Trump's "Great People" Are Guaranteeing A Second Wave Far Worse Than The First Wave We're In Now

Remember the Suffolk County protestors we looked at on Saturday? These idiots aren't finished making news... and their very own lovely Trumpist poetry:

Trump was attracted to the same demonstration and rather than "idiots" who will steepen Long Island's curve, he saw them as "great people." Is he unaware that the guidelines they-- and he-- are protesting come from the White House itself-- his White House?

While they were out protesting on Saturday, there were 42,050 confirmed cases in Suffolk County (about the same number as in Pakistan, which is headed towards becoming one of the big Wave II hotspots). Now, 3 days later there are over 500 more confirmed cases in Suffolk County-- more cases than Israel, Japan and Argentina combined, 3 countries that are taking far stronger and more serious steps to contain the pandemic than Suffolk County is.

Yesterday, writing for The Guardian, Jason Wilson reported that U.S. lockdown protests are spreading the virus widely. Why aren't the disease-spreaders being thrown into prisons where they can give each other the disease without killing innocent people? "Cellphone location data," wrote Wilson of protests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado and Florida, "suggests that demonstrators at anti-lockdown protests-- some of which have been connected with Covid-19 cases-- are often traveling hundreds of miles to events, returning to all parts of their states, and even crossing into neighboring ones. 'The behavior we’re seeing at protests carries a high risk of infection. We can see protesters are going from a highly concentrated event and then dispersing widely.'"

One visualization shows that in Lansing, Michigan, after a 30 April protest in which armed protesters stormed the capitol building and state police were forced to physically block access to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, devices which had been present at the protest site can be seen returning to all parts of the state, from Detroit to remote towns in the state’s north.

One device visible in the data traveled to and from Afton, which is over 180 miles from the capital. Others reached, and some crossed, the Indiana border.

In the 48 hours following a 19 April “Operation Gridlock” protest in Denver, devices reached the borders of neighboring states including Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Utah.

In Florida on 18 April, devices returned to all parts of the peninsula and up to the Georgia border. In Wisconsin on 24 April, devices returned to smaller towns like Green Bay and Wausau, and the borders of Minnesota and Illinois.

Following the initial wave of anti-lockdown protests in April, epidemiologists warned that they could lead to a new surge in cases.

In North Carolina in late April, one of the leaders of the state’s anti-lockdown protests tested positive for Covid-19 but said she would attend future rallies.

The U.S. has over a million and a half confirmed cases and over 91 million deaths from COVID, more cases than the 5 next worst-hit countries-- Russia, Spain, Brazil, the U.K. and Italy-- combined. New York alone has more cases than any country in the world. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that states-- egged on by Señor Trumpanzee-- are opening up willy-nilly:

"In Texas," wrote Liza Lin, "gyms and movie theaters are set to reopen on Monday, despite a rise in infections and virus-related deaths there. Idaho on Saturday allowed dine-in restaurants to resume operations under social-distancing rules. New Jersey permitted chartered-boat services and watercraft rentals to resume on Sunday. Warmer weather drew large crowds to beaches in New York City and New Jersey over the weekend, highlighting the challenges that the hardest-hit parts of the country face in enforcing social distancing this summer. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he doesn’t want the city’s beaches to open for swimming by Memorial Day weekend. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Sunday urged New Yorkers to get tested for Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Mr. Cuomo said the state is conducting about 40,000 Covid-19 tests a day at more than 700 sites. New York has more than 350,000 infections and 22,600 confirmed virus-related deaths, according to figures from the state."

Memorial Day weekend is likely to see the U.S. blow up the 100,000 death mark. I wonder how many deaths it will take for Trump's "great people" to start taking this seriously. A million? Two million? Ten million?

Trump Could Probably Get Pizzella Confirmed-- But Might Lose The Senate In 2020 Because Of It

Pizzella has no problem working for crooks and scumbags

Have you noticed that when Trump fires someone, he then tends to do two things: replace them with someone much worse and give them the title of "acting"-whatever. Acting this or acting that doesn't have to be confirmed by the Senate and even this McConnell-run Trump-enabling Senate wouldn't want to go on record confirming some of the criminals and fascists Trump is putting into government positions. Sunday, we took a look at the Democratic senators who voted to confirm Alex Acosta as Labor Secretary. Four of these Trump's-Democrats were defeated-- in the midst of a purported "blue wave." I don't doubt Trump and McConnell could get all his nominees through... but no one wants that on their record for the next time they have to face the voters. Take Acosta's unsavory replacement, Patrick Pizzella, a total slime ball lobbyist. "In the late 1990s, his clients included a Russian front group, the government of the Marshall Islands and a trade association fighting against the minimum wage in a U.S. commonwealth. For these and other clients, he worked with Jack Abramoff, who was at the forefront of a corruption scandal in the 2000s that ultimately resulted in 21 convictions and major reforms to lobbying laws." It also resulted in several members of Congress (Senator Conrad Burns and Rep. Richard Pombo, for example) losing their seats, more "voluntarily" retiring-- including GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay-- and at least one GOP committee chairman going to prison.

Pizzella has given thousands of dollars in legalistic bribes to Republican organizations and to Republican members of Congress and Republican candidates-- from Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, John Boehner, Tom Tancredo, Barbara Comstock and anyone else willing to trade votes and influence for cash. By not naming him actual Secretary of Labor-- forcing a contentious debate and Senate vote-- voters will never know, at least for sure, if vulnerable Trump allies like Susan Collins (R-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Martha McSally (R-AZ), David Perdue (R-GA), Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) would actually vote for some as obviously unfit as Patrick Pizzella.

Pizzella, who has been serving as the deputy secretary of labor under Acosta, was appointed to the Federal Labor Relations Board by President Barack Obama in 2013. He previously served as the assistant secretary of labor for administration and management for eight years under President George W. Bush.

Prior to that appointment, Pizzella was as a lobbyist at Preston, Gates & Ellis, which would later combine with another lobbying firm to form K&L Gates. Abramoff also worked at the firm, whose dozens of clients included several foreign entities.

Documents obtained by OpenSecrets show that Pizzella was one of the lobbyists who worked on behalf of a shell corporation connected to the Russian government in the late 1990s. He was listed in a 1997 lobbying disclosure form as the “director of coalitions” for Chelsea Commercial Enterprises Ltd., a Bahamas-based organization working closely with the Russian oil company Naftasib, which was itself a close affiliate of the Russian government.

Working alongside Abramoff and others, Pizzella helped Chelsea Commercial advocate for “various commercial business enterprises, including investments in Russian businesses.”

The Department of Labor did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Pizzella’s lobbying ties to Chelsea Commercial Enterprises.

