Nick Baumann

Nick Baumann

Senior Editor

Nick is based in our DC bureau, where he covers national politics and civil liberties issues. Nick has also written for The Economist, The Atlantic, The Washington Monthly, and Commonweal. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. You can also follow him on Facebook.

Get my RSS |

After Bachmann Allegations, Clinton Deputy Reportedly Under Police Protection

| Mon Jul. 23, 2012 12:02 PM EDT
Huma Abedin.

In June, five Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), sent letters to the nation's top law enforcement, defense, and intelligence agencies warning that the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist organization, had infiltrated the United States government. Bachmann and her associates—Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.)—demanded an investigation, and Bachmann told radio host Sandy Rios that "it appears that there are individuals who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who have positions, very sensitive positions, in our Department of Justice, our Department of Homeland Security, potentially even in the National Intelligence Agency."

There is not even a smidgen of credible evidence to back up the charges Bachmann and her colleagues have made. But one of the individuals Bachmann has singled for her supposed ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—has suffered very real consequences. Abedin, who's married ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, with whom she has a new baby, has received threats in the wake of Bachmann's charges and is now under police protection, the New York Post reported Sunday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor last week to defend Abedin, but that hasn't been enough to stop the witchhunt.

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, has called on Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), who called Bachmann's charges "pretty dangerous," to remove her from the House Intelligence committee as a way of sending a message that this kind of conduct is unacceptable.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

5 Questions for the Fact-Checkers on Romney and Bain

| Mon Jul. 16, 2012 9:00 AM EDT

Media fact-checkers continue to take issue with the Obama campaign's claims that Mitt Romney was responsible for Bain Capital's outsourcing of American jobs, even though journalists (including Mother Jones' David Corn, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, the Boston Globe, Huffington Post, and others) continue to uncover more information about Romney's role at Bain between 1999 and 2002. Here are five questions for Annenberg's FactCheck.org and the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" that may help sort things out:

  1. Is it possible that even without day-to-day managerial control, Mitt Romney may bear some moral or personal responsibility for the actions of Bain Capital post-1999, given that no one is disputing that he benefited financially from its actions and that his name was on the door? Is that question even fact-checkable?
  2. Much of the debate over when Romney left Bain has been driven by the Obama campaign's claims that Bain invested in outsourcing US jobs while he was there. Fact-checkers have said it's unfair to tie Romney to outsourcing during the 1999-2002 period. How should voters account for the fact that, as Corn reported, Bain invested in Global-Tech Appliances, a Chinese company that depended on outsourcing, prior to February 1999?
  3. Even if the Obama campaign made inflated claims about Romney's post-1999 role at Bain, are Bain and Romney's categorical denials that Romney was not "involved in the operations of any Bain Capital Entity in any way" and Romney "has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure" justifiable? What is the definition of "operations" and "management activities"? Does it include signing documents? Are companies that Bain part-owned "Bain Capital Entities"? Are companies like LifeLike, whose board meetings Romney says he attended, Bain "portfolio companies"? If not, what is a "portfolio company"? Does serving as CEO/president/chairman of the Bain board count as a "management activity"? If not, why not?
  4. Does what we know about Romney's situation during the 1999-2002 period—that Jane Swift's Massachusetts governorship had not yet imploded, that Romney was also mulling a run for Utah governor, that contemporaneous accounts refer to him taking a "leave of absence," and that on Sunday one of his advisers referred to Romney's retirement as "retroactive"—indicate that Romney was maintaining some ties with Bain, if not active day-to-day management, in order to keep his options open if a political opportunity did not become available? Given those circumstances, would the company have made major decisions he strongly disagreed with?
  5. Most broadly: Given the available evidence, is it unfair to attribute any responsibility for Bain's post-1999 actions to Mitt Romney? Are such attacks completely out of bounds? Would it be correct to say that Romney's company—rather than Romney himself—outsourced jobs, given that he still owned it?

Correction: Due to a production error, a draft of this piece was published earlier. The text has been updated and corrected.

Esquire Takes on Obama's "Lethal Presidency"

| Mon Jul. 9, 2012 10:04 AM EDT

Tom Junod takes on President Barack Obama's "lethal presidency" in the latest issue of Esquire. If you're interested in the war on terror, drone strikes, and targeted killings, it's a must-read. Here's a teaser to get you started:

Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy. 

Read on. Junod does a service in the piece by refocusing the discussion from Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Al Qaeda propagandist who was killed in a drone strike last September, to Awlaki's 16-year-old, American-born son Abdulrahman, who was also killed in a drone strike later that month. What happens when a drone strike kills an American teenager? We already know: nothing. Here's another choice bit:

In every single utterance of the Lethal Presidency on the subject of its own lethality, it has offered the same narrative: that although it claims the power to kill, its combination of legal restraint and personal scruple makes the exercise of this power extremely difficult. The Lethal Presidency — and the Lethal President — wants us to know that killing is hard. It has spent months telling us this story because there is another story, a counterstory voiced off the record by administration members and confirmed by everything human beings have learned about killing in their bloody history:

That killing individuals identified as our enemies isn't hard at all.

That it's the easiest thing humans — particularly humans in power — can do.

The rest is here.

Mon Nov. 16, 2009 7:31 PM EST
Mon Nov. 16, 2009 2:17 PM EST
Mon Nov. 16, 2009 2:13 PM EST
Mon Nov. 16, 2009 10:57 AM EST
Sat Nov. 14, 2009 1:17 AM EST
Fri Nov. 13, 2009 4:02 PM EST
Fri Nov. 13, 2009 12:33 PM EST
Fri Nov. 13, 2009 11:18 AM EST
Thu Nov. 12, 2009 4:52 PM EST
Thu Nov. 12, 2009 4:30 PM EST
Wed Nov. 11, 2009 3:42 PM EST
Wed Nov. 11, 2009 2:07 PM EST
Wed Nov. 11, 2009 1:08 PM EST
Tue Nov. 10, 2009 12:24 PM EST
Tue Nov. 10, 2009 11:40 AM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 2:20 PM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 1:28 PM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 12:42 PM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 12:15 PM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 11:59 AM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 11:32 AM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 11:05 AM EST
Mon Nov. 9, 2009 10:35 AM EST
Sat Nov. 7, 2009 11:03 PM EST
Fri Nov. 6, 2009 1:20 PM EST
Fri Nov. 6, 2009 12:36 PM EST
Thu Nov. 5, 2009 12:11 PM EST
Wed Nov. 4, 2009 12:26 PM EST
Tue Nov. 3, 2009 2:58 PM EST
Tue Nov. 3, 2009 1:19 PM EST
Mon Nov. 2, 2009 1:17 PM EST
Mon Nov. 2, 2009 11:49 AM EST
Mon Nov. 2, 2009 6:46 AM EST
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 6:14 PM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 10:51 AM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 10:16 AM EDT
Fri Oct. 30, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
Thu Oct. 29, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
Thu Oct. 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
Thu Oct. 29, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
Thu Oct. 29, 2009 7:18 AM EDT
Wed Oct. 28, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
Wed Oct. 28, 2009 11:14 AM EDT