Tony Cárdenas Case Is Closed... But Is He Innocent?

Where's Gillibrand when we really need her?

Tony Cárdenas represents much of Los Angeles' suburban San Fernando Valley in Congress. He's always been a shady character and it wasn't hard to imagine that he was guilty as charged. The last time I mentioned the rape charges it was in March and tangential to the unresolved case:

The Chicago Sun Times mentioned yesterday that they were surprised Chuy Garcia wasn't up on the stage at the big Bernie rally on Navy Pier. Chuy, who Bernie endorsed for mayor against Rahm Emanuel and then helped win his congressional seat, is one of the progressives who hasn't endorsed him. What we're hearing from fairly good sources is that after Pelosi (and Kevin McCarthy) decided to bury the credible molestation charges of a minor against Tony Cárdenas (D-CA)-- a pretty shady Democrat to begin with-- Pelosi owns Cárdenas. He drugged and molested Angela Villela Chavez when she was 16 and threatened to fire her father if she ever told. He's Mr. Money-Bags in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' Bold PAC and Pelosi, according to two sources, told him to keep his members from endorsing Bernie. I can't believe (literally can't) the stories going around about the threats-- from Pelosi-- that Cárdenas is using. It just doesn't sound like her; it sounds like him. But, maybe that's what she wanted. Welcome to the sausage factory.

Wednesday, the L.A. Times reported that the Cárdenas case has been resolved-- in his favor. It still stinks to high heaven and doesn't sound like he's absolved at all, except technically. The law suit by his victim has been dropped, although no one is quite sure why. Times reporter David Zahniser:

The sexual assault case filed against U.S. Rep. Tony Cárdenas collapsed on Wednesday, with the congressman’s accuser dropping her lawsuit and saying she regretted hiring her attorney to represent her in the proceedings.

Angela Villela Chavez, who had accused Cárdenas of molesting her when she was 16, agreed in court to have her lawsuit dismissed with prejudice, a move that will prevent her from refiling the case.

Lawyers for the congressman said after the hearing that they had achieved “total vindication” for their client. Cárdenas, in turn, welcomed the resolution of the case, saying “the truth prevailed.”

“I humbly thank my family, community, and constituents who know I am a person of integrity," he said in a statement.

It was an abrupt end to an incendiary case that, according to Chavez, was inspired in part by the #MeToo movement, which has surfaced incidents of sexual harassment and abuse by celebrities and politicians.

The two sides reached their agreement two months after Chavez’s attorney, Lisa Bloom, said her firm needed to drop out of the case for unspecified reasons. Chavez, now 28, told The Times after Wednesday’s hearing that she never would have come forward with her allegations without her lawyer’s “confidence and backing.”

“I regret my decision in choosing her as my attorney,” said Chavez, who now lives in Lancaster.

Lawyers for Cárdenas, who represents much of the San Fernando Valley, said the agreement between the two sides was a resolution, not a settlement. As part of the deal, Cárdenas will not pay Chavez any money but also will not sue her for malicious prosecution, they said.

...Superior Court Judge Steven Kleifield dismissed the case with prejudice and relieved Bloom from serving as Chavez’s attorney.

Asked about the statement from her client, Bloom said she was forced to withdraw for “ethical reasons, which the judge recognized.”

“Ms. Chavez has been through a very tough experience and I wish her all the best,” Bloom said in an email.

Chavez had alleged in her lawsuit that Cárdenas had molested her in 2007, when she was a rising junior golf star, after she collapsed at a country club in Cheviot Hills. She said the incident occurred while Cardenas, then a councilman, was driving her to a hospital.

Chavez also claimed that Cárdenas had given her ice water with a peculiar taste shortly before she collapsed.

Cárdenas, one of the highest-ranking Latino members of Congress, vigorously denied the allegations. Glaser described his accuser as the daughter of a disgruntled ex-employee and said she expected her client to be fully exonerated.

Chavez filed her case in April 2018. Although she was initially identified as a Jane Doe, she later revealed her identity, saying she had been inspired by Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

After the lawsuit was filed, no one else stepped forward with similar allegations against Cárdenas, who took office in 2013. He largely weathered the controversy, unlike several other politicians accused of sexual misconduct.

