Making The Trump Concentration Camps... Better?

I saw an old friend the other day. She's for Biden; depressing for me. She bristled when I called the concentration camps concentration camps; depressing for her. Bummer all around.

Wednesday night, while my friend and I were bumming each other out, a bill (H.R. 3239-- Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act) by Raul Ruiz, a moderate California backbencher from Palm Springs, passed the House 233-195. Every Democrat voted for it and just one Republican, Don Young of Alaska, opposed it.

A few minutes before the vote though, the Republicans offered Adam Kinzinger's motion to recommit, scoring a rare victory over Pelosi's Democratic majority, as 41 conservative Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans-- the Democrats' Pro-Concentration Camp Caucus. Bear with me a moment and I'll tell you who they are. The bill itself was described by Kaiser Health News as legislation setting health care, safety and hygiene standards for detained immigrants. "Along with the standards," Kaiser explained," the legislation bars Border Patrol from denying lawmakers access to the facilities and it directs the agency to provide adequate training for its officers to carry out the new requirements" If it passes the Senate and Trump signs it, the legislation will require the CBP "to conduct health screenings, provide emergency care and provide access to medication, translators and emergency transportation for undocumented immigrants."

The change the Republicans-- with the help of the 41 Dems from the Pro-Concentration Camp Caucus-- won added language commending the concentration camp guards for the "great" work they do. There was a hint of this a few days ago with far right-wing Blue Dog-- "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran (AZ)-- came back from visiting Trump's Yuma concentration camp and tweeted this:

O'Halleran appears to have gotten enough blowback from his constituents to have deleted the tweet and, unexpectedly, voted against Kinzinger's motion. "If this Congress cannot agree to provide these agents the resources they need, as this bill fails to do," railed Kinzinger, "the least we can do is affirm our appreciation for their work. Agreeing to this motion to recommit will not impact the passage of this bill. Voting in favor of this will not kill the bill that we're voting on here today. Today what we have is an opportunity and a moment in time to make a simple statement. This institution can leave politics aside and take this time to recognize the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, the sons and daughters, the husbands and wives, our neighbors and the constituents we serve, the men and women of our U.S. Border patrol working in these facilities every day." After they got their bullshit added to the bill, neither Kinzinger, McCarthy nor any other Republican, except Young, voted for it.




Pelosi frothed at the mouth and threatened the defectors-- but to no avail... since they knew her threats to withhold DCCC funds were a joke that would never be followed through on-- although none of the conservatives in her leadership team-- like Cheri Bustos and Steny Hoyer-- broke ranks. Kevin McCarthy noticed Pelosi's anguish at not being able to control her own caucus and crowed: "Tonight, 41 House Democrats broke party lines to join Republicans in passing a momentous Republican Motion to Recommit. This MTR commended the selfless employees of the U.S. Border Patrol for steadfastly carrying out their duties and commitments to the American people during an unimaginable time of crisis. Despite the record number of immigrants flooding the border, paired with the devastating lack of resources, these men and women do their best every day to stick to the mission, even if it means long hours or paying out of their own pockets for basic items like toothpaste and toys. Congress should support and thank these officers, not demonize them."

It might be worth adding that yesterday, Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Jennifer Costello, Acting Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, requesting that the IG conduct an investigation into the use of solitary confinement and other punishments to coerce participation in "voluntary" work programs at federal and federally-contracted immigration detention facilities, and the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies, procedures, and guidance in such practices. GEO and CoreCivic, the two largest for-profit, federally-contracted private prison companies-- both of which contributed large sums to Trump's campaign (and to other conservatives) are over-paid by ICE to house immigrant detainees. They both face several lawsuits alleging the use of punishment as a tool to coerce detainees into voluntary work programs. A 2014 class action lawsuit filed in Colorado has accused GEO of forcing tens of thousands of detainees, specifically through the threat of solitary confinement, to work for $1 per day. A 2017 lawsuit in California alleges that GEO forced detainees into so-called voluntary labor programs by depriving them of basic necessities. And a 2018 lawsuit against CoreCivic in Georgia alleges a similar "deprivation scheme" as a means of forcing labor, including by withholding food, clothing, hygiene products, and phone calls to loved ones.

Moderate Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi was one of the Democrats McCarthy and Kinzinger were hoping to get to vote for the motion. Having just come back from a visit to the camps himself, Suozzi didn't fall into their trap like so many of his colleagues did. "First," he told me yesterday, "Motions to Recommit are often used as a GOP trick to defeat Democratic legislation by amending it. More important, while I am sure most Customs and Border Patrol officers are compassionate and professional, it is not credible to offer a blanket tribute to all Customs and Border Patrol officers after the release of the Pro Publica report two weeks ago where multiple current and former officers posted disparaging, racist, misogynistic and disrespectful Facebook posts regarding immigrants, elected officials and others.Customs and Border Patrol is overwhelmed, in significant part, because of this administration’s poor policy decisions. It is not fair to give Customs and Border Patrol officers a blanket condemnation for working under trying circumstances, but it is also wholly inappropriate to give them blanket praise, especially in light of the Pro Publica report."

