"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy," -- David Frum, former Republican
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/25/mitch-mcconnell-is-right-secure-open-elections-would-elect-more-democrats/?utm_term=.7e282f75ea5c
By Paul Waldman
July 25 at 3:52 PM
Mitch McConnell is right. Secure, open elections would elect more Democrats.
“They’re doing it as we sit here,” replied Robert S. Mueller III when asked in his testimony Wednesday whether Russia will again interfere in our elections. “And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mueller-testimony-congress-live/2019/07/24/d51a82d6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html
The fact that Russia’s assistance to the Trump campaign got such high-profile discussion gave Democrats an opportunity to push a pair of election security bills in the Senate on Thursday. Here’s what happened next:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/454742-mcconnell-blocks-two-election-security-bills
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked two election security measures on Thursday, arguing Democrats are trying to give themselves a “political benefit.” …
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had tried to get consent Thursday to pass a House bill that requires the use of paper ballots and includes funding for the Election Assistance Commission. It passed the House 225-184 with [one] Republican voting for it.
But McConnell objected, saying Schumer was trying to pass “partisan legislation.”
“Clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. Clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent,” McConnell said.
Guess what: McConnell is right! Legislation to secure our elections is partisan. And the fact that it’s partisan shows just how pathological the Republican Party has become in its determination to hold on to power.
So here are some things that, in our system today, are “partisan” in the sense that if we were to do them they would advantage the Democratic Party over the Republican Party:
- Securing our voting systems from foreign hacking
- Allowing every American to vote
- Making it as easy as possible for Americans to vote
- Ensuring that all votes count equally
Now consider what it says about your party if doing those things would make it much more likely that you’d lose.
Republicans have quite plainly looked at our current state of electoral dysfunction and concluded that it’s working pretty darn well for them. Donald Trump is president, isn’t he? Why would we want to mess with a system that’s producing such wonderful outcomes?
The legislation to which McConnell refers, the one that passed the House, is pretty straightforward. It requires voter-verifiable paper ballots and voting machines that don’t connect directly to the Internet, so that recounts can be done accurately and there’s less vulnerability to hacking. It gives states money to secure their systems. It instructs the Election Assistance Commission to do a study to determine optimal ballot designs to minimize voter confusion and errors.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2722
You wouldn’t think there’s anything there that would particularly advantage one party over another. But that’s only if you didn’t know how voting really works in this country.
That’s because so much of what plagues our election system works to the advantage of Republicans, in part because their voters tend to be older and wealthier, and in part because of all the effort Republicans have put into erecting obstacles in the path of Democratic-leaning constituencies attempting to vote, not to mention the gerrymandering that makes Republican votes worth more and the electoral college that does the same.
And of course, let’s not forget that the leader of the Republican Party said publicly that if a foreign power offered him help in his reelection bid, he’d accept it. Republicans just aren’t willing to impede the progress of any thumb on its way to the electoral scale, especially if the thumb belongs to Vladimir Putin. We don’t know if there are any hostile foreign governments ready to hack our elections in order to defeat Trump, but there’s at least one that is probably ready to help him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-hed-consider-accepting-dirt-from-foreign-governments-on-his-opponents/2019/06/12/b84ba860-8d5c-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html
So yes, securing our elections is partisan. So is making it easier to vote, because as Republicans surely know, the population of nonvoters as a whole is younger, less white and more liberal than the population of voters. If every American voted, more Democrats would win. Anything Republicans can do to keep them from getting the polls, they’ll do.
https://www.people-press.org/2012/11/01/nonvoters-who-they-are-what-they-think/
That’s where we are today: The last thing Republicans want is elections that are secure, fair, free and open. And they’ll make sure that’s not what we have.
Friday, July 26, 2019
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Congresswoman Katherine Clark Calls for Impeachment Inquiry
https://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=9FA73C21-2A1E-4089-B637-FDC03913B080
I think the Inquiry is coming........
Active-duty troops are now stationed inside the Border Patrol's holding facility in Donna, Texas, and monitoring migrant adults and children from just a few feet away, NBC reports, a move a congressman says comes close to violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/active-duty-u-s-troops-are-now-just-feet-away-n1034416
News Dump
Pelosi is reportedly 'softening to the idea of an impeachment inquiry' after the Mueller hearings | Pelosi said if the House moves forward with impeachment, it "would have to be done with our strongest possible hand," preferably after obtaining Trump's financial records and other key information via the courts. "If we have a case for impeachment, that's the place we will have to go," she added. "The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook." (In other words she isn't going all in until she has a full house.)
https://theweek.com/speedreads/854873/pelosi-reportedly-softening-idea-impeachment-inquiry-after-mueller-hearings
Warren: I would've accepted a VP offer from Clinton
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/warren-hillary-clinton-vice-president-1435422
Democrats file brief saying courts can't stop panel from getting Trump tax returns
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/454740-democrats-file-brief-saying-courts-cant-stop-panel-from-getting-trump-tax
Lawmaker says she’s been told to back off call for probe of Jeffrey Epstein’s work release. Florida Sen. Lauren Book has reached out to Capitol police after receiving an anonymous warning connected to her demand for a state inquiry into Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw’s handling of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s lenient work release program, the Miami Herald has learned. Book, a vocal advocate for child sexual assault survivors, said she also received more than a dozen calls by Bradshaw’s political supporters asking her to back off on her call for an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement into Bradshaw.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article233102457.html
House panel votes to authorize subpoenas for all White House work communications sent via personal email and cellphone
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/07/25/house-panel-votes-to-authorize-subpoenas-for-all-white-house-work-communications-sent-via-personal-email-and-cellphone/
House Democrats vote to subpoena Ivanka Trump's private email and Jared Kushner's WhatsApp messages
https://theweek.com/speedreads/854972/house-democrats-vote-subpoena-ivanka-trumps-private-email-jared-kushners-whatsapp-messages
Reminder: "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump," McCarthy said in June 2016. (McCarthy had just emerged from a meeting w/the Ukrainian Prime Minister, who had described the Kremlin's financing of populist politicians to undercut democracy.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump/2017/05/17/515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.90fd7f27c91b …
Reminder: Trump vetoed three resolutions that Congress passed to stop several arms sales benefiting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which the president pushed through without congressional approval. | Congress is unlikely to have the votes to override the veto and does not have a consensus on how to proceed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vetoes-congresss-attempt-to-block-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/2019/07/24/7b047c32-ae65-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html?utm_term=.eee3db81712a
Supercut Shows Republicans Echoing Fox News Questions For Robert Mueller - A Media Matters montage shows there was a very familiar feel to some of what House Republicans asked the former special counsel.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-mueller-hearings-supercut_n_5d395ec8e4b0419fd338190f
Trump Org is not a big company, so the Saudis can single-handedly have a massive impact at his hotels. 500 nights in just 3 months at his DC hotel is a major windfall, and it doesn't stop there: Since February 2017, Saudi customers have boosted the bottom line at two other Trump hotels. In Chicago, the Trump hotel's internal statistics showed a sharp uptick in customers from Saudi Arabia after Trump took office. In New York this year, the general manager of Trump's hotel at Central Park said a single stay by some Saudi customers — who were traveling with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — was so lucrative it helped the hotel turn a profit for the quarter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?utm_term=.feda246c87cc
All he has to do is sign a few vetoes, and they happily launder his reward back through Chicago, NYC, or DC. This is happening with REPUBLICAN ENDORSEMENT. We need a clause in the constitution stopping the President from collecting emoluments from foreign governments....
Judge: Trump and His Children Must Face Multilevel Marketing Fraud Lawsuit
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-trump-and-his-children-must-face-multilevel-marketing-fraud-lawsuit
Trump speaks before presidential seal doctored with symbols of Russia and golf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/trump-presidential-seal-doctored-russia-golf-turning-point
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-spoke-in-front-of-presidential-seal-edited-with-symbols-of-russia-and-golf
Autopsy Offers Jarring New Details About the Death of a 16-Year-Old Guatemalan Boy | Days after he was supposed to be in a children's shelter, Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez died of the flu near the toilet in his Border Patrol holding cell.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/autopsy-details-death-guatemalan-migrant-child/
The Turkish government has managed to exert its force to cancel a basketball camp on Long Island. Why? Because it is hosted by Enes Kanter. Here is the statement from Kanter:
https://twitter.com/SBondyNYDN/status/1154181253471584257?s=19
Boris Johnson's car blocked by climate protesters during journey to meet Queen to become prime minister
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-protest-greenpeace-motorcade-mall-buckingham-palace-a9018971.html
After more than a week of protests the Governor of Puerto Rico resigns | With his resignation, he seeks to avoid an impeachment process for which pro-independence legislator Denis Márquez had already filed a resolution in the House of Representatives. Instead of working with that resolution, House Speaker Carlos "Johnny" Méndez Núñez, came up with a panel of three law experts who would analyze whether there's basis for impeachment in the content of the leaked Telegram chat that the Governor initiated as administrator and in which his closest advisors conducted public business, shared confidential government information with a lobbyist, schemed to attack political opponents, and insulted obese persons as well as personalities like singer Ricky Martin. The experts' opinion, handed down today, was that the chat's participants committed at least five felonies. That, and the fact that the Governor did not meet a 5:00 pm deadline to make public his decision, caused the House to call for a special session on Thursday, July 25th, to begin the impeachment process.
https://www.noticel.com/english/massive-protest-lead-to-history-making-resignation-of-puerto-rican-governor/1099447884
Scotland's leader tells UK PM Johnson: we want an independence referendum
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-scotland/scotlands-leader-tells-uk-pm-johnson-we-want-an-independence-referendum-idUSKCN1UK0S6
'Cabinet from hell': Prime Minister Boris Johnson's opponents have accused him of creating the "Cabinet from hell" after he appointed a Home Secretary with a history of supporting the death penalty, a deputy who has called feminists "Obnoxious bigots," and multiple ministers who voted against gay marriage legislation. Johnson, who became prime minister yesterday, conducted the most brutal cabinet purge in modern political history, as ministers who backed his rival Jeremy Hunt were thrown out of Cabinet. Pledging to deliver Brexit by October 31, with "No ifs or buts," Johnson fired a total of 17 Cabinet ministers and gave many top jobs to MPs who had been involved in the Vote Leave team, handing Michael Gove the job of no-deal preparations as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cabinet-from-hell-boris-johnson-appoints-death-penalty-gay-marriage-2019-7
Current warming 'unparalleled' in 2,000 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49086783
Drug Manufacturers Sent 5 Million Opioid Pills to One Town of Just 400 People — Unsealed court documents show pharmaceutical companies flooded the country with highly addictive painkillers, while the DEA did nothing.
https://www.gq.com/story/drug-companies-millions-of-pills-one-small-town
Refugee Women Could Contribute As Much As $1.6 Billion to U.S. GDP
https://www.newsweek.com/refugee-women-could-contribute-1-6-billion-u-s-gdp-1451074
Kathy Griffin takes aim at Bernie Sanders supporters: 'They're like Trumpers'
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-bernie-sanders-trump-supporters-143042829.html
Sixteen US Marines were arrested Thursday for alleged involvement in various illegal activities ranging from human smuggling to drug-related offenses, according to a statement from the Marine Corps. The arrests took place in a dramatic fashion on Thursday morning at Camp Pendleton, California, during a battalion formation. "Information gained from a previous human smuggling investigation precipitated the arrests," the statement said. "None of the Marines arrested or detained for questioning served in support of the Southwest Border Support mission." Eight other Marines were also questioned on their involvement in alleged drug offenses unrelated to today's arrests, the Marine Corps said. A US official told CNN that Thursday's arrests are related to an incident that occurred earlier this month in which two Marines from Camp Pendleton were charged with transporting undocumented immigrants for financial gain.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/us-marines-arrested/index.html
ESCOBAR:
Director Mueller, you wrote in your report that you, quote, "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment," end quote. Was that in part because of an opinion by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime?
MUELLER:
Yes.
ESCOBAR:
Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019 press conference, you explained that, quote, "the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," end quote. That process other than the criminal justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to comment on that.
ESCOBAR:
In your report you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct," end quote. For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, "potentially preempt constitutional processes"?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to try to explain that.
ESCOBAR:
That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume 2. In the footnote is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes?
MUELLER:
I think I heard you mention at least one.
ESCOBAR:
Impeachment, correct?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to comment.
Friday votes are cancelled. House about to leave on a six-week summer recess after passing two-year budget caps and debt limit deal.
Pitkin County, Colorado, Sheriff Joe DiSalvo said it’s “somewhat disappointing” that no one has paid for the $24,000 security bill racked up during Vice President Pence’s trip to Aspen earlier this week. DiSalvo told the Aspen Daily that he is having trouble locating the organizer behind a Republican fundraiser headlined by Pence on Monday to bill them for the local officers who worked overtime as security. “We had 64 total police officers on that assignment in the 20 or so hours that he was here, totaling 519 person hours,” DiSalvo said. “Out of those 64, 14 were state troopers, and we don’t have a responsibility to pay them. But the 50 other cops that were here are all on the county dime." “I guess the whole thing is generally just somewhat disappointing to me,” DiSalvo went on. “You raise $700,000 in an hour, you should be able to pitch in to support the community that made you feel welcome.” (It's the Trump/Republican policy not to pay for things, like rallies and tax cuts.) (So Pence won't eat a meal with a woman who is not his wife, but doesn't mind fundraisers in gay clubs?)
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/454755-aspen-police-chief-hits-disappointing-failure-of-pence-event
https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/pence-visit-racked-up-k-in-security-costs/article_d1cc2422-adb9-11e9-a456-7f75123d8e11.html
Mike Pence skipped out on the $24k bill after his fundraiser at a gay-owned club | No one would have known where it was if the chef of the Caribou Club didn’t get arrested on charges of strangling and punching a female friend just before the event. In court, the chef said that he was supposed to cook for Pence on Monday, so he needed to be out of jail.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/07/mike-pence-skipped-24k-bill-fundraiser-gay-owned-club/
Republican Challenger aiming to unseat Ilhan Omar charged with felony theft. Danielle Stella, reported to support baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, held twice this year over alleged shoplifting. Danielle Stella was arrested twice this year in Minneapolis suburbs over allegations that she shoplifted items worth more than $2,300 from a Target and goods valued at $40 from a grocery store. She said she denied the allegations. Stella, a 31-year-old special education teacher, was reported this week to be a supporter of the baseless “QAnon” conspiracy theory about Donald Trump battling a global cabal of elite liberal paedophiles. This week Stella also described Minneapolis as “the crime capital of our country”. She has in the past complained that local police were “overworked and overburdened” and said that, if elected, she would work to reduce crime.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/danielle-stella-republican-ilhan-omar-charged-felony-qanon-trump
Remember Gianforte, Mr. Bodyslam? He assaulted a reporter and it boosted his poll numbers with conservatives. He ended up winning the seat even though he got charged with assaulting a reporting during the campaign. He body-slammed a reporter, called that story fake news before the special election, then pled guilty to it after the special election. He won re-election too. Even Roy Moore *barely* lost.