...Despite calls for Cardenas to resign, from Los Angeles school board member Kelly Gonez and a handful of activists, he easily won reelection last year.

The first major sign of trouble for Chavez’s case came in May, when at least one of her lawyers left Bloom’s firm. Later, Bloom revealed that she wanted the judge to release her from the case.

Bloom declined to reveal the precise reason for her request, saying only that such a move was required under the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Weeks later, Chavez told a judge she opposed Bloom’s effort to drop her as a client.

The State Bar’s conduct rules offer a handful of scenarios in which lawyers must end their representation of a client.

For example, attorneys must stop representing a client if they conclude that the client is bringing an action that is “without probable cause” and is being pursued “for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.”

Lawyers also must withdraw if they know, or reasonably should know, that their representation would violate State Bar rules. In addition, lawyers must end their relationship with a client if they are not physically or mentally well enough to continue providing effective representation.

When Wednesday’s court hearing began, Bloom noted that a Times reporter was in the courtroom and asked for the parties in the case to speak privately in the judge’s chambers. After roughly 10 minutes, they emerged and began trying to track down the congressman.

Eventually, the judge got Cárdenas on speakerphone and asked him if he agreed with the terms of the proposal for resolving the case. Cárdenas said he did. The judge then agreed to release Bloom as Chavez’s attorney.

Cárdenas is a New Dem who sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Health subcommittee. He takes massive, legalistic bribes from the industries the committee oversees. He's collected $705,438 from the health sector, for example. He's being primaried by progressive Democrat Angelica Dueñas this cycle.

Is The Establishment Out To Block Bernie Again?

The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had a little good news for Trump: strong party loyalty. The rest of the news was bad and adds up to... no second term for you, Bozo. When asked if they will definitely or probably vote for Trump in 2020 or definitely or probably vote for his Democratic opponent, respondents divided like this:

• Definitely vote for Trump- 27%
• Probably vote for Trump- 14%
• Probably vote for the Democrat- 15%
• Definitely vote for the Democrat- 33%

That's 48% for a Democrat and 41% for Trump. In 2016 Hillary won the popular vote (65,853,514 to 62,984,828) that same 48% to Trump's 46%. As people have gotten to know Trump better, they've decided he shouldn't have a second term.

Who likes Trump most?

• Republicans- 88%
• rural residents- 60%
• whites without college degrees- 60%
• men- 54%
• whites- 54%

Who dislikes Trump most?

• African Americans- 88%
• Latinos- 64%
• women- 61%
• those between 18-34- 57%
• whites with college degrees- 55%
• INDEPENDENTS- 51%

The word "independents" is capitalized for a reason. They're the ones who decide the election. Republicans vote for Republicans. Democrats vote for Democrats. Independents decide the winners.

Sounds good, right? But not to The Establishment--which is more worried that a genuine progressive win than seeing Trump reelected. Yesterday, the NY Times' Trip Gabriel warned that Democrats will lose unless they stick to the Republican wing of their party for messaging and candidates. He puked out the corporatist/Establishment line (lie) that "there are widespread worries that the momentum in Pennsylvania, and in other key Rust Belt states, could screech to a halt if the issues in the 2020 presidential primaries and the party’s eventual nominee stray too far left for the region’s many centrist voters." Really, like in Michigan, Wisconsin and downstate Illinois, where Bernie won the 2016 primaries and is, if anything, even more popular today?

Cue: corporate whore and Pennsylvania's most corrupt Democrat, Ed Rendell: "The more we have presidential candidates or newly elected congresspeople talking about the Green New Deal, talking about ‘Medicare for all,’ talking about socialism, the more that plays into the Trump campaign’s hands." Here's what the Blue Dogs, New Dems, Problem Solvers, No Labels folks who are desperate to push Status Quo Joe Biden into the nomination have to say:

He mentioned issues that are tantalizing to some primary voters and candidates but which risk alienating general election voters, such as reparations for descendants of slaves and a rapid, costly transition to carbon-free energy. “Reparations? What are we talking about?” Mr. Rendell scoffed. “Having only renewable energy by 2030? It’s not possible to achieve that.”