Another client that paid Preston, Gates & Ellis more than $2.3 million between 1999 and 2000 was the Western Pacific Economic Council, a trade association of companies with manufacturing centers in the Northern Mariana Islands.The archipelago located north of Guam is a U.S. commonwealth.

Low wages and little enforcement of labor laws made the commonwealth an attractive destination for garment factories, who could still tag their merchandise as Made in the USA. In the late 1990s, minimum wage on the islands was $3.05 compared to a federal minimum wage of $5.15, a concern for both humanitarian groups worried about inhumane conditions and labor groups who worried about outsourcing.

Pizzella was among the lobbyists from Preston, Gates & Ellis who worked to oppose two bills that would have extended U.S. minimum wage laws to the islands. Neither bill made it to a vote.




Pizzella’s connections to Abramoff and record on the minimum wage came up during his confirmation hearing to become deputy secretary in July 2017. In response to a question from former Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Pizzella said he was not aware of any substandard labor conditions in the Northern Mariana Islands while his firm was lobbying there.

“I was not aware of any such thing,” Pizzella said. “I did not know. I just learned that 21 of Mr. Abramoff’s colleagues were also convicted of wrongdoing. I was not one of them.”

Abramoff and his associates ultimately fell into trouble after they conspired to swindle Native American tribes that had contracted the firm for help in establishing casinos. Abramoff’s tactics included coordinating lobbying against his own clients so he could ask for more money for their services.

Abramoff and his related organizations ultimately reaped $85 million from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Louisiana Coushatta tribe and other tribal groups.

Pizzella lobbied on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw in 1999 and 2000, but was never implicated in his former colleague’s wrongdoing.

Pizzella also registered as a foreign agent for the Republic of the Marshall Islands in 2000, working to convince Congress to relocate and compensate the indigenous peoples for damages stemming for atomic weapons testing in 1946.

The new acting secretary is the latest former lobbyist to gain a seat in the presidential cabinet. Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was a lobbyist for the defense giant Raytheon. Andrew Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, lobbied for Murray Energy, the coal company owned by magnate Robert Murray. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.

Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversaw lobbying efforts at drug company Eli Lilly but never registered as a lobbyist with Congress.

Maybe this kind of stuff helps explain why all 4 of the top Democratic contenders are beating Trump in the just-released NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Republican voters don't care about this kind of thing at all-- it's part of being on a team-- but independent voters can't stand it and it's part of why Trump is doing so badly among them and why he's so likely oo lose in 2020-- even if the Trump Recession hasn't kicked in by election day.

Put Bernie Sanders' Face on those Joe Biden Photos, Then Imagine What Party Leaders Would Be Saying

Jon Stewart as Biden: "Hey girl, you seem tense. Is it the stress of me groping you for 28 straight seconds?"

by Thomas Neuburger

An interesting thing is happening around Joe Biden's #MeToo moment. Even though Al Franken was almost immediately rousted from the Senate by now-presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and others for unwanted touching and kissing, handsy kissy Joe Biden is being held to a very different standard. Why?

The Democratic Party Reaction to Joe Biden

Let's start with Kirsten Gillibrand's reaction. Recently I asked, "Does Kirsten Gillibrand Consider Joe Biden's Behavior 'Disqualifying'?" We now have an answer. Here's Gillibrand on Hardball speaking with Chris Matthews (link; skip to 4:38 to listen to the entire Biden conversation). When Matthews asks "What should he do?" Gillibrand responds (my emphasis):

Gillibrand: Well you know, Chris, [sexual assault] is something I've taken very seriously over the last seven or eight years, fighting against sexual assault in the military, sexual assault on college campuses, and actually changing the rules in the House and Senate on harassment, so I think with these allegations specifically, I think it's something if Vice President Biden intends to run, he's just going to have to address directly with the American people.

And there you have it: Even though I've made it my brand to care about sexual assault, Biden can stay in the presidential race, so long as he explains himself. She continues with this: 

Matthews: What should he say?

Gillibrand: There's a conversation about do we value women. And when you allow the space for women to tell their truth and what they experienced, you have to not only receive and believe them, you have to investigate. 

Think back to Franken, who was forced out "without any real vetting of the allegations facing him," as Politico put it. Apparently, the "you have to investigate" rule applies only to Biden. Quite the inconsistency.

So Matthews asks about Gillibrand's position on Al Franken relative to her position on Biden. Gillibrand says the cases were very different because "there were eight credible allegations corroborated in real time" against Franken (whatever "real time" means). Then she repeats what she's said many times, that she needed to not "stay silent" about the Franken accusations because she had a duty to make sure her sons knew that "it's not OK to grope a woman anywhere on her body without her consent" (emphasis added).

This is a good time to watch the clip above. Not the Sam Bee part; the uncomfortable-to-watch Biden-groping-women part. Clearly some of those people do not consent.

Matthews then closes:

Matthews: Should he quit?

Gillibrand: It's something he's going to have to talk about and understand what's happening....

Matthews: Do you call on him to leave the race?

Gillibrand: No, I do not, and what I’m saying now is that it’s something he’s going to have to address. And the truth is, we as a country have to decide if we value women at all.

Read the two sentences immediately above. This is beyond shameful, and way beyond stupid. Does she think no one has ears?

Gillibrand is not the only Democrat to come to Biden's rescue. Nancy Pelosi: "I don't think it's disqualifying." Sen. Tammy Baldwin: "There’s a failure to understand how one’s actions impact others." Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: "I was surprised by the allegation.... All of us, including the vice president, need to continue to work on changing our culture."

From all of this, the path to forgiveness for Biden is clear: Say you "understand" and move on. The voters may not forgive him for his misdeeds, but the leaders of the Democratic Party already have.

Why Is Biden Defended? Explanation 1, It's Generational

Which leads us to ask, why is Biden so well defended by Party leaders and insiders? The reason most often offered is "it's generational." Let's call this Explanation 1.

Here's how EJ Dickson put it in Rolling Stone:

To an extent, this line of debate ["I don't think it's disqualifying"] is to be expected from old-school, establishment Dems like Feinstein and Pelosi, who have clear-cut reasons for standing behind a peer like Biden. But their refusal to outright condemn his alleged behavior is also representative of a generational gap in the #MeToo movement, between those who take quote-unquote “less egregious” violations seriously, and those who do not. Although the allegations against Biden are not of a criminal or even overtly sexual nature, they still involve the issue of consent, and whether or not a man invading a woman’s personal space qualifies as a career-ending transgression.

