Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Friday, July 7, 2017

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Chris Christie’s Tutorial In Hubris

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams pleads guilty in his federal corruption trial


Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams abruptly pleaded guilty Thursday, nearly two weeks into a federal bribery trial that dragged embarrassing details about his messy personal life and financial struggles out into open court.

Williams will resign as the city’s top prosecutor as part of a deal under which he pleaded guilty to one count related to accepting a bribe from Bucks County businessman Mohammad Ali.

Asked by U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond whether he intended to follow through with his resignation, Williams choked up and answered, “humbly, sincerely and effective immediately.”

Diamond said he wanted Williams’ resignation letter couriered to Mayor Kenny’s office as soon as the hearing was over.

Williams remained somber looking throughout the guilty plea hearing.

“I’m just very sorry for all of this, your honor,” he said.

At a followup hearing to determine whether Williams should be jailed immediately, defense attorney Thomas F. Burke argued the disgraced prosecutor was not a flight risk.

“He has no means as the court can see to go anywhere. He has no support. He’s deeply in debt and he doesn’t even have a car,” Burke said.

Taking the witness stand to plead with a judge not to send him directly to prison before sentencing, tears welled up in Williams’ eyes while discussing his daughters.

He acknowledged he was broke, saying he had “probably about $150 to $200” in his bank account.

In addition to accepting that he could face a maximum 5 year term when he is sentenced Oct. 24, Williams agreed to forfeit $64,878.22

While the 28 remaining counts against Williams were dismissed, he “admits that he committed all of the conduct in those 29 counts,”  Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Zauzmer said.

“Williams took benefits repeatedly from Mr. Ali knowing that those benefits were offered – at least in part – to influence him to take official actions,”  said Zauzmer.

Williams notified prosecutors he wanted to take the plea deal at 1 a.m.Thursday, said Zauzmer.

Sources close to the case say the deal is similar to one Williams was offered – and turned down – one day before his indictment earlier this year on 29 corruption-related counts including bribery, extortion and honest services fraud.

Prior to his admission, prosecutors and Williams’ defense lawyers – Thomas F. Burke and Trevan Borum – spent more than an hour huddled in quiet conversation in the courtroom, while the district attorney was nowhere to be seen.

His decision came after weeks of damaging testimony in which government witnesses characterized him a shameless beggar who repeatedly turned to the money of others to fund a lifestyle he couldn’t afford.

Two wealthy businessmen testified that they had showered the district attorney with gifts of all-expenses-paid travel, luxury goods and even cash in anticipation of the legal favors they might need from him.

And prosecutors had alleged that Williams delivered for them – writing letters to throw his weight into their legal problems and promising in one instance to intervene in a drug case brought by his office.

Additionally, Williams was accused of misspending thousands of dollars from his campaign fund on memberships to exclusive Philadelphia social clubs, misusing city vehicles as if they were his own and misappropriating money intended to fund his mother’s nursing home care.

Read a recap of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams’ trial with our day-by-day updates and learn more with our explainer on everything you need to know about the case.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Screw You

By rpannier

Yes, SCREW YOU! F@CK YOU! And EVERYTHING ELSE YOU
I swear the next sob story I hear about some jackass who voted for il douchebag whining and crying about how they feel betrayed by the Clown Prince of Idiocracy I'm going find them and hurl a bushel full of rotted apples at their stupid, whining, jerk face.

I have no sympathy, NONE, for the vast majority of the denizens of the political wasteland who want us to feel their pain because their fucking job went to Canada, or Mexico, or China, or was just fucking closed so some vulture capitalist pig whom you admire so much for their grit and monetary know-how can buy that new ivory covered back scratcher (my obligatory Simpsonism)

Guess what, oh Servant of the Lord of the Dung, you got took and I don't give a damn.

You voted not just for the Grifter-in-Chief, but then you turned around and voted for his Merry Band of Criminals. Yeah! I'm looking at YOU Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. You who re-elected the odious Republikkan senator from your state for some reason that only someone with several advanced degrees in Behavioral Science focusing specifically on the Stupid, the Lame, the Ignorant, the Bat Shit Moron could possibly hope to comprehend.

Screw you, oh Joe Six-Pack and Sally Housecoat (Another Simpsonism) who are getting on TV and singing your sad tale of how Carrier is really, actually sending the jobs you held elsewhere... and YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. I mean, "HE TOLD US THOSE JOBS WERE SAVED!"
So some (probably most) of you vague-witted harlequins happily tossed away your vote on a man whose whole history has been one of, and get this, 'NOT GIVING A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF!' A simple ixquick (shameless plug), google or whatever search engine you use, would have shown you this.
But, Nooooooooooooo!!! Now, we're treated to seeing a half dozen of you Swamp Creature rejects on TV telling us how betrayed you feel. The funny part is... You really look surprised.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll... screw you! Screw the person who was standing to your left and to your right. Screw everyone who worked at Carrier who voted for Trump.
My sympathies lie with those of you who didn't vote for the Swinish Lout that presently claims the title of President.
They deserve our sympathies.
But here's the thing, you won't see them on TV all glazy eyed, drooling, shaking their heads, saying, "I...I just don't get it."
That's probably why they don't get interviewed. They ought to send a reporter to your town and do a segment on every Carrier employee who voted Clinton beating the shit out of the Trump voters with padded clubs.
But that would be too violent... maybe. And, if it were me who had lost my job and they gave me a club, it'd take 15 people to pull me away from you nit-witted trolls.

Moving on to another location in the Midwest, but still smack-dab in the heart of Doofania (Phineas and Ferb), Fox6 and Money reports that GE is closing their plant in Waukesha and move its 300-plus jobs to Canada.
And yes... Yes... YEs... YES, the addlepated dwellers of Swale of Stupid are SHOCKED! DISAPPOINTED! and SADDENED! this is happening.
I'm sure the DUH-nizens are all of those things and more.
Maybe... and just maybe now... YOU SHOULD HAVE F@CKING THOUGHT OF THAT WHEN YOU NOT ONLY VOTED FOR THE ORANGE SWINE, BUT ALSO VOTED TO RE-ELECT JOHNSON TO THE SENATE AND RYAN TO CONGRESS.
By a hefty margin of over 2:1 You Butt-Clowns voted for the poor man's Mussolini. By over 2:1 you voted for the reject from the Movie Leprechaun Paul Ryan (rejected because he was too sociopathic for the part).

