MAY 1, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


PARAGRAPH TWO HERE GIVES THE TRULY HORRID CUTS THAT CONGRESS ENACTED UNDER THE PRESSURE FROM HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN. RYAN IS SUCH A HANDSOME GUY. WHY DOES HE ACT SO HEARTLESS SOMETIMES? AS HAMLET SAID, “SMILE, AND SMILE, AND YET BE A VILLAIN.” I WONDER WHY RYAN REALLY STEPPED DOWN FROM HIS POST?

BERNIE SANDERS SAYS WE SHOULD GO TO A MARSHALL PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO INSTEAD. THAT IS SO WISE AND HUMANE. LET’S ELECT HIM FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020.

https://www.thenation.com/article/there-is-an-alternative-to-brutal-austerity-in-puerto-rico/
DISASTER CAPITALISM BERNIE SANDERS
Alternative to Brutal Austerity in Puerto Rico
Bernie Sanders has proposed a Marshall Plan for the islands, instead of an inhumane and antidemocratic oversight board.
By John Nichols Twitter TODAY MAY 1, 2018, 4:39 PM

Bernie Sanders and San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz survey wreckage left by Hurricane Maria in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 27, 2017. (Reuters / Alvin Baez)

Thousands of Puerto Ricans marched on May Day to protest the brutal austerity agenda that has been imposed on the commonwealth by an unelected and unaccountable federal oversight board.

Established in 2016 after enthusiastic lobbying by House Speaker Paul Ryan and his cronies on Wall Street and in Washington, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico was designed to address a debt crisis by overruling local democracy. And it is doing just that. This month, the board moved to cut pensions that sustain families across the islands, which were ravaged by hurricanes and tropical storms in 2017; to force the consolidation of agencies that are essential to rebuilding Puerto Rico; to reduce sick leave and vacation pay for the public workers who struggled to maintain civil society; to slash aid to Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities; and to cut funding for its largest public university.

The board’s interventions and proclamations were described in a recent Bloomberg Markets report as “buttressing the optimism among investors that they stand to recover more on the bankrupt island’s [sic] debt than they previously expected.” But they have proven to be exceptionally unpopular with Puerto Rico’s elected leaders and the massive crowds that took to the streets on May Day. And rightly so. As a dissenting board member, Ana Matosantos, explained when the mid-April vote was taken: “I am simply not willing to support massive cuts to the safety net. I cannot support too much pain with too little promise.”

Gerardo Portela, the executive director of elected Governor Ricardo Rosselló’s fiscal agency, was blunter, arguing that the board’s assault on the islands, which have suffered not merely from hurricane hits but from an 11-year-long recession, was “inhumane.”

Inhumane, and strikingly antidemocratic—as the appointed board members (who were recommended by Ryan and his fellow congressional leaders) are shaping Puerto Rico’s fiscal policies without taking direction from the voters of Puerto Rico.

The current crisis in Puerto Rico is a predictable extension of what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has for a number of years decried as “a colonial-type relationship” between the federal government and the people of the Caribbean archipelago.

Sanders has traveled to Puerto Rico, as a senator and a presidential contender, to decry the efforts of “vulture capitalists” and their congressional stooges to impose austerity on the island, arguing that: “In the midst of this massive human crisis, it is morally unacceptable that billionaire hedge-fund managers have been calling for even more austerity in Puerto Rico. Austerity will not solve this crisis.”

Unlike Ryan and the Speaker’s austerity board, Sanders has a smart, fiscally responsible, and forward-looking plan to stabilize Puerto Rico’s economy and to give the people who lives on the islands the resources and the opportunities they need to chart their own destiny.

Last fall, the senator proposed a legislative program to rebuild Puerto Rico—and the Virgin Islands, another US territory devastated by hurricanes in 2017. Sanders announced what has been referred to as “a Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico” by declaring that: “It is unconscionable that in the wealthiest nation in the world we have allowed our fellow citizens to suffer for so long. The full resources of the United States must be brought to bear on this crisis, for as long as is necessary. But we cannot simply rebuild Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands the way they were. We must go forward to create a strong, sustainable economy and energy system in both territories and address inequities in federal law that have allowed the territories to fall behind in almost every measurable social and economic criteria [sic].”

The Sanders plan focuses on seven concerns that must be addressed:

1) Debt and Privatization: Puerto Rico’s debt must be addressed to ensure the territory can recover with dignity. Congress must also prevent the privatization of public institutions to benefit creditors in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is struggling with an unsustainable $74.8 billion of debt, much of which is held by Wall Street creditors, with an additional $49 billion in unpaid pension obligations. The territories’ recovery should not add to existing debt.

2) Resilient and Renewable Energy: Instead of simply rebuilding an antiquated, centralized and inefficient system dependent on imported fossil fuels, the bill ensures the electric grids will be rebuilt to be more renewable and resilient, to provide less expensive electricity and create local jobs.

3) Medicaid and Medicare Parity: The health care systems in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico were inadequate before the hurricanes made landfall, in large part because they receive far fewer federal dollars compared to states. The bill makes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands eligible for the same Medicare and Medicaid benefits as the rest of America.

4) Rebuild and Improve the VA Hospital and Clinics: Appropriates necessary funds to the VA for veterans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

5) Improve Public Schools, Colleges, and Childcare Facilities: In addition to rebuilding damaged schools and childcare facilities, we must face the fact that many of these facilities were inadequate before the storms hit. Hundreds of public schools in Puerto Rico have been closed because of austerity policies and schools in the Virgin Islands are struggling to prepare students for college and future careers. The bill appropriates necessary funds for services and facilities for public Head Start, elementary, secondary and higher education.

6) Invest in Infrastructure and Spur Economic Development: Underfunded infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands contributed to the severity of the damage from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. In addition to rebuilding damaged facilities, the legislation would make significant investments in the islands’ physical infrastructure to spur the local economy and create jobs.

7) Environmental Cleanup: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have significant environmental contamination related to the hurricanes, prior pollution and a legacy of military bombing exercises on Vieques. The legislation would provide grants to the EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense for environmental remediation.

Hailed by San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz as “a comprehensive plan that provides the blueprint for the transformation of Puerto Rico,” the Sanders plan is backed by Democratic Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. A companion bill in the House, sponsored by Stacey Plaskett, the delegate representing the Virgin Islands, has 20 co-sponsors, including Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA).

The legislation that Sanders is promoting will not solve every problem facing Puerto Rico. But it is a dramatically more humane and democratic response than the pain imposed by Paul Ryan’s disastrously irresponsible austerity board.



THE UPCOMING TRUMP TESTIMONY APPEARS BELOW – AND A PARTIAL LIST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT TRUMP WILL LIKELY BE ASKED, WITH A POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT BATTLE. ISIKOFF MENTIONS THAT IN THE WATERGATE CASE, THE SUPREME COURT STOOD WITH THE PROSECUTOR, WHILE STATING THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS NOW A MORE CONSERVATIVE BODY THAN UNDER NIXON. SO, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT LIFE GOES ON.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muellers-questions-trump-reveal-investigation-194609977.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=60f73942-c8f9-11e5-bc86-fa163e798f6a&.tsrc=notification-brknews
What Mueller's questions for Trump reveal about the investigation
Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News • May 1, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Then FBI Director Robert Mueller testifying at a Senate hearing in 2013. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
PHOTOGRAPH -- Donald Trump, Jr. (R) greets his father Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during the town hall debate at Washington University on Oct. 9, 2016 in St Louis, Mo. (Photo: Rick Wilking-Pool/Getty Images)


WASHINGTON — The highly detailed questions that special counsel Robert Mueller has drafted for a prospective interview with President Trump sharply reduce the chances the grilling will ever take place — and could pave the way for an epic legal confrontation over the Russian investigation that could eventually wind up before the Supreme Court.

That is big takeaway of some criminal defense lawyers and others close to the White House after Mueller’s proposed questions — which were presented last month to Trump’s legal team — were published Monday night by the New York Times. Trump called the leak of the questions “disgraceful.”

Related Searches
Mueller Questions For Trump Trump Mueller Investigation -- If Trump Fires Mueller

The open-ended nature of the questions and the broad list of topics signal the perils Trump would face in any interview with Mueller. News reports in recent months have speculated that the special counsel was focusing his investigation on possible obstruction of justice in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. But the questions make it clear that Mueller is interested in much more: what the president knew about the notorious June 2016 Trump Tower meeting his son and top campaign officials had with Russian operatives; how much he was aware of efforts to broker a pre-election summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin; his business dealings in Russia; and whether he ever floated the idea of pardons to make sure some of his campaign underlings didn’t talk.

Under these circumstances, “There are very few lawyers who would not consider it legal malpractice to agree to an interview for the president,” said one former White House adviser to Trump, after reviewing the list of Mueller’s questions. “That is especially true knowing the temperament of this particular client, who has a tendency to say things that are contradicted by the facts.”

And in any interview, prosecutors would have a huge advantage over the president. Mueller’s office has obtained a wealth of subpoenaed documents about the president’s conduct and has taken secret testimony from cooperating witnesses — Michael Flynn, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former campaign aide Rick Gates — any one of whom would be in a position to contradict Trump and expose him to perjury charges.

Donald Trump
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

“The president has no real idea of the breadth of information known to Mueller,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor who served as a deputy independent counsel during Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton. “These questions just show [Trump’s former lawyer] John Dowd was completely justified by advising the president not to sit down for an interview. The peril is too great.”

That being the case, the most likely outcome at this point is that Trump refuses to submit to an interview, according to Wisenberg and the former White House adviser. Mueller would then have the option of issuing a subpoena to require the president’s testimony. If Trump continues to resist — on the grounds that Mueller, as an “inferior” officer of the executive branch, doesn’t have authority to require the president to do anything — the battle over Trump’s testimony would fall to the federal courts and ultimately, almost certainly, the Supreme Court.

Many legal scholars believe that, at the end of the day, the president would lose that fight, based on the precedent set during Watergate when the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon didn’t have the right to withhold White House tape recordings that were subpoenaed by then special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. But it’s not a slam dunk and either way, the president could “buy some time” and take his chances that this (more conservative) Supreme Court might be more sympathetic to his claims of executive powers and privilege, said the former advisor. “He’ll roll the dice,” the former advisor predicted.

In the meantime, the questions prepared by Mueller — combined with some nuggets buried in last week’s House Intelligence Committee report — offer some intriguing clues into the progress and direction of the special counsel’s probe. Here are a few of them.

1. Collusion is very much still on the table.

Much has already been made of Mueller’s proposed question to Trump: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” The wording of the question suggests Mueller may well be aware of such “outreach,” presumably informed by the cooperation he has received from Manafort’s former deputy, Rick Gates. But other questions also point to other evidence Mueller has gathered on the collusion front. One of them appears to involve the months-long effort by Papadopoulos to broker a meeting during the campaign between Trump and Putin. Papadopoulos first floated the idea of such a summit directly to Trump at a March 31, 2016 meeting of the then candidate’s newly appointed foreign policy advisory board. Jeff Sessions has testified he quickly shot the idea down. But as David Corn and I first disclosed in our book, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the election of Donald Trump,” Papadopoulos has secretly told Mueller’s prosecutors that Trump gave him the green light to pursue the summit idea, telling him he found the idea “interesting” and then looked to Sessions to follow up.

