Kamala Isn't The Only Phony Opportunist Pretending To Back Medicare-For-All Without Even Knowing What It Is

Ben Ray Luján is running scared. This week he "broke" with Pelosi, his puppet-master, and suddenly called for impeaching Trump. Over the course of the last month or so, he also broke with her on the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-All. And he says he will no longer accept the corporate bribes that have funded his worthless political career. Did Ben Ray Luján, one of Congress' most mediocre, achievement-less members, have a revelation that has turned him into a progressive? He may have had a revelation-- but nothing will ever turn him into a progressive. The revelation was that New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is going to win the open U.S. Senate seat he wants to step into. Luján is a favorite of Pelosi's and Schumer's and the transpartisan DC establishment. He's the kind of zombie-politician who does what he's told and never rocks the boat and doesn't have an idea in his head. But back in New Mexico, he was on the wrong side of every important issue. He panicked when he realized being a DC Establishment munchkin doesn't win elections in his home state. He read through Oliver's position papers and tried coopting every single thing. Pramila Jayapal was so excited he co-sponsored her Medicare-for-All bill that he previously ignored and refused to back that despite a record as a dull, robotic conservative, she actually endorsed him over Oliver. Yes, Washington DC politics can change people, apparently even someone like Jayapal.

There was a flurry of commentary this week after Kamala's Harris' most prominent trait-- her sheer and overwhelming inauthenticity-- leaked out into the media. Headline: Kamala Harris is telling wealthy donors something different about Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan. With polling numbers tanking badly, voters seem to have caught on to what kind of a politician Kamala Harris is. One word: opportunist. Maybe she should have been an actress instead of a politician. Tim O'Donnell wrote that "It's still a little unclear exactly where Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) stands on Medicare-for-all."

At a fundraiser in the Hamptons this weekend, Harris told a crowd of wealthy donors that she isn't "comfortable" with the health care plan espoused by her Democratic presidential primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which Harris once co-sponsored. She did maintain, however, that she is still supportive of Medicare-for-all at large, adding a little more confusion to her policy position.

"I think almost every member of the United States Senate who's running for president and many others, have signed on to a variety of plans in the Senate," she reportedly said at the fundraiser. "And I have done the same. [A]ll of them are good ideas, which is why I support them. And I support for Medicare-for-all. But as you may have noticed, over the course, I've not been comfortable with Bernie's plan, the Medicare-for-all plan."

As recently as April of this year, Harris' office sent a press release saying she had joined Sanders in introducing the Medicare-for-All Act of 2019. So, considering the audience Harris had over the weekend, it might have seemed as if she was backtracking as a result of "political convenience," but her campaign assured the Daily Beast that she reached her current conclusion after having worked on the issue more. Harris does have her own formal health care plan now which aims to phase in Medicare-for-all over the course of a decade and seeks to avoid middle-class tax hikes as a method for funding.

This, presumably, caused the Washington Post's Jeff Stein to tweet, cynically, "What percentage of the Democrats who co-sponsored either the Sanders or Jayapal Medicare-for-all bills would actually vote for them? I would put it at close to 50 percent."

Let's leave the mysterious Senate cesspool-- where everyone thinks they're going to be president someday-- out of this and stick to the House, first in terms of the Jayapal bill and then some other egregious examples. H.R. 1384 is Jayapal's Medicare-for-All bill. It was introduced on February 27 with just over 100 original co-sponsors. Most of them enthusiastically back the bill, the best version of Medicare yet. It includes dental, vision, hearing and mental care and extends Medicare gradually to people under the age of 65 and fixes the disgraceful Medicare Part D pharmaceutical program that was tacked onto Medicare by the GOP to cheat consumers and benefit the party's drug-making donors. In that first group are strong longtime healthcare advocates like Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), David Cicciline (D-RI) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY), as well as a number of freshmen who ran on Medicare-for-All last year, like AOC (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Andy Levin (D-MI), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Deb Haaland (D-NM), Katie Porter (D-CA), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), etc.Jahana Hayes (D-CT).

It's not always easy to assign motives to people but I will say that some pretty conservative members either with or fearing primaries also were original co-sponsors:

• Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY)
• Mark Veasey (New Dem-TX)
• Tim Ryan (D-OH)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)
• Jimmy Panetta (New Dem-CA)
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
• Brian Higgins (D-NY)
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)

After the original co-sponsors, a few more trickled in in March, April and May. Luján asked to be put on the list in June when he saw sky-high polling numbers in New Mexico and realized Maggie Oliver was a real threat. A couple of weeks ago, another corrupt conservative Dem-- with a primary from the left-- Juan Vargas signed on as well.

Let's look at David Cicciline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, H.R. 1296. It was introduced a week or two before Jayapal's Medicare-for-All Act and came too life with 190 original co-sponsors. That's HUGE-- and it it included not just progressives but even some pretty conservative Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, members like Max Rose (NY), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Charlie Crist (FL), Jim Costa (CA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Cooper (TN), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Ed Case (HI), Lou Correa (CA).

The bill sat there, languishing in committee with no hearing scheduled, for months. Between February and the 3 right-wing domestic terrorist massacres in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton the bill seemed dead-- on orders of Pelosi-- and with just one single new co-sponsor. Then a half year later came the massacres. During the summer recess 10 members who had chosen not to sign on started called Cicciline and telling him they were co-sponsoring the bill including unlikely champions like New Jersey Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer. The bill even picked up it's first official Republican co-sponsor, Peter King (NY).

The bill could be passed by the House in an hour if not for Pelosi, who is now slow-walking it to death so that some of the cowards in the freshman class who are both afraid to vote yes and afraid to vote no, don't have to commit themselves. This is not just immoral; it is also idiotic losing strategy since this is exactly what voters want to see passed. Has Pelosi has lost her mind? Or are some of these members just on the list of co-sponsors for appearances' sake? Maybe a few-- like perhaps Tennessee Blue Dog Jim Cooper-- but the conservative Democrats I've spoken to have told me that, unlike in the cases of Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, this is not an example of co-sponsoring just for the sake of avoiding a primary or anything or the sort. Pretty much everyone who signed on-- all 210 members want to vote YES on this bill. Pelosi is screwing up but pushing the weak background checks bill first and leaving this much more significant bill as an after-thought that the House Judiciary Committee will consider a few weeks later, presumably when emotions over the most recent spate of shootings has died down. This is another one that will never be voted on in the Senate and never have to be vetoed by Trump, who has now stopped bloviating about pushing for a bill to protect Americans from gun violence.

Maggie Toulouse Oliver versus The Machine, The Swamp, Schumer, The DC Stink

So far Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate in 2020, outstanding incumbent Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and two progressives in hot primary races against conservative Establishment shleps: Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, the current Secretary of State. Before Romanoff can get to incumbent Republican Cory Gardner he'll probably have to beat failed presidential candidate Frackenlooper. And before Maggie Oliver gets to whichever conservative loser the GOP spits out for the seat, she'll have to beat the DC Establishment candidate for the seat Ben Ray Luján.

Yesterday, Ryan Grim, reporting for The Intercept asked if New Mexico will go with the progressive or with the ex-head of the DCCC. "The party establishment," he wrote, "has already unified behind Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico congressman, to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, who is retiring. Luján-- who is assistant House speaker, a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last cycle-- was quickly endorsed by Pelosi after announcing his bid in April. In an unusual move, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, rather than letting the primary play out, endorsed him as well."

Leave it to Schumer and the DSCC to always pick the more corporate and more conservative candidate! And the one most easily controlled by party leadership. Their move should be enough of a reason to contribute to Maggie's campaign immediately. (Please do so by tapping on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.) Maggie Toulouse Oliver is too progressive for Schumer's taste and too independent-minded and New Mexico-focussed for the transpartisan corrupt DC Establishment. As Ryan reminded his readers, "As the chair of the DCCC, Luján oversaw the party’s effort to beat back progressive challengers in open primaries across the country. Now, he faces such a challenge himself."

On August 13, the Working Families Party, which has become an increasingly potent player in the state’s politics, endorsed Maggie Toulouse Oliver, joined later by the Action PAC (a project affiliated with The Intercept columnist Shaun King). Oliver, a 43-year-old single mom whose children were on Medicaid when they were younger, began her career with the League of Conservation Voters and was elected secretary of state in 2014. An outspoken progressive, she backs a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency; as secretary of state, she enacted automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

The Lujáns, on the other hand, are a political dynasty in New Mexico and arrived in the region as Spanish colonial settlers long before it was part of the United States. Ben Ray’s father, Ben Luján, was speaker of the New Mexico House. Michelle Luján Grisham serves as the state’s governor, and her uncle, Manuel Luján Jr., was a Republican who served in the U.S. House and as George H.W. Bush’s interior secretary. Eugene Luján was chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The New Mexico race is the first serious attempt in 2020 by progressives to take the 2018 House primary playbook and port it over to a Senate campaign. For the DSCC to so quickly get behind Luján reflects a less secure party power structure, one that feels under siege in Washington from a rising progressive wing.

At a meeting on August 14 of major progressive groups in the state, Eric Griego of New Mexico WFP pushed for the movement to unify around Oliver, he said, but the groups-- representing unions, the environment, and reproductive rights-- were worried about taking on Luján and are so far staying out. “They’re looking at the bare-knuckle politics,” he told The Intercept. “Their heart is with Maggie, and everybody is scared shitless to get in the race.”

There's an asymmetry in how the parties approach primaries in relatively uncompetitive states. Republicans tend to fill open red Senate seats with true believers and ultraconservatives, as the party’s business wing and its activist base are largely aligned on major ideological questions. In the Democratic Party, the corporate donor base and party activists are at odds, with the former typically out-muscling the latter, which tilts the balance of power toward moderates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Establishment Democrats often argue that they would prefer to elect more progressive candidates, but the demands of pragmatism, and the tilt of the electorate, require them to support centrist candidates with corporate backing. A 2018 academic study, however, cast significant doubt on that claim, offering evidence that those party leaders prefer centrist candidates but mask that preference in the language of pragmatism.

The tendencies on either side have had drastic implications, as Senate Republicans have moved to reshape the Senate into a vehicle for minority dominance, and Senate Democrats have largely attempted to hew to Senate norms. It took former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some five years to do modest filibuster reform, as he worked to overcome objections from inside his caucus to changing Senate rules. At the first hint of opposition to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

One obstacle for progressives in blue states is that they often have to run, in primaries, against candidates who aren’t obviously objectionable to Democratic voters-- and have major backing from high-dollar donors. That combination is difficult to beat. Leading into the primary election between former New York Rep. Joe Crowley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, there was no upsurge in local or national opinion that there was something terribly wrong with Crowley. Sure, he was heavily backed by corporate donors, but he largely voted the right way on the House floor. Only in victory has Ocasio-Cortez been able to demonstrate the genuine difference between the two to a national audience.

Oliver faces the same challenge in New Mexico. “It’s not easy because he’s not somebody that people dislike. He’s not the enemy, but he’s not the best possible option,” said Heather Brewer, Oliver’s campaign manager. “There’s nothing wrong with Ben Ray Luján, but there’s something right about electing the first woman and a strong progressive from the blue state of New Mexico.”

And Luján has become even less wrong since running for Senate. After chairing the DCCC for three cycles and raising extraordinary sums of corporate money, he quickly raised some $200,000 of corporate PAC money for his Senate campaign. Yet after Oliver swore off corporate PAC money, Luján made the pledge too (though he has declined to return what he has already taken). Lujan also signed on to the Green New Deal, introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in February, after launching his campaign. Though he had never before supported former Rep. John Conyers’s Medicare for All legislation, in June, he finally co-sponsored the one written by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) which earned him Jayapal’s endorsement.

Still, he hasn’t moved left on everything. Though Luján is the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in Congress, and has condemned Trump’s policy of separating families and caging children, he has not aimed his fire squarely at ICE. Oliver is more outspoken on the question and has called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, with its responsibilities distributed to other agencies that do not act as rogue secret police forces.

And while Oliver has been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump, Luján has hewed to the Pelosi line that it’s premature to move forward. “On the books, he’s got a decent record; he’s not bad, we could do worse,” Griego said. “He’s a consummate inside player, and a really loyal soldier to Pelosi.”

New Mexico has become increasingly progressive in recent years and, as the GOP has faded as a political force, leftist activists have focused their energy on corporate Democrats. The biggest win so far came in 2018 against Debbie Rodella, a powerful state lawmaker who was a one-woman obstacle to progress. WFP recruited and backed an insurgent challenger, Susan Herrera, who stunned the state by ousting her in a state House primary. WFP and other progressive allies are again focused on a handful of corporate-backed Democrats at the state level in 2020, even as the groups aren’t united behind Oliver.

