Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Zinke the latest to skirt ‘drain the swamp’ pledge

At least 33 people who have left the Trump administration have started lobbying – violating the spirit, if not always the letter, of the "drain the swamp" pledge Donald Trump touted when his presidency began. The terms of the pledge stated top officials could not to lobby their former agencies for five years after leaving the government, could not lobby the White House or any other political appointees until the Trump presidency ended, and could not even facilitate meetings or provide background to other lobbyists.

The roster was assembled by Pro Publica – just as Ryan Zinke, the former Interior secretary, gave the issue new prominence by signing up to work at Turnberry Solutions, a lobby shop started two years ago by Corey Lewandowski and several other former Trump advisors.


Pro Publica found at least 18 onetime Trump officials have registered as lobbyists, while the others work at lobbying or advocacy law firms. Almost all work on issues they oversaw or helped shape when they were in government. Nearly 2,600 officials signed the ethics pledge in 2017, according to the Office of Government Ethics; just 25 did not. In theory the consequences for violating the pledge are fines and a permanent ban from registering a lobbyist.

Some former officials "are tiptoeing around the rules," the site reported, by saying they are doing consulting work that is not strictly the same as lobbying. Others say they got special waivers to get out of their pledges and some of the 33 were among those who did not sign initially. (The House Democrats' HR 1 aims to close some of the loopholes that have been around since before the Trump pledge.)


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less