Before you read the list of the Democratic members of the of the Pro-Concentration Camp Caucus, I would recommend you read the guest post we ran earlier today-- about the crippling nature of garden variety Democratic Party political fear-- by Georgia Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson. These are the Dems who betrayed the party Wednesday... and condemned their souls to hell's fire:

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• TJ Cox (CA)
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Stephen Horsford (New Dem-NV)
• Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
• Mike Levin (CA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)
• Katie Porter (New Dem-CA)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Tim Ryan (OH)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Elise Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Lauren Underwood (New Dem-IL)
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog- NJ)
• Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)

Mark Gamba, the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon contesting the congressional seat held by GOP pawn Kurt Schrader, seemed pissed off. "We have a humanitarian crisis at our southern boarder that our lack of serious action to stop climate change has caused. This has been further exacerbated by the horrific policies of the current administration. Daily stories about mis-treatment, children being torn from their parents arms, CHILDREN IN BLOODY CAGES FOR GOD'S SAKE! While I'm sure there are good people among the boarder patrol, the overall effect absolutely does not warrant their being praised for their work, quite the opposite. Congress is meant to not only represent, but to provide leadership. The true leaders in Congress are decrying the horrific treatment of our fellow human beings. It is unconscionable that people like Schrader condone, let alone praise what is happening down there. If I were in office I would be day-lighting the abuses at every opportunity and working create a humane system for refugees to access safety. I would also be working to stop climate change so that the whole of the tropics does not need to move north."

Kim Williams, the progressive taking on reactionary Blue Dog Jim Costa in California's Central Valley noticed that Costa was one of the conservatives who joined the Republicans to congratulation the border guards. "It is incredible to me," she said, "that a member of the Hispanic Caucus would join Republicans to recognize U.S. Border patrol agents the same month we learn that CBP agents joked about dead Hispanic babies and raping congresswomen to a 9,000-member Facebook group. At a time when we are in desperate need of a representative who will speak out against racism and abuse at the border, Costa offers praise. I would have stood with the 155 Democrats who rejected the motion to recommit."

Nero Lives by Nancy Ohanian

Is He A Legitimate President? Or Just A Temporary Anomaly Who Has To Be Carefully Dealt With & Worked Around? Or Something Worse?

It makes me sick that so many Americans-- thirty-something percent-- actually believe a word the asshole says. Saturday night it was another scare tactic/threat that "if anyone but me takes over in 2020 (I know the competition very well), there will be a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before!" Hours later he was fighting with the NY Times-- accusing them of treason-- for exposing how worried the military is that they can't trust the "Putin president" with secret information.

David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, in their report, U.S. Escales Online Attacks On Russia's Power Grid wrote something that would have been unthinkable about any other president but is so obvious about Trump as to be almost an afterthought. Ostensibly, the story was that the U.S. has been "stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning" to Putin. "In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow’s disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections... Bolton, said the United States was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort 'to say to Russia, or anybody else that’s engaged in cyberoperations against us, You will pay a price.'"

The commander of United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, has been outspoken about the need to “defend forward” deep in an adversary’s networks to demonstrate that the United States will respond to the barrage of online attacks aimed at it.

“They don’t fear us,” he told the Senate a year ago during his confirmation hearings.

But finding ways to calibrate those responses so that they deter attacks without inciting a dangerous escalation has been the source of constant debate.

Mr. Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document known as National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval.

But the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new legal authorities, slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer. The measure approved the routine conduct of “clandestine military activity” in cyberspace, to “deter, safeguard or defend against attacks or malicious cyberactivities against the United States.”

Under the law, those actions can now be authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval.

“It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” one senior intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity but declining to discuss any specific classified programs. “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”

The critical question-- impossible to know without access to the classified details of the operation-- is how deep into the Russian grid the United States has bored. Only then will it be clear whether it would be possible to plunge Russia into darkness or cripple its military-- a question that may not be answerable until the code is activated.

The shocking part of The Times' report, buried deep in the article, is that Trump is being kept in the dark about what's going on. "Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place 'implants'-- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack-- inside the Russian grid. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction-- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister."

In August, General Nakasone used the new authority granted to Cyber Command by the secret presidential directive to overwhelm the computer systems at Russia’s Internet Research Agency-- the group at the heart of the hacking during the 2016 election in the United States. It was one of four operations his so-called Russia Small Group organized around the midterm elections. Officials have talked publicly about those, though they have provided few details.

This goes right to the core of Trump's legitimacy as a president. Is he the president? Or just a temporary anomaly that has to be carefully dealt with and worked around? Or something worse? A Russian asset? Adam Kinzinger is a conservative Republican in a safe Illinois congressional seat made up of exurbs and rural areas west and south of Chicago (R+8, where Trump beat Hillary 55.5% to 38.3%). Kinzinger served in the Air Force and piloted missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and is currently a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air National Guard. He takes national security extremely seriously. On Saturday, during an interview with S.E. Cupp on CNN, he admitted that Republicans in Congress "privately" agree that Trump's comments about taking dirt from foreign governments is "unacceptable."

Why Did Trump Suddenly Order U.S. Troops Out Of Syria?

Military Industrial Complex Republicans seem extremely-- existentially-- upset that Trump tweeted an insinuation that he's pulling the 2,0000 American troops out of Syria. Listen to Adam Kinzinger (above) talking with Jake Tapper on CNN a few hours ago. Or to Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio (below)-- a real two for one:



Many people just assumed Trump was doing his crazy Aderall-fueled early morning tweeting again and that his national security staff would talk him out of it. But... no he actually has ordered staff to execute the "full" and "rapid" withdrawal of US military from Syria, declaring that the U.S. has defeated ISIS. "The decision," reported CNN, "a sharp reversal from previously stated U.S. policy, surprised foreign allies and lawmakers, sparking rebukes, rebuttals and warnings of intensified congressional oversight, even as the White House said troops are already on their way home." It would be very hard for him to back down now and look weak, stupid and manipulated to his moron base, the 25-30% of Americans who still think he's something other than a congenital liar.

The President's decision flew in the face of policy statements by administration officials just days earlier and military statements about the threat of ISIS, highlighting the continuing dysfunction at the most senior levels of Trump's administration.