Mr. Trump is in the White House in large part because of the crumbling in 2016 of three so-called blue-wall states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate in more than two decades.

In 2020, if the rest of the electoral map is unchanged, with Mr. Trump winning the swing states of Florida and Ohio, Democrats understand that their most promising path back to the presidency is to resurrect the blue wall. Mr. Trump carried the three states by less than 80,000 total votes, so small fluctuations in his support or opposition would be pivotal.

Christopher Borick, a political scientist and pollster at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, called 2016 a “lightning-in-a-bottle” victory that will be hard for the president to duplicate.

But, he said, Democrats are in danger of creating the conditions in which it could happen.

“A more left-leaning candidate opens the door for Trump,” Mr. Borick said. “If you want to lock up Pennsylvania for a Democrat, the more moderate Democrats are the key.”

Some Democratic strategists said it is much too early to rule out any of the 2020 hopefuls as unable to defeat Mr. Trump in Pennsylvania, where disapproval of his job performance is 54 percent, with 42 percent approval, according to Gallup.

“I’m not going to sit here and say there’s a Democratic nominee that can’t win Pennsylvania,” said Jason O’Malley, a party strategist in Lancaster County, a Republican-leaning region.

Coleman Lamb, a senior adviser to his brother Conor, said a candidate’s personal qualities mattered more to voters than ideology. “I don’t think the only way to win is someone who proactively goes to the middle,” he said. “I think it’s more someone who is authentic, who’s saying what they actually believe and think.”

In 2018, Conor Lamb flipped many precincts that had voted for Mr. Trump, especially in the North Hills suburbs of Pittsburgh. Recent interviews with two dozen voters there, a mix of blue- and white-collar workers, revealed the full Democratic spectrum, from progressives eager for a nominee who leans hard left, to party apostates who voted for Mr. Trump and remain solidly behind him.

Gabriel then dug up some a retired postal worker and Trump voter to call Bernie a communist-- "He wants to take everything off the rich and give it to the poor: That’s communism"-- and say he'd never vote for him, the line of propaganda that is being spread by the Biden campaign. Next a claim that Scott Wallace, "one progressive who made it to the general election in a competitive district," lost to Brian Fitzpatrick, without mentioning that Fitzpatrick is the most left-leaning Republican in Congress and is actually voting more frequently for progressive legislation than several conservative Democrats. Also unmentioned is that the DCCC worked against progressives in the primaries but that of the 4 challengers who did win, two (Mary Gay Scanlon and Madeleine Dean) joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus and that the 3 Blue Dog/New Dem candidates Ron DiNicola, George Scott and Denny Wolff who made it to the general election were defeated. But what do facts means for the NY Times these days?

The "leading Democratic and Republican strategists" Gabriel interviewed say the best bets in Pennsylvania are Status Quo Joe and Ms Middle of the Road/Means Nothing candidate Amy Klobuchar.

Quartz did a funny "Meet The Dems" post that included "Who will like this candidate and "Who will hate this candidate" sections on each one:

• Bernie- 8.1 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Loyal “Bernie Bros” who still think he would have won in 2016, new converts to the idea of universal healthcare and higher taxes for the wealthy.
• Who will hate: Democrats who see Sanders as a “spoiler” who siphons votes away from defeating Trump, Clinton fans still smarting over her loss, people of color alienated by Sanders’ last campaign.

• Elizabeth Warren- 4.8 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Detail-oriented voters who like her mix of east coast academic know-how and midwest roots.
• Who will hate: Voters who distrust the intellectual elite, people who doubt she has enough personal appeal and can lure centrists.

• Cory Booker- 4.18 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Voters looking for an optimistic message to contrast Trump’s negativity, northeastern city dwellers.
• Who will hate: White rural voters who don’t want to focus on race and inequality, liberals concerned about his Wall Street and Silicon Valley enthusiasts.

• Status Quo Joe- 3.31 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Democrats who think a safe pair of hands is a tested white man, independents nostalgic for the Obama administration, Republicans Trump has lost.
• Who will hate: Progressive millennials eager for a new generation of leaders, far-right conservatives who hated Obama.

• Marianne Williamson- 2.6 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Some woke white liberals, coastal elites.
• Who will hate: Pragmatic voters, nationalists, centrists, people who want the party to stay away from identity politics, those wary of modern spiritual movements.

• Kamala Harris- 2.37 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Fans of Obama’s progressive pragmatism looking for a candidate who can combine a compelling personal biography with the promise to unite the party’s multi-ethnic coalition.
• Who will hate: Progressives who thought Obama was a sellout, particularly those who question her mixed record on reforming the justice system.

• Michael Bloomberg- 2.29 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Other centrists who think a steady hand means an older billionaire; gun-control supporters.
• Who will hate: Anyone hungry to see a younger, less white, less male, non-billionaire be the face of the Democratic party.

• Kirsten Gillibrand- 1.36 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Establishment-oriented voters and party supporters closely tied to the Democratic National Committee, where Gillibrand has deep support, and still-with-Hillary folks.
• Who will hate: Progressive voters-- Gillibrand’s work defending the tobacco industry and her anti-immigrant platform a decade ago raise questions about where her loyalties lie.

• Beto- 1.23 million Twitter followers

• Who will like: Democrats disillusioned with party leadership (especially millennials), immigrants, veterans.
• Who will hate: Voters hungry for nitty-gritty details on what his policies would be, Democrats who want the party to stay away from divisive, culture-war issues.

• Amy Klobuchar- 631,000 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Folks looking for a Goldilocks candidate-- neither too left nor too right, and a woman who appeals to midwestern voters.
• Who will hate: Democrats to her left may be opposed to Klobuchar’s centrist appeal.

• Tulsi Gabbard- 279,000 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Veterans, some progressives, voters looking to reduce military spending.
• Who will hate: People who are concerned about Islamophobia, supporters of global trade.

• Julián Castro- 179,000 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Democrats looking for a fresh face, Latino voters, free traders.
• Who will hate: Democrats dismissive of identity politics, opponents of affirmative action (which Castro supports).

• Jay Inslee- 158,000 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Inslee’s long history of sounding the alarm on climate change will endear him to anyone worried about looming environmental disaster; his tech-focused solutions for the country’s woes are likely to appeal to that industry.
• Who will hate: Climate science deniers, fossil fuel industry executives, wealthier individuals opposed to his capital gains tax proposals in Washington state.

• Pete Buttigieg- 135,000 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Millennials, LGBTQ voters, voters from flyover states, social progressives.
• Who will hate: Voters looking for a more experienced candidate, conservative Christians.

• Andrew Yang- 62,400 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Silicon Valley types, promoters of universal basic income (UBI).
• Who will hate: Anyone against higher taxes: Yang wants to fund his UBI proposal through value-added taxes.

• John Delaney- 14,400 Twitter followers

• Who will like: Centrists drawn by his nuts-and-bolts pitch to improve workers’ rights, education, and infrastructure.
• Who will hate: Democrats who don’t think that reaching out to Donald Trump voters is the way to win in 2020.

I put them in order of Twitter followers because-- unlike journalists-- Twitter followers seem to gravitate to candidates based on substantive proposals. Remember this:




UPDATE: There's A Rat In The Valley

The Chicago Sun Times mentioned yesterday that they were surprised Chuy Garcia wasn't up on the stage at the big Bernie rally on Navy Pier. Chuy, who Bernie endorsed for mayor against Rahm Emanuel and then helped win his congressional seat, is one of the progressives who hasn't endorsed him. What we're hearing from fairly good sources is that after Pelosi (and Kevin McCarthy) decided to bury the credible molestation charges of a minor against Tony Cárdenas (D-CA)-- a pretty shady Democrat to begin with-- Pelosi owns Cárdenas. He drugged and molested Angela Villela Chavez when she was 16 and threatened to fire her father if she ever told. He's Mr. Money-Bags in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' Bold PAC and Pelosi, according to two sources, told him to keep his members from endorsing Bernie. I can't believe (literally can't) the stories going around about the threats-- from Pelosi-- that Cárdenas is using. It just doesn't sound like her; it sounds like him. But, maybe that's what she wanted. Welcome to the sausage factory.