George Papadopoulos, 3rd left, is at a table presided over by then-candidate Trump in Washington, D.C., published March 31, 2016. (Photo: Donald Trump’s Twitter account via AP)

2. Potential witness tampering is also under scrutiny.

One of the more intriguing of Mueller’s proposed questions involve efforts by the president to communicate with his former national security advisor Flynn after he was fired for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Mueller wants to ask the president “what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?” This question was likely prompted by a New York Times report that Trump lawyer Dowd floated the idea of a pardon to Flynn’s lawyer. But there may well be more to Trump’s contacts with Flynn after he left the White House than that. Last May, Yahoo News reported that Flynn told friends that he had recently been in touch with the president who urged him to “stay strong” as the Russia investigation was closing in on him. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is now cooperating with Mueller, would presumably know exactly what the president communicated to him. And what he communicated to the president, including during the campaign. One largely overlooked nugget buried in the House Intelligence Committee report released last week was that Flynn, the former Defense Intelligence Committee chief and his son met with Kislyak at the Russian ambassador’s residence in December 2015. That was shortly before Flynn flew off to Moscow to attend the 10th anniversary celebration of RT, the Russian government propaganda station, where he sat next to Putin at dinner. It was the first hint that Flynn had contact with Kislyak prior to Trump’s 2016 election.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) sits next to retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (L) as they attend an exhibition marking the 10th anniversary of RT (Russia Today) television news channel in Moscow, Russia, Dec.10, 2015. (Photo: Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via Reuters)

3. Trump’s attempt to do business in Russia is on Mueller’s radar screen.

The questions that might be expected to rile the president the most include a couple relating to his attempts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow — the first hard sign that the special counsel is probing Trump’s business operations.

One of the questions involves his communications with Aras Agalarov, the billionaire Russian oligarch who partnered with Trump to stage the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013. Trump and Agalarov signed a “letter of intent” to build a Trump branded project in the Russian capital.

That deal collapsed after the Obama administration and the European Union imposed sanctions on Russian businesses following Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine. But Trump didn’t stop his efforts. Another Mueller question asks “what communications did you have with Michael D. Cohen [Trump’s longtime lawyer], Felix Sater [a former Trump real estate advisor] and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?” This concerns a separate letter of intent to build a Trump Tower Moscow that was signed by Trump in October 2015 — while he was running for president. Trump’s real business partners in this deal were never clear. Russian tax records show that I.C. Expert Investment, the company with whom he signed the letter of intent, was owned by three murky offshore companies controlled by Cypriot lawyer deeply involved in Russian finance. When Sater initially pitched the project to the Trump Organization, he pitched it as a way to boost Trump’s run for president. “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” Sater wrote in an email to Cohen at the time. “Buddy our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

Miss USA 2013 Erin Brady and Donald Trump (C), co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization, look on as Aras Agalarov, father of Russian singer Emin Agalarov, speaks during a news conference after the 2013 Miss USA pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada June 16, 2013. (Photo: Steve Marcus/Reuters)

4. What did the president know about the Trump Tower meeting—and when did he know it?

The June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower — during which top Trump campaign officials sat down with a delegation of Russians after being told they were about to receive “official” and “sensitive” documents about Hillary Clinton from Kremlin files — remains a major focus for Mueller. Of the questions on this topic, one leaps out: “When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?” Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., have both said that Trump himself knew nothing about it at the time; Donald Jr. has said he only told his father much later in the summer of 2017, shortly before it was revealed by the New York Times. But Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, last week revealed that the panel failed to pursue leads that he believed might show otherwise. Trump Jr.’s phone records show that after receiving an email from Rob Goldstone, a publicist, informing him that Aras Agalarov and his son, the pop singer Emin Agalarov, were arranging to have the supposedly anti-Hillary documents brought to Trump Tower, the president’s son made two attempts by phone to reach the younger Agalarov in Moscow. Between those calls, according to Schiff, was a phone call request that was denied by the Republican majority — to determine if the recipient was the future president. But Mueller is operating under no such constraints — another reason why the Russian investigation poses such potential dangers for Trump.


THE TRULY HORRID CUTS THAT CONGRESS ENACTED UNDER THE PRESSURE FROM HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN APPEAR HERE. RYAN IS SUCH A HANDSOME GUY. WHY DOES HE ACT SO HEARTLESS SOMETIMES? AS HAMLET SAID, “SMILE, AND SMILE, AND YET BE A VILLAIN.” I WONDER WHY RYAN REALLY STEPPED DOWN FROM HIS POST?

BERNIE SANDERS SAYS WE SHOULD GO TO A MARSHALL PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO INSTEAD. THAT IS SO WISE AND HUMANE. LET’S ELECT HIM FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020.

https://www.thenation.com/article/there-is-an-alternative-to-brutal-austerity-in-puerto-rico/
DISASTER CAPITALISM BERNIE SANDERS
Alternative to Brutal Austerity in Puerto Rico
Bernie Sanders has proposed a Marshall Plan for the islands, instead of an inhumane and antidemocratic oversight board.
By John Nichols Twitter TODAY MAY 1, 2018, 4:39 PM

Bernie Sanders and San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz survey wreckage left by Hurricane Maria in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 27, 2017. (Reuters / Alvin Baez)

Thousands of Puerto Ricans marched on May Day to protest the brutal austerity agenda that has been imposed on the commonwealth by an unelected and unaccountable federal oversight board.