Senate Intel finds 'extensive' Russian election interference going back to 2014 | The panel is expected to release further volumes laying out the investigation’s findings regarding the intelligence community’s assessment, the Obama administration’s response to Russian interference, social media disinformation campaigns and whether there was coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow sometime in the fall leading up to Election Day.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/454766-senate-intel-releases-long-awaited-report-on-2016-election-security
Senate Probe Finds 'Extensive' Russian Meddling in U.S. Election:: U.S. 'was unprepared at all levels,' Senator Burr says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/senate-probe-finds-extensive-russian-meddling-in-u-s-election?srnd=markets-vp
Ex Nazi SS soldier, 96, faces five years in prison after denying the Holocaust and blaming Hitler’s victims for their own deaths
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9582440/nazi-soldier-faces-prison-after-denying-the-holocaust/
Most YouTube climate change videos 'oppose the consensus view' - Scientist behind study urges platform to tweak algorithms to ‘prioritise factual information’
https://defazio.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/statement-from-rep-peter-defazio-on-opening-an-impeachment-inquiry
Sri Lanka is measles free. The country achieved an immunisation coverage of above 95%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/10/health/measles-eliminated-sri-lanka-intl/index.html
Earth had a near-miss with 'city-killer' asteroid this morning
https://www.smh.com.au/national/earth-had-a-near-miss-with-city-killer-asteroid-this-morning-20190725-p52apn.html
House Overwhelmingly Passes Multiple Pro-Israel Bills. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed several pro-Israel bills, including one opposing boycotts of the Jewish state, dealing a blow to far-left lawmakers such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), who voted against the legislation. In a vote of 398 to 17, lawmakers approved a bill spearheaded by Rep. Brad Schneider (D., Ill.) opposing the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), an anti-Israel effort that wages economic warfare on the Jewish state. Among the 17 who voted against the bill are Tlaib, Omar, and progressive ally Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.). Five members including frequent Trump administration critic Rep. Justin Amash (I., Mich.) voted "present" on the measure, while 12 members, including Greg Gianforte (R., Mont.), skipped the vote. Two other bills meant to strengthen Israel's military alliance with the United States and provide justice to victims of Palestinian terrorism also sailed through the House on Monday evening with overwhelming bipartisan support. The consecutive votes are a sign that despite vocal anti-Israel outcry and anti-Semitic sentiment from fringe lawmakers such as Omar and Tlaib, the majority of Congress continues to back the U.S.-Israel alliance and America's military commitment to the Jewish state. "The Global BDS Movement denies the Jewish people's connection to the land of Israel, refuses to accept the basic idea of a Jewish state, and seeks to delegitimize Israel in international forums, on college campuses, and in global commerce," Schneider said in a statement after the vote on his anti-BDS bill. "Our resolution does not infringe on any American's right to protest, and it explicitly recognizes that boycotts have a long and important history in our country, including during the Civil Rights movement and efforts to end apartheid in South Africa," Schneider said. "However, not all boycotts seek just ends. Our objection is to the fundamental aim of the Global BDS Movement: the delegitimization of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish state." In a second show of bipartisan support for Israel, House lawmakers went on to pass legislation aimed at bolstering cooperation between the United States and Israel on a host of regional security and economic matters. Dubbed the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act, the bill also paves a way for victims of Palestinian terrorism to receive justice.
Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Fla.), the primary sponsor of that bill, touted the near-unanimous support lawmakers gave the legislation. "Today we sent a clear message that bipartisan support for the U.S.–Israel relationship, for the security and civilian cooperation between our countries, and for the ties between the American and Israeli people remains strong and unwavering," Deutch said in a statement. "This bill will expand relations with one of our closest allies, a relationship that is broad and deep, that highlights the positive impact the United States and Israel can have in so many critical areas when we work together." A third bill that would impose sanctions on foreign entities that support Palestinian terrorism also sailed to approval.
The legislation, forwarded by Rep. Brian Mast (R., Fla.), a U.S. veteran who also served in the Israeli Defense Forces, would impose economic penalties on any foreign government that supports Palestinian terrorism. "Radical Islamic terrorists, like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, have made it clear that they will stop at nothing to reign terror on innocent people around the world," Mast was quoted as saying about the bill. "Hamas is single-handedly responsible for the deaths of numerous Americans and Israelis. These sanctions send a strong message to anybody who supports these radicals preaching the destruction of Israel and death to everything we hold dear in the United States."
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/house-overwhelmingly-passes-multiple-pro-israel-bills/
Impeachment Is Not an Exercise in Futility | It is the constitutional duty of Congress.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28509492/impeachment-not-futile-senate-republicans/
No Joke: the U.N. just condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights, backed by votes of council members Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Yemen
https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1154076008158519297
'Daddy, I’m scared': Police smash car window, drag man out while baby sits in back then hand him over to ICE
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-police-smash-car-window-man-baby-mexican-immigration-a9020386.html
'No One Should Retire Into Poverty': At Historic Hearing, Progressives Make Case for Expanding—Not Cutting—Social Security Benefits
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/25/no-one-should-retire-poverty-historic-hearing-progressives-make-case-expanding-not
Paris registers its hottest temperature in recorded history
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-hottest-temperature-record-europe-heatwave-france-latest-a9019716.html
Trump asks GOP senators for 'flexibility' on Turkey sanctions. The president wants more time to work out a deal before implementing congressionally mandated sanctions over Turkey's purchase of a Russian missile defense system.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-asks-gop-senators-flexibility-turkey-sanctions-n1033571?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np
Literally the day after Rand Paul said that his conscience compelled him to vote against extending the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, he introduced an unpaid-for bill extending a tax break for Kentucky bourbon producers.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article233070912.html
While I support our heroic first responders, I can’t in good conscience vote for legislation which to my dismay remains unfunded. We have a nearly trillion dollar deficit and $22 trillion in debt. Spending is out of control.
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1153753564336050176
The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Thursday that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016, largely undetected by the states and federal officials at the time, but at the demand of American intelligence agencies the committee was forced to redact its findings so heavily that key lessons for the 2020 election are blacked out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hack-of-elections-system-was-far-reaching-report-finds.html
Active-duty troops are now stationed inside the Border Patrol's holding facility in Donna, Texas, and monitoring migrant adults and children from just a few feet away, NBC reports, a move a congressman says comes close to violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/active-duty-u-s-troops-are-now-just-feet-away-n1034416
Barr directed the Justice Department on Thursday to adopt a new rule for carrying out the death penalty, which would restore executions in the federal system for the first time in 16 years.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ag-barr-orders-reinstatement-federal-death-penalty-n1034451
Sanders reaches deal with campaign staffers’ union for $15 minimum wage
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/bernie-sanders-strikes-deal-with-campaign-union-for-15-minimum-wage.html
Elizabeth Warren Has a Radical Plan to Beat Trump at His Own Game [bloomberg]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-25/elizabeth-warren-has-a-radical-plan-to-beat-trump-at-his-own-game
July 25, 2019, 4:00 AM EDT
Elizabeth Warren Has a Radical Plan to Beat Trump at His Own Game
After a slow start, she's gaining momentum by pushing her party to embrace bold, left-wing ideas that could win back the Oval Office—or cost Democrats everything.
Last fall, Elizabeth Warren got an email from Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, inviting her to speak at the group's annual meeting in Davos in late January. He was taken with Warren's sweeping moral critique of winner-take-all capitalism and looking to jolt the heads of state and global financial titans at his glittering conference in the Swiss Alps. Would she come to Davos and address them?
The Massachusetts senator, who was then preparing to run for president, understood immediately the attention such a showdown would bring and thought she needed an idea big enough for the moment. A few weeks later, she settled on one: an annual "wealth tax” of 2% on fortunes over $50 million, slightly higher on billionaires. Working with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the eminent University of California at Berkeley economists, Warren's staff calculated that her tax would hit the richest 75,000 people in the U.S. while raising $2.75 trillion in a 10-year period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-23/the-wealth-detective-who-finds-the-hidden-money-of-the-super-rich
It was a characteristically big, bold idea that would revolutionize how government taxes the rich, shifting the basis from income to the much broader category of wealth. These "ultramillionaires,” as she calls them, would no longer pay only on what they earn, which clever accountants can minimize, but on the entirety of what they have. This massive infusion of revenue would fund even the most zealous package of liberal programs with billions to spare.
But the proposal's principal attraction, in the moment, would be the sheer spectacle of Warren's unveiling it at a gathering of Davos plutocrats—one imagines horrified gasps and a Champagne flute shattering on the floor. At a time when U.S. politics and electoral fundraising are increasingly driven by viral media moments, here was one guaranteed to make everyone sit up and notice. Schwab thought so, too.
"He was going to give us all of the CEOs in a room,” Warren told me recently, with a twinkle, over homemade mango lemonade at her Washington condominium. Schwab even dropped by her Senate office to lobby her personally.
But after a long period of consideration, she decided not to go. Her presidential campaign was set to launch on New Year's Eve with a swing through rural Iowa, and her staff fretted about the optics of leaving the trail to go join a gathering of bankers, even to challenge them. As it turned out, though, Schwab's conference still focused on capitalist inequity and still featured a dramatic confrontation over taxing the wealthy that instantly went viral. It just didn't involve Warren. Instead, Rutger Bregman, a young Dutch historian, scolded the Davos crowd for studiously ignoring the one measure guaranteed to mitigate wealth inequality—the very thing Warren had identified. "Taxes, taxes, taxes,” Bregman declared. "All the rest is bullshit.” Within hours, he was hailed as "the folk hero of Davos,” and a clip of his remarks drew millions of views.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/01/rutger-bregman-world-economic-forum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism
The missed opportunity seemed to symbolize a candidacy that looked destined to fail. In her first weeks on the campaign trail, Warren didn't generate nearly the excitement or fundraising other candidates did. The activist progressives who once hung on her every word appeared to be shopping for someone else. And she was dogged by her decision to take a DNA test to determine her American Indian ancestry, which offended potential supporters and drew a fresh wave of "Pocahontas” taunts from President Trump. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders led the polls and the news coverage, while Warren languished in single digits. "I hit her too hard, too early,” Trump crowed to Fox News in March. "Now it looks like she's finished.”
He spoke too soon. Since then, Warren has not only put herself into the top tier of Democratic hopefuls but forced the others to follow her lead. Although she missed her star turn at Davos, Warren made the wealth tax the centerpiece of her campaign. It's part of a fusillade of proposals that are more aggressive, far-reaching—and expensive—than any previous Democratic front-runner would have dared venture: break up big tech companies like Google and Facebook; abolish private health insurance and give everyone Medicare; start a $2 trillion industrial policy built on "economic patriotism” to boost exports; crack down on private equity's "Wall Street looting”; overhaul corporate governance by putting workers on boards; eliminate the filibuster; cancel student loan debt; and establish free public college and universal child care. Together, Warren's platform amounts to a giant leap in Democratic ambition—some would say radicalism—that dwarfs the steady but safe achievements of the Clinton and Obama eras.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-25/senator-warren-proposes-ultra-millionaire-tax-of-as-much-as-3
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/warren-s-tech-assault-propels-fringe-antitrust-view-to-spotlight
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/medicare-for-all-splits-democrats-on-future-of-health-insurance
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-18/warren-declares-war-on-private-equity-vampires-in-2020-plan
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-22/warren-proposes-scrapping-student-debt-for-millions-in-2020-plan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/elizabeth-warren-s-affordable-childcare-policy-economic-analysis
If Warren is a revolutionary, she sure doesn't look the part. When I arrived at her sleek, sunny Washington condo on a scorching July afternoon, she was wearing a striped Vineyard Vines button-down and tinkering with her lemonade recipe. "How ya doin'?” she greeted me. Her husband, Bruce Mann, a Harvard Law School professor, was tapping on a laptop and excused himself so we could get down to business.
When the conversation turned to politics and her campaign, Warren snapped into a whole different gear: evangelist for a Democratic revolution. Her wealth tax and all that's followed is her attempt to apply shock paddles to a party that she believes has lost its way. "You could wake somebody up in the middle of the night and ask them what a Republican stands for, and you'd get pretty consistent answers,” Warren said. "Ask what Democrats stand for, and it's always a more difficult explanation. That makes it harder to pull people into the fight, because they're less sure it's their fight.”
One way to understand her urgency is as the result of a radicalizing moment: Trump's victory. Four years ago there was talk of a Warren presidential campaign, but she decided not to run, wagering that the best shot to enact her agenda was by working through a powerful Democrat she believed could win—Hillary Clinton. People close to her say Trump's surprise election left her shocked and filled with regret. "If you went back to 2014 and told Elizabeth that Donald Trump would be elected president as a right-wing populist,” a close adviser told me, "there's no question she would have run for president.”
It's one of very few topics that leaves Warren short of words. Sitting on her sofa, she rebuffed any attempt to get her to revisit her thinking and what she'd have done differently. "I can't,” she said. "I just can't.”
Friends say what's driving her now is a desire to correct that mistake and a conviction that Trump's election showed voters want change on a scale most Democrats don't comprehend. She believes Democrats lost in 2016 because they were timid. Trump ditched Republican orthodoxies and brought along union members, blue-collar workers, and other traditionally Democratic voters in the bargain. Warren is making a big bet that taking Trump down requires beating him at his own game: go big and bold or risk losing again on warmed-over incrementalism. That's why the sweep of her agenda aims for the New Deal or the Great Society. "We need to fight harder for what we believe in,” she told me.
If Trumpism is a hypertrophied version of conservatism, then Warrenism is, by design, liberalism jacked up on steroids. "It's all a response to Trump,” says former Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, a Warren ally who's neutral in the race. "It's meant to be earthshaking.”
Until now, few Democrats would have embraced such an agenda for fear of being branded radical, tax-and-spend liberals. For many party regulars, that remains a live concern. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spends much of her energy trying to contain the progressive exuberance Warren and other Democrats to her left have eagerly unleashed. Right now, the central strategic divide in Democratic circles is between Pelosi's desire not to spook voters and jeopardize her party's chance to beat Trump and Warren's conviction that they won't show up unless Democrats aggressively reclaim their historic mantle. Wake someone up in the dark of night during a Warren administration, she seems to promise, and they'll know damn well what the Democrats stand for.
Her push for enormous changes to the structure of the U.S. political economy is taking not only her party out of its comfort zone, but also Warren herself. For all her provocations, she has long been a believer in institutions who spent her career as an academic, government regulator, and senator carefully working within those systems. Her considerable success came because she taught herself to master the establishment, not blow it up.
That's changed. Her decision to abandon the constraints and conventions of how a Democrat traditionally runs for president has revivified a campaign many observers, not just the president, had written off. Suddenly, she's one of the hottest candidates in the field.
"What I've seen in the last six weeks for Warren in terms of grassroots energy is like a rocket ship taking off,” says an independent digital strategist closely tracking the Democratic campaigns. More than anyone else, Warren has set the terms of the race and forced other candidates to respond as a matter of strategic necessity. As the first primary debates in Miami showed, Democrats' plans for a post-Trump future are far more sweeping than just about anybody expected them to be even a few months ago. Kamala Harris, a supposed moderate, has endorsed "Medicare for All,” and even Biden was compelled to produce a far more robust health-care plan than the one he helped pass as Obama's vice president.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-democratic-primary-debates-power-dynamics/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/biden-sanders-health-care-feud-exposes-democrats-to-2020-peril
All of this raises a thorny question: Is Warren prophetically right or tragically wrong? For many Democrats, her decision to throw caution to the wind and run on a full-dress liberal agenda of vaulting ambition—dragging the whole party along with her—is both thrilling and scary. It offers the promise of an historic advance and a rebuke of Trump and all that he stands for, but couples it with the possibility that vowing to raise taxes and eliminate private health insurance might frighten voters into delivering the one thing Democrats fear most: four more years of Trump.
Midnight was approaching when Warren and a small entourage wandered into the Miller Time Pub & Grill in downtown Milwaukee in mid-July. She'd just finished a rally at a high school, then grinned and chitchatted her way through a line of hundreds of people waiting to have their picture taken with her. Warren does this after every event as part of an Olympian commitment to be warm and approachable, to fend off the charge of "chilly Harvard professor” before it can be uttered. When she arrived at the pub, it took her several minutes and several more selfies before she could slide into a booth, skip over the fancy craft beers, and ask the waitress, "Do you have Miller Lite on tap?”
Like her choice of beer, Warren's stump speech is simple, straightforward—and very self-aware. It's an allegory about how government rescued her family in hard times, then provided her opportunities to advance—opportunities it no longer offers. When she was a middle schooler in Oklahoma, Warren's father had a heart attack and couldn't work. Her parents feared losing their home. Her mother, who'd never worked outside the home, got hired at Sears. "That minimum wage job saved our house—and more important, it saved our family,” Warren told the Milwaukee crowd.
After marrying at 19 and quitting college to move to Texas, Warren finished her degree by attending "a commuter college that cost $50 a semester.” A few years later, as a young mother with another child on the way, she was able to graduate from a state law school without relying on student loans, and then was hired to teach at another one. These were the steppingstones in a career that eventually led to Harvard, the U.S. Senate, and the presidential campaign trail.
The purpose of this tale, besides softening her image and establishing her populist bona fides, is to make the case that while government once served the needs of poor and middle-class families like her own, by providing a solid minimum wage and affordable public schools, it now operates chiefly in the service of those who are already well off. "When corporations get so big that they can start to squeeze the government,” she said, "then democracy no longer works.” Her life's story, juxtaposed against the much direr options a struggling family faces today, is the windup to her campaign's declaration of purpose, which she practically shouted across the Milwaukee high school gymnasium: "We need big, structural change in this country!”
"Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren. She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues”
Warren's great talent as a politician is her ability to make her left-wing economic agenda sound like plain common sense that any ordinary person would agree with. Traveling with her through Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin this year, it was clear she was connecting; voters would nod along and say afterward they appreciated her diagnosis of what ails the U.S. economy and her detailed plans to fix it. T-shirts emblazoned with "Warren Has a Plan for That” were popular fashion items at her events.
Her speech also offers a clue about her professional and political success, because it's the story of someone perceptive and capable enough to thrive in every environment she encountered by studying the rules and figuring out the game. One of her least recognized attributes may be her skill at getting noticed.
Warren's academic career is celebrated both for its commuter-college-to-Harvard trajectory and for her pioneering work in the field of consumer bankruptcy law. But it's also noteworthy that she managed to succeed in two realms at once—the academy and the broader popular culture.
When Warren began teaching law at the University of Texas in the early 1980s, most academic research focused on corporate bankruptcies. Seeking to explain the spike in personal bankruptcies, Warren and her partners, Jay Westbrook and Teresa Sullivan, spent years traveling to courthouses studying bankruptcy filings. Their conclusion, laid out in their influential 1989 book, As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, was that most bankruptcies weren't driven by lazy profligacy, as was commonly assumed, but by financial and medical catastrophes from which respectable middle-class families simply couldn't recover.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1330054.As_We_Forgive_Our_Debtors
Professors tend to be poor public salesmen of their own work. Warren is an exception. At the same time her academic star was rising, her ability to communicate her ideas to lay audiences won her media exposure and a public profile that vastly extended the range of her influence. In 2003 she teamed up with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, to write The Two-Income Trap, a book aimed at a general readership that caught the eye of Dr. Phil, who made Warren a repeat guest on his talk show as an empathetic financial expert and life coach.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/854759.The_Two_Income_Trap
Warren's telegenic flair drew the notice of top Democrats, who began calling on her to provide congressional testimony. Her clash with Biden at a 2005 hearing over a bankruptcy bill, recently resurfaced on social media, was an early glimpse of her talent for creating a public spectacle around an issue that was important to her and getting the better of whichever eminence she was pitted against. Warren spent a decade fighting to stop the credit card industry, based in Biden's home state of Delaware, from winning more onerous bankruptcy rules. She ultimately lost the fight. It was, she told me, "a big part of my early education about power in Washington.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVvVzprIxQ
Through repeated visits to Capitol Hill, she learned how influence works—and how to work the system. Politicians love experts who confer credibility and help them look smart. Warren was eager to lend academic ballast to others' ideas. When I profiled Senator Charles Schumer in 2008, he practically dragged me to meet her, because he believed The Two-Income Trap validated his economic program. Warren, he assured me, "knows how to get a point across.”
At the same time, she also became a relentless popularizer of her own ideas through channels few others were thinking about at the time. Josh Marshall, the founder of the influential liberal blog Talking Points Memo, was surprised when Warren offered to write about bankruptcy reform for the site in 2005. Warren had deduced that congressional staffers were more digitally inclined than their bosses and instrumental in shaping their views. Blogging was a way to reach them directly, along with the rising crowd of grassroots activists who'd become increasingly vocal during the Iraq War. "She could see that blogs like TPM were having a decisive effect on the evolution of Democratic politics at a time when that wasn't yet clear to the older generation of party operatives and officeholders,” Marshall says.
Warren's credibility with party leaders paid dividends when her proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, laid out in a 2007 journal article, was incorporated into legislation Congress passed after the global financial crisis. It also earned her a spot on the Troubled Asset Relief Program oversight board policing the bank bailouts, a public perch she used to stage high-profile confrontations with Tim Geithner, Obama's Treasury secretary, that made her a cult figure on the left—and earned her the enmity of Wall Street allies in the administration. Her facility at playing the inside game advanced her career even when she lost: When Obama declined to nominate her to lead the CFPB, she was recruited to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts and won—landing in the very heart of the establishment.
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/5/unsafe-at-any-rate/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-10-03/the-day-congress-passed-tarp-ten-years-later-video
When she arrived in the Senate in 2013, Warren was something of an exotic creature: a celebrity whose fame predated her run for office. But one even more prominent woman had preceded her—Clinton—and Washington groupthink dictated that Warren should comport herself as Clinton had. Upon her election in 2000, Clinton somewhat ostentatiously declared that she would be "a workhorse, not a show horse,” shunning the limelight so as not to upstage her senior colleagues. She hunkered down and made common cause on dozens of minor bills with Republicans, many of whom had been vocal detractors, in an effort to burnish a bipartisan image that would help her future presidential campaign.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/11/take-two-hillarys-choice/305292/
From the outset, Warren recoiled at the Clinton model of the quiet, well-mannered junior senator who was "seen but not heard” and deferred to her male elders. Dan Geldon, a top adviser, recounted to me last fall that before Warren agreed to run for office, she had to be persuaded that she could be effective operating in an altogether different style. "I need to be convinced that if I go to the Senate there's a path to accomplish what I want” that's different from what Clinton did, he recalled her saying. "How do I aggressively advocate for what I believe in?”
In her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance, Warren tells a story that's meant to reveal the unsavory way Washington power players wield their influence to benefit one another, while ignoring the common good. She recounts how, just after the financial crisis, Larry Summers, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, invited her to dinner at a fancy Washington restaurant under the guise of imparting insider wisdom.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18779662-a-fighting-chance
Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice...I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People—powerful people—listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.
Warren presents the tale as a provincial's education in the byways of Washington power, assuring the reader about her disapproval of that culture. But her own answer for how to accomplish something useful as a new senator was to be a workhorse and a show horse. "It's always been about the inside and the outside,” she told me. "That's how I'd come to understand power in Washington.”
At her first Banking Committee hearing, Warren seized the spotlight by demanding of a panel of bank regulators: "When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?” Their awkward evasions produced a showdown that established what became Warren's signature slashing style. Although her staff exulted over these moments, they had a purpose beyond raising her profile and her online fundraising hauls.
In the 12 years since Clinton's arrival in the Senate, American politics had polarized to such a degree that the incentive structure for ambitious Republicans and Democrats had changed. The old way to influence national politics was by accumulating a lengthy record of bipartisan achievement and a reputation for probity. The new way—Warren's way—was to have big, loud, messy fights that offered moral clarity and galvanized public sentiment through cable news and social media. Warren used this technique repeatedly to steer Democratic sentiment against corporate tax inversions and global trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to steer it toward expanding Social Security benefits, and to establish her primacy as the rising progressive in the Senate.
Her adeptness won her a large and vocal grassroots following, which gave her an independent base and remarkable power for a freshman senator. Several of her old-school colleagues resented her fame and privately disparaged her, but none dared do so publicly. "Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren,” Barney Frank said in 2015. "She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues, because Democrats are not going to cross her. … No Democrat wants Elizabeth Warren being critical of him.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-virtual-candidate
At the same time, though, Warren took care not to violate the assiduously proscribed rules of the Senate. She was a good colleague, a willing campaigner for Democrats facing reelection, and careful not to publicly criticize party leaders. This won her influence inside the party and a position in leadership to match her growing stature on the outside.
As the 2016 presidential campaign began taking shape, it was no surprise that progressives looked to Warren as a potential challenger to Clinton, who was distrusted by many in the party. In 2014, Warren found herself the object of a draft campaign and a "Ready for Warren” super PAC. Although the organizers had no formal affiliation with her, she did little at first to tamp down the effort, which fueled speculation she might run.
Among those anxious for a decision was the Clinton campaign, which viewed her as a formidable foe and was relieved when she passed. "We within the Clinton world initially thought Bernie was the poor man's Warren,” says Brian Fallon, a senior campaign official. "But when she didn't run, he had such success that he became a major figure in his own right.”
Warren's decision to sit out proved fateful for two reasons: Sanders, a gadfly to this point in his career, entered the race and caught fire. This created pressure from the left for Warren to endorse him. More broadly, it brought into tension her hard-won status as a progressive hero and her growing influence within the Democratic establishment. Endorsing Sanders, her ideological ally, would mean sacrificing her ability to influence Clinton, who was widely expected to win. So Warren withheld her endorsement until it was clear Clinton would be the nominee. In essence, Warren bet that she had a better chance of enacting her liberal agenda by working through Clinton than by banking on a Sanders revolution. Her decision shocked her hardcore supporters on the left, many of whom turned against her when Sanders lost.
"There was an enormous amount of ill will that was the result of her declining to endorse anyone and deciding not to take a position until after the convention,” says Charles Lenchner, a co-founder of Ready for Warren, who later endorsed Sanders. "Warren had a chance to help Bernie win when it was still possible—and she declined to do so.”
Those close to Warren say the backlash was palpable and unnerving. Sanders supporters flooded her Facebook posts with vitriol and charges that she'd sold out. "The feeling on the left was that she lacked courage,” says Cenk Uygur, co-host of The Young Turks, an influential online progressive news show, "that Bernie's loss could be laid at her feet.”
Warren tersely defended her decision. "I thought it was the right thing to do,” she told me, without elaborating.
Her inside strategy paid off. Warren nearly ended up in a position of power that would have been inconceivable a few years earlier. When they got together, Clinton and Warren had a good rapport. And Warren was a determined campaigner for the nominee. According to campaign officials, Clinton seriously weighed Warren as her running mate. The Massachusetts senator underwent a full vetting and was smuggled into Whitehaven, Clinton's Washington home, for an interview. It went well enough that some Clinton advisers were convinced Warren would be the best pick.
In a memo to Clinton written shortly after the August meeting and obtained by Bloomberg Businessweek, Philippe Reines, a longtime adviser, concluded of Warren: "If a crystal ball said she wouldn't antagonize you for four years, it's hard to argue she isn't the most helpful for the next four months to get you elected.”
I asked Warren if she would have accepted the job if Clinton had offered it. She put down her mango lemonade.
"Yes.”
Ultimately, of course, Clinton chose a safe, ticket-balancing male running mate. Yet nearly everything about the campaign and plans for the transition already underway augured well for Warren and the liberal cause.
And then Clinton lost.
Warren doesn't like to look back, at least not on the record in the presence of a reporter. But when I asked if her careful calculations had taught her anything about the limits of pushing an agenda through someone else, she was blunt. "Yes,” she said. "It's never as good as doing it yourself.”
