How Many Times Did Matthew Whitacker Perjure Himself Yesterday?

Trump's illegitimate Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitacker, was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. If you missed it, you can watch it on YouTube. Above is a 4 hour slice of the second half from NBC News. The stars of the day were Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), David Cicilline (D-RI), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). I was surprised that Val Demings (D-FL) Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) were as good as she turned out to be. Cedrick Richmond (R-LA), who used the initials DOJ a couple of times without knowing what the initials stand for and is an embarrassment and should be reassigned to a different committee. replacing him with Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) would be a step in the right direction.

Whitacker spent his time trying to run out the clock and stonewall... and lying. He claimed he had "not interfered in any way" with Mueller's investigation into Russia's conspiracy with Trump to steal the 2016 election. His testimony was strictly aimed at Trump-- for another job and, in all likelihood, for an eventual pardon. Here's a copy of the opening statement that his staff prepared for him:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins for the opportunity to testify before the Committee today. I am looking forward to discussing with you some of the accomplishments and some of the priorities of this Department of Justice (“Department”).

First of all, let me say that it is an honor to represent the 115,000 men and women of the Department of Justice. The Department is blessed with extremely talented, highly principled public servants who are dedicated to upholding our great Constitution and the laws of the United States.

I saw that up close during my five and a half years as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. Our office put drug dealers, violent criminals, and gang members behind bars-- and we kept the people of Iowa safe. I personally prosecuted several of these cases and worked with men and women from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the U.S. Marshals Service, and our State and local partners.

In 2017, I returned to the Department and served for 13 months as Chief of Staff to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. I have the greatest respect for General Sessions, who led the Department with integrity, with dedication to the rule of law, and with a commitment to carrying out the policies of the President. I am deeply honored that the President selected me to serve as Acting Attorney General of the Department of Justice until General Sessions’ successor is confirmed by the Senate.

The Senate will soon consider the President’s nomination for our next Attorney General. And let me just say this: no one is more qualified than Bill Barr. I am working to ensure that he will inherit a strong, confident, and effective Department of Justice. And I believe that he will.

For the last three months I have had the privilege of serving as Acting Attorney General, and I am impressed every single day by the dedication and the hard work of our agents and our attorneys.

Over this time, I have visited a number of our offices and met with federal prosecutors from across America. For example, in December, we held our Project Safe Neighborhoods conference-- where employees from nearly every U.S. Attorney’s office celebrated our law enforcement successes and reductions in violent crime. We were honored to be joined by the President for that conference.

Our hard work is paying off. I firmly believe that your constituents are safer because of the work that the Department has done over these past two years. Under this Administration, crime is down-- and police morale is up. In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2017, the Justice Department charged the largest number of violent crime defendants since we started to track this category back when Bill Barr was the Attorney General. In FY 2018, we broke that record again-- with a margin of nearly 15 percent.

We have taken aggressive action against gun violence. In FY 2018, the Department charged more defendants with gun crimes than ever before. In fact, the Department broke the record by a margin of 17 percent. The Department has also banned bump stocks, improved the background check system, and prosecuted those who lied to get a gun.

Our work is having an impact. In 2017-- after two years of increases under the previous Administration-- violent crime and homicide went down nationwide. We do not yet have official numbers for 2018, but the Brennan Center has estimated that the murder rate in our 29th biggest cities dropped by 7.6 percent.

A lot of crime in this country is related to drug abuse. We are addressing the roots of these crimes by reducing the drug supply and putting drug traffickers behind bars and our efforts have been successful. We have analyzed prescriptions for the first 11 months of 2018 (January-- November) and note that prescriptions dispensed continue to decline by an additional 12.9 percent when compared to the same timeframe in 2017.

These decreases in prescribing rates have allowed DEA to lower the legal limits on production of the six most abused opioids for 2019 by an average of 10 percent.3 DEA has reduced the quotas for the most frequently diverted controlled substance opioids by 44 percent from their highs in 2016.

There is no doubt in the law enforcement community that the vast majority of the illegal drugs in this country is coming over our Southern border, a pattern that is true for all crimes generally. And there is also no doubt that criminals and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border.

For this reason, we continue our efforts to restore the rule of law at the border and in our immigration system. In FY 2018, we charged more aliens who illegally entered the United States with improper entry than in any year in American history. In fact, we charged 85 percent more defendants with illegally entering America than we did in the previous year. At the same time, we increased the number of felony illegal re-entry prosecutions by more than 38 percent. Whatever our views on immigration policy —we should all be opposed to illegal immigration, and we should support these efforts.

The Department is also taking decisive action against human trafficking, both domestically and internationally. Human traffickers, like other criminal enterprises take advantage of our porous Southern Border to smuggle women and children into United States to exploit them for compelled labor or sex. We are bringing prosecutions to dismantle transnational trafficking networks that lure victims across our borders and traffic them for profit. Last year, the Department of Justice secured a record of 526 human trafficking convictions-- a 5 percent increase over the previous year. We are continuing to advance innovative counter-trafficking strategies, like the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team Initiative. Through this initiative, there has been an increase in prosecutions in districts where we have convened specialized AntiTrafficking Coordination Teams.

These are all important measures of our effectiveness-- and the men and women of the Department deserve a lot of credit. In district after district across America, our agents and our attorneys are becoming more and more focused on tackling today’s most pressing criminal threats.

Our attorneys are also defending the rights of the American people in court-- including freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and the right to vote. In November, the Department provided election monitoring at polling places around the country. Our Civil Rights Division deployed personnel to 35 jurisdictions in 19 states to monitor for compliance with federal voting rights laws. The Public Integrity Section prosecutors served as subject matter experts for federal prosecutors and investigators nationwide, working with the FBI at the Strategic Information and Operations Center while the polls were open. Since the election, they have helped secure the conviction of a political consultant in Philadelphia for campaign finance crimes arising out of two separate elections.

The Department continues to civil rights by aggressively prosecuting hate crimes. In Charlottesville, we secured a 30-count indictment against the defendant who drove a car into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, killing Heather Heyer. In Pittsburgh, we have charged the shooter accused of taking the lives of 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life Synagogue with 60 federal counts, including 13 hate crimes violations. In Jeffersontown, Kentucky, we charged the defendant for the racially motivated shooting of three African American patrons at a Kroger store. And in Garden City, Kansas, we convicted three men for conspiring to bomb an apartment complex, because it was the home of many Somali immigrants, and the mosque at which they worshipped. These are among the 50 hate crimes defendants indicted and the 30 hate crimes defendants convicted by this Administration in FY 2018.

