Embarrassingly, Pelosi And Hoyer Led Most House Democrats Away From Impeachment... Here's How A Cross Section Of House Candidates Responded

In 2018, corrupt conservative, Darren Soto, pretended he was a progressive during his primary battle with Alan Grayson. After he won, he stopped pretending and admitted he's a member of the right-of-center, Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. Yesterday, like virtually all the New Dems, Soto voted against impeaching Trump. It reminded me on one of Grayson's brilliant TV spots which focused on impeachment. Watch closely. The point is simple: "I'll vote for impeachment; Soto won't." And Grayson was... clairvoyant? The other conservative Grayson ran against years ago, Daniel Webster, also voted against impeachment yesterday, but at least he has an excuse-- he's a Republican racist, just like Trump.

Briana Urbina is a progressive Maryland attorney and activist taking on Stony Hoyer who's at the very heart of the problem with congressional Democrats."Steny," she told me right after the vote,"is nothing if not consistent. He has the courage to call out Democrats he disagrees with but won't stand up for his constituents in the 5th district of Maryland and our party by voting for impeachment."

Eva Putzova is running against a Hoyer ally, "ex"-Republican state legislator, now a Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, who no one imagined would vote for impeaching Trump. "I would have voted to impeach the most dangerous, unstable president this country has ever seen," Eva told me yesterday. "He has committed impeachable offenses and it's the duty of our Congress to hold him accountable. Today's vote in the House indicates a lack of leadership. My opponent was on the wrong side of history. Again."

Another Hoyer ally, corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks, is in a Queens district that overwhelmingly favors impeachment. But Meeks voted to kill Al Green's impeachment bill. Shaniyat Chowdhury, just back from captaining a championship rugby team in Australia-- winning the Emerging Nations Rugby League Cup-- told me that "Meeks has been talking about challenging Trump the last three years and concluded it with cowardly voting against impeachment. Our country does not need anymore lip services from false prophets who claim to do one thing and their actions speak for another. Trump is a bully. Congress is supposed to stand up to him. Voting to not impeach a president who is clearly unfit to run a government, undermines our democracy. It sends a message to our kids that bullying is okay. It is not okay! There are consequences to bullying, and we need elected officials who will have the courage to stand up to the face of bigotry without politicizing ethics and the people of this nation."

Mark Gamba is also up against a reactionary Hoyer ally, Oregon Blue Dog, Kurt Schrader, who had no problem in voting to table Al Green's impeachment proposal. Unlike Schrader, Gamba felt Congress has a duty to hold Trump accountable for his perfidy. "Donald Trump," he told us this morning, "is the most dangerous and deranged president in American history. His continued presence in the White House only serves to cause our country to become more divided. More angry. More dysfunctional, and, frankly, weaker. All logical efforts to remove him from office must be explored. Clearly, deep strategy must be considered when both houses of Congress will not engage in this process. However I believe that members of Congress are meant to not only represent their people, they are meant to lead. Leadership sometimes requires bold action, something thin on the ground in Washington DC,  particular amongst the status quo corporate Democrats and almost all of the Republicans."

The more I look at this list of Democrats who voted to let Trump off the hook yesterday, the more I realize that they're all Steny Hoyer allies. Stephen Lynch, another New Dem, is the worst member of Congress from Massachusetts. Brianna Wu is working hard to beat him in a primary. Last night she said, "I wish I could say I'm surprised by Rep. Lynch's vote to table the impeachment resolution today, but I'm not. This is a man who just recently said that bringing impeachment hearings would just be Democrats 'blowing off steam.' Apparently, the rule of law means nothing to him. Trump publicly invited foreign intervention in our elections. Is that not treasonous? The Mueller Report found 10 examples of possible obstruction of justice by this president. What more does the Democratic leadership and Stephen Lynch need to begin to hold Trump accountable? Lynch is worried about the possible political ramifications of bringing impeachment proceedings against Trump. I am concerned with the rule of law in this country and making sure that Trump is held accountable so lawlessness does not become a precedent for the presidency. Politics be damned. The House must begin impeachment proceedings NOW."

As for Democrats taking on Republicans already, Missouri progressive, Kathy Ellis was surprised to see incumbent Jason Smith vote against impeachment. "Smith," she told me, "has shown us time and time again who he really is-- a rubber stamp for Trump’s damaging policies. It comes as no surprise then that he voted against impeachment, as well as the House statement calling his recent comments racist. Our country deserves a leader who is honest, hardworking, and accepting of all. Racism has no place in our country, especially in the White House and in Congress. It is time for President Trump to be held accountable for his actions and his words. Missouri’s 8th District needs a Representative who understands that and is willing to hold our leaders accountable when they fail us.”