This generational gap is not specific to the political realm; indeed, there is substantial data to suggest that a chasm exists between the views of older and younger women across the board. A BuzzFeed survey in partnership with Ipsos, for instance, found that while 42% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 said that the #MeToo movement changed the way they thought about consent, only 29% of people over the age of 55 agreed. Similarly, while 64% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 said that women who accuse men of sexual assault and harassment should always be believed, 38% of people over the age of 55 said the same. An NPR poll found a significant gap between older and younger respondents who agreed with the statement that the #MeToo movement had gone too far, while nearly half of older Americans said they didn’t understand what crossed the line in terms of sexual harassment.

While these survey results didn’t differentiate between older and younger women specifically, anecdotally, many younger women report a stark contrast between their own views and the views their mothers and grandmothers share on the movement. In a Time piece on the so-called #MeToo generational divide, a 25-year-old woman says that “the women in my generation have been drawing a much harsher line for anything they consider even slightly inappropriate,” while her mother is quoted as saying that she believes Gen Y and Gen Z feminists like her daughter “are losing the high ground and allies through their absolutism.” Similarly, when discussing the allegations against Biden with her mother, a friend told me that her mother had responded “exactly the way I thought she would”: by saying, “’I think men of that age just do that and don’t mean it to be weird or sexual'” (essentially, the Feinstein/Pelosi school of thought toward inappropriate workplace conduct).

Shorter Rolling Stone: "The rules have changed for younger women." (Note the element of criticism of this view in the article: "Gen Y and Gen Z feminists like her daughter 'are losing the high ground and allies through their absolutism.'" In other words, holding men to this standard is a mistake.)

Explanation 2, He's Our Only Hope

The "it's generational" may explain some voters' responses to Biden, but I don't think it explains the defense of Biden we're reading about. Note that most of his defenders inhabit the same corner of the world — they are people with power and influence in the Democratic Party plus their strongest supporters within the media.

Reaction from those who are less Party-aligned has been more mixed. The Atlantic: "Don't Defend Him as a Flirt." Gawker: "Joe Biden, We Need to Talk About the Way You Touch Women." Even the New York Times: "He is a product of his time, but that time is up."

So why the defense coming from Party officials? The Gawker piece linked above provides a hint: "Try this," Sam Biddle writes, "look at all of those photos and imagine, say, Paul Ryan's face instead of Biden's."

Or Bernie Sanders' face.

So let's be plain. We're coming into the 2020 election season and on the Democratic side there's a lot at stake — in effect, control of the Democratic Party itself from its very top.

As he did in 2016, Bernie Sanders is threatening a palace coup, a takeover of the Party that bypasses all the layers below the presidency — the Speaker's chair, Senate caucus leadership, chair of the DNC, all of it. As the Party's presidential candidate, he will have nominal control of the levers of Party power. As president he will have as much control of the country as he wishes to exercise, even if the leaders of both parties try to block him.

In the past, progressives — and by that I mean real reformers in the Bernie Sanders mold — have been remarkably ineffective in their own #resistance to Party leadership. At every turn, in every local election through 2016 and into 2018, every contest that threatened to put an actual progressive in power was fought bitterly by Party leadership via their control of the donor network, the DCCC, the DSCC, and their allies in other institutions of mainstream Party power, including the media. Some of these resistance candidates succeeded, a great many did not.

The single strongest breakthrough occurred in 2018, when a small group of aggressive progressives, reformers like Occasio-Cortez and others, defeated Party-approved candidates then showed themselves capable as a group of challenging its leaders on their own turf — from inside the halls of power.

Thanks to those victories and their continued opposition to leaders, progressive office-holders have gained some momentum, but not nearly enough. The Green New Deal is now a "thing" being discussed by voters, as is Medicare For All. But the pushback by Nancy Pelosi and other entrenched Party leaders has been fierce, corrupt and underhanded. Even Barack Obama is getting into the act. So even with a Democratic Senate, neither of these proposals is likely to be enacted soon.

The message in all this to progressives is simple: Don't threaten the status quo. The reason: The status quo enriches and empowers us. We're inside and you're not. We mean to stay in charge. Go away.

Seen this way, a Sanders or Warren presidency threatens forty years of entrenched, neoliberal, insider-led and inbred Party power, the very power a great many voters want freedom from, if only they could manage it.

So where is Joe Biden in all this? If you examine all of the viable Democratic presidential candidates (including Biden himself, who hasn't declared yet), they fall neatly into two groups — those opposed to the Obama-era status quo, rebels or "change" candidates; and those whose future depends on returning to that status quo, "faux-change" or "no-change" candidates. If you're a "change" voter this time around, none of the non-rebels is even close to a choice, at least in the primary.

Beto O'Rourke? He wanted to cut Social Security. Kamala Harris? She sent poor mothers to prison because their kids skipped school. Pete Buttigieg? He's an "all lives matter" kind of guy. Also this. Joe Biden? There's too much wrong with him to begin to list.

It's a very neat grouping — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the one hand, all the rest on the other — and the 2020 Democratic primary will be, as it already is, an epic battle between the forces behind these two groups. The forces behind the change candidates are mainly outside the Party — voters and a handful of rebellious elected officials. The forces behind all the others are inside the Party and close to its center — mainstream Democratic leaders and those who keep them in power.

It should therefore be obvious that mainstream Party forces badly need a "Sanders (or Warren) stopper" — or, to borrow their own language, a kind of "Sanders killer": As Axios writes, "One prominent [Biden] backer thinks Biden will run, and 'is ready to kill Bernie.'"

If you accept all this, now consider the polling:

Results of a March 5, 2019 Morning Consult poll (source)

One can almost hear their cries: "Who will save us from these meddlesome candidates?" The choices, at least so far, aren't promising. To date the only person positioned to knock off Sanders, or Warren should she surge, is Joe Biden. Kamala Harris, the nearest to either, is polling a quarter of what Sanders is polling, with the rest of the field well behind her.

Joe Biden, it would seem, is their strongest hope, perhaps their only one.

Are mainstream Democrats protecting him for that reason? From their lockstep defense of him, and the genuinely existential threat they face in the next election, I'd bet on it.

If you doubt me, put Bernie Sanders' face on those Biden photos — and imagine what Nancy Pelosi would be saying then.
  

New Rule: "Until Donald Trump Is No Longer President, Don't Talk To Me About Any Cause Except Democrats Winning Elections"

The hell with Kirsten Gillibrand-- Bill Maher endorsed Al Franken for president on his HBO show Friday night. He explained why in the video above but, clearly, "he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people still like him!"

Then Bill goes after #MeToo excesses. You don't need me to reiterate it or even weigh in. Just listen to it yourself. Besides, I've made it clear who I'm backing for the Democratic nomination in 2020. And that stands.

Maher was right-- "people still like him." But you know who people don't like? Lots of rotten Republican politicians who want to take their healthcare away and who want to lock children up in cages and who rubber-stamp and enable Trump. And, more specifically, they don't like Ted Cruz. According to bother the NY Times and the Washington Post yesterday, former Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), now Trump's Budget Director, was at a closed door meeting with GOP fat cats with RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel (Trump forced her to change her name from Ronna Romney before he would allow her to take the RNC job). The Times was given an audio recording of Mulvaney's remarks, apparently by another member of the #NeverTrump Republican "Resistance."

"There's a very real possibility," said Mulvaney, "we will win a race for Senate in Florida and lose a race in Texas for Senate, O.K.?" He put the blame square on how dislikable Cruz is, especially in comparison to Beto O'Rourke. Mulvaney understands there is no Blue Wave-- "They want you to think there's a blue wave when there's not," he said-- but he doesn't understand that there's a massive anti-red wave headed in their direction, one that will take down the unlikable and the likable. Mulvaney asked "How likable is a candidate? That still counts." It does-- but not as much is a wave election.

The Times reported that Mulvaney "conceded that Republicans had nominated poor candidates in places and might struggle to defend a huge number of open House seats where Republican incumbents decided not to run for re-election." That's an understatement. The GOP has actual bona-fide Nazis running in some districts and criminals in others. Here's an example, Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley district was redrawn to be slightly bluer, just slightly. The well-liked incumbent, Charlie Dent, had had it with Trump and with the congressional GOP's decision to enable him instead of stand up to him. So he decided to retire. He would would probably have won reelection-- he's likable and respected and sane. His old PA-15 had a PVI of R+2 and the new 7th (71.6% of Dent's old district) has a PVI of D+1. Under the new boundaries, Hillary would have beaten Trump 48.7% to 47.6%.

Nothstein-- big ego problems, sexual predator... & GOP candidate

So the GOP really needed to recruit someone outstanding in order to hold the seat against a top notch Democrat, Susan Wild. Instead Instead they wound up-- by a hair-- with a dreadful candidate, Marty Nothstein. Nothstein, a cyclist, has been working as executive director of the Lehigh Valley velodrome (an arena for track cycling) for a decade. The velodrome board put him on unpaid leave in February-- something he's hidden from voters-- after it came to their attention that he has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct. Since then, they fired him. Nothstein, like every single Republican politician accused of sexual impropriety in history, denies everything and claims it was a "political hit job." He was able to hide the scandal for 6 months and flipped out when the Morning Call, after a 3-month investigation, blew the whistle. The other Republican in the primary, Dean Browning, who lost by just 318 votes, says he was unaware of the scandal and had no idea Nothstein had been put on leave (and then fired) because of it. When the Lehigh County GOP, asked Nothstein if he had any skeletons in his closet he lied and said he didn't, according to Browning, who added "If I was in his situation if an allegation came up, I would take it upon myself to explain to voters whether any of it is true or not." Paul Ryan's shady SuperPAC has been funding Nothstein's race but is refusing to comment on the scandal and a spokesman won't say whether or not they will continue their activities on his behalf.

So, whether you're talking about grotesque, toxic incumbents like Cruz-- like Devin Nunes (CA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Dana Rohrabacher (Moscow), Steve King (IA)-- or new recruits like Lyin' Bryan Steil (WI), Mark Harris (NC), or Seth Grossman (NJ)-- the actual candidates themselves are adding to the momentum of an anti-red wave, particularly with women voters who are paying close attention as Republican candidates reenact scenes from the 1950s on the hustings.

Al Franken Has Some Questions For Brett Kavanaugh-- File Under "If Only"

Are we better off that that that effing hypocritical idiot Kirsten Gillibrand got her scalp by pushing Al Franken out of the Senate? Nancy Pelosi didn't say boo-- nor did Gillibrand fro that matter-- when it came out that Tony Cárdenas, (D-CA) had far, far more serious sex allegations lodged against him by a girl who was 16 when he raped her. He's still in Congress, still laundering corporate bribes into the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' BOLD PAC. And Franken? On the sidelines. Thanks a lot, Senator Gillibrand.

Earlier today, Franken took to Facebook to suggest what his former colleagues should ask Trumpist judge Brett Kavanaugh when they consider confirming Putin's illegitimate "president's" latest nominee. Franken has 25 specific, strategic questions. Trump owes Gillibrand big-time that Franken won't have the opportunity to be cross-examining Kavanaugh with them. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are a mixed bag, from the conservative and comatose, like ranking member Dianne Feinstein and Chris Coons (D-DE) to a couple of live wires like Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). None of them is a substitute for Franken but... we'll see if any of them land any punches.

When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention-- but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people-- under oath-- that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination-- it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts-- isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection-- whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that-- and I’ll quote it again--“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?”

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar-- but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence-- and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing-- even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.

If I remember correctly, Gillibrand was a corporate attorney before she got into Congress. I wonder if she has any questions she'd like to ask Judge Kavanaugh. I doubt it.

Why Did Gillibrand Really Chase Al Franken Out Of The Senate?

The other day a friend of mine in Congress told me I missed an important part in my Gillibrand vs Franken coverage. "You're not following the money, Howie," he told me. "Franken was leading the charge on Comcast, right? Check out the Comcast money flowing into Gillibrand's campaign." So I did. Comcast spends an immense amount of money bribing corrupt politicians from both parties-- both in lobbying (last year alone: $15,310,000) and in campaign contributions (last year: $2,627,152). The 2012 cycle was huge for them-- over $34 million in lobbying and $5,431,065 directly to politicians. And guess who the two top Senate recipients were: Bob Casey (D-PA, where Comcast is based) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). They gave her $48,850. That's a lot-- and way more than any Senate leaders. So far Comcast has given Gillibrand a hefty $83,254. Why?

The only senator really leading the charge against the Comcast's number one legislative priority, their merge with Time-Warner was Al Franken. Roll Call: "In attacking the proposal, no lawmaker was a bigger player than Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who sent three letters to regulators and caught a Comcast executive in embarrassing obfuscation at a Judiciary Committee hearing... He argues that media consolidation, and in particular combinations of content providers and content creators, disserve consumers by raising prices and diminishing the quality of the content."

Franken says he’s an advocate of net neutrality for a similar reason. It prevents Internet providers from favoring some content over others.

When the merger was announced in February 2014, conventional wisdom had it that Comcast’s lobbying, along with its generosity to members of Congress, would ease the path to completion. Comcast’s nearly $5 million in contributions to candidates in the last election cycle placed it among the top corporate donors. Its political action committee was more generous than those of all but five other firms. Its $17 million in lobbying expenditures in 2014 were No. 1 among corporations.

...He also argued that regulators should scrutinize Comcast’s compliance with the conditions it accepted when it was allowed to merge with NBC Universal in 2011.

Franken said he was confident that regulators would find that “Comcast has a history of breaching its legal obligations to consumers.”

According to reports this week, the proposed merger fell apart after the Justice Department raised questions about Comcast’s merger with NBC, and over concerns that it would control too big a piece of the Internet service market-- as much as 40 percent.

...Comcast couldn't find support in Congress. A coalition of groups opposed to the deal ginned up grassroots support. Franken said last year that he had heard from 100,000 people who opposed the deal.

The Stop Mega Comcast coalition, which included groups like Common Cause and Consumers Union but also rival businesses such as the Dish Network, hired its own lobbyists at the Glover Park Group, a well-connected Washington firm, and cultivated support for its position among members of Congress. Congressional letters opposing the deal outstripped those in favor.

Franken said the grassroots opposition made the difference. Comcast “hired an army of more than 100 lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on advertising to sell the deal,” he said in a statement Friday. “But more and more people came to see it the way I did and joined the fight."

I don't doubt Gillibrand had plenty of other things in mind when she went after Franken and forced him to resign from the Senate. The 2024 presidential nomination, for example, or sincere #MeToo issues. But Comcast is what my friend in the House said is what I missed. And here I thought it was just Wall Street that owned her!

How Will Kirsten Gillibrand Feel About The Al Franken Scalp On Her Belt If Michele Bachmann Wins His Senate Seat?

You remember Michele Bachmann, right? She founded the congressional Tea Party caucus and is married to a bizarre closet case who used to advertise in gay magazines and in 2012 became-- along with Michele-- citizens of Switzerland. She was a crackpot Minnesota congresswoman from 2007 until she was forced to retire in 2014 rather than face trials for numerous campaign finance violations, for bribing Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson to support her in the presidential caucuses and for stealing a homeschool e-mail list. When she was finally driven from office, she was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, the FEC, the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, the Urbandale Police Department and the FBI. She was told if she didn’t retire from Congress, she could be spending years behind bars.

Last week during an interview with disgraced televangelist far right and really, really crazier than ever Jim Bakker, she announced that she is considering running for the U.S. Senate seat Gillibrand forced Franken to resign from... but offered one caveat-- she’s waiting for God to tell her what to do before making a final decision. Currently she serves on the Trumpanzee evangelical advisory board and has publicly avowed that Señor T is now a “committed believer” of Jesus Christ and a “man of faith” who has “asked God for help and wisdom.” Just watch that video up top. And thank Kirsten Gillibrand that this monstrosity is back in the public sphere.

The Republican favored to run at this point isn't Bachmann but former senator and current lobbyist Norm Coleman, who Al Franken narrowly defeated in 2008. Coleman was a conservative Democrat (anti-Choice, anti-union... the same kind of turgid garbage the DCCC always loves) but joined the GOP in 1996. I wonder which one Gillibrand would prefer, a former Brooklynite (Coleman-- he went to the same elementary and high school as Bernie, Schumer and I did) or the woman in the race, Bachmann. Here's one of my favorite of many Bachmann memes. It's real... and, needless to say, Fox News was proud to run it:

UPDATE: Many Folks Are Pissed Off At Gillibrand And Her Opportunism

If Gillibrand thinks she can ride her maneuvers against Al Franken to the Democratic nomination, she and her consultants better think again. No one likes her hypocritical move and today Democratic super-donor Susie Tompkins Buell, a huge donor to Democratic women candidates, is reconsidering future contributions to politicians like Gillibrand.

Buell said she is weighing whether to continue her financial support after the calls for Franken's exit last month. The charge for his resignation— led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and followed almost immediately by a string of statements from other prominent female Democratic senators— came on Dec. 6, before the conclusion of an official Senate Ethics Committee inquiry.

…In two interviews this week, Buell described the push for Franken’s departure as "unfair," "cavalier," and somewhat politically motivated — "a stampede," "like a rampage," she said, speaking in stark terms about senators she has backed for years, naming Gillibrand in particular.

"They need to know that some of their biggest supporters are questioning why they did that," Buell said. "We have to do things conscientiously and fairly. He didn't have the chance to defend himself."

The critique marks a somewhat significant departure for Buell, who is a mainstay in Democratic donor circles and has cultivated a reputation over the years as a fierce and vocal supporter of Democratic women.

…Since 1991, Buell has contributed to nearly every one of the 17 Democratic women currently serving in the Capitol's upper chamber, according to campaign filings. She has given the most to Gillibrand and her PAC, Off the Sidelines, a group dedicated to supporting other female candidates.

…"These are senators that almost unanimously said he should have his opportunity to explain himself with the Ethics Committee," she said. "Then, within hours of each other, they said he should resign. It was clearly, clearly highly organized.”

UPDATE: A Sign From God

Bachmann said she wanted a sign from God before making up her mind about whether or not to run for the Minnesota Senate seat. This week she got one:

Worst Senate Democrat of 2017-- It Was Not Joe Manchin

Kirsten Gillibrand is a real piece of crap-- the worst Democratic senator of the year-- worse than Joe Manchin, worse than Claire McCaskill, worse than Heidi Heitkamp, worse than Mark Warner, Joe Donnelly, Tom Carper, DiFi or Michael Bennet. All those senators score “F” from ProgressivePunch. Gillibrand was given an “A.” So why is she the worst Democrat in the Senate?

When Gillibrand first ran for Congress in 2006, Blue America endorsed her and I got to know her pretty well. She flat out lied to me for the whole campaign, pretending to be a progressive. As soon as she won, she revealed her true colors, joining the Blue Dogs, running up a reactionary voting record, being the poster child for the NRA (which graded her votes in Congress “A”) and, worst of all, leading an ugly, xenophobic, anti-Latino jihad in New York that sought to deny Hispanic immigrants drivers licenses. I realized immediately that she didn’t have any values at all and was strictly an opportunist with no core, just a craving for advancement. What a monster! I should have paid more attention when people warned me away from her because of her work as the lead attorney defending Phillip Morris when they were lying about tobacco’s relationship to cancer and other diseases. (She claimed she only helped Phillip Morris sell death so she could have enough money to defend abused women and their children for free. Using abused women and children to advance her career has always been one of her most overarching traits.)

Gillibrand was lucky enough to be swept into office in an anti-Republican wave, although it didn’t hurt her when a 9-11 call was released that had her opponent’s wife calling the police to report he was beating her up. The opponent, John Sweeney, claimed the 9-11 tape was fake and his wife backed him up. But he never recovered from the terrible press. Once Gillibrand started voting, people wondered what difference it made to have her or a Republican. She became infamous for her vote to-- wait for it-- withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. She actively campaign against undocumented immigrants getting drivers licenses and voted to make English the official language.

When Obama appointed Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, Gillibrand was the choice of the corrupt conservative Democratic establishment-- especially the Clintons-- as the replacement. She immediately went back to pretending to be a progressive since she would soon have to win election statewide. Like I said, no moral core whatsoever. She has accepted more Wall Street bribes ($9,151,324) than anyone currently serving in the Senate other than former presidential candidates John McCain and Marco Rubio, and the notoriously corrupt bankster allies Chuck Schumer ($26,727,695), Rob Portman ($10,753,434) and Pat Toomey ($9,178,850). Everyone in Washington knows she’s for sale.

But that’s all old news— and not the reason we’re naming her the worst Senate Dem of 2017. She won that distinction by revving up a war against men in the hope that it will serve as a stepping stone towards a presidential bid. She maneuvered behind the scenes to force Al Franken to resign, something which has, fortunately, backfired against her. A new poll from PPP, released Thursday, in fact, shows that most Minnesotans are pissed off how it all went down and do not want to see Franken forced out of office. And you know who’s the most pissed off? Democratic women. Key findings:

• 50% of voters think he should not resign, to only 42% who think he should go through with his planned resignation. There is little appetite from Democratic voters at the state level for Franken to go, with 71% opposing his departure. A majority of independents- 52%- as well think he should not resign, with just 41% favoring his exit.
• Franken remains well above average in popularity for a Senator, with 53% of voters approving of the job he’s doing to 42% who disapprove. PPP rarely finds Senators with majority approval in their home states. Franken’s continued popularity is being driven especially by women. 57% of them like the job he’s doing to 37% who don’t. By contrast Donald Trump stands at 40/58 with women in the state.
• Minnesotans don’t like how the process with Franken’s resignation has played out. 60% think the Senate Ethics Committee should have completed its investigation (including 79% of Democrats and 61% of independents) before any decision was made about Franken’s future, while only 35% think he should resign immediately. Beyond that 76% of Minnesota voters think their voices should have been more important in determining whether Franken stayed in the Senate or not, to only 12% who think that should have been determined more by his fellow Senators in Washington.

Side from Gillibrand and the senators she bamboozled into supporting her decision to force Franken out, the only group that supports him resigning at self-described Republicans and admitted Trump voters.

Since Gillibrand thought it so important for her little lynch mob to go back and dig up dirt on Franken from before he was in the Senate, wouldn’t it be fair to litigate Gillibrand’s own anti-Hispanic activities from when she was already in Congress. Why should anyone tolerate a racist and bigot like her among Democrats, especially coupled with all the blatant hypocrisy and corruption? I'm afraid Kirsten Gillibrand should resign.

Lots Of Tragedy To Go Around-- Due Process Could Be Very Helpful

In his delineation of the tragedy of Ruben Kihuen, Jon Ralston wrote Monday that it was Reid who elevated "someone with so many known ticking time bombs in his past." Ralston expressed sympathy, not with the Democratic Party establishment or even Kihuen but with so many people who "had reposed faith in and who so many must now re-evaluate. His announcement that he will not run for re-election, as inevitable as August triple-digit temperatures in Las Vegas, is unalterably sad for so many young people, especially Hispanics, who believed in the first DREAMer in Congress... [They] saw Kihuen as a symbol of hope in a Trumpian world where their futures are uncertain. And it wasn’t just DREAMers-- Kihuen has been a heroic figure to many younger Hispanics and others, too, people who saw him as the embodiment of the American Dream. Imagine their nightmare now.

I find some of the rationalizations I have heard whispered-- he was single, women threw themselves at him, the women never said anything, back then-- to be grotesque. I understand denial by those close to him, perhaps. But everyone else needs to open their eyes and see Kihuen for what he is: A playboy-as-predator who has exploited many professional situations with women and caused them to feel he cared only about sleeping with them. He was relentless in his pursuit, not taking “no” for an answer and either not considering or not caring that they were people who were dependent upon him, be it for votes or a salary.

...There are other stories out there. There are women who have experienced Kihuen’s relentless and juvenile attentions, unwanted and parried, who simply do not want to have their stories told. That is their right, and we will apply no pressure on anyone put in a difficult situation by Kihuen or any other elected official who has misused the power dynamic. The women these men have diminished and demeaned have the right to say when and whether their stories are told.

Which brings me to the question of whether Kihuen’s attempt to stave off resignation will work.

Kihuen, too, is a gambler. Just as he bet that none of these women he harassed would ever come forward-- maybe he thought they were thrilled he was coming on to them or believed his superior position would intimidate them-- he is rolling the dice that he can survive for a year with the floodgates not opening.

I thought the New York Times’ Alex Burns put it well, describing what Kihuen and fellow harasser Blake Farenthold are doing as a “plea-bargain,” trying to get their parties to allow them to have the lesser punishment of not running to avoid resigning.

(My guess is that in his current state of delusion Kihuen might actually believe that by March, when filing opens, the Ethics Committee will clear him and he can run again. Denial is powerful when one is clinging to one’s job title for dear life. More on that in a moment.)

The thought is ludicrous that Kihuen can possibly be effective-- as if he ever has been-- when the leaders want him gone and his Democratic colleagues from Nevada have either said he should resign or implied he should.

There was also a post Monday morning from Politico noting that several Democratic senators are urging Al Franken to reverse his resignation. In fact, Joe Manchin "who urged Franken not to step down to begin with-- at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation-- said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats," calling Gillibrand's lynch party "atrocious." They also noted that Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who issued a statement calling for Franken's resignation, has since told him privately that he regrets doing so."

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” said a third senator who has also called for the resignation, and has since expressed regret directly to Franken. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.” The senator asked not to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue among Democrats.

As we mentioned yesterday, state Senator Daylin Leach-- the front-running candidate for Pat Meehan's suburban Philly seat-- has come under attack and and that attack became more serious as Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat up for reelection-- a weak, insecure, frightened guy, in way over his head, who is deathly afraid of pissing anyone off-- called for Leach to resign from the state Senate. "This disturbing behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Sen. Leach should resign," the governor said in a stinging rebuke of a fellow Democrat. "While he has been a leader on important policy issues, this conduct cannot be excused. As I have said previously, this is not a partisan issue. The lack of adequate structure for victims to report this type of behavior and feel protected is inexcusable, and underscores that Harrisburg’s culture must change." Leach is an old friend. I asked him if he was planning on resigning or withdrawing from the congressional race.

He told me he is "absolutely" staying in the race and absolutely not resigning. "Nobody can make me resign. And I never would. And if anyone wants a different nominee, they are going to have to beat me in a primary. Lets see if they can do that." A couple hours later I got a press release from his office saying "I am taking a step back from the congressional campaign to focus on my family..." Sunday night Daylin sent me a very long, "too long," he told me explanation of what was going on from his perspective. Monday I asked him if I could run it and he said ok. I doubt you'll see anything like it anywhere else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has released a story which mentions me in connection with the #MeToo movement. I feel compelled to respond. First, I will lay out a chronology of how this story came to be, then I will tell my side of the story, and finally, I will offer some thoughts on where we are now as a country.

In 2014, when I ran for Congress, a woman (Colleen Kennedy) volunteered for my campaign. She worked enthusiastically and the campaign ended without incident. In fact team and I helped her find another job in politics and for some months after the campaign, she continued to express her support for me on social media.

I was therefore surprised when 6 months later, this supporter attacked me on twitter for what she mistakenly believed was me missing a vote on an education bill. She said I was a false progressive and a hypocrite, etc. When I tried to explain, she continued to attack me, so I disengaged from her and have not interacted with her since.

In June of this year, the first press stories about me contemplating a run for Congress in PA-7 appeared. At that time, out of the blue, I began hearing about a whisper campaign claiming that I was a sexual predator. Such whisper campaigns, while insidious, are not uncommon in politics. When I first ran for office in 2002 there was a whisper campaign that I was an anti-semite. Given that I was a life-long practicing Jew, (albeit with a non-Jewish last name) this was easy to disprove.

After several weeks, we heard from numerous people that my former supporter from 2014 was behind this. She did not claim that I had ever done anything to her, and in fact I was never alone with her in my life. This was just something she believed.

She proceeded to approach numerous press outlets and tell them that there were all kinds of sexual harassment complaints filed against me with the Senate, and she encouraged reporters to file “Right to Know” (RTK) requests to access said complaints.

Despite this former supporter’s representations, the answers to the RTK requests revealed that no ethical, civil, criminal or employment complaints had ever been filed. Most of the media then abandoned the story.

The exception was a pair of reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite clear evidence that their “source” was not credible, they persisted and filed a second RTK request for the names of all “employees, interns or contractors” who had ever worked for me.

The Inquirer then began calling select former staffers and asking leading questions with no basis in fact. For example, “Did Daylin Leach ever do or say anything that made you uncomfortable?” If they said no, they were asked “Did he ever make jokes that made you uncomfortable.” If the answer was still no, they asked, “Did he make jokes that COULD make someone uncomfortable?” If still no, then “Would it surprise you to hear that others were uncomfortable?”

I know these things because many of the staffers, colleagues and political opponents they contacted, called me immediately afterwards asking me what the calls were all about, and to tell me word-for-word what was asked. The people who called were unanimous in their feeling that The Inquirer reporters were really hoping to hear something unseemly about me.

It is important to note that at this point, no one had come forward and complained that they were either the victim or had first hand knowledge of anything improper I had done.

If someone files a suit, or holds a press conference, it is perfectly legitimate to contact that person to check out the story. But what The Inquirer did in attempting to manufacture a scandal was so antithetical to basic journalistic ethics that I, and people I told about it, found it hard to believe.

Also since this started in June, I had been hearing that my primary opponent, Dan Muroff, was pushing the whisper campaign started by my former supporter. Several people called me to say that members of Mr. Muroff’s team and Mr. Muroff himself were calling them and saying versions of “something bad is going to come out about Daylin, so you had better support Dan.” [Ed- I might add at this point that, s an officer of a PAC, I've heard exactly the same thing from Muroff supporters and have heard the same thing from several campaigns in other parts of the country about other candidates trying to take advantage of what I sometimes refer to as "The Terror."]

We then became aware of the very close personal relationship between my former supporter and the Muroff campaign. Specifically, it was relayed to us that my former supporter and Dan Muroff’s campaign manager were “best friends.”

Concurrent with The Inquirer filing their initial RTK request, the Muroff campaign and my former supporter started referencing The Inquirer as where the damaging story about me was going to appear (despite the fact that there was no appropriate reason that either of them would have been notified of the RTK request).

I can’t express how personally painful the Muroff connection to this story was for my wife Jen and me. We had thought of Dan as a very close friend. We had been to each other’s homes (and his boat) and hung out as couples many times, and I had always supported Dan when he ran for office previously. This year, Dan chose to move into district I’ve lived in for 19 years to run for Congress, which he has every legal right to do. But he was very angry that I was running for the same seat.

Despite calling many of my former employees, The Inquirer was still coming up empty. In fact, the

I never claimed to be anybody’s Meow. But I knew I always treated my employees well. That’s why I have one of the lowest turnover rates in the Senate, and why many of my employees have stayed with me for well over a decade.

Over the course of the 31 years since I graduated law school, I have had more than 300 female employees, interns, and students. Not once has any ethics complaint, lawsuit, or criminal charge ever been filed against me. Further, nobody has ever complained to me, or quit a job, or dropped a class because of any conduct I engaged in.

This does not mean that I was a perfect person or that it’s not possible that someone could have disliked me, or felt unhappy with something I said or did. Certainly in the course of normal human interaction, very few people never say the wrong thing or are never perceived as annoying. But it seems like the bar which triggers some sort of full investigation by a respected newspaper should be higher.

Eventually after calling numerous people, the Inquirer notified my office that there were “allegations”. As presented to us, there were 4 allegations. They were all anonymous. The reporters wouldn’t tell me who was accusing me, or when specifically the incidents happened, or even what exactly they were about. Here is what I was told:

1. Someone said that in 2008, at the campaign office I told a joke referencing a wet T-Shirt contest as a fundraiser.
2. Also in 2008, also at the campaign office, there was a discussion of the attractiveness of Hollywood actresses, and I had offered my opinion.
3. In 2012, I had said “something” that “made a DNC volunteer mad” at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. Said what? To who? Where? What context? The reporter indicated she didn’t know any of that information.
4. An unnamed attendee at a political fundraiser who did not work for me, said that during a conversation about getting petitions signed, I had momentarily touched her leg, not in a sexual way, but that she had felt uncomfortable nonetheless.

It is important to know that the RTK requests did not provide the names of the people described above as the RTK does not cover campaigns. It only applies to state employees. These were not state employees. So how did they find these people? It turns out that they are connected to the Muroff campaign and my former supporter.

In fact, 3 of these 4 allegations were from Aubrey Montgomery, a woman who now claims she was very upset about my sense of humor when she worked on my campaign in 2008, but who has continued to donate to me, come to my house for parties, give me advice, and pretend she was my friend in the years since.

I would now like to respond to these allegations. As I see it, they fall into 2 categories. The first one is humor.

I find it ironic that the Pennsylvania media loves to write stories tut-tutting about my humor. These same reporters have enthusiastically invited me to raise them money by performing comedy at their annual charity Gridiron Dinner for the past 9 years. The lead Inquirer reporter on this story has come to see me perform many times.

Some may remember that a reporter named Mario Cattabiani wrote a long expose about my humor 12 years ago. Yet after one of my gridiron performances, he took the time to call me and say that I was the “funniest comedian he had ever seen.”

Those who know me know that humor is an integral part of my personality. Frankly, it literally saved my life during a difficult childhood. I never met my father who ran off before I was born. My mother did her best, but had a lot of issues and was not a particularly engaged parent. I was placed in a series of foster homes which were often neglectful and even abusive. It was only by seeing the world through an absurdist lens was I able to cope.

I also think humor is a force for good in a very dark world. It helps us get through tough times, and is invaluable to me as an elected official. I am one of the most requested speakers in the state because I give a good speech, which is usually, in part, funny. Humor diffuses tension and makes people feel included. It’s one of my few traits of which I am unambiguously proud (as opposed to my hairline, singing voice, pole-vaulting ability, etc.)

The vast majority of my humor is not in any way sexual. Like most people, i joke around about food, or New Jersey, or the news or something Donald Trump said, or…New Jersey. But I am not pure. I have on occasion laughed at or told off-color jokes. I will admit to liking Sarah Silverman, or South Park or Chris Rock. But while I laugh at that sort of thing, that is not the brand of humor I usually use.

My humor is never mean. It is never directed at someone present. It is mostly self-deprecating, and if anyone is the butt of my jokes it’s almost always me. (or Trump, but…I mean..come on!). I’d also note that my jokes have gotten tamer over the years. Maybe its just a function of aging.

As for the specific jokes allegedly told in the campaign office, I honestly don’t remember them. It’s a lot of years to remember a joke. And frankly, without any context, or even hint as to who else was present, they don’t sound like things I’d say. But putting all of that aside, are silly jokes told in the presence of other adults a decade ago really worthy of an expose in the Philadelphia Inquirer?

The other allegation involves me touching someone’s leg. And to be clear, I do not know this person. She did not work for me. I have had no contact with her before or since. I am told I had a brief conversation with her about getting ballot petitions signed. As for touching the leg, I have absolutely no memory of this conversation or any interaction with her leg.

That said, as a general matter, it is possible that I touched her leg. I do sometimes touch people, men and women, when I am talking to them. I might place a hand on a shoulder, or clasp a fore-arm, or punctuate the end of a conversation with a pat on the back or the knee and a farewell. Some of you have seen the recent viral video of Representative Matt Bradford touching Representative Darryl Metcalfe’s arm, and Rep. Metcalfe freaking out.

Well, I sometimes do the same thing (the Bradford thing, not the Metcalfe). I always viewed it as a way to connect, and often do it without even noticing. Again, I have never received a complaint.

Further, I will concede that it is not all that difficult to tell me and George Clooney apart. Yet, for whatever reason, I am touched all the time. My shoulder or arm is clasped, strangers and acquaintances put their arms around me for photographs, I am hugged, kissed and patted on the back a number of times every day when I am out in public. I never interpret these touches as sexual, because they aren’t.

But maybe this woman didn’t like some man touching her leg. And she has every right to not like it. It’s her body. But there was nothing sexual about it, and nobody alleges there was. In fact, the reporter specifically told me that nobody alleged that I touched them in a sexual way.

And again, why this is a story in the newspaper is not clear. I am far less touchy than many other people we all know (see e.g. Joe Biden). And if we are doing a story on everyone who ever touches anyone else in politics, or in life, the Inquirer will have to add a new daily section to the paper.

As someone who has been dragged through this for several months, I’d like to conclude by offering some thoughts on where we are.

First, to be clear, the recent discussion of sexual assault is long overdue. Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has raped or assaulted scores of women. He should be in prison. Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore and Donald Trump appear to be serial predators. No person should have to endure or fear this sort of assault, not only on their body, but on their dignity and their very worth as a human being.

I have spent my life fighting to change the laws to reflect our highest aspirations for gender equality. Equal Pay legislation, access to emergency contraception, contraception equity, the banning of shackling of pregnant prisoners, and mandatory paid family leave are all my bills. All of my employees who have children may take 3 months of paid maternity (or paternity leave). If you search Youtube, you will see my repeated and passionate floor arguments against efforts to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

I hire and promote women aggressively. Women have been my Chief-of-Staff on the legislative side, and four of my campaign mangers on the political side. I have supported groups like Emerge to increase the number of women elected to office in our Commonwealth. I am married to an incredibly strong woman who is among the most talented psychologists practicing. Our daughter Brennan, at 16 has already taken on the national right-wing attack machine and is currently in Washington DC as a US Senate Page.

Obviously, a good history on women’s rights is no justification for bad conduct. But I do believe in assessing allegations as thin and obscure as the ones against me, intent is important. And whether one has a history of respecting or disrespecting women is relevant.

However, I worry that there are some off-notes about the current frenzy over sexual misbehavior. We want to stop predatory and demeaning behavior. We don’t want to stop all normal human interaction. We don’t want to metaphorically turn every humorous quip or innocent pat into an unpardonable crime.

If a man or a woman is uncomfortable with a non-sexual squeeze of the arm or an offered high-5, then they should feel free to say so and that should be respected. But the default option should not be that men and women view each other as radioactive. We shouldn’t all wear Hazmat suits to work for fear that the slightest arm-brush will trigger an investigation.

Men who have done horrible things to women, using force, or groping or persistently propositioning or sending unwanted obscene photos, etc., should be held to account. But having men steeped in terror, staying up nights wracking their brains for who in the last 40 years they may have told the wrong joke to, or who might have misinterpreted a congratulatory hug on the receipt of good news as a sexual come-on does not help women. Fear is not respect. And avoidance is not equality.

We must also remember that our entire system of justice is founded on the notion of due process. Credible accusations of serious misconduct must be taken seriously. But blind belief of either side in a dispute is not a part of our justice system for a reason. Remember, in the context of the current discussion, some of those accused will be our brothers, sons, fathers. They deserve to be heard too.

What I’m saying is that exposure and reckoning have their place, but so does proportionality and a recognition of how people actually live their daily lives. I’ve been to many work-places, not just my own. People pretty much are the same in all of them. They like to be friends, or at least friendly with their co-workers. They like to laugh and feel connected. They want to feel safe within a bond of trust. And trust comes from seeing your colleagues as real people.

I wish the media was more responsible and focused on how our elections are being stolen or what its like to live in deep poverty, or maybe how our current economic policy disproportionately harms women, and less on gotcha stories designed to earn clicks. I wish they covered actual stories rather than tried to create sensational ones. But I can’t control that.

What I can do is refuse to let a newspaper, which allowed itself to be weaponized by a rival political campaign stop me from fighting for what I’ve fought for all my life. And that’s exactly what I will do.