After Trump's win, Warren took steps to establish herself as a 2020 candidate. Before Trump, she stuck mainly to matters of financial regulation. While most senators gallop toward TV cameras, she husbanded her political capital by declining to weigh in on most issues, knowing her words would carry more weight when she did speak. On Capitol Hill, she was notorious for speed-walking through the halls of the Senate while refusing even to acknowledge the reporters rushing alongside her and peppering her with questions. Besides Mitch McConnell, there was no more disciplined senator.
After the election, that stopped. She broadened her issue portfolio, discarded the chilly hallway demeanor, and reached out to journalists. The game had changed, there was a new system to master, and Warren perceived, rightly, that getting ahead in a presidential race would entail a different approach.
Today, in contrast with the other front-runners, she makes herself available to the press after nearly every campaign event. It's an evolution she seems to enjoy, not least because her newfound status gives her influence over a broader range of issues than ever before. "As the megaphone grew,” she explained, "I was able to pull more of those pieces in.”
And while Warren disappointed Schwab by passing on Davos, the wealth tax he inspired has given her license, she believes, to continue pursuing what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation.” Historically, Democrats' lofty aspirations often crashed on the rocky shoals of public financing. But no one can question how Warren will pay for her policies if—and it's a big if—her fervent wish to shake trillions from the pockets of the rich comes true.
"Wouldn't it be nice to have universal child care?” she asked. "The question is always, 'How are you gonna pay for that?' We never sound credible as Democrats on that, and it shrinks up our ambitions. So our ambitions keep narrowing.” She adopted a pleading look. " 'Well, can we have just a little bit of child care? How about a tiny bit? Could we give a little help on student loans?' ” She shook her head. "Let me make this pitch: Who's gonna show up to reduce student loan debt by 2%? I'm serious! Who's gonna show up on our side to fight for that?”
For now, Warren has rebounded from early struggles like the DNA flap. "She took the full punch,” says an adviser, "and survived.” That's let her populist message shape the race.
Trump, preoccupied with stoking racial and cultural divisions, hasn't seemed to notice, yet. But some in his circle have long worried he's vulnerable to a message like Warren's. "Trump's populism in the campaign had two components,” Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist, told me two years ago, when he was still in the White House. "There's the immigration and religion stuff, which we're delivering on big time. And there's the economic populism, which I'm pushing on. But you've got to have both. If we don't deliver on it, we're leaving it there for Warren and Sanders to pick up.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-14/trump-to-progressive-democrats-go-back-to-where-you-came-from
Warren's outspoken criticism of Wall Street excess hasn't waned. She still takes down targets such as Tim Sloan, the Wells Fargo & Co. chief executive officer, who resigned in March after months of her withering attacks. ("His hands are too dirty from overseeing years of scams and scandals,” she tweeted.) But she's also spent considerable energy distinguishing herself from Sanders by declaring herself a capitalist—not a socialist—who simply wants the system to work for everyone.
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1089890010193629184
That assurance has won the grudging respect of some former adversaries. "The country is hungry for serious policy proposals to address income inequality,” says Lee Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secretary Geithner during the financial crisis and a co-founder of Gallatin Point Capital, a private investment firm.
Whether or not Warren can beat Trump, her poll numbers and fundraising success have bolstered her viability with Democrats. She has also resurrected her popularity with the left. "Warren is back in the good graces of a lot of progressives,” says Uygur, the Young Turks host. "Are some people still bitter about 2016? Yes. Bernie has his die-hards. But Warren is converting a lot of people on the strength of her ideas. She's making progressivism safe for the mainstream.”
It's a cliché that every candidate senses an imminent burst of momentum, Warren included. "This is what I'm beginning to perceive,” she told me. "For many people, they may not know the details of my plans, but they're sure glad to know that the plans are there—that somebody has worked through this who they can trust, and who has their interests at heart, and will be in that fight and win that fight.”
Yet if Warren wins the nomination, many Democrats, her allies included, worry some of her plans could hurt her when she comes under the full force of Republican opposition. While the wealth tax is broadly popular, other Warren-backed plans such as decriminalizing migrant border crossings and Medicare for All, are not. "Banning private insurance is a problem,” says Frank. This month, NPR found only 41% of voters support a Medicare plan that does away with most private insurance, while a Hill-HarrisX poll found more Americans favor criminal prosecution (41%) for illegal border crossings than civil fines (32%).
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/07/11/us/politics/11reuters-usa-election-warren.html
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist-poll-americans-not-sold-on-trump-or-democrats
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/452005-poll-voters-favor-criminal-prosecution-over-civil-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings
Here's what else the polls show: What Democrats want most is simply to beat Trump—period. A June Gallup survey showed that, by a wide margin, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents prize electability over issue stances, race, and gender. In other words, voters are looking for a nominee willing to hit back at a president who leaves no doubt he'll do whatever it takes to win.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/259454/electability-democratic-nominee-outranks-issue-stances.aspx
Warren is happy to oblige. She was the first major candidate to call for Trump's impeachment. "If he were anyone other than the president of the United States,” she said in May, "he would be in handcuffs and indicted.” A new CBS poll shows that 56% of Democrats in battleground states believe Warren would "fight for” them, more than any of her rivals.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-19/elizabeth-warren-impeachment-trump-house
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-battleground-tracker-poll-top-tier-emerges-in-2020-field-biden-warren-harris-and-sanders/
The possibility that Democrats may choose ruthlessness in a nominee above all else could put Warren in a strange position, since it would mean primary voters will have picked the professor-turned-senator less for her intellectual skills than her pugilistic ones. That would turn the rationale for her candidacy on its head. All those minutely detailed plans to tax the rich and provide Medicare and cut college tuition—the foundation of Warren's campaign—might not be why they vote for her at all. If she defeats Trump on those terms, the most radical Democratic agenda since Roosevelt could end up being ushered into the White House almost as an afterthought.
And how would Warren feel? "I'd be totally fine with that,” she says.
July 25, 2019, 4:00 AM EDT
Elizabeth Warren Has a Radical Plan to Beat Trump at His Own Game
After a slow start, she's gaining momentum by pushing her party to embrace bold, left-wing ideas that could win back the Oval Office—or cost Democrats everything.
Last fall, Elizabeth Warren got an email from Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, inviting her to speak at the group's annual meeting in Davos in late January. He was taken with Warren's sweeping moral critique of winner-take-all capitalism and looking to jolt the heads of state and global financial titans at his glittering conference in the Swiss Alps. Would she come to Davos and address them?
The Massachusetts senator, who was then preparing to run for president, understood immediately the attention such a showdown would bring and thought she needed an idea big enough for the moment. A few weeks later, she settled on one: an annual "wealth tax” of 2% on fortunes over $50 million, slightly higher on billionaires. Working with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the eminent University of California at Berkeley economists, Warren's staff calculated that her tax would hit the richest 75,000 people in the U.S. while raising $2.75 trillion in a 10-year period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-23/the-wealth-detective-who-finds-the-hidden-money-of-the-super-rich
It was a characteristically big, bold idea that would revolutionize how government taxes the rich, shifting the basis from income to the much broader category of wealth. These "ultramillionaires,” as she calls them, would no longer pay only on what they earn, which clever accountants can minimize, but on the entirety of what they have. This massive infusion of revenue would fund even the most zealous package of liberal programs with billions to spare.
But the proposal's principal attraction, in the moment, would be the sheer spectacle of Warren's unveiling it at a gathering of Davos plutocrats—one imagines horrified gasps and a Champagne flute shattering on the floor. At a time when U.S. politics and electoral fundraising are increasingly driven by viral media moments, here was one guaranteed to make everyone sit up and notice. Schwab thought so, too.
"He was going to give us all of the CEOs in a room,” Warren told me recently, with a twinkle, over homemade mango lemonade at her Washington condominium. Schwab even dropped by her Senate office to lobby her personally.
But after a long period of consideration, she decided not to go. Her presidential campaign was set to launch on New Year's Eve with a swing through rural Iowa, and her staff fretted about the optics of leaving the trail to go join a gathering of bankers, even to challenge them. As it turned out, though, Schwab's conference still focused on capitalist inequity and still featured a dramatic confrontation over taxing the wealthy that instantly went viral. It just didn't involve Warren. Instead, Rutger Bregman, a young Dutch historian, scolded the Davos crowd for studiously ignoring the one measure guaranteed to mitigate wealth inequality—the very thing Warren had identified. "Taxes, taxes, taxes,” Bregman declared. "All the rest is bullshit.” Within hours, he was hailed as "the folk hero of Davos,” and a clip of his remarks drew millions of views.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/01/rutger-bregman-world-economic-forum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism
The missed opportunity seemed to symbolize a candidacy that looked destined to fail. In her first weeks on the campaign trail, Warren didn't generate nearly the excitement or fundraising other candidates did. The activist progressives who once hung on her every word appeared to be shopping for someone else. And she was dogged by her decision to take a DNA test to determine her American Indian ancestry, which offended potential supporters and drew a fresh wave of "Pocahontas” taunts from President Trump. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders led the polls and the news coverage, while Warren languished in single digits. "I hit her too hard, too early,” Trump crowed to Fox News in March. "Now it looks like she's finished.”
He spoke too soon. Since then, Warren has not only put herself into the top tier of Democratic hopefuls but forced the others to follow her lead. Although she missed her star turn at Davos, Warren made the wealth tax the centerpiece of her campaign. It's part of a fusillade of proposals that are more aggressive, far-reaching—and expensive—than any previous Democratic front-runner would have dared venture: break up big tech companies like Google and Facebook; abolish private health insurance and give everyone Medicare; start a $2 trillion industrial policy built on "economic patriotism” to boost exports; crack down on private equity's "Wall Street looting”; overhaul corporate governance by putting workers on boards; eliminate the filibuster; cancel student loan debt; and establish free public college and universal child care. Together, Warren's platform amounts to a giant leap in Democratic ambition—some would say radicalism—that dwarfs the steady but safe achievements of the Clinton and Obama eras.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-25/senator-warren-proposes-ultra-millionaire-tax-of-as-much-as-3
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/warren-s-tech-assault-propels-fringe-antitrust-view-to-spotlight
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/medicare-for-all-splits-democrats-on-future-of-health-insurance
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-18/warren-declares-war-on-private-equity-vampires-in-2020-plan
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-22/warren-proposes-scrapping-student-debt-for-millions-in-2020-plan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/elizabeth-warren-s-affordable-childcare-policy-economic-analysis
If Warren is a revolutionary, she sure doesn't look the part. When I arrived at her sleek, sunny Washington condo on a scorching July afternoon, she was wearing a striped Vineyard Vines button-down and tinkering with her lemonade recipe. "How ya doin'?” she greeted me. Her husband, Bruce Mann, a Harvard Law School professor, was tapping on a laptop and excused himself so we could get down to business.
When the conversation turned to politics and her campaign, Warren snapped into a whole different gear: evangelist for a Democratic revolution. Her wealth tax and all that's followed is her attempt to apply shock paddles to a party that she believes has lost its way. "You could wake somebody up in the middle of the night and ask them what a Republican stands for, and you'd get pretty consistent answers,” Warren said. "Ask what Democrats stand for, and it's always a more difficult explanation. That makes it harder to pull people into the fight, because they're less sure it's their fight.”
One way to understand her urgency is as the result of a radicalizing moment: Trump's victory. Four years ago there was talk of a Warren presidential campaign, but she decided not to run, wagering that the best shot to enact her agenda was by working through a powerful Democrat she believed could win—Hillary Clinton. People close to her say Trump's surprise election left her shocked and filled with regret. "If you went back to 2014 and told Elizabeth that Donald Trump would be elected president as a right-wing populist,” a close adviser told me, "there's no question she would have run for president.”
It's one of very few topics that leaves Warren short of words. Sitting on her sofa, she rebuffed any attempt to get her to revisit her thinking and what she'd have done differently. "I can't,” she said. "I just can't.”
Friends say what's driving her now is a desire to correct that mistake and a conviction that Trump's election showed voters want change on a scale most Democrats don't comprehend. She believes Democrats lost in 2016 because they were timid. Trump ditched Republican orthodoxies and brought along union members, blue-collar workers, and other traditionally Democratic voters in the bargain. Warren is making a big bet that taking Trump down requires beating him at his own game: go big and bold or risk losing again on warmed-over incrementalism. That's why the sweep of her agenda aims for the New Deal or the Great Society. "We need to fight harder for what we believe in,” she told me.
If Trumpism is a hypertrophied version of conservatism, then Warrenism is, by design, liberalism jacked up on steroids. "It's all a response to Trump,” says former Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, a Warren ally who's neutral in the race. "It's meant to be earthshaking.”
Until now, few Democrats would have embraced such an agenda for fear of being branded radical, tax-and-spend liberals. For many party regulars, that remains a live concern. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spends much of her energy trying to contain the progressive exuberance Warren and other Democrats to her left have eagerly unleashed. Right now, the central strategic divide in Democratic circles is between Pelosi's desire not to spook voters and jeopardize her party's chance to beat Trump and Warren's conviction that they won't show up unless Democrats aggressively reclaim their historic mantle. Wake someone up in the dark of night during a Warren administration, she seems to promise, and they'll know damn well what the Democrats stand for.
Her push for enormous changes to the structure of the U.S. political economy is taking not only her party out of its comfort zone, but also Warren herself. For all her provocations, she has long been a believer in institutions who spent her career as an academic, government regulator, and senator carefully working within those systems. Her considerable success came because she taught herself to master the establishment, not blow it up.
That's changed. Her decision to abandon the constraints and conventions of how a Democrat traditionally runs for president has revivified a campaign many observers, not just the president, had written off. Suddenly, she's one of the hottest candidates in the field.
"What I've seen in the last six weeks for Warren in terms of grassroots energy is like a rocket ship taking off,” says an independent digital strategist closely tracking the Democratic campaigns. More than anyone else, Warren has set the terms of the race and forced other candidates to respond as a matter of strategic necessity. As the first primary debates in Miami showed, Democrats' plans for a post-Trump future are far more sweeping than just about anybody expected them to be even a few months ago. Kamala Harris, a supposed moderate, has endorsed "Medicare for All,” and even Biden was compelled to produce a far more robust health-care plan than the one he helped pass as Obama's vice president.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-democratic-primary-debates-power-dynamics/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/biden-sanders-health-care-feud-exposes-democrats-to-2020-peril
All of this raises a thorny question: Is Warren prophetically right or tragically wrong? For many Democrats, her decision to throw caution to the wind and run on a full-dress liberal agenda of vaulting ambition—dragging the whole party along with her—is both thrilling and scary. It offers the promise of an historic advance and a rebuke of Trump and all that he stands for, but couples it with the possibility that vowing to raise taxes and eliminate private health insurance might frighten voters into delivering the one thing Democrats fear most: four more years of Trump.