The race for Oliver could come down to whether she can win the backing of reproductive rights groups and win heavily among women, who not only lean Democratic but tend to be more active on behalf of candidates than men. Getting the backing of EMILY’s List is critical; the organization’s brand is so strong with female donors that if a candidate doesn’t have that endorsement, it’s hard for them to raise money. Call back when you have their endorsement, multiple candidates have been told repeatedly during their own runs.

EMILY’s List endorsed Oliver’s run for secretary of state, but backing her against Luján would require the group to challenge the Democratic power structure, of which EMILY’s List is a part. Still, EMILY’s List staying out of the race would also be politically difficult. Only 56 women have served in the Senate in the entire history of the upper chamber, with just 25 serving today. And Luján, as chair of the DCCC, angered pro-choice groups by arguing that opposition to reproductive rights should not be a litmus test for candidates (but quickly backtracked under fire).

The longer it takes for Oliver to win the backing, the harder it becomes to raise the kind of money she’ll need to compete against Luján. (EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast.”) Luján has raised more than $1.6 million so far to Oliver’s roughly $200,000, a disparity that was flagged by the progressive groups this week in their argument for why they should stay neutral.

Brewer said she was hopeful the campaign would earn the support of EMILY’s List. “I would assume given they’re a strong organization that supports pro-choice women, that that is their only consideration in how they make decisions,” she said. “I couldn’t speak to how Washington insiders might be trying to manipulate that.” And, Brewer argued, New Mexico races are relatively inexpensive; Oliver will be able to get her message out statewide for just a few million dollars, which Brewer was confident they could comfortably raise.

Ben Ray, a coincidentally named spokesperson for EMILY’s List, said that no decision had been made. “Our endorsements are a rolling process,” he said. “We are always happy to see strong women leaders like Maggie get in races like this.” (Rolling is one way to describe it; while outside activists often perceive EMILY’s List as dragging its feet, its endorsement process is cumbersome and laborious, involving a choice council that is difficult to convene at one time.)

Oliver, meanwhile, is also hoping to lock down national progressive endorsements from groups like Justice Democrats, MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, the local Indivisible, and more. That could make up for the lack of support from other mainline progressive groups afraid to take on the party establishment.

Sad about Pramila. I didn't know that.

As Grim implied, Luján is a follower-- never a leader, never an independent thinker. This campaign has been funny inasmuch as whatever Oliver does, Luján follows. He's always opposed Medicare-for-All but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. He's always opposed the Green New Deal but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. And now, he's suddenly backing impeachment, many months after most Democrats have-- and after he looked like a fool because Maggie did and he didn't... and voters were noticing. It's fine that Luján has decided to copy everything Maggie does. Maggie does good things. But what happens if he gets into the Senate and starts copying Schumer-- which is exactly what Schumer is counting on. That won't be nearly as good. New Mexico deserves an independent-minded Senator like Tom Udall, not some hack career politician.

NM-03 Could Be One Of The Most Important Battleground Districts For Progressives In 2020-- If There's A Progressive Running

As you can see from the map above, New Mexico has 3 congressional districts. NM-01 is basically Albuquerque (most of Bernalillo County) and its surroundings in much less populated Sandoval (blue), Torrance (red) and Santa Fe (red) counties. The PVI is D+7 and Obama won it with big margins both times he ran. Hillary didn't do nearly as well but still beat Trump convincingly-- 51.6% to 35.1%. Bernie won the primary in 2016 and didn't just beat Hillary but also beat Trump. In fact, Bernie beat all the Republicans combined. The congressional seat was open in 2018 and a stalwart progressive, Deb Haaland won the primary and then the general-- 59.1% to 36.3%.

NM-02 is most of the southern half of the state and it leans red. The PVI is R+6. Obama lost it narrowly both times and then Trump clobbered Hillary 50.1% to 39.9%. There are 19 counties or pieces of counties in the district. The biggest (by far) is Doña Ana (Las Cruces, north of El Paso)-- which is also the bluest-- and the only other county with much of a population is way up in the Albuquerque area, Valencia, which also swings blue. Other than that though, it's a pretty red district.The next 4 biggest counties are all overwhelmingly red: Otero, Chaves, Eddy and Lea. It was a super-close race in 2018-- the seat was open-- but a really bad Blue Dog, Xochitl Torres Small, narrowly beat Republican Yvette Herrell, 101,489 (50.9%) to 97,767 (49.1%), Torres Small is a disaster and her strategy is to vote like a Republican in the hope of luring Republican voters and while praying the Democratic base either doesn't notice or just figures that as terrible as she is, she'll be better than a Republican... even if just fractionally.

And that brings us to the bluest district in the state, NM-03 in the north. It includes Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, Clovis, Gallup, Los Alamos, Taos and Farmington and has a solid D+8 PVI. Obama kicked ass both time he ran-- first with 61.2% and then with 57.5%. But even when New Mexicans had to decide who was the lesser of two evils, Hillary beat Trump 51.8% to 36.7%. The district is around 40% Hispanic, 38% white and 17% Native American with a big Navajo population as well as Pueblos and Apaches.

The congressman since 2008 has been Ben Ray Luján, just a dull careerist and hereditary politician-- his dad, Ben Luján, was speaker of the state House-- with no strong beliefs and no backbone. He's running for the U.S. Senate, so leaving the NM-03 seat empty. In a strong blue district, this is a perfect opportunity to replace a waste-of-a-seat member with a strong progressive. But, for some reason, as far as I've been able to determine, there isn't one running. There are 10 Democrats running (an 11th, Rob Apodaca withdrew Thursday) and another 9 considering running. Yesterday an ex-Democrat, former Santa Fe County Commissioner Harry Montoya, filed FEC papers to run for the seat as well.

The dumb-narrative in the district is that the Democrats there are conservative so a progressive can't run. Oy, is that dumb! Does that mean the Democrats there don't want dental insurance included in Medicare? Does it mean they don't want to see the age for Medicare gradually lowered until it includes everyone? Does that mean they don't want to save the planet from Climate Change? Does it mean they oppose free public colleges? Does it mean they oppose raising the minimum wage to a living wage? Polling has consistently shown that the Democrats in NM-03 very much want all of those things-- and want them, strongly. It's why Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is running on them and it's why Luján, who has consistently opposed every progressive proposal introduced into Congress, immediately started signing on as a co-sponsor to all of them as soon as Maggie's platform was released.