Lobbyists Paying To See Gil Cisneros And Tony Cárdenas In Swim Suits While The Shutdown Continues

The DCCC’s favorite Republican millionaire is hitting the beach with other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in Puerto Rico this weekend. Just imagine what corporate PACs are paying to see Cisneros in a swim suit. Well, we actually know how much-- $5,000 for a corporate PAC and $2,500 for an individual.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC-- which raised $11 million this past cycle-- is hosting its annual winter retreat this weekend at a fancy resort on the beaches of Puerto Rico. BOLD PAC, which takes corporate money and spends to elect Republicans-disguised-as-Democrats like Henry Cuellar is hosting this exclusive event as an opportunity for special interests to wine and dine with members. Here's the invite:

Aside from the fact that they are essentially selling access in exchange for a fancy vacation, the optics of this are terrible. The federal government remains shut down and federal workers are still without a paycheck-- many are struggling to get by as is and are facing potentially weeks more without a paycheck. All the while, the shutdown concerns an issue where the Hispanic Caucus should have the loudest voice-- immigration and the wall. This leaves other Democrats to stand up for immigrant rights and a humane policy along the border while power-players like Lujan, Cárdenas, Cuellar, Cisneros and their lobbyist friends sip cocktails.

Now, you can argue that they are taking important meetings while in San Juan, which would be relevant since Trump’s national emergency declaration would take money from the Puerto Rican recovery effort. But this seems suspect since past retreats have been a giant party at Vegas nightclubs. According to the FEC in 2017, BOLD PAC spent $7,000 at the Omni Nightclub in Las Vegas in one night and roughly $15,000 in catering at Caesar’s Palace. In 2018-- an election year-- they doubled down on Vegas and spent over $20,000 on food at Caesar’s Palace and took in a show at the Belagio for over $3,000.

Clearly, these retreats are a place where serious business gets done.

I asked a former official in the Democratic Party close to the Hispanic Caucus for their take and it’s the same head scratching disgust. "Right now, there needs to be a serious conversation on the border and who we are as a country when it comes to immigration. Trump is forcing this discussion while shutting out federal workers. Strong Latino voices would be a big boost to telling the story of immigration. Unfortunately, it looks like the lure of plush San Juan beaches and a corporate-funded cocktail are the priority. I hope those checks are worth it."

Even without the Hispanic Caucus speaking on humane immigration policy-- which all Democrats should be regardless of race-- in what world is this a good look for the party. Most of these members probably have furloughed workers in their district. Wouldn't it make more sense to highlight the impact of the shutdown locally instead of hitting the beach? I highly doubt those workers or the general public would appreciate the need for a winter retreat on an island resort while the government is closed. If the goal is to keep the majority, there needs to be better decisions and not a happens in Vegas mindset.

Hopefully new progressive Hispanic members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will continue to get elected and change the direction of the Hispanic Caucus. Right now, there are far too many Blue Dogs and conservatives pulling the strings and leaving the caucus without a voice during a national crisis.

This past cycle Bold PAC took in $11,096,964. Their funding comes from Coca-Cola, KPMG, Visa Card, Toyota, Primerica, Goldman Sachs, Dell, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, Herbalife, Charter Communications, FedEx, Univision, iHeartMedia, AstraZenica, Humana, Amgen, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, AT&T, Intel, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, New York Life Insurance, Walgreens, Ernst and Young, Sprint, Walmart, Merck, PNC Financial Services, Pfizer, the American Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Honeywell... in other words, every corporate PAC that has business with the federal government.

Of that $11 million in bribes they were laundering, they gave 80 House candidates and 6 Senate candidates-- overwhelmingly conservatives-- $397,283 and put $497,83 into independent expenditures for Antonio Delgado, Jay Hulings, Mike Levin and Xochitl Small. Another $1,058,300 went to the Latino Victory Fund, $764,825 to Pelosi's House Majority PAC, $286,000 to VoteVets (presumably for Cisneros) and $279,300 to EMILY'S List. The bulk of their money went to consultants and administrative costs. Mothership Strategies alone got $2,141,769.