Midnight was approaching when Warren and a small entourage wandered into the Miller Time Pub & Grill in downtown Milwaukee in mid-July. She'd just finished a rally at a high school, then grinned and chitchatted her way through a line of hundreds of people waiting to have their picture taken with her. Warren does this after every event as part of an Olympian commitment to be warm and approachable, to fend off the charge of "chilly Harvard professor” before it can be uttered. When she arrived at the pub, it took her several minutes and several more selfies before she could slide into a booth, skip over the fancy craft beers, and ask the waitress, "Do you have Miller Lite on tap?”
Like her choice of beer, Warren's stump speech is simple, straightforward—and very self-aware. It's an allegory about how government rescued her family in hard times, then provided her opportunities to advance—opportunities it no longer offers. When she was a middle schooler in Oklahoma, Warren's father had a heart attack and couldn't work. Her parents feared losing their home. Her mother, who'd never worked outside the home, got hired at Sears. "That minimum wage job saved our house—and more important, it saved our family,” Warren told the Milwaukee crowd.
After marrying at 19 and quitting college to move to Texas, Warren finished her degree by attending "a commuter college that cost $50 a semester.” A few years later, as a young mother with another child on the way, she was able to graduate from a state law school without relying on student loans, and then was hired to teach at another one. These were the steppingstones in a career that eventually led to Harvard, the U.S. Senate, and the presidential campaign trail.
The purpose of this tale, besides softening her image and establishing her populist bona fides, is to make the case that while government once served the needs of poor and middle-class families like her own, by providing a solid minimum wage and affordable public schools, it now operates chiefly in the service of those who are already well off. "When corporations get so big that they can start to squeeze the government,” she said, "then democracy no longer works.” Her life's story, juxtaposed against the much direr options a struggling family faces today, is the windup to her campaign's declaration of purpose, which she practically shouted across the Milwaukee high school gymnasium: "We need big, structural change in this country!”
"Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren. She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues”
Warren's great talent as a politician is her ability to make her left-wing economic agenda sound like plain common sense that any ordinary person would agree with. Traveling with her through Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin this year, it was clear she was connecting; voters would nod along and say afterward they appreciated her diagnosis of what ails the U.S. economy and her detailed plans to fix it. T-shirts emblazoned with "Warren Has a Plan for That” were popular fashion items at her events.
Her speech also offers a clue about her professional and political success, because it's the story of someone perceptive and capable enough to thrive in every environment she encountered by studying the rules and figuring out the game. One of her least recognized attributes may be her skill at getting noticed.
Warren's academic career is celebrated both for its commuter-college-to-Harvard trajectory and for her pioneering work in the field of consumer bankruptcy law. But it's also noteworthy that she managed to succeed in two realms at once—the academy and the broader popular culture.
When Warren began teaching law at the University of Texas in the early 1980s, most academic research focused on corporate bankruptcies. Seeking to explain the spike in personal bankruptcies, Warren and her partners, Jay Westbrook and Teresa Sullivan, spent years traveling to courthouses studying bankruptcy filings. Their conclusion, laid out in their influential 1989 book, As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, was that most bankruptcies weren't driven by lazy profligacy, as was commonly assumed, but by financial and medical catastrophes from which respectable middle-class families simply couldn't recover.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1330054.As_We_Forgive_Our_Debtors
Professors tend to be poor public salesmen of their own work. Warren is an exception. At the same time her academic star was rising, her ability to communicate her ideas to lay audiences won her media exposure and a public profile that vastly extended the range of her influence. In 2003 she teamed up with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, to write The Two-Income Trap, a book aimed at a general readership that caught the eye of Dr. Phil, who made Warren a repeat guest on his talk show as an empathetic financial expert and life coach.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/854759.The_Two_Income_Trap
Warren's telegenic flair drew the notice of top Democrats, who began calling on her to provide congressional testimony. Her clash with Biden at a 2005 hearing over a bankruptcy bill, recently resurfaced on social media, was an early glimpse of her talent for creating a public spectacle around an issue that was important to her and getting the better of whichever eminence she was pitted against. Warren spent a decade fighting to stop the credit card industry, based in Biden's home state of Delaware, from winning more onerous bankruptcy rules. She ultimately lost the fight. It was, she told me, "a big part of my early education about power in Washington.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVvVzprIxQ
Through repeated visits to Capitol Hill, she learned how influence works—and how to work the system. Politicians love experts who confer credibility and help them look smart. Warren was eager to lend academic ballast to others' ideas. When I profiled Senator Charles Schumer in 2008, he practically dragged me to meet her, because he believed The Two-Income Trap validated his economic program. Warren, he assured me, "knows how to get a point across.”
At the same time, she also became a relentless popularizer of her own ideas through channels few others were thinking about at the time. Josh Marshall, the founder of the influential liberal blog Talking Points Memo, was surprised when Warren offered to write about bankruptcy reform for the site in 2005. Warren had deduced that congressional staffers were more digitally inclined than their bosses and instrumental in shaping their views. Blogging was a way to reach them directly, along with the rising crowd of grassroots activists who'd become increasingly vocal during the Iraq War. "She could see that blogs like TPM were having a decisive effect on the evolution of Democratic politics at a time when that wasn't yet clear to the older generation of party operatives and officeholders,” Marshall says.
Warren's credibility with party leaders paid dividends when her proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, laid out in a 2007 journal article, was incorporated into legislation Congress passed after the global financial crisis. It also earned her a spot on the Troubled Asset Relief Program oversight board policing the bank bailouts, a public perch she used to stage high-profile confrontations with Tim Geithner, Obama's Treasury secretary, that made her a cult figure on the left—and earned her the enmity of Wall Street allies in the administration. Her facility at playing the inside game advanced her career even when she lost: When Obama declined to nominate her to lead the CFPB, she was recruited to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts and won—landing in the very heart of the establishment.
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/5/unsafe-at-any-rate/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-10-03/the-day-congress-passed-tarp-ten-years-later-video
When she arrived in the Senate in 2013, Warren was something of an exotic creature: a celebrity whose fame predated her run for office. But one even more prominent woman had preceded her—Clinton—and Washington groupthink dictated that Warren should comport herself as Clinton had. Upon her election in 2000, Clinton somewhat ostentatiously declared that she would be "a workhorse, not a show horse,” shunning the limelight so as not to upstage her senior colleagues. She hunkered down and made common cause on dozens of minor bills with Republicans, many of whom had been vocal detractors, in an effort to burnish a bipartisan image that would help her future presidential campaign.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/11/take-two-hillarys-choice/305292/
From the outset, Warren recoiled at the Clinton model of the quiet, well-mannered junior senator who was "seen but not heard” and deferred to her male elders. Dan Geldon, a top adviser, recounted to me last fall that before Warren agreed to run for office, she had to be persuaded that she could be effective operating in an altogether different style. "I need to be convinced that if I go to the Senate there's a path to accomplish what I want” that's different from what Clinton did, he recalled her saying. "How do I aggressively advocate for what I believe in?”
In her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance, Warren tells a story that's meant to reveal the unsavory way Washington power players wield their influence to benefit one another, while ignoring the common good. She recounts how, just after the financial crisis, Larry Summers, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, invited her to dinner at a fancy Washington restaurant under the guise of imparting insider wisdom.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18779662-a-fighting-chance
Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice...I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People—powerful people—listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.
Warren presents the tale as a provincial's education in the byways of Washington power, assuring the reader about her disapproval of that culture. But her own answer for how to accomplish something useful as a new senator was to be a workhorse and a show horse. "It's always been about the inside and the outside,” she told me. "That's how I'd come to understand power in Washington.”
At her first Banking Committee hearing, Warren seized the spotlight by demanding of a panel of bank regulators: "When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?” Their awkward evasions produced a showdown that established what became Warren's signature slashing style. Although her staff exulted over these moments, they had a purpose beyond raising her profile and her online fundraising hauls.
In the 12 years since Clinton's arrival in the Senate, American politics had polarized to such a degree that the incentive structure for ambitious Republicans and Democrats had changed. The old way to influence national politics was by accumulating a lengthy record of bipartisan achievement and a reputation for probity. The new way—Warren's way—was to have big, loud, messy fights that offered moral clarity and galvanized public sentiment through cable news and social media. Warren used this technique repeatedly to steer Democratic sentiment against corporate tax inversions and global trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to steer it toward expanding Social Security benefits, and to establish her primacy as the rising progressive in the Senate.
Her adeptness won her a large and vocal grassroots following, which gave her an independent base and remarkable power for a freshman senator. Several of her old-school colleagues resented her fame and privately disparaged her, but none dared do so publicly. "Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren,” Barney Frank said in 2015. "She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues, because Democrats are not going to cross her. … No Democrat wants Elizabeth Warren being critical of him.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-virtual-candidate
At the same time, though, Warren took care not to violate the assiduously proscribed rules of the Senate. She was a good colleague, a willing campaigner for Democrats facing reelection, and careful not to publicly criticize party leaders. This won her influence inside the party and a position in leadership to match her growing stature on the outside.
As the 2016 presidential campaign began taking shape, it was no surprise that progressives looked to Warren as a potential challenger to Clinton, who was distrusted by many in the party. In 2014, Warren found herself the object of a draft campaign and a "Ready for Warren” super PAC. Although the organizers had no formal affiliation with her, she did little at first to tamp down the effort, which fueled speculation she might run.
Among those anxious for a decision was the Clinton campaign, which viewed her as a formidable foe and was relieved when she passed. "We within the Clinton world initially thought Bernie was the poor man's Warren,” says Brian Fallon, a senior campaign official. "But when she didn't run, he had such success that he became a major figure in his own right.”
Warren's decision to sit out proved fateful for two reasons: Sanders, a gadfly to this point in his career, entered the race and caught fire. This created pressure from the left for Warren to endorse him. More broadly, it brought into tension her hard-won status as a progressive hero and her growing influence within the Democratic establishment. Endorsing Sanders, her ideological ally, would mean sacrificing her ability to influence Clinton, who was widely expected to win. So Warren withheld her endorsement until it was clear Clinton would be the nominee. In essence, Warren bet that she had a better chance of enacting her liberal agenda by working through Clinton than by banking on a Sanders revolution. Her decision shocked her hardcore supporters on the left, many of whom turned against her when Sanders lost.
"There was an enormous amount of ill will that was the result of her declining to endorse anyone and deciding not to take a position until after the convention,” says Charles Lenchner, a co-founder of Ready for Warren, who later endorsed Sanders. "Warren had a chance to help Bernie win when it was still possible—and she declined to do so.”
Those close to Warren say the backlash was palpable and unnerving. Sanders supporters flooded her Facebook posts with vitriol and charges that she'd sold out. "The feeling on the left was that she lacked courage,” says Cenk Uygur, co-host of The Young Turks, an influential online progressive news show, "that Bernie's loss could be laid at her feet.”
Warren tersely defended her decision. "I thought it was the right thing to do,” she told me, without elaborating.
Her inside strategy paid off. Warren nearly ended up in a position of power that would have been inconceivable a few years earlier. When they got together, Clinton and Warren had a good rapport. And Warren was a determined campaigner for the nominee. According to campaign officials, Clinton seriously weighed Warren as her running mate. The Massachusetts senator underwent a full vetting and was smuggled into Whitehaven, Clinton's Washington home, for an interview. It went well enough that some Clinton advisers were convinced Warren would be the best pick.
In a memo to Clinton written shortly after the August meeting and obtained by Bloomberg Businessweek, Philippe Reines, a longtime adviser, concluded of Warren: "If a crystal ball said she wouldn't antagonize you for four years, it's hard to argue she isn't the most helpful for the next four months to get you elected.”
I asked Warren if she would have accepted the job if Clinton had offered it. She put down her mango lemonade.
"Yes.”
Ultimately, of course, Clinton chose a safe, ticket-balancing male running mate. Yet nearly everything about the campaign and plans for the transition already underway augured well for Warren and the liberal cause.
And then Clinton lost.
Warren doesn't like to look back, at least not on the record in the presence of a reporter. But when I asked if her careful calculations had taught her anything about the limits of pushing an agenda through someone else, she was blunt. "Yes,” she said. "It's never as good as doing it yourself.”
After Trump's win, Warren took steps to establish herself as a 2020 candidate. Before Trump, she stuck mainly to matters of financial regulation. While most senators gallop toward TV cameras, she husbanded her political capital by declining to weigh in on most issues, knowing her words would carry more weight when she did speak. On Capitol Hill, she was notorious for speed-walking through the halls of the Senate while refusing even to acknowledge the reporters rushing alongside her and peppering her with questions. Besides Mitch McConnell, there was no more disciplined senator.
After the election, that stopped. She broadened her issue portfolio, discarded the chilly hallway demeanor, and reached out to journalists. The game had changed, there was a new system to master, and Warren perceived, rightly, that getting ahead in a presidential race would entail a different approach.
Today, in contrast with the other front-runners, she makes herself available to the press after nearly every campaign event. It's an evolution she seems to enjoy, not least because her newfound status gives her influence over a broader range of issues than ever before. "As the megaphone grew,” she explained, "I was able to pull more of those pieces in.”
And while Warren disappointed Schwab by passing on Davos, the wealth tax he inspired has given her license, she believes, to continue pursuing what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation.” Historically, Democrats' lofty aspirations often crashed on the rocky shoals of public financing. But no one can question how Warren will pay for her policies if—and it's a big if—her fervent wish to shake trillions from the pockets of the rich comes true.
"Wouldn't it be nice to have universal child care?” she asked. "The question is always, 'How are you gonna pay for that?' We never sound credible as Democrats on that, and it shrinks up our ambitions. So our ambitions keep narrowing.” She adopted a pleading look. " 'Well, can we have just a little bit of child care? How about a tiny bit? Could we give a little help on student loans?' ” She shook her head. "Let me make this pitch: Who's gonna show up to reduce student loan debt by 2%? I'm serious! Who's gonna show up on our side to fight for that?”
For now, Warren has rebounded from early struggles like the DNA flap. "She took the full punch,” says an adviser, "and survived.” That's let her populist message shape the race.