But the dumb-narrative persists, primarily because dumb-media and dumb-politicians repeat it over and over. It doesn't mean anything substantive but it's how nothing politicians like Luján keep getting elected and reelected. With so many candidates, it's going to be a tough nut to crack in terms of figuring out who's who and what they stand for. Remember this Chris Hayes suggestion? This district is the polar opposite-- all noise, no meat.

I had high hopes that Valerie Plame, who has certainly served the country well, might be the progressive I was looking for but... still not sure-- although, when I spoke to her yesterday, she told me she backs the Green New Deal, banning the sale of assault weapons and Medicare-for-All, adding the caveat "for those who want it." Most of my friends in the state have suggested Teresa Leger Fernandez is the progressive I'm looking for but everything about her website screams an identity politics, DCCC-EMILY's List nothing-candidate. There's no way to get in touch with her on the site-- usually a good indication a candidate is a corporate shill. There is no issues page, which is 100% pure DCCC-EMILY's List. And the website is just all about her. It's all "me! me! me!" and nothing about what she's offering the people in the district. She released this intro video this week. It doesn't say a damn thing about how she's likely to behave in Congress. Will she be like Deb Haaland, whose voting record is an "A" or like Xochitl Torres Small, whose voting record is an "F." It makes a difference.





UPDATE: Progressive

This guy Kyle Tisdel sounds good. He's seriously running on the Green New Deal and all the issues around it. I should talk with him.

Did Pelosi And The Rest Of The Fear-Based Democrats Screw Up Impeachment?

Quote of the week comes from Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson, a progressive, a super-smart attorney and, until earlier in the year, the very successful mayor of Columbus:

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

Instead of doing her constitutionally-mandated duty of beginning the process of removing the criminal in the White House, Pelosi-- a victim of her own hype about how sharp and strategic she is-- has been playing political calculus and, in the process, may have blown the chances to impeach Trump.

Early yesterday morning, the Sun Sentinel broke the news that garden variety congressional Democrat Ted Deutch, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has finally gotten around to backing impeachment. It was in an OpEd penned by Deutch himself, No More Debate. Impeachment Inquiry Is Underway. But have they waited too long to win the battle of TV ratings-- and public support? "Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony may not have been a summer blockbuster," wrote Deutch, "it confirmed the damning conclusions of his report. The investigation revealed substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And that the Special Counsel did not exonerate him."

Why it wasn't a summer blockbuster isn't addressed by Deutch. Everyone inside the Beltway was tuned in-- but not the national audience that would have been had it been "important enough" to be part of impeachment. If the Democrats didn't think it was impeachment material, why should people take time out of their busy days to watch this "inside baseball" stuff? That's where Pelosi (and Nadler) miscalculated. Did they blow the chance to turn public opinion decisively in favor of impeachment, the way the Nixon television impeachment hearings did?

The most recent Reuters poll (by Ipsos) has some important numbers to consider. Among registered voters, 59% say the country is heading in then long direction. (55% of independents agree.)

Among registered voters, Trump's job approval is 40%, with disapproval at 59%. (Among independents, it's 42% approve and 51% disapprove.)

People polled say the Mueller testimony didn't sway them much in terms of impeachment. "Among those [71%] who read, saw or heard about Mueller's testimony, 47% said it made no difference in their views about impeaching the president. The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony. Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony."

Even after the hearings in which Mueller explicitly said he did NOT exonerate Trump, 35% of voters believed the had exonerated Trump and just 41% were clear-minded enough to understand that he hadn't. And a new Quinnipiac poll shows that although 51% believe Trump is a racist and that 71% are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" that a foreign government may try to interfere in the 2020 elections, and that a 52% to 40% majority said that Trump did attempt to "derail or obstruct" the investigation into the 2016 election, 60% of registered voters said Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against him. (61% of Democrats do support impeachment.) Now... back to Deutch: "Trump," he wrote, "claimed victory. He seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. The inquiry has already begun." But did Pelosi and her fear-driven caucus botch the process with their incremental approach to even this?

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole authority of impeachment. Officially launching an impeachment inquiry has never been a prerequisite to using that authority. The Judiciary Committee may refer articles of impeachment to the whole House for a vote at any time.

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry.

But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers-- powers that Chairman Nadler retains today.

No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

The Judiciary Committee officially started its investigation into the abuse of power by President Trump on March 4, 2019. The stated purpose was to consider all constitutional remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment. In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee already has the power to refer articles of impeachment to the whole House.

The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented and unconstitutional actions to ignore congressional subpoenas and pressure witnesses not to appear. President Trump has turned the White House into a black box. The Justice Department fabricated a theory of blanket immunity and distorted claims of executive privilege. The Administration wants to silence the witnesses to the President’s obstruction.

But the American people deserve to hear from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, under oath, about when the President ordered him to fire Mueller. And from Corey Lewandowski about when he was asked to narrow the scope of the investigation to protect the President. And from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about President Trump’s pressure campaign to take back control of the investigation.

If the suggestion that we are already in the midst of an impeachment inquiry sounds farfetched, look to last week’s court filings by the House counsel. To break the administration’s stonewalling, the House lawyers explained that the Constitution gives the House “a constitutional power of the utmost gravity-- recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Since Department of Justice policies won’t allow the prosecution of a sitting President, only the House of Representatives can ensure that the President is not above the law.

As we told the court, we already have the power. We don’t need a vote. We need President Trump to stop obstructing.

The committee has said repeatedly that impeachment is on the table. Legal experts, and now Robert Mueller himself, confirmed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was never capable of holding a sitting president accountable. Justice Department regulations ensured that was the case.

The remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment, are in Congress’s hands. Now that we have Special Counsel Mueller’s report and testimony, it is time for the witnesses of the President’s wrongdoing to appear before the committee as part of our ongoing investigation.

As Chairman Nadler noted in his opening statement last week, “We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

We don’t need to launch an impeachment inquiry. It has been under way since March.

Yesterday, Politico's whip list showed that over half the Democrats in the House (118 out of 235) now favor opening formal impeachment proceedings against Trump. The latest members to announce their support, besides Deutch, are Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Katherine Clark (D-MA), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Politico: "The lawmakers quietly working to organize support for Trump’s impeachment say there are two important figures to watch in the next few weeks. Assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), who is running for an open Senate seat against a primary opponent who has embraced impeachment proceedings, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon who has questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election but so far deferred to Pelosi on impeachment. Though there’s no indication he’s changing his tune, Luján’s support for impeachment proceedings could help unlock the backing of a slew of freshman Democrats who Luján helped elect in 2016, when he ran Democrats’ campaign arm, pro-impeachment lawmakers say. And Lewis’ support would carry significant sway with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have remained on the fence so far. Lewis has repeatedly been asked for his opinion on impeachment proceedings but has repeatedly indicated that he’s deferring to Pelosi."