Maggie Oliver's primary opponent, Pelosi lap-dog Ben Ray Lujan, voted against impeachment... of course

The last guy who's ever going to vote to impeach Trump is Devin Nunes, more of an accomplice than just an enabler. Dary Rezvani, the progressive Democrat taking him on this cycle: "He voted against impeachment, he voted against condemning his racist statements. Devin is complacent in a time of pure evil. He said on a local news station today that he has heard nothing from his continuents saying that he should have condemned the statements which is an outright lie; multiple groups have called. His complacency enabled one of the most racist things I’ve seen to date, a "send her home" chant at a North Carolina rally. I am embarrassed that Nunes is associated with the Central Valley. I apologize to the rest of the United States that we have failed in getting him out. Devin must be extremely lonely and Trump must be the only person who gives him attention. Impeachment must start immediately."

Kim Williams is another progressive Democrat running in California's Central Valley. Her target isn't a conservative Republican; it's a conservative Democrat-- Blue Dog Jim Costa, the worst Democrat from California. Costa, of course, voted against impeaching Trump and Kim spoke out about that yesterday: "Instead of making political calculations and weighing whether impeachment might impact the reelection prospects of Democrats in Republican-leaning districts, our House majority failed to do its job. Congress has an obligation to hold this president accountable regardless of the political outcome and especially in the face of such extreme and persistent bigotry. It is especially troubling that our representative, Jim Costa, a conservative Democrat from a safe blue district chose inaction over the community he serves. Unlike Costa, I would have denounced Trump’s white supremacist agenda and voted to begin impeachment hearings."

Like all the Trump-friendly Blue Dogs, Dan Lipinski voted against impeachment. His primary rival, Marie Newman, saw it differently: "I find it horrifying that Congressman Lipinski refuses to condemn the president for the inhumane camps at the border and the absolutely racist marks, so I am not at all surprised he refuses to vote for the start of impeachment proceedings. He will continue to protect Trump."

Mike Siegel didn't even bother mentioning the GOP incumbent-- co-architect of the "babies in cages" and family separation policies of the Trump Regime. Michael McCaul would be with Nunes fighting against impeachment 'til the bitter end. Siegel took a different tack: "Thank you to Houston's own, Rep. Al Green, for continuing to push for accountability for the President. We don't have the full caucus on board yet, but this is a strong step forward toward beginning the essential process of an impeachment inquiry."

Remember, as we said earlier-- there were 95 Democrats willing to do the right thing instead of coddling and enabling the modern-day Nero. In 2020, let's get rid of as many of the enabling culprits from both parties as we can and replace them with more patriotic and wholesome new members of a new Congress. If Pelosi and Hoyer want to fund his concentration camps and block impeachment, they both need to be treated the same as Kevin McCarthy and his Confederate Trumpist team. So lets start with the primaries... by replacing Blue Dogs and New Dems with progressives-- the reason I've included the thermometer on the right. Please don't stand by while the neo-fascist in the White House turns our country into something our fathers and grandfathers and millions of American patriots have fought against.

Trump's Concentration Camps-- Funded By 176 Republicans And 129 Pelosi-Democrats

American Dream Revisted by Nancy Ohanian

The bad news: on June 27 129 Democrats joined with the GOP to vote to authorize funds for Trump's concentration camps. Briana Urbina is a top progressive candidate taking on Stony Hoyer this cycle. She told me she "cannot forgive my representative for voting in support of the cruel and inhumane treatment of immigrants at the border. The practices of this administration cannot be divorced from the system that funds it. Steny should be using his power in leadership to dismantle this system not bolster it. Our district has a vibrant and beautiful immigrant community. I have been honored to serve immigrant families as a pro bono attorney. I will continue my service to all Marylanders, native and foreign born when I am sworn in as the first Latina elected to Congress from Maryland."

The good news: 95 Democrats voted against funding the concentration camps despite Pelosi and Hoyer having shit-fit. These are the 95 who are fit to call themselves Democrats:

• Alma Adams (D-NC)
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Nanette Barragán (D-CA)
• Karen Bass (D-CA)
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
• Brendan Boyle (New Dem-PA)
• Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD)
• G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
• Tony Cárdenas (New Dem-CA)
• André Carson (New Dem-IN)
• Judy Chu (D-CA)
• David Cicilline (D-RI)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• Katherine Clark (D-MA)
• Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
• Lacy Clay (D-MO)
• Gerry Connolly (New Dem-VA)
• Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Danny Davis (D-IL)
• Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
• Diana DeGette (D-CO)
• Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
• Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
• Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
• Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
• Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY)
• Veronica Escobar (New Dem-TX)
• Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)
• Dwight Evans (D-PA)
• Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
• Chuy García (D-IL)
• Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)
• Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)
• Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
• Deb Haaland (D-NM)
• Brian Higgins (D-NY)
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)
• Jared Huffman (D-CA)
• Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
• Joe Kennedy (D-MA)
• Ro Khanna (D-CA)
• Brenda Lawrence (New Dem-MI)
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• John Lewis (D-GA)
• Ted Lieu (D-CA)
• Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
• Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
• Nita Lowey (D-NY)
• Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
• Betty McCollum (D-MN)
• Donald McEachin (New Dem-VA)
• James McGovern (D-MA)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Grace Meng (D-NY)
• Gwen Moore (D-WI)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)
• Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
• Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)
• Donald Norcross (New Dem-NJ)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
• Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• David Price (D-NC)
• Mike Quigley (New Dem-IL)
• Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
• Linda Sánchez (D-CA)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)
• Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
• Brad Sherman (D-CA)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)
• Jackie Speier (D-CA)
• Mark Takano (D-CA)
• Dina Titus (D-NV)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
• Paul Tonko (D-NY)
• Norma Torres (New Dem-CA)
• Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA)
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)
• Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)
• Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)
• Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
• Peter Welch (D-VT)

It must have stung Pelosi especially hard when she wasn't even able to control members of her own leadership team and inner circle-- like Hakeem Jeffries and Ben Ray Luján, each fearful of primaries from the left. But these were Pelosi's "good soldiers" who told themselves a nice story that made it ok to vote funding for concentration camps. If any of them call you for a contribution to their reelection efforts, ask them why they decided our taxpayer money should go for locking children seeking asylum in cages inside concentration camps.

Babies in Cages by Nancy Ohanian

Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)
Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
Lisa Blunt Rochester (New Dem-DE)
Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA)
Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)
Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)
Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)
Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Jim Clyburn (D-SC)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Joe Courtney (D-CT)
TJ Cox (D-CA)
Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)
Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)
Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)
Madeleine Dean (New Dem-PA)
Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA)
Antonio Delgado (D-NY)
Val Demings (New Dem-FL)
Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Michael Doyle (D-PA)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)
Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)
Mike Foster (New Dem-IL)
Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
John Garamendi (D-CA)
Jared Golden (D-ME)
Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
Al Green (D-TX)
Josh Harder (New Dem-FL)
Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)
Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Bill Keating (New Dem-MA)
Robin Kelly (D-IL)
Dan Kildee (D-MI)
Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
Andy Kim (D-NJ)
Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
Raja Krishnamoorthi (New Dem-IL)
Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)
Conor Lamb (D-PA)
Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA)
John Larson (D-CT)
Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)
Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
Mike Levin (D-CA)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)
Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
Joseph Morelle (D-NY)
Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
Jimmy Panetta (New Dem-CA)
Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Katie Porter (D-CA)
Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)
Raul Ruiz (New Dem-CA)
Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
Donna Shalala (New Dem-FL)
Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)
Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)
Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY)
Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
David Trone (New Dem-MD)
Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)
Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)
Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)

"Denny Heck voted to give money to concentration camps," his progressive primary opponent, Joshua Collins told me. "And he did it with no expectations of improved oversight or improved conditions. We might as well be burning money because they're already getting over $700/day per detainee, and still won't even give them toothpaste and soap. That vote was despicable. And it signifies why we have to replace Representatives like Denny Heck. He's not just a lazy centrist who won't budge on important issues like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. He's actively helping the Republicans. And when asked why he makes all these bad votes, and why he refuses to support impeachment, his office says it's because he takes his marching orders from Nancy Pelosi. If he is being funded by large corporations and controlled even more explicitly by Nancy Pelosi, why in the hell should he be representing Washington's 10th? He needs to retire already. He's gotta go. That's why I'm running against him."

23 hours to go on this poll, but the trend seems set

Progressive Democrat Matt Tirman is running for the House seat occupied by New Dem chief Derek Kilmer in the sprawling 6th district west of Seattle. "The vote to give $4.6 billion in funding to ICE was not one to help the children being kept in cages at the border," he told me this morning, "but one to assuage the enormity of guilt felt by those in Congress. This was not a way to help reunite families, or help provide the humanitarian aid so desperately needed. This was simply a way for congressional members, like Rep. Kilmer, to stick a band aid on the issue and hope the American people will be placated so they could go march in their hometown parades without having to worry about messy questions about kids in cages."

Dean Obeidallah penned an OpEd for CNN yesterday, Why is Nancy Pelosi slamming AOC and helping Trump?. He was as pissed off as every progressive I know about Pelosi's slide over to the Dark Side, in terms of Trump's concentration camps and in her vicious attacks against progressives who opposed her collaboration with America's #1 enemy. She has especially singled out freshmen women Ilhan Omar (MN), AOC (NY), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ayanna Pressley (MA) for the full scale viciousness many Democrats would rather see her aiming at McConnell and Trump. She's become a real detriment to the Democratic Party and with her legacy in shreds, should step down and disappear immediately.