UPDATE: GOP Noticed Too, Of Course

The tone-deaf boondoggle-type trip was too obvious for Fox to resist, especially as the fight over corruption (HR1) ramps up in the House.

Around 109 lobbyists and corporate executives are named in a memo welcoming the guests, which include some from prominent Washington firms, R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association.

A spokesman for the BOLD PAC-- part of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus-- would not tell the Examiner which members of Congress would be attending. But U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was spotted on the beach Saturday, according to a FOX News producer.

...Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, will attend a summit on the island on Monday, according to the Examiner.

When The Parties Undermine Their Own Candidates

Tony Cárdenas had no problem winning his heavily Democratic San Fernado Valley reelection bid, despite credible accusations that he he sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl and threatened to fire her father if she squealed. Last month an L.A. Superior Court judge ruled that there is "a reasonable and meritorious basis" for the suit to go forward but Pelosi quashed it in Congress. He's definitely not getting the Al Franken treatment.

Cárdenas' district gave Trump a mere 16.8% of its vote in 2016 and the unassailable PVI is D+29. In the primary about 2 weeks ago, despite being a child molestor, Cárdenas scored 67% against Republican Benito Bernal (18%) and Democrat Joseph Shammas (8%). There wasn't a peep out of Pelosi or her DCCC. Funny, because when the decode to destroy a candidate, they certainly know how to do it. And not just Laura Moser.

In Orange County, the DCCC released all kinds of sex allegations against their own recruit, Hans Keirstead, who seems to have won the CA-48 race, leaving the DCCC in a really awkward position. And despite Archie Parnell handily winning his South Carolina primary, the DCCC is poisoning the atmosphere against him for allegations by his then-wife made in a 1973 divorce filing.

The DCCC communications director, Meredith Kelly, who also led the charge against other Democrats the DCCC has trying to destroy told the media that "What Archie Parnell did is inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and he should drop out of this race immediately." So what Parnell is accused of doing to his wife in 1973 is "inexcusable" but Cárdenas raping a 16 year old child is... crickets. The whole DCCC crowd has ganged up on Parnell and keeps demanding he drop out of the race, reaffirming that they will not spend any money in SC-05-- the Charlotte exurbs plus Lancaster, York and Cherokee counties-- where he came close to beating Ralph Norman in a special election when Mick Mulvaney resigned in 2017.

• Ralph Norman (R)- 45,076 (51%)
• Archie Parnell (D)- 42,341 (47.9%)

Norman outspent Parnell $1,630,143 to $1,379,838. But his case isn't the only one where the establishment is trying to destroy politically. In fact, the Republicans so the exact same thing... and as bad or worse than the Democrats. (Surprise, surprise, both parties really suck.)

Last week James Arkin blew the whistle on McConnell for this newest interference-- the Arizona Senate contest. The Democratic establishment has chosen the worst-- literally, the worst Democrat in the House, Kyrsten Sinema, as the nominee. McConnell wants to do the same thing for the GOP-- and he wants it to be the mainstream conservative, Rep. Martha McSally, rather than one of the neo-fascists, Kelli Ward or Joe Arpaio.

The McConnell-controlled Pac, One Nation, is already run ads claiming that McSally is far more right-wing and extreme than her record indicates. "The ads," wrote Arkin, "from the McConnell-aligned nonprofit One Nation, don’t explicitly reference the Senate race. But they quote McSally saying, 'We’ve got to build the wall,' just as the two-term Republican has been tacking to the right on immigration. She recently pulled her support from legislation that would have offered a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally, instead backing a more conservative immigration bill, and McSally’s office also recently took down a video from last year that featured her defending DACA, the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation." Keep in mind that McConnell is the most disliked politician in America.

The TV ad marks the first move by a national group in Arizona’s Senate race, emphasizing the high stakes there as Republicans defend their 51-49 Senate majority. Democrats are confident in Rep. Kyrsten Sinema’s chances to flip the seat held by GOP Sen. Jeff Flake, who is retiring. McConnell has made clear his preference for McSally in the primary, and national Republicans fear the race will be unwinnable if former state legislator Kelli Ward or former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins the nomination in late August.