That primary opponent Politico referred to as the person Luján is running against and who has embraced beginning impeachment proceedings is New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a strong and dedicated progressive. She had forced the generally conservative Luján to flip flop on issue after issue. Because of her he now claims to support Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, though he barely understands what either is. Yesterday, Oliver gave us a statement on Luján's hemming and hawing about impeachment. "For the good of our democracy," she wrote, "I am asking Congressman Lujan to use his leadership position and join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by the president. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

Please consider contributing to Maggie's campaign for the New Mexico Senate seat by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer just above on the right. Not only will she make a better senator than Ben Ray Luján ever would, she'll actually make a great senator, one like Jeff Merkley, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz and, most of all, Tom Udall, the New Mexico progressive who is retiring now. It would be tragic to replace a progressive like Udall with a fear-based conservative like Luján.

#MuellerTimeWithMaggie

Maggie Toulouse Oliver is the first 2020 Senate candidate Blue America is endorsing-- other than the reelection effort for our old pal, Jeff Merkley (D-OR). First and foremost, Maggie, New Mexico's Secretary of State, is a progressive trailblazer-- something with good positions, good ideas and the courage and ability to move positions and ideas into policy and reality. Bonus: if she wins she will be the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Her opponent is Nancy Pelosi puppet Ben Ray Luján, from a political family, a professional politician with neither a set of operative values nor any real point of view.

Maggie, like Jeff Merkley, would be another rare self-made member of the working class in the Senate, something a Senate-ful of multimillionaires desperately needs. As Bernalillo County Clerk and then Secretary of State, she’s helped clean up New Mexico's state government, hold dark-money special interests accountable, and oversee fair elections.

Luján has been running himself ragged trying to keep up with her as she campaigned on issues way too progressive for where he has been for his whole career in the House. On day one of her campaign she began talking about how deeply she backs the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-All. Poor Luján had no choice but to go along with the two popular programs, neither of which he had previously backed. She is also advocating opening an impeachment investigation of Trump, something Luján still can't quite bring himself to breaking with Pelosi over.

Today-- starting at 12:30PM (MT)-- and tomorrow, Maggie is live-streaming herself reading the entire Mueller Report on Facebook and Instagram (#MuellerTimeWithMaggie) in preparation for Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. "I’ve read the Mueller Report, and the facts are clear," she told New Mexico voters: "There is more than enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings." (While Mueller is testifying, Trump plans to have the White House on shutdown so everyone can help him with his tweets.) I asked Maggie to introduce herself to DWT voters with a guest post explaining what she's hoping to accomplish today and tomorrow. If you like what you read, please consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.

There Is More Than Enough Evidence For Congress To Begin Impeachment Proceeding
by Maggie Toulouse Oliver

Haven’t read the Mueller Report? Well, you’re in good company. Neither have most of the folks in Washington, D.C.

As a result, Congress continues to ignore the preponderance of evidence presented by Special Robert Mueller that President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.

And Congress continues to abdicate its authority-- and responsibility-- to hold this president accountable.

I’m not willing to let the president off the hook. I have called for and continue to call for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Indeed, all across my home state of New Mexico and the United States, voters are demanding that Congress do its job.

But House leadership is not taking action. My opponent in the New Mexico U.S. Senate race, Congressman Ben Ray Luján, is a member of Democratic House Leadership, which, in keeping with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position, has refused to move forward with impeachment. Congressman Luján even voted last week to end debate and effectively kill the articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Al Green. That’s not the leadership we need.

I’m proud to be the only candidate in this race for U.S. Senate to be calling for impeachment. It’s past time for action.

Having read the Mueller Report, I am convinced that there is more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. If more people-- especially those in Washington-- had read the Mueller Report, I am convinced that everyone would be demanding impeachment proceedings.

To help those who may not have read the report hear the overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, today I will start reading the Mueller Report live on Facebook and Instagram. I encourage everyone to tune in to get the facts.

And the facts are clear: President fired FBI Director James Comey, instructed people to shut down investigations into the President’s associates, and so many other obstructive actions that-- to my mind-- are exactly what the founders were talking about when they wrote “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

In light of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s upcoming testimony before the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, I’m clearing my scheduling and dedicating my time to reading Volume 2 of the Mueller Report because anyone who has read the Mueller Report knows that there’s more than enough evidence in it to warrant starting impeachment proceedings.

The bottom line is that if more members of Congress-- and people all across America-- had read what I’m reading live today and tomorrow, there would be no question that it is time to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. I’m the only candidate in the U.S. Senate race in New Mexico calling for impeachment proceedings. I won’t stop talking about this until the people in Washington finally hold this President accountable.

#MuellerTimewithMaggie

It Isn't Just Gaslighters And Narcissts-- It's Also Fascists

I ran this Democracy Now video of fascism expert Jason Stanley being interviewed late last night and I don't think enough people saw it. So-- since Trump is still sitting in the White House-- here it is again. Reading Stephanie Sarkis' Forbes essay on how gaslights and narcissists create crises and then act like they solved them reminded me of how fascists also create crises and then act like they solved them. Perfect position for Trump-- gaslight, narcissist and fascist.

Sarkis wrote that after they "solve" the crisis they invented, they "demand accolades." Sound like anyone know and hate? She says they do it to "create support within their base. And with 2020 elections right around the corner, Trump knows the importance of manufacturing an enemy and then portraying himself as the only person who could 'conquer' this manufactured enemy."

The most recent case in point is Trump's tariffs on Mexico. Trump is touting himself as the key factor in getting a border agreement with Mexico. However, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Mexico had reached an agreement on border policies months before Trump's tariff threat.

Trump tweeted the following on June 7th:

If we are able to make the deal with Mexico, & there is a good chance that we will, they will begin purchasing Farm & Agricultural products at very high levels, starting immediately. If we are unable to make the deal, Mexico will begin paying Tariffs at the 5% level on Monday!

He then followed with this tweet on the same day:

I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.

Again, these tweets were sent out two months after an agreement had already been reached. Trump then went after the New York Times, which accurately reported that a border agreement was in place two months ago. And as he has done several times before, Trump called the press the "Enemy of the People." He tweeted, "The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged [sic] @CNN will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!"

