DES MOINES , Iowa ( AP ) — A top aide to Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer in Iowa privately offered campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsing his White House bid , according to multiple people with direct knowledge of the conversations .\nThe overtures from Pat Murphy , a former state House speaker who is serving as a top adviser on Steyer ’ s Iowa campaign , aren ’ t illegal — though payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed . There ’ s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer ’ s campaign as compensation for their backing .\nBut the proposals could revive criticism that the billionaire Steyer is trying to buy his way into the White House . Several state lawmakers and political candidates said they were surprised Steyer ’ s campaign would think he could purchase their support .\nTom Courtney , a former Democratic state senator from southeastern Iowa who ’ s running for reelection to his old seat , told The ███ that the financial offer “ left a bad taste in my mouth . ”\nMurphy said concerns about his outreach were the result of a “ miscommunication . ”\nAs Steyer met with voters in Bluffton , South Carolina , on Thursday , the first question posed to him was about the AP report . He said that he learned about the allegations while driving to the event and that no payments had gone to officials in Iowa .\n“ We haven ’ t given any money to anyone in Iowa , nor are we planning to , ” he said . “ There ’ s no way we would ever do that . ”\nCourtney declined to name Murphy as the Steyer aide who made the offer , but several other local politicians said they received similar propositions , and all confirmed the proposal came from Murphy himself . Most spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue freely . Iowa state Rep. Karin Derry said Murphy didn ’ t explicitly offer a specific dollar amount , but made it clear Derry would receive financial support if she backed Steyer .\n“ It was presented more as , he has provided financial support to other down-ballot candidates who ’ ve endorsed him , and could do the same for you , ” she said .\n“ Tom , I know you ’ re running for Senate . I ’ m working for Tom Steyer , ” Courtney recalled hearing from the aide . “ Now you know how this works . ... He said , ‘ You help them , and they ’ ll help you . ’ ”\n“ I said , ‘ It wouldn ’ t matter if you ’ re talking monetary , there ’ s no amount , ’ ” Courtney continued . “ I don ’ t do that kind of thing . ”\nAlberto Lammers , Steyer ’ s campaign press secretary , said the candidate hasn ’ t made any individual contributions to local officials in Iowa and won ’ t be making any this year . In an email , Lammers said Steyer ’ s endorsements “ are earned because of Tom ’ s campaign message , ” and distanced the candidate from Murphy .\n“ Our campaign policy is clear that we will not engage in this kind of activity , and anyone who does is not speaking for the campaign or does not know our policy , ” Lammers said .\nIn a separate statement , Murphy said that “ as a former legislator , I know how tricky the endorsement process can be for folks in Iowa . It was never my intention to make my former colleagues uncomfortable , and I apologize for any miscommunication on my part . ”\nThe overtures do not appear to have made much of a difference for Steyer . Aside from Murphy ’ s support , Steyer has received the endorsement of just one Iowan since entering the race in July — former state Rep. Roger Thomas .\nThomas did not respond to phone calls , but in a statement provided by the campaign , he said that he endorsed Steyer “ because he ’ s the outsider who can deliver for Iowans on the issues that matter most : getting corporate corruption out of our politics and putting forth a rural agenda that revitalizes communities across Iowa . ”\nThomas ’ endorsement was issued in October after the close of the most recent campaign finance reporting period , which ended Sept. 30 . The disclosure Steyer filed offers no indication that he directly gave Thomas any money .\nExperts say a campaign could violate campaign finance laws if they don ’ t disclose payments for endorsements .\n“ It ’ s legal if you disclose a payment for an endorsement on your campaign finance report , ” said Adav Noti , a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington . But , he added , “ It would be unlawful if you don ’ t disclose it , or you disclose it but try to hide who the recipient is , or try to hide what that purpose was . ”\nA trio of former Ron Paul aides faced legal trouble in 2016 over similar issues during the 2012 Iowa Republican caucus campaign . Campaign chairman Jesse Benton , campaign manager John Tate and deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari were convicted in 2016 of charges related to arranging and concealing payments for then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson , who switched his support from Michele Bachmann to Paul just six days before the Iowa caucuses . Sorenson served 15 months in jail for his role in the scheme .\nIt ’ s unclear whether Murphy could face a similar legal complaint , but the issue could revive scrutiny of how Steyer is deploying his financial resources . The billionaire businessman built his fortune in banking and investment management before turning to politics , and though he ’ s never held public office , he invested tens of millions of dollars in political activism and electoral politics before launching his presidential bid this year . Before his presidential run , Steyer ’ s most recent focus was a multimillion-dollar , pro-impeachment campaign , and as the U.S. House takes up the issue , he ’ s argued he ’ s put it on the national agenda .\nSteyer has largely self-funded his presidential campaign , spending $ 47.6 million of his own money in the first three months since launching his bid , much of that on online fundraising and advertising . Steyer has qualified for the November debate , but he remains at the back of the pack in early-state and national polls .\nSteve Bullock , who as Montana ’ s governor and attorney general spent years pushing for stricter regulation of money in politics , was quick to criticize Steyer , saying an attempt to buy endorsements undermines the democratic process .\n“ Tom Steyer ’ s campaign is built on writing the biggest checks , not on building genuine grassroots support - and proves why it ’ s so important to get Big Money out of our elections , ” Bullock , who is also running for president , said in a statement .\nIt ’ s not the first time Bullock , who has failed to meet the donor and polling thresholds for most of the Democratic debates , has slammed Steyer . In September , he accused the wealthy philanthropist of bankrolling his way onto the debate stage after spending $ 12 million on advertising in his first six weeks as a candidate .


After his round of golf on Saturday , it seems the president went back home and started scrolling Twitter . President Donald Trump then proceeded to go on a spree that was bizarre even for his standards as he retweeted posts mocking several big-name female Democrats all while he peddled baseless conspiracy theories regarding MSNBC ’ s Joe Scarborough . In one particularly shocking message , the president shared a tweet by John Stahl , a conservative who got a whopping 4 percent in the 2012 open primary to represent California ’ s 52nd District , that called Hillary Clinton a “ skank . ”\nThe president just retweeted someone calling the first woman nominee of either major political party in the US “ a skank ” a few hours after another Scarborough murder allegation on the weekend the country closes in on 100K coronavirus deaths . pic.twitter.com/5H2E63kWOn — Maggie Haberman ( @ maggieNYT ) May 24 , 2020\nThat wasn ’ t the only time Trump amplified Stahl on Saturday . The president also retweeted two other messages by Stahl in which he insulted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and mocked the way she looks . And he also shared yet another Stahl post in which he made fun of Stacey Abrams ’ weight .\nThe president called one prominent female Democrat fat and another a `` skank '' tonight and it wo n't get nearly the coverage of Joe Biden saying something dumb because the bar for Trump is subterranean and we 've normalized having an ignorant monster as president — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) May 24 , 2020\nThe president shared the mocking tweets on the same day as he continued to push a conspiracy theory that suggests Scarborough may have had something to do with the 2001 death of an intern who worked for him . “ Keep digging , ” Trump wrote , “ use forensic geniuses ! ” This isn ’ t the first time the president has peddled that particular theory and it ’ s unclear what exactly set him off this time . But earlier in the day , the Morning Joe Twitter account noted there would be a “ special Sunday morning edition ” of the show “ as the New York Times Dedicates Page One to All Those Who Have Lost Their Lives in the Pandemic . ”\nA blow to her head ? Body found under his desk ? Left Congress suddenly ? Big topic of discussion in Florida ... and , he ’ s a Nut Job ( with bad ratings ) . Keep digging , use forensic geniuses ! https : //t.co/UxbS5gZecd — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 24 , 2020\nFormer Vice President Joe Biden also made a mention of the shocking front page that was devoted entirely to listing some of the almost 100,000 Americans who have died of COVID-19 , calling it “ jarring ” and “ heartbreaking. ” Trump ’ s Twitter spree also came on the same day that Biden released an attack ad against the president , blasting his decision to play golf over the weekend as the coronavirus death toll kept rising . “ The death toll is still rising , ” notes the ad . “ The president is playing golf . ”