Over my time as Acting Attorney General, I have done everything in my power to continue regular order and to keep up our momentum in pursuing the law-and-order agenda that the American people voted for.

Finally, I would like to briefly address Mr. Chairman’s letter from January 22, 2019, in which you advised that the Committee may seek to ask questions about communications I may have had with the President on a number of topics. I want to assure you that I will seek to answer the Committee’s questions today, as best as I can, but I also must make clear that I will continue the longstanding Executive Branch policy and practice of not disclosing information that may be subject to executive privilege, such as the contents of deliberations or conversations with the President. The Supreme Court has recognized that the presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. I trust that the Members of this Committee will respect the confidentiality that is necessary to the proper functioning of the Presidency-- just as we respect the confidentiality necessary to the Legislative Branch.

Although I cannot speak about my communications with the President, I do want to make clear that I am personally committed to the integrity of the Department of Justice. Since becoming Acting Attorney General, I have run the Department to the best of my ability, with fidelity to the law and to the Constitution. The Department makes its law enforcement decisions based upon the facts and law of each individual case, in accordance with established Department practices, and independent of any outside interference. There has been no change in the overall management of the Special Counsel investigation. I have and will continue to manage this investigation in a manner that is consistent with the governing regulations.

Don't want to watch the 6 hour version? How about 6 minutes?

Hey Trumpanzee, How's That Chaos Thing Working Out For You Now?

Today President Obama spoke at the Anaheim Convention Center in Orange County on behalf of Southern California candidates Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, Mike Levin, Katie Hill, and Gil Cisneros (AKA- the Lottery Winner). I offered Ammar Campa-Najjar, a former Obama Labor Department official who is running against Drunken Hunter (CA-50) but who the DCCC is not behind and has continued to sabotage (please contribute to his campaign here or, if you hate the DCCC as much as I do, here) a ticket but Obama's office sent him one. [The DCCC staff is made up of such utter jerks. Who hires them?]

His manner and presence alone were a kind of reassurance that no matter how horrific you see Trump as being, he's just a temporary mistake that somehow happened to our country. Aside from making the point that these are "extraordinary" and "dangerous" times he seemed genuinely disturbed by the "crazy stuff" coming out of the Trump Regime, particularly the way Trump has been trying to politicize the Justice Department and the courts. "It should not be a partisan issue," said the President, "to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents. Or to explicitly call on the attorney general to protect members of our own party from prosecution."

Not mentioning Trump rubber-stamps Mimi Walters, Steve Knight and Dana Rohrabacher by name, he obviously found it shocking and disturbing that congressional Republicans have been "utterly unwilling to find the backbone to safeguard the institutions that make our democracy work."

The kind of the thing Obama was so upset about was demonstrated by Trump again yesterday when he started babbling again about how the Department of Justice should try to identify the anonymous member of his own White House who wrote the incendiary NY Times OpEd about Trump's glaring and dangerous shortcomings. In an interview on Air Force One, Trump again tried to pass his problem off as a threat to national security and demanded that Sessions find out who betrayed him and punish The Times for running the OpEd. "Jeff," he insisted, "should be investigating who the author of that piece was because I really believe it's national security." His point is that if the person he hired and gave top security clearance doesn't belong in meetings where security clearance is required, even though there wasn't anything classified in the OpEd.

On Fox News, Trump claimed that whoever wrote the piece "may not be a Republican; it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state person who has been there for a long time." Members of Congress, as well as members of the press, claim that Trump staffers tell them this same stuff about Trump, albeit off the record, constantly.

Trump seems to have demanded letters from his top officials claiming to have not written the OpEd and he's gotten them from Mike Pence, DNI Dan Coats (both of whom were immediate suspects), Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, HUD Secretary Ben Carson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and from and other Cabinet members. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman was also a suspect and he also wrote Trump a letter saying it wasn't him. What about Chief of Staff Kelly (who Ivanka and Jared say wrote the OpEd) and Jared Kushner? Are they "members of a secret Resistance?" Ex-Libertarian Rand Paul and Rudy Giuliani want them all to take lie detector tests. "Let's assume it's a person with a security clearance," said Giuliani. "If they feel writing this is appropriate, maybe they feel it would be appropriate to disclose national security secrets, too." Why? That makes no sense at all.

You can understand why the last patriot in the Oval office just said "A politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment takes hold and demagogues promise simple fixes to complex problems. No promise to fight for the little guy, even as they cater to the wealthiest and most powerful. No promise to clean up corruption and then plunder away. They start undermining norms that ensure accountability and try to change the rules to entrench their power further. They appeal to racial nationalism that’s barely veiled, if veiled at all." Meanwhile, no one is doing any work in the White House, unless you count sleuthing for Trump's latest enemy "work." Trump also wants Congress to get involved with the hunt for what he refers to as a "traitor." Ryan just rolled his eyes and thought about how he only has a few more months to go before he's out of this horror, but the neo-fascists in Congress, like fringe lunatic Mark Meadows (NC) want a go at it. This is what a Trump government looks like. Putin:

Pam and Russ Martens over at Wall Street on Parade made a good case that whoever wrote the OpEd was a Koch loyalist.

Parsing the phrasing in the OpEd, there is a clear pattern of right-wing ideology-- the kind that comes from Charles Koch, CEO of the fossil fuels conglomerate, Koch Industries, and the sprawling network of tax-exempt front groups that are funded with Koch foundation money. There is this telling phrase in the OpEd: “…the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” This is the jargon of the Koch-brand of the libertarian movement which tortuously attempts to equate freedom with the right to pollute the environment with fossil fuels without government interference.

Then there is this sentence in the OpEd: “We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.” The Koch manifesto is that gutting regulations makes America more “prosperous” thus its heavy funding of the front group Americans for Prosperity. This is how the Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch describes Americans for Prosperity: “Americans for Prosperity is a right-wing political advocacy group founded by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, the owners of Koch Industries. AFP serves as the Kochs’ ‘grassroots’ operation, also known as astroturf. AFP spends millions on TV ads in election cycles.”