Even though the US will continue to maintain troops in Iraq with the capability of launching strikes into Syria, many analysts said a withdrawal of ground forces will please US enemies by clearing the way in Syria for the Assad regime, Russia and Iran. A US departure could leave allies questioning Washington's commitment, reduce US awareness of dynamics on the ground and diminish Washington's influence in the region.

It is "extraordinarily shortsighted and naive," said Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, who added that the decision will not only leave Iran hawks-- including lawmakers and Cabinet members such as national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo-- feeling "betrayed," but also plant the seeds for rebellion among Republican ranks.

"This is a specifically Trumpian decision, and one that will be deeply unpopular within the vast majority of the GOP's foreign policy machine," Lister said. "Whether it takes hours or months, we will see some serious resistance coming out of this."

The fallout for Iran policy will be significant, said Derek Chollet, a US assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration and now an executive vice president at the German Marshall Fund. "This drives a stake into the heart of the administration's Iran strategy."

The churn in the administration's foreign policy echoes-- and may be designed to distract from-- major upheaval on the domestic front, as Trump contends with criminal investigations into his campaign, transition, inaugural committee and presidency, the dissolution of his charity amid charges he used it to enrich himself and his former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaiting sentencing after lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials.

While Trump repeatedly returned to the idea of pulling troops out of Syria on the campaign trail and in office, the move is hard to square with his other policy priorities or his past criticism of Obama.

"Trump himself said on the campaign trail that he may not have liked being in Iraq, but Obama ruined a lot by pulling out too early and not thinking about what would happen next," said David Adesnik, the director of research and a Syria analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "Here he is ignoring precisely that lesson."

"Every indicator that would tell you this is a premature withdrawal is back again," Adesnik added.

Lister said it was "extraordinary to see (Trump) repeating the same mistake and I actually think this could be worse," as Syria is in far worse shape than Iraq had been.

US allies in the region [some combination of Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia since Trump had already gotten permission from Netanyahu] were blindsided by the announcement. Two diplomatic sources from two countries in the region said they had not been consulted or informed and that news of the planned withdrawal came as a "total surprise."

Tobias Ellwood, a minister in the British Ministry of Defense, said in a tweet that he "strongly" disagrees with Trump's comment on Wednesday that ISIS had been defeated. "It has morphed into other forms of extremism and the threat is very much alive," Ellwood wrote, while the Defense Ministry told CNN there would be no immediate change to its current operation in Syria.

According to a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, Trump informed Netanyahu on Monday of his decision. Netanyahu also had a conversation Tuesday with Pompeo. The two men reassured the Prime Minister that the US had "other ways of expressing their influence in the area," the statement added.

Iran is Israel's central concern. In September, Bolton said the United States wouldn't leave Syria as long as Iranian forces continued to operate there, directly linking any withdrawal of American troops to the departure of Iranian forces.

"We're not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias," Bolton said at the time.

Asked if Wednesday's announcement meant that threat no longer exists, a White House official who declined to be identified publicly told CNN, "US forces will continue the fight against ISIS. We will continue to use tools of national power, including economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, as leverage to press for the withdrawal of Iranian-backed forces."

But the administration's ability to push back on Iran-- a major foreign policy priority-- will take a hit because of Trump's decision, Adesnik said.

"It's a big reversal," he told CNN. "We have announced a policy of pushing back against Iran's nuclear violations and aggression in the region on every front. And Syria is an absolutely central front for Iran; for them it's an indispensable ally."

"You can't have a counter Iran strategy if you just hand Syria back to them," Adesnik said, "and it's not clear to me if this withdrawal in any way accounts for that."

Lister said it amounts to giving up "all leverage and as part of a regional strategy of containing Iran, all of that becomes a joke. We've just told Iran and all of our regional allies we don't believe in sticking it out to achieve our foreign policy objectives."

"Iran will take this as a huge vote of confidence," he said.

Republicans might be grousing today but Trump's #1 amigo sure isn't. Putin was oh so pleased his investment in Trump's election was paying off once again. Tass-- basically Putin's p.r. agency-- reported that Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Maria Zakharova said "A milestone story which might evolve from this decision is a real prospect for a political solution. Hope emerges that this location on the Syrian map will follow the example of Aleppo and other Syrian towns and villages which begin getting back to peaceful life. Once Americans were there, there was no such hope."

Post-Trump, America Needs Something Better Than Another Back To Normalcy President

It would be a tragic mistake for Democrats to pick a 2020 nominee based solely on ousting Trump. Electability is always an important consideration but it should never-- not even now-- be the only consideration. Almost any reasonably decent candidate should be able to beat Trump. It's not about them; it's not even about Trump. It's about us. Is there a candidate offering us something we want from our government? Chances are, whomever can get it together to win the primary is going to beat Trump.

Right now wikipedia is keeping a running list of potential Democratic nominees. 6 have declared: ridiculous New Dem multimillionaire ex-Congressman John Delaney, Richard Ojeda, Michael Arth, Ken Nwadike (the Free Hugs Guy), Robby Wells and Andrew Yang. Washington Governor Jay Inslee and spiritual teacher and author Marianne Williamson have exploratory committees. And then there are two dozen who have "expressed interest," from Bernie and Biden to Oscar De La Hoya, Michael Bloomberg and Tracy Flick.

On CNN Sunday, the Democrats' great GOP ally Rick Santorum warned Jake Tapper that Democrats have to pick someone unexpected to win-- he'd probably like Beto or Alexandria, or maybe Richard Ojeda, Pete Buttigieg, or Julian Castro to be the nominee-- and not someone "expected." He said "When the Democrats win, they pick someone unexpected. Or someone that is not the favorite-- Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter-- when they pick John Kerry or Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, they lose. So I'm hoping for Bernie [Sanders] or Elizabeth [Warren] or somebody like that. Some tired, old-- Joe Biden, put them out there and we'll win. If they pick someone new then I think they have a chance." Another Tapper guest, Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger, said it couldn't be anyone "far left" and then went on to define Nancy Pelosi and anyone who isn't from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party as being far left. He's sad that it's taking too long for the Democrats to transform themselves into the Eisenhower Republican Party while the GOP has moved so rapidly and decisively transforming themselves into a Hitlerite fascist party. Kinzinger was pumping for a nice safe corporate whore, Joe Biden and said he could beat Trump. "He can attract the kind of people voting for Donald Trump, the middle class, the blue-collar workers. I think he's the one that can take that away. If you put somebody like Bernie Sanders up, it's just out of the stream of what people want." Luckily Nina Turner was on the panel as well and she corrected both GOP doofuses: "Let me tell you something, wanting people to have a $15 an hour minimum wage, wanting to make sure that people have Medicare for all... there is no far-left, so don't paint Sanders and other people like that." Sure they do. Turner wants Democrats to win; Kinzinger and Santorium want Republicans to win. Is that so complicated?

2020 isn't just an opportunity to get rid of Trump. It's also an opportunity to replace him with someone as good as he is horrible-- with the great president America hasn't seen in over 7 decades! It's a chance to pick a candidate based on a vision for moving America forward. In 1920-- exactly a century ago-- the country went for a schlemiel who had a campaign theme everyone get behind: a return to normalcy (after the Great War). They wound up with a catastrophe: Warren G. Harding, the beginning of a downward spiral that led directly to the Great Depression and World War II. The Return to Normalcy candidate for the centenary is of course Joe Biden, the ultimate status quo or status quo ante candidate with nothing to offer except "not Trump."

Well-meaning Republicans-- not just sneaking partisans like Santorum-- will also be urging Democrats to nominate Biden or one of the other blind establishment centrists (say a Hickenlooper or, worse stir, a Bloomberg). Sunday night, at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, 2 "good" Republicans-- James Comey and Nicolle Wallace-- begged Democrats for a back to normalcy candidate. They hate Trump, although perhaps for somewhat different reasons than normal people hate Trump. They think he stole their putrid conservative party. They just want to bring back more putrid conservatism. That isn't what we want though, is it.

When CNN reports that "former FBI Director James Comey asked American voters Sunday night to end Donald Trump's presidency with a 'landslide' victory for his opponent in 2020," it sounds sweet to us. "All of us should use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on January 20, 2021," said Comey, who "all but begged Democrats to set aside their ideological differences and nominate the person best suited to defeating Trump in an election. 'I understand the Democrats have important debates now over who their candidate should be,' Comey told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, 'but they have to win. They have to win.'" We know that but what comes after we win is important to us too.

Over the course of more than an hour, Comey repeatedly derided Trump's character, again likening the atmosphere around the President to what he saw in prosecuting mafia figures and suggested that Trump's tweets could eventually amount to witness tampering. Asked if Trump might be an unindicted co-conspirator in some of the crimes recently described by special counsel Robert Mueller, Comey said he didn't know, "but if he's not there, he's certainly close."

Still, Comey said he hoped that Trump would be swept out of office without being impeached. Framing the rise of Trumpism as a political ill the country needed to exorcise at the ballot, he expressed a hope that Americans would "in a landslide rid ourselves of this attack on our values."

"Removal by impeachment would muddy that," he said, and potentially leave a third of the country feeling like their chosen leader had been removed in a "coup."

Trump's decision to fire Comey in May 2017 was a key factor in the appointment of Mueller, who was handed the job by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the aftermath of Comey's dismissal and the subsequent leak of a memo in which he recounted Trump asking that he end an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In a book and in public statements, Comey has become a leading critic of Trump-- and Trump has berated him in turn, relentlessly and usually on Twitter.

Hours earlier, Trump attacked Comey in a pair of testy morning tweets, claiming without evidence that the former FBI chief had lied on Friday in his testimony to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Comey laughed at the idea Trump had even looked over the actual testimony, joking to Wallace before she could read the tweets, "He's finished reading the 253 pages?"

After hearing the words out loud, he turned serious.

"My reaction to it is actually disturbing to me, which is kind of, 'Eh, there he goes again.' I thought I was 'Lyin' James Comey' now I'm 'Leakin' James Comey'. But I kind of shrug and sometimes smile and laugh about it and then I have a secondary reaction, which is to be horrified at my own numb reaction," Comey said. "We have to remind ourselves the President of the United States of America is publicly announcing that people are committing crimes, that they should be in jail."

Asked if Trump's tweets could be viewed as witness tampering, Comey answered carefully-- insisting he had no insight into Mueller's thinking.

"I'm not prepared to judge it," Comey said, "but again, if I were prosecuting a case in the Southern District of New York and a prominent person started attacking my witnesses, I'd want to know so what's going on there and does that cross the line from free speech, which we have to keep protected, into something else?"

Speaking about the period before the 2016 election, Comey was unsparing of Republican congressional leaders who he said opposed making public intelligence community concerns over Russian interference.

"To their everlasting shame, the leaders-- (Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell, (House Speaker Paul) Ryan-- refused," Comey said. "I think they're going to have a hard time explaining that to history."

He had kinder words for former President Barack Obama, describing the Democrat as a foil to Trump in almost every way.

"I was struck that Barack Obama is the best listener as a leader I had ever seen and Donald Trump is the worst I've ever seen," Comey said. "Obama had the confidence to be quiet and try and get that. Donald Trump is a deeply, deeply insecure person, so I don't see any prospect that he would be able to be quiet for long enough to hear the truth."

Speaker... 2020?

Hillary surrogates used to whisper that if were was elected president he wouldn't be able to get anything through Congress because he hand allies there (other than Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Tulsi Gabbard, Ro Khanna and Alan Grayson). Now there are way more than that behind Bernie and his programs and in 2020 there should enough to swing Congress towards the widely popular ideas he's running on, from Medicare-for-All and Job Guarantee to Free state universities and the Green New Deal. In 2020, we need to elect Bernie and and House ready for his programs. No more New Dems and Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Two silly-as-whoopie-cushions updates (a little early morning humor): Third Way wants Beto-- imagine a BETO/Lieberman ticket!!-- and, even more hilarious, Biden has been hiring DCCC staffers... which should be enough to guarantee him a sad, sad DOA campaign.

Can Progressives Win House Seats Where Bernie Showed More Support Than Trump, But Where Trump Beat Hillary? Meet Neill Mohammad (IL-16)

Illinois' 16th congressional district-- which includes Dixon, Reagan's birthplace-- starts up at the Wisconsin border just below Beloit and goes into the eastern part of Rockford, swings south and east into the Chicago exurbs below Joliet and then east to the Indiana border and then south towards Bloomington and Peoria. It's a red district but it celebrated the hometown boy good will to give Obama a narrow win in 2008. Romney beat him in 2012 though, 53-45%, and last year it was Trump country. He beat Hillary 55.5% to 38.3%. She was the wrong candidate for the district. In the primary Bernie beat her in every single one of the district's 14 counties-- and it is her home state-- and on primary day Bernie also beat Trump-- 93,397 to 89,599.

• Boone- Bernie- 2,773; Trump- 3,816
• Bureau- Bernie- 1,852; Trump- 2,185
• DeKalb- Bernie- 8,315; Trump- 5,139
• Ford- Bernie- 438; Trump- 1,244
• Grundy- Bernie- 3,095; Trump- 3,625
• Iroquois- Bernie-875 ; Trump- 2,836
• LaSalle- Bernie- 6,739 ; Trump- 6,950
• Lee- Bernie- 1,958; Trump- 2,153
• Livingston- Bernie- 971; Trump- 2,846
• Ogle- Bernie- 2,642; Trump- 4,029
• Putnam- Bernie- 504; Trump- 415
• Stark- Bernie- 215; Trump- 397
• Will- Bernie- 46,305; Trump- 38,507
• Winnebago- Bernie- 16,715; Trump- 15,457

If the Democrats nominate another incremental centrist like Hillary, they'll continue losing districts like IL-16. But the self-serving Democratic Establishment which lives, like the self-serving Republican Establishment, first and foremost for corruption. They would rather nominate another dismal Hillary-type than allow a progressive to claim the nomination and beat Trump.

The congressman from IL-16 is mainstream conservative Adam Kinzinger, who is pretty popular. Kinzinger was reelected without an opponent. Two years earlier he beat his Democratic opponent 70.6% to 29.4% and the first time he ran, in 2014, he took the seat 61.8% to 38.2%. Nevertheless, this cycle, sensing an anti-Trump/anti-Ryan tsunami, there are already 4 Democrats vying for the nomination to take on Kinzinger-- "ex"-Republican Christopher Minelli (gun nut and anti single player conservative), Nathan Arroyave (progressive), Sara Dady (progressive) and Neill Mohammad (progressive). Neill, born and raised in DeKalb, a product of that city's public schools and a political science graduate from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, works as a health care management consultant.


A Candidate Can Be For Single Payer And Universal Healthcare And Still Be Skeptical About H.R. 676
-by Neill Mohammad

Health care is a personal issue for me.

My mom has suffered from Crohn’s Disease for most of her life. As a kid, that meant a lot of anxious, sleepless nights, worrying about what could happen to her, and if something did, who would care for me and my brother.

But as hard as it was to grow up with a parent with a serious illness, the one thing I never had to worry about was whether my mom was going to be able to get the health care that she needed.

I was stunned when Adam Kinzinger-- our current Congressional representative in Illinois’ 16th District-- voted to take healthcare away from the tens millions of working families who need it to live productive lives, care for their children, and contribute to their communities.

Adam co-sponsored a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act on just his fourth day in office. In his subsequent six years in Congress he voted dozens of times to bring back medical bankruptcy, lifetime benefit caps, and price-gouging for anyone with a preexisting condition. He voted to kill the Medicaid program, which would kick 6 in every 10 seniors living in nursing homes out onto the street.

Despite all that, I’ve been excited and encouraged to see just how far our public discussion on healthcare has come in just the last few years.

Support for universal healthcare isn’t a niche issue anymore. It’s the bare minimum expected of any progressive political candidate.

We all agree why we need a universal system of coverage, like a single-payer insurance program such as “Medicare for All.” Universal coverage will drive down costs and put patients’ well-being ahead of corporate profits.

Universal coverage will, at long last, end the absurd connection between what job we work at and what kind of care we have access to.

Your boss shouldn’t get decide what doctor you get to see. No  woman should have to go without reproductive health care just because the only place in town that happened to be hiring last week was Hobby Lobby.

We all know why we need real changes in the way that we deliver and pay for healthcare. How we get there, though, is still murky.

Many of the activists I talk to on the trail believe that we already have a solution in hand: the United States National Health Care Act, or H.R. 676. H.R. 676 would replace all other forms of health insurance outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

While I appreciate Rep. John Conyers’ longstanding leadership on this issue, simply passing H.R. 676 won’t do it in itself. It is a fantastic statement of purpose, but as a roadmap for the future it has serious shortcomings. If we want to realize our dreams of a more humane system of care in this country, we need to be honest in addressing those flaws.

And we need to address them now. Opportunities for meaningful healthcare reform don’t come around very often, and I don’t want to risk jeopardizing the window in front of us with a flawed and incomplete bill. As it stands today, HR 676:

• Does not explain how Medicaid will be merged with the Medicare-for-All system. Medicaid, which insures 70 million Americans-- more than Medicare, covers extremely high-risk patients, many of which receive services which are currently excluded from Medicare. Despite that, Medicaid is an efficient and successful program.


• Outlaws any kind of supplemental coverage outside of a single-payer system, even though supplemental policies feature prominently in many systems with universal coverage, such as France and Canada. The reality is that supplemental insurance is going to be a political necessity to get a universal healthcare bill passed, and supplemental insurance has not posed any threat to the basic quality of care or access in those other countries.


• Maintains traditional Medicare’s “fee for service” model, which we know produces the wrong kind of incentives for reducing costs. It encourages providers to direct patients to unnecessary and redundant scans and other diagnostic tests.


Medicaid is responsible for the care of the sickest and most vulnerable Americans, such as nursing home residents, the severely disabled, and infant children. The lack of detail in the bill means that pushing Medicaid recipients into a different program is risky if we don’t give careful consideration to what change will look like.

Let me explain why.

Unlike Medicare, Medicaid already offers comprehensive health insurance and includes coverage for hearing, vision, and ancillary services like long-term care. Medicaid also has extremely low or zero cost-sharing for most enrollees, unlike traditional Medicare, which has large deductibles and no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.

Many seniors enroll in Medicaid precisely so they can cover the bills the Medicare won’t pay-- things like long-term nursing care.

As former CMS director Andy Slavitt and many scholars have pointed out, Medicaid provides high quality care at a lower cost than commercial employer plans and Medicare. Despite covering these lower reimbursement rates, research from the Kaiser Foundation has shown that people on Medicaid report similar access to care and similar satisfaction rates to those with commercial plans.

Finally, we know that it is straightforward to expand Medicaid to the uninsured with minimal disruption. The program started as a small plan to cover mothers and children on welfare in the 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, it expanded to cover the disabled, all parents, as well as many more children. After the 2010 passage of the ACA, it expanded to become universal for all members of households under 138 percent of the poverty line, which granted more than 12 million uninsured Americans access to health care.

All of this was done with relatively little disruption to the group insurance market. That lack of disruption is politically important-- since most people aren’t sick, many Americans remain happy with the commercial insurance they get through their employers. I’ve even talked to voters who, understandably, see Medicare as a potential downgrade versus what they have now.

These challenges are all surmountable, but they are real challenges. That’s why we need to continue to focus the political debate on the ends of healthcare reform-- why health insurance needs to be universal-- even while we continue to work on the right means of getting there.

I support Medicare for All. But I’d also be perfectly happy with Germany’s system, which is built on private insurance programs which are tightly regulated. Or France’s system, which includes private supplementary insurance alongside their government program. I don’t want to rule out any potential solution as long as it fulfills all of the basic expectations of a universal coverage system.

Some Democrats are already acting in that spirit and moving the ball forward. Sen. Brian Schatz has just introduced a bill for a universal Medicaid buy-in, which would address coverage and access issues under the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown and six other Senators have introduced a Medicare buy-in for people over 55. I’d support both of these ideas while expanding federal support for Medicaid further to reach more people-- including households within 200 percent or more of the poverty line.

Like Schatz-- who’s said he’d support Conyers plan, and will likely sign on to Bernie Sanders’ single-payer plan-- I want to build a universal coverage plan that works.

We only get so many chances at real healthcare reform. We have to make the most of this opportunity. We have to get it right.


If you'd like to learn more about Neill and his campaign, this is his official website.

Over A Quarter Billion Dollars In Wasted Wall Street Bribes Last Year Alone, As GOP Agenda Goes Up In Smoke

Tom Cole (R-OK): "I won’t defend anyone who obstructs justice. Time for Comey to appear before Congress.”

Late this afternoon, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could no longer dither and finally announced that he had appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller to serve as a special counsel to oversee the ever-widening Putin-Gate scandal. Rebecca Ruiz wrote for the NY Times that Mueller's appointment "dramatically raises the stakes" for Señor Trumpanzee in the multiple investigations into his campaign’s ties to the Russians. "While a special counsel would remain ultimately answerable to Mr. Rosenstein-- and by extension, the president-- he would have greater autonomy to run an investigation than a United States attorney would. Mr. Mueller will be able to choose to what extent to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation as it goes forward. [He] is viewed by members of both parties as one of the most credible law enforcement officials in the country. He served both Democratic and Republican presidents, from 2001 to 2013, and was asked by President Barack Obama to stay on beyond the normal 10-year term until Mr. Comey was appointed."