Trump, preoccupied with stoking racial and cultural divisions, hasn't seemed to notice, yet. But some in his circle have long worried he's vulnerable to a message like Warren's. "Trump's populism in the campaign had two components,” Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist, told me two years ago, when he was still in the White House. "There's the immigration and religion stuff, which we're delivering on big time. And there's the economic populism, which I'm pushing on. But you've got to have both. If we don't deliver on it, we're leaving it there for Warren and Sanders to pick up.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-14/trump-to-progressive-democrats-go-back-to-where-you-came-from
Warren's outspoken criticism of Wall Street excess hasn't waned. She still takes down targets such as Tim Sloan, the Wells Fargo & Co. chief executive officer, who resigned in March after months of her withering attacks. ("His hands are too dirty from overseeing years of scams and scandals,” she tweeted.) But she's also spent considerable energy distinguishing herself from Sanders by declaring herself a capitalist—not a socialist—who simply wants the system to work for everyone.
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1089890010193629184
That assurance has won the grudging respect of some former adversaries. "The country is hungry for serious policy proposals to address income inequality,” says Lee Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secretary Geithner during the financial crisis and a co-founder of Gallatin Point Capital, a private investment firm.
Whether or not Warren can beat Trump, her poll numbers and fundraising success have bolstered her viability with Democrats. She has also resurrected her popularity with the left. "Warren is back in the good graces of a lot of progressives,” says Uygur, the Young Turks host. "Are some people still bitter about 2016? Yes. Bernie has his die-hards. But Warren is converting a lot of people on the strength of her ideas. She's making progressivism safe for the mainstream.”
It's a cliché that every candidate senses an imminent burst of momentum, Warren included. "This is what I'm beginning to perceive,” she told me. "For many people, they may not know the details of my plans, but they're sure glad to know that the plans are there—that somebody has worked through this who they can trust, and who has their interests at heart, and will be in that fight and win that fight.”
Yet if Warren wins the nomination, many Democrats, her allies included, worry some of her plans could hurt her when she comes under the full force of Republican opposition. While the wealth tax is broadly popular, other Warren-backed plans such as decriminalizing migrant border crossings and Medicare for All, are not. "Banning private insurance is a problem,” says Frank. This month, NPR found only 41% of voters support a Medicare plan that does away with most private insurance, while a Hill-HarrisX poll found more Americans favor criminal prosecution (41%) for illegal border crossings than civil fines (32%).
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/07/11/us/politics/11reuters-usa-election-warren.html
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist-poll-americans-not-sold-on-trump-or-democrats
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/452005-poll-voters-favor-criminal-prosecution-over-civil-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings
Here's what else the polls show: What Democrats want most is simply to beat Trump—period. A June Gallup survey showed that, by a wide margin, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents prize electability over issue stances, race, and gender. In other words, voters are looking for a nominee willing to hit back at a president who leaves no doubt he'll do whatever it takes to win.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/259454/electability-democratic-nominee-outranks-issue-stances.aspx
Warren is happy to oblige. She was the first major candidate to call for Trump's impeachment. "If he were anyone other than the president of the United States,” she said in May, "he would be in handcuffs and indicted.” A new CBS poll shows that 56% of Democrats in battleground states believe Warren would "fight for” them, more than any of her rivals.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-19/elizabeth-warren-impeachment-trump-house
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-battleground-tracker-poll-top-tier-emerges-in-2020-field-biden-warren-harris-and-sanders/
The possibility that Democrats may choose ruthlessness in a nominee above all else could put Warren in a strange position, since it would mean primary voters will have picked the professor-turned-senator less for her intellectual skills than her pugilistic ones. That would turn the rationale for her candidacy on its head. All those minutely detailed plans to tax the rich and provide Medicare and cut college tuition—the foundation of Warren's campaign—might not be why they vote for her at all. If she defeats Trump on those terms, the most radical Democratic agenda since Roosevelt could end up being ushered into the White House almost as an afterthought.
And how would Warren feel? "I'd be totally fine with that,” she says.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
YEP: Mueller Has Provided Congress With Everything It Needs To Impeach Trump [thenation]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-missile-south-korea-latest-news-a9019751.html
Mueller Has Provided Congress With Everything It Needs to Impeach Trump
Now, Congress must act.
By John Nichols
Today 2:24 pm
Special counsel Robert Mueller today delivered restrained, responsible, and yet damning testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding wrongdoing, lies, and obstruction of justice by the sitting president of the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony.html
What was damning was not the evidence that Mueller described, most of which simply confirmed details contained in his report on a two-year investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice. It was the clarity that the veteran lawman provided in response to basic questions about attempts by the president and his aides to undermine his inquiry. This corrected the ongoing disinformation campaign conducted by President Trump and his attorney general, William Barr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)
The critical exchange came at the beginning of the long-anticipated Judiciary Committee hearing on the morning of a day that was later to see Mueller testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler took Mueller through a series of essential questions regarding evidence contained in part two of the report produced by the special counsel and his team of top lawyers and investigators.
https://time.com/5629528/robert-mueller-testimony-live-updates/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-mueller-report-9-key-takeaways-2019-07-23/
For the purposes of a congressional inquiry that might lead to the impeachment of the president, the questioning with regard to attempts by Trump and his associates to obstruct an inquiry into allegations of political wrongdoing was vital. It got to the heart of the matter of whether the president must be held to account for abuses of power that have historically been understood as impeachable. And, in this regard, Mueller's testimony was powerful and important. The question is whether the Judiciary Committee and the Congress will treat it as such.
So far, it has not. And that frustrates accountability activists.
"Robert Mueller did his job—and it's far past time for lawmakers in Congress to do theirs. Today's testimony is the clearest indication yet that the only path forward is for Congress to immediately begin an impeachment inquiry," said Sean Eldridge, the president of Stand Up America. "If any other American had committed the crimes detailed in the Mueller report, they would be indicted and sent to prison. Delaying an impeachment inquiry any further does an injustice to the American people—and we implore Speaker Pelosi to stop slow-walking the process."
https://www.standupamerica.com/
Arguing that "we have exhausted other avenues to achieve executive accountability," Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called for an impeachment inquiry after hearing Mueller's testimony. "If Congress does not act," said Bookbinder, "it sends a message to all future presidents that they can violate the Constitution with impunity."
Eldridge and Bookbinder are right to respond with a sense of urgency regarding the need to initiate a constitutional response to abuses of power.
Nadler elicited responses from the special counsel that can and should figure in articles of impeachment that would target Trump's lawless acts but that would echo those approved by a previous Judiciary Committee that targeted former President Richard Nixon. To wit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony.html
NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.
NADLER: You wrote: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment." Does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
Nadler pursued the matter further, asking, "Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?" Mueller replied, "The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed."
That may not have been a revelation for Americans who read the Mueller report. But it was a conclusion that was so jarring, when stated by a veteran investigator and prosecutor, that Nadler sought a final confirmation of the special counsel's determination. "In fact," said Nadler, "you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?"
"Correct," replied Mueller.
Nadler's Democratic colleagues on the committee dug into the matter and garnered confirmation after confirmation of the obstruction conclusion.
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries took the witness through the elements of obstruction of justice, establishing a shared understanding of the issue. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal focused on "classic" evidence of witness tampering as part of a devastating line of questioning in this regard. So it was consequential when Congressman Ted Deutch got to the key question. "You found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice," said Deutch. "Isn't that correct?" Mueller replied, "That's what it says in the report. Yes. And I stand by the report."
Mueller described consequential examples of obstruction. Yet, he also described a United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo that limits the options for indicting a sitting president.
So Mueller was constrained. But the US House of Representatives is not so constrained, as Nadler noted. "Although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted this way would have been charged with a crime. And in this nation, not even the president is above the law. Which brings me to this committee's work. Responsibility, integrity, and accountability: these are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well," said the chairman.
"Director Mueller," Nadler said, "we have a responsibility to address the evidence you have uncovered. You recognized as much when you said 'the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.' That process begins with the work of this committee."
And so it must.
There will be endless assessments of the Mueller hearings. But what Mueller said will never matter as much as what the committee does. This is where we find ourselves after years of investigation, months of debate about the report from that investigation, and a day of high-stakes testimony. At this point, we need to think a lot less about Robert Mueller and a lot more about what comes next.
It took too long for Mueller to testify before Congress. He should have appeared before the Judiciary Committee immediately after the report was delivered. Delays allowed Trump and his allies to spin a lie. Some of that lie has now been undone, and several House members, such as Massachusetts Democrat Lori Trahan and New York Democrat Sean Maloney, spoke up for impeachment on Wednesday afternoon.
But whatever momentum may exist at this point will only be expanded and extended if the Judiciary Committee puts a dramatically sharper focus on accountability. The committee's work must be guided by a faith in the Constitution that, as Nadler suggests, "requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." That is the process of impeachment. And it needs to begin. Now.
Congresswoman Gwen Moore is wise when she observes that Mueller "clearly punted this to Congress and said that we should use our separation-of-powers authority." The congresswoman, a savvy legislator who does not mince words, recognizes that the special counsel's report and statements may not specifically outline a path regarding congressional action. But, she says, they provide a clear signal with regard to President Trump, and that is that "It's our responsibility to impeach him."
"I don't think it would serve us well to just continue to place the burden of our constitutional responsibilities on the back of Bob Mueller," says Moore, who concludes, correctly, that, "Mueller gave us all the evidence necessary to hold the President accountable. Now it's up to Congress to act."
https://twitter.com/RepGwenMoore/status/1153969068715606022
John NicholsTwitterJohn Nichols is The Nation's national-affairs correspondent and host of Next Left, The Nation's podcast where politics gets personal with rising progressive politicians. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.
Mueller Has Provided Congress With Everything It Needs to Impeach Trump
Now, Congress must act.
By John Nichols
Today 2:24 pm
Special counsel Robert Mueller today delivered restrained, responsible, and yet damning testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding wrongdoing, lies, and obstruction of justice by the sitting president of the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony.html
What was damning was not the evidence that Mueller described, most of which simply confirmed details contained in his report on a two-year investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice. It was the clarity that the veteran lawman provided in response to basic questions about attempts by the president and his aides to undermine his inquiry. This corrected the ongoing disinformation campaign conducted by President Trump and his attorney general, William Barr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)
The critical exchange came at the beginning of the long-anticipated Judiciary Committee hearing on the morning of a day that was later to see Mueller testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler took Mueller through a series of essential questions regarding evidence contained in part two of the report produced by the special counsel and his team of top lawyers and investigators.
https://time.com/5629528/robert-mueller-testimony-live-updates/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-mueller-report-9-key-takeaways-2019-07-23/
For the purposes of a congressional inquiry that might lead to the impeachment of the president, the questioning with regard to attempts by Trump and his associates to obstruct an inquiry into allegations of political wrongdoing was vital. It got to the heart of the matter of whether the president must be held to account for abuses of power that have historically been understood as impeachable. And, in this regard, Mueller's testimony was powerful and important. The question is whether the Judiciary Committee and the Congress will treat it as such.
So far, it has not. And that frustrates accountability activists.
"Robert Mueller did his job—and it's far past time for lawmakers in Congress to do theirs. Today's testimony is the clearest indication yet that the only path forward is for Congress to immediately begin an impeachment inquiry," said Sean Eldridge, the president of Stand Up America. "If any other American had committed the crimes detailed in the Mueller report, they would be indicted and sent to prison. Delaying an impeachment inquiry any further does an injustice to the American people—and we implore Speaker Pelosi to stop slow-walking the process."
https://www.standupamerica.com/
Arguing that "we have exhausted other avenues to achieve executive accountability," Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called for an impeachment inquiry after hearing Mueller's testimony. "If Congress does not act," said Bookbinder, "it sends a message to all future presidents that they can violate the Constitution with impunity."
Eldridge and Bookbinder are right to respond with a sense of urgency regarding the need to initiate a constitutional response to abuses of power.
Nadler elicited responses from the special counsel that can and should figure in articles of impeachment that would target Trump's lawless acts but that would echo those approved by a previous Judiciary Committee that targeted former President Richard Nixon. To wit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony.html
NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.
NADLER: You wrote: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment." Does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
Nadler pursued the matter further, asking, "Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?" Mueller replied, "The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed."
That may not have been a revelation for Americans who read the Mueller report. But it was a conclusion that was so jarring, when stated by a veteran investigator and prosecutor, that Nadler sought a final confirmation of the special counsel's determination. "In fact," said Nadler, "you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?"
"Correct," replied Mueller.
Nadler's Democratic colleagues on the committee dug into the matter and garnered confirmation after confirmation of the obstruction conclusion.
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries took the witness through the elements of obstruction of justice, establishing a shared understanding of the issue. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal focused on "classic" evidence of witness tampering as part of a devastating line of questioning in this regard. So it was consequential when Congressman Ted Deutch got to the key question. "You found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice," said Deutch. "Isn't that correct?" Mueller replied, "That's what it says in the report. Yes. And I stand by the report."
Mueller described consequential examples of obstruction. Yet, he also described a United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo that limits the options for indicting a sitting president.
So Mueller was constrained. But the US House of Representatives is not so constrained, as Nadler noted. "Although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted this way would have been charged with a crime. And in this nation, not even the president is above the law. Which brings me to this committee's work. Responsibility, integrity, and accountability: these are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well," said the chairman.
"Director Mueller," Nadler said, "we have a responsibility to address the evidence you have uncovered. You recognized as much when you said 'the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.' That process begins with the work of this committee."
And so it must.
There will be endless assessments of the Mueller hearings. But what Mueller said will never matter as much as what the committee does. This is where we find ourselves after years of investigation, months of debate about the report from that investigation, and a day of high-stakes testimony. At this point, we need to think a lot less about Robert Mueller and a lot more about what comes next.
It took too long for Mueller to testify before Congress. He should have appeared before the Judiciary Committee immediately after the report was delivered. Delays allowed Trump and his allies to spin a lie. Some of that lie has now been undone, and several House members, such as Massachusetts Democrat Lori Trahan and New York Democrat Sean Maloney, spoke up for impeachment on Wednesday afternoon.
But whatever momentum may exist at this point will only be expanded and extended if the Judiciary Committee puts a dramatically sharper focus on accountability. The committee's work must be guided by a faith in the Constitution that, as Nadler suggests, "requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." That is the process of impeachment. And it needs to begin. Now.
Congresswoman Gwen Moore is wise when she observes that Mueller "clearly punted this to Congress and said that we should use our separation-of-powers authority." The congresswoman, a savvy legislator who does not mince words, recognizes that the special counsel's report and statements may not specifically outline a path regarding congressional action. But, she says, they provide a clear signal with regard to President Trump, and that is that "It's our responsibility to impeach him."
"I don't think it would serve us well to just continue to place the burden of our constitutional responsibilities on the back of Bob Mueller," says Moore, who concludes, correctly, that, "Mueller gave us all the evidence necessary to hold the President accountable. Now it's up to Congress to act."
https://twitter.com/RepGwenMoore/status/1153969068715606022
John NicholsTwitterJohn Nichols is The Nation's national-affairs correspondent and host of Next Left, The Nation's podcast where politics gets personal with rising progressive politicians. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.
News Dump/Tidbits from Mueller's Testimony
Asked about the fact Mueller did not exonerate him, Trump said the special counsel "didn’t have a right to exonerate" even though Trump has claimed a million times that the Mueller report "totally" exonerates him.
Trump dismissed Mueller's refusal to exonerate him. Said the special counsel “didn’t have a right to exonerate.” Asked if he's worried about being indicted on leaving office, @POTUS criticized the suggestion as "fake news" and criticized the reporter.
https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1154128078957940738
Trump: I was totally exonerated.
Mueller: Nope.
Trump: This is a witchhunt & hoax.
Mueller: Nope
Trump: Twelve angry Dems put together this report.
Mueller: Nope.
Trump: Mueller interviewed for FBI director job.
Mueller: Nope.
People are getting so caught up in party politics that they are forgetting that the threat of Russian interference in the 2020 election is the big problem that Congress must address. Whether or not Congress tries to eject Trump from the Presidency is just a distraction that the Russian government benefits from, since their only goal at the end of the day is to disrupt our government and country's way of life. Whether or not their actions put Republicans into power is inconsequential because focusing energy and hate on the GOP is just part of Russia's main goal of sowing discord among our citizens. I think it's fair to assume that the average Democrat & average Republican voters both agree that they do not want a foreign government meddling in their elections no matter who it would benefit.
On the one hand the Mueller sputtered a bit. On the other, he said Trump wasn’t exonerated, could be charged after he left office, was “generally untruthful” in his answers, accused Trump's team of lying, misleading and covering up, and called his love of WikiLeaks problematic. Mueller clarified that it wasn’t that he found no evidence of conspiracy, but that he found insufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He could have said that about obstruction but didn’t. The Judiciary hearing was first because it was Mueller and the Democrats laying out the facts of the report with citations, and with Mueller looking nonpartisan to the extreme. This afternoon, he gave his thoughts on the Russian interference. And that did not go well for Nunes (who stormed out at the end) or Trump. This is a masterstroke by the Democrat leadership, Schiff carried it out beautifully. Mueller was ready for this. It must be capitalized on.
Schiff: "Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Schiff: "And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Schiff asks if knowingly accepting foreign assistance in the midst of a presidential election is an "unethical thing to do." MUELLER: "And a crime"
When Nunes sheathes his sword, you know something is up.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1154109661655777280
Rep. Will Hurd: "Did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?"
Mueller: "It wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign."
Mueller: "It is not a witch hunt."
Mueller defended his investigation as thorough and fair, restated that it didn't exonerate Trump, and called Russian election interference one of the gravest threats to democracy. But he's refuses to help anyone do a single thing about it.
Schiff: "When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false wasn't it?" Mueller: "True."
Mueller corrected his answer to Ted Lieu from earlier about not charging the president because of DOJ/OLC guidelines, clarifying, "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." The reversal and the fact of the confusion are helpful to Trump/Republicans.
Mueller: "The President cannot be charged with a crime."
Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Congressman: "You believe you could charge the President of the United States with Obstruction of Justice after he leaves office."
Mueller: "Yes."
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1154038990003036161?s=19
"The Trump campaign officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?"
Mueller: "Generally, that's true."
Schiff: "And then they lied to cover it up?"
Mueller: "Generally, that's true."
Mueller said it is correct that his investigation turned up evidence of conspiracy. Asked if his investigation found collusion, Mueller says they decided not to use the word collusion, opted to use conspiracy instead.
Adam Schiff to Mueller deputy Aaron Zebley, who has also been sworn in to testify to the Intel Committee: "I realize, as you probably do, Mr. Zebley, that there is a angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here today." (Trump already feverishy tweeting)
Mueller: "I am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence" in any particular case"
Republicans to Mueller: "He may be guilty, but you can't indict him, so investigations are pointless."
Republicans complaining that all the Democrats are doing is reading the report and asking Mueller if that's what the report says.
My favourite parts of the Mueller hearing are the parts when they quote his report to him and then ask if it's true
Nunes pretending it's unusual for multiple witnesses to be sworn in. Also pretending it's unusual for lawyers who have represented partisan clients before to testify before Congress. Neither of those assertions are true.
Mueller is a very reluctant witness. He seems to be going out of his way NOT to explain his report.
Speier: "Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying to impact our election?"
Mueller: "Absolutely. It was not a hoax."
Schiff: "Several individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign an transition. Is that correct?"
Mueller: "That is True."
Sometimes the book actually is better than the movie:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/
Mueller confirms Trump asked staff to falsify records related to investigation
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454528-mueller-confirms-president-asked-staff-to-falsify-records-related-to
Mueller agrees lies by Trump officials impeded his investigation
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454519-mueller-agrees-lies-by-trump-officials-impeded-his-investigation
Quigley: "Donald Trump October 31st, 2016. ’Boy, I love reading those Wikileaks … How do you react to those?"
Mueller: "It’s problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity" and "certainly calls for an investigation"
Swalwell: "As a result of lies, obstruction, is it fair to say you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of Russia's interference and Trump's role?"
Mueller: "I'm not certain I would adopt that characterization in total. There may be pieces of that that are accurate."
Mueller: "I can't and won't discuss the Steele Dossier" (Steele Dossier is not the basis or the evidence in this investigation. )
All the Republicans: "ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER. OR HER EMAILS."
A Republican asks a non-sequitur question: "I can't answer that"
A Democrat asks something that's literally written in the report: "That is correct"
Mueller explained his team decided against subpoenaing Trump "because of the necessity of expediting" the probe: "The reason we didn't do the interview is because of the length of time it would take to resolve the issue attended to that." "The expectation was, if we did subpoena the president he would fight the subpoena and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time."
Sean Maloney: "What did you think of the president's written responses?"
Robert Mueller: "Certainly not as useful as the interview would be"
Clever questioning from Sean Patrick Maloney: You didn't decline to subpoena Trump out of cowardice, or because you were forbidden from doing so. Thus you must've made the decision because you felt you already had sufficient evidence of his corrupt intent."
Krishnamoorthi did a great job of getting Mueller to confirm that there's a lot of stones left unturned regarding Donald J. Trump and Russian conspiracy to collude to interfere.
Asked if failing to notify the FBI when a political campaign suspects or receives foreign interference is the "new normal", Mueller answers, "I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is."
Mueller confirmed that the FBI is currently looking into Trump's associates' vulnerabilities to Russian blackmail.
Schiff: "We should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than mere avoidance of criminality?"
Mueller: "Absolutely."
Demings: "Isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful."
Mueller: "I would say generally."
Watch out for those who focus on Mueller's optics and his demeanor. He's not a showboat like Trump and certainly doesn't have that persona. He's a federal prosecutor, he's been doing this for years. He's exhausted. And sounds a little bored. But he's been 100% clear in his testimony and that's the real takeaway here. His words are what's important.
Bernard Madoff asks Trump to reduce his prison sentence for massive Ponzi scheme
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/bernard-madoff-asks-trump-to-reduce-prison-sentence-for-ponzi-scheme.html
New research shows that the recent rise in global temperatures is unlike anything seen on Earth during the past 2,000 years.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/climate-scientists-drive-stake-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646
Trump administration asks court to let it restrict federal unions now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-asks-court-to-let-it-restrict-federal-unions-now/2019/07/24/1bce1200-ae33-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html
"[Obama] did a significant background check on me ... I doubt he would have picked me if these accusations about my being wrong on civil rights is correct,” Biden said.
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1154111538254491650
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-24/democrats-biden-race-trump-naacp
QAnon Has Already Made Its Way from 4Chan to Two Republicans’ Campaigns
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7xggmy/qanon-has-already-made-its-way-from-4chan-to-two-republicans-campaigns
RNC host city Charlotte votes to condemn Trump’s ‘racist and xenophobic’ comments
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/rnc-2020/article232975797.html
Trump just filed an emergency request asking a judge to preemptively block House Dems from getting his state tax returns from NY until he gets "an opportunity for judicial review"
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6212989/7-24-19-Trump-Emergency-Application.pdf
Biden, the candidate with the most polling support, is inexplicably attacking Booker, one of many candidates at the bottom of the polling pond. Biden deputy campaign manager: "Since next week’s debate format will give Senator Booker twice as much time to make his attacks than it allows Vice President Biden to respond to them, we thought we would begin to respond now."
https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1154116581712105479
Green groups sue EPA over 'sweeping overhaul' of public records policy
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/454545-green-groups-sue-epa-over-sweeping-overhaul-of-public-records
Temperatures in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands break all-time records as European heat wave continues
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2019/07/temperatures-in-belgium-and-the-netherlands-break-all-time-records/
Bernie Sanders Boasts About Staff’s PRIVATE Insurance: ‘Best Health Care Plan You Can Imagine’. His campaign is a mess.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-boasts-about-staffs-private-insurance-best-health-care-plan-you-can-imagine/
Warren/Sanders answers on gentrification were perfect studies in their differences. Warren: “I have a plan to build 3.2 million housing units.” Sanders: “We’re going to tell the developers you just can’t come in and build expensive condos and drive working class people out."
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1154048387316158464
Beto: This (Mueller)hearing only confirms the facts: Trump invited an attack on our democracy, obstructed the investigation into it, & made clear there won't be consequences for launching another. As I've said since I was running in TX, he's unfit for office. Begin impeachment proceedings now.
https://twitter.com/BetoORourke//115405426653492status4294
Beto O'Rourke calls for a sweeping $500 billion fund to address education inequality | According to a February report by EdBuild, an advocacy and research group that focuses on school funding, predominately white school districts receive $23 billion more than predominately non-white school districts in state and local funding, even when they serve the same amount of students. O'Rourke's permanent fund would aim to close that gap while also making sure states and districts allocate funds weighted based on the number of "low income students, English learners, students with disabilities or other groups of students in need of additional resources." The fund would be financed with a tax on Wall Street speculation. "This would increase the cost of a $1,000 stock purchase by just $1 but would cut down on the destabilizing speculation of high-frequency traders," the O'Rourke campaign says. The plan states that the permanent fund would not replace existing federal programs supporting public schools. In a recent Medium post addressing his family's history of owning slaves, O'Rourke pointed to this disparity and said, "I benefit from a system that my ancestors built to favor themselves at the expense of others. That only increases the urgency I feel to help change this country so that it works for those who have been locked-out of — or locked-up in — this system." The plan also calls for an end in racial disciplinary disparities. Citing figures collected by the Government Accountability Office that show black children are more likely to be disciplined, suspended and expelled than white children, O'Rourke vows to issue a federal ban on corporal punishment in schools and provide funding for schools to implement teacher preparation programs to "address racial bias and cultural competency." According to the campaign, the disparate treatment of color faced by children of color "contributes to the schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline." Another component to the plan is working with Congress to "relieve the outstanding debt of educators and other professionals working in our nation's public schools." This would be accomplished by granting teachers who have worked more than five years in a public school total loan forgiveness. The plan says "others would have their student loan payments suspended while teaching in public schools, have 20% of their principal forgiven per year of service and total loan forgiveness after 5 years of service." Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics found during the 2015-16 school year that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 20% of all public elementary and secondary school teachers while 51% of students were nonwhite. O'Rourke's plan hopes to change that by investing $500 million per year for postsecondary institutions to "partner with high need school districts to create residency programs." According to the campaign, teaching residencies have been proven to improve gender and racial diversity in districts. An additional $500 million would go toward the creation of teacher academies at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to provide scholarships for low-income or first generation students pursuing teaching. The funds would also support mentorship programs for students in teaching programs by teachers of color in the community. Finally, the plan would provide support for educators advancing their careers by providing free tuition to acquire a graduate degree and ensuring federal funding to cover the costs of national board certification. Fellow Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro have released plans that call for similar tenets.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/beto-orourke-calls-for-a-sweeping-500-billion-fund-to-address-education-inequality/
https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion
https://medium.com/@BetoORourke/rose-and-eliza-51d8be9fb675
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/27/americas-public-school-teachers-are-far-less-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-than-their-students/
https://betoorourke.com/education/
International lawmakers should adopt a fifth Geneva convention that recognises damage to nature alongside other war crimes, according to an open letter by 24 prominent scientists. The legal instrument should incorporate wildlife safeguards in conflict regions, including protections for nature reserves, controls on the spread of guns used for hunting and measures to hold military forces to account for damage to the environment, say the signatories to the letter, published in the journal Nature. The UN international law commission is due to hold a meeting with the aim of building on the 28 principles it has already drawn up to protect the environment in war zones.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jul/24/make-environmental-damage-a-war-say-scientists-geneva-convention
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02248-6
French legislators hurl insults, boycott address of 16 year old environment activist Greta Thunbergat
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49092653
Ethiopia plants 2.6 billion tree seedlings as part of national project
https://www.journalducameroun.com/en/ethiopia-plants-2-6-billion-tree-seedlings-as-part-of-national-project/
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested and faced up to 30 days in prison Wednesday, in an apparent move by the authorities to prevent a major protest rally this week
https://www.france24.com/en/20190724-russian-opposition-leader-navalny-arrested-ahead-protest-0
Federal Judge Blocks Rule That Would Bar Most Asylum Applications at Southern Border
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Federal-San-Francisco-Judge-to-Hear-Challenge-to-New-Rule-Severely-Restricting-Asylum-Seekers-513160811.html
Trump vetoes 3 bills prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/saudi-arms-sale-resolutions-trump-veto/index.html
North Korea fires 'missiles' into sea
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-missile-south-korea-latest-news-a9019751.html
Republicans once again block election security bills after Mueller testimony. Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers. Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony
The Department of Justice won't prosecute the attorney general or Commerce secretary after the House voted earlier this month to hold them in criminal contempt, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/doj-contempt-wont-prosecute-barr-ross/index.html
Trump dismissed Mueller's refusal to exonerate him. Said the special counsel “didn’t have a right to exonerate.” Asked if he's worried about being indicted on leaving office, @POTUS criticized the suggestion as "fake news" and criticized the reporter.
https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1154128078957940738
Trump: I was totally exonerated.