"Whatever"

Pelosi's criticism came after a June 25 vote in which the four were the only Democrats to oppose a House bill to provide funding for the crisis at the southern border because as they put it in a statement, "in good conscience, we cannot support this supplemental funding bill, which gives even more money to ICE and CBP and continues to support a fundamentally cruel and broken immigration system."

In response to that vote, Pelosi told Dowd, "All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world," adding, "But they didn't have any following. They're four people and that's how many votes they got."

by Jack Spencer

In response, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez took to Twitter, focusing in on the dismissiveness of the speaker's "public whatever" remark. "That public 'whatever' is called public sentiment. And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country," she tweeted.

What makes Pelosi's remark so stunning is that it flies in the face of her often-repeated philosophy that she has espoused to House Democrats since taking control of the chamber in the 2018 midterms. "Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power," she wrote last November.

Pelosi is 100% correct with that approach. That means, though, that diversity of opinion needs to be respected-- not belittled. This unity is vitally needed in the time of Donald Trump, since the Democrat-controlled House is the only chamber that serves as a legitimate check on the President.

Time For Pelosi And Hoyer, After Passing A Bill To Fund Concentration Camps, To Retire

These were the members of Congress who voted against Trump's concentration camps. The rest of them voted to fund the concentration camps. Remember that in 2020

Moments after the House vote to fund border operations through the reactionary Senate approach, progressive Arizona Democrat Eva Putzova sent me a note. She was not pleased that her own congressman, ex-Republican Blue Dog Tom O’Halleran voted for the Senate bill backed by Pelosi. He’s occupying the seat that she’s running for. “To give rogue ICE operations a blank check without demanding accountability and without negotiating provisions to end the separation of families and the abusive treatment of immigrant children is immoral. Leadership would mean to actually negotiate. I'm frankly disgusted by the lack of political courage to do what's right. When I'm in Congress I'm prepared to hold the line on human rights issues and when compromise is necessary, negotiate on the 75th yard line--not on the 25th."

There’s no one who has worked harder and more effectively to solve the immigration crisis than Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). After Pelosi and Hoyer got that Senate bill passed, this is what she had to say:

Just days ago, I worked hard with the Congressional Progressive Caucus to get an emergency funding bill that would alleviate the inhumane treatment at the border being perpetrated by the Trump Administration.  In order to ensure that funds were used appropriately, we put in strong guard rails to specify that children should get food, water, medical care and legal services; that no child should be kept in these facilities for more than 90 days; and that private, for-profit contractors who violate these standards would have their contracts terminated. It was absolutely critical to include these provisions to ensure these funds actually go to the children they are meant to help, and every person— regardless of party— should support them.

In stark contrast, the Republican-led Senate bill— very unfortunately supported by 33 Democrats— simply does not contain sufficient guard rails, continues to provide more funding for the deportation forces of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency and allows a lawless administration to evade basic standards of care for children. The Senate bill also provides $145 million to the Department of Defense that would likely be used to build tent camps for children and families on military sites despite persistent reports that such facilities inflict harm on children and families.

Without the strong accountability provisions we included in the House version, we simply allow the Administration to continue its inhumane treatment of immigrants. I have worked on immigration issues for decades, was the first Member of Congress to talk to hundreds of families that were separated by Trump and witnessed personally the abuses of Trump’s metering process at the border— a policy that eventually led to the haunting death of the father and child, depicted in a photo this week. I simply cannot vote for a bill that fails to address crucial needs for oversight and accountability when it comes to protections for children.

Pramila was not the only member of the House to vote NO on that disgraceful bill Pelosi got passed. 95 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted against it. Some, like Jayapal, voted NO because they feel the same way she does. Others voted NO because they fear primaries from the left— particularly New Dem Gregory Meeks and Ben Ray Luján from Pelosi’s leadership team. I can imagine an irate Cheri Bustos, happy to vote for the horrible bill, screaming about how this is what primaries do. Of course, she's right: this is what primaries do! And we need of them for people like Bustos and her cronies.

The Democrats who worked with the Republicans to get this crap bill passed were led by Blue Dogs Josh Gottheimer (NJ), head of the misnamed Problem Solvers' Caucus, and Henry Cuellar (TX). (By the way, most normal Democrats in the House are blaming Schumer for betraying party values.) Lipinski, an anti-immigrant Democrat to begin with, didn't seem to care that he has a strong primary challenger. He voted YES, with the Republicans and Blue Dogs. His primary challenger noticed. "First I am appalled at the bullying behavior of the Blue Dogs," Marie Newman told us right after the vote. "Secondly, I would have voted NO for this horrible bill that would enable and empower child abuse at our border. I am deeply disturbed by today’s votes." Almost all of the candidates I spoke to yesterday, said pretty much the same thing, basically what Mike Siegel said: "We can’t give Trump one more dollar for his racist war on immigrants. I’d have voted NO." His opponent, serial Trump-enabler Mike McCaul (R-TX), voted YES, which was no surprise to anyone, since McCaul helped Trump put together the children-in-cages regime on the border.