Democratic presidential candidate and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg is being called out for appearing to emulate former President Barack Obama in his speech — to the point that the former mayor is now being accused of plagiarism in more than one instance .\nFox News pointed to a tweet Buttigieg sent out over the weekend , where he wrote : `` If we can light up a high school gym—we can light a neighborhood . If we can light up a neighborhood—we can light a city . If we can light up a city—we can light up our country . ''\nA number of Twitter users compared it to a tweet from Obama in 2012 , where the president wrote : `` One voice can change a room . And if it can change a room , it can change a city . And if it can change a city , it can change a state . ''\n`` The View '' co-host Meghan McCain replied , `` Oh COME ON ! I know Pete thinks he 's the next Obama but this is ridiculous . ''\nThe Buttigieg campaign told Fox News his tweet was in reference to an event earlier on the campaign trail where the lights went out and attendees used their cellphones as lights .\nParkland survivor and conservative activist Kyle Kashuv on Monday night accused Buttigieg of making a habit of mimicking Obama and further claimed the presidential candidate was plagiarizing while sharing a mash-up of similarities between Buttigieg and Obama 's speeches .\nKashuv tweeted a video made by The Recount with the message , `` So it turns out Pete Buttigieg is just blatantly plagiarizing Barack Obama . Cmon man at least come up [ with ] your own platitudes ... ''\nLiberals noticed a pattern , too . Another clip of Buttigieg using similar language to Obama was shared by a writer for Common Dreams , a publication that touts itself as `` providing breaking news & views for the progressive community . ''


Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty in federal court Friday as part of a plea agreement that involves cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and allows him to avoid a second trial .\n“ I plead guilty , '' Manafort , 69 , told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman in Washington .\nProsecutor Andrew Weissmann told the judge that Manafort 's deal includes a cooperation agreement with prosecutors , who are investigating whether any Trump associates played a role in Russia 's meddling in the 2016 election . That could include interviews with prosecutors and testifying in court .\nA defense attorney for Manafort told Fox News the deal includes `` full cooperation . ''\nBut the president 's team downplayed the significance of Manafort 's plea .\n“ Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign , '' Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in a statement to Fox News . `` The reason : the president did nothing wrong . ''\nWhite House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday that Manafort 's decision is `` totally unrelated '' to the president .\nManafort , in a trial set to begin Sept. 24 , had been facing seven counts of foreign lobbying violations and witness tampering in federal court in Washington .\nIn August , in a separate trial in Virginia , a federal jury found Manafort guilty on eight counts of federal tax and banking crimes .\nManafort faces up to 10 years on these charges in Washington . He still faces sentencing for his guilty verdict in Virginia .\nAs part of this agreement , Manafort has forfeited multiple bank accounts and several properties in New York . However , he will keep his properties in Florida and Virginia , where his family live .\nManafort attorney Kevin Downing told reporters after the court hearing it was a “ tough day ” for his client , “ who has accepted responsibility. ” He said Manafort “ wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life . ”\nThe case was brought by Mueller 's team , which is probing potential crimes related to the 2016 election . But Manafort has not been charged with anything related to the campaign .\nIn August , Manafort ’ s bank and tax fraud conviction made him the first campaign associate of Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Mueller ’ s probe .\n“ I feel very badly for Paul Manafort , ” Trump told reporters after the August verdict , adding that it had `` nothing to do with Russian collusion . '' The president has called Mueller 's probe a `` witch hunt . ''\nTrump also said he had “ such respect ” for Manafort and called him a “ brave man. ” In comments interpreted to mean he was open to pardoning Manafort , Trump commended Manafort , saying he “ refused to break ” and “ make up stories in order to get a deal . ”\nIn the Virginia trial , prosecutors said Manafort hid income earned from political work overseas from the IRS while fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans . Manafort had pleaded not guilty to all counts .\nThe prosecution ’ s star witness , Rick Gates – Manafort ’ s former business partner who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government -- testified during the trial that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together .\nDowning , Manafort 's attorney , suggested after the guilty verdict in August that Manafort was open to striking a deal before the second trial .\n“ He is evaluating all of his options at this point , ” Downing said of Manafort .