Established in 2016 after enthusiastic lobbying by House Speaker Paul Ryan and his cronies on Wall Street and in Washington, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico was designed to address a debt crisis by overruling local democracy. And it is doing just that. This month, the board moved to cut pensions that sustain families across the islands, which were ravaged by hurricanes and tropical storms in 2017; to force the consolidation of agencies that are essential to rebuilding Puerto Rico; to reduce sick leave and vacation pay for the public workers who struggled to maintain civil society; to slash aid to Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities; and to cut funding for its largest public university.

The board’s interventions and proclamations were described in a recent Bloomberg Markets report as “buttressing the optimism among investors that they stand to recover more on the bankrupt island’s [sic] debt than they previously expected.” But they have proven to be exceptionally unpopular with Puerto Rico’s elected leaders and the massive crowds that took to the streets on May Day. And rightly so. As a dissenting board member, Ana Matosantos, explained when the mid-April vote was taken: “I am simply not willing to support massive cuts to the safety net. I cannot support too much pain with too little promise.”

Gerardo Portela, the executive director of elected Governor Ricardo Rosselló’s fiscal agency, was blunter, arguing that the board’s assault on the islands, which have suffered not merely from hurricane hits but from an 11-year-long recession, was “inhumane.”

Inhumane, and strikingly antidemocratic—as the appointed board members (who were recommended by Ryan and his fellow congressional leaders) are shaping Puerto Rico’s fiscal policies without taking direction from the voters of Puerto Rico.

The current crisis in Puerto Rico is a predictable extension of what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has for a number of years decried as “a colonial-type relationship” between the federal government and the people of the Caribbean archipelago.

Sanders has traveled to Puerto Rico, as a senator and a presidential contender, to decry the efforts of “vulture capitalists” and their congressional stooges to impose austerity on the island, arguing that: “In the midst of this massive human crisis, it is morally unacceptable that billionaire hedge-fund managers have been calling for even more austerity in Puerto Rico. Austerity will not solve this crisis.”

Unlike Ryan and the Speaker’s austerity board, Sanders has a smart, fiscally responsible, and forward-looking plan to stabilize Puerto Rico’s economy and to give the people who lives on the islands the resources and the opportunities they need to chart their own destiny.

Last fall, the senator proposed a legislative program to rebuild Puerto Rico—and the Virgin Islands, another US territory devastated by hurricanes in 2017. Sanders announced what has been referred to as “a Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico” by declaring that: “It is unconscionable that in the wealthiest nation in the world we have allowed our fellow citizens to suffer for so long. The full resources of the United States must be brought to bear on this crisis, for as long as is necessary. But we cannot simply rebuild Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands the way they were. We must go forward to create a strong, sustainable economy and energy system in both territories and address inequities in federal law that have allowed the territories to fall behind in almost every measurable social and economic criteria [sic].”

The Sanders plan focuses on seven concerns that must be addressed:

1) Debt and Privatization: Puerto Rico’s debt must be addressed to ensure the territory can recover with dignity. Congress must also prevent the privatization of public institutions to benefit creditors in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is struggling with an unsustainable $74.8 billion of debt, much of which is held by Wall Street creditors, with an additional $49 billion in unpaid pension obligations. The territories’ recovery should not add to existing debt.

2) Resilient and Renewable Energy: Instead of simply rebuilding an antiquated, centralized and inefficient system dependent on imported fossil fuels, the bill ensures the electric grids will be rebuilt to be more renewable and resilient, to provide less expensive electricity and create local jobs.

3) Medicaid and Medicare Parity: The health care systems in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico were inadequate before the hurricanes made landfall, in large part because they receive far fewer federal dollars compared to states. The bill makes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands eligible for the same Medicare and Medicaid benefits as the rest of America.

4) Rebuild and Improve the VA Hospital and Clinics: Appropriates necessary funds to the VA for veterans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

5) Improve Public Schools, Colleges, and Childcare Facilities: In addition to rebuilding damaged schools and childcare facilities, we must face the fact that many of these facilities were inadequate before the storms hit. Hundreds of public schools in Puerto Rico have been closed because of austerity policies and schools in the Virgin Islands are struggling to prepare students for college and future careers. The bill appropriates necessary funds for services and facilities for public Head Start, elementary, secondary and higher education.

6) Invest in Infrastructure and Spur Economic Development: Underfunded infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands contributed to the severity of the damage from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. In addition to rebuilding damaged facilities, the legislation would make significant investments in the islands’ physical infrastructure to spur the local economy and create jobs.

7) Environmental Cleanup: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have significant environmental contamination related to the hurricanes, prior pollution and a legacy of military bombing exercises on Vieques. The legislation would provide grants to the EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense for environmental remediation.

Hailed by San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz as “a comprehensive plan that provides the blueprint for the transformation of Puerto Rico,” the Sanders plan is backed by Democratic Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. A companion bill in the House, sponsored by Stacey Plaskett, the delegate representing the Virgin Islands, has 20 co-sponsors, including Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA).

The legislation that Sanders is promoting will not solve every problem facing Puerto Rico. But it is a dramatically more humane and democratic response than the pain imposed by Paul Ryan’s disastrously irresponsible austerity board.


ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S “UNHINGED ATTACK ON JON TESTER” – SEE: https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trumps-unhinged-attack-on-jon-tester/. THIS ARTICLE EXPLAINS HOW FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE TESTER’S QUESTIONING OF WHITE HOUSE PHYSICIAN RONNY JACKSON AS PART OF THE VETTING PROCESS WAS, THOUGH HE DID NOT BOW AND SCRAPE TO THE PRESIDENT. IN ANOTHER CASE, IT HAS APPEARED THAT EVERYONE MUST DO THAT TO AVOID HIS WRATH.