Trump is more frequently adding "Corrupt" to "Fake" when describing the news media. So in addition to claiming that the media have made stories up, Trump is now accusing them of receiving money or power in exchange for false stories. This is a common tactic of gaslighters/narcissists in power-- they will accuse any accurate media outlets as traitors to the country and its leader. Gaslighters/narcissists particularly accuse those in the media of being corrupt or making up stories, and they will go after the media at a fever pitch. For example, see the history of the Argentinean government going after Grupo Clarin.

Trump has manufactured crises time and time again and then tried to make himself look like the savior of that crisis. Look closer at Trump's manufactured border crisis. In reality, illegal border crossings have actually decreased in the U.S for 46 years. He also created the crisis of the "criminal immigrant." In reality, immigrants, illegal and legal, actually have a lower rate of criminal activity than citizens born in the U.S.

Trump also focused on his belief that a majority of drugs have passed through the U.S. border via illegal entry points when the truth is that a vast majority of drugs enter through legal entry points. If Trump was truly concerned about drugs entering the U.S., a much more effective course of action would have been to beef up security at those legal entry points. But that wouldn't have fit Trump's "bad immigrants" narrative.

Trump also manufactured a "crisis of patriotism" regarding NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. Kneeling during the anthem was a protest against police brutality and racial injustice, but it was spun by Trump as an issue of "patriotism." At a rally in Alabama in September 2017, Trump said to the crowd, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now!'" Trump said to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, "This is a very winning, strong issue for me," according to a sworn deposition of Jones. Pay attention to Trump's use of the word "winning." Trump views others as "winners" and "losers", another common gaslighter/narcissist tactic. And Trump knew exactly what he was doing. Narcissists/gaslighters in power will rile up their base by declaring a behavior they don't like to be "unpatriotic." Interestingly, it has only been since 2009 that NFL players came out for the anthem, contrary to a common belief of that this was a long-standing tradition. But Trump proclaimed victory when the NFL issued a statement in May 2018 that required all players to "stand and show respect for the flag." The NFL Players Association filed a grievance, and the NFL and NFL Players Association agreed to stop implementing this new policy until discussions were held.

Why do gaslighters/narcissists manufacture crises and then proclaim that they have solved them? Because it gives their supporters the false belief that the narcissist/gaslighter is accomplishing great things. It also takes the focus off real crises in which the gaslighter/narcissist has failed to take action. Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, for example. And if the gaslighter/narcissist finally provides help or aid to an area, he still plays the savior and tells the people they should show gratitude towards him.





How do you counteract this gaslighting/narcissist tactic? Call it out for what it is-- a blatant attempt to cater to supporters. Present facts that contradict the gaslighter/narcissist's assertions that first, there is a crisis, and second, they are the solver of that crisis. If you work with this type of "crisis manufacturer," keep documentation of the statements and actions taken by the gaslighter/narcissist. In addition, a constant stream of truthful information is the best way to counteract this type of behavior.

Does that work when the gaslight/narcissist is also a fascist tyrant? Not a chance. Tom Steyer has a better idea: throw the bum out. Steyer is amping up pressure on the House Democrats who should be doing their duty and impeaching him. Steyer's group, Need to Impeach, kicked off a campaign to target 12 districts held by Democratic lawmakers who do not yet back impeachment. The group plans to spend $360,000 in the first few weeks of the effort, which will fund targeted digital ads, billboards, organizing activities, and events like so-called “Impeach-ins,” which are intended to make the case for impeachment.

The dozen Democrats whom Need to Impeach is targeting are either all prominent members of party leadership or hold positions on key House committees. They include Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the number three House Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the Democratic Caucus Chairman...

Other lawmakers being targeted by Need to Impeach include Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), a candidate for president and Pelosi ally who sits on the House Judiciary and Intelligence panels; Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and is another close Pelosi ally; and several Democrats representing liberal districts in southern California and Florida.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) is another target. A Need to Impeach source provided an example of a billboard that could soon be going up in his district. “Rep. Luján: We need an impeachment inquiry now,” it reads. The billboard displays the phone number for the D.C. office of Luján, a top member of House Democratic leadership and candidate for Senate, and urges constituents to call in with their thoughts.

The new campaign by Need to Impeach comes as a growing number of House Democrats have begun calling for the launch of impeachment proceedings against the president. The group, along with others organizing for impeachment, believe that building support among voters in progressive districts is key to persuading lawmakers on the fence to take a stand—which would ultimately put pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to take up impeachment, an option she has repeatedly dismissed at this stage. Some 60 Democrats have so far come out in support of launching an inquiry, accounting for a quarter of the party’s House membership.

In a statement, Steyer said that momentum behind impeachment is growing by the day. “The leaders of the Democratic Party deserve to know where their constituents stand, and alongside millions of Americans, we’re calling on them to stop putting political expediency ahead of what’s right,” he said.

Need to Impeach has targeted 47 members of Congress so far this year, and the group says its organizers and volunteers have visited over 100 congressional offices to make the impeachment case. In January, Steyer announced he would pour $6 million into a nationwide ad campaign to boost his message.

The agitating from Steyer has gotten him crosswise with Pelosi, who represents the hedge fund billionaire’s hometown of San Francisco. Steyer has blasted Pelosi’s declaration Trump isn’t “worth” the effort: “Shall America just stop fighting for our principles and do what’s politically convenient?” he asked in a March tweet.

We caught up with Heather Brewer, campaign manager for the progressive Democrat who Luján is running against, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver. She told us today that Oliver "knows that holding elected officials accountable is a key part of what makes our democracy work. That’s why she fully supports initiating impeachment hearings. And that’s she agrees with Need to Impeach that voters must make their voices heard  to hold the Congressman to account for his position on impeachment."






UPDATE: Time For Pelosi And Her Team To Retire

Progressive Democrat Shahid Buttar is primarying Pelosi from the left. He told us that "Voices who oppose impeachment, like Speaker Pelosi's, are the same ones that never saw Trump coming in the first place. We shouldn't accept their supposed wisdom as gospel now, especially when their positions have demonstrably emboldened our criminal president to escalate his attacks on America and our Constitution. Even if Pelosi were right about impeachment being a losing political proposition-- which she is not-- it remains a constitutional imperative. Failing to initiate impeachment will ensure that kleptocracy will be accepted, whereas initiating the process will put purple state activists in a position to force the hands of Republican Senators to either show up for their oaths of office or find a new career. Nothing would be better for the Democratic Party's base heading in the 2020 general election. This is no time for timidity."