You want a good laugh. It's pathetic, but I laughed.
“Doesn’t he realize that we voted for him? He should have been there and saw my wife crying. He should have been there,” Kenneth Olsen said (of Ryan).
Poor... poor Kenneth Olsen. You voted for Truquemada and IT and now you and your wife (who also likely voted for them) has a sad.
And why should Ryan show up? Do you have a hefty campaign donation for him. Or, do you just want to sit there while he laughs at your stupidity?
SCREW YOU!
Screw Bret Mattice, who voted for the first time...EVER! And guess for whom the dimbulb voted? If you guessed the least qualified person on the ballot, any ballot, in any country, at any time in history, you'd be correct.
Do us all a favor Bret Mattice, don't ever vote again... please
Oh... and screw you!

Then there's this primary school refuse, Joe Barlow. In an interview, supporter of the Annoying Orange reject, Joe Barlow, said this....
Note... pay careful attention to your jaw. It may drop so hard and so fast you could hurt yourself. My suggestion is to tie it off like Jacob Marley in a Christmas Carol
“I don’t believe there’s hope for our plant. My hope is, companies like that, that offshore all the work, I hope he follows through on his 35% tax and punishes those businesses,”
You see that? "I hope he follows through on his 35%...blah." Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! He hopes Trump follows through on a campaign promise.
Screw You Joe. You and your Trumpists screwed over your fellow employees, the one's who didn't vote for the squalid-one. The one's who didn't just say, "How fucking stupid a vote can I cast? Hmmmmm. I know. I'll vote for all three. Because what could possibly go wrong?"

Here's the difference between you People Under the Stairs and say, some out of work guy, who is surfing through garbage dumps hoping to find enough scrap metal that he can sell to survive. I can almost understand them. They had nothing to lose. But... you... you F@CKERS had good paying jobs. At the time, your plant in Wisconsin was NOT... I repeat NOT in danger of closing. In fact, it was his election and the inane rantings of the Evil Elf about the Import-Export Bank that got it closed and moved on to Canada.
You had money! You had a House! You had something! You pittered it away for some unknown reason.
Write a book titled. "How NOT to be a squirrel brained jack-ass!"
Tell us what you were thinking, so we know what NOT to do

To my niece in Minnesota (still in the Midwest) who voted for Trump, for one reason and ONE REASON ONLY.... (dum... er... drum roll. I'm sure you already know the answer) "I did it for the babies."
Yes! Yes! Yes, ladies and gentlemen... Abortion! Abortion was the reason why she voted for the Fake Tanned Ogre! Abortion!
Now... now... she's all concerned because his policies could hurt the children. You know... the boys and girls that are NOT little growing pieces of tissue, that if removed from the womb would die within a few hours. Actual living, breathing HUMAN BEINGS.
SCREW YOU! Screw you and Your fucking Abortion fixation

Slogging back to Indiana and a revisit to dimwit Helen Beristain and her undocumented husband.
Ms. Helen Beristain actually thought her husband would not get deported.
Laugh along with me folks. She's as jaw dropping stupid as the guys in Wisconsin.

Ms. Helen Beristain somehow believed her husband would not be deported because only the 'Bad Hombres' would go. She said (before her husband was shipped off to Mexico) "I don't think ICE is out there to detain anyone and break families, no,"
She was, of course, shocked that her husband was kicked out.
How does she feel now? Don't know. According to CNN, she won't answer calls from any news sources.
Screw You Ms Helen Beristain. And screw Granger, Indiana... the very Republican Town of Granger, Indiana. The shocked citizenry of the town who thought Roberto would not be sent back because he was a good person, 'A Good Hombre'. Screw You

I could go on. There are so many of these stories. The dumb twerp in Florida who was afraid of losing his insurance, but felt it would be best to vote for the groper because he was certain it would be best for the whole country to do so, even if it hurt him.
Good job, Buttercup! You lost out. And... here's the part you somehow missed... They're SCREWING everyone over.
Oh.. unless you're a millionaire.

The oxygen thieves, the simpletons who voted for his Assness, or at the very least, wouldn't vote for Clinton because somehow... someway... there was 'NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.'
HYSTERICAL isn't it? Because if she were president right now, Gorsuch, or someone worse would be on the Court... I guess. Oh... and we'd be looking at selling off National Park Land. And of course, we'd have a President beholden to the closest thing to a real-life Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in Putin. And, of course, she'd have insulted half the leaders of our allies by whining about electoral votes and actual votes and her inauguration attendance and some other rubbish. And lied about taping conversations in the White House (or did trump lie?)
Screw You! Screw You! Screw You!

(And for the sake of transparency; 1. I voted for Sanders in the primary. 2. I did belong to the Clinton Group on DU. 3 I belonged to every Democratic President Group for 2016 on DU. 4. I voted for Clinton in the GE. Just in case you're thinking, "I wonder who rpannier voted for?")

Or the countless stupid people across the country, male and female, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, African American, western Asian, Protestants, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (yeah, I'm perplexed by that as well) who, for some inexplicable reason got up out of bed and said to themselves, "I'm going to do the FUCKING STUPIDEST THING I WILL EVER do in my entire lifetime."
They somehow found a polling station and voted for that thing that sits in the White House, in a bathrobe, screaming at a television set and finding new and different ways to enrich his family and friends, while screwing over everyone else.

Well... Screw You (he says calmly). You're an idiot. I cannot fix this problem. Most of my family cannot fix this problem. Many of my friends cannot. They got out and voted. They didn't vote for the orange-faced fake-haired charlatan.

****************
I am finished. I have said my piece. I am still not at piece with the low wattage loser in the WH.
And... one last thought....
Screw You if You voted for Trump

Sunday, June 25, 2017

New poll shows majority of Americans are unaware Trumpcare slashes Medicaid

Just 38 percent of people polled knew the Republican health care bill makes major cuts to Medicaid.


As Senate Republicans aim to force a vote on their version of Trumpcare — a bill that was written in secret, without public hearings, despite the fact that it will reshape one-sixth of the U.S. economy and impact the lives of millions of Americans — most people have been left in the dark.

Last month, the House passed their version of the bill, which would strip health care from 24 million people, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The bill also makes major cuts and structural changes to Medicaid, a health insurance program relied upon by nearly 75 million Americans — primarily low-income, disabled, and elderly.

The Senate version of Trumpcare goes even further, according to the draft released by Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday, effectively phasing out Medicaid entirely.

But according to a new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation on Friday, only 38 percent of Americans are aware of the significant cuts to Medicaid that would be delivered by the House-passed bill (the poll was conducted before the details of the Senate bill were made public). Seventy-four percent of those polled, meanwhile, said they have a favorable opinion of Medicaid.

 
The KFF poll notes that “proposed Medicaid changes were not initially a major point of discussion surrounding consideration of the House bill… which may partly explain why many respondents were unaware of its effect.”