Embedded in the writer’s effort to sell the idea that “many” of the Trump administrations’ policies have “made America safer and more prosperous” is the fact that Koch money, operating through its front group, Freedom Partners, dictated in writing what it wanted the Trump administration to accomplish and got many of those demands met. Repeal the Paris Climate Accord-- done. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy-- done. Gutting federal regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency-- much accomplished.

There is one other telling word in the OpEd: the word “republic” as used in this sentence: “But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.” A person operating separate and apart from the Koch network might have said the “health of our democracy” or the “health of our nation” but a libertarian would have chosen the word “republic.”

There’s another reason why we believe this is the handiwork of a Koch-connected “senior official.” Numbers are simply on our side. In November of last year, the watchdog group, Public Citizen, reported that 44 Trump administration officials have been plucked from the Koch network. As of April of this year, SourceWatch reports that 12 people who previously worked at Freedom Partners are working in the Trump administration. Until last month when he stepped down, that included Marc Short, who went from being President of Freedom Partners to Director of Legislative Affairs for Trump, pushing through many items on that list of written demands from Freedom Partners. (As of July, eight of the nine Board Members of Freedom Partners is a current or former Koch company employee. The Board Chair of Freedom Partners is Mark Holden, the General Counsel of Koch Industries: this at a taxpayer subsidized organization.)

Then there is the fact that Koch Industries’ long-time law firm, Jones Day, sent 12 of its lawyers to the Trump administration all on the same day-- January 20, 2017, the day Trump was inaugurated. That includes White House Counsel Don McGahn (who will be leaving this Fall) and his Chief of Staff, Ann Donaldson. Both McGahn and Donaldson previously represented Freedom Partners.

...It is now just 61 days until the midterm election. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week showed that “more than 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and the Republican Party are out of touch with most people in the country,” and that “registered voters say they favor the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate in their district by 52 percent to 38 percent.”

That poll had to set off fire alarms within the Koch network. How can they complete the dismantling of Federal regulations and Federal agencies if their hand-picked Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate.

This is the kind of thing that drives the Kochs and their destructive network off the wall-- and this ad just started running this week in southeast Wisconsin. They won't be able to fulfill their dreams without puppets like Bryan Steil and this isn't some ineffective DCCC ad; this is the Bryce campaign's own work. Watch closely:

Welcome To The Kakistocracy... Step Up And Take A Bow, Brian Allen Benczkowski

Yesterday America's supine Senate confirmed that they, as a body, are as kakistocratic as any other part of the Trumpist government, confirming, 51-48 Mr. Benczkowski as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. It was a largely party-line vote, every single Republican voting to confirm this clearly unqualified freak, with every Democrat, sans Joe Manchin (D-WV), voting no. Manchin voted with the GOP, as he usually does. Not even Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) or Doug Jones (D-AL) went along with McConnell on this. A bridge too far. I can tell you which Senate candidate votes like this will not cause even a moment's hesitation starting next January: Kyrsten Sinema, who describes herself as a Manchin supporter but is quite a bit to the right of him.

If Schumer couldn't stop Benczkowski, how can anyone possibly think he has what it takes to stop Cavanaugh? As Maddow explains in the clip up top, Benczkowski is actually part of Putin-Gate, having working to do an image makeover on the Kremlin-controlled Alfa Bank after it was caught communicating-- and hiding those communications-- between Putin and the Trump campaign. (Mueller and the FBI are both investigating Alpha Bank but apparently none of the Republicans claiming to bot be Trump rubber stamps-- Flake, Corker, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Moran, Paul-- thought this was a big enough deal to make a fuss over. They were wrong, probably tragically so. Is Benczkowski a Russian mole? Maybe. Is he a Trumpist mole? Oh yeah... no question.

Dick Durbin (D-IL) wrote to Trump that "unanswered questions remain about Alfa Bank that should be resolved before the Senate even considers voting to confirm this bank’s lawyer to a top Justice Department position." Sense of humor, huh?

Trump Is Being Pulled In Opposite Directions On The Marijuana Question

The big news out of the Justice Department this weekend, of course, is the sudden decision by the Regime to fire all 46 Obama-DOJ Prosecutors, including Preet Bharara, the country's most effective corruption fighter. This was especially odd because both Trump and Sessions had asked him to stay on and he had agreed to do so. Did Trump just realize out of the blue that his seat of corruption in Trump Tower is part of Bharara's jurisdiction.

Recently Jeff Sessions-- who once famously explained that he thought the KKK were a bunch of fine guys until he realized they were a bunch of pot heads-- has been chomping at the bit to go after legalized marijuana businesses. "States, you know, can pass whatever laws they choose," Sessions drawled, "but I’m not sure we’re going to be better, healthier nation if we have marijuana being sold at every corner grocery store…we’ll have to work our way through that."

He said he's dubious about marijuana, and he made those remarks after Spicer told reporters that the Department of Justice would use the federal law banning marijuana to crack down on recreational pot sales while allowing states to regulate the drug for medical use. Recreational marijuana use is legal in Washington, Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Alaska (+ Washington, DC).

Legalization backers were quick to criticize Sessions for suggesting that pot might be sold “at every corner grocery store.”

“No states allow this,” said Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, a pro-legalization group.

As a presidential candidate, Trump said that he would leave the question of legalization to individual states. But his choice of Sessions in November set off immediate panic among legalization backers.

Sessions, a longtime opponent of legalization as a former Republican senator from Alabama, caused a stir last year when he said at a Senate hearing that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

At his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions gave conflicting signals on what he would do. In Washington state, where voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the uncertainty has many politicians worred about a possible crackdown.

When Sessions was asked at his confirmation hearing whether he would use federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who use medical marijuana, he replied: “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law.”

But he also said that enforcing the law is “a problem of resources for the federal government.” And he said that Obama’s Justice Department had set out policies that are “truly valuable in evaluating cases.”

Sessions also said that Congress should set marijuana policy and the attorney general should enforce the law.

“I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana in every state, and distribution of it, an illegal act... We should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we’re able,” Sessions said.

Spider's statement was "President Trump sees a big difference between use of marijuana for medical purposes and for recreational purposes. The president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing terminal disease and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them. I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crises blossoming in so many states around the country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people."

Longtime Trump political consiglieri, self-serving crackpot Roger Stone, has warned Trump not to let Sessions screen around with pot policy. As with most of what Trump himself says, his stands on marijuana change depending on the audience he's talking to and his stands vary drastically... and incoherently. Stone urged Trump to take a hands-off approach and to ignore anti-pot fanatic Jeff Sessions. He wrote that one of the many controversial decisions Trump is getting ready to make "is whether to continue the federal stand-down by the us Justice department in which DOJ does not enforce federal marijuana laws where they contradict state laws legalizing the legal use and sale of marijuana in the 37 states where it is currently legal in some form." Stone:

Canceling the order by Obama attorney general Eric Holder to stand down on Marijuana would cause a major dislocation in multiple states that are currently budgeting millions in state revenue from the taxation of marijuana and un-employing hundreds of thousands of people currently working in an industry legalized by the states. I would urge President-Elect Trump to view this as a business man; U.S. government cannot turn back the clock on federal marijuana law enforcement.

...A great many pro-marijuana organizations, publications, and Internet outlets put their support behind Donald Trump based on his positive statements about Medical Marijuana. People who have marijuana rights as their primary political issue turned to Trump, many against long time party affiliation, in hopes of greater freedom and less abuse at the hands of Federal Agencies.

If, after winning the election, Donald Trump listens to the likes of Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions he risks alienating his base and his newly won supporters in a very tangible way. Both Sessions and Christie come from ‘Old World’ War on Drugs thinking.

Criminalized Marijuana has directly lead to the persecution of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom are poor and minorities. That this was the desired result of the designers of the system of criminalization cannot be reasonable doubted.

“Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all legal professions throughout history have based their jobs security.”- Frank Herbert.

We cannot leave it to ‘Law Enforcement’ types to decide what is to be allowed and what is to be prohibited. The People must decide for themselves, and they have decided. Overwhelmingly so. They have decided they want legalized marijuana.

“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”- Thomas Jefferson.

Drain the Swamp. Limit Federal Power. Reel-in out-of-control Alphabet Soup agencies. Return respect for law. These are all things Donald Trump made as major issues for his campaign platform.

“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.”- Albert Einstein.

A precipitous move by the Trump administration to change the equation on legal marijuana in the states could in fact bring action by congress where a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans are moving towards legislation to legalize the plant.

There's a bi-partisan bill pending before Congress, Virginia Republican Tom Garrett's H.R. 1227, the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017." The legislation aims to totally ending the federal prohibition of marijuana. Among the Republicans co-sponsoring it are Scott Taylor (R-VA), Don Young (R-AK) and Justin Amash (R-MI), all of whom represent districts that Trump won in November. Montana was a big Trump state, for example. He won 55.6-35.4% in that state-- with 279,240 votes. More people in Montana voted for Initiative 182-- expanding Medical Marijuana-- than voted for Trump: 284,531 Montanans. In Maine Trump didn't win but he got 357,735 votes. Question 1 on the same ballot, though, got 378,288 votes for legalizing recreational marijuana.

Meanwhile, of course, the regime is causing confusion and uncertainty in the marijuana industry. Ever watch American Psycho? I watched it for the first time last night on HBO. It reminded me of Trump.

Trump-- Least Racist Person You Ever Met-- Has Justice Department Supporting Racism In Texas Already

[Also: no puppet, no puppet]

I guess it was predictable enough that the new Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, a notorious racist who famously explained that what he didn't like about his old comrades at the KKK is that they smoke too much pot, would change the tone of the Justice Department when it comes to equality. The Justice Department has been for it and is now against it. It's official, despite the never-ending palaver from the orange racist piglet in the White House-- who started his business career by overseeing an illegal program to deny housing to renters from minority groups in Brooklyn-- that he is the "least racist person you've ever met."

For the last 6 years the Justice Department has supported a suit that the Texas voter ID law was adopted with the intent to discriminate against African American and Hispanics, Yesterday, without notice, the Justice Department did a 180 degree about-face, abandoning the plaintiffs, led by Congressman Marc Veasey, opposing SB 14. Until yesterday the Justice Department had argued-- aggressively-- that Republican leaders of the state legislature intentionally passed a bill to discriminate against minority groups in Texans. Key word, "intentionally." This is from a brief filed 2 months ago by the Justice Department: "This discriminatory impact was not merely an unintended consequence of SB 14... It was, in part, SB 14’s purpose. Compelling evidence establishes that Texas enacted SB 14 at least in part because of its detrimental effects on African-American and Hispanic voters." Sessions and his underlings haven't explained why they changed course.

The Department of Justice under President Donald Trump will support Texas officials’ claim that the state's voter identification law did not specifically target minority voters, retreating from the federal government's previous stance that state lawmakers intentionally discriminated when crafting the law.

The law’s opponents were notified of the switch one day before the question of discriminatory intent is set to be argued in federal court, according to officials at the Campaign Legal Center.

...Last summer, judges on the [very right-wing] 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the law was discriminatory but said they could not come to a conclusion on whether the Legislature had intentionally discriminated when writing the law. They sent the question of discriminatory intent back to U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in Corpus Christi.

Ramos is set to hear arguments on the question of discriminatory intent Tuesday morning.

The plaintiffs will continue fighting the law even without the support of the Justice Department. Republican-held congressional districts where this kind of discrimination could have a significant effect in the 2018 midterms include these districts with large Hispanic and African-American populations (over 40%), combined for the sake of this list:

• TX-23, Will Hurd (73.0%)
• TX-27, Blake Farenthold (55.6%)
• TX-14, Randy Weber (43.7%)
• TX-07, John Culberson (43.7%)
• TX-02, Ted Poe (41.9%)
• TX-06, Joe Barton (41.6%)
• TX-19, Jodey Arrington (40.5)
• TX-05, Jeb Hensarling (40.0%)

Of course, these are precisely the members of Congress the law was passed to protect. Few people doubt that competent recruitment-- not exactly a DCCC strongpoint-- plus robust voter registration drives in TX-23, TX-27 and TX-07 would mean flipping those three districts in 2018. Keep in mind that although Farenthold is a dummy and a loud-mouthed Trump supporter who does absolutely nothing for his Corpus Christi district, which is now only 41% white, the DCCC since he took the district from conservative Democrat Solomon Ortiz in 2010 (48% to 47%). The DCCC refused to support Rose Meza Harrison in 2012, refused to support Wesley Reed in 2014 and refused to support Roy Barrera last November, when Barrera managed to spend just $18,698 against Farenthold's $1,108,700. This is the Farenthold the DCCC is so scared of (in his ducky pjs):

Who Will You Blame When Jeff Sessions Starts Locking People Up For Smoking A Joint?

I bet there are a lot of House Democrats relieved that they don't have to go on the record voting for or against Trump's nominees for the Cabinet From Hell. Only the Senate votes on nominations-- and all the Democratic senators had the good sense to vote against Betsy DeVos and Tom Price. These two are going to make millions of Americans very unhappy, one by screwing up public education and the other by screwing up healthcare. Even the worst of the worst reactionary fake Democrats-- a Heidi Heitkamp, a Joe Manchin, a Joe Donnelly or a Claire McCaskill knew better than to hitch a rid of those two runaway trains to eternal infamy. I thought the same would go for Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the KKK Senator from Alabama who was confirmed February 8 to be Attorney General, 52-47. But one of the bad Dems-- Joe Manchin-- did vote to confirm sessions Sessions.

When Sessions swung into action this week-- targeting transgender children, re-upping with the private prison industry, backing up Trump's draconian round-ups of immigrants and preparing to start up the dismally failed war on drugs by targeting states that have legalized marijuana, did you wonder who was at fault? When Sessions starts turning the private prisons into concentration camps, Americans should blame everyone who voted to confirm him-- i.e., all the esteemed Republican senators plus West Virginia's Joe Manchin.

Recently a friend asked me if I wanted to invest in a marijuana ice cream business here in California. It appears to be a good opportunity-- except for one factor: Jeff Sessions. I passed on the opportunity. Except for on the days Neil young delivered a new album to me personally, I had given up on marijuana in 1969. Recently, my body wracked with the gruesome impacts of chemo treatment side effects, my doctor urged me to try ameliorating the horror show with some marijuana oil. I was reluctant but finally did it. I had been unable to sleep and unable to eat, which means unable to heal. The first time I took a tiny bit on marijuana oil I slept like a log and woke up starving. I had lost between 60 and 70 pounds and looked like I had escaped from one of Jeff Sessions' future concentration camps. But the marijuana oil soon had me packing on the pounds again... and I was soon traveling around the world to places like Thailand, Russia and Azerbaijan. I'm looking forward to a trip to Tierra del Fuego again.

Sessions isn't going to Tierra del Fuego or anywhere else. He's looking for a brawl with the pro-marijuana folks-- and that includes a lot of Trump supporters. Joseph Mulkerin wrote yesterday in The Observer that that battle is tantamount to political suicide for anyone who tries to turn back the hands of time on this issue. On the same day Trump was (kind of) elected, the marijuana legalization movement "had enjoyed perhaps its greatest electoral success to date, as voters in eight states approved either recreational or medical cannabis. Just 10 days later, however, activists were forced to grapple with the potential of Sessions, a man who repeatedly chastised the Obama justice department for its failure to enforce federal drug laws being elevated to the highest office in the land."

Brian Vincente, one of the nation’s leading marijuana attorneys and the former campaign director of Colorado’s 2012 ballot initiative argued that, with the crucial role the burgeoning cannabis industry had come to play in the state’s economy, it would be difficult for Sessions to role back progress on the issue if he tried.

“You have 28 states with medical marijuana. Eight states with legalization, there is a lot of government bureaucracy that is supportive of marijuana legalization. Our state generates about $200 million dollars a year in tax revenue. So there’s a lot of entrenched interests and I could see this being a tough battle for Sessions to take on.” Vincente further argued that resistance to federal enforcement could even take the form of jury nullification. “I’ve tried a number of cases in front of juries, and when they know that they and their neighbors voted to legalize marijuana we have prosecutors trying to put people in jail for something that should not be a crime.”

Jeremy Ettinger, a DC-based marijuana activist, also expressed confidence that direct public pressure could bring politicians to bear. In December he led a group into Sessions’ office, where he said he had a “very good,” 45-minute exchange with Sessions’ staff. Ettinger argued that his group had set out to “build some goodwill” with Sessions, and that Sessions’ confirmation hearing-- in which he took a markedly less extreme tone on the issue-- was a testament to their success. “He was a gentleman. A gentleman doesn’t say people who abuse marijuana are ‘not good people.’”

Although Ettinger acknowledged Sessions had an “implicit bias” which prejudiced him against Cannabis users, Ettinger ultimately predicted that because the White House was intrinsically seeking “less controversy” the issue would be a relatively low priority for the justice department.

The medical marijuana community has articulated its own set of concerns. Although the Rohrbacher-Farr Amendment currently prohibits the justice department from using federal funds against medical marijuana patients, it is slated to expire on April 28. In anticipation of a potential crackdown, Americans for Safer Access, which lobbies on behalf of medical cannabis, is bringing thousands of activists to DC to lobby representatives for its renewal. Beth Collins, ASA’s director of legislative, stressed that Rohrbacher-Farr was the only tool medical patients had to protect them in the event of a draconian crackdown.

“The problem is, under federal law, [Sessions] would be operating legally… In a federal Court he would not be using States’ rights; you can’t use the defense that ‘I’m a medical patient in my state.’”

Steve Sarich, a prominent Washington-based medical activist had a markedly more optimistic outlook. Sarich expressed confidence that, given Trump’s own longstanding support for medical, Sessions’ prohibitionist tendencies would be kept in check. “He’s gonna do exactly what the fuck he’s told or he’s gonna be fired-- and you know that Trump made that real clear to him.”

Trump’s stance on recreational, by contrast, has wavered considerably over the years. In 1990 he called for the legalization of all drugs. By 2015 however, he came out as an opponent, claiming legalization in Colorado had gone “very bad.” Although Trump affirmed that he still favored allowing the states to decide, the appointment of Sessions would suggest his commitment is tepid at best. Given Trump’s personal antipathy, it isn’t all that hard to imagine his giving the green light to Sessions to authorize federal crackdowns.

The one thing which might give him pause are the political ramifications. With Trump already facing significant backlash for his immigration policy and controversial executive orders, going after marijuana and against the will of the millions of Americans who voted for it this past November would almost be politically suicidal.

After Spicer's announcement yesterday there were, predictably, quite a few reactions from industry leaders. Here are a few:

• Christie Strong, Marketing Communications Manager of Kiva Confections:

“Over 60% of Americans supports cannabis legalization. It is one of the few bi-partisan issues that actually has the potential to unite us right now. Our country and many of our citizens are still recovering from the devastation of a failed Drug War- it would be a crime to waste any more resources prohibiting adult access to this safe, effective medicine.”

• Steve Gormley, CEO of Seventh Point LLC

"Sean Spicer's comments on recreational marijuana seem to be a disturbing departure from Trump's purported position on States' rights. We will have to see how this plays out. I suspect this issue will end up being litigated at the Supreme Court.  Let's not forget however, this is the same guy who falsely reported on the attendance on the inauguration."

• Jeffrey Zucker, President of Green Lion Partners

“The comments from Secretary Spicer are ignorant and disappointing, although not unexpected. The cannabis industry will fight any pressure from the federal government to set back the significant progress that's been made thus far. The incredibly positive medical, social, and economic impact cannabis legalization has had on regulated states is undeniable. Singling out the Adult-Use market is short-sighted. Perhaps most importantly, it's ignoring the will of the people, which national polls now show are in favor of full legalization. Offering safe and regulated cannabis serves to eliminate the illegitimate market and racial disparity in enforcement. I hope that the administration takes the time to truly immerse and educate themselves on cannabis before making any destructive decisions.”

• Derek Peterson, CEO of Terra Tech:

"Today's news coming out of the administration regarding the adult use of cannabis is, of course, disappointing. We have hoped and still hope that the federal government will respect states' rights in the same manner they have on several other issues. The economic impact, job creation, and tax collection associated with both medical and recreational legalization have been tremendous throughout the country. We hope the new administration really takes the time to understand that the money is either going into the states' coffers or making its way to drug cartels. We also hope that the states make a point of defending their independence in regards to this and protect their constituents."

• Isaac Dietrich, CEO of MassRoots:

"Colorado is one of the only states in the nation that is seeing a decline in opioid deaths -- that's not a coincidence. Cannabis is a healthy alternative to pain pills and heroin, not a gateway to it. I have a feeling our stock is going to take a beating tomorrow, but that just creates an opportunity for investors who believe in the long-term trajectory of the cannabis market. As a medical-cannabis focused app, I believe MassRoots will actually benefit from this policy as it will cut off funding for our competitors."

• Danny Davis, Convectium, Managing Partner:

"We are hopeful that Mr. Spicer’s comments are not representative of the entire administration.  Many of the states who helped elect President Trump just voted to also support recreational marijuana; it is hard to imagine that he would push an agenda with the support ratings where they are.  As an equipment company we represent both the recreational and medicinal markets, but we would hate to see an action that would stop the current multi-state momentum for recreational."

The release yesterday of the new Quinnipiac poll showed that although Americans elected (kind of elected) a Republican president and a Republican Congress, voters disagree with Republican policy across the board. And marijuana policy is no exception. Other than the Jeff Sessions demographic-- old white Republicans-- everyone wants marijuana legal. The findings on pot:

Marijuana should be made legal in the U.S., voters say 59 - 36 percent. Republicans are opposed 61 - 35 percent and voters over 65 years old are opposed 51 - 42 percent. Every other party, gender, education, age and racial group listed supports legalized marijuana.

Voters support 93 - 6 percent legalized marijuana for medical purposes if prescribed by a doctor.

The government should not enforce federal laws against marijuana in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana use, voters say 71 - 23 percent. Voters in every listed group support this position.

Know Any Crazy Gay People Who Voted For Trumpanzee?

Even he's laughing at the idiots

Perhaps you read something about Trump being forced to fire his National Security Advisor after just a few weeks on the job, when he was exposed for taking cash from Putin and illicitly conniving with him even before Trump was sworn in. Many people find that rather important. But the bigoted little shit from the KKK that the Senate confirmed as Trump's Attorney General has something else he wants the Department of Justice to prioritize for investigation and remediation: LGBT equality. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III sees equality for gays and lesbians as a criminal problem. Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for Rewire reported this morning that "within his first 48 hours as attorney general, Jeff Sessions made it clear that targeting LGBTQ rights would be a Department of Justice priority."

It didn’t even take U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III two full days before using the power of his position to go after the rights of transgender students, sending a clear message about the future under the Trump administration.

The message came in the form of a court filing in a Texas case challenging an Obama Department of Education (DOE) guidance that public schools and universities receiving federal dollars should protect the rights of transgender students by allowing them access to facilities that align with their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Schools that refuse to comply with the guidance would be considered in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, and risk losing their federal funding.

Shortly after the guidance was announced, several states run by conservative lawmakers filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas arguing the administration had overreached its authority in issuing it. In August, a federal judge blocked its enforcement nationwide, ruling the Obama administration could not punish schools for not accommodating transgender students while the lawsuit proceeds. The Obama administration appealed that initial ruling. That appeal is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The new Department of Justice (DOJ) under Sessions changed the course in that case in two significant ways. First, Sessions withdrew a request by the Obama administration to limit the court order blocking enforcement of the guidance to only those public schools in states that sued against the order originally. Sessions and the DOJ then filed a joint request alongside the states challenging the rule, asking the Fifth Circuit to remove oral arguments in the case from its calendar. The request noted that all parties were “currently considering how best to proceed in the appeal.”

In other words, Sessions and the DOJ are trying to find the legal avenues to argue the guidance should not be followed, while the administration works on unwinding it altogether... All this doesn’t just suggest the Trump administration is reversing course on the position that existing civil rights laws protect transgender people from discrimination. It also suggests the DOJ will now actively work against transgender rights by siding with conservative states seeking to do the same.

Oh, and by the way, to answer our own question in the title, exit-pollsters estimate that 14% of gay people voted for Trump-- and his infamously homophobic running mate-- in November. Are they all on prescription drugs like the rest of Trump's supporters? (Bonus question: how many Jews voted for the Nazi Party in the 1933 Reichstag elections?)

A moment in history: The incoming POTUS personally picks one of the top U.S. attorneys, and he's of the other party

From nypost.com, 12:04pm [click to enlarge]:


From nydailynews.com, 2:47pm [click to enlarge]:


by Ken

For a few hours earlier today, as you can see above, there was Drama in the Air regarding the scheduled powwow between the president-elect and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara. As it happens, during that very time period I happen to have been in occasional televisual contact with developing news, while I was working at getting a new TV cable box installed and getting all my TVs and cable boxes humming.

The above screen shots from the websites of NYC's tabloids chronicle this moment in history in the making. From the written record, here's what the Daily News's Victoria Bekiempis and Adam Edelmann reported after the fateful meeting, as described in the dispatch above headlined "Preet Bharara will stay on as US Attorney at Trump's request":

Preet Bharara said Wednesday that he'd agreed to stay on in his role as Manhattan U.S. Attorney at President-elect Donald Trump's request.

Following a meeting with Trump inside Trump Tower, Bharara explained that he had been summoned by the President-elect to discuss remaining in his position and had made up his mind "to stay on."

"The President-elect asked, presumably because he's a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years ... to discuss whether or not I'd be prepared to stay on as the United States attorney to do the work as we have done it, independently, without fear or favor for the last seven years," Bharara told reporters inside the lobby of the mogul's Midtown abode.

"We had a good meeting. I said I would absolutely consider staying on. I agreed to stay on," Bharara said, adding that he'd already notified Trump's pick for U.S. Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), of his choice.

The News reported earlier this month that Trump would likely ask" Bharara to stay on in his role, despite the fact that incoming Presidents typically bring in their own people to replace the current crop of U.S. attorneys across the country.

"He has a very high regard for him," a campaign official told The News shortly before the election about Trump's fondness for Bharara's tenacity. "Obviously it's caught his attention what (Bharara's) done in New York. It's the same approach Mr. Trump would like to bring to Washington."

Bharara, since he was appointed by President Obama in 2009, has made public corruption a key focus, bringing down elected officials from both parties, including former state Assembly Democratic Speaker Sheldon Silver and ex-state Senate GOP Majority Leader Dean Skelos.

His decision to stay on could spell bad news for Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio, whose administrations are both the subjects of ongoing investigations by Bharara's office.

At first blush Bharara, who has developed a certain reputation as a corruption fighter, doesn't seem all that Trumpish a plan -- especially considering how atypical it is for a new administration to extend the term of a U.S. attorney from the opposite party (not to mention how atypical it is to have the president rather than the attorney general as the public face of a USA hire, and how large the Southern District of NY looms among U.S. legal jursidictions).

Of course on brief reflection it registers that Bharara -- who was so publicly involved in bringing down the leaders of both houses of the monumentally screwed-up NYS Legislature, Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver -- is in a position to cause considerable embarrassment (and worse) to important NYS Democratic players, notably Gov. Andrew Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio. Which sounds not so much like the new president rampaging against either Democrats as such or corrupt pols but more likely harboring no good thoughts toward greedy pols whose greed runs counter to his own. I'm suggesting that it's not particularly wheeler-dealering that he's targeting as it is practitioners of the wrong kind, who get in the way of what he considers the righteous wheeler-dealers.

Still, even though Bharara's retention was already anticipated in inside circles, it's got my attention. It's hardly the kind of move one would have expected from former GOP presidential candidates Young Johnny McCranky and Willard Romney, not to mention the spectral presences who constituted the Rest of the 2016 GOP Presidential Field. Or, for that matter, the kind of pick that Attorney General-designate Jeff "I Do Too Wear Shoes, Leastwise Most of the Time" Sessions to have urged on the president-elect.

Most presidential administrations have preferred to maintain the appearance of their U.S. attorneys functioning as guardians of justice answerable to their boss the AG rather than to the country's top pol. In reality, of course, they're political actors as well, especially in Republican adminstrations. Think of Ed Meese's Dept. of Justice in the Reagan years, and especially the right-wing enforcing-muscle division Karl Rove turned the DoJ into in the time of George W. "Chimpy the Prez" Bush. Do the optics matter a whole lot?

I don't draw any large conclusions from any of this, other than a case of Trump-being-Trump. I just take note of it.

#

Is Trumpy-The-Clown Going To Drain The Wall Street Swamp? You're Joking, Right?

Perhaps you were angry that Obama's Justice Department never went after Wall Street elites. I sure was. Last year David Sirota did a powerful piece for International Business Times about how prosecution for white collar crimes was at a 20-year low-- although not because there was less of that kind of crime. While Bernie was getting standing ovations for demanding more Wall Street prosecutions-- with Hillary and even Trump pretending to go along with the sentiment-- prosecutions were down 12% for 2015 from 2014 and down 29% in five years. Underscoring the assertion that it wasn't that crime was going down but that enforcement policies had shifted "a recent study by researchers at George Mason University tracking the increased use of special Justice Department agreements that allow corporations-- and often their executives-- to avoid being prosecuted. Before 2003, researchers found, the Justice Department offered 'almost no' such deals. The researchers report that from 2007 to 2011, 44 percent of cases were resolved through the deals-- known as deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements."

In 2012, President Obama pledged to “hold Wall Street accountable” for financial misdeeds related to the financial crisis. But as financial industry donations flooded into Obama’s reelection campaign, his Justice Department officials promoted policies that critics say embodied a “too big to jail” doctrine for financial crime.

In a 2012 speech, for example, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, said “collateral consequences of an indictment” such as layoffs, losses for corporate shareholders and the health of an industry factor into Obama administration decisions about whether to prosecute white-collar crime.

“In reaching every charging decision, we must take into account the effect of an indictment on innocent employees and shareholders,” said Breuer, who served as a white-collar defense attorney before and after being appointed by Obama to the Justice Department position.

Similarly, in 2013, Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, told congressional lawmakers that when it comes to banks, “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult to prosecute them.” He said there is an “inhibiting impact” on the Obama Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute a bank when bringing a criminal charge "[would] have a negative impact on the national economy.”

Holder’s 2013 comments were foreshadowed by a 1999 memo he wrote as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton Administration. In it, Holder recommended that prosecutors consider “[c]ollateral consequences, including disproportionate harm to shareholders and employees not proven personally culpable” before attempting to convict corporations for wrongdoing. Holder’s recommendations to career prosecutors were rewritten in 2003 by the Bush Justice Department, which viewed Holder’s memo as too friendly towards corporate cultures of misconduct.

...Prior to serving in the Obama Justice Department, both Breuer and Holder worked at white-collar defense firm Covington & Burling. Both of them went back to work for the firm again immediately after leaving their government posts. Holder has defended the administration’s record of not prosecuting any individual financial executive involved in the financial crisis, saying the Obama administration’s prosecution decisions have changed the culture of banking.

That said, raise you hand if you think prosecutions of banksters will go up under Attorney General Sessions. Expect the further effective decriminalization of felonious and illegitimate financial behavior on a bank level once Sessions is installed. I bet an awful lot of Trump voters, not to mention Bernie voters, have other expectations. In June Michael Brenner reported that "despite the revelations of massive misconduct by banks and other financial services businesses, criminal investigations are rare, indictments exceptional and guilty judgments extraordinary. Most potentially culpable actions are overlooked by authorities, slighted, reduced from criminal to civil status when pursued, individuals evade penalties much less punishment, and the appeals courts take extreme liberties in exonerating culprits when and if the odd conviction reaches them."

Our elected officials, our regulators, our politicos and the media have come to accept this as the natural order of things. Business Sections of newspapers, like the New York Times, read like the gazette for the world of organized crime in its heyday when the five Mafia families were on top of their game. (substitute Goldman Sachs, Chase Morgan, Bank of America, CITI, Wells Fargo). As for the Wall Street Journal and the legion of business magazines, they blend features of VARIETY and Osservatore Romano.

The reasons for this phenomenon are multiple: the rule of money in our politics; the neutering of regulatory bodies by the appointment of business friendly officers in symbiotic relationships with former or prospective employers; a wider culture in which the cult of wealth pervades all; and the timidity of a political class that defers to the power centers who enjoy rank, status and respect.

The administration Trump and Pence are putting together is not one that will be draining the swamp but building glittering-- if stinking-- palaces in it. The good news this week on this front came not from the Justice Department but from London, where 3 crooked Barclays traders who were actually sent to prison for Libor manipulation were just denied appeals by a U.K. judge, making it very unlikely that their guilty verdicts will be overturned. The 3 scummy little banksters-- Jonathan Mathew, Alex Pabon and Jay Merchant-- were found guilty of rigging the London interbank offered rate between 2005 and 2007. Their sentences ranged from 2 years, 9 months to six and a half years.

Trump's two top contenders for Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin and Jeb Hensarling, are both outspoken advocates not of throwing criminal banksters in jail but of throwing out financial services regulations that protect the public from predators. Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor speculated that if nominated, "Mnuchin could face questions over his ownership of a failed sub-prime mortgage lender that he bought in 2009. The bank, now called OneWest, was taken over in 2008 and sold for $1.55 billion by the government, which covered much of its outstanding losses. Mnuchin and co-investors sold the bank for twice its original price in 2015. CNN reports that before it was sold again, federal regulators charged OneWest with falsifying documents during property foreclosures."

Mnuchin is also a former executive at Goldman Sachs. That puts him in good company: Robert Rubin, a Treasury secretary under President Clinton, and Henry Paulson, who served under George W. Bush, both came from Goldman. Mr. Paulson, a Republican who has been critical of Trump’s economic views and experience, was the firm’s chairman.

Goldman was a populist punching bag for Trump, both in the primaries-- Sen. Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, works there-- and in defeating Hillary Clinton, who gave paid speeches to the bank after serving as secretary of State.

"I know the guys at Goldman Sachs. They have total, total control over him. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton," Trump said of Cruz in a February debate.

Whoever becomes Treasury secretary will have broad oversight of Wall Street, along with the power to set policy on currency and banking rules. This includes the supervisory powers created under the Dodd-Frank Act passed after the financial crisis, which Trump has said he wants to dismantle. The Treasury is also a major voice in global bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, which would matter in the event of an international financial crisis.

Hensarling is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Only one man currently serving in Congress has taken a bigger share of bribes from the Financial Sector he's supposed to be overseeing than Hensarling. Hensarling's legalistic bribes from Big Finance comes to $7,419,890. Who took more? Paul Ryan, of course: $9,045,683.

In mid-July, Trump's then-campaign manager Paul Manafort claimed that the Republican platform would advocate bringing back Glass-Steagall, which will, he said, "create barriers between what the big banks can do and try and avoid some of the crisis that led to 2008." Although corrupt corporate Democrats-- primarily Bill Clinton and the New Dems-- have been complicit in repealing Glass-Steagall and preventing it from being re-introduced, killing it has always been and remains much more a Republican Party priority, a scheme first put forward by reactionary Texas Senator Phil Gramm (currently Washington's sleaziest and most corrupt bank lobbyist). If Trump really attempts to act on this-- few thing he will-- he'll be going up against another Republican policy long supported by the party leadership including both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.

Trying, at the time, to sound like a Berniecrat, Manafort told the media that the Trumpists "believe that the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to big banks, which is why you see all of the Wall Street money going to her. They know she’s their champion, and they’re supporting her fully. We are supporting small banks and Main Street."

I suspect most voters couldn't tell you what "Glass-Steagall" means but reinstating it has been one of the principles on which Bernie's campaign was based and on which the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party is based. The law was repealed with a big bipartisan majority of Wall Street whores in 1999 to help pave the way for the formation of Citigroup Inc. by the $46 billion merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group. It tore down the wall that separated investment and consumer banking functions. In 1999 when progressives began demanding it be reinstated, even Steny Hoyer realized a colossal error has been made. The corrupt Maryland conservaDem told his colleagues that "as someone who voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, maybe that was a mistake." Among those voting against repeal back in 1999 were unwavering progressives in the House like Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), John Conyers (D-MI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA). Among today's luminaries who backed repeal are Paul Ryan (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), John Kasich (R-OH), Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY), Harold Ford, Jr. (Blue Dog-TN), and Ted Strickland (D-OH... and the DSCC still doesn't understand why he was defeated so resoundingly for a Senate seat 2 weeks ago).

Hensarling wasn't a member of Congress in 1999 but he has been an unwavering supporter of the bankster agenda since getting elected in 2002. His overarching goal is to repeal Dodd-Frank and he is a top foe of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Wall Street has rewarded him with $7,419,890 in bribes/contributes since 2002. Aside from Hensarling the top 10 crooks on his committee in terms of bribes accepted from Wall Street are all opponents of reinstating Glass Steagall:

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $6,806,697
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $5,456,385
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $5,424,062
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $4,975,549 [defeated, but by another Wall Street whore]
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $4,187,437
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $3,974,361
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- $3,658,336 [defeated]
• Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- $3,463,970
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $3,122,288
• Peter King (R-NY)- $2,741,074

And Jeff Sessions hasn't been a big favorite of the Wall Street bankster set. Since first being elected to the Senate in 1996, all he's gotten in bank loot has been a paltry $2,497,115. Let's hope he wants some revenge.