About Those Members Of Congress Trading On Insider Information...

Eggs seem mighty expensive lately, don't they? Profiteering under cover of a national emergency is a crime, isn't it? I believe prices are only allowed to go up 10% in a situation like the one we find ourselves in today. I don't think anyone is enforcing that. As for Congress... well, it's filled with scoundrels and thieves. And the White House... what can I say that hasn't already be said a million times over? We truly have let our democracy turn into a kakistocracy. WE did that.. And, no, I'm not just talking about ex-congressional crooks Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Chris Collins (R-NY), both of whom have already been found guilty. I'm talking about the corona-crooks still in Congress-- and it goes beyond just Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), the most blatant of the criminals. The Charlotte Observer called on Burr to resign last week. There are a lot of other editorial boards around the country that should get busy as well.

In the Burr case, the editorial board wrote that "More than a week has passed since news reports revealed how U.S. Sen Richard Burr profited off the coronavirus while failing to warn his constituents at the early, critical stages of the crisis. Things are hardly getting rosier for North Carolina’s senior senator. Burr has been abandoned by fellow Republicans, some of whom have called for his resignation. He’s been sued by a shareholder of Wyndham Hotels & Suites for selling off $150,000 of that company’s stock. The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a statement that, while not using Burr’s name, warned members of Congress about doing what the senator is accused of doing-- trading off privileged information and briefings. And, on Monday, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department is investigating those stock trades. He is toxic to his party. He is embarrassing to North Carolina. Clearly, his problems are not going to go away. So why isn’t he?"

On Sunday, CNN reported that the Trumpist Justice Department "has started to probe a series of stock transactions made by lawmakers ahead of the sharp market downturn stemming from the spread of coronavirus, according to two people familiar with the matter. The inquiry, which is still in its early stages and being done in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has so far included outreach from the FBI to at least one lawmaker, Sen. Richard Burr, seeking information about the trades, according to one of the sources... Under insider trading laws, prosecutors would need to prove the lawmakers traded based on material non-public information they received in violation of a duty to keep it confidential."

Burr in the chair of the Senate Intel Committee, which was briefed on COVID-19 several times before it was seen as a pandemic and Burr ran out and sold about $1.6 million in hotel and airline stock-- and also warned wealthy North Carolina donors, though not the general public. Another one who smells at least as bad as Burr is billionaire Kelly Loeffler, a notorious slime bucket who bought her seat from Georgia's crooked governor last December. She and her scumbag husband, president of the New York Stock Exchange, sold a couple dozen stocks worth around $3 million dollars just before they crashed. Other senators being looked into are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

Why do members of Congress keep committing crimes? That's an easy one. They invariably escape serious retribution which makes them willing to take risks. A couple of life sentences and it's unlikely that crooks like Burr and Inhofe would be going for a quick buck like that.

In an unrelated case, Open Secrets' Karl Evers-Hillstrom reported last week that the the Campaign Legal Center is asking ethics officials to investigate campaign spending by Steven Palazzo (R-MS) after the watchdog group found that he channeled six figures of donors’ money to family-owned businesses, not unlike what Duncan Hunter was nailed for. "Palazzo," wrote Evers-Hillstrom, "used campaign funds to pay over $60,000 in rent to his own farm between 2018 and 2019, according to Federal Election Commission filings. His campaign also spent nearly $128,000 with his now ex-wife’s accounting firm since 2011. Federal election law prohibits candidates from using campaign funds for personal use. But candidates can justify funneling donors’ money to themselves or family members if they make the case that the spending is campaign-related."

The Campaign Legal Center argues that Palazzo had an existing accounting firm and his campaign didn’t need the services of Palazzo & Co., which is run by his ex-wife. The two reportedly divorced in 2016, but much of that spending came when they were still married. The group also says Palazzo’s farm wasn’t critical to his campaign, as he reportedly sold it prior to his 2020 primary election, and that the payments would be “unusually high” for a campaign office.

“The lack of any publicly available information about the campaign using the farm as an office, the sale of the property prior to the primary campaign, and its remote location all suggest that the farm was completely for personal use and that it did not have any campaign purpose justifying $60,000 in rent,” lawyers for the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Insider Trading Senator, Richard Burr, Sold $150,000 Worth Of Shares In Wyndham Hotels Just Before It Lost Two-Thirds Of Its Value-- Smart Move... Also Criminal

I've been posting Chris Martenson's COVID-19 podcasts-- and urging readers to subscribe themselves-- since February. Because of his early warnings-- he's usually a week or two ahead of the government/media-- I was able to understand the need to liquidate substantial positions in stocks in my retirement account. But that's different from what Richard Burr (R-NC), Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did. They were getting classified information that wasn't available to ordinary citizens-- although Intel Committee chair Burr did share the info with a handful of his top North Carolina supporters. And these senators bailed on stocks before the crash-- $1.6 million worth in Burr's case.

And at the same time they were selling stocks, the Republicans were publicly urging their constituents to just Trust Trump. The STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) prohibits members of Congress from doing exactly what these 5 senators did-- insider trading. Burr voted against passage of the STOCK Act in 2012-- one of only 3 senators to do so. As they always do, establishment media outlets are minimizing and tamping down the criminal actions these senators took. ProPublica isn't. They're doing the kind of reporting that corporate outlets like CBS News (video above) would never consider:

Soon after he offered public assurances that the government was ready to battle the coronavirus, the powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, sold off a significant percentage of his stocks, unloading between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions.

As the head of the intelligence committee, Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security. His committee was receiving daily coronavirus briefings around this time, according to a Reuters story.

A week after Burr’s sales, the stock market began a sharp decline and has lost about 30% since.

On Thursday, Burr came under fire after NPR obtained a secret recording from Feb. 27, in which the lawmaker gave a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the coronavirus than what he had told the public.

“Senator Burr filed a financial disclosure form for personal transactions made several weeks before the U.S. and financial markets showed signs of volatility due to the growing coronavirus outbreak,” his spokesperson said. “As the situation continues to evolve daily, he has been deeply concerned by the steep and sudden toll this pandemic is taking on our economy.”

Burr is not a particularly wealthy member of the Senate: Roll Call estimated his net worth at $1.7 million in 2018, indicating that the February sales significantly shaped his financial fortunes and spared him from some of the pain that many Americans are now facing.

He was one of the authors of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which shapes the nation’s response to public health threats like the coronavirus. Burr’s office did not respond to requests for comment about what sort of briefing materials, if any, on the coronavirus threat Burr may have seen as chair of the intelligence committee before his selling spree.

According to the NPR report, Burr told attendees of the luncheon held at the Capitol Hill Club: “There’s one thing that I can tell you about this: It is much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history ... It is probably more akin to the 1918 pandemic.”

He warned that companies might have to curtail their employees’ travel, that schools could close and that the military might be mobilized to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals.

The luncheon was organized by the Tar Heel Circle, a club for businesses and organizations in North Carolina that are charged up to $10,000 for membership and are promised “interaction with top leaders and staff from Congress, the administration, and the private sector.”

Burr’s public comments had been considerably less dire. In a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator, he assured the public that “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.” He wrote, “No matter the outbreak or threat, Congress and the federal government have been vigilant in identifying gaps in its readiness efforts and improving its response capabilities.”

Members of Congress are required by law to disclose their securities transactions.

Burr was one of just three senators who in 2012 opposed the bill that explicitly barred lawmakers and their staff from using nonpublic information for trades and required regular disclosure of those trades. In opposing the bill, Burr argued at the time that insider trading laws already applied to members of Congress. President Barack Obama signed the bill, known as the STOCK Act, that year.

Stock transactions of lawmakers are reported in ranges. Burr’s Feb. 13 selling spree was his largest stock selling day of at least the past 14 months, according to a ProPublica review of Senate records. Unlike his typical disclosure reports, which are a mix of sales and purchases, all of the transactions were sales.

His biggest sales included companies that are among the most vulnerable to an economic slowdown. He dumped up to $150,000 worth of shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, a chain based in the United States that has lost two-thirds of its value. And he sold up to $100,000 of shares of Extended Stay America, an economy hospitality chain. Shares of that company are now worth less than half of what they did at the time Burr sold.

The assets come from accounts that are held by Burr, belong to his spouse or are jointly held.

National emergencies, like the current pandemic, bring out the best in people-- but, apparently, also the worst. Note that all five senators are conservatives, who, ideologically, believe in a grasping me-first perspective. Conservatives shouldn't be serving in government. And when it really matters is in times like this. These 5 should all resign. They won't. Inhofe and Loeffler  are up for election this cycle. Inhofe is 100% safe, since he is an accurate reflection of his constituents, but Loeffler-- who was never elected to anything the first place and just bought the office from a crooked governor--  has a steep uphill climb to be returned to the Senate.Pressure is mounting-- including from Republicans-- on Burr to resign and wait for criminal prosecution. Even Tucker Carlson is talking about resignations:

Do Not Imagine You Can Avoid Coronavirus By Going To Moscow

The Moscow Times reported yesterday that Russia-- like other socially backward countries, Trump-America included-- hasn't been testing and thereby reports low numbers of people with COVID-19. No one trusts Russia's reports which show that "With 116,000 tests for the coronavirus carried out and 114 returning positive, Russia’s ratio of tests to positive cases is 0.09%, the lowest among all of the countries infected by the coronavirus. The second lowest ratio is Taiwan’s 0.3%-- three times higher than Russia’s... 'The figures are likely a lot higher,' Alexei Kurinny, a deputy on the State Duma’s health protection committee, told the Moscow Times. 'Unfortunately we were slow to get around to doing comprehensive testing.'"

Putin and Trump-- two self-obsessed, incompetent assholes. And speaking of self-obsessed assholes, Richard Burr (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, found out what was going to befall this country early. So what did he do? He warned his biggest campaign donors-- though not his constituents-- and withdrew about a million dollars from the stock market before it crashed.

On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin judged the situation in Russia “under control.” But the country has nonetheless revved into gear over the past few days, announcing that it will ban the entry of foreign nationals and stateless people until May 1 in an effort to slow down the spread of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, Moscow has banned all public events larger than 50 people until April 10.

But despite these measures, medical experts are now questioning whether Russia’s official coronavirus statistics reflect reality in the country-- which ranked 116th last year in the Global Health Security Index for “detecting” pandemics.

If the numbers are significantly higher, officials may have missed their opportunity to stem the tide-- leaving the weight on the shoulders of doctors already stretched thin by a teetering healthcare system.

Jeremy Rossman, reporting for Newsweek yesterday, wrote that the countries not reporting big and increasing numbers of coronavirus cases are the countries, like Russia, not testing. The spread of the pandemic has depended movement of people. Countries with extensive dealings with China and the ones where the disease exploded first and with the most virulence. The dozen countries with the most interaction with China all show tremendous outbreaks-- except the ones that haven't been testing. These are the dozen countries in order of inbound travel with China and the number of cases reported:

• South Korea- 8,162
• Japan- 814
• Russia- 63
• U.S- 3,083
• Mongolia- 1
• Laos- 0
• Philippines- 140
• Singapore- 226
• India- 108
• Canada- 255
• Thailand- 114
• Vietnam- 56

Just 63 cases in Russia which has very strong travel, emigration, immigration and trade relationships with China? Rossman reported that "Some countries with very good travel, migration and trade links with China still have comparable low case numbers (both Japan and Singapore have fewer than 1,000 cases). For these countries, there has been early and extensive border screening, control and surveillance, which has probably held the localised transmission in check. If these measures hold, these countries will probably see only slow increases in case numbers over the coming weeks. It is interesting to see that most of the global cases are found north of the tropic of cancer. At present, there are only 2,025 cases south of the tropic of cancer. Case numbers in countries residing in the tropics or current southern hemisphere winter make up just 1.29% of the global cases. This could reflect global travel and trade relationships with China or could reflect impacts of climate on COVID-19 transmission. It is also possible that the broad range of tropical infectious diseases has masked the identification of COVID-19 cases that often present with mild, non-specific symptoms... [T]he low levels of reported cases in many countries may be due to a lack of testing or a lack of reporting. Many countries are actively pursuing policies in which only those with serious illness and a travel history to an area with strong local transmission will be tested, including the UK. This will lead to a dramatic under-reporting of case numbers and can jeopardise the ability to contain the pandemic, as the WHO has stated: 'You can’t fight a virus if you don’t know where it is. Find, isolate, test and treat every case, to break the chains of transmission.'"

It is of particular concern that with the close relationships to China and extensive national resources, Russia has only reported 63 cases. While it is possible that this low number reflects their active border control and screening there is a concern that this reflects either a lack of screening or a lack of reporting. Combined with the recent evidence that Russia has been behind several recent COVID-19 disinformation campaigns, this raises the concern that Russia may be playing a dangerous game with global health. Hopefully this is simply a case of good border control or low rates of testing, but time will tell.

This is a dynamically unfolding pandemic that will require the concerted efforts of counties around the world to control. As the WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says: “we’re all in this together.”

Nero Lives: Part II by Nancy Ohanian

Meanwhile, in hard-hit Italy "a silent surge in fatalities in nursing homes, where dozens of patients a day are dying untested for the virus... 'There are significant numbers of people who have died but whose death hasn’t been attributed to the coronavirus because they died at home or in a nursing home and so they weren’t swabbed,' said Giorgio Gori, mayor of the town of Bergamo." [So far 19 long-term care facilities in Florida have either confirmed or suspected cases of the coronavirus. It won't be long before you will be able to add a zero to the number. Oh, and by the way, no one will divulge the names of the facilities, which seems criminal, no?]

Immediately after the virus emerged in northern Italy on Feb. 21, care homes cut off access to visitors to limit the contagion risk to elderly patients most vulnerable to the disease.

Walter Montini, president of ARSAC, the association grouping 30 old people’s homes in Cremona province, said that at one small care home with 36 beds, there were 7 deaths in a day.

“There has obviously been an increase in deaths. You just have to look at the local daily (newspaper) in Cremona. Normally there’s a page of death notices. Today there were five.”

He launched an appeal for more masks for staff on March 2 but, given the shortages, hospitals were judged to have a greater need. He said staff needed to be tested but that was not happening.

Local health authorities say they have received government directions on testing and treatment which say that hospitalization is only indicated for patients with “significant respiratory symptoms.”

...With the health system pushed to its limits and funeral services overwhelmed by the hundreds of dead every day, there is no capacity to conduct autopsies or test bodies for coronavirus.

The bodies are wrapped in special protective plastic bags and buried or cremated with no more than a quick blessing from a priest. Any family commemoration will have to wait until a ban on public gatherings is lifted.

In case you missed it yesterday, it's worth mentioning a Reuters report by Gene Emery that asserts that the virus "can remain viable and infectious in droplets in the air for hours and on surfaces up to days, according to a new study... The tests show that when the virus is carried by the droplets released when someone coughs or sneezes, it remains viable, or able to still infect people, in aerosols for at least three hours. On plastic and stainless steel, viable virus could be detected after three days. On cardboard, the virus was not viable after 24 hours. On copper, it took 4 hours for the virus to become inactivated."

Bob Corker (R-TN)-- Free To Tell The Truth... Other Senators Should Give It A Try. They Owe It To The Country

Bob Corker is a mainstream conservative-- a wealthy businessman who served as the mayor of Chattanooga from 2001-05 and was then elected to the U.S.Senate in 2006, beating corrupt conservative Blue Dog Harold Ford, Jr. Rather than face the wrath of the Mercer/Bannon Machine, possibly backed by Trump, he announced a couple of weeks ago that he will not be seeking reelection in 2018. That came as a surprise since he had already amassed a $6,574,792 campaign war-chest. But now he's speaking out in a way that he might not do if he were worried that Trump would come after him in an election cycle. When he said-- on the above tape of an impromptu interview Wednesday-- that White House Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are the "people that help separate our country from chaos," it can't be taking as anything other than a rebuke of their crackpot and criminal boss who thrives on chaos. When pressed by a reporter if he was referring to Trump when he said "chaos," he responded that they "work very well together to make sure the policies we put forth around the world are sound and coherent. There are other people within the administration that don't. I hope they stay because they're valuable to the national security of our nation." And he knows; he's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You notice he wouldn't deny that Trump is the agent of chaos he was talking about and a danger to anything "sound" or "coherent."

Corker made it clear a couple of months ago that he doesn't consider Trump either stable or competent, an assessment shared by most Republican senators-- and all Democratic senators-- but that no one wants to say out loud. Reporting for the Washington Post Wednesday, Aaron Blake noted that Corker is speaking more candidly-- frankly and truthfully-- than he and others have until now. Blake writes that his latest comments about chaos go even further than the ones about stability and competence.