The Same Reasons Why Primaries Are So Important, Are The Reasons Anti-Democracy Creeps Like Cheri Bustos Hate Them

On Monday, Georgia progressive Michael Owens penned a post for Daily Kos on a topic that should be familiar to all DWT readers by now-- DCCC Incumbent Protection Policy Threatens a Progressive Congressional Race in Georgia. The DCCC policy of stifling primaries isn't new, but under Cheri Bustos they're pursuing it openly-- and with a vengeance. Vendors he needed for his campaign are refusing to work for him in fear of DCCC retribution. His district has a PVI of D+20. No Republican is going to ever come close to winning that seat. Yes, it's Georgia but Trump only took 26.6% of the vote there. Obama won it both times he ran. But the fake-Democrat occupying the seat is David Scott, a Blue Dog who supports Republican legislation, Republican ideas and even Republican candidates! The DCCC should be helping Owens get rid of him; instead, they're trying to destroy him. "The DCCC," he wrote, "should promote democracy and not stifle it. As it relates to Democratic primary elections like mine, the voters of the district should to decide who their next congressperson is, not the DCCC."

The entrenched political class hates primaries because primaries are a way for voters to hold them accountable and because of primaries, candidates out of synch with their constituents are forced to take positions they would rather not. We talked about that in early May when Ben Ray Luján-- a 100% Pelosi puppet who never strays from her demands-- was forced to endorse the Green New Deal because his Senate primary opponent, New Mexico's progressive Secretary of State, Maggie Toulouse Oliver, has been vigorously campaigning on it-- and making traction because of it.

Yesterday I found a press release in my inbox. This was the giant, bolded headline:

Luján Co-Sponsors Medicare for All Legislation

It's news because who would ever imagine this stooge would go against Pelosi, who opposes Medicare-For-All. Ah... but that primary. One of the top planks of Maggie Toulouse Oliver's is... yes, of course, Medicare-For-All.

Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell, who wrote the bill, asked for co-sponsors on February 27. On that day 106 Democrats signed on. As expected, Luján refused. In march, April and May, more Democrats became co-sponsors. And here we are in June and... the magic if a primary kicks in:

"Since my very first days in Congress, I’ve strongly held the belief that health care is a fundamental right for all, not a privilege for a few. No individual should ever be denied care or worry about costs when sick. But, for far too many Americans today, that is not the reality. Despite the incredible progress we’ve made because of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion, we continue to see Americans crushed by the health insurance industry and health care remains a right that far too many New Mexicans and far too many Americans struggle to gain. It’s why I’m proud to announce my support of Medicare for All-- bold legislation that will greatly enhance the ability for Americans to receive care. After working with Congresswoman Jayapal’s office to ensure veteran and Native health concerns were properly addressed, I am proud to add my name to the legion of patients, activists, and lawmakers who’ve endorsed Medicare For All.”

What a bullshitter! Maggie handled it gracefully on Twitter a couple of hours after his bug announcement.

Heather Brewer, Oliver's campaign manager, told me that for the sake of New Mexico they're "glad that the congressman is joining Maggie in supporting Medicare for All. We were surprised by his change of heart given that he’s had more than a decade in Washington to advance bold healthcare initiatives, but he has already followed Maggie’s lead and changed his longstanding positions on the Green New Deal and accepting corporate PAC money. Voters care about progressive issues and policies, but more than that, they want a real progressive leader, like Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, who stands on strong progressive values.”

This is what Maggie has had to say about impeachment. Everyone is wondering how long will it be before Ben Ray jumps onboard too?

"There is more than enough evidence to move forward with impeachment. It’s time to hold this president accountable. We can both hold this President accountable and push for our progressive priorities-- and don’t let anyone tell you differently. Even as we investigate the president,we can continue to fight for bold ideas like Medicare-for-All and a Green New Deal, expanding voting rights, protecting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, and fighting our student debt crisis. I’ve never backed down from a fight with Donald Trump before and I’m not about to start now."

Hoyer Admits Why They're Not Impeaching Trump: Partisan Political Calculations, Despite All The Mounting Evidence-- SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Wednesday morning Pelosi and Schumer headed over to the White House to discuss an already doomed infrastructure plan (and to be booted out by the always gracious Señor Trumpanzee). A reporter asked her about the closed door Democratic Party caucus she had just left (not even chiefs of staff were allowed in-- just members). She told him-- and his tape recorder: "It was a very positive meeting, a respectful sharing of ideas. And I think a very impressive presentation by our chairs. We do believe it is important to follow the facts, that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up. A cover-up. And that was the nature of the meeting." I wish I had been there to gage how "positive" and "respectful" it really was. Tensions inside Pelosi's caucus are... intense-- and headed towards brittle.

The Republican wing of the party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- are freaking out as more and more rank-and-file congressional Democrats are demanding Pelosi start formal impeachment procedures. The Hill is keeping a woefully incomplete and non-updated whip list of which members are openly calling for impeachment. Examples: Jamie Raskin (R-MD), a member of the Judiciary Committee told the Washington Post that "the logic of an impeachment inquiry is pretty overwhelming at this point." Other members of the Judiciary Committee left the same way: Ted Lieu (D-CA): "This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it." And Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): "We are now at the point where we must begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly. We've taken every step we can w/subpoenas and witnesses." Joe Neguse (D-CO): "The findings detailed in the Special Counsel’s report, and the Administration’s pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report’s release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry." Freshman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA): "No one is above the law. The time has come to start an impeachment inquiry because the American people deserve to know the truth and to have the opportunity to judge the gravity of the evidence and charges leveled against the president."

But on the right-fringe of the party, particularly among the Blue Dogs and New Dems who the DCCC helped win in red districts, there is panic and anger and little support for impeachment, since these are some real dummies who are sure impeachment would lead to the end of their careers in Congress. Take Staten Island/Brooklyn lunkhead Max Rose, a sniveling Blue Dog, who told Politico that if Democrats decide to begin impeachment hearings, "Then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority. Right now we’re in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... let’s go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Sounds like something he heard from someone at a Problem Solvers meeting.