Briana Urbina is a young progressive attorney taking on Steny Hoyer, needless to say, voted for the bill. Briana told me she “would have voted against it because we should not be funding the cruel and inhumane treatment of asylum seeking children and families. Anyone who is voting to fund our current system has the blood of 7 children, a transgender woman and 16 additional souls on their hands. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I will tell my future grandchildren about how this tragedy began and what we did to save the lives of these people. Steny Hoyer should look at the faces of his grandchildren, right now and ask himself the same question. Nothing has broken my heart more over the past two years than our crisis at the border and we must take bold action right now to address the suffering of people on both sides of our border.”

Jose Serrano has an exceptionally good voting record and you wouldn’t normally expect a solid progressive like him to vote with the Republicans and Blue Dogs, especially not on something like this. But he did. He’s old, sick, tired and retiring... and Hoyer was warning members that if they didn’t vote for this this pile of dung, they would be stuck in DC for the 4th of July break. I don’t know if that’s why Serrano did it, but he did it. One of the most promising young progressive activists vying for his Bronx seat is Tomas Ramos and right after the vote he told me he wouldn’t have voted for the bill. "The appropriations bill seeks to allocate $4.5 billion in emergency spending to agencies handling the so called ‘surge’ of migrants that are arriving at the Southern border,” he said. “Let’s be clear, these individuals are not ordinary migrants, they are refugees that are fleeing their homelands because of political instability coupled with economic hardships. This bill does not address the conditions of the facilities by providing humanistic services that these human beings need. Rather, it seeks to continue to dehumanize these individuals by making appropriations ‘for Security, Enforcement, and Investigation’. In other words this bill will be used as a tool to over police an otherwise already vulnerable population."

Mueller's Live Statement Yesterday Was Aimed At Congress, Especially House Democrats And Their Cowardly Leaders

In a move that perfectly mimics Orwell's Ministry of Truth, the Trumpist Regime has begun calling toxic hydrocarbon pollutants "molecules of freedom." So why should it surprise any one that Señor Trumpanzee himself, moments after watching Mueller give that televised statement above, tweeted/gaslighted something that could have come from an alternative universe?

The case is anything but closed and the Trumpist Regime then almost immediately issued an official press statement from Sister Sarah to further muddy the waters and confuse the already-- and always easily-- confused Trump supporters and media partners:

You watched, I watched, we all watched it. A few moments after Mueller addressed the nation, Briana Urbina, the progressive woman running for the Maryland congressional seat occupied with anti-impeachment coward Steny Hoyer told me that "This congress under Steny Hoyer's 'leadership' is failing to protect the American people and carrying water for Trump every day that we do not initiate impeachment hearings. How do we expect to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans if we do not take bold action to promote the rule of law and preserve our democracy? I am not afraid of the political consequences that impeachment may bring and those who care to seek justice should not let politics from carrying out their constitutional duties as elected members of Congress." Michigan Republican Justin Amash tweeted 7 words to his colleagues on Capitol Hill: "The ball is in our court, Congress." I wonder if the failed Democratic Speaker follows him on Twitter. I doubt it.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- who many members are hoping runs for Speaker in 2021-- put out a strong and unambiguous statement:

Today, Special Counsel Robert Mueller powerfully stated a key finding of his two-year investigation: “If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He once again reiterated that he was unable to exonerate the president of committing any crimes. He made it clear that he abided by Department of Justice guidelines that state a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime through an investigation alone, but clearly laid out the evidence for multiple potential obstruction of justice acts by the President. He also made it crystal clear that the responsibility of holding a President to account for any crimes committed must-- according to the Constitution-- fall to Congress.

The Special Counsel’s office did their job; now it’s time for Congress to do our job. We will continue the essential work of oversight with hearings and enforcing subpoenas to get testimony from key witnesses. No one is above the law, and Congress must respond with full force to the President's abuses of power, repeated cover-ups and ongoing obstruction of justice.

In addition, Special Counsel Mueller drew special attention to the critical need to address the report’s conclusions around “multiple, systematic efforts by Russian intelligence to interfere in our election.” We will continue to demand that Congress act in a bipartisan manner to force the President and Republicans in the Senate to immediately attend to this matter. Republicans must decide whether they intend to condone the President’s ongoing refusal to hold Russia to account or protect the integrity of our election process.