Suggesting that there would be “chaos” if not for the generals and Tillerson is to suggest that not only is Trump not a steady leader, but that things are basically ready to unravel behind the scenes. This reinforces a whole lot of reporting and what a whole lot of people already believe about the administration, but it's striking to hear it directly from a GOP senator who, according to his Tennessee colleague, has talked to Trump more than any other senator.

Corker also didn't dispute that he was talking about Trump when he referenced “chaos.” He seemed to be choosing his words carefully, and he even laughed nervously when he made the “other people in the administration” comment.

But when Corker says that Tillerson is “not being supported in the way I would hope a secretary of state would be,” it's difficult not to attach that to Trump's reportedly limited interaction with Tillerson. Their relationship has seemed frayed for a while now, most recently culminating in Trump's very public second-guessing of Tillerson's announcement of talks with North Korea last week.

Given that, Corker's past commentary on Trump and what Corker said Wednesday, it's pretty clear whom he was talking about when he referenced “chaos.”

There's increasing unease among serious-minded Republicans, ones like Corker, that Trump can-- and will-- do irreparable damage to the country. Nicholas Fandos' reporting in Wednesday's NY Times, Senate Intelligence Heads Warn That Russian Election Meddling Continues addresses the same kinds of concerns, this time from very conservative Democrat Mark Warner (VA) and even more conservative Richard Burr (R-NC). Trump blew up when he woke up yesterday-- look at that time stamp on his tweet-- with their statements on his addled mind. What infuriated Señor Trumpanzee is that Burr and Warner together "broadly endorsed the conclusions of American spy agencies that said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a campaign of hacking and propaganda to disrupt the 2016 presidential election," something Trump is still telling his ignorant, moronic base is "fake news."

“The Russian intelligence service is determined-- clever-- and I recommend that every campaign and every election official take this very seriously,” Mr. Burr said.

“You can’t walk away from this and believe that Russia’s not currently active,” he added.

American intelligence agencies have concluded that Mr. Putin initially wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, but later tried to explicitly help Donald J. Trump’s insurgent campaign. The senators said they have reached no conclusion on whether anyone around Mr. Trump was part of that effort.

“The issue of collusion is still open,” Mr. Burr said.

The news conference was the most extensive since the committee began its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election early this year and the first time the senators have detailed so fully the trajectory of their secretive investigation and their sense of the stakes. Both men come from swing states where the presidential campaign was fought aggressively.

That appeared to have made an impression.

“There needs to be a more aggressive whole-of-government approach in terms of protecting our electoral system,” Mr. Warner said. “Remember, to make a change even in a national election doesn’t require penetration into 50 states.”

He added, “You could pick two or three states in two or three jurisdictions and alter an election.”

Trump and his Regime of misfits is an existential threat to American democracy, the most dangerous malignancy this country has faced since I've been alive. At some point Congress is going to have to stop dancing around it and start facing up to it and to their duty.

Deep State by Nancy Ohanian

Trumpanzee-- More Henry Plantagenet Than Richard Nixon

The new poll from Morning Consult was released Wednesday but the survey was finished, May 6, 3 days before Trump tried to quash the Putin-Gate investigation by firing James Comey. The drop in Trump's approval reelected the anger of Americans about the passage of TrumpCare. Their polling, which usually shows Trump doing better than other national pollsters do, show him with a 44% approval and a 48% disapproval.

The ratings represent a net 7-point swing from the previous poll-- and it’s the second time Trump’s job performance numbers have fallen after a high-profile health care event on Capitol Hill. The president suffered a negative 10-point swing in late March after House GOP leaders pulled a previous version of the AHCA in the face of widespread opposition among its members.

Forty-nine percent of voters who say health care is their top issue when casting their ballots said they strongly disapprove of Trump, compared with 37 percent who said the same in the preceding survey. The share of voters prioritizing health care who approve of Trump also dropped, from 39 percent to 32 percent.

The public’s trust in the ability of congressional Republicans to handle health care ebbed following House passage of the bill that would repeal and replace parts of former President Barack Obama’s signature health law, the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Thirty-six percent of registered voters said they trust Republicans in Congress to handle health care, compared with 45 percent who said they trust Democrats.

...Underscoring that potential pitfall for the GOP is the newest generic ballot: If congressional elections were held today, 42 percent of voters said they would back a Democratic candidate, while 36 percent said they would opt for a Republican. The edge for Democrats is a 6-point swing from the previous week, when voters were split at 41 percent each over generic candidates.

click on the image to read the wisdom of Chairman Burr

On Good Morning America Wednesday, Tim Kaine said out loud what many of his colleagues on Capitol Hill are whispering: "We have a deeply insecure president who understands the noose is tightening." The editorial board of the NY Times reacted in much the same way, demanding an independent investigation of the Putin-Gate related scandals. "Mr. Comey," they wrote, "was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president. Though compromised by his own poor judgment, Mr. Comey’s agency has been pursuing ties between the Russian government and Mr. Trump and his associates, with potentially ruinous consequences for the administration."

With congressional Republicans continuing to resist any serious investigation, Mr. Comey’s inquiry was the only aggressive effort to get to the bottom of Russia’s ties to the Trump campaign. So far, the scandal has engulfed Paul Manafort, one of Mr. Trump’s campaign managers; Roger Stone, a longtime confidant; Carter Page, one of the campaign’s early foreign-policy advisers; Michael Flynn, who was forced out as national security adviser; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself in March from the Russia inquiry after failing to disclose during his confirmation hearings that he had met twice during the campaign with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Trump has been stewing over being investigated by "his" FBI for a long time. He hasn't been able to manipulate Comey the way he was able to dictate to Ryan and McConnell and to the congressional intelligence committee heads, Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC). According to Josh Dawsey at Politico he's been enraged and fuming and plotting how to get rid of Comey for at least the last week. I doubt Trump has a clue who Henry II or Thomas Becket were but perhaps Pope Francis can explain to Trump when he visits the Vatican May 24 why Pope Alexander II canonized Becket. What Henry actually said wasn't "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" but the more Trump-like "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a lowborn clerk!" Sessions and Rosenstein-- not to mention the usual cast of lowborn characters like Conway, Spicer and Keith Schiller, his longtime personal thug-- stepped right up.

Putin's cockholster was angry Comey had asked for more money for the investigation

Dawsey wrote that according to 2 leaky advisors, Trump was "enraged by the Russia investigation, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe... Trump had grown angry with the Russia investigation-- particularly Comey admitting in front of the Senate that the FBI was investigating his campaign-- and that the FBI director wouldn't support his claims that President Barack Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower." Trump, an idiot with terrible advisors, seems to have expected the DC political class would applaud the firing and "the fallout seemed to take the White House by surprise. Trump made a round of calls around 5 p.m., asking for support from senators. White House officials believed it would be a 'win-win' because Republicans and Democrats alike have problems with the FBI director, one person briefed on their deliberations said. Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told him he was making a big mistake-- and Trump seemed 'taken aback,' according to a person familiar with the call. By Tuesday evening, the president was watching the coverage of his decision and frustrated no one was on TV defending him, a White House official said. He wanted surrogates out there beating the drum. Instead, advisers were attacking each other for not realizing the gravity of the situation as events blew up... Trump had talked about the firing for over a week, and the letters [from Sessions and Rosenstein] were written to give him rationale to fire Comey."

Two White House officials said there was little communications strategy in handling the firing, and that staffers were given talking points late Tuesday for hastily arranged media appearances. Aides soon circulated previous quotes from Schumer hitting Comey. After Schumer called for a special prosecutor, the White House huddled in press secretary Sean Spicer's office to devise a strategy and sent "fresh faces" to TV, one White House official said.

By Tuesday night, aides were using TV appearances to spin the firing as a simple bureaucratic matter and call for an end to the investigation. "It's time to move on," Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary, said on Fox News.

Fox, of course, was on board with the White House strategy, even running a deceptive chyron claiming Comey had "resigned."

The chilling take-away for the day comes from the highly-regarded Lawfare Blog. "Make no mistake," they wrote: "The firing of James Comey as FBI director is a stunning event. It is a profoundly dangerous thing-- a move that puts the Trump-Russia investigation in immediate jeopardy and removes from the investigative hierarchy the one senior official whom President Trump did not appoint and one who is known to stand up to power."

Spicer’s press release states that President Trump “acted based on the clear recommendations” of both Rosenstein and Sessions and that a search for a new FBI Director will start “immediately.” Likewise, Sessions’ letter refers the President to the memorandum by Rosenstein. Trump’s letter dismissing Comey, for its part, reiterates that he is acting on the recommendation of both Sessions and Rosenstein, declaring: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”

Trump’s clumsy attempt to deny that his own conduct is at issue in the FBI’s inquiry is foolish. Comey testified just the other day that the FBI is “conducting an investigation to understand whether there was any coordination between the Russian efforts and anybody associated with the Trump campaign.” Splitting hairs over whether this does or does not mean that Trump is “under investigation” cannot obscure the fact that Trump just fired someone who is leading an investigation that deals with whether his aides, campaign, and White House staff had improper dealings with adversary foreign intelligence service.

Rosenstein’s memorandum bears the same date as the preceding three letters-- which is to say today, May 9. Note that Rosenstein was only confirmed as Deputy Attorney General on April 25, making today his fourteenth day in office.

The memo, which reads like a bad op-ed, is entitled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.” It begins by expressing concern that “the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage” over the past year, citing Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Rosenstein criticizes Comey’s decision to make a public announcement in July 2016 declaring his conclusion that the investigation should be closed: Even if, as Comey has stated, Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict with respect to the investigation because of her conversation on an airport tarmac with former President Bill Clinton, Comey should have followed normal Justice Department procedure rather than announcing his conclusion independently. Furthermore, Comey’s July press conference violated the Department’s principle against releasing information on the subject of a criminal investigation that has been closed without prosecution, Rosenstein’s memo says. Notably, Rosenstein does not appear to have waited for the conclusion of a DOJ Inspector General investigation into the matter.

Rosenstein describes Comey as having “supplant[ed] federal prosecutors and assume[d] command of the Justice Department,” declaring, “[T]he goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference.”

...[T]he New York Times’ Michael Schmidt reports that, according to administration officials, “Senior White House and Justice Department officials had been working on building a case against Mr. Comey since at least last week … Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been charged with coming up with reasons to fire him.”

...Getting rid of Comey removes the guy who is running the Russia investigation. It removes the guy who can look Congress in the eye and say credibly that the FBI is investigating whether anyone in the Trump orbit was actively working with the Russians. It removes the guy who, in February, reportedly refused the White House’s request to publicly knock down stories about Trump and Russia while congressmen in key positions of investigatory responsibility allegedly complied. It removes the one person of stature (figurative as well as literal) in the government whom everyone knows will-- even when he’s wrong-- do what he thinks is the right thing and damn the torpedos. It removes, in other words, the essential person for a credible investigation.

It’s a neat trick: stymie the Russia investigation by siding with Hillary Clinton. Put another way, what if you had a Saturday Night Massacre and liberals cheered because they hated Archibald Cox?

The question before us now is whether Trump will get away with it. There is no question that the President has the legal authority to remove the FBI director. But there’s also no question that removing the FBI Director in the midst of a high-stakes investigation of Russian influence in the inner circle of the President’s campaign and White House is a horrifying breach of every expectation we have of the relationship between the White House and federal law enforcement.

What’s more, there is also no question that members of Congress, particularly members of the Senate, who are concerned about the integrity of that investigation and, more broadly, about preventing the gross political intervention in ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations have tools at their disposal. We expect them to use those tools, as every American should.

The immediate concern is to ensure that the integrity of the Russia investigation, and all associated investigations, is preserved. We have not previously called for a special prosecutor, believing that Rosenstein was a person of integrity who should be given a chance to make a call on that question. His performance today, however, requires that he now step aside. Assuming that he acted with sincerity for the reasons he articulated, he has still participated in a tawdry episode that will—and should—raise profound questions about the administration’s commitment to a fair and independent investigation of matters that touch the deepest of national security concerns. He cannot credibly lead this investigation any longer, and leaders of both parties must make sure he steps aside for an independent prosecutor who can.

The broader concern is the protection of the FBI. Because removing one FBI director means installing another. Whomever Trump chooses for the role needs to go through the most exacting scrutiny to make sure that the director’s office-- and the Bureau more generally-- is not now the subject of White House control and a mere instrument of political whim.

And another poll just came out showing Trump's disapproval numbers going up again. He's going to go down as the most hated president in American history-- more so than Nixon, Bush II, Hoover, Harding or even Tyler, who joined the Confederacy.

Why Isn't Gun Safety More Of An Issue This Cycle?

When Blue America polled issues that would motivate suburban voters to support our progressive candidates around the country, we found gun safety high on every list in every single district. Based on that, two of our mobile billboards, on in NV-04 (North Las Vegas) and one in NY-02 (Long Island's South Shore), are all about gun safety. The DCCC has talked a good game on this but DCCC head Ben Ray Lujan is a quiet backer of gun groups and is one of the few Democrats in the House still taking bribes from gun manufacturers and their lobbyists. The DCCC recruited and is spending millions of dollars to elect NRA allies like Lon Johnson (Blue Dog-MI), Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX), Darren Soto (New Dem-FL) and Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA).

It's good issue for Democrats but because of the Blue Dogs and New Dems who control the party apparatus, it isn't being exploited properly. Corrupted conservaDems like Lujan, Israel, Hoyer, et al don't want to embarrass the few Democrats who still vote with the GOP and the NRA, so they soft peddle an issue they should be emphasizing.

The NRA and associated groups are spending tens of millions of dollars this cycle, as this report from Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington (CREW) makes clear-- and not always legally.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is well known for using its deep pockets and passionate membership to fight off efforts at gun control, even in the wake of mass shootings. But it’s not the only gun organization spending big money to influence gun policy.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s trade association, is taking aim at the 2016 election. The group, which represents gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, is investing heavily in its #GunVote voter mobilization campaign, all with an eye towards mobilizing gun owners to elect pro-gun candidates while defeating advocates of gun control.

The NSSF’s 2016 program is being directly underwritten by the industry. At least nine firearms manufacturers and one retailer have officially contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the #GunVote campaign in the 2016 election cycle, committing more than $1.35 million so far.

The president of one of the contributing companies, Hornady Manufacturing, suggested his company was supporting the effort specifically to target Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “For the first time in our nation’s history, we have a Presidential candidate who is openly running against the lawful commerce in firearms, which is a prerequisite to our ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights,” said Stephen Hornady in the NSSF’s press release about his company’s $250,000 contribution.

Smith & Wesson made the largest contribution to the #GunVote campaign, giving $500,000 on August 3rd. The company, which is headquartered in Springfield, MA, said it donated the money in response to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s move to ban the sale of certain assault rifles to civilians. Several gun and gun accessory manufacturers have made six-figure donations to the campaign: Connecticut firearms manufacturer O.F. Mossberg & Sons contributed $150,000 and SIG SAUER contributed $100,000, as did the Beretta Holding Group,  Sturm, Ruger & Company, and SilencerCo. Pistol maker Taurus contributed $50,000 while riflescope manufacturer Leupold & Stevens became an Ambassador’s Club level donor, though the company did not reveal the dollar amount of its contribution. Outdoor retailer Gander Mountain has also announced its support for the voter mobilization effort, saying it made “a significant contribution” to the campaign and will feature #GunVote materials in its stores.

NSSF’s #GunVote campaign has focused on former Secretary of State Clinton all year, casting her positions on guns negatively while emphasizing the need for gun owners to vote in November. For instance, in January 2016, the NSSF released a video highlighting Sec. Clinton’s statement that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment” and the likelihood that the next president will appoint several Supreme Court justices. After showing footage of Sec. Clinton, the clip declares, “We need a President and Senate who will defend the 2nd Amendment.” Three days later, the NSSF released a similar video consisting of footage of Sec. Clinton praising the idea of appointing President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court, closing with the same message about the White House and the Senate.

In August, #GunVote posted a video on its Facebook page featuring both President Obama’s and Sec. Clinton’s faces juxtaposed with the phrase, “Anti-gun politicians are taking aim at your rights” before encouraging voters to visit gunvote.org to learn more about how to protect gun rights. The video is just one in a series claiming that politicians are “coming after your gun rights” and “want you to sit out of the election.” President Obama and Sec. Clinton are regularly invoked in the videos, which urge viewers to get to the polls to protect gun rights.