The Justice Department seems to have been pushed into the appointment after House Democrats announced were circulating a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation that would create a 12-member bipartisan, independent commission to investigate Putin-Gate, something the White House is far moire fearful of. Progressive candidate for Darrell Issa's San Diego/Orange County district. "The White House has consistently ignored Russian cyber attacks on our political process. The subsequent firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and the additional reports concerning former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did little to ease those concerns. These allegations have the potential to rock the very foundation of our democracy and only serve to further erode the public’s trust in our government. At a time when we need real leadership, the president and his backers in Congress confuse and distract from our democracy to protect their own careers. The fact is we need mature leadership coming from the legislature, not childish antics and grandstanding. As we move closer to a constitutional crisis, we must demand a thorough investigation to include the full disclosure of any and all memos former Director Comey drafted in the weeks and days leading up to his termination, in addition to Flynn’s ties to the Kremlin. But what’s even more telling is that Darrell Issa, the self-proclaimed “watchdog” of the House, serves as nothing more than a lapdog for this administration. We demand that Issa sign this discharge petition and vote in support of a full investigation into these allegations. Currently, there is a bipartisan bill, sponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans, to create a Trump-Russia commission. If Darrell was one quarter of the watchdog he claims to be, he needs to show it and sign the petition. Otherwise, we’ll know he opposes an investigation and we will remember that come November 2018.”

Ted Lieu was more succinct: "Today is a good day for American Democracy.  Thank you Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for following the law."

Politico's Jake Sherman asserted this morning that congressional Republicans "are beginning to grapple with the real-- but far off-- possibility" that Señor Trumpanzee might've gone too far this time." Impeachment, he wrkte, is "beginning to creep into Republicans' minds, and it's noteorthy that they are not ruling it out." No, only Nancy Pelosi and Blue Dog-turned-Wall Street lobbyist Harold Ford are ruling it out, she on CNN and he on Morning Joe. Just hours ago, Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) had joined the 5 other House Republicans calling for a special prosector. By the way, as even Señor Trumpanzee understands, a special prosector is the first step towards impeachment. Sherman wrote that he was "up in the Capitol last night, chatting with members of Congress about the political dynamics now, and it would be tough to overstate how angry, confused and fed up Republicans are with President Donald Trump."

By Tuesday more Republicans began reaching the point where they realized Trump is unsalvageable. "For Republicans on Capitol Hill," wrote John Bresnahan, "Trump may finally have gone too far." The Comey memo indicating obstruction of justice "was more than just another embarrassing revelation for a president used to a near-daily barrage of scandal and staff intrigue."

Republicans are privately beginning to worry that they may one day have to sit in judgment of Trump, or that more damaging information from Comey could force the president to step down. Within hours of Tuesday's report by the New York Times, there was a distinct shift among congressional Republicans, who until now have mostly resisted criticizing Trump, let alone demanding the president be held to account for all he says or does.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) immediately said he’s prepared to subpoena the memos that Comey reportedly wrote contemporaneously to document his interactions with Trump. Chaffetz sent a letter to the FBI on Tuesday night asking for any notes, documents or records of Trump and Comey’s conversations to be turned over to his panel by May 24.

His request was echoed by AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan: "We need to have all the facts, and it is appropriate for the House Oversight Committee to request this memo."

Comey has also been invited by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to testify publicly at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to “tell his side of the story” about his dealings with Trump, Graham said Tuesday, even before this latest story broke.

More Republicans have openly discussed the possibility of a select committee or the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the Trump-Russia connection. It's still a minority of GOP lawmakers, but Republican leaders are watching closely.

...In private, top Republicans fear that this latest Trump controversy-- coming just a week after he fired Comey, and only one day after it was revealed that the president revealed highly classified intelligence information during a meeting with Russian officials-- will overwhelm everything they are trying to do legislatively. Health care, tax reform, building up the Pentagon-- all of it is potentially threatened by the latest furor.

And if Republicans are paralyzed and can’t pass anything despite control of the White House and Congress, how can they justify their majorities when they go before voters next year?

And by this morning, Politico was reporting that Wall Street was giving up on the 2017 tax break it believed the $297,982,444 it had spent on congressional bribes during 2016 alone had guaranteed them. The Dow closed down over 370 points today. Below are the half dozen biggest recipients of Financial Sector largesse for the 2016 cycle-- bribes that crooked and avaricious Wall Street wheelers and dealers now realize won't translate into promised tax cuts for the corporations and the 1%:

• Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $8,316,068
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)- $5,466,397
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $5,010,163
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $4,415,864
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $4,415,864
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)- $3,964,709

Ben White's report indicates that "Wall Street and corporate America view President Donald Trump’s bold agenda for a sweeping tax overhaul as largely dead for the year. Executives, lobbyists and Wall Street analysts increasingly believe the administration-- distracted by repeated crises while facing a short and crowded legislative calendar-- will be unable to deliver on Trump’s promise to slash corporate and individual tax rates this year and ignite significantly faster economic growth. The main hope now in corporate America and on Wall Street is that the White House and Congress manage to bypass a scary fight over raising the nation’s debt limit this summer, keep the government open and avoid any major foreign policy crisis."



Republican congressional tolerance for Trump's kleptocratic and authoritarian instincts was entirely based on his willingness to sign their Obamacare repeal and their plans to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy while shredding the social safety net for the poor and eviscerating services for working families. If Trump's bungling and bluster is jeopardizing that, other Republicans will soon be following Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Carlos Curbelo, Barbara Comstock, Erik Paulsen and, this morning, Adam Kinzinger into the camp calling for a special prosecutor (shorthand for impeachment).

Is The Republican Party On A Congressional Kamikazee Mission?

The GOP is now like a college cafeteria food fight-- a free-for-all. Polling released yesterday shows Trump's ratings continuing to plummet and now shows that Paul Ryan is the single most unpopular politician in America-- even more disliked than Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and... Señor Trumpanzee.

PPP's newest national poll finds Donald Trump's approval rating falling to its lowest level yet in our polling.

...[The healthcare] issue has made Paul Ryan into the most unpopular politician in the country. At the start of the Trump administration he had a 33% approval rating, with 43% of voters disapproving of him. Now his approval has plunged to 21%, with his disapproval spiking all the way up to 61%. Ryan's particularly seen his image crater with Trump voters-- what was a 53/23 approval rating with them in mid-January is now negative at 35/41.