Mueller: Nope.
Trump: This is a witchhunt & hoax.
Mueller: Nope
Trump: Twelve angry Dems put together this report.
Mueller: Nope.
Trump: Mueller interviewed for FBI director job.
Mueller: Nope.
People are getting so caught up in party politics that they are forgetting that the threat of Russian interference in the 2020 election is the big problem that Congress must address. Whether or not Congress tries to eject Trump from the Presidency is just a distraction that the Russian government benefits from, since their only goal at the end of the day is to disrupt our government and country's way of life. Whether or not their actions put Republicans into power is inconsequential because focusing energy and hate on the GOP is just part of Russia's main goal of sowing discord among our citizens. I think it's fair to assume that the average Democrat & average Republican voters both agree that they do not want a foreign government meddling in their elections no matter who it would benefit.
On the one hand the Mueller sputtered a bit. On the other, he said Trump wasn’t exonerated, could be charged after he left office, was “generally untruthful” in his answers, accused Trump's team of lying, misleading and covering up, and called his love of WikiLeaks problematic. Mueller clarified that it wasn’t that he found no evidence of conspiracy, but that he found insufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He could have said that about obstruction but didn’t. The Judiciary hearing was first because it was Mueller and the Democrats laying out the facts of the report with citations, and with Mueller looking nonpartisan to the extreme. This afternoon, he gave his thoughts on the Russian interference. And that did not go well for Nunes (who stormed out at the end) or Trump. This is a masterstroke by the Democrat leadership, Schiff carried it out beautifully. Mueller was ready for this. It must be capitalized on.
Schiff: "Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Schiff: "And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Schiff asks if knowingly accepting foreign assistance in the midst of a presidential election is an "unethical thing to do." MUELLER: "And a crime"
When Nunes sheathes his sword, you know something is up.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1154109661655777280
Rep. Will Hurd: "Did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?"
Mueller: "It wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign."
Mueller: "It is not a witch hunt."
Mueller defended his investigation as thorough and fair, restated that it didn't exonerate Trump, and called Russian election interference one of the gravest threats to democracy. But he's refuses to help anyone do a single thing about it.
Schiff: "When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false wasn't it?" Mueller: "True."
Mueller corrected his answer to Ted Lieu from earlier about not charging the president because of DOJ/OLC guidelines, clarifying, "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." The reversal and the fact of the confusion are helpful to Trump/Republicans.
Mueller: "The President cannot be charged with a crime."
Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Congressman: "You believe you could charge the President of the United States with Obstruction of Justice after he leaves office."
Mueller: "Yes."
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1154038990003036161?s=19
"The Trump campaign officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?"
Mueller: "Generally, that's true."
Schiff: "And then they lied to cover it up?"
Mueller: "Generally, that's true."
Mueller said it is correct that his investigation turned up evidence of conspiracy. Asked if his investigation found collusion, Mueller says they decided not to use the word collusion, opted to use conspiracy instead.
Adam Schiff to Mueller deputy Aaron Zebley, who has also been sworn in to testify to the Intel Committee: "I realize, as you probably do, Mr. Zebley, that there is a angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here today." (Trump already feverishy tweeting)
Mueller: "I am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence" in any particular case"
Republicans to Mueller: "He may be guilty, but you can't indict him, so investigations are pointless."
Republicans complaining that all the Democrats are doing is reading the report and asking Mueller if that's what the report says.
My favourite parts of the Mueller hearing are the parts when they quote his report to him and then ask if it's true
Nunes pretending it's unusual for multiple witnesses to be sworn in. Also pretending it's unusual for lawyers who have represented partisan clients before to testify before Congress. Neither of those assertions are true.
Mueller is a very reluctant witness. He seems to be going out of his way NOT to explain his report.
Speier: "Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying to impact our election?"
Mueller: "Absolutely. It was not a hoax."
Schiff: "Several individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign an transition. Is that correct?"
Mueller: "That is True."
Sometimes the book actually is better than the movie:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/
Mueller confirms Trump asked staff to falsify records related to investigation
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454528-mueller-confirms-president-asked-staff-to-falsify-records-related-to
Mueller agrees lies by Trump officials impeded his investigation
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/454519-mueller-agrees-lies-by-trump-officials-impeded-his-investigation
Quigley: "Donald Trump October 31st, 2016. ’Boy, I love reading those Wikileaks … How do you react to those?"
Mueller: "It’s problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity" and "certainly calls for an investigation"
Swalwell: "As a result of lies, obstruction, is it fair to say you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of Russia's interference and Trump's role?"
Mueller: "I'm not certain I would adopt that characterization in total. There may be pieces of that that are accurate."
Mueller: "I can't and won't discuss the Steele Dossier" (Steele Dossier is not the basis or the evidence in this investigation. )
All the Republicans: "ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER. OR HER EMAILS."
A Republican asks a non-sequitur question: "I can't answer that"
A Democrat asks something that's literally written in the report: "That is correct"
Mueller explained his team decided against subpoenaing Trump "because of the necessity of expediting" the probe: "The reason we didn't do the interview is because of the length of time it would take to resolve the issue attended to that." "The expectation was, if we did subpoena the president he would fight the subpoena and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time."
Sean Maloney: "What did you think of the president's written responses?"
Robert Mueller: "Certainly not as useful as the interview would be"
Clever questioning from Sean Patrick Maloney: You didn't decline to subpoena Trump out of cowardice, or because you were forbidden from doing so. Thus you must've made the decision because you felt you already had sufficient evidence of his corrupt intent."
Krishnamoorthi did a great job of getting Mueller to confirm that there's a lot of stones left unturned regarding Donald J. Trump and Russian conspiracy to collude to interfere.
Asked if failing to notify the FBI when a political campaign suspects or receives foreign interference is the "new normal", Mueller answers, "I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is."
Mueller confirmed that the FBI is currently looking into Trump's associates' vulnerabilities to Russian blackmail.
Schiff: "We should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than mere avoidance of criminality?"
Mueller: "Absolutely."
Demings: "Isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful."
Mueller: "I would say generally."
Watch out for those who focus on Mueller's optics and his demeanor. He's not a showboat like Trump and certainly doesn't have that persona. He's a federal prosecutor, he's been doing this for years. He's exhausted. And sounds a little bored. But he's been 100% clear in his testimony and that's the real takeaway here. His words are what's important.
Bernard Madoff asks Trump to reduce his prison sentence for massive Ponzi scheme
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/bernard-madoff-asks-trump-to-reduce-prison-sentence-for-ponzi-scheme.html
New research shows that the recent rise in global temperatures is unlike anything seen on Earth during the past 2,000 years.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/climate-scientists-drive-stake-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646
Trump administration asks court to let it restrict federal unions now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-asks-court-to-let-it-restrict-federal-unions-now/2019/07/24/1bce1200-ae33-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html
"[Obama] did a significant background check on me ... I doubt he would have picked me if these accusations about my being wrong on civil rights is correct,” Biden said.
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1154111538254491650
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-24/democrats-biden-race-trump-naacp
QAnon Has Already Made Its Way from 4Chan to Two Republicans’ Campaigns
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7xggmy/qanon-has-already-made-its-way-from-4chan-to-two-republicans-campaigns
RNC host city Charlotte votes to condemn Trump’s ‘racist and xenophobic’ comments
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/rnc-2020/article232975797.html
Trump just filed an emergency request asking a judge to preemptively block House Dems from getting his state tax returns from NY until he gets "an opportunity for judicial review"
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6212989/7-24-19-Trump-Emergency-Application.pdf
Biden, the candidate with the most polling support, is inexplicably attacking Booker, one of many candidates at the bottom of the polling pond. Biden deputy campaign manager: "Since next week’s debate format will give Senator Booker twice as much time to make his attacks than it allows Vice President Biden to respond to them, we thought we would begin to respond now."
https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1154116581712105479
Green groups sue EPA over 'sweeping overhaul' of public records policy
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/454545-green-groups-sue-epa-over-sweeping-overhaul-of-public-records
Temperatures in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands break all-time records as European heat wave continues
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2019/07/temperatures-in-belgium-and-the-netherlands-break-all-time-records/
Bernie Sanders Boasts About Staff’s PRIVATE Insurance: ‘Best Health Care Plan You Can Imagine’. His campaign is a mess.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-boasts-about-staffs-private-insurance-best-health-care-plan-you-can-imagine/
Warren/Sanders answers on gentrification were perfect studies in their differences. Warren: “I have a plan to build 3.2 million housing units.” Sanders: “We’re going to tell the developers you just can’t come in and build expensive condos and drive working class people out."
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1154048387316158464
Beto: This (Mueller)hearing only confirms the facts: Trump invited an attack on our democracy, obstructed the investigation into it, & made clear there won't be consequences for launching another. As I've said since I was running in TX, he's unfit for office. Begin impeachment proceedings now.
https://twitter.com/BetoORourke//115405426653492status4294
Beto O'Rourke calls for a sweeping $500 billion fund to address education inequality | According to a February report by EdBuild, an advocacy and research group that focuses on school funding, predominately white school districts receive $23 billion more than predominately non-white school districts in state and local funding, even when they serve the same amount of students. O'Rourke's permanent fund would aim to close that gap while also making sure states and districts allocate funds weighted based on the number of "low income students, English learners, students with disabilities or other groups of students in need of additional resources." The fund would be financed with a tax on Wall Street speculation. "This would increase the cost of a $1,000 stock purchase by just $1 but would cut down on the destabilizing speculation of high-frequency traders," the O'Rourke campaign says. The plan states that the permanent fund would not replace existing federal programs supporting public schools. In a recent Medium post addressing his family's history of owning slaves, O'Rourke pointed to this disparity and said, "I benefit from a system that my ancestors built to favor themselves at the expense of others. That only increases the urgency I feel to help change this country so that it works for those who have been locked-out of — or locked-up in — this system." The plan also calls for an end in racial disciplinary disparities. Citing figures collected by the Government Accountability Office that show black children are more likely to be disciplined, suspended and expelled than white children, O'Rourke vows to issue a federal ban on corporal punishment in schools and provide funding for schools to implement teacher preparation programs to "address racial bias and cultural competency." According to the campaign, the disparate treatment of color faced by children of color "contributes to the schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline." Another component to the plan is working with Congress to "relieve the outstanding debt of educators and other professionals working in our nation's public schools." This would be accomplished by granting teachers who have worked more than five years in a public school total loan forgiveness. The plan says "others would have their student loan payments suspended while teaching in public schools, have 20% of their principal forgiven per year of service and total loan forgiveness after 5 years of service." Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics found during the 2015-16 school year that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 20% of all public elementary and secondary school teachers while 51% of students were nonwhite. O'Rourke's plan hopes to change that by investing $500 million per year for postsecondary institutions to "partner with high need school districts to create residency programs." According to the campaign, teaching residencies have been proven to improve gender and racial diversity in districts. An additional $500 million would go toward the creation of teacher academies at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to provide scholarships for low-income or first generation students pursuing teaching. The funds would also support mentorship programs for students in teaching programs by teachers of color in the community. Finally, the plan would provide support for educators advancing their careers by providing free tuition to acquire a graduate degree and ensuring federal funding to cover the costs of national board certification. Fellow Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro have released plans that call for similar tenets.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/beto-orourke-calls-for-a-sweeping-500-billion-fund-to-address-education-inequality/
https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion
https://medium.com/@BetoORourke/rose-and-eliza-51d8be9fb675
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/27/americas-public-school-teachers-are-far-less-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-than-their-students/
https://betoorourke.com/education/
International lawmakers should adopt a fifth Geneva convention that recognises damage to nature alongside other war crimes, according to an open letter by 24 prominent scientists. The legal instrument should incorporate wildlife safeguards in conflict regions, including protections for nature reserves, controls on the spread of guns used for hunting and measures to hold military forces to account for damage to the environment, say the signatories to the letter, published in the journal Nature. The UN international law commission is due to hold a meeting with the aim of building on the 28 principles it has already drawn up to protect the environment in war zones.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jul/24/make-environmental-damage-a-war-say-scientists-geneva-convention
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02248-6
French legislators hurl insults, boycott address of 16 year old environment activist Greta Thunbergat
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49092653
Ethiopia plants 2.6 billion tree seedlings as part of national project
https://www.journalducameroun.com/en/ethiopia-plants-2-6-billion-tree-seedlings-as-part-of-national-project/
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested and faced up to 30 days in prison Wednesday, in an apparent move by the authorities to prevent a major protest rally this week
https://www.france24.com/en/20190724-russian-opposition-leader-navalny-arrested-ahead-protest-0
Federal Judge Blocks Rule That Would Bar Most Asylum Applications at Southern Border
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Federal-San-Francisco-Judge-to-Hear-Challenge-to-New-Rule-Severely-Restricting-Asylum-Seekers-513160811.html
Trump vetoes 3 bills prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/saudi-arms-sale-resolutions-trump-veto/index.html
North Korea fires 'missiles' into sea
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-missile-south-korea-latest-news-a9019751.html
Republicans once again block election security bills after Mueller testimony. Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers. Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony
The Department of Justice won't prosecute the attorney general or Commerce secretary after the House voted earlier this month to hold them in criminal contempt, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/doj-contempt-wont-prosecute-barr-ross/index.html
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU
You are found glittering bright in films for all time, like joyful memories ameliorating pain.
You are found glittering bright in films for all time, like joyful memories ameliorating pain.
All The Legislation Congress Work On And Vote On Everyday: http://www.williamsandjensen.com/news/daily-update
https://5calls.org/
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/2020senate50statestrategy
https://www.flippable.org/get-smart/special-elections/
https://secure.actblue.com/directory/all/all/state-gov
https://secure.actblue.com/directory/all/all/fed-senate
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/2020senate50statestrategy
https://www.flippable.org/get-smart/special-elections/
https://secure.actblue.com/directory/all/all/state-gov
https://secure.actblue.com/directory/all/all/fed-senate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)