John NicholsTWITTERJohn Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.



I DO HATE “LYIN,’ CHEATIN’, AND STEALIN’.” IT IS EVEN WORSE TO ME THAT OUR SOCIETY HAS NORMALIZED THOSE AS AN UNDERSTANDABLE TO ACCEPTABLE WAY OF SOLVING OUR PROBLEMS. THAT’S CERTAINLY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MAIN STRATEGY. MANY GOVERNMENTS – FOREIGN OF COURSE – CONSIDER A BRIBE TO “GREASE THE WHEELS,” TO BE NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE JUST AS A WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. THE PREVALENCE NOWADAYS IS ALARMING.

IN SOCIAL SCIENCE COURSES THEY TALK ABOUT “THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.” PART OF OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT IS DEPENDENT ON WHETHER OR NOT MOST OF OUR CITIZENS BEHAVE WITH HONESTY. TRUTH TELLING AND GIVING FAIR VALUE IN TRADE KEEPS US FROM BECOMING A VERY CORRUPT NATION. TIPPING IS TOTALLY NORMAL AMONG US, EXCEPT FOR A FEW RESTAURANTS WHO ALLOW NO MONEY TO CHANGE HANDS BETWEEN WORKERS AND CUSTOMERS. IF THEY WILL PAY THEIR WORKERS A LIVING WAGE, I WOULD LIKE THAT, BUT THEY USUALLY DON’T. SO, I HAPPILY TIP THE 15%. I KNOW THAT ANY TABLE SERVER IS PROBABLY PAYING FOR THEIR DWELLING AND FOOD.

THIS BBC NEWS STORY ABOUT ACADEMIC CHEATING IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING TO ME, BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT MY LAWYERS ACTUALLY RECEIVED A DEGREE AT A LAW SCHOOL AND PASSED THE BAR MATTERS A GREAT DEAL. IT ALSO MATTERS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE WHO GET AWAY WITH THIS KIND OF OPEN FALSIFICATION WITHOUT SUFFERING A PENALTY ARE GOING TO BE WELL ON THEIR WAY DOWN THE ROAD TO A CRIMINAL FUTURE.

THE STORY DOESN’T SAY WHAT “EDUBIRDIE.COM” WILL BE FINED, OR BETTER, HAVING THEIR “ACADEMIC” COMPANY REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET. EDUBIRDIE.COM, BY THE WAY, IS ANOTHER CRIMINAL SITE FROM THE RUSSIAN AREA INFLUENCE – UKRAINE, THIS TIME. MANY AMERICANS ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF STORIES THAT MAKE ME SAY THAT THERE IS A NEED TO LIMIT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A GOOD MANY CASES. REMEMBER THAT SOME OF THE MOST IDEALISTIC AND EMOTIONAL SOUNDING STATEMENTS ARE SPOKEN BY THE MOST CORRUPT OF PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43956001.
The YouTube stars being paid to sell cheating
By Branwen Jeffreys and Edward Main
BBC Trending
MAY 1, 2018

VIDEO -- The YouTubers selling cheating: 'Get an A on your paper - and you don't even need to do it'

YouTube stars are being paid to sell academic cheating, a BBC investigation has found.

More than 250 channels are promoting EduBirdie, based in Ukraine, which allows students to buy essays, rather than doing the work themselves.

YouTube said it would help creators understand they cannot promote dishonest behaviour.

Sam Gyimah, Universities Minister for England, says YouTube has a moral responsibility to act.

He said he was shocked by the nature and scale of the videos uncovered by the BBC: "It's clearly wrong because it is enabling and normalising cheating potentially on an industrial scale."

The BBC Trending investigation uncovered more than 1,400 videos with a total of more than 700 million views containing EduBirdie adverts selling cheating to students and school pupils.

EduBirdie is based in Ukraine, but aims its services at pupils and students across the globe.

Essay writing services are not illegal, but if students submit work they have paid for someone else to do the penalties can be severe.

The company is not just aiming to capture the attention of university students with its advertising.

Popular YouTubers, some as young as 12, are being paid to personally endorse the service.

In some of the videos YouTubers say if you cannot be bothered to do the work, EduBirdie has a "super smart nerd" who will do it for you.

The adverts appear in videos on YouTube channels covering a range of subjects, including pranks, dating, gaming, music and fashion.

They include several by stars such as Adam Saleh whose channel has four million subscribers, and British gamer JMX who has two and a half million subscribers.

Following the BBC's investigation, both have now removed videos with EduBirdie adverts from YouTube.

The BBC also approached the mother of one 12-year-old, who had promoted the company to his 200,000 followers. She also took her advert down.

Image copyrightADAM SALEH
Image caption
Adam Saleh is one popular YouTuber who has advertised EduBirdie in his videos

Channels with tens of thousands of subscribers can be offered hundreds of dollars for each advert.

They are not clearly labelled video ads, which are common on YouTube channels.

Instead the YouTuber usually breaks off from what they are doing to personally endorse EduBirdie, promising that the company will deliver an A+ essay for money.

Some YouTubers suggest that using the service will free up time to play video games or take drugs.

So prevalent is the promotion of EduBirdie that very young children are posting videos on YouTube of themselves mimicking the ads.

Image caption
Universities minister, Sam Gyimah, said he was shocked by the scale of the videos.

Sam Gyimah said that EduBirdie's marketing was shocking and pernicious as it presented cheating as "a lifestyle choice".

He said the YouTubers involved should be "called out" for abusing their power as social influencers.

"I think YouTube has a huge responsibility here," he said.

"They do incredibly well from the advertising revenue that they get from the influencers and everyone else. But this is something that is corrosive to education and I think YouTube has got to step up to the plate and exercise some responsibility here."

About 30 of the channels promoting EduBirdie are from Britain and Ireland.

They include a student vlogger at a top UK university.

Another is a popular 15-year-old YouTuber, whose mother was unaware he was promoting the company until she was approached by the BBC.

Shakira Martin, the President of the National Union of Students, said: "I think it's totally disgusting the fact that these type of organisations are exploiting vulnerable young people through getting them to promote something that isn't good, isn't ethical."

She added that students who were working to support themselves while studying might be most tempted to use EduBirdie.

Google's own research found YouTubers were more influential than celebrities when it came to promoting products.

Toni Hopponen, from the tech company Flockler, advises businesses and some universities on how to tap into the power of social influencers.

He said this was creating new challenges as it is outside the regulations that apply to traditional advertising.

"There's always been unethical advertising out there - but now the channels like YouTube provide a way for all of us to be publishers and the scale is huge. "

Image copyrightEDUBIRDIE.COM
One British YouTuber, Alpay B urges viewers in one of his videos: "Don't waste your time doing your essays, let these people do it for you."

In a statement, he told the BBC: "Whether a student wants to cheat or not it's totally their choice. You can't really blame EduBirdie or creators who promote them because everyone's got their own hustle."

The BBC ordered two essays through EduBirdie, opting for them to be written from scratch.

One was an English Literature GCSE coursework essay, the other a first-year degree course assignment.

Both were delivered with only the students' names left blank to be filled in.

The GCSE essay was given a C or 5/6 and the university assignment 60% - not quite the guaranteed A+ grade promised by EduBirdie.

Serious consequences
On its website EduBirdie says the essays provided by its writers are "100% plagiarism free".

In practice, this means the essays are written to order, rather than copied and pasted from elsewhere on the internet.

So if a student submits an EduBirdie essay as their own work, it might not be detected by anti-cheating software.

Any university student found to have submitted work done by someone else would face disciplinary action.

"If you've worked hard to get to university, you potentially throw it all away by cheating and getting found out. It is wrong, full stop," Mr Gyimah said.

EduBirdie is run by a company called Boosta, which operates a number of essay-writing websites.

In a statement it said: "We cannot be held responsible for what social influencers say on their channels.

"We give influencers total freedom on how they prefer to present the EduBirdie platform to their audience in a way they feel would be most relevant to their viewers.

"We do admit that many tend to copy and paste each others' shout-outs with a focus on 'get someone to do your homework for you', but this is their creative choice."

It added that there was a disclaimer on the EduBirdie site which suggested that the work it provided should only be used as a sample or a reference.

A YouTube spokesman told the BBC: "YouTube creators may include paid endorsements as part of their content only if the product or service they are endorsing complies with our advertising policies."

They added: "We will be working with creators going forward so they better understand that in video promotions must not promote dishonest activity."


ANDREW POLLACK, FATHER OF MEADOW POLLACK, IS SUING SEVERAL PARTIES -- THE OVERLY CAUTIOUS SHERIFF’S DEPUTY SCOT PETERSON, THE KILLER NIKOLAS CRUZ, CRUZ’S MOTHER’S ESTATE, AND NOT ONE, BUT THREE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES WHERE HE WAS DIAGNOSED AND/OR TREATED IN 2016 BUT RELEASED BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. POLLACK’S SUING THE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES IS AN IMPORTANT POINT, IN MY VIEW, BECAUSE THEY TEND NOWADAYS TO DIAGNOSE ILLNESS AND THEN RELEASE THE PATIENT/PERPETRATOR WITH A PRESCRIPTION FOR PILLS, WHICH HE WILL VERY LIKELY REFUSE TO TAKE. SOMETIMES THE PSYCHIATRISTS SAY THAT HE OR SHE IS “NOT LIKELY” IN THEIR VIEW TO BE “A DANGER” TO THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN THEY WASH THEIR HANDS OF THE MATTER.

SHAMEFULLY, THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN ACCUSED OF THOSE RELEASES, COINCIDENTALLY OF COURSE, AT THE EXACT TIME WHEN THE PATIENT’S INSURANCE RAN OUT. IN MY OPINION, THAT SHOULD BE GROUNDS TO REVOKE THAT HOSPITAL OR PSYCHIATRIST’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE. EVEN IF PATIENTS DON’T COMMIT A DANGEROUS CRIME, THEY OFTEN BECOME HOMELESS AND HAUNT THE STREETS OF CITIES, EITHER BEGGING OR THREATENING PEOPLE.

LIKEWISE, POLICE AND FBI ARE USUALLY NOT SUED WHEN THEY DO THE SAME THING. IN AN ALMOST IDENTICAL CASE REPORTED WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, THE FBI RELEASED THE PERSON TO HIS FATHER UNDER THE PROMISE THAT HE WOULD KEEP THE GUNS SECURED AND AWAY FROM THE SON. THE FATHER WAS EITHER UNABLE TO DO THAT – HIGHLY LIKELY -- OR RELENTED IN A SOFT-HEARTED MOMENT TO THE SON’S DEMANDS TO GIVE HIM BACK HIS GUNS. WITHIN MONTHS HE BEGAN HIS KILLING SPREE. JUST AS POLICE HAVE TOO MUCH DISCRETION, SO DO PSYCHIATRISTS. PSYCHIATRISTS, POLICE AND JUDGES SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO BE MORE HUMANE FOR THE MENTAL PATIENT.

IN SEVERAL CASES, ONCE UNDER A JUDGE’S ORDERS, A DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL WAS RELEASED “INTO THE CUSTODY OF HIS FAMILY” BEFORE HE KILLED, IN A STATE WHERE PARENTAL CONTROL IS LEGAL. THE ACLU AND OTHER ACTIVISTS HAVE FOR YEARS NOW BEEN RELEASING PEOPLE AS BEING HARMLESS WHO ARE NOT DEEMED BY THE DOCTORS TO BE “A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS,” AND THIS SAME STORY HAPPENS OVER AND OVER. SEE THE FOLLOWING ON THE POLITICAL PRESSURES TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF PERMANENT CARE MENTAL HOSPITALS IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY. WHY ISN’T THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING SUED AS WELL? THAT CHANGE IN THE LAW OCCURRED UNDER THAT CONSERVATIVE ICON, RONALD REAGAN. SEE THIS ARTICLE ON THE HOW AND WHY THAT QUESTIONABLE POLICY WAS PUT INTO PLACE. http://www.sociology.org/ejs-archives/vol003.004/thomas.html.

POLLACK’S SUING THE TREATMENT FACILITIES, IF IT BECOMES A PRECEDENT IN SUCH CASES, MAY BRING ABOUT A SITUATION IN WHICH LAWSUITS WILL PUT SOME PRACTICAL CONTROL ON THE HOSPITALS’ IGNORING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. THEY ARE THE LOGICAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY ALONG WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY, IN CASES OF THE RELEASE OF A DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL WITH MINIMAL TREATMENT. IN THIS NEWS ARTICLE THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT WAS NOT SUED. THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A PROBLEM AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY OPERATE WITHOUT A NAMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS, IN WHICH CASE THEY DO WHAT SEEMS EASIEST AT THE TIME, WHICH IS OFTEN TO TAKE THEM OUTSIDE THE CITY AND RELEASE THEM.

THIS IDEA OF RELEASING A PERSON WITH HOMICIDAL POTENTIAL TO HIS PARENTS OR FAMILY IS NOT ONLY UNREALISTIC, BUT MORONIC. IN THE OLD DAYS, FAMILIES DID ACTUALLY KEEP MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS MORE OR LESS IMPRISONED AT HOME, THOUGH FAMILY MEMBERS ARE PATENTLY INCAPABLE OF EXERCISING ANY RELIABLE CONTROL OVER THE PERSON, AND MAY SADLY BECOME HIS NEXT VICTIMS. IN THE CASE OF THIS SHOOTER, THE FATHER ACTUALLY GAVE THE YOUNG MAN HIS GUNS BACK AND DID LITTLE OR NOTHING TO CONTROL HIM.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT PARENTS OR FAMILY CAN DO ANYTHING AT ALL THAT IS USEFUL, IS A HOLDOVER FROM CENTURIES OF PRACTICE IN THE PAST. THAT SITUATION GOES BACK TO A TIME BEFORE THE EXISTENCE OF VERY MANY GENUINE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES THAT ARE SET UP TO TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION. FICTIONAL, BUT REALISTIC, LITERATURE LIKE “JANE EYRE” PORTRAYS THE REALITY OF THAT SITUATION, AND SHOWS THAT IT IS NO MORE HUMANE AND EFFECTIVE THAN FILLING UP THE AVAILABLE HOSPITALS WITH PERMANENT CUSTODY CASES, WHICH ALSO SPAWNED CASES OF CRUELTY – “ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.” READ THE SHORT AND ELOQUENT ABSTRACT BY ALEXANDER B THOMAS IN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1998 AT THE FOLLOWING SITE: “http://www.sociology.org/ejs-archives/vol003.004/thomas.html.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parkland-shooting-victims-dad-andrew-pollack-sues-deputy-who-didnt-enter-school/
CBS/AP May 1, 2018, 10:37 AM
Parkland shooting victim's dad sues deputy who didn't enter school

PARKLAND, Fla. -- The father of a student who was killed in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School filed a lawsuit Monday accusing numerous people and entities of enabling the suspected killer, Nikolas Cruz, CBS Miami reports. He laid a large amount of blame for the shooting at the feet of Broward County sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson.

"He could've really saved everyone on that third floor that day," said Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was shot to death inside the school on Valentine's Day.

Surveillance video showed Peterson, who at the time was the school's resource officer, rushing to the freshman building, where he believed the shots were coming from, he told dispatchers. However, the video shows Peterson taking up a position at a building a short distance away and remaining there.

"He let my daughter get stalked and shot nine times on the third floor," Pollack told CBS Miami.

In the lawsuit, Pollack's lawyers say Peterson, who was armed, hid and failed to confront the threat, endangering the lives of everyone in the freshman building.

"Scot Peterson is a coward," the lawsuit says.

"Scot Peterson cowered in his safe location … the entire time Nikolas Cruz trained his AR-15 and rained bullets upon the teachers and students…," it continues.

Peterson, 54 and a 33-year veteran law enforcement officer, was suspended with pay and then immediately resigned and retired on Feb. 23, when video surveillance footage from the school showed he never entered the building when the gunfire began. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel condemned Peterson's actions, saying he should have gone inside.

Peterson pushed back against critics in a statement issued by attorney Joseph DiRuzzo shortly after the shooting.

"Allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue," the statement said.

Pollock's lawyers allege that while Peterson stood outside and called for a lockdown, Cruz made his way to the third floor, shot Meadow Pollack numerous times and then, as she moved to cover a fellow student to try and protect her, Cruz shot her again and again, killing Meadow and the other student.

The lawsuit says, "Scot Peterson waited and listened to the din of screams of teachers and students, many of whom were dead or dying, and the blasts of Nikolas Cruz's repeated gunfire."

Pollack wants Peterson to pay.

"I'm not the type of guy I'm just gonna lay down and this guy's just gonna go collect his pension and go run off into the sunset," he said. "So that's not gonna happen."

"When this Peterson moves wherever he wants to move in the rest of the country, wherever he's gonna settle down, anywhere he goes his face is gonna be like a public figure. They're gonna say, 'That's the guy that let those children and teachers get murdered on the third floor.' That's why I'm doing this," he said.

Additionally, Pollack said he believes Peterson is responsible for many of the actions of law enforcement officers that day. He believes that because Peterson told people to lock down the school, that impacted the decisions made by deputies and officers.

The lawsuit also names 19-year-old shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz; the estate of Cruz's mother, who died in November; and James and Kimberly Snead, the couple who took Cruz in after his mother died. It also names three behavioral and mental health facilities that evaluated Cruz at some point before the shooting, which killed 17 people.

The lawsuit details Cruz's troubled life, saying the teen "suffered from severe mental illness and was prone to violence."

One part of the lawsuit specifically details a police report filed in February 2016 in which Cruz posted a photo of himself with guns on Instagram stating that he wanted "to shoot up the school."

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


I DO HOPE THAT TRUMP WILL END UP HAVING TO ANSWER MUELLER’S QUESTIONS PERSONALLY, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND HE CAN’T “TAKE THE 5TH” IN THAT PROBE, AND CAN BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY. HOWEVER, IF THE SUPREME COURT GETS INVOLVED, MAYBE THE COURT WILL MAKE A PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER, HOPEFULLY NOT HARDER, FOR PROSECUTORS TO PROBE THESE CASES IN THE FUTURE. WE’VE HAD THREE IMPEACHMENT CASES IN THIS LAST 70 YEARS OR SO, NONE OF WHICH RESULTED IN A REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. ONE THING THAT I DO FEEL IS THAT THE WHOLE LONG-DRAWN OUT TRIAL MAY END UP BEING FRUITLESS, AND IF THE PRESIDENT IN QUESTION IS MENTALLY UNSOUND AS SO MANY OF US FEEL IS THE CASE HERE, THAT’S A DANGEROUS DELAY. WE NEED A FASTER AND MORE DECISIVE WAY OF REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena/mueller-raises-possibility-of-trump-subpoena-former-trump-lawyer-idUSKBN1I301Y
POLITICS
MAY 1, 2018 / 8:24 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Mueller raises possibility of Trump subpoena: former Trump lawyer
Karen Freifeld

VIDEO -- Trump fumes over release of Mueller questions
FILE PHOTO: Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after briefing the U.S. House Intelligence Committee on his investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in a meeting with President Donald Trump’s lawyers in March, raised the possibility of issuing a subpoena for Trump if he declines to talk to investigators in the Russia probe, a former lawyer for the president said on Tuesday.

John Dowd told Reuters that Mueller mentioned the possibility of a subpoena in the early March meeting. Mueller’s subpoena warning was first reported by the Washington Post, which cited four people familiar with the encounter.

“This isn’t some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States,” Dowd said he told the investigators, who are probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Dowd left the president’s legal team about two weeks after the meeting.

The Post said Mueller had raised the possibility of a subpoena after Trump’s lawyers said the president had no obligation to talk with federal investigators involved in the probe.

After the March meeting, Mueller’s team agreed to provide the president’s lawyers with more specific information about the subjects they wished to ask Trump, the Post reported.

With that information, Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions the president’s legal team believed he would be asked, according to the Post.

That list, first reported by the New York Times on Monday, includes questions on Trump’s ties to Russia and others to determine whether the president may have unlawfully tried to obstruct the investigation.

Trump on Tuesday criticized the leak of the questions.

“So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were ‘leaked’ to the media. No questions on Collusion,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!”

Russia has denied interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as U.S. intelligence agencies allege, and Trump has denied there was any collusion between his campaign and Moscow.

Trump fumes over release of Mueller questions

Sekulow did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Peter Cooney

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.



MSNBC MADDOW

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 5/1/18
Mueller floated possibility of issuing subpoena to Trump: WaPo
Carol Leonnig, reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about new reporting that Robert Mueller threatened the possibility of using a subpoena to get answers from Donald Trump if Trump would not submit for an interview voluntarily. Duration: 14:05


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 5/1/18
Vance: Mueller subpoena talk unlikely without Rosenstein blessing
Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about news from the Washington Post that Robert Mueller suggested the possibility of issuing a subpoena for Donald Trump to appear before a grand jury, and points out that Mueller wouldn't have presented that option without first having cleared with with Rod Rosenstein. Duration: 6:44


HE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/30/18
NY Times publishes Robert Mueller's questions for Donald Trump
Rachel Maddow reads through a set of questions published by the New York Times that are reportedly what Robert Mueller wants to know from Donald Trump if Trump agrees to be interviewed by the investigation. Duration: 16:41


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/30/18
Schiff: Money laundering notably absent from questions for Trump
Adam Schiff, top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about his first impressions of a list of questions Robert Mueller would reportedly like to have Donald Trump answer, and points out that money laundering does not appear to be a theme of the questions despite promising leads on that front. Duration: 8:31


4/27/18
Rep. Jim Himes on Trump and allegations of collusion
“9 out of 10 Americans” would have straight to the FBI when approached by foreign nationals with supposedly damaging information on a political opponent, says Rep. Himes. Duration: 3:57


4/27/18
Despite the odds, Russian opposition politicians press on
Independent candidates face big obstacles in Russia. They get limited airtime and can face trumped-up criminal charges, prison sentences, and death threats. Still, some won’t be deterred from challenging Putin and his allies. Duration: 5:26