Still, McConnell’s involvement comes with its own risks. The majority leader is a controversial figure among GOP primary voters, and that unpopularity was weaponized against McConnell’s chosen candidate in Alabama’s special election last year, when pro-McConnell groups spent heavily to back former Sen. Luther Strange before he lost his primary. In Arizona, Ward has already attacked the Republican establishment for interfering in the race.

"The establishment and Never Trump forces know they have to prop up Martha McSally because her support is stalling with primary voters,” Zach Henry, a spokesman for Ward, wrote in an email. “McSally's record of personal attacks on President Trump, opposing the border wall, and her dozens of votes for amnesty and reckless Washington spending doesn't appeal to Arizonans."

McSally has faced criticism from both sides for her immigration positions, with Democrats criticizing her conservative shift since announcing her Senate campaign. But the Republican primary is the first hurdle for McSally, who has been labeled “McAmnesty” by Ward’s campaign.

"Martha began working on Securing America's Future Act last September-- long before a Senate run was even a consideration," said Torunn Sinclair, a spokeswoman for McSally's campaign. "This is political posturing coming from Democrats who are grasping at straws trying to poke holes in Martha's effective record fighting for Arizonans."

Eric Beach, a strategist for Ward, told Politico in May that Ward’s campaign would not simply be a referendum on McConnell. But the majority leader has played a role in the primary: A day after that article appeared, Ward wrote in a fundraising appeal that she was “the No. 1 target” of McConnell and that he had “thrown his weight” behind McSally in the race.

In another fundraising appeal late last month, Ward labeled McConnell a “major supporter” of McSally and compared that to endorsements she had received from conservative figures Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Sebastian Gorka.

Steven Law, president of One Nation and its affiliated super PAC Senate Leadership Fund, said in an interview earlier this week he thought McSally is well-positioned to win the primary. He didn’t discuss his group’s plans to invest in the race, saying that was something “everyone is still evaluating.” But he praised McSally’s fundraising ability and said she’s “well-positioned to be able to win this in her own right.”

...Law wrote in a memo that in most GOP primaries, the relative strength of the candidate and their political operation are critical variables. In the interview this week, Law said he’s confident in McSally.

“The record-to-record comparison between her and her two competitors in the primary, I think, will be a deal closer for Republican primary voters,” he said.

Does Tony Cárdenas Molest Underage Girls?

ProgressivePunch rates him a "D"

So far this quarter, Tony Cárdenas has raised $1,052,328 and his likely GOP opponent, Benny Bernal, has raised $2,300. His district, CA-29 has a convenient PVI to remember D+29. Hillary beat Trump there 77.7% to 16.8%. It runs from just north of Sylmar and the Foothill Freeway through San Fernando, Pacoima, Sepulveda, Panorama City and Sun Valley as far south as Van Nuys and North Hollywood. The district is less than 20% white and Cárdenas owns it-- or did. Head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' BOLD PAC, he's always had an odor of corruption around him. But now he's been accused of exually molesting a 16 year old. He says he didn't do it. Don't they all? His statement is very politically correct.

"We respect victims who have found the strength to come forward and call out misconduct when it has actually occurred, but the type of baseless and reckless allegations that are contained in the complaint against my client can ruin the lives and careers of innocent people," she said.

Cárdenas said the woman who filed the suit is the daughter of a "disgruntled former employee" who "may be the victim of manipulation."

ABC News reports that "the lawsuit that the defendant invited the then-teenager to play golf with him at Hillcrest Country Club and sometime during the round gave her a cup of water that had a 'peculiar taste.' The girl later collapsed but was still conscious. According to the suit, while driving her to a hospital, the man intermittently reached inside her shirt and down her pants, touching her breasts and vagina. She pretended to be asleep out of fear of what he might do. The lawsuit also described a later incident at the teen's father's place of business, in which the politician told her: 'Remember where your dad works.' The plaintiff perceived that statement as a threat against her family's security."

Cárdenas has been calling colleagues all week denying he sexually molested the girl. And maybe he didn't.