Thursday, Ryan told CBS This Morning that Trumpanzee was "very apologetic" for telling his Twitter followers to watch "Judge" Jeanine demand Ryan step down as Speaker. "He actually was very apologetic about it, in that he said, 'I had no idea that that’s what she was going to talk about... I thought she was going to talk about something else.' So really that was completely coincidental."

The Marist poll, also released yesterday, had even worse news for Trump.

Only 38 percent of registered voters said they approved of the job Trump is doing as president, compared with 51 percent who disapproved. That’s down 3 percentage points since mid-February, and is considerably lower than other presidents at comparable times in their presidencies.

Independents approve of the job Trump is doing by 34-52 percent, while Democrats approve by 9-84 percent. Republicans approve by 79-10 percent, which are strong numbers, though they have gone down 3 points since February.

Peter Sullivan at The Hill reported yesterday that mainstream conservatives in the House are now refusing to even talk with the Freedom Caucus. "The centrist Tuesday Group," he wrote, "affirmed at a meeting Wednesday that it will not meet with the conservative House Freedom Caucus to negotiate changes to an ObamaCare replacement bill, according to Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.). 

“I am not speaking for the White House; I'm not speaking for the Speaker; but I will speak for the Tuesday Group,” Collins, a member of the group, told reporters. “We have never negotiated with the Freedom Caucus. There was never a meeting scheduled with the Freedom Caucus. We will never meet with the Freedom Caucus, because it's not appropriate for a group of ad hoc members.”

...“It was just reiterated that next time one of those calls comes in [from the Freedom Caucus], just hang up,” Collins said of the Tuesday Group meeting.

...The tension between the groups is a bad sign for prospects of reviving ObamaCare repeal legislation.

Collins predicted that the repeal bill would not come back.

The Conservative Review's Chris Pandolfo wrote yesterday that "These moderate Republicans refused to go along with a full repeal of Obamacare, and now they are pledging to work with liberal Democrats to pass bad bills rather than use the Republican majority to pass conservative legislation. It’s compromise with Democrats. Screw the conservatives. Pass liberal legislation that will hurt people. And President Trump is fine with all of it. This is not what the conservative base in the Republican Party voted for in 2016. Then again, actually it is. The Tea Party took this risk when they handed Trump the Republican nomination in 2016. Donald Trump was never a conservative. He was never anti-establishment. Some conservatives knew that when they held their nose to beat Hillary Clinton. Well, the Democrats are out of power and conservatives are still losing. So where do we go from here?"

To hell, as far as mainstream conservative Adam Kinzinger is concerned. Kinzinger represents a swingy district in north central Illinois that Obama won in 2008, Romney won in 2012 and that Trumpanzee took with 55.5% in 2016 (on the same day that Kinzinger was reelected without opposition). In 2014 he had beaten his Democratic opponent 71-29%. Yesterday Kinzinger penned an OpEd for the NY Times, How the Freedom Caucus is Undermining the GOP. He bemoans the blame game tearing the Republicans in Congress apart-- and then immediately jumped into it. "[C]laiming that the party was in disarray," he wrote, "is untrue. A vast majority of us were ready to vote yes [on TrumpCare], but one faction of the party made it impossible: the House Freedom Caucus."

Kinzinger, forgetting that TrumpCare had eye-popping disapproval from Americans in every part of the country-- and an overall approval of just 17%, wrote that the Freedom Caucus is an "interesting name for a group of about three dozen members that refuses to let the will of the people advance on the House floor, a group that Mr. Trump himself scolded on Twitter on Thursday for undermining the Republican agenda, and our party as a whole." Kinzinger says he's "fed up." (But is he handsome enough to keep his seat in an anti-Trump tsunami? Aaron Schock always thought so-- but he's headed to prison.)

This is why the legislation collapsed: In exchange for their votes on the replacement plan, the members of the Freedom Caucus wanted reductions in essential health benefits. President Trump agreed in good faith. Some more-moderate Republican members struggled to accept these changes. Yet even knowing that some yes votes had turned to no, the conference went to bed on Thursday thinking that we would vote the next day. To our dismay (but not to my surprise), the concessions were not enough to get the Freedom Caucus on board, as usual.

...Those demands included rescinding Title 1 regulations, which include protections for people with pre-existing conditions and allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26. The president, and many of us, had promised to protect these two key provisions.

The Freedom Caucus fully understood that its last-minute demands would doom the bill. The vote was going to fail.

This is a common tactic by the group. Over the years, the caucus has repeatedly demanded more while refusing to compromise. In 2013, a group of conservatives who later became part of the Freedom Caucus won major concessions on the farm bill, and then still voted against it. In 2015, the caucus made demands for a free-trade bill that were clearly intended to kill the legislation. Their demands were not met and the bill passed without their support.

It’s what they do: They move the goal posts, and once that happens, they still refuse to play. We are the Charlie Brown party, hoping that this time, things will be different. But time and again, the Freedom Caucus is Lucy-- pulling the ball out from under us, letting us take the fall and smiling to themselves for making a splash. It’s a cheap tactic, not a way to govern, and enough is enough.

I'd say Kinzinger and his GOP establishment allies have more to worry about than their failed attempts to deny healthcare to millions of Americans. This is something that's going to land on them like a ton of bricks:

And then, of course, there's this... with incredibly unpopular Paul Ryan and Señor Trumpanzee leading the bickering and failed party into the 2018 midterms. One day they may be looking back on today's numbers wistfully, hot tears running down their pudgy, well-fed cheeks: