Watch Sen. Chuck Grassley host the town hall from hell

Posted on April 16, 2025 by Walter Einenkel

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa faced angry constituents during a rare GOP-led town hall on Tuesday.

Confronted by demands for Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be returned to the United States after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Grassley parroted President Donald Trump’s indefensible position.

“The president of that country is not subject to our Supreme Court,” Grassley told the Fort Madison crowd, eliciting jeers and groans from the audience.

YouTube Video

“We would like to know what you, as the people of the Congress, who are supposed to rein in this dictator, what are you going to do about these people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment in a foreign country with no due process? Why won't you do your jobs, Senator?” one attendee asked.

Grassley, whose deflections were repeatedly shut down by the angry crowd, found himself on the receiving end of a civics lesson—and a sharp reminder of his oath of office.

”You took an oath—‘I do solemnly swear or affirm’—do you remember that, sir?” one attendee asked. He then proceeded to recite the entire oath of office Grassley took as a senator.

“Sir, will you act upon your oath?” he asked.

Grassley continued to act powerless, pointing to the fact that the “only tool” for Congress to discipline the president is impeachment.

“And you missed that opportunity in his first administration. You had two opportunities for that. That was probably one of the only reasons we're having this situation now,” the attendee responded.

Grassley tried to earn some praise from the raucous crowd, boasting about the Trade Review Act of 2025, a bipartisan bill that he co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington. The bill would require congressional approval before Trump’s tariffs could take effect.

And always true to form, Grassley then tried to take the heat off of himself, calling out “mistakes that Democratic Congress has made in 1963.”

Yes, 1963.

“I’m so sick of that,” one audience member responded.

Grassley is now an outlier in his own party. While Democrats are out in the field engaging with constituents, virtually all Republicans continue to hide from voters.

If the GOP is hoping that voters’ outrage will blow over, they are sorely mistaken—they are only getting angrier.

You can help ensure that Daily Kos remains the paywall-free home for our shared fight for democracy and justice. Daily Kos is supported by readers like you. Can you chip in today?

Why Republicans plan to impeach judges who haven’t done anything wrong

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Emily Singer

Congressional Cowards is a weekly series highlighting the worst Donald Trump defenders on Capitol Hill, who refuse to criticize him—no matter how disgraceful or lawless his actions.

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to follow Donald Trump's March 18 orders to impeach federal judges who ruled against his illegal actions.

But when pressed about which high crimes and misdemeanors the judges committed to warrant such an extreme measure, Republicans had no good answer.

Instead, the only "crime" they came up with was that the judges didn't let the lawless president trample over the Constitution to do whatever he wants, whether that be deporting immigrants without due process; letting co-President Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency bros access sensitive government systems, shut down federal agencies, and chaotically fire federal employees; or remove health data from government websites because it was tangentially related to “gender identity.”

For example, CNN host Kasie Hunt asked Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio what “high crimes or misdemeanors” these judges committed.

Jordan replied with what can only be described as verbal diarrhea.

“All I’m saying is, if you’re acting in a political fashion and not just following the law, the ruling on the law, and I would argue that frankly just his ruling in and of itself, remember the Constitution is pretty clear, Article II Section I, very first sentence, says the power in the executive branch shall be vested in a president of the United States. The president has the authority,” Jordan said.

YouTube Video

Of course Jordan left out that Article III of the Constitution says that judicial power extends to “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”—which is what the judges were doing when plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration was violating U.S. laws while carrying out its destructive agenda.

Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against the judge who tried to stop Trump’s illegal deportations of Venezuelan immigrants (an order the Trump administration ignored), was also asked which impeachable offenses the judge committed—and had a terrible response.

“This is for usurping the executive's authority, for demeaning the impartiality of the court by making a politicized ruling, and forcing a constitutional crisis,” Gill said on Newsmax. “That is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

YouTube Video

Other Republicans also backed Trump and Musk’s call to impeach judges who rule against the administration.

“America is a Republic, not a dictatorship of the judiciary. It's time to get rid of the political activists masquerading as judges and re-establish proper separation of powers,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida wrote in a post on X. “That's why I'm proud to announce that I will be joining my colleagues in impeaching ALL the activist judges who are unconstitutionally blocking President Trump's agenda.”

And Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he was going to introduce a law that would ban judges from being able to order nationwide injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration - a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” Hawley said, without acknowledging that maybe it’s because no other administration has ever initiated so many lawless actions that violate the Constitution.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley didn’t explicitly say he supported impeaching the judges, but he made it clear he believes what the judges did was wrong—and will use his powerful committee to go after those judges.

“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members,” Grassley wrote in a post on X. “If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis. Senate Judiciary Cmte taking action.”

And it seems that Musk read Grassley’s comment as being supportive of impeachment, because after Trump’s demand to impeach the judges, Musk donated to Grassley and six other Republicans who have supported the effort to boot them, The New York Times reported.

From the Times’ report:

Mr. Musk contributed on Wednesday to Representatives Eli Crane of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Brandon Gill of Texas. He also donated to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.

“This is a judicial coup,” Musk wrote on X of a court ruling that blocked Trump from banning transgender people from the military. “We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.”

Of course, it takes 67 senators to impeach—a fact you’d think Musk, who Trump and Republicans have framed as a genius, would know.

Ultimately, this impeachment effort is futile.

Even if House Republicans somehow succeed in impeaching these judges, there is no way that Democratic senators would vote to convict and remove them in an impeachment trial.

The end result of this ridiculous posturing: making judges fear for their own safety as they receive death threats for their legally sound rulings, thanks to Republicans’ vile rhetoric.

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.

Check out the GOP’s pathetic excuses for Trump’s lawlessness this week

Posted on February 16, 2025 by Emily Singer

Another week of Donald Trump's presidency is in the rearview. And like the two weeks before it, it was filled with lawless actions, lies, and ridiculous behavior that Republicans lined up to defend.

Trump threw Ukraine under the bus and appears likely to let murderous Russian dictator Vladimir Putin seize control of the sovereign nation. He also fired more independent watchdogs, let more corrupt politicians off the hook, slashed grants to medical research, and he even said he might ignore court rulings blocking his unlawful actions.

And like the pathetic lapdogs they are, Republicans defended every move.

After multiple federal judges of all ideological stripes blocked some of Trump’s executive actions, Republicans pushed the country further into a constitutional crisis by backing Trump when he suggested he’ll ignore those court orders and do whatever he wants.

“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that.’ So maybe we have to look at the judges. ‘Cause I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said on Tuesday.

Trump likely got this idea from his own vice president, who wrote in an X post on Feb. 9 that judges shouldn’t be allowed to stop the president’s executive power.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.

And other Republicans agreed with the false statement that the courts are not allowed to check the president’s power—when that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates.

“Of course the branches have to respect our constitutional order but there’s a lot of game yet to be played. This will be appealed, we’ve got to go through the whole process, and we’ll get the final analysis. In the interim, I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with Vice President JD Vance, my friend, because he’s right,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a news conference on Tuesday.

Later that day, he said that the courts should back off of Trump altogether.

“I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out. What we’re doing is good and right for the American people,” Johnson told reporters, specifically referring to the cuts co-President Elon Musk is trying to make with his fake agency, the Department of Government Efficiency.

"I don't believe judges, courts have the authority or power to stick their nose into the constitutional authority of the president,” Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said.

“These judges need to back off and get out of the way of what the executive branch is doing to administer the government,” Roy said on Fox News.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also expressed agreement that courts don’t have the power to challenge Trump’s executive orders.

“These judges are waging an unprecedented assault on legitimate presidential authority, all the way down to dictating what webpages the government has. This is absurd,” he wrote on X.

Rep. Darrel Issa, Republican of California, claimed that “nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.”

But, of course, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case that the judiciary has the power to declare laws or actions unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota seemed to acknowledge that ignoring court orders is wrong, but he simply couldn’t bring himself to criticize Trump.

“I think what you're seeing right now is the natural give and take between branches of the government,” he said.

A handful of other Trump sycophants went a step further, saying that they would launch an impeachment effort against the judges who block Trump's actions.

“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy. The left has done ‘irreparable harm’ to this country. President Trump and his team at @DOGE are trying to fix it,” Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona wrote on X, referring to the federal judge who blocked Musk from accessing Treasury data.

And Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia wrote on X that he is backing Crane’s efforts.

“The real constitutional crisis is taking place in our judicial branch. Activist judges are weaponizing their power in an attempt to block President Trump’s agenda and obstruct the will of the American people. [Crane] and I are leading the fight to stop this insanity,” he wrote.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called for the impeachment of another federal judge who blocked Trump’s freeze on congressionally appropriated federal funds.

“This judge is a Trump deranged Democrat activist. Below is proof he is not capable of making good decisions from the bench. He should be impeached,” Greene wrote on X.

Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio backed those efforts, saying the judges blocking Trump’s actions “should be mocked and ignored while articles of impeachment are prepared.”

“These clowns are undermining every lower court, leaving the sole burden on SCOTUS. This is not sustainable. Sadly, excesses in judicial and executive authority are a symptom of the real problem: Congress keeps failing to take action. Time for #DeedsNotWords,” he wrote on X.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, once a fierce defender of watchdogs, was fine with Trump axing the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development who said that Trump's unlawful shuttering of the agency let hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food aid go to waste.

Grassley said that he "should have been fired," and gave Trump a workaround to make the firing legal.

"I'm just trying to make the president's job easier," Grassley said, completely ditching his past watchdog advocacy to bow down to Trump.

Other GOP lawmakers chose Trump over their own constituents, who are being directly harmed by the president’s actions.

Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said that Trump’s decision to drastically cut back National Institutes of Health funding for medical research institutions is a good thing, even though it would decimate institutions in his own state and beyond.

“Well, I think what happens is the president is exactly right. I think if you ask the average American if we were spending a billion dollars to cure childhood cancer, how much of the billion dollars would go towards during childhood cancer? They’d probably say a billion. The idea that 60% goes to indirect cost and overhead is insane. And so I applaud the president,” he told the Bulwark

And Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said that Trump's funding freeze, which is hurting farmers who are not being paid for contracts, is just a "little bit disruptive."

“But that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington,” Smith said on CNN, “is that they would be disruptive.”

Rep. Jason Smith dismisses farmers in his state who are getting stiffed by the US government not fulfilling contracts: "Right now it's a little bit disruptive, but that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington is that they would be disruptive."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-02-11T17:38:10.608Z

Republicans proceed with impeachment effort to spread Russian disinformation

Posted on February 23, 2024 by Kerry Eleveld

The biggest story of the week, the month, and perhaps the rest of 2024 should be the fact that Republicans predicated their entire impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden on information provided to them by an agent of the Russian government.

Instead, yet another Russian incursion into American politics directly facilitated by Republican officials is falling flat.

Let's take a moment to review the situation with national security expert and ABC News analyst Asha Rangappa, who tweeted, "For real, can we recap: Sitting members of Congress initiated IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against a U.S. President based on information passed to them by an agent of Russian intelligence. Same members refuse to pass aid to Ukraine. Same members defend Trump."

For real, can we recap: Sitting members of Congress initiated IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against a U.S. President based on information passed to them by an agent of Russian intelligence. Same members refuse to pass aid to Ukraine. Same members defend Trump. ….
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) February 21, 2024

It's not just that congressional Republicans like House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer and veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa spouted disinformation from a Russian mole: It's that the claim made by the Russian mole was laughable on its face.

As The Bulwark's Tim Miller recounted on "The Next Level" podcast, "This idea that Joe Biden is a master criminal, and he has like a web of bank accounts that are so ... complex ... it would take the FBI and the CIA 10 years to unravel Joe Biden—Joseph Robinette Biden's scheme?"

Miller recalled thinking, no way, "This is crazy."

But not congressional Republicans. They made the claims of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov central—indeed, indispensable—to their case against Biden.

In May, Comer told Fox News his committee was demanding the FBI release information it had gleaned from Smirnov.

"This is a very crucial piece of our investigation," Comer said.

Grassley took to the Senate floor to pressure the FBI to release the FD-1023 form supposedly detailing "a criminal bribery scheme" that included President Biden and his son, Hunter. Grassley claimed that information came from "a highly credible, long serving FBI confidential human source."

Last year, Senator Grassley touted the now indicted informant. During the same speech he complained that Judiciary Committee Democrats described his investigation Russian disinformation. According to court filings, the source he’s referencing here has ties to Russian intelligence pic.twitter.com/Iqcy40xeG9
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 20, 2024

Oops, just kidding.

But now that Smirnov has been indicted and revealed as a Russian agent, Republicans are trying to triage their impeachment inquiry instead of backing away from their disgraced probe of an American president whom they are smearing for political gain.

Comer told Newsmax Wednesday that Smirnov "wasn't an important part" of their investigation "because I didn't even know who he was."

Republicans are also scrubbing references of Smirnov from their investigatory materials, according to reporting from The New Republic's Tori Otten.

Totally absent from this Republican debacle is any sense of contrition for their roles serving as stooges of the Kremlin in spreading a mountain of lies about a sitting U.S. president.

Comer, Grassley, and others should be fighting off calls for their resignations after betraying the country.

Instead, the impeachment show must go on for Republicans. Otherwise they will have no means by which to uncover and spread more Russian disinformation about their political rival, Joe Biden.

Democratic voters know Joe Biden is old and MAGA voters like to pretend that Trump isn't just as long in the tooth. Both men were old the last time we did this and the only thing that’s changed is Biden is now a successful incumbent, while Trump is busy juggling trials and indictments.

Embedded Content

Campaign Action

GOP continues bogus ‘investigation’ after star witness turns out to be Russian mole

Posted on February 21, 2024 by Mark Sumner

On Wednesday, the Republican-led House of Representatives impeachment inquiry will question James Biden behind closed doors on the very critical matter of how he repaid a loan to his brother. Banking records have already revealed that there is absolutely nothing to find in this investigation. Joe Biden loaned his brother James $200,000. Two months later, James paid him back. Neither did one thing wrong.

This hearing is a perfect example of why everyone called before this inquiry should demand to testify publicly. Not only has House Oversight Committee Rep. James Comer accused both the president and Democrats in Congress of lying about the loan, even though Comer already had all the evidence in hand to show everything was accurate and above board, but Democrats are being denied their rightful opportunity to rub Republican noses in the ugly collapse of every piece of “evidence” behind this so-called investigation.

In the last few days, the FBI form that Republicans demanded to see, then released themselves after threatening to hold the FBI director in contempt, turns out to be the product of a Russian mole who was fed false information by Russian agents. Meanwhile, a picture of “cocaine” that was included in a court filing in charges against Hunter Biden turns out to be an image of sawdust.

The only real questions that remain in this investigation are: How much did James Comer, Jim Jordan, and Chuck Grassley know, and when did they know it?

As Spiderman might say, let’s do this one last time …

In 2019, Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine on orders from Donald Trump and came back with a story. That story was so ludicrous that everyone passed on it, including Fox News. But there was one place where Giuliani could still get this mess published: The New York Times.

According to that story, Joe Biden went to Ukraine and demanded the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because Shokin was investigating Burisma, the energy company where Hunter Biden served on the board. Biden allegedly threatened to withhold U.S. aid from Ukraine until Shokin was canned so Hunter could continue to collect his paycheck, and this oh-so-good prosecutor was unjustly fired.

The Times ran the story verbatim, without seeming to do anything like check Giuliani’s sources or look at public records. However, within a few days, Bloomberg dispatched a reporter to Ukraine to check on what Giuliani was selling, and sure enough, it was all bullshit.

Not only had Shokin not been investigating Burisma, he was so notoriously corrupt that officials in both the U.S. and the U.K. called for his removal for years. Biden didn’t start the push to remove Shokin, and he didn’t act alone. Everything that happened in Ukraine was very public, and European officials celebrated when Shokin was finally sacked.

There was no story. There never had been a story. But that didn’t stop Republicans from continuing to repeat Giuliani’s fairytale.

Then a miracle happened. Republicans learned that the FBI had been given a tip about this subject, one that resulted in an FD-1023 form that seemed to back up everything Giuliani had said in 2019. Over objections from the FBI, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Jim Jordan demanded the form. Then Grassley and Comer released the form to the public, and it became the beating heart of the Republican “impeachment investigation.”

And the form was perfect. Referring to Joe Biden as the “big guy” was in there. A claim that Hunter Biden was hired to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems” was right on the front page. The “17 recordings” of phone calls that supposedly included Joe Biden getting directly involved with his son’s business came from this form. Best of all, it included the claim that a Burisma executive complained about how "it cost 5 (million) to pay one Biden, and 5 (million) to another Biden.”

The form was everything. The absolute proof that Republicans wanted.

Except, of course, everything in it completely contradicted years of public records and statements from those involved. Republicans didn’t let that bother them. Comer defended this form repeatedly, calling Democrats who challenged its contents liars. Grassley declared the importance of those recordings mentioned in the form, even while admitting they might not exist. Jim Jordan practically quoted the form in his questioning of Devon Archer, and then lied about Archer’s testimony when it failed to match up.

Then last Thursday, Alexander Smirnov, the man behind that FD-1023, was charged with lying to the FBI and creating false records. According to CNN, Smirnov has informed investigators that he has “‘extensive and extremely recent’ contacts” with Russian spies. And in an interview after his arrest, Smirnov admitted that “officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story about Businessperson 1.”

“Businessperson 1” is Hunter Biden.

So, Republicans have not only spent the last year pressing an investigation of the president’s son largely instigated by a document that turns out to have been tailor-made for them by Russian intelligence, they opened an impeachment inquiry with a Russian agent as the “heart” of their investigation.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) on the indictment of ex-FBI informant Alexander Smirnov for lying about the Biden family: “It doesn’t change the fundamental facts.” Reporter: “Doesn’t change the facts? It does change the facts, because they’re no longer facts.” pic.twitter.com/M8Y2GtSci9
— The Recount (@therecount) February 21, 2024

The answer to why the FBI was so reluctant to release the document is simple: They don’t release unfounded accusations (unless they come from James Comey or Robert Hur, of course). And that ongoing investigation that had Republicans so excited was the investigation of Smirnov, not Hunter Biden.

All of this was a lie, and Republicans knew it. Just ask one of the men who toured Giuliani around Ukraine in the first place.

The FBI had my communications with the CEO of Burisma since my arrest in 2019. The GOP received my communications with the CEO of Burisma during the first Trump impeachment in 2020. They all knew that the 1023 from Alexander Smirnov was a lie. Why did they continue this farce…
— Lev Parnas (@levparnas) February 21, 2024

Republicans are plowing on, keeping up the pretense that this source they made such a big deal about for so long was just “ancillary” to their investigation into what they love to call “the Biden crime family.” They have other evidence, dammit. Like how Joe Biden once loaned his son some money for a truck.

But in the last day, another part of the investigation into Hunter Biden has crumbled into dust. As in sawdust.

Federal prosecutors mistakenly claimed in a court filing that a photo of sawdust they found while searching Hunter Biden's electronics was cocaine, attorneys for the president's son said Tuesday.

How anyone could have ever thought that this material, which was tan in color and sitting on a table saw, was anything other than sawdust is astounding. But a picture of any kind of dust seemed to be convincing to Sean Hannity, so Fox News audiences aren’t likely to be threatened by the truth. (This also raises questions about just what Hannity has been putting up his nose.)

A Russian agent. A fake document. A pile of sawdust. That’s what Republicans have to show for their big investigation.

It would be really great to hear what’s happening behind those closed doors today. Democrats should be having fun.

Campaign Action

Despite Trump’s current laughable lawyers, his DOJ could be staffed with skilled radicals

Posted on January 24, 2024 by Charles Jay

Attorney Alina Habba has been widely mocked for her courtroom blunders and behavior as she defends Donald Trump in the business fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and in E. Jean Carroll’s second defamation trial against the accused rapist.

Former federal prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, who is now editor in chief of the liberal Meidas Touch, had this post on X, formerly known as Twitter:

I’m gonna say you can watch My Cousin Vinny and Legally Blonde back-to-back and you’d be ready to do a better trial than Habba.
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 18, 2024

And “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert said in a monologue earlier this month, “Habba is, to use a bit of legalese, a bad lawyer,” HuffPost reported. He then played a clip from a podcast interview in which Habba, a former fashion executive, said she’d “rather be pretty than smart.” She then added she “can fake being smart.”

But as Trump has become the first candidate to run a presidential campaign out of a courtroom, Habba has taken on a prominent role in MAGA world by playing the Trump victimization card in numerous interviews on courthouse steps, on Fox News, and other conservative news outlets.

And while Trump’s immunity claims may seem a joke, there’s nothing funny regarding the attorney who handled Trump’s appeal seeking immunity from charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith that he conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is widely expected to reject Trump’s immunity claim.

As Trump sat watching in the courtroom, his attorney, D. John Sauer, in response to questioning from the judges, suggested that even a president directing SEAL Team 6 to kill a political rival would be an action barred from criminal prosecution unless the president was first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Mother Jones wrote that “it’s hard to overstate the terrifying absurdity of the argument.” But in social media posts, candidate Trump has argued that presidents deserve complete immunity from prosecution even for acts that “cross the line.” The Atlantic wrote that “Today’s legal argument could very well be next year’s exercise of presidential power.”

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich went even further, stating that “Sauer was arguing for the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Law in Germany,” which facilitated Adolf Hitler’s success in moving the country from democracy to fascism. That law—approved by the German Parliament in March 1933—gave the new chancellor, Hitler, the power to enact new laws without interference from the president or the parliament for four years.

What’s scary is that unlike Habba, Sauer has a blue-chip legal background. He was a Rhodes scholar and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to federal appellate court Judge J. Michael Luttig and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In 2017, then-Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley appointed Sauer to serve as the state’s solicitor general and he continued to serve in that post under Hawley’s successor, Eric Schmitt, who also was elected to the U.S. Senate. The New York Times wrote:

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

Sauer left the solicitor general’s post in January 2023. He served as a special assistant attorney general for Louisiana’s Department of Justice in a First Amendment lawsuit against Biden administration officials over their contacts with social media platforms about “misinformation.”

So could Sauer be another politically ambitious conservative lawyer with an Ivy League law degree looking to make an impression on Trump in hopes of securing a top position at the Department of Justice in a second Trump administration? It’s hard to know for sure, as Sauer keeps a low public profile outside the courtroom and shuns media interviews. But it sounds like he would fit right in, according to a November New York Times article on the subject:

Close allies of Donald J. Trump are preparing to populate a new administration with a more aggressive breed of right-wing lawyer, dispensing with traditional conservatives who they believe stymied his agenda in his first term.

The allies have been drawing up lists of lawyers they view as ideologically and temperamentally suited to serve in a second Trump administration. Their aim is to reduce the chances that politically appointed lawyers would frustrate a more radical White House agenda — as they sometimes did when Mr. Trump was in office, by raising objections to his desires for certain harsher immigration policies or for greater personal control over the Justice Department, among others.

The Times said Trump has even become disenchanted with the Federalist Society, the conservative legal network whose members filled key executive branch legal positions when he was last in office. Trump was particularly enraged at White House and Justice Department legal officials who blocked his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

John Mitnick, who was fired by Trump as general counsel of the Homeland Security Department in 2019, told the Times that “no qualified attorneys with integrity will have any desire to serve as political appointees” in a second Trump term.

The Guardian reported that Trump’s former senior adviser Stephen Miller, known for his draconian immigration policy, “is playing a key role in seeking lawyers fully in sync with Trump’s radical agenda to expand his power and curb some major agencies.” The Guardian wrote:

His search is for those with unswerving loyalty to Trump, who could back Trump’s increasingly authoritarian talk about plans to “weaponize” the DoJ against critics, including some he has labeled as “vermin.”

Miller, who is not a lawyer, is president of the MAGA-allied group America First Legal, which has been filing lawsuits against the Biden administration. Miller also sits on the board of Project 2025, an effort led by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups to map authoritarian policy plans for a second Trump administration.

And that brings us to who Trump might choose for attorney general if he makes his way back to the Oval Office. Back in November, former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee, warned in an episode of The Bulwark podcast:

“If he does get through and he wins this time, he's going to interview 100 candidates for attorney general and only take the one that says, 'Mr. President, in essence, I don't care what the Constitution is. I'm going to do whatever you want as your servant at the Department of Justice.'"

And the scary thing is that there is one lawyer who is media savvy, has a blue-chip legal resume, and is a total right-wing monster. His name is Mike Davis.

Tim Miller, a former Republican National Committee spokesperson and Never Trumper, wrote about an interview Davis gave to conservative political commentator Benny Johnson in which Davis discussed what he would do if he were “acting attorney general” for a few weeks in a new Trump term:

But during my three week reign of terror as Trump acting attorney general, before I get chased out of town with my Trump pardon, I will rain hell on Washington, D.C. ... I have five lists, ready to go and they’re growing.

List number one, we’re gonna fire. We’re gonna fire a lot of people in the executive branch, in the deep state.

Number two, we’re gonna indict. We’re gonna indict Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and James Biden and every other scumball, sleazeball, Biden, except for the five year old granddaughter who they refused to acknowledge for five years until the political pressure got to Joe Biden.

Number three, we’re gonna deport. We’re gonna deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing—anchor babies, their parents, their grandparents. We’re gonna put kids in cages. It’s gonna be glorious. We’re gonna detain a lot of people in the D.C. gulag and Gitmo.

And list number five, I’m gonna recommend a lot of pardons. Every January 6th defendant is gonna get a pardon, especially my hero horn man. He is definitely at the top of the pardon list.

“This is almost comically pathetic chest-beating of a creepy dork,” says Hayes on far-right lawyer Mike Davis. “But again the history of fascism is full of creepy dorks who…used the power of the state to execute their most despicable, violent fantasies.”pic.twitter.com/dRRVhsRKCw
— IT’S TIME FOR JUSTICE (@LiddleSavages) November 22, 2023

In an article for The Bulwark, Miller wrote:

Davis has become an influential voice in MAGA media and activist circles—understandably so, given his crossover appeal as someone who combines legitimate bona fides as a GOP staffer with the incendiary, burn-it-all-down rhetoric that the MAGA base laps up.

And should, God forbid, Trump win a second term, Davis will be emblematic of the type of person who will staff the government. …

Davis’s current gig is spearheading activist groups that fight for right-wing judicial appointments and oppose “Big Tech.” In this role he makes frequent appearances on right-wing media outlets, including primetime Fox and its MAGA competitors (think Real America’s Voice, Newsmax, Bannon’s War Room), where he preaches the Gospel of Trump on issues ranging from the former president’s many indictments to the Biden impeachment.

Davis has an extensive biography on the Federalist Society website. But Miller also exposed Davis’ dark side, including a rant on X about the “violent black underclass” who are “monsters” and should be subjected to “mass incarceration.” He wrote:

Racist demagoguery. Conspiratorial thinking. Promises for retribution against enemies. This is Trump’s stated agenda for 2024. And people like Mike Davis stand ready and willing to execute it.

Davis now heads the Article III Project, which has run ads defending Trump against his four criminal indictments with messages mirroring Trump’s comments that he is a victim of politically motivated prosecutions.

One 60-second digital ad says, “Activist prosecutors and judges have destroyed the rule of law, the scales of justice forever broken and imbalanced. The worst offenders? Those who have weaponized the legal system for political gain against President Trump. Even now they’re resorting to insane legal theories to take him off the ballot,” the ad continues. “They’ve gone after a president of the United States. Do you think they’ll stop there?”

In November, Mehdi Hasan presented an in-depth report on the dangers posed by Davis on MSNBC.

YouTube Video

Davis responded to the report and Miller’s Bulwark article with this tasteless post on X that included a homophobic slur.

😂 Trump’s Dream Team.@mehdirhasan is now on my Lists 2 (indict), 4 (detain), 6 (denaturalize), and 3 (deport). I already have his spot picked out in the DC gulag. But I’ll put him in the women’s cell block, with @Timodc. So these whiny leftists don’t get beat up as often. https://t.co/Ylhb33KVv2
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 20, 2023

And here’s the kicker: Donald Trump Jr. actually said on his online show “Triggered” in November that he’d actually like to see Davis as attorney general, even on an interim basis, “just to send that shot across the bow of the swamp.”

Donald Trump Jr. says he wants Laura Loomer as White House press secretary and Mike Davis as attorney general; Loomer has described herself as “pro-white nationalism,” Davis says that he wants to enact a “reign of terror” targeting Trump’s enemies. pic.twitter.com/oy3osluVC4
— Media Matters (@mmfa) November 10, 2023

Campaign Action

House Republicans hand Democrats an early 2024 gift: A fact-free impeachment inquiry

Posted on December 14, 2023 by Kerry Eleveld

House Republicans voted unanimously Wednesday to open an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. They will live to regret it.

Even under the best and most convincing of circumstances, impeachments are typically unpopular. After Donald Trump sicced a violent mob on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, only a slender majority of Americans supported impeaching him. A Monmouth University poll conducted shortly after Trump's impeachment on Jan. 13 found that 56% of Americans favored his impeachment and Senate conviction, including 92% of Democrats but just 52% of independents, despite the Jan. 6 insurrection unfolding on live television for all of America to see.

Fast forward to this week, with Republican Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado telling CNN Monday, "This is not the way to run a Congress. This is not the way to run a House. We should not be engaging in retribution politics, in retribution impeachments.”

Still, Buck couldn’t bring himself to buck his fellow Republicans on the party-line vote.

Republican Rep. Ken Buck: “This is not the way to run a Congress. This is not the way to run a House. We should not be engaging in retribution politics, in retribution impeachments.” pic.twitter.com/YgJJFRpRz8
— Ian Sams (@IanSams46) December 12, 2023

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa admitted Wednesday that Republicans had "no evidence" on which to conclude the president is guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors.

"I'm going to follow the facts where they are, and the facts haven't taken me to that point where I can say the president is guilty of anything," Grassley told CNN's Manu Raju.

Amazing. Chuck Grassley admits "I have no evidence ... the fact haven't taken me to that point where I can say the president is guilty of anything." pic.twitter.com/fCuVcNLTB0
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 13, 2023

This impeachment should be embarrassing to Republicans, and yet the bubble of far-right politics has given them the courage of their fact-free convictions.

Democrats should thank them. After months of polling showing a tight 2024 presidential contest with whiffs of sagging Democratic enthusiasm for Biden's reelection, Republicans have handed Democrats a base-energizer.

Democratic voters will be rightfully outraged that Republicans would launch an inquiry when they have zero supporting evidence despite a year-long investigation into Biden’s supposed misdeeds that turned up squat.

Just wait for the polling. Republicans may be hermetically sealed from reality, but the majority of voters are not—particularly those in some 17 Biden-won swing districts that are currently represented by Republicans.

Need detailed info on the 18 Biden-Republican districts in the House? We've got you covered at this link! https://t.co/lEcCvxvfqi (Trump-Democratic districts are on a second tab) pic.twitter.com/i3aXnHzUys
— Daily Kos Elections (@DKElections) October 18, 2023

Campaign Action

What Biden crime are Republicans probing in fake impeachment? Don’t ask this Guy

Posted on December 14, 2023 by Aldous J Pennyfarthing

In 2019, the House impeached Donald Trump for trying to extort an ally into launching a bogus investigation against his top political rival by withholding vital, congressionally approved military aid. In 2021, the House impeached Trump again because he incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol and then sat on his hands while the bloody chaos dragged on for hours. In 2023, Republicans are trying to impeach President Joe Biden because in 2018, when he held no public office, his son repaid a $4,200 personal loan the senior Biden had given him to buy a truck.

Actually, that’s not completely accurate. House Republicans are dead set on impeaching Biden because Trump wants them to. Which is really sad when you think about it. Having their free will stolen by Donald Trump must feel like getting carjacked by a 6-year-old with a safety scissors.

And yet it somehow keeps happening to Republicans across the country.

Then again, Republicans aren’t exactly known for their courage in the face of tyranny. In fact, they’re so cowardly, they’re bowing to the wild and woolly Trump mob and finally formalized an impeachment inquiry against Biden for still-undefined reasons—after years of go-nowhere calls for it.

But, sadly, when asked direct questions about what this impeachment push is actually for, they still can’t quite come up with the answer.

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse (who served as a House manager for Trump’s second impeachment) asked GOP Rep. Guy Reschenthaler what specific potential Biden crime Republicans were investigating.

And even in the wake of extensive GOP investigations and an avalanche of innuendo, Reschenthaler still couldn’t answer. But that hardly matters—they’re voting on the inquiry ASAP regardless.

Neguse: What is the specific constitutional crime that you're investigating? Reschenthaler: We’ll, we're having an inquiry so we can do an investigation in the production of witnesses. Neguse: And what is the crime? pic.twitter.com/giV6oG453y
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 12, 2023

Transcript!

NEGUSE: “I think the question I’m asking you is, what is the specific constitutional crime that you are investigating?”

RESCHENTHALER: “Well, we are having an inquiry so we can do an investigation and compel the production of witnesses and documents.”

NEGUSE: “What is the crime you’re investigating?”

RESCHENTHALER: “High crimes and misdemeanors and bribery.”

NEGUSE: “What high crime and misdemeanor are you investigating?”

RESCHENTHALER: “Look, once I get time I will explain what we’re looking at, and I will make the equivalency with the last impeachment.”

NEGUSE: “Okay, what I’m trying to say, Mr. Reschenthaler, and again I say this because I served as a prosecutor during the last impeachment of former President Trump. There was a specific high crime that he was impeached for, on a bipartisan basis. Thirteen Republicans agreed. [In] 2019, President Trump was impeached. There were two very specific offenses that he was impeached for. And I can’t get an answer, I don’t think members of the Oversight Committee can get an answer—or the Ways and Means Committee or the Judiciary Committee. I don’t think there is an answer.

“And, of course, it’s unsurprising, because according to even Fox News correspondents, House Republicans have been unable to make any kind of connection to a constitutional high crime and misdemeanor in President Biden. I would say this: To make the argument that there is some similarity between—and I don’t know if this is what you're suggesting, I hope it’s not—between the various facts that you’ve focused in on with respect to President Biden and President Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, I just—it’s very clear to me that the American people would reject that argument outright.”

In other words, Republicans’ fake impeachment is all about fishing for documents in search of a crime—even though they haven’t presented a scintilla of evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing. Oh, and it’s also about smearing gobs of mud-like matter on Biden so low-information voters (i.e., Republicans) can feel better about flocking to the polls in 2024 to vote for a confirmed rapist.

They’re not even hiding it. They’re saying the loud part out loud.

Republican Rep. Troy Nehls on what he’s hoping to gain from an impeachment inquiry: “All I can say is Donald J. Trump 2024 baby.” Story: https://t.co/B9ND5WYCyt pic.twitter.com/vGWCrPayN6
— nikki mccann ramírez (@NikkiMcR) December 13, 2023

In fact, following Neguse’s questioning, Reschenthaler seemed to give away the game while discussing Trump’s previous impeachments.

The Washington Post:

Indeed, there appears to be less evidence to substantiate this impeachment inquiry than there have been for any of its predecessors, including Trump’s two. Even the GOP’s own impeachment hearing in September devolved into its witnesses saying the evidence of impeachable offenses wasn’t there.

At another point, immediately after Neguse’s grilling, Reschenthaler seemed to get at the crux of the matter. He pointed to his opposition to Trump’s impeachments.

“Now we have a situation where the standard of impeachment has been lowered to such a degree that, again, it’s merely at this point a political exercise,” he said.

He quickly added, “Not that this is a political exercise, but the bar has been lowered.”

Uh huh. Not this. Sure. Nice save, Guy.

But don’t simply take House Republicans’ word that this Biden impeachment push has been 100% politically motivated. Here’s GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, briefly forgetting that Trump has long since devoured his mind—which is, unfortunately, where he keeps the bulk of his CornHub passwords and pidgin stories:

Amazing. Chuck Grassley admits "I have no evidence ... the fact haven't taken me to that point where I can say the president is guilty of anything." pic.twitter.com/fCuVcNLTB0
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 13, 2023

Transcript!

CNN’S MANU RAJU: “He said his father was not financially involved in any way with his business. Do you accept that?”

GRASSLEY: “I’m going to take the same position I’ve taken since 2019, that all I can say is there’s some indication of maybe some compromise with China particularly, but I have no evidence of it and I’m going to just follow the facts where they are, and the facts haven’t taken me to that point where I can say that the president is guilty of anything.”

Oh, and in case you missed it, here’s that Fox News clip Neguse was talking about. It shows gormless gadfly Peter Doocy throwing up his hands and admitting Republicans still have bupkis.

Peter Doocy: "The House Oversight Committee has been at this for years, and they have so far not been able to provide any concrete evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from his son Hunter's overseas business." pic.twitter.com/a5N44hIRrQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2023

Transcript!

DOOCY: “The House Oversight Committee has been at this for years and they have so far not been able to provide any concrete evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from his son Hunter’s overseas business, but they are going to try again with this impeachment inquiry that’s set to start next week.”

Sure, there’s no evidence, but at least it’s an entirely partisan endeavor! We know how much Republicans love those—except when they don’t, of course. Here’s current House Speaker Mike Johnson taking a break from jabbering with Jehovah to weigh in on the outrage inherent in one party holding a sitting president accountable. I should mention that this is from four years ago, when Democrats were getting ready to impeach Trump for the first time—just in case you were wondering why his glasses and deeply held core convictions were different now.

Absolutely amazing. Speaker Mike Johnson four years ago *today* "The Founding Fathers, the founders of this country, warned against single-party impeachments. And they had a very specific reason for warning us against that." pic.twitter.com/iWH9Wz0sFw
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 13, 2023

Transcript!

JOHNSON: “The Founding Fathers, the founders of this country, warned against single-party impeachments, and they had a very specific reason for warning us against that. They said it would be bitterly divisive, perhaps irreparably divisive for the country, and that’s what’s happened now. This is the first time in the history of this nation, in 243 years, that a president has been treated in this manner, when one party has followed and pursued a predetermined political outcome to get to that end.”

Yes, God forbid one party pursue a predetermined political outcome. That could be the death knell for democracy. And clearly Republicans don’t want to have any part in such an outcome.

Except when they do, of course.

Check out Aldous J. Pennyfarthing’s four-volume Trump-trashing compendium, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE.

Campaign Action

Fox News host did not expect his Biden conspiracy to get blown apart on live TV

Posted on September 25, 2023 by Mark Sumner

At the heart of every single Republican conspiracy about both President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine is a single claim. The claim is that Joe Biden got Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin sacked in order to protect energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden was on the board.

That was the claim former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought back from Ukraine, and the basis on which Donald Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine and earned his first impeachment. Also, because Republicans keep saying things long after they know, we know, and they know we know that they’re lying, this claim is also behind the hearings being led by Rep. Jim Jordan in the House. It’s behind the messages being pushed by Rep. James Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley. And it’s the basis of an improbable number of stories at Fox News.

The idea that Shokin was fired to protect Burisma has been debunked so many times that de bunk is exhausted, but it has seldom gone down with as much grim satisfaction as it did on Sunday when Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade interviewed former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

amazing - during a Fox News interview w/ Brian Kilmeade, former president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko denounces Victor Shokin, who plays as a leading role in Kilmeade's conspiracy theories, as a "completely crazy person" & says "there's something wrong with him" as Kilmeade melts pic.twitter.com/MXedG1FmrB
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 25, 2023

Kilmeade: Is that why he got fired? Because of the billion dollars and the former vice president, now president?
Poroshenko: First of all, this is a completely crazy person. This is something wrong with him. Second, there is not one single word of truth. And third, I hate the idea to make any comments and to make any intervention in the American election. We have very much enjoyed bipartisan support. Please do not use such person like Shokin to undermine the trust between bipartisan support and Ukraine.

It helps to get the laughter flowing if you know that Kilmeade is a near-constant spouter of this false claim who has been treating Shokin as a fount of wisdom. As for Shokin, in his portion of the recording, he states the Republican claim quite succinctly.

“Poroshenko fired me,” said Shokin, “at the insistence of the then-Vice President Biden because I was investigating Burisma. There were no complaints whatsoever and no problems with how I was performing at my job.”

Campaign Action

Well, that seems like something that might be checked out. We can start with this Financial Times article where officials from a number of nations (not just the U.S.) sought the removal of Shokin for months before Biden ever became involved because Shokin was not investigating potential corruption cases, including Burisma, and was suspected of being corrupt himself. In addition to U.S. and E.U. officials, senior officials from the International Monetary Fund called for reforms because widespread corruption in Ukraine was seen as the country’s biggest obstacle to growth and stability.

And there was one other group really pushing for Shokin’s removal, as CNN reported in 2019. That group was the Senate Ukraine Caucus, where Republican member Sens. Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Ron Johnson dispatched a letter urging Poroshenko to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's Office.”

Shokin’s own deputy testified that there was no active investigation into Burisma at the time of Biden’s actions. And not only was all this looked into as part of Trump’s impeachment, a Republican investigation launched in 2020 specifically to find any wrongdoing by Biden ended in an 87-page report that “contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed.”

The claim that Biden did something wrong in Ukraine wasn’t true, isn’t true, and can’t be made true through repetition. Shokin was fired because he was corrupt, bad at his job, and everyone complained.

As The Washington Post points out, Fox News and Republicans come out of this looking extremely foolish, though no one should expect them to admit it. They are deeply invested in this lie. In 2020, Republicans looked into this idea and realized it was baseless. But then, 2020 was a year when some Republicans still thought they could pull their party away from Trump and chart a course back to a world where they had both policies and a platform. Connections between Republicans and reality have become much more tenuous since then.

They’ll keep promoting the lie, because without it everything that Jordan, Comer, Grassley, and the rest are doing is revealed as pointless political theater in support of a lie. They know that we know that they know they are lying.

It helps that they don’t care.

Kerry talks with Drew Linzer, director of the online polling company Civiqs. Drew tells us what the polls say about voters’ feelings toward President Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and what the results would be if the two men were to, say … run against each other for president in 2024. Oh yeah, Drew polled to find out who thinks Donald Trump is guilty of the crimes he’s been indicted for, and whether or not he should see the inside of a jail cell.

Embedded Content

Sen. Chuck Grassley put American lives at risk to spread a document he knew was a lie

Posted on July 21, 2023 (Updated July 22, 2023) by Mark Sumner

Sen. Chuck Grassley released an FBI FD-1023 form related to the Hunter Biden investigation. These forms are not intended to be public documents and it is highly unusual to release them publicly. These are the forms that the FBI uses to “record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources.” They do not represent the results of investigations, and “recording this information does not validate it or establish its credibility.”

These forms are not classified, but they are kept in confidence for a number of reasons that are mostly connected with protecting sources. The FBI has made it clear to Grassley repeatedly that releasing the form would have a negative impact not just on this case, but on every case that depends on confidential human sources.

Grassley released it anyway because he has placed what he sees as a momentary opportunity to hurt President Joe Biden over the needs of the FBI and the good of the nation. More than that, Grassley is doing this to forward a story that he knows is a lie.