Writing for CNN.com, Chris Cillizza took it on himself to translate Mueller's legalese for non-lawyers. He wrote that Mueller "emphasized two things of real importance-- both of which, with a bit of reading between the lines, provided a glimpse into what Mueller really thinks regarding Trump and obstruction. Here they are:

• "If we had had confidence that the President had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so."
• "Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

[I]t's impossible to dismiss the fact that Mueller called out specifically the report's finding that the President had not been exonerated on obstruction. In fact, Mueller reiterated the fact that, had his office been able to exonerate Trump, they would have done that. And they did not.

...Mueller said flatly Wednesday that the reason that the special counsel's office did not consider charging Trump with obstruction was because it was not an option he was allowed to consider under Justice Department precedent.

...What Mueller was saying Wednesday is actually better understood by what he was not saying-- and what he was not saying was that the President of the United States was an innocent victim in all of this... Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction by the President. Mueller didn't say he wouldn't have charged Trump even without the guiding OLC ruling. And in so doing, he said a whole hell of a lot.

The NY Times headline was more succinct: Mueller, in First Comments on Russia Inquiry, Declines to Clear Trump.

David Frum, like Amash, a Republican who hasn't been amused by Trump's extra-constitutional approach to his duties, reiterated yesterday that the words of the Mueller report themselves are "damning." And what did Mueller say today if not to read the damn report?

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.

There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

These contacts were covered up by a series of lies, both to the special counsel and to Congress. Lying by the Trump campaign successfully obscured much of what happened in 2016. The special counsel in some cases “was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.” In particular, the investigation never did determine what happened to proprietary Trump-campaign polling data shared with the Russians.

Within hours of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate 2016 events, Trump began defaming him. Trump had already fired the FBI director who investigated these events. His first order to fire the special counsel appointed in the director’s place was issued on June 17, 2017, a month after Mueller’s appointment. That order would be followed by many more. Trump directed his staff to lie about these orders.

Over and above his efforts to fire the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

The subversion of the investigation was brazen. “Many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.”

Obstruction of justice, though, need not be clandestine to count as a crime. What matters is intent—and that must be judged by Congress, not a special counsel subordinate to the Department of Justice and bound by its rule that a president cannot be indicted.

The full report is rich with details. But that’s the essence. A foreign power interfered in the U.S. election to help the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign welcomed the help and repeatedly lied about it. The lying successfully obscured some questions the investigation sought to answer; in the end, it found insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. President Trump, in public and in private, worked to stop the investigation.

Those are the facts. What are the remedies? Mueller underscored at his press statement: He did not exonerate the president. Under the Department of Justice rules he was subject to, he lacked the power to act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration refuses to take steps to secure the next presidential election against the interference that swayed the last. The question of why Russia so strongly wished to help Trump remains as mysterious as ever. In particular, if you wish to understand the breadth and depth of Trump’s Russian business connections before he declared for president in 2015, Mueller’s report will not help you.

Mueller says he can do no more. The rest, Congress, is up to you.

Mike Siegel is the progressive Democrat in TX-10 running for the seat held by Trump enabler Michael McCaul. Siegel didn't beat around the bush after carefully listening to Mueller yesterday. He told us that "Time is of the essence. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty as a check and balance. Only by honoring the work of the Special Counsel, and beginning an impeachment inquiry, can we we re-assert the rule of law and assure the American people that we have a functioning democracy."

Eva Putzova's opponent is a Blue Dog Democrat who opposes impeachment, "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran. Eva's vision is filled with clarity. "There are numerous instances in Mueller’s report," she told me, "that provides evidence that Trump and his cronies tried to obstruct Mueller’s investigation into the Russian military’s interference in the 2016 election. In my view that constitutes 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' under our constitution and that mandates impeachment. It is time for the House of Representatives to begin with the proceedings."

Even Status Quo Joe, who I would expect to pardon Trump and his spawn if-- God forbid-- he ever gets into the White House, issued an almost, nearly, close to semi-quasi-pro-ish impeachment statement yesterday.

With The Green Parties Sweeping To New Heights In Europe, It's Important To Understand That The U.S. Equivalent Is NOT The Democratic Party-- At Least Not Yet

MD-05 primary voters will choose between a Climate denier and a Climate activist

On Memorial Day, the NY Times ran an important story by Coral Davenport and Mark Landler that has gone largely unseen, Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science. They make the point that Trump rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term 'global warming' into a punch line rather than a prognosis. But what they're planning is even worse:

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

The U.S. Geological Survey, now controlled by Trump appointee James Reilly, widely considered the least intelligent of all the former astronauts, "has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously." The purpose is to distort assessments of the future impact of climate change "because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040."