One of the few Democrats further to the right than Rose, New Jersey Blue Dog scum Jefferson Van Drew barked "If there really isn’t something significant enough there to impeach-- which I don’t think there is at this point-- then let’s move on and get the work of the people done." Elissa Slotkin (MI), one of the very worst of the freshmen New Dems agreed with that line the Republican wing of the party is pushing: "The thing that I’m concerned about is that we constantly risk losing focus on the legislation that affirmatively helps people’s lives, not going in the right direction right now."

These are not members who give a crap about helping peoples lives. Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin are among the right-of-center minority of Democrats refusing to co-sponsor most of the legislation proposed that does affirmatively help people’s lives-- like Pramila Jayapal's new and improved Medicare For All Act or AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. All three have putrid ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores and each one is rated "F."

• Max Rose- 64.29%
• Elissa Slotkin- 50.0%
• Jefferson Van Drew- 35.71%

Yesterday, Jake Sherman reported that Pelosi "has an uncanny ability to stay unflinchingly focused on a goal, without getting panicked or itchy or changing course... At the moment, Pelosi’s goal is quite clear: to avoid rushing to impeach [Señor Trumpanzee]. If you talk to her allies, her advisers and people close to her, they’ll tell you she believes the impeachment route is an all-around loser right now. Pelosi allies firmly believe that if Democrats impeach Trump, they will lose the presidency and the House in 2020-- period. They also don’t believe Congress or the American public is behind impeachment at the moment. Further, they say that launching an inquiry that isn’t airtight could backfire as they pursue other legal options to extract documents from the White House. House Democratic leaders are keeping a very close eye on who comes out in favor of impeachment, but so far, they see mostly Judiciary Committee members who are living the day-to-day back-and-forth over document production and stonewalling, and progressives who have long been on the path to impeachment. Here is what Pelosi-world is thinking, and the points they are making privately":

• Their Go-Through-The-Courts Play Is Working: House Democrats scored a big victory this week when a federal judge ruled that Mazars Group, Trump’s accounting firm, needed to hand over the president’s financial records. Pelosi and her team believe they will score other victories in court and ultimately get many of the documents they are seeking. Impeachment, many of them argue, is not a magical key to unlock a trove of documents. And there’s a fear, too, that a rush to impeachment could undermine some of these court efforts.
• The Leadership Team Is With Pelosi: yes, Reps David Cicilline (D-RI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have called for impeachment, but notice who has not: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Cheri Bustos (D-IL). And that’s important. The cracks at her leadership table are at the bottom, not the top. [Editorial Note: Is Politico hiring morons now? Or do they just assume their readers are morons?]
• Democrats Are Planning to move a package of contempt citations in June. That’s the next punishment they are meting out.
• There Is, At The Moment, A Remarkable sense of unity atop the leadership. They recognize that the angst is rising in the rank and file. No one seems completely convinced Democrats can hold this position for 18 months. Yes, the majority of the caucus opposes impeachment at the moment-- but for how long?
• The Internal Politics Are Complicated. Democrats have been taken aback at how Trump has injected himself personally into the decisions to withhold documents and block testimony, which has corresponded with rising blood pressure among many of the rank and file.
• What To Watch For... Top Dems are absolutely convinced that if Trump defies a court order to fork over documents, then they will be forced to begin impeaching him.

And speaking about Pelosi's leadership team, one of her toadies opposing impeachment is Ben Ray Luján. Watch Luján "change his mind" on impeachment now that his primary opponent, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, has officially announced she's behind the push for impeachment. "Today, I’m calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation," she told New Mexicans. "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report lays out the facts: a hostile foreign government set out to influence our 2016 election in favor of Trump and Trump welcomed their help. Then, as President, Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian interference. Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to defend our democracy and hold Trump accountable. Based on what we know from the Mueller report, we have more than enough evidence to start the impeachment process. I’m speaking out today to demand the House do its job and begin impeachment proceedings. We can both hold this President accountable and push for our progressive priorities-- and don’t let anyone tell you differently. We will continue to fight for bold ideas like Medicare For All and a Green New Deal, expanding voting rights, protecting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, and fighting our student debt crisis. We can and we must pursue both impeachment and other policy initiatives. Our democracy exists to protect the people, not the President-- and protecting the people means both learning the truth about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia and continuing to fight for legislation that will make our communities and our country stronger."

I almost feel sorry for Luján. Almost. This is what happens when there are strong, vibrant primaries-- which is exactly why Cheri Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer and trying to obliterate them.

Well, they might as well start preparing, because that is exactly what Trump is doing. Even Hoyer admitted that 'To say there’s no political calculus would not be honest for any of us in the Congress. The political calculus is: What is the reaction of the American people? What do the American people think we ought to be doing?"

As Hoyer once knew-- he's 80 and increasingly senile now-- the American public opposed the impeachment of Nixon until Congress started the process and exposed all his crimes on TV... and then they backed it. Same with the Senate. Conservative senators were against it until there were televised hearings... and then they told Nixon he had to either resign or be impeached and convicted. He resigned. In Clinton's impeachment, the public opposed it, saw no credible evidence from the GOP leading the effort and the public never stopped opposing it, which is what led a Republican Senate to find him "not guilty" on all impeachment charges.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is both a New Dem and a member of the Progressive Caucus-- and a 2020 Republican target. She said that Trump is "acting as an authoritarian leader, which I have seen many times in Latin America, and it is very dangerous. I want the people living in South Florida, people living in my community, to understand what is written in that report, and we can’t do that unless we have these hearings." Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we're hearing from the people, like Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin, who follow the advice of Matt Penn and Nancy Jacobson of Problem Solvers.

Anti-impeachment Blue Dog Cheri Bustos recruited some cockamamie conservative Republican to run against Mike Siegel is TX-10. I wonder how the Bustos-DCCC candidate feels about impeachment. When I asked Blue-America-endorsed Mike Siegel how he feels about it, he told me that "We can't enforce our laws only when it is politically convenient. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, requires Congress to exercise oversight of the Executive Branch, including use of the impeachment power to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors. Every day, Trump and his cronies obstruct justice, by ignoring federal subpoenas, tampering with witnesses, paying off co-conspirators and lying to the American people. When the RNC gives $2m to McGahn's law firm just as he refuses to testify before Congress, they make a mockery of our government. This goes beyond tactical considerations for an electoral cycle; American democracy is under assault. We must empower Congress to do their duty, and investigate the President's crimes." Do you agree with Mike's approach? Please consider chipping in at the Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right. Last year Mike nearly won the district with the DCCC ignoring the race entirely. This year he'll have to fight Trump-enabler Michael McCaul and Cheri Bustos and her corruptly-funded the DCCC!