Russia 's government has resigned , hours after President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping constitutional changes that could prolong his stay in power .\nIf approved by the public , the proposals would transfer power from the presidency to parliament .\nMr Putin is due to step down in 2024 when his fourth term of office comes to an end .\nBut there is speculation he could seek a new role or hold on to power behind the scenes .\nMr Putin put forward his plans in his annual state of the nation address to lawmakers . Later , in an unexpected move , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that the government was resigning to help facilitate the changes .\nRussian government sources told the BBC that ministers did not know about the government 's resignation ahead of the announcement .\nThe Russian leader said during a speech to both chambers of parliament that there would be a nationwide vote on changes that would shift power from the presidency to parliament .\nConstitutional reforms included giving the lower house of parliament , the State Duma , `` greater responsibility '' for the appointment of the prime minister and the cabinet .\nCurrently , the president appoints the prime minister , and the Duma approves the decision .\nMr Putin also suggested an increased role for an advisory body called the State Council . The council , which is currently chaired by Mr Putin , comprises the heads of Russia 's federal regions . Mr Putin said it had proved to be `` highly effective '' .\nAmending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms\nStrengthening laws that prohibit presidential candidates who have held foreign citizenship or foreign residency permits\nMr Medvedev made his announcement on state television with President Putin sitting next to him .\n`` These changes , when they are adopted ... will introduce substantial changes not only to an entire range of articles of the constitution , but also to the entire balance of power , the power of the executive , the power of the legislature , the power of judiciary , '' Mr Medvedev said of Mr Putin 's proposals .\n`` In this context ... the government in its current form has resigned . ''\nMr Putin thanked Mr Medvedev for his work but said `` not everything '' had been accomplished .\nHe asked Mr Medvedev to become deputy head of the National Security Council , which is chaired by Mr Putin .\nThe president later nominated tax service chief Mikhail Mishustin to replace Mr Medvedev as prime minister .\nMr Medvedev has been prime minister for several years . He previously served as president from 2008-2012 , switching roles with Mr Putin - a close ally - after the latter served his first two terms as president . Russia 's constitution only allows presidents to serve two consecutive terms .\nEven when he was prime minister , Mr Putin was widely seen as the power behind then President Medvedev .\nOpposition leader and leading Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny said he believed that any referendum on the constitutional changes would be `` fraudulent crap '' . He said Mr Putin 's goal was to be `` sole leader for life '' .\nThe last time Russia held a referendum was in 1993 when it adopted the constitution under President Boris Yeltsin , Mr Putin 's predecessor .\nMr Putin became acting president following Mr Yeltsin 's resignation in 1999 and was formally inaugurated a year later . He has held the reins of power - as president or prime minister - ever since .\nPresident Putin likes stability . It 's his thing . So the newsflash that the entire government had resigned was a big surprise . From the online chatter , it seems even the cabinet ministers did n't see it coming . For a moment it was like a flashback to Russia of the 1990s , when President Yeltsin changed prime ministers as readily as his socks . Vladimir Putin is no Yeltsin , though , and this move looks like part of some bigger plan that 's all about consolidating - and extending - his hold on power .\nUnder the current rules , Mr Putin must step down as president in 2024 and it 's never been clear what he 'd do next . That 's still true . But the constitutional tweaks he 's proposed are hints at some options . He 's bumped up the status of the little-known State Council , which he already heads . Or he could become PM again , now he 's slightly weakened the powers of Russia 's president .\nIf he is sticking around , perhaps he needs to make that palatable to people given all the social and economic problems he had to list once again in his annual address to the nation . If Mr Putin were to blame for their woes , Russians might well wonder why they should swallow him staying on , post-2024 . Dmitry Medvedev - so often useful to Mr Putin - for now looks like a handy scapegoat .\nIn his address to parliament , the president unveiled a series of plans to increase the number of children being born in Russia . Like several Eastern European states , Russia has been struggling with a declining birth rate .\nLast year Mr Putin promised tax breaks for bigger families .\nOn Wednesday he pledged state funding for new mothers in a bid to increase the number of children being born from an average of fewer than 1.5 per woman to 1.7 within four years .\nSo-called `` maternity capital '' has until now only been paid to families with at least two children .\nWelfare benefits will also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families , and free school meals will be provided for the first four years of school .\nRussia 's population has struggled to recover from a dramatic decline in the 1990s .


Police in Moscow arrested more than 750 people during a demonstration outside city hall on Saturday , where they were calling for fair elections after the upcoming city council elections on Sept. 8 excluded opposition candidates from being on the ballot , according to a Russian organization that monitors political arrests .\nOVD-Info said 779 people were detained . Moscow police earlier said 295 people had been taken in , but did not immediately give a final figure .\nThe protest was organized by opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny , 43 , who was arrested Wednesday and sentenced to 30 days in jail . Other opposition politicians were detained on Saturday , including Ilya Yashin , Dmitry Gudkov and Ivan Zhdanov .\nYashin 's Facebook page said that 10 masked officers took him from his apartment in Moscow the night before the demonstration . After being arrested , Navalny said on Instagram , `` I have been detained and am now at a police station wearing shorts like a stupid man , ''\nMoscow police estimated the number of protesters at 3,500 . They were originally set up near the mayor 's office before being relocated by police towards the side streets . The protest was reportedly unauthorized by the government , and people were seen scrapping with police officers and shouting `` Russia will be free ! '' and `` Who are you beating ? ''\nThe opposition politician names were reportedly not included on the ballot because they had not received enough signatures to qualify , according to election officials . Supporters of the opposition party say the government is forcing them out , so they wo n't be able to participate in the elections .\nHelmeted police barged into Navalny 's video studio as it was conducting a YouTube broadcast of the protest and arrested program leader Vladimir Milonov . Police also searched Dozhd , an internet TV station that was covering the protest , and its editor in chief Alexandra Perepelova was ordered to undergo questioning at the Investigative Committee .\nRUSSIAN SUSPECT IN $ 4B BITCOIN FRAUD IS SUED IN CALIFORNIA ; US , RUSSIA SEEK HIS EXTRADITION FROM GREECE\nThere was no immediate information on what charges the detainees might face .\nOnce a local , low-key affair , the September vote for Moscow 's city council has shaken up Russia 's political scene as the Kremlin struggles with how to deal with strongly opposing views in its sprawling capital of 12.6 million .\nThe decision by electoral authorities to bar some opposition candidates from running for having allegedly insufficient signatures on their nominating petitions had already sparked several days of demonstrations even before Saturday 's clashes in Moscow .\nThe city council , which has 45 seats , is responsible for a large municipal budget and is now controlled by the pro-Kremlin United Russia party . All of its seats , which have a five-year-term , are up for grabs in the Sept. 8 vote .\nOver 22,000 people gathered for a protest in downtown Moscow last Saturday , the largest in years .


Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky )\nAttorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky )\nWASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Justice Department has informed the House Judiciary Committee that Attorney General William Barr may skip a Thursday hearing on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report if committee lawyers seek to question him .\nThe Democratic-run committee plans to allow counsels from both sides to ask Barr about the Russia probe after the traditional round of questioning by lawmakers . Department officials also told the committee that they opposed a plan to go into a closed session if members wanted to discuss redacted portions of Mueller ’ s report , according to a senior Democratic aide on the committee , who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential communications with the department .\nJustice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said given that Barr had agreed to testify , lawmakers “ should be the ones doing the questioning . He remains happy to engage with members on their questions regarding the Mueller report . ”\nBarr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House panel on Thursday . The GOP-led Senate committee is expected to have normal rounds of member questioning .\nIt is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness . But committees can generally make their own rules , and other panels have made similar exceptions . In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year , for example , Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault .\nThe dispute comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access Mueller ’ s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify . Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller ’ s findings with their own investigations into the president .\nHouse Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation . In response , the Justice Department has said they will make the full report , minus grand jury material , available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused . The dispute could eventually end up in court .\nA spokeswoman for the top Republican on the committee , Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia , noted that Barr ’ s testimony is voluntary and criticized the Democrats for not reading the full report . “ Democrats have yet to prove their demands are anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee , ” Jessica Andrews said .\nDemocrats have criticized Barr for drawing his own conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice after Mueller found he couldn ’ t exonerate the president on that point . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Barr is involved in a “ staggering public effort ” by the Trump administration to put a positive face on Mueller ’ s findings .\nHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , has also invited Mueller to testify and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn . McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report , which recounted the president ’ s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it . The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena .


“ These cyber actors are using social media platforms to spread disinformation — ” “ and set Americans against each other — ” “ targeting both sides of a country ’ s most divisive issues. ” You ’ re watching a recent Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about how foreign internet trolls are using social media to influence American politics . In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election , Russian trolls used disinformation campaigns to sow discord . Experts are now seeing similar activity heading into the 2018 midterms . “ The trolls are trying to improve their tactics . They ’ re trying to get better at hiding their traces . So it ’ s going to be a game of cat and mouse. ” Ben Nimmo is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council ’ s Digital Forensic Research Lab . He works to identify and analyze online disinformation . “ The way these accounts work has always been a combination of infiltration and radicalization. ” He walked us through some of the imagery and strategies used by notorious online trolls from Russia and , perhaps , elsewhere . First , they pick a hot-button issue . “ There are certain very high-profile problems that American society has , which are well-known abroad . And it tended to be those ones which are targeted . So the original troll factory accounts were very heavily engaged in the debate on gun control and the Second Amendment , on women ’ s rights and abortion rights . They were heavily engaged on Black Lives Matter. ” A slew of inauthentic accounts that Facebook recently deleted took the same approach , updated to fit the latest top news . They use identity politics and emotion to appeal to followers . Next step , tap into a community . “ So you start off by making positive comments about the target group . Let ’ s say you want to masquerade as a Black Lives Matter supporter . You start by making lots of positive comments about the African-American community . You talk about how beautiful the girls are . You talk about their glorious cultural history and you try and engage with real activists who are busy on this subject. ” Now it ’ s time to ramp it up . “ Once you ’ ve established your credentials , you start slipping more and more toxic content into the mix . So , rather than saying positive things about your community , you start saying negative things about other communities . The war against colonialism is a theme that comes up on this page time and again . It ’ s a hint at violence . And last , they try to move from the online world into real life . “ And then maybe you slip into the mix a suggestion : ‘ Let ’ s have a protest . Let ’ s get real people out on the streets. ’ And then , because you ’ re operating probably from some time zones away , you need to think , ‘ Well , how do we get this to happen ? ’ And you start trying to reach out to genuine local organizations . Maybe you say , ’ Well , we can ’ t turn up on that day because we ’ ve got something else going on . Why don ’ t you organize this for us ? ’ ” In 2016 , Russian trolls organized political events for and against both presidential candidates . At an Islamic center in Houston , they organized a protest and the corresponding counterprotest . “ Down with the racists ! Down with the Nazis ! ” So why go to such lengths ? These bad actors are trying to polarize the American public by exploiting existing tensions in our society . The goal ? Make Americans see each other as enemies , especially during high-stakes events such as elections . If people feel they can ’ t trust their neighbors or their government , democracy falters . “ There is a massive , sophisticated , persistent campaign on multiple fronts to misinform , divide and ultimately manipulate the American people . Is that accurate ? ” “ Yes . ”


As the fired FBI director makes headlines , the bureau ’ s raid on the offices of Trump ’ s lawyer signals peril for his presidency\nThe first big interview with the fired FBI director James Comey is blazing toward a broadcast on Sunday night , but for the Donald Trump presidency , multiple meteors have already hit .\nIn Comey ’ s book , A Higher Loyalty , obtained by ███ on Thursday from a bookseller in New York before publication , the former official casts Trump as both “ unethical ” and “ untethered to truth ” and compares his presidency to a “ forest fire ” .\nLikening Trump to a mafia boss , Comey describes a meeting in the Oval Office which gave him flashbacks to his career as a young prosecutor .\n“ As I found myself thrust into the Trump orbit , I once again was having flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob , ” Comey writes . “ The silent circle of assent . The boss in complete control . The loyalty oaths . The us-versus-them worldview . The lying about all things , large and small , in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and the truth . ”\nThe Republican party has launched a concerted effort to get its rebuttal in before the book is published , with a Trumpian web site dedicated to branding the former director “ Lyin ’ Comey ” .\nThe key points from James Comey 's explosive book Read more\nBut A Higher Loyalty is an instant bestseller online and will be supported by a media blitz to begin Sunday night with an hour-long broadcast on ABC News .\nTrump called Comey a “ weak and untruthful slime ball ” on Friday in a Twitter response to the first reports from the book .\nBut Comey is not the only former FBI chief giving Trump a migraine – the special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign has been accelerating and is also enraging the president .\nThe sky began to fall in for Trump on Monday , when FBI agents raided the offices and a hotel room used by Trump ’ s lawyer Michael Cohen . The raids were a strong sign that prosecutors might soon charge one of Trump ’ s fiercest loyalists with a serious crime or crimes , legal experts said .\n“ It ’ s a disgraceful situation , ” Trump said . “ It ’ s a total witch-hunt … It ’ s an attack on our country , what we all stand for . ”\nAs the implications of those raids continue to sink in , Trump may be lured towards the kind of drastic action that would send fissures through the executive branch and beyond , multiple former White House and justice department officials interviewed by ███ said .\n“ The raid of Michael Cohen ’ s office was a seismic event , for any presidency , ” said Andrew Wright , a former White House associate counsel and a professor at Savannah Law School . “ I think he [ Cohen ] is in very serious trouble .\n“ And sure enough , the president appears to have really come pretty unhinged at that news , so I think that ’ s incredibly significant . ”\nEven for a White House that can seem to cycle from crisis to extreme crisis , the current pressure on Trump , and the resulting peril for his presidency and the country , is acute , according to seasoned prosecutors .\n“ The pressure on the president is actually unimaginable to me , ” said Betsy de la Vega , who was a federal prosecutor for more than 20 years .\nWhile the public has no way of knowing how far along Mueller is in his work , De la Vega said , the decision to conduct the Cohen raids , given their high stakes , could indicate that prosecutors had completed significant work behind the scenes .\n“ They would have to know that setting it in motion would cause great consternation , to say the least , on the part of Donald Trump and his pals , so that gives me the sense that the pace is increasing . ”\nCohen , who has denied all wrongdoing , could face charges including bank fraud , wire fraud , campaign violations , tax crimes or other charges relating to payments made to multiple women in advance of the 2016 election , and communications thereafter with at least one of those women .\nThe prospect of such an indictment is clearly weighing on the president ’ s mind . In the week since the Cohen raids , Trump has lashed out at Mueller and his superior , the deputy attorney general , Rod Rosenstein .\n“ Mueller is most conflicted of all ( except Rosenstein ... ) , ” Trump tweeted in a Wednesday morning tirade against “ the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation , headed up by the all Democrat loyalists , or people that worked for Obama ” .\nMueller has indicted or reached plea agreements with 19 individuals , including four former senior Trump campaign aides , plus three companies in Russia . He is a Republican , as is Rosenstein . So are Comey and Jeff Sessions , the attorney general .\nPlay Video 0:46 Firing Comey one of Trump 's 'greatest achievements ' , says White House – video\nBut none of Mueller ’ s targets has been as close to Trump as Cohen , who is a friend of the family , has been involved with the Trump children on real estate deals around the world , and who could have a lot to tell prosecutors about operations inside the Trump Organization .\nThe visceral threat of a prosecution so close to his company and his family could drive the president to take a step that the White House asserted last week was within his power : removing Mueller , or perhaps Rosenstein .\n“ There ’ s a clear pattern of the president seeming to think that the department of justice belongs to him , ” said Alex Whiting , a Harvard Law School professor specializing in criminal prosecution issues . “ And that ’ s deeply concerning . These threats to fire Sessions or fire Mueller or fire Rosenstein all fit into that .\n“ It ’ s a remarkable disregard for the rule of law . The precedent that this is setting , what this means for our country and our future , is very concerning . ”\nThe combined pressures from the investigation , and a media cacophony with outlets such as Fox News touting an imminent Trump “ personnel decision , ” could be driving Trump toward a dangerous step , said Wright .\n“ It feels like there are people that are really trying to tempt the president to take drastic action to try and shut down these investigations , and I think that would just really send us into political convulsions in this country , and I think that would not solve the president ’ s problems , it would worsen them , ” Wright said .\nJames Comey : high-profile former FBI chief with a reputation for integrity Read more\n“ I ’ m quite concerned about the precarious situation we find ourselves in right now . ”\nMembers of congress in both chambers have said they support passing legislation to protect the special counsel , but such legislation is moving slowly .\nTrump , meanwhile , appears not to have been shaken in his basic faith that the best way to handle the prosecutions swirling around him is to fight back with all the power the presidency can muster .\n“ No Collusion or Obstruction ( other than I fight back ) , so now they do the Unthinkable , and RAID a lawyers office for information ! BAD ! ” Trump tweeted on Wednesday .\n“ It ’ s the thing he hasn ’ t learned from the beginning , ” said Wright , discussing Trump ’ s relationship with the prosecution .\n“ It ’ s like being wrapped by a boa constrictor . The more you struggle , the more likely you ’ re going to die quickly . And the less you struggle , the more likely you might be able to slip out of its clutches .\n“ And instead the president is just wiggling and wiggling and wiggling . ”


WASHINGTON – House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal escalated the fight over President Donald Trump 's tax returns Friday afternoon when he issued subpoenas for the documents to Department of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) Commissioner Charles Rettig .\nThe Treasury Department had previously rejected Neal 's request for six years of the president 's tax returns .\n`` While I do not take this step lightly , I believe this action gives us the best opportunity to succeed and obtain the requested material , '' Neal said in a statement . `` I sincerely hope that the Treasury Department will furnish the requested material in the next week so the committee can quickly begin its work . ”\nOn Monday , Mnuchin rejected Neal ’ s request for the president ’ s tax returns in a letter .\n`` In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice , I have determined that the Committee 's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose , and pursuant to section 6103 , the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information , '' Mnuchin wrote .\nNeal made the original request for Trump 's 2013-2018 tax returns to the IRS , which is part of the Treasury Department . He invoked a law allowing a select few members of Congress to review individual tax returns for legislative purposes and cited legislative proposals and oversight related to federal tax laws as his basis for the request .\nIt was the first such demand for a sitting president ’ s tax information in 45 years .\nNeal also demanded copies of tax returns for Trump 's trust and for his golf club in Bedminster , New Jersey .\nThe subpoena comes as part of a broader effort from Congress to obtain documents and bring administration officials and allies in for questioning .\nOn Wednesday , the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to answer more questions .\nEarlier that day , Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over his refusal to hand over an unredacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's report on the Russian interference in the 2016 election .


Lois Lerner , the IRS official at the heart of the scandal involving the targeting of Tea Party groups , is retiring .\nLerner , who headed the division in the tax-collecting agency that handles applications for tax-exempt status , had been placed on paid administrative leave in May . Calls for her dismissal came almost immediately following allegations she had participated in unfairly targeting conservative groups .\nThe IRS confirmed on Monday that she has resigned , though it 's unclear how that decision might affect the ongoing congressional investigations into the scandal .\n`` Since May , the IRS has taken decisive actions to correct failures in Exempt Organizations management , replacing top leadership throughout the chain of command , '' the agency said in a written statement announcing her retirement . `` In addition , IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel created an Accountability Review Board to fully review information to ensure proper oversight in handling personnel issues . ''\nThe announcement has not quieted calls for a thorough probe into the agency 's actions . It 's also not clear what kind of government-paid retirement benefits Lerner might be receiving .\n`` Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over . Far from it . In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth , '' Sen. Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee , said in a written statement .\nRep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , said : `` Lois Lerner 's exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee 's interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs . ''\n`` We still do n't know why Lois Lerner , as a senior IRS official , had such a personal interest in directing scrutiny and why she denied improper conduct to Congress . Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the Committee 's interest in hearing her testimony , '' he said .\nLerner first disclosed the IRS targeting at a May 10 tax law conference .\nLerner then infamously refused to testify at a hearing before Issa 's committee , citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself . Three congressional committees and the Department of Justice , though , launched investigations into the IRS and its actions .\nEventually , the agency acknowledged that while she was in charge , IRS agents improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010-2012 .\nEarlier this month , newly released emails seemed to support accusations against the embattled IRS official and her role in scrutinizing applications .\nThe agency had initially tried to spin the story , claiming the unfair targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees .\nOne email dated February 2011 from Lerner said , `` Tea Party Matter very dangerous '' - before going on to warn that the `` matter '' could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits .\nThe email was released by the House Ways and Means Committee and parts were redacted .


Lois Lerner , the Internal Revenue Service official under fire for her department ’ s targeting of tea party groups , has retired effective Monday , according to the IRS .\nBut that development does not end the scandal that burst into the open last May , when Ms. Lerner revealed that tea party groups were undergoing extra scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption . Lerner , who was director of the IRS ’ s section on tax-exempt organizations , had been placed on paid administrative leave , and remains under subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , which is investigating the scandal .\n“ Lois Lerner ’ s exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee ’ s interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs , ” Rep. Darrell Issa ( R ) of California , chairman of the committee , said in a statement .\nSen. Orrin Hatch of Utah , the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee , also signaled his continued interest in the IRS targeting scandal .\n“ Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over , ” Senator Hatch said in a statement . “ Far from it . In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth . ”\nThe brouhaha has been a political boon to conservatives , who had long suspected they were being targeted by the government in an effort to undermine their activities . The issue is likely to figure in efforts to energize conservatives for the 2014 midterms . Republicans already control the House , but have a shot at taking over the Senate .\nLerner emerged early as a key figure in the targeting scandal . In fact , it was she who brought the practice to light in public on May 10 , when she responded to an audience question – later revealed to be planted – at a legal conference . She stated that the targeting was “ absolutely incorrect , ” “ insensitive , ” and “ inappropriate , ” and that “ the IRS would like to apologize for that . ”\nAt a congressional hearing on May 22 , Lerner said she was proud of her government service , and had done nothing wrong . Then she refused to testify , citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination .\nStarting in 2010 , the IRS began subjecting groups with names that contained conservative keywords , such as “ tea party ” and “ patriot , ” to additional scrutiny in their requests for tax exemption , which delayed their applications . It was later revealed that some progressive groups , such as those associated with the Occupy movement , had undergone similar targeting , but not nearly as many as the tea party groups .\nA report by the Treasury Department ’ s inspector general for tax administration ( TIGTA ) released on May 14 found that inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review , and that Lerner herself had been briefed on the targeting in June 2011 .\nBloomberg News reported Monday that an internal IRS board was going to propose starting the process of firing Lerner , though it had not concluded that she had acted with political bias or willful misconduct . The report also indicated her pension would not have been different had she been fired .\nIn a statement Monday confirming Lerner ’ s retirement , the IRS sought to reassure the public that the agency had reformed its procedures .\n“ The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the EO [ exempt organizations ] area identified by TIGTA , ” the statement said . “ Our goal is to restore the public ’ s faith and trust in the tax system . ”\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThe statement continued : “ We have sent nearly 400,000 pages of documents to Congress and facilitated dozens of employee interviews . We look forward to continuing to cooperate with Congress and other investigations . ”\nPublic faith in the IRS is especially critical as the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) is about to go into effect . It will be the IRS ’ s responsibility to determine whether individuals have health insurance , as mandated under the ACA .


Hedge funds are essentially defined by their ability to slip through the cracks of the American financial regulatory system . They do n't do banking , so they do n't need a license from a bank regulator . They do n't underwrite securities , so they do n't warrant scrutiny from market regulators . And they are n't open to the mass public , so they evade consumer protection regulation too .\nOne big goal of post-crisis financial regulation was to create a council of all the different regulators — the Financial Stability Oversight Council — to make sure that individual regulators ' focus on the trees does n't lead them to miss a forest of potential disaster . That 's why FSOC decided to look at hedge funds , and its initial findings suggest a big possible problem in hedge land .\nOr , rather , two different and related problems . One is that an excessively indebted hedge fund could go bust , leading to problems at the institutions that loaned it money . The other is that a large hedge fund could be forced into a “ fire sale ” of the assets it owns . In either case , the fund itself going bust wouldn ’ t necessarily be a problem for the economy , but the ripple effects it causes might be .\nThanks to new regulations put in place in the wake of the 2007- ’ 08 financial crisis , regulators are now able to see the outlines of where trouble might arise . But the Treasury Department is warning that unless regulators are able to persuade or cajole more information out of the industry , they could be left flying blind into the next financial crisis . And with a new administration coming to power in Washington , there ’ s a strong risk that these warning signs will go unheeded .\nIt ’ s easy to forget that the first great bailout of our era involved a hedge fund rather than an enormous `` too big to fail '' bank . The fund at issue , Long-Term Capital Management , had made some big debt-financed bets that went badly awry primarily as a result of Russia defaulting on its national debt in August 1998 .\nThis was an embarrassing failure for some of the hottest names on Wall Street , but also a potentially catastrophic situation for a wider range of economic actors . A number of East Asian countries had entered a financial crisis situation the previous year , and the Russian default had markets across the board jittery . Policymakers feared that LTCM ’ s total collapse would lead to a run on other similar firms and an escalating series of losses — and that this , in turn , could cause the entire credit system to freeze up the way it ultimately did in 2008 . In response , the Fed and the Treasury Department organized a rapid-fire $ 3.625 billion bailout of LTCM by a consortium of major banks as an alternative to an extended bankruptcy process .\nAt the time , it was widely remarked that since hedge funds had revealed themselves as being in need of occasional bailout , they should probably be brought under the regulatory umbrella .\nBut though this bailout involved the participation of government officials as organizers and guarantors , no actual taxpayer funds were expended and no congressional action was needed . Consequently , the political system moved on . Then when a financial crisis did hit in 2008 , it had very little to do with hedge funds . So we got a politically ambitious regulatory overhaul that did not specifically target hedge funds . But it did create FSOC with an institutional mandate to see the whole playing field , and FSOC officials are trying to draw attention to this piece of unfinished business .\nJonah Crane , the deputy assistant secretary in the Treasury Department who serves as the executive of FSOC , spoke on November 16 about two different forms of risk that hedge funds could pose to the broader economy .\nOne is forced asset sales , in which problems at a fund force it to rapidly sell its assets in a way that disrupts other markets . For example , “ positions held by a relatively small group of funds ” could constitute “ a meaningful share of certain key markets , relative to both market size and trading volume. ” This raises the risk that a failure at one fund could drastically drive down the value of other funds ’ assets , setting off a chain reaction in which an entire key market is devastated by mass selling .\nThe other is counterparty risk . Hedge funds that are not themselves significant to the overall operation of the economy nonetheless owe money to larger institutions . A hedge fund failure could end up “ transmitting stress to counterparties that are large , highly interconnected financial institutions . ”\nCrane says that on both fronts the situation requires continued monitoring by FSOC , as well as a range of areas in which it could use more and better data from industry to understand exactly what ’ s going on .\nOne of the main areas in which Dodd-Frank has made advances relative to the pre-crisis situation is in providing much more data and situational awareness to regulators at various agencies so that they can better understand where risks exist . Ongoing data gaps are particularly worrying because financial regulation is a bit like squeezing a balloon , and the odds are good at any moment that the most alarming risks will have migrated to wherever it is you can ’ t see . This current work has been years in the making , and if momentum evaporates as a result of the transition , it could leave a significant lingering risk to the overall global economy .


IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was in the hot seat on Capitol Hill yesterday over a massive data breach and hacking of highly sensitive taxpayer information , including social security numbers . A number of taxpayers whose information was stolen have also lost their identities .\nInformation and testimony given by Inspector General Russell George revealed the IRS was given multiple warnings and recommendations about how to prevent an attack or breach . The IRS failed to implement all of the recommendations given . More from Americans For Tax Reform ( bolding is mine ) :\nOver the last decade the IRS has failed to implement numerous recommendations that would make taxpayer information more secure . At a Senate Finance Committee hearing today Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ( TIGTA ) Chief J. Russell George revealed that the IRS failed to implement 44 recommendations that would improve the IRS ’ s ability to protect taxpayer information from hackers . Of these 44 , ten recommendations were from audits over three years old .\nIf the IRS had implemented these recommendations , taxpayer information would be better protected and last week ’ s hack may have been prevented . As George said during today ’ s hearing , “ It would have been much more difficult had they ( IRS ) implemented all of the recommendations that we made . ”\nSince 2007 , the IRS has been warned at least seven times by watchdog groups that it needed to strengthen its protections of taxpayer information .\nIn a 2014 report , TIGTA warned that if stronger protections are not implemented , “ taxpayers could be exposed to the loss of privacy and to financial loss and damages resulting from identity theft or other financial crimes. ” The report was the latest in a series of warnings about the agency ’ s inability to protect taxpayer information .\nA 2013 report found that the IRS had failed to fully implement eight recommendations that would increase security over taxpayer data despite telling TIGTA they had been implemented . A 2011 report found that taxpayer data was vulnerable to hackers and stronger security measures were needed and in 2010 , TIGTA found that the agency had inadequate safeguards to protect taxpayer information from contract workers .\nInstead of modernizing its system to protect taxpayer information from hackers , the IRS wasted taxpayer dollars by purchasing Nerf footballs that were never used , the world ’ s largest crossword puzzle , $ 100 lunches , and Thomas the Tank Engine Wristbands .\nThe IRS also spent millions of tax dollars on the production of a series of Star Trek , Gilligan 's Island and dance videos .\nAs Senator Tim Scott mentions in the interview above , the IRS receives $ 1 billion each year for IT work .\nMeanwhile , despite the breach and likely identity theft of 200,000 taxpayers thanks to the negligence of IRS officials , Americans are still required by law to submit personal information to the tax agency or face penalties , fines and in some cases , prison time .


Lerner retired from the agency effective Monday . Lerner still Hill 's favorite piñata\nLois Lerner is the political piñata that Congress still loves to whack months after she awkwardly acknowledged that the IRS wrongly scrutinized conservative groups for years .\nHer sudden retirement on Monday after 12 years at the agency won ’ t change that .\nShe ’ s still a central figure in three congressional investigations into the political targeting scandal that embroiled the IRS — and the Obama administration — in May . House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa ( R-Calif. ) has an outstanding subpoena to compel her testimony before his panel .\nAnd as a 30-year veteran of the civil service , Lerner is still eligible for a pension — something that is sure to further anger critics in Congress .\n“ Her departure does not answer these questions or diminish the committee ’ s interest in hearing her testimony , ” Issa said in a statement .\nUtah Sen. Orrin Hatch , the top Republican on the Finance Committee , said Lerner ’ s retirement “ does not mean the investigation is over . ”\n“ Far from it , ” he said . “ In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth . ”\nEven Democrats who have slammed the GOP for politicizing congressional probes into the IRS didn ’ t pull their punches .\n“ Lois Lerner is being held responsible for her gross mismanagement of the IRS tax-exempt division , which led to improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status , whether conservative [ or ] progressive , ” said Michigan Rep. Sander Levin , the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee .\nA Democratic congressional aide said the IRS was moving toward terminating Lerner after completing an investigation into her role in the targeting controversy .\nThe IRS found that Lerner , who led the agency ’ s unit that reviewed requests for tax exemptions , mismanaged her department and was “ neglectful of duty ” but found no evidence of political bias , the aide said .\nWilliam Taylor , Lerner ’ s attorney , did not immediately return a request for comment .\nLerner sparked the IRS scandal in May when she told an American Bar Association conference that the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption . The admission threw the White House into crisis mode , forcing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to ask then-IRS chief Steven Miller to step down .\nPresident Barack Obama later replaced Miller with Daniel Werfel , a former Office of Management and Budget official .\nLerner was placed on administrative leave later in May after an explosive appearance before the House Oversight Committee in which she boldly declared her innocence before invoking her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and refused to answer questions from lawmakers .\n“ I have not done anything wrong , ” she said at the May 22 hearing . “ I have not broken any laws . I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations , and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee . ”\nIssa and committee Republicans disagreed . They later voted to recall Lerner and said she waived her Fifth Amendment rights by declaring her innocence without allowing lawmakers to question her . Issa hasn ’ t indicated when he plans to call Lerner back to Capitol Hill .\nTaylor , Lerner ’ s attorney , has told ███ that his client is interested in immunity in exchange for testifying before Issa ’ s panel again .\nLerner quickly became the public face of the IRS scandal . She initially blamed mid-level IRS employees in Cincinnati for the targeting but congressional investigators have rejected that explanation . Emails and documents released by the House Oversight Committee show that Lerner and other senior IRS leaders in Washington knew of the targeting early on .\nDemocrats and Republicans joined together to call for Lerner ’ s ouster in the early days of May , saying she misled them about the scope of the targeting and the extent to which IRS ’ s top brass knew the details .\nMore recently , congressional Republicans have labored to keep public pressure on the agency by releasing emails and documents from Lerner and other key IRS officials .\nLerner ’ s private and public emails discussing the IRS from her tenure are still fair game for congressional investigators and she can still be asked to testify before interested committees .\nThe IRS said in a statement on Monday that it has taken “ decisive actions to correct failures in exempt organizations management . ”\n“ As Werfel has made clear , the behavior cited in the May [ inspector general ’ s ] report was the result of mismanagement and poor judgment , ” the statement said . “ The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the [ exempt organizations ] area identified by [ the inspector general ] . Our goal is to restore the public ’ s faith and trust in the tax system . ”


In November , 64 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing former felons to regain their right to vote . Three weeks later , a Republican state representative introduced legislation that would require constitutional amendments to earn 67 percent of the vote to pass .\nIn Missouri , voters passed measures to raise the minimum wage , legalize medical marijuana and take legislative redistricting out of the hands of legislators . A month later , state House Republicans introduced a bill to nearly double the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot .\nIn Idaho , 60 percent of voters approved an initiative to expand Medicaid to cover low-income residents . Last week , a Republican state senator introduced legislation to increase both the number and geographic spread of signatures required to qualify an initiative .\nRepublican legislators in states across the country have introduced dozens of bills that would make significant changes to the initiative and referendum process , tightening rules and raising requirements after their voters approved progressive proposals that legislators opposed or refused to take up .\nCritics of the proposals say they are a Republican end run around the direct democracy process , meant to stifle popular progressive policies before they get to the ballot .\n“ This is , combined with what we saw after the success of many of these ballot initiatives in 2018 , state legislatures undermining the will of the people , ” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo , who runs the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center . “ Rather than listen to the will of the people , elected officials are undermining the will of the people . ”\nConservative groups such as the Republican State Leadership Committee and the American Legislative Exchange Council have advocated for tightening ballot rules .\nAnd some Democrats have supported similar measures in states such as Oregon and Washington , where low signature requirements have led to crowded ballots .\nFields said her group was watching about 90 bills around the country that would tighten ballot access .\nThe nonpartisan political website Ballotpedia is tracking about 140 pieces of legislation introduced in 31 states related to ballot measures , though some of those bills would loosen requirements .\nSome of the Republicans behind this year ’ s bills say they are necessary to curb the influence of big-money groups that increasingly fund some of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns across the country .\nIn Arizona , voters rejected an initiative that would have required the state to generate 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources , which made the ballot with the help of millions of dollars from California billionaire Tom Steyer .\nAfter that measure , state Sen. Vince Leach ( R ) introduced a bill regulating who could collect signatures for a ballot initiative and giving counties more time to inspect signatures once they have been turned in .\n“ It ’ s pretty clear to see that over the last six years , we ’ ve had any number of initiatives that have started from outside of the state of Arizona , ” Leach said in an interview . “ We need to protect one of the most precious things we have , and that ’ s the ability to go to the ballot and vote . ”\nLeach said he does not oppose the initiative process but that the legislature has a responsibility to guard the rights of its own citizens to determine the state ’ s direction .\n“ The citizens have a right to initiate laws and not only initiate laws but veto laws we pass . All that ’ s good . My effort is not to slow that down . I don ’ t want to take that opportunity or that responsibility away from the people , ” Leach said . “ It just needs to be fine-tuned . ”\nOther legislators said easy access to the ballot has led to a raft of ill-considered public policy that does not face the same scrutiny as legislation reviewed and scored by trained legal analysts .\nIn Arkansas , the state constitution now runs more than 100 pages , thanks in part to a bevy of recent voter-approved amendments .\n“ In the last seven elections , we ’ ve actually changed our constitution 20 times . We ’ re averaging three changes every other year , ” said Mat Pitsch , a Republican state senator in Arkansas . “ Things that normally are voted on by elected representatives were making their way through constitutional ballot measures . ”\nPitsch authored a bill that would increase penalties on those who forge signatures on petitions and shift responsibility for approving measures for the ballot from the state attorney general to the state board of elections . Arkansas Gov . Asa Hutchinson ( R ) signed his bill earlier this year .\nSome liberal states are also considering changes that would take power away from voters . In California , the legislature will debate a bill to allow some local governments to issue bonds without a popular vote ; currently , those governments must ask voters for approval before issuing the bonds .\nThe tradition of direct democracy in America is older than the Republic itself .\nMassachusetts held its first statewide referendum in 1778 . Most states that allow citizens to place legislation on the ballot adopted the practice during the Progressive Era in the early 1900s , in part to fight the influence of major corporations in the timber , railroad and oil industries .\nToday , 27 states and the District of Columbia allow some form of direct democracy , either through citizen-initiated propositions and constitutional amendments or through ballot measures authored by the legislature that then go to voters for approval or rejection .\nConservative groups , especially anti-tax organizations , used ballot measures to limit states ’ abilities to levy new taxes in the last several decades , beginning with California ’ s Proposition 13 , which passed in 1978 .\nMore recently , liberal groups have increasingly turned to ballot measures to raise the minimum wage , expand health care coverage and protect union rights — especially in states where Republicans won control of legislatures after the 2010 midterm elections .\nBallot measures have become a booming political business . Supporters and opponents spent more than $ 1 billion on propositions put before voters in each of the last three even-numbered election years . Several propositions in California generated nearly $ 100 million in spending in 2018 .


On Tuesday , the Dhillon Law Group , where I serve as an election law attorney , filed a lawsuit against the state of California . This lawsuit alleges that California is violating federal law by not ensuring that only citizens are on the state ’ s voting rolls . Three California voters brought this lawsuit : Roxanne Hoge , Ali Mazarei , and Corrin Rankin . Both Hoge and Mazarei are legal immigrants who earned the privilege to vote by becoming citizens of the United States .\nIn 1993 , a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act ( NVRA ) . This law mandated that states create more options for individuals to register to vote . This law also placed restrictions on the states on how they were to maintain their voter rolls . Under the NVRA , the state has a duty to regularly maintain the voter rolls by removing those individuals who had died or moved away .\nThe NVRA also requires a state ’ s secretary of state to determine the eligibility of each applicant before placing him or her on its voter rolls . Eligibility throughout the NVRA means that there is citizenship . Thus , the NVRA requires the states to ensure that someone is a citizen prior to placing him or her on the voter rolls .\nState records show that before the California secretary of state ’ s office places an applicant on the voter rolls , it checks with state administrative records to ensure the individual is not a felon and that the voter application is not a duplicate . The state admits that it does not review state administrative records to determine if an applicant is a citizen of the United States . If California does not even bother to check the citizenship status of voter applicants , it can continue to claim to the media that there is no evidence of non-citizens being placed on its voter rolls .\nLast year , the California secretary of state admitted he had no idea how many non-citizens were on the voter rolls . Earlier this year , a state audit was released that showed non-citizens were not only registered to vote , but had voted in California elections . These two news stories made it clear that California did not use state administrative records to ensure that only citizens were being registered to vote . Rather than follow federal law and make a determination of citizenship before placing an applicant on the voter rolls , the state simply waits for a scandal to break before responding by removing a non-citizen from its voter rolls . This is improper .\nThe California secretary of state has claimed that there is no state administrative record that tracks citizenship of Californians . This is clearly not true , since a state audit was able to determine that non-citizens were not only on the voter rolls but had also actually voted . Contrary to what the secretary of state wants the media to believe , there are multiple state administrative records that contain the citizenship status of voters . Every applicant for a state driver ’ s license is required to provide proof of identity . These proof-of-identity documents include citizenship status . If an individual can not prove that he/she is lawfully a United States citizens , a driver ’ s license is still doled out but that individual is supposedly not simultaneously also registered to vote .\nBy bringing this lawsuit , the plaintiffs desire to hold the secretary of state ’ s feet to the fire . It is time that California be required to follow federal law and ensure that everyone who is on the voter rolls is actually eligible to vote . This lawsuit is necessary because California has a bad habit of thumbing its nose at federal election laws and dragging its feet as long as possible . When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 — which required states to establish a statewide voter registration list — California was the last state to comply . It did not do so until 2016 .\nEarlier this year , Judicial Watch won a major victory against California requiring the state to follow federal law in removing from the voter rolls those who have died and those who have moved . California had chosen to simply not send out the required notices , and the voter rolls were thus bloated with ineligible voters .\nCalifornians deserve the assurance that the state is following federal law and ensuring that only citizens are on the voter rolls . By its own admissions , the state is not verifying voter applicants ’ citizenship status . Since California has claimed that it is not doing anything wrong , this lawsuit had to be brought to force California to follow the NVRA .\nMark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group , which is based in California . You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter @ markmeuser .


While all eyes were on the Nevada Caucuses , people in Super Tuesday states started receiving their absentee ballots . In places like California , voters are encouraged to vote absentee . It 's been a way to garner greater political involvement and participation .\nAdam Housley , a former correspondent for Fox News , said he received two ballots : one for non-party preference ( NPP ) and one for the libertarian ticket . What makes the scenario even more troubling ? Housley said he has never registered as a libertarian .\nCongrats California you have sent me two ballots . One as a non party preference , which I ’ ve been for 20 years and one as a Libertarian ... which I have never registered . Neither one has many choices other than new taxes . Being honest and ripping one up . Makes me wonder tho pic.twitter.com/6QDS0zPX2V — Adam Housley ( @ adamhousley ) February 21 , 2020\nIn a state with millions of people , a small flub here and there is likely to happen , but it turns out Housley was n't the only one who received multiple ballots ..\nI also got two . When I called the Elections office they said they were getting lots of calls about that . Mine was because I switched parties , but still ... — NapaValleyChick ( @ NapaValleyChick ) February 21 , 2020\nI moved to Texas in 2012 & changed my license but still have a home in CA . I still get mail in ballots to vote in CA . If I wasn ’ t an honest person I could easily vote in both . — Anne Carrillo ( @ wildcatanne ) February 21 , 2020\nI didn ’ t get two ballots but my party preference was changed from Republican to No Preference . — NorwichFan ( @ SiosNorwich ) February 22 , 2020\nMy son received 2 also followed by a letter which stated `` they '' were in error . Received a ballot for my wife who passed away last October . Sent it back .... — Scott ( @ bakerinCA ) February 22 , 2020\nDemocrats continually wonder why voter fraud exists . There are multiple reasons :\nWhen people get a driver 's license or identification card , they are automatically registered to vote unless they opt-out . That automatic registration begins when people get their licenses at 16-years-old but does n't go into effect until the person turns 18 . How do we know that the state is actually keeping that information safe for a year or two until the individual decides to vote ? How do we know their party preference has changed in that time frame ?\nOver the last 10 years , there has been a massive push to get voters to utilize absentee ballots . This helps ensure people make more informed decisions and vote at their own convenience , but along with that convenience comes risk . There 's no way to verify that the person whose name is on the ballot is the one who actually voted . There 's no way to know that the right person actually received the ballot . And there 's nothing keeping thieves from stealing a ballot out of a person 's mailbox .\nWhen people show up at the polls they 're not always required to show their ID , especially in liberal states like California . The poll worker simply asks you for your name and address and off you go . Again , there 's no way for them to verify you are who you say you are . And that 's why people who have passed away are still casting votes from their graves .\nWhat 's taking place in California really is n't all that surprising . It just reaffirms the idea that voter rolls need to be purged every year or two , people 's information needs to be verified and cross-referenced before ballots are sent out and IDs need to be checked at the polling booth . These are simple fixes but they 're the very ones that Democrats are resistant to .