The Senate’s harsher Medicaid cuts were immediately met with fierce objections, however. Roughly 60 members of ADAPT, a U.S. disability rights organization that strongly opposes the Republican health care bill, staged a die-in outside of McConnell’s office on Thursday. Wheelchair users were arrested and dragged from the Capitol by police.

Moderate Republicans have also expressed their discomfort with the severe cuts to Medicaid, with the strongest objection thus far coming from Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) on Friday. “I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans,” the senator said at a press conference in Las Vegas.

 
Hours later, America First Policies — a pro-Trump group run by several of the president’s top campaign advisers — announced it was launching a seven-figure advertising campaign against Heller, Politico reported. Heller is widely viewed as one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2018.

Ironically, President Donald Trump made protecting Medicaid a key component of his campaign, vowing to “save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts” in the speech announcing his candidacy.

Trump told the Washington Post’s Abby Phillip that the Senate version of Trumpcare needed “a little negotiation, but it’s going to be very good.” The president reportedly made calls to Senate Republicans on Friday to try to gin up support for the measure. Trump acknowledged there is a “very, very narrow path” to passage, but that “I think we’re going to get there,” Reuters reported.

Don't Let The Bastards Murder The Affordable Care Act

Posted by Rude One

Let us say, and why not, that you've got a car you've had for a few years. It was given to you by a boyfriend you broke up with a while back. The car's nothing fancy, but it gets you where you need to go and it's only given you a few minor problems here and there. Maintenance kind of stuff - new tires, a brake job - the stuff you expect to need to do to take good care of the car so it takes good care of you.

Now, let us say, and, indeed, why not, that you start dating a new guy who takes a look at your car and says, "Man, what a piece of shit. I'm gonna get you a new car. A better car. One that won't cost you nearly as much. Better gas mileage. Less repairs. Shiny damn paint job. And you can just trash that thing. That guy you were with before me didn't know shit about cars. I know better." It sounds good. I mean, who doesn't want a new car? But then he drives up in a rusted out hulk that looks like it's been beaten with a sledgehammer in a sand storm. You know it's gonna need a major overhaul, possibly a new engine or transmission. It's gonna be a pain in the ass and cost you a ton.

"The fuck is this?" you ask.

"I promised you a new car," he said. "I got you a new car. Now you can get rid of that car of yours I hate."

You would break up with that shitheel as soon as you could speak the words.

This morning, on NPR's Morning Edition, Tommy Binion, the congressional liaison for the Heritage Foundation (motto: "We came up with Obamacare but now we're too fucking crazy conservative to acknowledge that"), was asked why he thought Senate Republicans were moving forward with their version of the "mean" American Health Care Act, despite it having incredibly high negatives in polling. Binion was frank, saying, "I think what's happening here is [Republicans are] trying desperately to keep their promise to vote for anything that they can call Obamacare repeal. So in this case, yes, they've picked a very unpopular bill. That's part of what the process has thrust upon them. But they're determined to keep their promise."

That's the kind of fuckery we're dealing with. Not only is the bill being written by a shitty star chamber of white dudes who represent less than a quarter of the population of the country, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch "One Day, Children Will Say My Name in the Same Breath as Benedict Arnold" McConnell is determined to get a vote in the next two weeks, with at most 10 hours for senators not locked in a room and forced to breathe in Orrin Hatch's old man farts to read it, debate it, and amend it. That is fucked beyond fucked. That is contorting yourself into a pretzel to suck your own dick kind of fucked. Even the senators themselves can't justify the bill beyond the idea of repealing the ACA.

Here's a handy, one paragraph review of what happened when the Affordable Care Act went to the Senate in 2009: President Obama actively courted Republicans to get on board, especially Maine's Olympia Snowe. Hell, snarky asshole bloggers were pissed about his outreach. The bill was debated in the Senate Finance Committee before it passed from there to the Senate floor. That was after three House committees and the Senate health committee had vetted it, with Republicans able to debate it the whole time. This was followed by weeks of more debate and amendment votes. So if any dumbfuck conservative tries to ejaculate stupidly about how Democrats rushed through the ACA, shove that list from Congress up their idiot asses.

Look, it's time to stick a pin in the left's Russia hard-on right now in order to get all hands, voices, and boots on deck to stop the American Health Care Act from passage. It's a terrible bill filled with terrible ideas, concocted by terrible human beings. So it's time for Hayes/Maddow/O'Donnell/Reid and whoever else to knock off the financial conflict and espionage stories for a while and go whole hog on this. Right now, Democrats are doing something by denying unanimous consent to proceed on any votes in the Senate, and they are holding the floor in a "talkathon," speeches about the unfair process.

But these delay tactics need to be followed by even more. The "filibuster by amendment" is one approach, where Democrats keep proposing amendments that need to be voted on until Republicans agree to hold hearings on the bill. Pressure needs to brought to bear on the seemingly wavering Republican senators, who need to be reminded who will be blamed when the AHCA doesn't do any of the shit voters were promised.

One last thing needs to happen, and I'm frankly stunned that it hasn't happened yet. The Affordable Care Act is the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. Where the fuck is he? Why the fuck isn't Barack Obama barnstorming the country, riling people up? He gets to protect his legacy. Enough of being above the fray. Fuck that. Lives are on the line, man, and a bunch of vicious assholes are shitting all over him.

Obama, Biden, get 'em all out there, giving interviews, tearing into the cruelty of those who want to turn back the clock. This is life and death, motherfuckers. Let's all act like it is.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Counsel Investigating Trump For Money Laundering

If Trump made an illegal deal with the Russians, Robert Mueller wants to find out. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.

“In addition to investigating whether or not Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey, special counsel Robert Mueller is also reportedly investigating “money laundering by Trump associates,” the New York Times reports. The Times report corroborates a separate bombshell Washington Post article, published Wednesday, that said in addition to possible obstruction, investigators are also “looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates.”

“A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates,” a source told the Times. “The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been done in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payoffs, most likely by routing them through offshore banking centers.”

Read more here:

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/special-counsel-mueller-also-investigating-possible-money-laundering-by-trump-associates/

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Trump seeks sharp cuts to housing aid, except for program that brings him millions

Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.

One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-seeks-sharp-cuts-to-housing-aid-except-for-program-that-brings-him-millions/2017/06/20/bf1fb2b8-5531-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

10 Ways Mitch McConnell's Secret, Evil Senate Operation To Destroy The Affordable Health Care Act Will Make Life Hell For Many Americans

Mitch McConnell's politics have always been abysmal. But now he's playing with people's lives.

Photo Credit: cspan.org

As details emerge from Senate Republicans’ backroom deliberations to write a single bill repealing Obamacare, defunding Medicaid and deregulating health insurance, it's clear that virtually no American household—apart from the very rich—would be immune from fiscally painful and medically harsh consequences if the GOP gets a bill to the president’s desk.

For the past month, an 11 man committee appointed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, has been meeting in secret to fine-tune the House-passed Obamacare repeal legislation. They are not starting anew, but are polishing a bill that will leave 15-20 million people without health care, prompt higher insurance and medical costs for all but the youngest adults, freeze and shrink state-run Medicaid (which now covers 45 percent of the children in rural America), and defund Planned Parenthood. This is according to analyses by the Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation and others.

Even the pro-corporate Washington Post editorial board has called out the GOP for its chaos-creating prescriptions, writing that they are “motivated to solve a problem that does not exist—saving a health-care system supposedly on the path to inevitable collapse by repealing and replacing Obamacare.” None of that seems to matter to McConnell, who wants to pass the as-yet-unreleased bill before the Senate’s July 4 recess. While defections from the GOP’s far right or few moderates could thwart any Senate bill’s passage, the White House has made it clear it wants McConnell to pass something the president can sign.

What’s unfolding in Washington right now is appalling. Beyond the cowardly political tactics, the GOP is literally playing with the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Everyone ages, and many will get sick and develop chronic illness and disease. The consequences can be devastating if the GOP shreds medical safety nets for the poor and allows the insurance industry to charge more yet deliver less health security in myriad ways.

What follows are 10 takeaways from the Senate’s Obamacare repeal process.

1. McConnell’s skullduggery is back. As Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2015 to 2017, wrote in a Washington Post column Saturday, only 8 percent of the public supported passage of the House’s Obamacare repeal bill (which also slashed Medicaid and included major tax cuts for the rich). He could have told senators to fix Obamacare’s problems, such as allowing small states to form insurance pools.

“Instead, McConnell put a plan in place to pass something close to the House bill using three simple tools: sabotage, speed and secrecy,” Slavitt wrote. “He formed a committee to meet secretly, hold no hearings, create a fast-track process and pressure Senate skeptics with backroom deals.” Trump just wants it done, Politico.com reported. “He’s definitely leaving it to Mitch to lead. But he very much wants it to happen,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, told Politico.

2. Congressional chaos is having its desired effect—2018 premiums to rise. The GOP is not just sending mixed signals about what they may do to one-sixth of the U.S. economy. They are intentionally provoking insurers to raise their prices for 2018 as a pretext to pass their legislation.

This was cited in a Washington Post editorial, “The GOP’s Obamacare Sabotage Continues,” in which the editorial board was unusually clear-eyed. “‘Insurers have made clear the lack of certainty is causing 2018 proposed premiums to rise significantly,’ House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said Thursday, arguing that Congress should step in.” That’s creating a problem to fit a solution.

3. Meanwhile Trump’s team is also embracing more chaos. The Trump team is doing everything it can not to enforce Obamacare, such as “lax enforcement of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, inadequate efforts to enroll more people in coverage and other gratuitous subversions of the finely tuned system Obamacare sought to create,” the same Post editorial said. As significant, the White House is refusing to commit to paying 2018 Obamacare subsidies for millions, according to Vox.com, which reported that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price wouldn’t even tell a U.S. Senate committee what the administration’s plans were.

4. Against this backdrop, the Senate is 'making progress.' That’s the word from a handful of center-right Republicans who have been shown glimpses of what’s going on behind closed doors—as if reversing one or two planks of the House bill is supposed to be a sign of moderation. That is absurd. Moreover, what the Senate is said to be doing is terrible.

For example, restoring Obamacare’s pre-existing condition rule—which requires insurers to sell people policies—but without cost controls or coverage requirements. Last month’s Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House-passed bill said a wide swath of the public “would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all.” Moreover, many policies are likely to cover less once minimum coverage standards are deregulated.

5. The young will pay less, but everyone else won’t. The only people who stand to benefit, the New York Times reported, are those least likely to get sick. “The budget office [CBO] did note that the House bill would potentially lead to lower prices, especially for younger and healthier people,” it said. “But the budget office also warned that markets in states that allowed insurers to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions—whether high blood pressure, a one-time visit to a specialist or cancer.” This is what deregulation of the insurance industry will bring. The industry will go back to creating more barriers between patients and doctors.

6. Many policies will only be used for hospitalization. Other analyses include scenarios where people will see deductibles rise to levels where they will pay for most care until a serious emergency requiring hospital care arises. As the Times wrote, that can amount to a major fiscal burden.

“Millions of people could also wind up with little choice but to buy cheap plans that provided minimal coverage in states that opted out of requiring insurers to cover maternity care, mental health and addiction treatment or rehabilitation services, among other services required under the Affordable Care Act. Consumers who could not afford high premiums would wind up with enormous out-of-pocket medical expenses.”

7. Medicaid is going to be frozen, justified by big lies. Another detail that’s leaked out of the Senate drafting sessions is that it’s not a question whether Medicaid will see $800 billion in reduced spending and 14 million fewer recipients during the next decade, as the House bill laid out. Rather it is a question of how fast the Medicaid rollback will be. The Hill reports there’s been debate whether it will be three years or seven years. Vox.com also reports that the Senate wants to institute an approach that could lead to sharper funding cuts than the House: more frequent revisions to Medicaid reimbursement rates.

The White House and GOP talking points on this are a series of lies. HHS Secretary Price told a Senate committee, “We are trying to decrease the number of uninsured,” after the CBO estimated that 23 million people would lose insurance. Trump has said he will not touch Medicare—even though Medicaid pays for nursing home care in that program. And Republicans keep saying this is not spending cuts, but slower spending increases. “What the defenders of this claim—ranging from Karl Rove to Sally Pipes—have insisted is that this is a cut to the growth rate, not cuts to the existing program,” wrote health policy blogger Emma Sandoe. “The reality is that states will have to reduce the number of services they provide or reduce the types of people that can enroll as inflation and increased costs in medical services rise.”

8. This is a war on government and on the poor. What the GOP is trying to do is not just go after Obamacare, but dismantle safety nets dating back to the 1960s. As Sandoe noted, “The GOP has campaigned for decades on the idea that the social welfare state is bloated and that the oversized growth of the welfare state needs to be trimmed. The GOP should embrace the idea of calling per-capita caps and block grants cuts. From a policy perspective, the goal of the per-capita caps and block grants is to reduce the size and scope of the program.”