In our radio segment yesterday, David Feldman and I discussed the shocking electoral success Green parties had across Europe in Sunday's elections. All the polling predicted immense gains for the Trumpist neo-fascist extremists and none had so much as mentioned the Greens. Other than in Italy, where there appears to be a genuine craving for another Mussolini-- Trump, amigo Matteo Salvini-- the neo-fascists made much smaller gains than predicted. And the big story was the unexpected victories of the Greens. Not a factor in an Italy and Austria, each bent on re-embracing fascism, nor in Hungary and Poland, where fascism has already taken root, the Greens vaulted into second place in Germany and third place in France, stunned Spain by picking up 4 of the country's 54 seats, gained another 4 U.K. seats as younger voters abandoned Labour, and picked up both EU Parliament seats and local council seats in Ireland. In fact the Green Party candidate, Ciarán Cuffe, came in first in Dublin-- by far, beating the Fine Gael candidate 63,849 to 16,473.

What Feldman wanted to know was if this Green success in Europe meant progressives would have more success in the U.S. That calls for a nuanced response. First of all-- other than on environment and Climate-- Greens aren't necessarily progressive in Europe. The sharp rise in Green voters across the better-educated countries of Europe was primarily caused by two factors. First of all voters under 40 have been growing exasperated that the mainstream right-of-center and left-of-center parties that dominate most of Europe have virtually ignored their growing concerns about the effects of Climate Change (so, same as here). But what happened Sunday was coincident with anger towards the mainstream parties on may unrelated issues-- Brexit, for example.

The politicization of young people over Climate issues is probably as strong in America as in Europe. But in Europe Green parties have been building political machines for decades. That hasn't been the case in the U.S., where Climate activists have been struggling to gain a significant foothold inside a Democratic Party that is riven with grotesque corruption and a geriatric leadership that is two generations away from "getting" the problem. In the advanced European countries the Green Party is now mainstream. Their ideas are catching fire within the Democratic Party, but the party leadership still sees those ideas as a fad. Dinosaurs like Hoyer, Clyburn and Pelosi will have to die off-- at least politically-- before those ideas and that energy came overcome opposition from the younger leaders handpicked by the older leaders to replicate themselves-- whether a Hakeem Jeffries, a Ben Ray Luján or a Cheri Bustos. When AOC took out the designated Democratic leadership's successor to Pelosi, Joe Crowley, reeking of corruption (now a scumbag lobbyist), she struck the loudest political chord for Climate ever heard in this country.

As we saw last night, one of the most potent weapons Steny Hoyer's primary opponent, Briana Urbina, is wielding against him is his own stubborn and clueless refusal to understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change. Urbina is in her 30's; in 2 weeks Hoyer will turn 80. His home-- and K Street-- will be underwater before he groks the crucial nature of Climate Change.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, a think tank, explained that "Neoliberalism has triumphed in economic policy, with both the center-right and center-left adopting it. And then the economic crisis came along... The left did not provide alternatives." Huge numbers of German voters told exit-polling firms that Climate and the environment were their top concern as they made their final decision about who to vote for. In Germany that benefited the Green Party, which took 21% of the vote while the Social Democrats (the German equivalent of the Democrats) took 15.6% and the CDU (the German equivalent of the pre-Trump Republicans) took 28.7%.

If Germany has a politician who is their version of Trump, it would be the disgusting Alexander Gauland, head of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD). After the elections he recognized that it was neither the CDU nor the Social Democrats but the Greens who he called "our main enemy." Aside from hating Muslims, Jews, and foreigners, the AfD hates Science and denies man-made Climate Change.

Out of 235 Democrats in Congress, only 93 have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal Resolution, several of whom are non-believers, just trying to avoid primary defeats. Not even all the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have signed on-- not to mention Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- and the resolution is being actively opposed by the increasingly powerful Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the Blue Dogs and New Dems). Progressive leaders like Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Jamie Raskin, Jim McGovern (MA), Mark Pocan and Judy Chu are on-board, but of all those dozens of freshman members, just 10 are cosponsors besides AOC-- Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Mike Levin (CA), Joe Neguse (CO), Chuy Garcia (IL), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Deb Haaland (NM), Veronica Escobar (TX), Lori Trahan (MA) and Jahana Hayes (CT).

First-time voters in Germany overwhelmingly picked the Green Party as their TOP choice on Sunday. Why should they pick the Democrats while Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- practically, and effectively, Climate Change deniers-- lead it in Congress, not to mention Status Quo Joe?

