SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 24 2008, 11:00am EDT
Contact:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
The Economy and Transition
WASHINGTON
CRAIG HOLMAN
Holman is government ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen. He said today: "Bolstered with enthusiastic public support, Obama has a great opportunity for breaking the grip of special interests over Washington. But his transition to the White House -- marked with the appointment of several lobbyists and big-money bundlers -- is cause for concern. Public Citizen will be monitoring his appointments on a web site and uncovering any links that may exist between special interests and the new Obama administration."
MARK WEISBROT
Lawrence Summers and Timothy F. Geithner were named to Obama's economic team today.
Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Weisbrot said today: "Geithner and Summers are credited with expertise in crisis management, but we better hope they don't manage the current crisis like they did in East Asia, Russia, Argentina or any of the other countries that Treasury was involved in during the 1990s with their help. They helped bring on the East Asian crisis in 1997 by pressuring the governments in the region to de-regulate international financial flows, which was the main cause of the crisis. Then they insisted that all bailout money go through the IMF, and delayed aid until most of the damage was done. Then they attached damaging conditions ... to the aid, leading Jeffrey Sachs to call the IMF under their watch 'the typhoid Mary of emerging markets, spreading recessions in country after country.'"
MAX FRAAD WOLFF
Wolff, an instructor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University, is a frequent contributor to Huffington Post, Asia Times and The Indypendent. He said today: "The economic team taking shape alongside Obama represents the return of enterprise moderate Clinton era folks selected by other Clinton-era folks. Lawrence Summers and Timothy F. Geithner are Robert Rubin mentees and are emerging as the leading lights of yore as well as of tomorrow. Ivy League backgrounds, stints at Bretton Woods institutions IMF and World Bank and activity in or on the cusp of private sector banking define the group taking shape. All are friends, all have worked together and all have been actively involved in shaping the global financial architecture with which the world grapples today. Geithner comes over from the IMF, Council on Foreign Relations and the New York Fed. He has been more involved in charting the course for financial markets of late than either Rubin or Summers. His work in the Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and TARP activities/inactivities is well established and has attracted much and well-deserved controversy."
More Information
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
LATEST NEWS
Why Aren’t Any Senate Democrats Calling On Schumer to Step Down?
Despite outcry from progressives, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer as leader.
Nov 11, 2025
With many Democratic base voters up in arms over Senate Democrats caving on the federal government shutdown fight, there have been calls for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership role.
None of those calls, however, have come from senators currently serving in the Democratic Caucus, including progressive stalwarts such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
As reported by The American Prospect on Tuesday, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer (D-NY) as leader, despite the fact that "every single one of them has the power to force a vote on Schumer’s continued control of the caucus" if they chose to do so.
According to the Prospect, any senator in the Democratic Caucus "could bring forward a motion to amend the Democratic Caucus Rules to say that he should lose his leadership position if a set number of members disapprove of him." What's more, the Prospect explained, "the motion would be 'self-executing,' resulting in Schumer’s removal at the same time that it’s approved."
As noted in a Politico report, Senate Democrats who were opposed to the shutdown cave did not directly criticize Schumer for his handling of the issue, and some, like Warren, tried to direct voters' anger toward Republicans.
"I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, regardless of what [President] Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on healthcare," she said on Sunday. "But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to post more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was more directly critical of the deal that Democrats cut on reopening the government, but he nonetheless stopped short of calling for Schumer's removal.
“This bill doesn’t do anything to arrest the healthcare catastrophe, nor does it constrain in any meaningful way President Trump’s illegality,” he said. “I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do, and more specifically, what they wanted Democrats to do, and I am really saddened that we didn’t listen to them.”
The appetite for ditching Schumer appears much stronger among Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives, however.
Axios on Monday reported that House Democrats' anger at their Senate counterparts erupted during a private phone call among members, as Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told her colleagues that "people are fucking pissed" at seeing Democrats once again cave in a fight with Trump.
One anonymous Democrat also told Axios that almost "everyone [was] strongly against" the deal Senate Democrats cut to reopen the government without an agreement to extend enhanced tax credits for Americans who buy their health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), called on Schumer to step down as minority leader, and challenged his opponent to do the same.