9. Republicans are pursuing this despite vast opposition. Recent polls show safety nets are incredibly popular while the GOP’s American Health Care Act is not. On Medicaid alone, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll by Democrats and Republicans opposed cutting its expansion and changing its financing structure. “Many other polls show that the majority of voters have favorable views of Medicaid, coming close to the level of support for Medicare,” Sandoe wrote. “Telling is that a Quinnipiac poll found that Republicans oppose cuts to Medicaid. This is one possible reason that the latest [GOP] messaging appears to be focused on reframing the cuts as minimal. Meanwhile, the AHCA has polled from 1721 percent by Quinnipiac and only 8 percent think that the Senate should pass these reforms without changes.”

10. If this passes, a colossal downward spiral will ensue. The impact of the AHCA, if passed, is not just going to be fiscal—in terms of increased out-of-pocket costs for those with insurance policies. As the Times reported, people age 50 and older, and “millions of middle- and working-class Americans” will once again be trapped in their jobs because they will be unable to pay for coverage. “The Affordable Care Act has enabled many of those workers to get transitional coverage that provides a bridge to the next phase of their lives—a stopgap to get health insurance if they leave a job, are laid off, start a business or retire early.”

For those too poor to buy insurance, Medicaid will contract and likely be forced to focus on emergency and crisis care, rather than prevention. Rationing care will likely ensue, unless states step in with raising revenues to offset federal cutbacks. Safety nets are likely to roll backwards, landing somewhere between where they are now and where they were before Obamacare’s reforms took effect.

McConnell’s Fast Track
As Axios.com reported, McConnell is hoping to finalize the Senate’s legislation this week, because the Congressional Budget Office will need two weeks to “score” it—the Washington term for assessing its financial and programmatic impacts—if it is to come up for a Senate floor vote before the July 4 break. While it's possible that McConnell could present a bill without that analysis, it is likely that more details will emerge in coming days.

At that point, Republicans will surely feel the full wrath of voters who aren’t going to have anything positive to say if their health care is trashed, or if the GOP tries to blame Obama and the Democrats for market chaos they have worsened, not diminished.

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

The Confederate General Babbles Before Congress

Posted by Excommunicated Cardinal

At 2:30pm Eastern time today, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will testify under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding his contacts with government officials of the Russian Federation prior to the January 20th inauguration, as well as his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Many burning questions remain for Sessions.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has brought on money laundering experts, a veritable "murders' row" of prosecutors, while the right-wing world has turned on him in a transparent and vicious attempt to undermine the credibility of the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia and other filthy laundry the investigation turns up.

To complicate matters further for the embattled chief executive, there are reports that he is considering attempting to fire Robert Mueller. Jesse Eisinger and Justin Elliott of ProPublica have also reported that Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz has claimed to have been a catalyst in the firing of former US Attorney Preet Bhara.

In other news, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration in regards to Trump's self-proclaimed travel ban, unanimously upholding an injunction preventing the implementation of the policy.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell is trying desperately to pass another cruel ACA-repeal bill with no public text or CBO score.

Monday, June 12, 2017

When Trump Said He'd Testify, He Didn't Mean To Congress

Trump will not testify before Congress under oath, a development that legal experts say was expected but that illustrates the pitfalls of the president’s tendency to shoot from the hip in public remarks.

Trump said at a Friday press conference that would “100%” agree to give sworn testimony in response to former FBI director James Comey’s allegations last week.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president was “specifically asked whether or not he would talk to Director Mueller,” the special counsel investigating alleged Russian election meddling, under oath.

In fact, Trump was asked generally about giving sworn testimony rebutting Comey’s allegations that the president asked him to pledge loyalty and to ease up on the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Asked a follow-up about Mueller specifically, the president said he would speak with him as well.

Congressional Democrats were giddy at the prospect of grilling Trump under oath, but experts say that testimony was probably never going to happen. “I think that was expected,” said national security attorney Bradley Moss. “Having the President testify before Congress raises significant separation of powers concerns. The last to do it was Gerald Ford and all others since have adamantly refused.”

But Moss and his law partner Mark Zaid say the president didn’t seem aware of that fact during his remarks on Friday. “This Presidency is marked like none other by a White House tendency to reinterpret the specific words of the President. Every time that happens its credibility suffers,” Zaid said in an email.

Lachlan Markay

Saturday, June 10, 2017

BREAKING: ‘USA Today’ Drops Jeff Sessions Testimony Bombshell

By Carissa House-Dunphy

After the testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey on Thursday, which raised as many questions as it answered, pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle are left to analyze and debate what it all meant. The information given to the American public did not, however, end with Comey’s testimony.
On Tuesday, new testimony will be presented to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science by Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions has recently come under fire for his failure to disclose secret meetings with Russian government operatives in his requests for security clearance as attorney general. Questioning, however, will apparently not focus on those meetings, nor will it focus on matters related to commerce or science.

According to USA Today:

‘The hearing is supposed to focus on the 2017 budget request for the Department of Justice. But Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the overall Appropriations Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday he will press Sessions about his role in President Trump’s May decision to fire Comey as FBI director.’

While Trump’s spokespeople insisted that the president fired James Comey on the recommendations of Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Trump later denied that to Lester Holt during a televised interview in which he insisted that he alone made the decision to fire Comey.

The rapid turnaround in the narrative came after questions were raised as to why Sessions was involved in decisions about Comey at all, considering that Comey was in the process of investigating the president’s campaign team for collusion with Russia and Sessions had recused himself from all decision involving that investigation after his undisclosed meetings with Russian government officials became public.

The country once again waits with bated breath for more details of this ongoing saga.

Random Observations On Comey's Testimony

Posted by Rude One

1.  Hey, there, Americans who voted for Donald Trump for president. I just wanna offer a hearty "thanks" for putting Trump in office. I mean, I thought things would be crazy, but, seriously, I never expected Trump to exceed expectations so quickly. Are you having fun yet? Are you tired of winning? Man, I sure am. I can't handle all this winning.

That's what it is, right? Trump's wins? Having the former director of the FBI testify under oath that Trump is a debased, immoral lying liar who lies so much that you gotta be ready for more lies? That's winning, no?

Having an attorney general who perjured himself repeatedly? Winning so hard that it hurts! And bonus winning: Trump never asked Comey about Russian interference in American elections. That means Trump knew the answer already. Or he didn't give a shit because it benefited him.

Goddamn, I don't see how you Trump voters can stand all this fucking winning.

You can brag about all these wins, Trump voters. All nearly 63 million of you, every single one a racist, moron, hypocrite, and/or liar. You own this. How's that feel? Is any of this getting through the Breitbart haze and Fox "news" mist? When tens of millions of people lose their health insurance and thousands of people die, that's on you, you dumbass motherfuckers. When another banking crisis wipes out your meager retirement funds or makes you lose your home, that's also on you.

You did this to the nation. You decided that you'd rather tear the country down because of some delusion that the rich man was gonna make you rich, too. You decided to ignore every single person, even Republicans, who told you that you were flushing the United States down the shitter, and you sure showed us. Yeah, you did.

You need to choke on your votes. You need to feel ashamed. When this is over, even if we have to wait until 2019, you need to beg for forgiveness from those of us who knew better.

But you won't. At this point, you could walk into a room where your mother has been raped and murdered, see Trump standing there with a bloody knife and a dripping dick, and you’d still say, “Why do libtards hate America?”


2. Let me put on my English professor hat for a moment here. Trump told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Starting with Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, to some on the right, this meant that Trump was merely stating something that he was wishing might come true, like Comey was a well he had tossed a penny into, with no real expectation that it would.

And that might be right if Trump had told Comey, “I hope unicorns are real.” But he didn’t. Instead, Trump asked everyone who was in the room to leave him alone with Comey. And then he expressed this “hope.” If you’re alone with your boss and your boss says, “I hope you can finish those documents by morning,” there is an implicit “or else.”

To see this in any way other than as a command is to descend into “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” levels of linguistic fuckery. Fuck you, defenders of Trump. Everyone fucking knows what he was saying. Let’s stop pretending that all of a sudden it’s an innocent, earnest desire said theoretically, as if you have no control over it. “I hope Grandma doesn’t have cancer” is a fuck of a lot different than “I hope you don’t make me punch you.”

3. What Republicans are doing now is asking, “Who do you believe? The President? Or your own lying ears?” Words don’t have meaning. To write up a private meeting and then give those notes to the media is called “leaking,” even though no classified information was involved. “Vindication” apparently means “I don't fucking care what anyone says.”

4. A few things are clear. The President of the United States is a liar. It’s something that everyone around him has said about him. It’s something that he has said himself. And if the president can’t be trusted, then why should anyone listen to anything he says or promises? (See #1. Those fuckers will believe him even when they're standing in their own radioactive shit in the middle of a scorched wasteland.)

5. The vast majority of Americans who want Trump stopped, who don’t believe in his agenda, who think something is incredibly fucked here, are on their own. Democrats have virtually no power right now. And the Republicans have no interest in holding him to account. Nothing will happen unless Democrats take back at least the House in the 2018 midterm elections. Until then, we can look forward to nonstop scandal and the cruel dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, two things that will rapidly send the United States spiraling into chaos.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: What happens now is on Republicans. Trump's attempt to influence the FBI investigation is way worse, on so many levels, than a president lying under oath about whether or not he got a blow job in the Oval Office. But that was enough for Republicans to drag us through the Clinton impeachment, enough for them to say that the rule of law must take precedent.

These hypocritical sows of the GOP, many of whom were there back in the late 1990's, just roll around in their own mud and waste, telling the rest of us to join them because they're not gonna stop.

FBI Notified: Mitch Mconnell In $2.5M Money Funnel Connected To Putin

By mhw

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/06/09/fbi-notified-after-mitch-mcconnell-exposed-in-2-5m-money-funnel-connected-to-putin/

By Natalie Thongrit - June 9, 2017

SNIP

Thanks to the hard work of Democratic pundit Scott Dworkin, it’s beginning to look like every Republican politician has some kind of link to Russia.

Over the last few months, Dworkin has revealed that several Republican senators — including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — have accepted money from Russian donors. He also produced evidence of even more connections a couple of weeks ago that were shared by Palmer Report.

In May, Dworkin found documents that link Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a super PAC that accepted $2.5 million from a “pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman.” He shared photos of the documents on Twitter, along with the following message:

‘#TrumpLeaks Docs: Mitch McConnell linked super PAC took $2.5 million from a pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman last election cycle #trumprussia’

#TrumpLeaks Docs: Mitch McConnell linked super PAC took $2.5 million from a pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman last election cycle #trumprussia pic.twitter.com/V7HTq16fCR

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) May 21, 2017

*Scott Walker*
Dworkin also found that McConnell is not the only person who has benefited from a pro-Putin businessman. He tweeted a couple of days later photos of documents that show Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker also received money from this “pro-Putin” individual during the last election cycle.

MORE..Interesting read.!



Why they refuse to have Trump investigated.
We all knew that bunch was invested in Putin's scam, now we have the story.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

When Will Trump Voters Realize They've Been Had?

People don't like to admit they were wrong, which is what they would be doing if they concede that Trump is not up to the job.

Photo Credit: George Sheldon / Shutterstock.com

When will the people of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, those stalwart Trump voters who believe he’ll be bringing back coal jobs, finally figure out they’ve been had?

History suggests it's unrealistic to expect people to change their minds quickly. This is a pattern that has held for centuries. In the 1600's the Salem witch trials dragged on for eight long months before townsfolk finally began to realize that they had been caught up in an irrational frenzy. More recently, Americans proved during Watergate that they are reluctant to turn on a president they have just elected despite mounds of evidence incriminating him in scandalous practices. The Watergate burglary took place on June 17, 1972. But it wasn't until April 30, 1973 – eleven months later – that his popularity finally fell below 50 percent. This was long after the Watergate burglars had been tried and convicted and the FBI had confirmed news reports that the Republicans had played dirty tricks on the Democrats during the campaign. Leaked testimony had even showed that former Attorney General John Mitchell knew about the break-in in advance. But not until Nixon fired White House Counsel John Dean and White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resigned did a majority turn against the president. And even at that point Nixon's poll numbers stood higher than Trump's. Nixon:  48 percent; Trump: 42 percent.

It's not just conservative voters who are reluctant to change their minds. So are liberals. After news reports surfaced in the 1970s proving that John Kennedy was a serial philanderer millions of his supporters refused to acknowledge it. A poll in 2013 show a majority of Americans still think of him as a good family man.

Thus far not even many leading Democrats have been willing to come out in favor of Trump's impeachment. Cory Booker, the liberal senator from New Jersey, said this past week it's simply too soon. And if a guy like Booker is not yet prepared to come straight out for impeachment, why should we think Trump voters would be willing to? It is only just in the last few weeks that polls show that a plurality of voters now favor Trump's impeachment. (Twelve percent of self-identified Trump voters share this view, which is remarkable.)

It's no mystery why people are reluctant to change their minds. Social scientists have produced hundreds of studies that explain the phenomenon. Rank partisanship is only part of the answer. Mainly it’s that people don't like to admit they were wrong, which is what they would be doing if they concede that Trump is not up to the job. When Trump voters hear news that puts their leader in an unfavorable light they experience cognitive dissonance. The natural reaction to this is to deny the legitimacy of the source of the news that they find upsetting. This is what explains the harsh attacks on the liberal media. Those stories are literally making Trump voters feel bad. As the Emory University social scientist Drew Westen has demonstrated, people hearing information contrary to their beliefs will cease giving it credence. This is not a decision we make at the conscious level. Our brain makes it for us automatically.

So what leads people to finally change their minds? One of the most convincing explanations is provided by the Theory of Affective Intelligence. This mouthful of a name refers to the tendency of people experiencing cognitive dissonance to feel anxiety when they do so. As social scientist George Marcus has explained, when the burden of hanging onto an existing opinion becomes greater than the cost of changing it, we begin to reconsider our commitments. What's the trigger? Anxiety. When there's a mismatch between our views of the way the world works and reality we grow anxious. This provokes us to make a fresh evaluation.

What this research suggests is that we probably have a ways to go before Trump voters are going to switch their opinions. While some are evidently feeling buyers' remorse, a majority aren't. They're just not anxious enough yet. Liberals need not worry. The very same headlines that are giving them an upset stomach are making it more and more likely Trump voters are also experiencing discomfort. What might push them over the edge?  One possibility would be a decision to follow through on his threat to end subsidies to insurance companies under Obamacare, leading to the collapse of the system, and the loss of coverage for millions of Trump voters. That’s become more and more likely since the Senate is apparently unable to pass the repeal and replace measure Trump has been counting on.  So liberals just have to wait and watch.  Will the story unfold like Watergate?  Every day the answer increasingly seems yes.

An optimist would argue that social media will help push people to change their minds faster now than in the past.  But social media could also have the opposite effect. People living in a bubble who get their media from biased sources online may be less likely to encounter the contrary views that stimulate reflection than was common, say, in the Nixon years when virtually all Americans watched the mainstream network news shows.  Eventually, one supposes, people will catch on no matter how they consume news.  Of late even Fox News viewers have heard enough disturbing stories about Trump to begin to reconsider their commitment to him.  That is undoubtedly one reason why Nate Silver found that so many Trump voters are reluctant to count themselves among the strongest supporters.

Rick Shenkman is the editor and founder of the History News Network and the author most recently of Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics (Basic Books, January 2016).

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Larry King, Ed Schultz On Putin's Payroll

Russia Today, Putin’s propaganda ‘news’ network, is getting help from familiar American media figures to undermine, well, America.

Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero/The Daily Beast

Inside Russia Today’s American headquarters in Washington, across from the receptionist’s desk stamped by a lime green “RT” banner, an ad starring Ed Schultz and Larry King plays on a large screen TV.

Schultz and King, whom he dwarfs, stand opposite one another, marveling at the success of the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, which they both agree is astounding. “Follow the 2016 campaign right here on RT America!” Schultz says. King points at the camera and delivers the network’s slogan, “And question more.

Founded 11 years ago Thursday in September of 2005, Russia Today is a Moscow-based, English-language news outlet which is funded by the Kremlin and serves to promote Russian state propaganda, like stories about the West collapsing and the CIA being to blame for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, which according to RT, Russia did not invade.

In 2010, RT branched out to the United States, launching RT America. In a 2014 BuzzFeed investigation, Rosie Gray reported former RT America employees describing “an atmosphere of censorship and pressure” at the network—like orders to report on Germany as a “failed state” despite any evidence that the country fits the criteria.

One RT anchor, Liz Wahl, protested by quitting live on air. She later described herself as “Putin’s pawn.” Casual viewing of the network shows a focus on negative stories about the U.S., from claims that American Olympians received special treatment which allowed them to take drugs to outward mocking of the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, despite claiming non-partisanship.

Nevertheless, the network today broadcasts shows hosted by Schultz, a former sportscaster turned right-wing radio host turned liberal bullhorn; King, the longtime host of Larry King Live; and Jesse Ventura, the former wrestler and governor of Minnesota who promotes 9/11 truther conspiracies, among a handful of other less notable names.

Ventura makes sense in a way—RT is a network, after all, with an Illuminati correspondent. Schultz and King, however, are head scratchers.

Both men left their major American networks—Schultz, when his MSNBC show was canceled in July 2015; King, when he retired from CNN in 2010—amid sinking ratings and dwindling popularity.

But that hardly makes them unique in television, where hosts can come and go with the seasons.

Neither was persona non grata in the U.S. media when they decided to work for what amounts to an arm of the Russian government, legitimizing the network with their presence—King, due to his long history as a reliable and trustworthy interviewer, and Schultz, for his reputation as an emotional, liberal populist who says what’s on his mind.

“Endorsements from prominent people can bring legitimacy to unknown brands,” Nicco Mele, the director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said. “That’s true of tennis shoes and that’s true of media properties.” Hiring King and Schultz, Mele said, grants RT America a “patina of respectability” although, unlike Al Jazeera English, which was initially feared to be an extension of the Qatari government, RT America has not made it a point to build a robust newsroom or pursue shoe-leather reporting. As for concerns about RT, Mele said, “I don’t feel like it’s been overstated.”

Amid Trump’s decision to appear on King’s program last week—which was criticized by, among others, President Obama—the hosts’ strange association with the Russian government has come into focus just as concerns about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election have reached a fever pitch.

RT America, with its corn fed media personalities serving to soften the blow of blatantly anti-American Russian propaganda, now looks like proof of those concerns, available for viewing 24 hours a day on a cable channel near you.

And the question remains, why would any American work there if they could avoid it?
“Desperation,” Jeff Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism, said. “To go on RT is—to me—primarily just a desperate move to have a camera in front of you with willful disregard for who’s putting that camera there.”

Schultz had initially been eager to do an interview about his role at RT and provide his own answer to that question.

He scheduled the conversation to take place immediately at his office near the White House after receiving the request on Tuesday afternoon.

“Your story just got better,” he wrote in an email. “Obama just called out Trump for doing an interview on RT. The Russian propaganda channel. We are not propaganda. Yes, I will speak with you.”

But then something changed abruptly.

“I guess I cant do the interview, [sic]” he wrote, just 12 minutes later.

The receptionist said he was at his usual post on the 7th floor, but he refused to come down. “I’m sorry for this… I’m just aware of how unfair the DB has been to RT,” he said, perhaps referring to the sometimes-stormy history between the two organizations. “I’m not willing to take that chance.

Thanks Ed.”

When Schultz was on MSNBC, he was an enthusiastic critic of Trump, whom he lanced as a “racist,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he derisively labeled “Putie.” But since joining RT in January, The News With Ed Schultz host has been neutered.

He’s an anchor now, he stresses, not a pundit. But, as Michael Crowley noted for Politico Magazine, his shows often focus on U.S. missteps at home and abroad, from oversized budgets to failing policies in the Middle East. Trump, rather than being called out, is instead given an exceedingly fair shake, characterized as someone who’s “tapped into anger among working people.”

It’s Putin-approved programming, in other words.

Obama, speaking in Philadelphia on Tuesday, said Trump, “just last week went on Russian state television to talk down our military and to curry favor with Vladimir Putin. He loves this guy!”

RT America obsessively covered the remark. Correspondent Caleb Maupip dismissively called it “a standup comedy routine.”

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and even parroted the Kremlin talking point that Russia did not seize Crimea, and the Russian conspiracy theory that Obama founded ISIS. Thousands of Twitter accounts, known for pushing demonstrably-fake Russian news stories, are also reliably on the #TrumpTrain. When his campaign was run by Paul Manafort, a lobbyist who worked for Russian oligarchs (among other unsavory characters), they took the unprecedented step of softening the Republican Party platform’s language regarding how far the United States would go in defending Ukraine against Russian incursion.

And Russia has appeared to exert influence over the democratic process in other ways. The hack of the Democratic National Committee is widely considered, within the U.S. intelligence community, to have been the work of the Russian government. Further, Wikileaks, which is suspected of having ties to Russia, has been working overtime on behalf of Trump, taunting the release of materials that would be damaging to Clinton’s campaign and even, on Twitter (before deleting it), taking a poll of which illness people thought Clinton was suffering from.

A spokesperson for Trump attempted to quell concerns about his RT appearance—during which he criticized the American media and said claims that the Russians were meddling in the election were probably just Democratic talking points—by making the dubious claim that Trump simply didn’t know the show was for Russian state television, but thought it was for King’s podcast. Then Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said the appearance was just a “favor” to his longtime friend, whose CNN show he frequented.

King could not be reached for an interview as of press time, but in response to questions about his association with RT, he’s often claimed that he is not employed by the network and they simply license his material. That doesn’t explain why King stars in at least two ads for the network, where he says the network’s slogan. King’s publicist was unaware of the ads when asked about them.

One former RT America anchor, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said King’s claim of independence from RT is suspicious, given his chummy relationship with the Russian news director.

When the former anchor was at RT, King taped his show “a few doors down” from the news director’s office. “They meet and they talk,” the former anchor said. In King’s interview with Trump, King asked questions that were, in the former anchor’s telling, “questions that I would’ve been asked to ask if I was interviewing a congressman or something like that.”

Before King came onboard, the former anchor remembered, “It was kind of like a rumor he was coming on and we were all like, ‘What? Why would Larry King come here?’ It makes no sense.”

The former anchor said, “The Russian news director, I remember he was really, really excited to get him on board.”

For RT, King’s decision to associate with the network was “like Christmas.”

“A big part of the strategy is to use American voices to spread these pro-Kremlin messages or point out U.S. hypocrisy,” the former anchor said. “So, if you have someone like Larry King do that, it really adds legitimacy… The whole thing with RT is kind of, like, using U.S. officials and U.S. media figures.”

Still, Trump’s greatest defender was not a member of his campaign staff or an outside surrogate. It was his onetime enemy, Schultz.

“It should be pointed out that the Clinton campaign has refused interviews on RT America,” Schultz said in a homemade video he posted online. “This is manufactured news by the Clinton campaign to vilify Donald Trump and connect him to Vladimir Putin, and that’s their strategy to win the election.”

He added, “It is so sad and so small and so elementary and I think it’s hurting Hillary Clinton, which I think is even more than sad.”

Meanwhile, Schultz was deciding whether or not to change his mind about canceling our interview.

“Let me think on it,” he said. “I don’t need the story. I do this job because I love it, not to be the focus of some story.”

He then told me he could be found at the White House, where liberal activists were protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.

He stood on the grass outside the protest in a pinstripe suit and royal blue shirt, talking on the phone.

 He is a tall and broad figure, with rust-colored hair and small blue eyes that fight against his fleshy eyelids to make contact with the world.

“I’m sorry that it kinda worked out that way,” he said about the inconvenience. He claimed it was his decision to cancel the interview, not RT’s. “I have to respect the people I’m working for,” he said.

He stared off at the protest, a troubled look on his face. “Our world is fucked up, isn’t it?” he asked.

He said he’d recently taken a “chance” by talking to The Washington Post, but was unhappy with the attention in the end—though he wouldn’t divulge why, or if it had led to trouble at RT. “I’m just at a point in time in my career where I just, I don’t need any publicity,” he said. “I do this job ’cause I love it. I’ve never really figured out why the media covers the media, you know? I’m a reporter just like you are.”

Just then a protester approached with a stack of signs and asked if Schultz would like one. “No, thank you, sir,” Schultz said. The protester looked at him skeptically. “Your days of signs are over?” he asked. Schultz laughed through a frown. “No, it’s not over,” he said.

Asked if it bothered him when he was criticized for working for what almost everyone outside of the Russian government believes is a propaganda network, Schultz said, “Well, it doesn’t bother me because I know it’s not the truth, you know? There’s so much in the media that’s not the truth. You know, so I go with what I know and I go with my instincts and I go with the facts.”

Schultz emphasized that he’s now “in a totally different role than what I was doing at MSNBC. I was doing an opinion show. I’m a nightly news anchor now, I don’t—if you watch my show, at 8 o’clock—I don’t give opinions.” Although, he was eager to give his critical opinion of Clinton after Trump’s RT interview proved controversial.

Still, Schultz called the alleged change “rather refreshing,” and said the reason he didn’t seek out a job on another American network was because he wanted to do something different and he didn’t want to rival MSNBC, where he said he still has a lot of friends.

“I feel very comfortable about being fair to Trump,” he said, “I think I’ve been very fair to him.”

Reminded how much he used to hate Trump, Schultz said, “Um, well, then I guess that kind of shows my opinions aren’t getting in the way, right?”

Suddenly, a look of concern spread across Schultz’s face.

He never wanted to be interviewed, he said, and despite giving a reporter his location and answering questions for several minutes, he didn’t want to be quoted. He grew incensed and accusatory, but then seemed to try to calm himself by saying he was comfortable with everything he had said on the record.

He said he didn’t want to answer any more questions, but then he ran after me, in a state of total panic.

“I’m asking you professionally to not write anything about me,” he said.

Informed that I couldn’t promise that, since I was there talking to him to report a story partially about him—something he knew—his face turned red.

He moved closer and stared into my eyes, and then he screamed at me, divulging something personal and wholly unrelated to both RT and the conflict at hand.

“This is a hit job, I know it is!” he screamed again.

Later, in an email, he said, “I’m on record asking you not to do s story on me. I did not know I was being recorded. I don’t want any coverage . I’m professionally asking you to not write about me.

Thank you Ed [sic].”

A few hours later, he called my phone and hung up.