The form, which is dated June 2020, claims to be sourced from a businessman who was introduced to leadership at Burisma energy in Ukraine in “late 2015 or early 2016” to help the company find a U.S. company to purchase. During a meeting with Burisma leadership, the source claims that he was told Hunter Biden was put on the company board to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.” Asked why it isn’t Hunter doing the job of locating a U.S. form to purchase, he’s told that “Hunter is not that smart.” Finally the source is told by Burisma executive Mykola Zlochevsky that the company has to pay $5 million to Joe Biden and another $5 million to Hunter Biden because they are being investigated by Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and Burisma needed Biden to “deal with Shokin.”

The story then jumps to a phone call in 2016. Or maybe it was 2017. As with the original meeting, the source can’t recall the year, though he recalls the dialogue word for word. This time Zlochevsky complains that Burisma was forced to pay Biden, using a term that the source describes as “Russian-criminal-slang,” and now that Trump has been elected their investment is worthless. However, Shokin has been fired, so there was no investigation and no one would ever know about the money they paid the Bidens.

Jump forward to 2019 when CHS again meets with Burisma executives and Zlochevsky brags to the source about how clever they were in hiding the payments to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and how no one will ever find those payments. According to the source, this is the kind of thing Ukrainian businessmen like to brag about in casual conversation.

Finally, it comes down to this bit where one of the Burisma executives tells the source:

"... he has many text messages and 'recordings' that show he was coerced to make such payments … he had a total of "17 recordings" involving the Bidens; two of the recordings included Joe Biden, and the remaining 15 recordings only Included Hunter Biden. … These recordings evidence Zlochevskiy was somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired.”

If any of this sounds slightly familiar, it’s because it’s the exact story that Rudy Giuliani told to The New York Times in May 2019. In that story, Hunter Biden was placed on the board of Burisma in 2014 not because he was clearly a well-placed American with years of experience in lobbying, investment banking, and corporate governance who might be essential to an energy company looking to expand internationally, but because his father could get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

And Shokin was fired in 2016. The Ukrainian parliament voted him out after Joe Biden made it clear that the United States was very concerned about Shokin and might withhold or delay assistance to Ukraine unless he was removed. That’s a real thing. Biden even bragged about it later, telling a group of foreign policy advisers that he confronted the Ukrainian president and demanded Shokin’s firing.

Except the reason that Shokin was fired was because he was not investigating cases of corruption and was instead either turning a blind eye or an outstretched hand when dealing with Ukrainian oligarchs who were making off with billions. Both the U.S. and the U.K. governments had been pressuring Ukraine about Shokin for over a year before Joe Biden’s visit. In fact, the thing that upset the U.K. government most was that Shokin was refusing to investigate one firm in particular: Burisma.

As the head of a Ukrainian anti-corruption organization told Radio Free Europe, Shokin had dumped the investigation of Burisma when he took office.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

When The New York Times ran Giuliani’s version of the story in 2019, it took Bloomberg News just one week to rip it apart.

… at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company—Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky—had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

From the beginning of this whole affair, and in fact from the moment Giuliani set foot in Ukraine, it’s been obvious that in getting Shokin fired Joe Biden wasn’t protecting Burisma, he was taking action that put the company under renewed scrutiny. And in fact prosecutors did reopen their investigation of Burisma, reviewing multiple instances in which Zlochevsky was suspected of crimes.

All of this—all of it—was thoroughly covered just two years ago, including just how Giuliani generated his claims against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden in the first place.

Giuliani made a personal visit to an outgoing prosecutor, tried to convince him to play ball, and even called Trump directly while in the prosecutor’s office so that Trump could explain how excited he was about the “investigation” into Biden. The prosecutor even went so far as to add some new false claims, asserting that Joe Biden personally took a payment to act as an agent of a Ukrainian company.

That moment when Giuliani was making calls directly to the White House from the office of an outgoing official is the genesis of the idea that Joe Biden took some kind of payment from Burisma. Until that moment, it had come up nowhere. From no one.

Over the following months, Giuliani assembled a group of known criminals and former members of the pro-Russian government who had been ousted with the election of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He found several willing to play along with his growing story, but they had a price: They wanted Trump to get rid of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was too effective in fighting corruption. Trump gave them exactly what they wanted to get his false evidence against Biden, but even in 2019 the holes in the story were so big that the whole scheme was obviously a … scheme.

Now it’s back again and nothing has changed. The document that the FBI held was clearly authored by someone who was part of Giuliani’s plot, and it was clearly Giuliani himself who pointed out this document to Grassley and others. The document contains exactly the same false, easily disproved claims as the story the Times printed up for Giuliani and was obviously written with the sole purpose of providing some faux documentary evidence for the story Giuliani and Trump were pushing at the time. It’s all part of what Trump was trying to get Zelenskyy to say when he made his impeachment-worthy phone call to the Ukrainian leader.

The content of the FD-1023 form is a lie. What’s more, Grassley knows it is a lie. He knows this has all been investigated and found to be baseless accusations. And he knows that releasing this document causes real, genuine harm.

Protecting this type of information from wider disclosure is crucial to our ability to recruit sources and ensure the safety of the source or others mentioned in the reporting. CHSs are critical to cases across all FBI programs—whether it’s violent crime, drug cartels, or terrorism. It would be difficult to effectively recruit these sources if we can’t assure them of their confidentiality. And without these sources, we would not be able to build the cases that are so important to keeping Americans safe.

Grassley was sent a letter reminding him of exactly this issue and asking him expressly to remind everyone involved to keep in mind the importance of keeping these documents secure. Instead, Grassley did the opposite: He published the FD-1023 in blatant defiance of the FBI’s request.

Why did he do it? He did it for the same reason that Republicans had been seeking release of the document all along, and that was because they knew it would generate headlines like this:

Bidens allegedly 'coerced' Burisma CEO to pay them millions to help get Ukraine prosecutor fired: FBI form

Bidens allegedly 'coerced' Burisma CEO to pay them millions to help get Ukraine prosecutor fired: FBI form

Grassley purposely released a document that he knew was a lie for the purpose of attacking Joe Biden even though he knew it would put Americans in danger and damage the FBI’s ability to investigate actual crimes of all sorts.

To gain a moment of political attention, Grassley is creating an immeasurable risk. How can witnesses come to the FBI to make a confidential statement knowing that their identities and claims can be revealed for political expediency by someone who has no real interest in the truth?

There is a genuine broad streak of corruption in this case, and it runs right through Iowa.

Sign the petition: No more spending taxpayer money on frivolous GOP hearings.