” But photos provided by Baden and interviews with a neighbor indicate the signs made no explicit mention of Martha-Ann Alito.
One featured the off-color reference to Trump on one side and the phrase “Bye Don” on the other. A second read “Trump Is a Fascist,” while a third read “You are Complicit.”
It’s possible the Alitos thought the latter sign referred to them, but Baden said it was directed at Republicans who she felt were complicit in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. A neighbor who saw the signs at Baden’s house confirmed that none directly referenced the Alitos.
In her telling, Baden said it was Martha-Ann Alito who confronted them on a handful of occasions. After the initial encounter, Baden said Martha-Ann Alito glared at them from her car on Jan. 7, 2021, and ran down her driveway and spat at Baden’s vehicle on another occasion.
Justice Alito told Bream a key moment in the dispute came when he and his wife were walking in the neighborhood sometime after the initial conversation. A man got into an argument with Martha-Ann Alito and called her a vulgar epithet for part of a woman’s anatomy, according to the justice. In his letters to Congress, Alito also said the man followed them down the street.
But Baden said that while that confrontation with the Alitos involved both her and her then-boyfriend, it was actually she who uttered the epithet, an account corroborated by a neighbor who heard it. Baden said she could not recall whether she and her boyfriend then followed the Alitos down the street.
Justice Alito told Bream that following the exchange his wife was “distraught” and raised the upside-down flag. A photo obtained by the New York Times showed the flag flying on Jan. 17, 2021.
The profane encounter between Martha-Ann Alito, Baden and her then-boyfriend occurred about a month after the upside-down flag was raised, according to a phone call the boyfriend placed to police on that day. A Fairfax County, Va., government spokesman confirmed that call was placed on Feb. 15, 2021.
Why were the upside-down flag and “Appeal to Heaven” flag flown?
The most pivotal question about the upside-down American flag has yet to be fully answered: Martha-Ann Alito’s motivation for flying it.
Many liberals have said the raising of the flag in the weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol suggests sympathy for the “Stop the Steal” movement or solidarity with the pro-Trump rioters who believed the 2020 election was stolen and had adopted the symbol at the time.
They have called for Justice Alito to recuse himself from a pair of high-profile cases related to efforts to block the election results, arguing the flag indicates political bias or creates the perception that Alito is not impartial. Alito has refused.
The Alitos have not explicitly addressed whether the upside-down flag had a connection to Jan. 6 or “Stop the Steal,” and Justice Alito’s comments about his wife’s motivation for flying it have shifted.
Alito said he “assumed” his wife was flying it for religious and patriotic reasons. He definitively said neither he or his wife knew the flag was associated with the “Stop the Steal” and it was not flown in solidarity with that movement.
Alito did not issue a similar denial for the upside-down flag that flew at his Virginia home.
How long did the upside-down flag fly?
A handful of neighbors who saw the upside-down flag at the Alitos’ residence said in interviews that they could not remember exactly when they first saw it but placed it in the latter half of January 2021, which matches the Jan. 17 date of the photo obtained by the Times.
Alito said in an initial comment to the Times that the upside-down flag flew “briefly.” Alito later told Bream it flew for “a short time.” In his most recent account in letters to members of Congress, Alito said he requested his wife take down the flag as soon as he saw it, but she refused for “several days.” Alito did not detail exactly when he saw the flag was up.
Some neighbors of the Alitos said they recalled seeing the flag flying for between two and five days.
As for Baden, she said she never saw the flag at the Alitos’ home.
(not a real quote, but the probability is not zero)
A look at the major discrepancies in Justice Samuel Alito’s comments about controversial flags flown at his property and what he still has not fully answered.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has offered multiple accounts of how politically charged flags came to fly outside his homes in Virginia and New Jersey — the type of display that is generally off-limits for judges, who must remain impartial and avoid even the appearance of bias as they handle cases.
Since the public revelation of the flags engulfed the nation’s highest court in criticism last month and prompted calls for Alito’s recusal from certain cases, the justice has said it was his wife who flew the banners, not him, and that she flew one of them after a neighborhood dispute. But his successive explanations — in a statement, an interview with Fox News and letters to Congress — have raised additional questions, and in some cases conflicted with known facts.
Alito has yet to fully explain some key aspects of the controversy: How long did an upside-down American flag fly at the Alitos’ Virginia home? Where did they get the “Appeal to Heaven” flag that flew at their New Jersey beach house? And more.
Here are the major discrepancies in Alito’s telling and what he still has not fully answered. Neither he nor his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, responded to a request for comment.
The neighborhood dispute
Alito has consistently cited the feud between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor as the backdrop for his wife raising the upside-down American flag at their Fairfax County, Va., home in the weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. But his description of the episode is contradicted at significant points by police records, neighbors’ descriptions of events and other facts.
Alito told Fox News reporter Shannon Bream the neighborhood dispute began when his wife went to speak with their neighbor Emily Baden in January 2021. Martha-Ann Alito was upset the woman was displaying an anti-Trump sign, with an expletive, “within 50 feet of where children await the school bus,” as Bream put it on X, formerly Twitter.
But Fairfax County schools were shuttered at the time because of the coronavirus pandemic and had been since March 2020. All but a tiny handful of students were learning virtually. Students did not return to the classroom until Feb. 16, 2021, after the flag episode occurred.
In addition, Baden and her mother said in interviews that the school bus stop near their home was moved before the dispute began and they confirmed no students were catching the bus at the time.
Baden told The Washington Post the row began shortly after Christmas 2020, when Martha-Ann Alito stopped by her home to thank her for taking down an anti-Trump sign featuring an expletive, which the justice’s wife said was offensive.
Baden said she told Alito that the sign would remain on display and had not been taken down, it had simply blown over. She also said Alito never mentioned the school bus stop. The conflict soon escalated.
Justice Alito has portrayed Baden and her then-boyfriend as the aggressors in the dispute, writing in letters to Congress that his neighbors had displayed a sign “attacking” his wife “personally.” But photos provided by Baden and interviews with a neighbor indicate the signs made no explicit mention of Martha-Ann Alito.
One featured the off-color reference to Trump on one side and the phrase “Bye Don” on the other. A second read “Trump Is a Fascist,” while a third read “You are Complicit.”
It’s possible the Alitos thought the latter sign referred to them, but Baden said it was directed at Republicans who she felt were complicit in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. A neighbor who saw the signs at Baden’s house confirmed that none directly referenced the Alitos.
In her telling, Baden said it was Martha-Ann Alito who confronted them on a handful of occasions. After the initial encounter, Baden said Martha-Ann Alito glared at them from her car on Jan. 7, 2021, and ran down her driveway and spat at Baden’s vehicle on another occasion.
Justice Alito told Bream a key moment in the dispute came when he and his wife were walking in the neighborhood sometime after the initial conversation. A man got into an argument with Martha-Ann Alito and called her a vulgar epithet for part of a woman’s anatomy, according to the justice. In his letters to Congress, Alito also said the man followed them down the street.
But Baden said that while that confrontation with the Alitos involved both her and her then-boyfriend, it was actually she who uttered the epithet, an account corroborated by a neighbor who heard it. Baden said she could not recall whether she and her boyfriend then followed the Alitos down the street.
Justice Alito told Bream that following the exchange his wife was “distraught” and raised the upside-down flag. A photo obtained by the New York Times showed the flag flying on Jan. 17, 2021.
The profane encounter between Martha-Ann Alito, Baden and her then-boyfriend occurred about a month after the upside-down flag was raised, according to a phone call the boyfriend placed to police on that day. A Fairfax County, Va., government spokesman confirmed that call was placed on Feb. 15, 2021.
Why were the upside-down flag and “Appeal to Heaven” flag flown?
The most pivotal question about the upside-down American flag has yet to be fully answered: Martha-Ann Alito’s motivation for flying it.
Many liberals have said the raising of the flag in the weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol suggests sympathy for the “Stop the Steal” movement or solidarity with the pro-Trump rioters who believed the 2020 election was stolen and had adopted the symbol at the time.
They have called for Justice Alito to recuse himself from a pair of high-profile cases related to efforts to block the election results, arguing the flag indicates political bias or creates the perception that Alito is not impartial. Alito has refused.
The Alitos have not explicitly addressed whether the upside-down flag had a connection to Jan. 6 or “Stop the Steal,” and Justice Alito’s comments about his wife’s motivation for flying it have shifted.
- In comments to a Post reporter outside his home in 2021, Alito said his wife raised the flag in response to the neighborhood dispute and it was not political. Martha-Ann Alito, in her only known public comments about the flag, shouted at the reporter, “It’s an international sign of distress!” The upside-down flag does have a long history as a sign of distress in the military, and has been used by protesters of all political stripes at various times.
- Alito repeated his contention that a neighborhood dispute sparked the flag flying in a statement to the New York Times, which first reported the flag controversy last month. The justice then told Fox News reporter Shannon Bream the dispute began when his wife confronted a neighbor about an anti-Trump sign that featured an expletive, indicating the argument likely did have a political dimension.
- In letters Alito sent to Congress saying he would not recuse himself from the Jan. 6 cases, however, the justice’s explanation subtly changed. He said his wife flew the flag at a time of “great distress” over the neighborhood dispute, but also indicated it might not have been her only motivation, writing, “my wife’s reasons for flying the flag are not relevant for present purposes.”
Alito said he “assumed” his wife was flying it for religious and patriotic reasons. He definitively said neither he or his wife knew the flag was associated with the “Stop the Steal” and it was not flown in solidarity with that movement.
Alito did not issue a similar denial for the upside-down flag that flew at his Virginia home.
How long did the upside-down flag fly?
A handful of neighbors who saw the upside-down flag at the Alitos’ residence said in interviews that they could not remember exactly when they first saw it but placed it in the latter half of January 2021, which matches the Jan. 17 date of the photo obtained by the Times.
Alito said in an initial comment to the Times that the upside-down flag flew “briefly.” Alito later told Bream it flew for “a short time.” In his most recent account in letters to members of Congress, Alito said he requested his wife take down the flag as soon as he saw it, but she refused for “several days.” Alito did not detail exactly when he saw the flag was up.
Some neighbors of the Alitos said they recalled seeing the flag flying for between two and five days.
As for Baden, she said she never saw the flag at the Alitos’ home.
Jun 4, 2024
May 24, 2024
Ask The Wife
What is it with some of these fuckin' guys?
"It wasn't me - it was my old lady"
Sam Alito wipes his ass with the US Constitution, and then points at his wife.
Bob Menendez acts like Gollum with the ring, and then points at his wife.
Where the fuck is the honor here, you tiny little pricks?
May 19, 2024
The Law
You can download the Complaint Form AO310 here.
But it's unclear who you send it to. I'm trying to get some answers, but that's going nowhere fast.
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
May 12, 2024
The Scam
But, but, but ...
As Donald Trump sat with some of the country’s top oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, one executive complained about how they continued to face burdensome environmental regulations despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year.
Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.
Trump’s remarkably blunt and transactional pitch reveals how the former president is targeting the oil industry to finance his reelection bid. At the same time, he has turned to the industry to help shape his environmental agenda for a second term, including rollbacks of some of Biden’s signature achievements on clean energy and electric vehicles.
The contrast between the two candidates on climate policy could not be more stark. Biden has called global warming an “existential threat,” and over the last three years, his administration has finalized more than 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. In comparison, Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” and his administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies over four years.
In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed at least 24 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic.
Despite the oil industry’s complaints about Biden’s policies, the United States is now producing more oil than any country ever has, pumping nearly 13 million barrels per day on average last year. ExxonMobil and Chevron, the largest U.S. energy companies, reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year.
Yet oil giants will see an even greater windfall — helped by new offshore drilling, speedier permits and other relaxed regulations — in a second Trump administration, the former president told the executives over the dinner of chopped steak at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump vowed at the dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports — a top priority for the executives, according to three people present. “You’ll get it on the first day,” Trump said, according to the recollection of an attendee.
The roughly two dozen executives invited included Mike Sabel, the CEO and founder of Venture Global, and Jack Fusco, the CEO of Cheniere Energy, whose proposed projects would directly benefit from lifting the pause on new LNG exports. Other attendees came from companies including Chevron, Continental Resources, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, according to an attendance list obtained by The Post.
Trump told the executives that he would start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a priority that several of the executives raised. He railed against wind power, as The Post previously reported. And he said he would reverse the restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.
“You’ve been waiting on a permit for five years; you’ll get it on Day 1,” Trump told the executives, according to the recollection of the attendee.
At the dinner, Trump also promised that he would scrap Biden’s “mandate” on electric vehicles — mischaracterizing ambitious rules that the Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized, according to people who attended. The rules require automakers to reduce emissions from car tailpipes, but they don’t mandate a particular technology such as EVs. Trump called the rules “ridiculous” in the meeting with donors.
The fossil fuel industry has aggressively lobbied against the EPA’s tailpipe rules, which could eat into demand for its petroleum products. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry trade group, has launched a seven-figure campaign against what it calls a de facto “gas car ban.” The campaign includes ads in battleground states warning that the rule will restrict consumer choice.
“Clearly, if you are producing gasoline and diesel, you want to make sure that there’s enough market there,” said Stephen Brown, an energy consultant and a former lobbyist for Tesoro, an oil refining company. “I don’t know that the oil industry would walk in united with a set of asks for the Trump administration, but I think it’s important for this issue to get raised.”
Although the repeal of the EPA rule would benefit the fossil fuel industry, it would probably anger the auto industry, which has invested billions of dollars in the transition away from gasoline-powered cars. Many automakers are under increasing pressure to sell more EVs in Europe, which has tightened its own tailpipe emissions rules, and they are eager to avoid a patchwork of regulations around the globe.
“Automakers need some degree of regulatory certainty from government,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota and other car companies.
“What has emerged instead is a wholesale repeal … and then reinstatement … and then repeal again of regulations every four or eight years,” Bozzella said in an email.
Biden’s EV policies have also sparked opposition in Republican-led rural states such as North Dakota, where there are far more oil pump jacks than charging stations. A key figure leading the Trump campaign’s development of its energy policy is North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who has been talking extensively to oil donors and CEOs.
At a fundraiser on Saturday in Palm Beach, Fla., Burgum told donors that Trump would halt Biden’s “attack” on fossil fuels, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The Post.
“What would be the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1? It’s stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all,” Burgum said. “Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.”
Burgum also criticized the Biden administration’s policies on gas stoves and vehicles with internal combustion engines, claiming that they would prevent consumers from buying both technologies. While the Energy Department recently set new efficiency standards for gas stoves, they would not affect the stoves in people’s kitchens or those currently on the market.
“They’ve got some liberal idea about what products we need,” Burgum said. “You all need EV cars. You don’t need internal combustion. We’ll decide what kind of car you’re going to drive, and we’re going to regulate the other ones out of business. I mean, it’s just in every industry, not just in cars, not just in energy. They’re telling people what stoves you can buy. This is not America.”
Cheniere Energy President and CEO Jack Fusco speaks during the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston on March 18. (Mark Felix/AFP/Getty Images)
The Biden campaign initially declined to comment for this article. After it was published, however, Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said in a statement that “Donald Trump is selling out working families to Big Oil for campaign checks. It’s that simple.”
“It doesn’t matter to Trump that oil and gas companies charge working families and middle-class Americans whatever they want while raking in record profits — if Donald can cash a check, he’ll do what they say,” Moussa added.
Burgum — a possible contender to lead the Energy Department in a second Trump term — has pushed harder to address climate change than many other Republicans. He set a goal in 2021 for North Dakota — the third-largest oil-producing state — to become carbon-neutral by 2030. He has stressed, however, that the goal won’t be achieved via government mandates or the elimination of fossil fuels, and he has cultivated deep support among oil donors.
Despite Trump’s huge fundraising ask, oil donors and their allies have yet to donate hundreds of millions to his campaign. They have contributed more than $6.4 million to Trump’s joint fundraising committee in the first three months of this year, according to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power. Oil billionaire Harold Hamm and others are scheduling a fundraiser for Trump later this year, advisers said, where they expect large checks to flow to his bid to return to office.
One person involved in the industry said many oil executives wanted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or another Republican to challenge Biden. But now that Trump is the nominee, this person said, they are going to embrace his policies and give.
Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump donor, said the Republican onslaught of donations was not surprising.
“Biden constantly throws a wet blanket to the oil and gas industry,” Eberhart said. “Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ philosophy aligns much better with the oil patch than Biden’s green-energy approach. It’s a no-brainer.”
Alex Witt, a senior adviser for oil and gas with Climate Power, said Trump’s promise is he will do whatever the oil industry wants if they support him. With Trump, Witt said, “everything has a price.”
“They got a great return on their investment during Trump’s first term, and Trump is making it crystal clear that they’re in for an even bigger payout if he’s reelected,” she said.
- Trump is working for free
- He stands with the little guy
- He doesn't need money
- He can't be corrupted
Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.
Trump’s remarkably blunt and transactional pitch reveals how the former president is targeting the oil industry to finance his reelection bid. At the same time, he has turned to the industry to help shape his environmental agenda for a second term, including rollbacks of some of Biden’s signature achievements on clean energy and electric vehicles.
The contrast between the two candidates on climate policy could not be more stark. Biden has called global warming an “existential threat,” and over the last three years, his administration has finalized more than 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. In comparison, Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” and his administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies over four years.
In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed at least 24 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic.
Despite the oil industry’s complaints about Biden’s policies, the United States is now producing more oil than any country ever has, pumping nearly 13 million barrels per day on average last year. ExxonMobil and Chevron, the largest U.S. energy companies, reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year.
Yet oil giants will see an even greater windfall — helped by new offshore drilling, speedier permits and other relaxed regulations — in a second Trump administration, the former president told the executives over the dinner of chopped steak at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump vowed at the dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports — a top priority for the executives, according to three people present. “You’ll get it on the first day,” Trump said, according to the recollection of an attendee.
The roughly two dozen executives invited included Mike Sabel, the CEO and founder of Venture Global, and Jack Fusco, the CEO of Cheniere Energy, whose proposed projects would directly benefit from lifting the pause on new LNG exports. Other attendees came from companies including Chevron, Continental Resources, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, according to an attendance list obtained by The Post.
Trump told the executives that he would start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a priority that several of the executives raised. He railed against wind power, as The Post previously reported. And he said he would reverse the restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.
“You’ve been waiting on a permit for five years; you’ll get it on Day 1,” Trump told the executives, according to the recollection of the attendee.
At the dinner, Trump also promised that he would scrap Biden’s “mandate” on electric vehicles — mischaracterizing ambitious rules that the Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized, according to people who attended. The rules require automakers to reduce emissions from car tailpipes, but they don’t mandate a particular technology such as EVs. Trump called the rules “ridiculous” in the meeting with donors.
The fossil fuel industry has aggressively lobbied against the EPA’s tailpipe rules, which could eat into demand for its petroleum products. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry trade group, has launched a seven-figure campaign against what it calls a de facto “gas car ban.” The campaign includes ads in battleground states warning that the rule will restrict consumer choice.
“Clearly, if you are producing gasoline and diesel, you want to make sure that there’s enough market there,” said Stephen Brown, an energy consultant and a former lobbyist for Tesoro, an oil refining company. “I don’t know that the oil industry would walk in united with a set of asks for the Trump administration, but I think it’s important for this issue to get raised.”
“Automakers need some degree of regulatory certainty from government,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota and other car companies.
“What has emerged instead is a wholesale repeal … and then reinstatement … and then repeal again of regulations every four or eight years,” Bozzella said in an email.