Before November, the organization may attempt to intervene more directly in the election. In October 2014, the NSSF broadcast TV and radio ads, promoted as part of the #GunVote campaign, attacking Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D). The organization reported spending more than $240,000 on independent expenditures to Connecticut’s campaign finance authorities, but claimed the money was for “issue advocacy voter education” that “neither supports nor opposes a candidate,” even though the TV ad argued that “on Election Day all citizens” should “reject Dannel Malloy’s politics of divisiveness.” It’s unknown how much the NSSF spent on its Colorado ad, which closed by saying, “Maybe it’s time for John Hickenlooper to hit the road.” A spokesman said the ad aired on cable TV in the state, but the NSSF did not report making any independent expenditures or electioneering communications to Colorado’s Secretary of State.

Despite these electorally-focused ad campaigns, the NSSF also did not disclose any political expenditures on its 2014 tax return. In 2014, the NSSF also gave $40,450 to the Republican Governors Association and $15,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, contributions to political organization that were also not disclosed on the group’s 2014 tax forms.

As a section 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization, the NSSF can legally spend money to influence elections, but politics cannot be the group’s primary purpose and it is required to report to the IRS how much it spends on political activity. The organization is not required to disclose its donors and membership.

...Lobbying records indicate that the NSSF has spent more than a million dollars each year since 2001 to ward off gun control legislation in Congress, and its lobbying spending has been roughly on par with that of the NRA in recent years. This year so far, the NSSF has reported spending $1.64 million on lobbying. Most recently the group has reported lobbying on a vast number of bills, including the Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act (HR 2710), the Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers Protection Act (HR 1413/S 477), and many others.

With gun issues taking center stage in 2016, the NSSF is poised to spend more than ever to influence the outcome of the election. If the record–breaking contributions to #GunVote are any indication, the gun-based businesses that make up the group’s membership appear ready to spend as much as necessary to beat pro-gun control candidates at the ballot box.

As Martin Kaste reported for NPR last week, "gun control has been a minor theme of this year's presidential election, as Hillary Clinton promises to close 'loopholes' in the background checks for gun purchasers, and Donald Trump pledges 'unwavering support' for the Second Amendment." Gun groups and gun safety groups are waging their big battles on a state-level, including on ballot initiatives.

Washington is a prime example. Like many western states, it has a tradition of permissive gun laws; there's no minimum waiting period to buy a gun, and the state doesn't even require safety training for people who carry concealed firearms. In 2013, legislation to require criminal background checks for most gun sales died in the state House of Representatives. So in 2014, activists went around the legislature, putting background checks on the state ballot. It passed by a wide margin.

This year, similar background check laws are on the ballot in Nevada and Maine; in California, there's a ballot measure to require background checks for buyers of ammunition.

In Washington state, meanwhile, gun control activists are building on their success with another ballot initiative. This one gives courts the ability to take guns away from people deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others. It's very well-funded, both by local tech billionaires, as well as Everytown for Gun Safety, the national gun control group founded by Michael Bloomberg.

...Pro-gun groups have put money into opposing the ballot initiatives in Maine, Nevada and California, but they're not keeping pace with gun control groups. That may be in part because of their strategic decision to spend heavily on behalf of Donald Trump.

The NRA still spends millions-- but Stepleton says it's putting that money more into lobbying and independent expenditures for specific candidates. That leaves an opening for the gun control groups, as they focus on ballot initiatives.

"This is really taking a page from the marriage equality playbook," says Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, one of the groups under the Everytown for Gun Safety umbrella. She compares their strategy to the decision made by activists for same sex marriage, after they faced defeats in Congress in the 1990s.

"[They said,] 'We're going to pivot, and go to the states and companies, and we're going to get them to put laws and policies in place that point Congress and the Supreme Court in the direction that this nation is headed in,'" Watts says. "And that's exactly what we have done."

Cheryl Stumbo is a gun control activist in Washington, who survived the mass shooting at Seattle's Jewish Federation in 2006. She's been heavily involved in the ballot initiatives, and she frames the strategy as one of picking the right battles.

"What can we do that's going to save the most number of lives right now, and what can we win," she says. "So that we can keep going and create momentum."

The NRA is spending a lot on federal elections as usual. Their biggest independent expenditures were in the presidential race-- $7,447,391 smearing Hillary and $1,831,706 bolstering Trump. The biggest Senate races for them have been North Carolina ($3,638,558 for Burr), Missouri ($2,119,387 for Blunt), Ohio ($1,794,551 for Portman), Nevada ($688,138 for Heck) and Indiana ($648,742 for Young). In House races they've handed out over 700,000 dollars to gun-nuts, mostly to Republicans, of course, but to these Democrats as well:

• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tim Walz (MN)

The dozen biggest contributions were all the right-wing Republicans who have proven themselves to be 100% NRA tools and anti-gun safety extremists:

• Barbara Comstock (R-VA)- $17,800
• John Katko (R-NY)- $17,300
• Will Hurd (R-TX)- $14,850
• Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- $14,850
• Frank Guinta (R-NH)- $12,850
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $12,350
• John Faso (R-NY)- $10,900
• Donald Bacon (R-NE)- $9,900
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)- $9,900
• Mike Gallagher (R-WI)- $9,900
• Rod Blum (R-IA)- $7,450
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $7,450

This chart from Open Secrets shows the biggest recipients of gun nut money across Congress for this cycle, not just the NRA but all the other gun manufacturing lobbyist groups as well. This is just direct money, to the candidates and their PACs, not independent expenditures.

Nevada's foremost election expert, Jon Ralston predicted a Blue Wave in the Silver State this morning. He wrote that it will give victories to Hillary (46-40%), Cortez Masto (46-43%), Rosen (48-45%) and that the state legislature will be taken over by the Democrats. And the biggest victory of all? The most progressive candidate of all, of course, Ruben Kihuen, who, Ralston predicts, will beat Cresent Hardy 51-47%. "The early vote has given Kihuen an insurmountable lead." Our mobile billboard is driving around North Las Vegas and environs right through Tuesday evening ad will be at the Bernie rally in Las Vegas this afternoon. I hope it's helped clarify one really important issue the DCCC has over-looked. If you click the images you'll have an easier time reading them.

Richard Burr Strengthens The Case For Defeating Every Republican Up And Down The Ticket

Yesterday, speaking to a fringe right-wing radio show, John Cornyn, McConnell's #2 in the Senate said Republicans in Congress will continue "investigating" Clinton if she's elected. GOP dunce Ron Johnson is already talking about impeaching Hillary Clinton. In the last couple of days, North Carolina dim bulb Richard Burr joined Ted Cruz and John McCain saying they would block any Supreme Court nominees from a Democratic president. Yesterday Politico started the day with a report from Rachel Bade about how congressional Republicans are planning to tie government up in endless investigations of trumped up charges against President Hillary Clinton led by hyper-partisan extremists like Jason Chaffetz (UT), Lamar Smith (TX), Michael McCaul (TX), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Jim Jordan (OH), Darrell Issa (CA), Tom Price (GA), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Ed Royce (CA), Pete Sessions (TX) and Kevin Brady (TX).

If the GOP wins either or both chambers of Congress next week, and Clinton takes the White House, she’s likely to come under investigation by Capitol Hill from Day One, or possibly before she’s even sworn in. FBI Director James Comey’s recent decision to revisit the probe of her email setup, and an assortment of Justice sources who’ve leaked to the press since Friday, have armed GOP lawmakers with more than enough ammunition to rev up their own investigations, say Republican sources on Capitol Hill.

The dynamic could sour relations between Clinton and Capitol Hill from the get-go, dousing any hope of even a brief honeymoon for Clinton should she defeat Donald Trump next week.

Disgraced former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who managed to worm his way out of a prison sentence with legalistic technicalities on a series of trials that lasted for many years, is now urging his old comrades in the House to start impeachment proceedings against Hillary the day she's elected.

Burr has made it completely clear to North Carolina voters why he should be denied reelection, even beyond his miserable record. Blue America hasn't endorsed his opponent, Deborah Ross but it is completely clear that Burr is unfit, like Trump, for elected office. Saturday, not knowing he was being taped, he told Republican supporters that he would work to "keep a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court empty for four years if Hillary Clinton is elected president."

The Saturday conversation is the same one in which Burr joked about whether a photo of Clinton on the cover of American Rifleman, a magazine published by the National Rifle Association, should have a bulls-eye on it. Those remarks have been widely reported and condemned, and Burr apologized Monday.

...[I]n Saturday's meeting in Mooresville, Burr said, "If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that four years from now we've still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

Burr told supporters that an eight-member court would mean some rulings by lower courts like the one Garland sits on would stand as is, "But I think on the things that are important to the country, there's a better chance that the lower court or the appellate court will get the right answer before it gets to the Supreme Court."

Shortly after Scalia died, Burr tweeted, "The American people deserve a say. The Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until there is a new President."

When Obama nominated Garland, Burr issued, a two-sentence statement: "The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. This appointment could easily tip the balance of the court in a direction not supported by the American people as evidenced by 2014's election results giving Republicans both the Senate and the House."

...On Saturday, Burr told supporters it is "not tough for me" to hold a judge's seat open. He cited the fact that a federal judgeship in eastern North Carolina has remained open 10 years, the longest period in history, at his behest.

He said on the recording that the Obama administration had reneged on its promise to support Burr's preferred candidate for a judgeship if Burr backed an Obama candidate. He said Obama had told him in a telephone call that the deal was good only for Obama's first term.

Burr said he responded, "Let me make you a promise. This seat will be vacant on the day you go out of office."

Burr recounted to supporters Saturday seeing a copy of American Rifleman a few days before.

"It's got a picture of Hillary Clinton on the front of it. I was a little bit shocked that it didn't have a bull's-eye on it," he said on the recording.

He apologized Monday afternoon shortly after CNN published the recording: "The comment I made was inappropriate, and I apologize for it."

Ross told The Associated Press the remark was "not befitting a senator."

"I think it's a comment about violence against a candidate for the president of the United States, and they're irresponsible and wrong," Ross said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Gun-control groups including former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords' group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, called Burr's comments dangerous in a country strained by disputes over gun rights.

Burr's comments normalize an attitude among some gun rights supporters that killing unfriendly politicians could be an option, Brady Campaign President Daniel Gross said Tuesday.

"We take from it a level of violent rhetoric that is dangerous and we need to say is unacceptable," Gross told the AP.

Ross said during a campaign appearance in Charlotte Tuesday that Burr is "putting politics ahead of his duty and ahead of the Constitution. And he's applying for a job by saying he's not going to do his job."

She called Burr's actions to keep the eastern North Carolina judge's job open "a dereliction of duty" and criticized his comment about putting a bulls-eye on Clinton.

"We should be able to have a civil discussion, and a civil society, and a civil election without talking about violence," Ross said. "It is the job of elected leaders and their campaigns to set an example for the next generation."

Rand Paul, who doesn't have a serious challenge to reelection, said in debate a few days ago that he "can’t imagine voting for a Clinton nominee unless she would appoint somebody that actually were someone who believes in the separation of powers as the founders wrote into the Constitution," pretty similar to what Marco Rubio has said.

At this point, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Republicans themselves, with their own pronouncements, are making it essential for people to put government back on rational footing by defeating every Republican running for office. Yes, it's a shame that so many Democratic candidates aren't worth voting for, but even the worst garbage candidates-- let's even take the worst of all, Patrick Murphy, Ann Kirkpatrick and Evan Bayh-- aren't as horrific as the Republican alternatives. We really need a vibrant "None of the Above" alternative on our ballots!