Steny Hoyer Draws A Credible Primary Opponent

The best thing about my Memorial Day weekend was meeting a young woman in Maryland who's decided to take on Steny Hoyer. Briana Urbina was born in AOC's district in the Bronx. Replacing Hoyer will be even more difficult than it was replacing Crowley but after spending some time speaking with Briana, I'm convinced she's got the makings of another great congresswoman, like Alexandria. She wrote on her campaign website that "as both a lawyer and a teacher Briana witnessed the impact of failed policies at the state, local and federal level. As a mother and a caregiver she has experienced the failure of our federal government to provide for people with disabilities. As a Black Latina woman raising an African American child, she is constantly made aware of the impacts of systemic discrimination on communities of color. As a woman with 14 years sober, she has a unique understanding of the addiction crisis facing our country. And as a member of the LGBT community, she is inspired by the progress achieved over the last decade while acknowledging that progress is not permanent if it is not protected. Briana wants to represent [her district] in Congress because she is connected to community and has the energy to take on the challenges of the 21st century. Briana is eager to put forth new ideas, propose new initiatives and amplify the voices of the people in our community."

She supports the kinds of cutting edge progressive legislation Hoyer wants nothing to do with, from Medicare for All and the Green New Deal to meaningful criminal justice reform and meaningful campaign finance reform.

Briana authored her first Letter to the Editor at age 12, about the bigotry of low expectations by the teachers at her alma matter elementary school and actively participated in political activities throughout her youth. This is an open letter to Steny Hoyer she sent me last night:


Dear Congressman,

I am a proud Marylander. As a millennial with massive student loan debt and a middle-income salary, I was blessed to find a home 9 miles from the center of Washington, DC and just 30 miles from the beaches of Calvert County. My 9-mile commute to work is accessible by metro or by car. The train is definitely a more practical way to commute into DC. You don't have to worry about parking, and you can read the Express newspaper along the way. However, any DMV commuter will tell you that practical does not mean reliable. On a good day, my metro ride is about 45 minutes. But on a normal day it can take an hour. When WMATA came up with their motto "Back to Good," I could not help but laugh that the goal was to upgrade to mediocre.

Driving, however, is a different story. On a good day, my drive is about an hour during rush hour. But if there is even one event in DC, you can plan for a 90-minute drive. Traveling nine miles should not take an hour. Ask any DMV resident and they will tell you that traffic and time spent commuting shapes their lives. This is one of many reasonsI support the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal calls for the "overhauling" of our transportation systems in order to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. It calls for, "(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail." This could include projects like fixing the metro, expanding MARC rail service to Waldorf, connecting Montgomery and Prince George's counties by constructing the Purple Line, and providing rail access to Ocean City!

Congressman Hoyer, you are a fellow DMV commuter. You live in Mechanicsville, MD. You have been known to "go hard" for what you believe in. You spent the better part of this winter attacking progressive members of our caucus. You were one of the first Democrats to announce that you didn't think the House would move to impeach before reading the full Mueller report. You are certainly a man who speaks his mind, and over the course of your 52-year career in elected office, you have not been known to mince words.

So naturally, I would expect that you would support a bill that not only aims to save the planet from excess greenhouse emissions, but at minimum, could help our respective commutes. Nah. In fact, you actually worked to limit the legislative and subpoena powers from the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Could this have anything to do with the $409,470 in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals affiliated with the oil and gas industry you accepted over the course of your career? Or the $43,750 you received in the 2018 election? Your top donor in the 2018 election was Exelon, a massive energy company that operates dozens of fossil fuel plants. You've also been complicit on helping Calvert County fight against the dangerous LNG plant near Cove Point. However, you are not alone. None of the top 25 Democratic recipients of fossil fuel linked contributions in the last election cycle are among those co-sponsoring the Green New Deal.

I am writing this in hopes that you change your mind and decide to lead alongside young innovative, non-corporate funded representatives, like Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. I know you have the capacity to speak out for the things you find important, since you were more than willing to join the Republicans at AIPAC in attacking the first woman to wear a hijab in Congress. Were you just trying to secure another $106,000 in Pro-Israel PAC money to fund your next election?

I support the Green New Deal for moral and practical reasons. I plan to be around for another 50+ years, and I would like to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and access to public transit. My son is 11 years old, and I hope for a better future for him. Coastal communities and many other parts of our country are in jeopardy of lethal storms due to environmental issues associated with climate change. Congressman, I know you have grandchildren; don't you want the same for them? Aren't you tired of sitting in traffic? Aren't you worried about our coastlines, the welfare of Puerto Rico, or the fire ravaged communities of California? Doesn't your title require that you lead our party instead of micro-managing it? Leadership requires the courage to act, its not a title, it's a calling.

Sincerely,

The Progressive Choice for Congress from the Maryland 5th district, Briana Urbina