Biden’s EV policies have also sparked opposition in Republican-led rural states such as North Dakota, where there are far more oil pump jacks than charging stations. A key figure leading the Trump campaign’s development of its energy policy is North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who has been talking extensively to oil donors and CEOs.
At a fundraiser on Saturday in Palm Beach, Fla., Burgum told donors that Trump would halt Biden’s “attack” on fossil fuels, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The Post.
“What would be the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1? It’s stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all,” Burgum said. “Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.”
Burgum also criticized the Biden administration’s policies on gas stoves and vehicles with internal combustion engines, claiming that they would prevent consumers from buying both technologies. While the Energy Department recently set new efficiency standards for gas stoves, they would not affect the stoves in people’s kitchens or those currently on the market.
“They’ve got some liberal idea about what products we need,” Burgum said. “You all need EV cars. You don’t need internal combustion. We’ll decide what kind of car you’re going to drive, and we’re going to regulate the other ones out of business. I mean, it’s just in every industry, not just in cars, not just in energy. They’re telling people what stoves you can buy. This is not America.”
Cheniere Energy President and CEO Jack Fusco speaks during the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston on March 18. (Mark Felix/AFP/Getty Images)
The Biden campaign initially declined to comment for this article. After it was published, however, Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said in a statement that “Donald Trump is selling out working families to Big Oil for campaign checks. It’s that simple.”
“It doesn’t matter to Trump that oil and gas companies charge working families and middle-class Americans whatever they want while raking in record profits — if Donald can cash a check, he’ll do what they say,” Moussa added.
Burgum — a possible contender to lead the Energy Department in a second Trump term — has pushed harder to address climate change than many other Republicans. He set a goal in 2021 for North Dakota — the third-largest oil-producing state — to become carbon-neutral by 2030. He has stressed, however, that the goal won’t be achieved via government mandates or the elimination of fossil fuels, and he has cultivated deep support among oil donors.
Despite Trump’s huge fundraising ask, oil donors and their allies have yet to donate hundreds of millions to his campaign. They have contributed more than $6.4 million to Trump’s joint fundraising committee in the first three months of this year, according to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power. Oil billionaire Harold Hamm and others are scheduling a fundraiser for Trump later this year, advisers said, where they expect large checks to flow to his bid to return to office.
One person involved in the industry said many oil executives wanted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or another Republican to challenge Biden. But now that Trump is the nominee, this person said, they are going to embrace his policies and give.
Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump donor, said the Republican onslaught of donations was not surprising.
“Biden constantly throws a wet blanket to the oil and gas industry,” Eberhart said. “Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ philosophy aligns much better with the oil patch than Biden’s green-energy approach. It’s a no-brainer.”
Alex Witt, a senior adviser for oil and gas with Climate Power, said Trump’s promise is he will do whatever the oil industry wants if they support him. With Trump, Witt said, “everything has a price.”
“They got a great return on their investment during Trump’s first term, and Trump is making it crystal clear that they’re in for an even bigger payout if he’s reelected,” she said.
May 3, 2024
And Another'n
But this is Texas we're talking about, and there's nothing that says they're not in cahoots with a DOJ that's still pretty well peppered with MAGA dicks who feel the need to take down a brown-skinned Democrat who hangs with a Muslim-sounding bunch like The Azerbaijan Caucus - whatever the fuck that is - and blah blah blah.
I may be paranoid,
but that don't mean
nobody's out to get me.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) addressed an expected indictment following reports the Justice Department is preparing charges against him, saying he is “innocent of these allegations” and still plans to seek reelection.
The Justice Department searched Cuellar’s home in January 2022 as part of an investigation into Azerbaijan.
Cuellar, a co-chair of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, said at the time he was not the target of the investigation.
In his Friday statement, Cuellar did not address any specific pending charges but suggested he sought out legal advice on what would appear to be the subject of the allegations and also references his wife’s professional background.
“Before I took any action, I proactively sought legal advice from the House Ethics Committee, who gave me more than one written opinion, along with an additional opinion from a national law firm. The actions I took in Congress were consistent with the actions of many of my colleagues and in the interest of the American people,” Cuellar wrote in a statement issued through his campaign.
“Imelda and I have been married for 32 years. On top of being an amazing wife and mother, she’s an accomplished businesswoman with two degrees. She spent her career working with banking, tax, and consulting. The allegation that she is anything but qualified and hard working is both wrong and offensive.”
Cuellar also said he tried to meet with prosecutors “to explain the facts and they refused to discuss the case with us or to hear our side.”
The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
Cuellar, a moderate Democrat from a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, narrowly defeated primary challenger Jessica Cisneros.
“Let me be clear, I’m running for re-election and will win this November,” Cuellar said.
Apr 12, 2024
Today's 🤬
If billionaires (along with their coin-operated politicians and judges) aren't in fact above the law, then somebody needs to step up and prove it.
Start putting these assholes in prison.
Sick to fucking death of this shit.
Billionaire Leonard Leo rejects Senate subpoena over supreme court gifts
Progressive groups hail long-brewed move against influential donor but protest lack of summons for Harlan Crow
The big-money rightwing donor Leonard Leo said he would not comply with a subpoena issued by the US Senate judiciary committee, as it investigates undisclosed gifts to conservative supreme court justices that have stoked an ethics crisis at a court already held in historically low public esteem.
Referring to Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the committee, Leo said: “I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [a Democrat from Rhode Island] and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition.”
Democrats on the judiciary committee are concerned with rightwing dark money and its effects on a court stacked 6-3 in favour of conservatives since Donald Trump installed three justices in just four years in power.
Multiple reports, led by the non-profit newsroom ProPublica, have described undisclosed gifts including luxury travel and resort stays given to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, long-serving hardline court rightwingers.
Thomas and Alito deny all wrongdoing. The chief justice, John Roberts, has refused to testify in Congress. The court issued a new ethics code but it is enforceable only by the justices themselves.
In November, the Senate committee voted on party lines to subpoena Leo and the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, a collector of Hitler memorabilia with close links to Thomas. On Thursday, more than four months later, Leo said he had received a subpoena but a spokesperson for Crow said he did not.
In a statement to the Washington Post, Durbin said: “Since July 2023, Leonard Leo has responded to the legitimate oversight requests of the Senate judiciary committee with a blanket refusal to cooperate. His outright defiance left the committee with no other choice but to move forward with compulsory process. For that reason, I have issued a subpoena to Mr Leo.
“Mr Leo has played a central role in the ethics crisis plaguing the supreme court … This subpoena is a direct result of Mr Leo’s own actions and choices.”
Progressive groups welcomed the Leo subpoena but protested about the lack of one for Crow.
Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US, which has focused on drawing attention to Leo’s coordination of billions of dollars in rightwing political spending, said: “Thanks to … Leo, a full-blown corruption crisis has plagued the high court for over a year, undermining its credibility …
“Today’s subpoena is a critical step toward accountability, and toward ensuring that our high court adheres to the highest possible ethics standards. As a result of the strong leadership of Chairman Durbin and the judiciary committee, we can now begin to get to the bottom of the corruption crisis pervading the supreme court.”
But Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, said that though the Leo subpoena was “a long overdue first step towards ensuring accountability” it was also “far from enough”.
“The entire country has been waiting too long for Durbin to take action, and subpoenaing Leonard Leo without simultaneously subpoenaing Harlan Crow is a half-baked attempt at doing his job as judiciary chair.”
Pointing to epochal rulings from the rightwing court including removing the federal right to abortion, loosening gun control and ending race-based affirmative action in colleges, Levin added: “Democrats cannot let this corrupt and compromised supreme court continue to have a strong hold on our fundamental rights without any form of accountability.
“Durbin cannot ignore the overwhelming calls and pressure from his own base. He must continue to exercise his authority … by subpoenaing Harlan Crow, holding the justices and their accomplices accountable, and unrigging a court that was packed by Trump and his Maga supporters.”
- MORE -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)