"If Chuck Schumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare," Moulton wrote in a social media post earlier this week. "Maybe now Ed Markey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”
Progressive advocacy organization Indivisible on Monday started ramping up pressure on Democrats to push for Schumer to step down as minority leader, and the group explicitly said that it would "not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Highlights ‘Pattern of Dishonesty' on 2020 Election From Trump’s Far-Right Judicial Picks
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts," said the president of Demand Justice.
Nov 11, 2025
President Donald Trump has appointed 27 judges to federal courts so far in his second term, and in addition to their right-wing interpretation of the law, an analysis of the judges' comments to senators during the confirmation process reveals a key commonality between the president's appointees: All were willing to evade direct questions about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and whether the US Capitol was attacked by a violent pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021.
Demand Justice examined the Questions for the Record (QFRs) that were submitted by the Senate to the 27 judicial nominees regarding the election and January 6, and found that their answers to those two specific questions were nearly uniform in many cases—repeating certain phrases verbatim and "overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
None of the 27 nominees affirmatively answered that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as proven by numerous courts that rejected lawsuits claiming otherwise and by both Republican and Democratic election officials. Instead, the nominees said Biden was "certified" as the winner, and 16 of them said he "served" as president.
Some of the nominees, including Emil Bove of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Whitney Hermandorfer of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, expanded on their answers, saying they would avoid "opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election."
Demand Justice said those comments "strongly, and falsely," suggested the 2020 election results are still a matter of legal dispute.
Josh Orton, president of the group, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that the nominees' answers preserved "their ability to say, 'I did not contradict Donald Trump' on what we know are the two most third-rail issues to Donald Trump."
"If nominees don't answer these two questions, I think it amounts to, essentially, a political loyalty test," said Orton.
NEW: Demand Justice report finds a pattern of dishonesty and evasion from Trump's judicial nominees. Watch as @joshorton explains on @Morning_Joe how Trump's judges are effectively taking loyalty tests to the President. pic.twitter.com/MFj2m8gElj
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Regarding questions about whether the US Capitol was attacked on January 6 and whether the attack was an insurrection, said Demand Justice, "not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred on that day."
Twenty-one of them, including Bove, Hermandorfer, and Joshua Divine of District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, characterized the attack—in which Trump supporters tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results—as a matter of debate.
None of the nominees mentioned the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the attack, even though some mentioned violence against law enforcement broadly in their other QFR answers; the fact that the House and Senate chambers were broken into; or the death threats rioters directed at then-Vice President Mike Pence.
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth,” said Orton.
Orton added that "the kicker" of the report is that 15 members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Trump's judicial nominees despite their evasive and dishonest answers about January 6 and Trump's 2020 loss.
"Excuse me? People died," said Orton. "If you're willing to appease Trump's big lies, you have no business anywhere near a court, period."
This morning, @joshorton unveiled a new report that found all 27 of Trump's judicial nominees, who have gone through the process in his second term, have used strikingly similar, evasive language to answer basic questions about the 2020 election and January 6th. Watch --> pic.twitter.com/WaqdyFcAC7
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Democrats who have voted in favor of confirming Trump's nominees include Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Foreign Policy Experts Warn US-Saudi Security Pact Would Be 'Risky' to Middle East Stability and Human Rights
The assumption of US backing allowed the Saudis to wage a brutal war in Yemen that cost close to 400,000 lives without fear of consequences. "Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," wrote one scholar.
Nov 11, 2025
As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman prepares to meet with US President Donald Trump next week, experts are warning that it could cause even greater instability in the Middle East if the president agrees to the Gulf regime's requests for a defense pact.
On November 18, the crown prince, commonly known as MBS, will be welcomed in Washington for the first time since 2018. That meeting with Trump came just months before the prince signed off on the infamous murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi as part of a brutal crackdown on dissenters in the country.
Trump defended MBS from international outrage and isolation at the time and has continued to sing his praises since returning to office. In May, after inking a record $142 billion weapons sale to the Saudis during a tour of the Middle East, Trump gave a speech, practically salivating over the crown prince.
“We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that’s right before me, he’s your greatest representative, your greatest representative,” Trump said. “And if I didn’t like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that, don’t you? He knows me well.”
“I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that’s why we give so much, you know?” the president continued. “Too much. I like you too much!”
“Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” he added.
Now, according to a report Tuesday from the Financial Times, the Saudis are coming to Washington seeking a similar security guarantee to the one Trump recently granted Qatar, which one State Department diplomat referred to as "on par with the mutual defense commitments the United States provides its closest allies.”
Trump signed an executive order stating that the US would respond to any attack on Qatar by taking all “lawful and appropriate measures—including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military."
That agreement came weeks after Israel launched an unprecedented assault on Hamas leadership as they met for negotiations in Qatar's capital city of Doha to end the two-year genocide in Gaza. Without the security agreement, the Qataris had threatened to walk away from their role in mediating the talks that ultimately led to October's "ceasefire" agreement.
The deal expected to be reached between Trump and the Saudis has been described as "Qatar-plus," not just pledging defense of the state were it to come under attack, but regarding it as a threat to American “peace and security."
Such an agreement was already underway during the tenure of former President Joe Biden, following the normalization of relations with Israel, but was upended by Hamas's October 7 attacks and two years of indiscriminate slaughter Israel launched in response, which bin Salman referred to as a "genocide."
While MBS has publicly stated that he would not agree to continue normalization with Israel without a Palestinian state, he has not shied away from a separate security deal with the US, which reportedly includes "enhanced military and intelligence cooperation."
According to Christopher Preble and Will Smith, a pair of foreign policy researchers at the Stimson Center's Reimagining US Grand Strategy program, the Trump team hopes that by pursuing a heightened security and financial relationship with the Saudis, they can coax them back towards detente with Israel and bring them back into the US orbit in response to what Trump views as an overly flirtatious posture toward China.
"These developments suggest a troubling belief that handing out security guarantees is a quick, cost-free way to reassure anxious partners and ensure their alignment with US priorities. That belief is mistaken," the researchers wrote in Responsible Statecraft Tuesday. "A US-Saudi defense pact would be unnecessary, risky, and unlikely to achieve its unclear aims. Rather than revive the misguided Biden administration initiative, the Trump administration should shelve the idea once and for all."
They said there are few upsides to the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and that if it were to occur, it would be little more than a formal recognition of the cooperation between the two nations that already exists in combating Iran's influence.
While a deal would lead to few benefits, they argued it would "come with significant downsides," potentially forcing the US to ride along with "reckless driving" by the Saudis, especially with its neighbors in Yemen.
"Extensive US support emboldened Saudi Arabia to wage a disastrous, failed intervention there that dragged on for seven years, fueling a war that claimed close to 400,000 lives, including nearly 20,000 civilians killed by airstrikes," the researchers said.
International relations scholar Adam Gallagher pointed out that the Saudis did all of this merely "because of what it assumed would be continual US backing."
"Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," he said.
The result, he warned, would be something akin to Israel's sense of total impunity to wage destruction in Gaza.
"When a great power provides a security pledge to a less powerful ally, the weaker state is more willing to take on risk, and the patron often ends up paying the price," he wrote. "There is simply no strategic reason for the United States to imperil its interests or incur costs if Saudi Arabia engaged in renewed adventurism."
Human rights groups have noted that a deal also has massive implications for the Saudi regime's actions at home, where its leaders have faced little accountability for their repression of dissent.
“Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is trying to rebrand himself as a global statesman, but the reality at home is mass repression, record numbers of executions, and zero tolerance for dissent," said Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch. "US officials should be pressing for change, not posing for photos.”
Matt Wells, the deputy director of Reprieve US, emphasized that outside pressure on the regime has mattered in the past: "In the fallout from Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, Mohammed bin Salman’s regime felt international pressure to improve its human rights record, and that pressure made a difference. Some child defendants on death row were resentenced and released, and from July 2021 to July 2025, there were no executions for childhood crimes.”
“Beneath Saudi Arabia’s glittering facade, the repression of Saudi citizens and residents continues unabated," said Abdullah Aljuraywi, monitoring and campaigns officer at ALQST for Human Rights. "To avoid emboldening this, the US should use its leverage to secure concrete commitments, including the release of detained activists, lifting of arbitrary travel bans, and an end to politically motivated executions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular