Corruption Isn't A Complicated Thing-- But Few Politicians Pay For Their Crimes, Even When Caught Red-Handed

I do a radio show with David Feldman every week and yesterday he asked me to go off on Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and I said he's not especially more corrupt than anyone who's been in Congress as long as he is. He's been there long enough to become a criminal . The example I used was his acceptance of $2,387,755 in bribes from the Industrial Health Complex which he just paid back by undermining-- perhaps mortally-- Bernie's presidential campaign for them. Feldman asked me if that was really a bribe. Yes, that's exactly what a bribe is, even if Congress has defined the laws about bribery to leave out their own "normative" behavior. David was still skeptical. But you know who no one in their right mind could be skeptical about? Mitchell Englander. If you're not from L.A. you probably never heard of him before.

L.A. doesn't have many successful Republican politicians. The 3 elected city officers-- Mayor, City Attorney and City Controller-- are all Democrats. The city has 10 members of Congress and all of them are Democrats. There are 9 state senators-- all Dems-- and the 16 state Assembly seats from L.A. are all filled by Democrats (or nominal Democrats in several cases). There are 5 county supervisors and the one with the least amount of the city, Kathryn Barger, is a Republican. Earlier today, I didn't mean to imply that North Carolina Republicans are the only corrupt Republicans.

The L.A. City council also has one Republican, out of 15-- John Lee, who was chief of staff for another Republican, Mitchell Englander, when he retired (December, 2018) early to become a lobbyist... and, apparently, in the hope that if he retired, the FBI would drop his then secretive corruption investigation. He represented the northern end of the San Fernando Valley (North Hills, Granada Hills, Chatsworth, West Hills, Northridge, Porter Ranch and Reseda) and voted as a garden variety Republican-- against raising the minimum wage for example.

Anyway, the FBI arrested him Monday morning and he was arraigned Monday morning. He pleased no guilty to a lurid grab bag of corruption charges-- from taking cold hard cash in envelopes, goodies on thousands of dollars worth of trips as well as the services of prostitutes paid for by a crooked businessman who turned state's evidence on him. Seven guns were removed from his Santa Monica home and he was released on $50,000 bail.

Joel Rubin and Emily Alpert Reyes covered the story for the L.A. Times yesterday. They wrote that he was "charged with obstructing an investigation into his alleged acceptance of cash, female escort services, hotel rooms and expensive meals from a businessman during trips to Las Vegas and Palm Springs."

Englander, 49, is the first City Hall figure to be publicly charged in connection with a sweeping probe that has delved into the worlds of L.A. politics and real estate development. In all, he faces seven counts-- three of witness tampering, three for allegedly making false statements and a single count of scheming to falsify facts.

He surrendered to federal authorities Monday morning and is expected to make an initial appearance in court Monday afternoon. Englander could not immediately be reached for comment.

The federal indictment alleges that Englander got cash, lavish meals and escort services from an unidentified businessman who was “seeking to increase his business opportunities in the city.” That businessman later began cooperating with the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in their investigation.

In June 2017, Englander and one of his top aides went to a Las Vegas resort and casino with the businessman, along with another city staffer, a lobbyist and a real estate developer, according to the indictment.

The businessman got them hotel rooms and “amenities ordinarily limited to VIP customers,” investigators found. At the resort, Englander took an envelope containing $10,000 in cash from the businessman in a bathroom, according to the indictment.

The businessman also gave Englander roughly $1,000 in casino chips, treated the group to $2,481 in dinner and drinks at a restaurant at the Vegas resort and paid approximately $24,000 for bottle service and alcohol at a nightclub, federal investigators found. In the early morning, after they returned to their hotel, the businessman told Englander he was ordering female escorts for the group, whom he paid $300 to $400 in cash for their services, the indictment states.

Englander is the only person identified by name in the indictment, but his former aide John Lee, who was later elected to fill his seat, said Monday that he was on the Las Vegas trip with Englander and “did everything in my power to pay for and reimburse expenses related to this trip.”

“I was unaware of any illegal activities for which Councilmember Englander is being charged,” Lee said in a statement. “I completely cooperated with the FBI when they contacted me for voluntary interviews in July and August 2017 and will continue to do so.”

Lee recently ran for reelection, facing off with college educator Loraine Lundquist, and has been ahead in votes tallied in that race so far. In a statement Monday, Lundquist said that voters should have had this “critical information” before they went to the polls and demanded, “What did John Lee know, when did he know it, and was he involved in the cover-up?"

“The fact of the matter is Englander engineered his succession plan in the special election, propping up John Lee, even though he was under federal investigation and was fully aware of it,” Lundquist said.

The indictment also details meetings Englander had with the unnamed businessman in Palm Springs in June 2017. Englander allegedly accepted an envelope with $5,000 in cash from the businessman during a brief encounter in a casino bathroom while the men attended a golf tournament.

A week later, Englander brought the businessman to lunch with a person identified in the indictment as “Developer B,” whom prosecutors described as the CEO of a construction company. The purpose of the lunch, the indictment said, was to give the businessman a chance to introduce himself and his company to the developer.

After the lunch, the developer emailed the men to thank them for the lunch and suggested another meeting to allow the businessman to make a “presentation,” according to the indictment.

FBI agents and prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s public corruption unit turned their attention to Englander in June 2017, when they intercepted a phone call in which the participants discussed perks and payments the unnamed businessman allegedly provided to public officials, according to the indictment.

The call led investigators to begin digging into whether Englander, a second City Council member referred to in the indictment as “Councilmember A,” and two staffers who worked for Englander and the unnamed council member had received “personal benefits” from the businessman.

The following month, agents and prosecutors approached Englander’s staffer. After two requests for an interview, the staffer agreed, speaking to investigators about the Las Vegas trip, according to the indictment.

Investigators also confronted the businessman, who agreed to be interviewed with his attorney present. A few weeks later, the businessman accepted an offer from prosecutors to formally cooperate in the investigation. Such cooperation deals offer defendants the chance to win a more lenient sentence in exchange for their help gathering evidence against other suspects and testifying against others at trials.

After learning of the federal investigation, Englander told the businessman who had lavished him with cash and meals to lie to investigators, including about the “massage lady” in Las Vegas, according to the indictment.

He also contacted the businessman through an encrypted messaging service, telling him that he wanted to reimburse him for portions of the Las Vegas trip, the indictment states. Federal investigators say that Englander then sent a check to the businessman meant to appear as if he had sought to reimburse the businessman before the FBI contacted him.

In interviews with the FBI, Englander repeatedly made false statements, including about the perks he had gotten from the businessman, the indictment alleges. The same day that he resigned from the council, Englander was asked if he had gotten anything other than a hotel room, dinners and some casino chips that he had paid back, the indictment states.

Englander replied, “Not that I recall,” according to the indictment.

Englander also failed to report the $15,000 he had received from the businessman on annual forms that lawmakers are required to fill out, federal investigators alleged.

If convicted of the seven charges, Englander could face a maximum of 50 years in federal prison.

Englander was first elected to the council in 2011 and reelected in 2015, then announced he was stepping down before the end of his term to take a job with Oak View Group, a sports and entertainment firm. As of February, he identified himself as president of the government relations group E-Venture.

When he first ran for City Council, Englander campaigned as the “official public safety candidate,” touting his support from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, as well as other law enforcement groups. In one campaign mailer, he can be seen in his LAPD uniform, which he wore as a reserve officer.

“Mitch Englander is the official public safety candidate, endorsed by the men and women who fight to keep the Valley safe!” the mailer reads.

Englander represented the northwestern stretches of the San Fernando Valley on the council, including neighborhoods like Chatsworth, Porter Ranch and Granada Hills, and sat on three of the most powerful committees at City Hall-- one focused on the budget, another on public safety, and a third that vetted real estate development. The councilman also served as an LAPD reserve officer and made an unsuccessful run for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Englander announced he was planning to leave the council less than a month before FBI agents descended on the home and offices of Councilman Jose Huizar and toted out boxes of materials in November 2018.

Real estate developers with projects in downtown Los Angeles soon started getting grand jury subpoenas asking them to identify donations they had made to political committees that backed Huizar and his wife, who was launching her own bid for the council.

A federal search warrant filed more than a year ago indicated that agents have been seeking evidence of potential crimes including bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering involving more than a dozen people, including Huizar and aides in his office; Councilman Curren Price, who represents part of South Los Angeles; Deron Williams, who works as a top aide to Councilman Herb Wesson; and former Department of Building and Safety chief Ray Chan, among other city officials and business figures.

Federal officials have not publicly announced charges against those individuals. Englander was not mentioned in that 2018 search warrant.

Jim Clyburn is hundreds of times more corrupt than Mitchell Englander but he gets to pick  Biden's running mate and will never go to prison

Can The Economic Royalists Derail Bernie Next Saturday In South Carolina?

South Carolina's primary is in 5 days. Biden's mammoth, untouchable lead has been touched. The newest state poll, from CBS News. Status Quo Joe is still in the lead, but barely:

• Status Quo Joe- 28%
• Bernie- 23%
• Steyer- 18%
• Elizabeth- 12%
• Mayo Pete- 10%
• Klobuchar- 4%
• Tulsi- 1%

South Carolina is Biden's "firewall" and if he doesn't win there... it all falls apart fast. Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Democratic machine party boss Jim Clyburn announced he will endorse Status Quo Joe on Wednesday. I don't think political endorsements mean much... but Clyburn is an exception among South Carolina African American Dems. Clyburn, a conservative Democrat, was also on ABC’s This Week, where he took a poke at Bernie: "I do believe it will be an extra burden for us to have to carry. This is South Carolina, and South Carolinians are pretty leery about that title socialist."

Democratic establishment hack, Jim Clyburn (who'll be 80 in July and who presides over one of America's most gerrymandered districts) may be about to jump aboard the sinking SS Biden, but today South Carolina's Republican senator, Tim Scott, claimed on CBS' This Morning that Bernie is the Democrat Republicans fear most. Bernie, he said "brings that outside game in a similar fashion that President Trump did in 2016. Think about the similarities. In 2016, Republican leadership, Republican wisdom said that there is no way in the world out of the 17 candidates, Donald Trump will be the president. I think it's very similar... If he's on his game as he was at the State of the Union, I don't think there is a candidate in the country that can beat him. If there is a second choice other than himself, it would be Bernie Sanders... Bernie Sanders is doing something in 2020 that he could not do in 2016, which is getting African Americans and Hispanic voters to take a second look at his campaign. I think perhaps a primary reason is health care. If you look at what stands out the most in his campaign is he is undeniable a socialist, but he is strong and clear and competent on the issues he supports and the issue of health care is a big issue in the African-American community and I think it is the issue for why he ended up with 51% of the Hispanic vote in Nevada." The candidate who would be the easiest for Trump to beat? Scott points right at Mini-Mike.

Meanwhile, Axios reported that the anti-working class sewer money PAC, the Big Tent Project, has sent hundreds of thousands of mailers bashing Bernie Sanders to 215,000 black voters in South Carolina who voted in the state's 2016 primary.

The mailing, which cost around $100,000, charges-- without any proof-- Bernie platform is unrealistic and too expensive, exactly what the economic royalists (and the Republicans) said about FDR and the New Deal. They are also repeating the false claim that has become the Democratic establishment's mantra: "Trump will crush Bernie on taxes and spending... Nominating Bernie means we re-elect Trump."

Although-- like all sewer money groups-- they are hiding their donors from the public, they plan to spend another $700,000 smearing Bernie and his platform in South Carolina this week. Last week Big Tent dropped $200,000 attacking Bernie in Nevada, which seems to have made him more popular and drove up his numbers. Keep in mind that right-wing Democrat, Jonathan Kott, former press secretary for Joe Manchin, is running Big Tent, a pretty clear indication that all of their money will be wasted.

Kott, who was always consider a third rate Hill staffer, told Politico last week that "Despite over 50 years in public life, Bernie Sanders has never been fully vetted. The Big Tent Project will shed light on his record of politically toxic policy proposals starting in Nevada and South Carolina. Voters need to understand that his well-known plans to kick union employees off their health care plans and end all private insurance, raise middle-class taxes and double the size of the government, and his less well-known radical views, like his efforts to dump nuclear waste in Hispanic communities, will repel many general-election voters. Either this stuff is debated now, when Democrats have time to consider it fully, or it will come out in the fall, in a torrent of negative ads by the Trump team that would likely prove politically fatal. Democrats deserve the facts before they choose a nominee."

Want the facts? Check out Marianne Williamson's speech in Austin when she endorsed Bernie on Sunday:

76% Of Democrats Now Favor Impeachment-- But Pelosi And Her Team Are Not Among Them

"Look at him," a senior Democratic congressman told me recently, less in disgust and more in pity, "he needs a crane to get him out of that chair. He's just let himself go..." Jim Clyburn (D-SC) may be in the worst shape of the three, but Clyburn is the "baby" of the the geriatric triumvirate at the top of the House Democratic caucus. Steny Hoyer turns 80 a week from next Friday. Pelosi's 80th isn't for another 9 months. Meanwhile, Clyburn won't even turn 79 til next month! It's absolutely insane that the 3 of them haven't retired. Do they think they're all that indispensable? They're not-- and the times have passed them by, regardless of how big their contributions were in past years and decades.

Yesterday, Clyburn was on State of the Union with Jake Tapper tap-dancing around the Democratic leadership's impeachment dilemma. Most Democratic voters favor impeachment but the party leaders are too old and tired to be able to fight a rigorous impeachment battle against Trump. They've given up before the first shot has been fired. It was almost funny how he said so much nothing that he just left Tapper confused and exasperated. Tapper started the exchange with a simple enough question: "You have said that you think that, if President Trump weren't the president, he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice, but you also do not support impeaching President Trump. So I think a lot of people might be wondering how to square those two positions. Why should President Trump not be impeached, if you think he committed a crime?"

Clyburn: "I have never said he should not be impeached. What I have said time and time again is, Mueller has developed the grounds for impeachment. The House has to determine the timing for impeachment. There's a big difference. I was telling one of my daughters earlier this morning, the longer I live, the more I get in touch with what those Gullah-Geechee parents and grandparents used to tell us all the time. Haste makes waste. Let's take our times and do this efficiently, not just effectively. All it takes is 218 votes to effectively impeach the president. That doesn't say that it will be the efficient way to do it. What Nancy Pelosi is trying to do and the rest of us in the House of Representatives is to develop a process by which we can efficiently move on this issue, so that, when we get to a vote, it would be something that she calls ironclad, I call effective. And that is why we are trying to take our time and do this right. So I don't see this as being out of whack with what the people's aspirations are."

Huh? So Tapper tried again: "I'm trying to figure out the gauge for your timing. Are you waiting for the public to support impeachment in majority numbers? Are you waiting for Republicans in the Senate to come on board, so that he gets convicted as well? What exactly is your gauge here if you support-- if you think that he-- that he broke the law and would have been indicted if he weren't president?

Clyburn: "We think that we have to bring the public along. We aren't particularly interested in the Senate. We do believe that, if we sufficiently, effectively educate the public, then we will have done our job, and we can move on an impeachment vote, and it will stand, and maybe it will be what needs to be done to incent the Senate to act. So we aren't waiting on the Senate. We're trying to make sure that we do what is necessary to educate the public, make sure that the public understands exactly what we're doing, why we're doing it, so that people won't misinterpret this as being a political move on our part. We believe that, if we do it efficiently and effectively, it will be one that the public will understand and will support. If the public ever feel that we are being political with this, we will have done a tremendous harm to the country, to the Constitution, and to the people that we are sworn to serve."

Sounds right-- except for the timing. So Tapper tried again: "But it sounds like you're-- you think that the president will be impeached, or at least proceedings will begin in the House at some point, but just not right now?"

Clyburn: "Yes, exactly what I feel. I think we have already begun. We have got all of these committees doing their work. We're having hearings. We have already won two court cases. And there are other cases that are still to be determined. So, why should we get out in front of this process? Why don't we just continue to go along? And we are-- right now, we are winning this issue. Why should we go out and make missteps and cause us to lose a court decision that will have people saying, why didn't you take your time? Why did you get out in front of this? It's kind of interesting to me, as I talk to people, when you ask them what they think we ought to do, they agree with what we're doing. It's just that, emotionally, they would like to see something done and see it done quicker. But people want us to be effective in what we do."

Time to watch this again-- and to send it to your member of Congress:

As Long As Trump Is In The White House, Our Nation Is Not Safe

Tweeter by Nancy Ohanian

A new CNN poll was released yesterday afternoon and the dip in favorable ratings for Trump-- from 42% to 41%-- was too small to be significant. It will have to be consistently below 33% before Senate Republicans give Pelosi the go ahead to start impeachment-- and by that time she may feel Democrats will be better off with him on top of the ticket than off it.

The mid-March poll showed most of the half dozen Democrats they polled either below water or unknown by the general electorate. Only Bernie had more people liking him than disliking him:

• Cory Booker- minus 1 favorability with 48% either not knowing who he is or having no opinion
• John Hickenlooper- minus 2 favorability with 82% either not knowing who he is or having no opinion
• Jay Inslee- equal favorable/unfavorable (7%), with 86% either not knowing who he is or having no opinion
• Amy Klobuchar- minus 4 favorability, with 68% either not knowing who she is or having no opinion
• Bernie- plus 3 favorability, with just 11% either not knowing who he is or having no opinion
• Beto- minus 2 favorability, with 46% either not knowing who he is or having no opinion

This is for Democrats and for independents who lean blue only:

This question stands out: "How enthusiastic would you say you are about voting for president in next year’s election-- extremely enthusiastic, very enthusiastic, somewhat enthusiastic, not too enthusiastic, or not at all enthusiastic?" Look at that big spike between this cycle and... any other cycle!

Measuring enthusiasm for the various Democratic candidates between early October and now:

• Biden- dropped from 33% to 28%
• Bernie- rose from 13% to 20%
• Kamala- rose from 9% two 12%
• Beto- rose from 4% to 11%
• Elizabeth Warren- dropped from 8% to 6%
• Cory Booker- dropped from 5% to 3%
• Klobuchar- rose from 1% to 3%
• Castro- rose from zero to 1%
• Gillibrand- flat at 1%
• Inslee- rose from zero to 1%
• Mayor Pete- rose from zero to 1%
• Hickenlooper- rose from zero to 1%
• Tulsi- flat at zero
• John Delaney- flat at zero
• Terry McAuliffe- flat at zero

Biden is carefully planning a grand announcement of a fourth or fifth or sixth presidential campaign-- who can keep count?-- but, according to today's Wall Street Journal, he has, of course, already reached out to the wealthy bundlers who have helped fund his very long anti-working family career. At least a half-dozen supporters got calls from him yesterday "to tell them he intends to run for president and to ask for their help in lining up contributions from major donors so he can quickly raise several million dollars... [He] has expressed concern to these people that he wouldn’t be able to raise millions of dollars in online donations immediately the way some other Democratic candidates have." Do you ever wonder why he can't?

Trump loves that good ole tabloid drama and he spent the last couple of days fighting with Kellyanne Conway's husband and John McCain's corpse. George Conway certainly got the better of him but corpses can't punch back. I don't expect that Peter Wehner-- who served in the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations and is now a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think-- was thinking his Atlantic piece this week, A Damaged Soul and a Disordered Personality would help Trump's chances at reelection. His first sentence is simple: "Donald Trump is not well." Wehner is weirded out by Trump's "weird obsession with a dead war hero."



For Wehner these "grotesque attacks once again force us to grapple with a perennial question of the Trump era." For him it's the danger that if we "allow Trump to succeed in keeping us in a state of constant agitation and moral consternation, in ways that are unhealthy and even play to Trump’s advantage, allowing him to control the nation’s conversation. But that view, which might apply in some circumstances, shouldn’t apply in all circumstances. The real danger in so desensitizing ourselves to Trump’s tweets is that we normalize deviant behavior and begin to accept what is unacceptable."

A culture lives or dies based on its allegiance to unwritten rules of conduct and unstated norms, on the signals sent about what kind of conduct constitutes good character and honor and what kind of conduct constitutes dishonor and corruption. Like each of us, our leaders are all too human, flawed and imperfect. But that reality can’t make us indifferent or cynical when it comes to holding those in authority to reasonable moral standards. After all, cultures are shaped by the words and deeds that leaders, including political leaders, validate or invalidate

“To his equals he was condescending; to his inferiors kind; and to the dear object of his affections exemplarily tender,” Henry Lee said in his eulogy of George Washington. “Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence, and virtue always felt his fostering hand; the purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues.”

But the other reason we should pay attention to the tweets and other comments by the president is that they are shafts of light that illuminate not only his damaged soul, but his disordered personality.

It doesn’t take a person with an advanced degree in psychology to see Trump’s narcissism and lack of empathy, his vindictiveness and pathological lying, his impulsivity and callousness, his inability to be guided by norms, or his shamelessness and dehumanization of those who do not abide his wishes. His condition is getting worse, not better—and there are now fewer people in the administration able to contain the president and act as a check on his worst impulses.

This constellation of characteristics would be worrisome in a banker or a high-school teacher, in an aircraft machinist or a warehouse manager, in a gas-station attendant or a truck driver. To have them define the personality of an American president is downright alarming.

Whether the worst scenarios come to pass or not is right now unknowable. But what we do know is that the president is a person who seems to draw energy and purpose from maliciousness and transgressive acts, from creating enmity among people of different races, religions, and backgrounds, and from attacking the weak, the honorable, and even the dead.

Donald Trump is not well, and as long as he is president, our nation is not safe.

I wonder if Pelosi and Nadler get that-- grok it. It looks like House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) does. Yesterday he told NBC News that Trump and his family of predatory grifters are "the greatest threats to democracy in my lifetime"-- and then compared Trump to Hitler. And Pelosi is playing games with impeachment? Hitler! Meanwhile, Yahoo News reported this morning that Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, told them that her father would be "horrified" by the state of the U.S. and the Republican Party under Trump. "I think he would be horrified. I think he would be heartbroken-- because he loved this country a lot and he believed in this country."

Jim Clyburn-- What A Swell Fella!

Anyone-- almost-- than Crowley

The other day I was speaking to a top staffer on Capitol Hill. I mentioned that Jim Clyburn, was so drunk no one even understand what he's saying. "It's easier to make a list of members who aren't drunkards," he offered, than members who are. It'll take you half as much time." Maybe he was on his best behavior when David Siders interviewed him for Politico last week. Clyburn, who has some kind of phony baloney title-- assistant to the Leader-- will be 78 in three months. In 1990 the Supreme Court mandated that the 6th district be redrawn as an African-American district (it is now a "packed" district that is 56.5% African-America and just 36.4% white). Clyburn, elected in 1992, is the only congressman to have ever represented the newly configured district. He's been in Congress for two dozen years and, although no one would ever admit this in public, he's "in charge" of the black Democrats in Congress. Not long ago I spoke to an African-American freshman who ran for and won a plum intra party position. I asked him what he plans to do with the job. He said he has "no idea" what the job entails and what it's all about. He asked me if I could tell him. I asked him why he ran and he said Clyburn told him to.

When Siders interviewed Clyburn at his annual fish fry in Columbia on Friday, he said "If we’re still in the minority [after Election Day] all of us [the party's sclerotic leadership] have got to go."

Many Democrats in Congress have finally come to the conclusion that despite their love for Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn, it's time for the 3 of them to go anyway-- win, lose or draw. Clyburn's special guest Friday was Tim Ryan (D-OH), another notorious alcoholic, who Clyburn introduced-- repeatedly-- as a good friend and a favorite drinking partner in Washington.

Clyburn said the party will undertake a “real assessment” of leadership after the November elections, regardless of the outcome.

For his part, Ryan, a longshot potential presidential candidate, lauded Clyburn, pointing to a growing number of young people in the South Carolina Democratic Party.

“Look at what he’s doing here in South Carolina,” Ryan told Politico. “Part of his genius is that he gets the fact that you’ve got to bring up young people.”

Ryan has said he will not challenge Pelosi again. Of his position that the party would be better served if she weren’t speaker, he said, “My view on that has not changed.”

And not a single mention of Joe Crowley, who's part of the leadership but not as old and decrepit as Pelosi-- who repeatedly referred to Conor Lamb as Collin Lamb over the weekend-- Hoyer (even older than Pelosi) and Clyburn. Crowley, far lamer than any of them is "only" 56. He's considered a youngster-- if you compare him to Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn. Progressives who would make far better Democratic Leaders/Speakers are all younger-- and more importantly, have much younger and more vibrant ideas:

• Ro Khanna- 41
• Ted Lieu- 49
• Pramila Jayapal- 52
• Mark Pocan- 53
• Jamie Raskin- 55

Blue America has been trying to start a groundswell in favor of Lieu to run so that-- at the very minimum-- there's a progressive and a non-corrupt candidate in the contest and so that Crowley-- neither progressive nor non-corrupt doesn't just walk into the job without being challenged. See that thermometer on the right? That's for the Progressive Speaker Fund. Lieu isn't going to run against Pelosi-- and Crowley says he won't either-- but she's 400 years old so it won't be much longer before she decides enough is enough. I'm pretty sure we can convince Ted to run if Pelosi doesn't. If you contribute to Blue America's IE PAC, we can collect any amount of money-- the way Republicans do. The Blue Momentum PAC (still listed as the LIEU PAC) is Ted's leadership PAC. You already know that Ted's own fund-raising page doesn't accept anything over $2,700. That helps his own reelection objectives. The LIEU PAC helps him contribute to other candidates (but not himself). So, please take a look at the new ActBlue page, The ProgressiveSpeakerFund by clicking on the brand new thermometer on the right. And please chip in what you can. And... if you know any progressive millionaires send them our way. Meanwhile... please enjoy the art:

Yesterday-- Presages A November Election Between Two Truly Horrible Candidates

Rubio, Cruz and Herr Trumpf have been smearing each other all week, all month, all year, and each of them insists the other two are shameless liars. And, for once, all three are telling the truth. So it would be a bonus to put up a truthful and trustworthy Democrat in November. Regardless how you feel about Hillary Clinton, honesty and trustworthiness are not among the traits she's most admired for. In fact, in yesterday's Nevada caucus, exit polls indicated that among people who valued those attributes-- and we're talking about a Democratic primary here, not about a survey of O'Reilly and Hannity viewers-- only 10% voted for Hillary. I guess if she gets the nomination, Wall Street, K Street and the Democratic Establishment-- the institutions propping up her wobbly campaign-- can hope that general election voters will say, "sure, she's a liar but Herr Trumpf (or Cruz or Rubio or Ryan) is worse." In fact, the lesser of two evils has long been the foundation of Democratic establishment electoral strategy. "Our hideous candidate-- for whatever office-- isn't as hideous as the Republicans' hideous candidate." Not an overwhelming endorsement. Last night's results in South Carolina, which netted Herr all 50 of the state's delegates that were up for grabs, winning both statewide and in each congressional district. Turnout was huge.

• Herr Trumpf- 32.5%
• Rubio- 22.5%
• Cruz- 22.3
• Jeb- 7.8%
• Kasich- 7.6%
• Dr. Ben- 7.2%

In Nevada, turnout was not huge (12,000 voted out of 585,890 registered Democrats). Hillary won a narrow victory, 52.7% (19 delegates) to 47.2% (15 delegates)-- although, keep in mind that Nevada is the 5th most minority-heavy state in the country (48.5%)-- after California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas. Ilya Sheyman executive director of MoveOn: "A few weeks ago, skeptics rejected the idea that Bernie would even be competitive in Nevada. Yet today, he has won a substantial share of the state’s delegates, demonstrating that he can be competitive across the country. The skeptics were wrong—Bernie’s message is resonating across diverse communities and his campaign is gaining support everywhere it goes. The results in Nevada prove that we have a real race for the Democratic nomination."

Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf at Politico this morning: "A staggering 70 percent of Sanders' campaign’s money comes has come from donations of $200 or less, most of which are delivered online or in response to emails and text messages devised by a sophisticated digital operation that is breaking new ground in low-dollar fundraising. Just 1 percent of his donors have reached the $2,700 contribution limit, according to a Politico analysis of FEC filings, meaning that the campaign can continue turning to them for cash again and again. On the flip side, less than 17 percent of the $130 million Clinton has raised this cycle has come from small donors, while about half has come from maxed out donors. That puts Clinton, a longtime darling of the party’s biggest donors, under pressure to expand her small-donor base, lest Sanders continue to outraise her, like he did in January." That pressure is turning into a vicious and ultimately destructive strategy to delegitimize Bernie and his progressive base, which will leave the primary victor unelectable in November.

Reporting for the A.P. yesterday, before voters even got to the polls in Nevada. Ken Thomas and Emily Swanson reported devastating new for the Clinton Machine. They wrote that according to new polling "most Democrats consider income inequality a very important issue and half of them think tougher regulations of the financial markets imposed after the 2008 financial crisis did not go far enough" and that there is significant "support within the party for Sanders' fiery calls to increase regulations on Wall Street banks and address wide gaps between the nation's wealthy and poor." As exit polls for a much higher attended caucus than expected were being released-- only 20% of caucus goers described themselves as "moderate" and only 3% as conservative (Hillary's base-- the policy-centric explanations for Bernie's strong showing were coming into clearer view:

The poll found that reducing income inequality, a message championed by Sanders, resonates deeply with Democrats. More than three-quarters of them in the poll say reducing the gap between rich and poor is very or extremely important for the next president to address. And 8 in 10 Democrats, but just 3 in 10 Republicans, say the government has some responsibility to reduce those income differences.

Democrats were even more likely to say that reducing poverty is very important for the next president (86 percent) than that reducing the gap between rich and poor is that important (77 percent). Among all Americans, 72 percent say cutting poverty is very important, while 57 percent say reducing the gap between rich and poor is.

Maybe part of the distrust Democrats feel for Hillary has to do with the ungodly sums she's taken from the most corrupt characters in public life. Of all the unscrupulous and contemptible politicians in U.S. history-- just think about that-- Hillary has taken more money from the lobbyists than anyone else-- ever. She's already scooped up $2,915,238. And her whole campaign is riddled with lobbyists. Her real firewall-- super-delegates-- includes actual lobbyists!

And it's not just the foul lobbyists-- detested by Democrats-- who are so desperate to get her into the White House (I wonder why). Wall Street banksters want her too. She's raised the second most money from the Financial Sector among people who have served in Congress-- $39,278,192 since 2000 when she ran for the Senate. The 3 closest GOP crooks notorious for taking big bribes from Wall Street are McCain ($38,101,487, a million dollars less than her, even though he's been taking their bribes since 1982!), John Boehner ($12,422,298, since 1990) and Mitchell McConnell ($11,453,701, since 1984).

Friday, another crooked sleazy congressman, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, endorsed her. (For those counting, he's taken $509,365 from the lobbyists and $2,385,675 from the Financial Sector.) He sold his community out so long ago that he no longer even remembers who his community is. His objection to Bernie? "I do not believe there are any free lunches. And certainly there's not going to be any free education." Or is his head just all fogged up. Public education-- not Harvard, not Yale, not Wellesley... means schools like South Carolina State College, where he went to school, and the State University of New York, where I went to school, where tuition wasn't free but very close to it. His school started as a Land Grant College, which progressives fought for against dogged conservative opposition who said things like "there are no free lunches and certainly there's not going to be any free education." The Morrill Act, establishing land grant colleges, was passed in 1859 and vetoed by conservative shit-bag James Buchanan. Once the South-- which is where most of the opposition came, of course-- seceded, the bill passed again and Abraham Lincoln signed it in 1862. A second Morrill Act was proposed in 1890, requiring the former Confederate states to show that race was not an admissions criterion or to designate a separate land-grant college for blacks. They opted for the latter and Clyburn's alma mater came out of that decision.

Today South Carolina State College is known as South Carolina State University and the annual tuition and expenses come to $25,650 for in-state residents-- over $100,000 for a four year education. I would never have been able to go to college-- nor would Clyburn have-- under those circumstances. Maybe Congressman Clyburn should pay attention to what Bernie is saying about helping his constituents:



It was telling this week when a report came out by Wall Street pharmaceutical and health services analyst explaining to investors why the should support Hillary, not just over Bernie-- but over any of the reactionary Republicans. "Overall," he wrote, "we believe the best scenario for healthcare investors is a Democrat, presumably Hillary Clinton, winning the Presidency, as we anticipate the Republicans retaining control of Congress. In this scenario, in spite of Clinton’s numerous 'threats' to rein in drug prices, allowing the re-importation of drugs, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, we believe it is highly unlikely Clinton will be able to pass these initiatives through a Republican controlled Congress. Conversely, the Republicans’ efforts to repeal Healthcare Reform, would be thwarted by a Clinton veto as we do not anticipate the Republican obtaining the 2/3 votes to override a veto."

Yep... a vote for gridlock. Said Jilani pointed out that Clinton frequently boasts "about her record during the 1990s. 'I fought really hard,' she said at a Democratic town hall earlier this month. 'The insurance companies and the drug companies spent millions against me. I know what it’s like to go up against the status quo and special interests.' But now it appears they’re rooting for her."

Not just rooting either. The pharmaceutical industry has contributed more to her campaign, $1,139,798, than to anyone else, other than Jeb ($1,562,383). None of the other candidates have gotten any significant pharmaceutical money. Before I ask you to contribute to Bernie's campaign, let me share a piece of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Virginia historian Samuel Kercheval (June, 1816): "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. [Otherwise] as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four... and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."

Nancy Pelosi Just Got a Talking-To from Her Caucus

UPDATE: The Rule as described below passed the House, 217–212, with eight Democrats jumping in at the last minute to push it over the line. McCarthy's order of business will start soon, presumably Friday. The roll call vote on the Rule is here. Blumenauer was a lead vote, again. There could be trouble ahead, with yet more kind words for Pelosi's helpful role, from New Dem chair Ron Kind, at the link. Pelosi basically owns this bill now. Stay tuned.

Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. James Clyburn (Getty Images; source)

by Gaius Publius

Just In: Rep. Sam Farr (CA-20) has just declared himself pro-Fast Track. His phone number is here: 202-225-2861.You might make him aware of your thoughts.

The Fast Track trade vote in the House looks set for Friday or soon thereafter, and there's scrambling on both sides.

I want to look at just a few aspects of this fascinating attempt at corporate wet-dream enabling — the Fast Track vote count itself; newly-announced strong opposition from the right-wing Heritage Action operation; and the sudden unraveling of a deal Pelosi had with Boehner to pass the Senate's TPA plus TAA combo bill — where Pelosi's playing both sides finally got her a talking-to from her caucus.

We close with a "where we stand" (click to jump there). It's been quite a ride.

What Are the Vote Numbers in the House?

On the vote tally, the most consistent numbers I'm hearing are in the range of those listed below. From Politico Pro (subscription required), this is James Clyburn talking about the whip count:

Clyburn: TAA offset still needs work

... [Assistant Democratic Leader James] Clyburn said during his remarks that he didn't think Republicans had 198 votes to complement the current 20 Democrats who support fast track. ...

I refer you back to this "whip count" post for my earlier speculation about the numbers. To review, if all members vote, it takes 217 to pass a bill in the current House (since they are two members short). There are 245 Republicans and 188 Democrats. Most of the numbers coming out (some aspirational, some not) say that 50 to 70 Republicans could vote No on the combined TPA-TAA bill that came out of the Senate, and that something like two dozen Democratic Yes votes would be needed.

Clyburn's statement is close to many reports. There may be more than 20 Democrats who are pro-Fast Track, but not many more. There are now 21 announced Democratic Yes votes, according to the latest from the NY Times — including the 18 named by Alan Grayson, plus Jim ("Air Force One") Himes and Kathleen Rice, who just switched sides [also Sam Farr, noted above]. There is also speculation about undecided Democrats, but the number is unlikely to be greater than six.

If you'd like to make a call or three, consider talking to these fine people:

• Ed Perlmutter (CO-07) — 202-225-2645
• Terri Sewell (AL-07) — 202-225-2665
• Nancy Pelosi (CA-12) — 202-225-4965

And don't forget:

• Sam Farr (CA-20) — 202-225-2861

per the "Just In" note above. 

Do it now though. The first two might be swayed. The third needs a continuation of the talking-to alluded to above and described below. You might mention the phrase "your legacy" as you speak.

Note that Clyburn is in House leadership (meaning he's likely pro-Obama and pro–Fast Track if he can get away with it); also that Clyburn is in the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members have been heavily lobbied by Obama to stand with him. I would also count Pelosi (explanation here) and Hoyer as quiet Yes votes, but only if they have to. It seems they'd rather to see Fast Track pass with their No votes — Fast Track and TPP are that toxic in the Democratic House caucus.

All this means that the number of Republican No votes on Fast Track must be quite high. Subtract 50 from 245 (the number of total Republicans) and you get 195. If 21 (or so) Democrats can't pass the bill, it means there are more than 50 Republicans opposed. If they force a vote on Fast Track on Friday (or soon thereafter), it's going to be very close.

So watch the TPA ("Fast Track") vote — H.R. 1314 — which will be one of several. Do more than 20 Democrats vote Yes? If so, who? Do more than 50 Republicans vote No? If so, who?

Heritage Action Will Score the TPA Vote

Heritage Action, the action arm of the Heritage Foundation, has just come out strongly against the TPA bill, and will score a member's vote in evaluating the member for future support. Breitbart.com reports:

Heritage Action Will Score Fast-Track Vote

Without promises from House and Senate leadership that the Export-Import Bank will not be reauthorized, Heritage Action is urging Republicans to vote against a top Obama trade agenda item.

The conservative group is warning that it will be scoring the upcoming vote on whether to provide President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals.

“Absent ironclad public commitments from Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that the Export-Import Bank will not be reauthorized, Heritage Action will key vote against H.R. 1314,” the group warns.

Heritage Action argues that while it supports trade, the recent effort has become another vehicle for welfare spending.

“The bill combines President Obama’s request for fast track authority or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) with a stimulus-level extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and, as mentioned above, has become inextricably linked to the passage of the Export-Import Bank,” Heritage Action explains.

“Free trade benefits the economy and all Americans. Congress should not shy away from promoting free trade at every opportunity. However, The Heritage Foundation’s Ambassador Terry Miller says this particular ‘TPA has gotten bogged down in the politics of protectionism and welfare spending,’” it adds.

The group stresses that it is a “free trade organization” but that the addition of TAA makes support for TPA even tougher for conservatives. In the end they are calling for conservatives to oppose the bill, H.R. 1314, and warn it will be included as a “key vote” in their legislative scorecard.

“Heritage Action has always been a free trade organization, but free-market conservatives are understandably split on this president’s request for fast track authority,” the group explains.

Heritage and much of the right hates the Export-Import Bank, which selectively benefits exporters and mainly benefits Boeing, by the way. (Alan Grayson concurs in opposition to the bank.) They also hate the worker assistance provisions in TAA.

Will Heritage peal away enough Republican votes to defeat TPA? We'll find out soon.

Why Is the Vote So Close? The Medicare Poison Pill

This explains the meat of the problem — for the bill and also for Leader Pelosi, who has reportedly been working "almost daily" in opposition to the wishes of the vast majority of her own caucus. That opposition has now spilled over into intra-caucus conflict.

There are more corporate Democrats in the House than any of us would like, and all are potential pro–Fast Track (pro-TPA) votes. But the bill reported out of the Senate is two bills rolled into one — Fast Track itself, called "Trade Promotion Authority" or TPA, and a bill that offsets the damage to workers from all the job-creating "trade bills," called "Trade Adjustment Assistance," or TAA.

Democrats needed both bills to pass in order to make it look like the party as a whole cares about workers. All you need to know:

• If the House votes Yes to the exact language of the combined Senate bill (TPA plus TAA), it goes straight to the White House. No more votes.
   
• The House will vote on each part of the combined Senate bill separately, however. (Clever move to get different members to vote Yes on different parts.)
   
• Therefore, both bills must pass for the combined Senate bill to pass.
   
• If the House changes any of the language of either bill, it goes into conference instead of to the White House, which means more delay and more voting.
   
• If either the TPA or TAA bill fails, the whole Senate bill fails.
   
• There's a poison pill in the language of the Senate TAA bill.

Somehow, the Senate put language in the TAA bill that said, in effect, "Yes we'll allocate money for (some small number of) workers who need 'assistance,' but that money will come out of Medicare."

Oops. Here's why:

• Even corporate-loving Democrats have to appear to be pro-worker. So they need to pass TAA to make their voters swallow their Fast Track vote.
   
• Even corporate-loving Democrats need to appear to be pro-Medicare. So they can't vote for TAA as it's currently written.
   
• You can't cast a vote against Medicare and not expect to get killed in the next election. The ads write themselves. (Clever of the Republicans to set it up that way; or way too clever. We'll see.)

So Pelosi and Boehner came up with a plan (explained by several sources). Four trade bills are going to be voted in this session, TPA, TAA, a "customs" bill and an African assistance bill. Only TPA and TAA matter, since Fast Track authority is all Obama and the corporations care about. Obama can veto the rest and still get Fast Track authority for himself and the president that follows him.

The clever Pelosi-Boehner plan was initially reported as this. Democrats would vote Yes for TAA — the one with the anti-Medicare language — then vote Yes for one of the other bills (initially the "customs" bill), which will have language canceling the anti-Medicare language.

Tuesday night, Boehner thought he had a deal with Pelosi. Tuesday night Pelosi thought she'd put together a way for her caucus to pass "TPA plus TAA" with language intact (which tells you she's a firm but quiet Yes, right?).

Tuesday night, however, progressives figured out that the Democrats were being had. How? Consider — You're a Republican candidate fighting a Democratic incumbent in 2016. That Democrat voted Yes on TAA, including the anti-Medicare language. If you say all this in campaign ads, what's the Democrat's response?

These ads are easy; they write themselves. Here's one now:

Want to help put this ad on billboards in Costa's district? Click here.

What is Mr. Conservative Democrat Costa going to say?

"Yes, technically I did vote for TAA with the anti-Medicare provision, but then I took it back with my other vote for this other bill which cancelled the anti-Medicare provision. It's technical, but it's all good. You get that, right?

"Besides, it's not my fault that the president signed the bad Medicare bill and vetoed the good Medicare bill. Not my fault at all. Still love me?"

With that story to tell, conservative Mr. Costa will enter electoral history and become a brand new lobbyist in January 2017. He and everyone else who took that vote.

Nancy Pelosi's Tuesday Night Deal Was a Trap

On Tuesday night, based on the following Politico report, Nancy Pelosi had agreed to deliver Democratic votes to say (1) Yes to TPA; (2) Yes to the anti-Medicare but otherwise worker-friendly TAA; (3) Yes to the "customs" bill that was originally planned as the vehicle to cancel out the anti-Medicare language.

On Wednesday morning she got wise, got religion ... or got a talking-to from her suddenly freaked-out caucus. Here's part of the report on which this is based:

After vote set, Dems threaten to derail Obama's trade bill

Nancy Pelosi and her allies are objecting to a procedural side issue involving Medicare money.

... On Tuesday night, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) thought he had an agreement with Pelosi to drop that approach and use money from more stringent tax enforcement instead.

But Democrats raised an objection that night and the issue boiled over at the party’s weekly conference Wednesday. [Earlier language: "But on Wednesday, Democrats raised a new objection."]

They said under the voting procedure Republicans are planning, a vote would still be taken on the plan using Medicare funds, but it would then be overriden by a subsequent vote. That strategy would avoid directly amending the TAA bill, thus reducing the differences between the package of House trade bills and the one the Senate already passed. Trade supporters are intent on avoiding sending the trade bills back to the Senate for further action, lest even more problems arise.

Now here's Mr. Clyburn to explain the problem simply (same source):

But Democrats say they want no part of a vote to cap Medicare spending, even if it would be fixed by a subsequent vote.

“Why should I be recorded as voting to take $700 million out of Medicare in order to get something to put it back?” South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, told POLITICO on Wednesday.

But it gets worse for Pelosi. There's now a report from inside the Wednesday caucus meeting.

Pelosi's Progressive Talking-To

Pelosi's pro-TPP deal with Boehner unraveled ugly in the Wednesday caucus meeting. Via this new report from Vox:

Pelosi "misread" Democratic Caucus on fast-track bill, friend charges

The fight over President Obama's trade agenda has gotten so ugly that one of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's closest friends in Congress accused her of subverting the will of House Democrats at a closed-door meeting of top party leaders on Wednesday, according to five sources.

"With all due respect," Rep. Rosa DeLauro said to Pelosi, you've "misread" the caucus. It might not sound like much, but that's a stiff charge. It suggests that Pelosi, the best vote counter of her era, is either slipping or intentionally undermining her colleagues. That was a bridge too far for Pelosi. Her aides began clearing the room of staff to limit the number of witnesses while she told the lawmakers who remained in the meeting that she's been trying to get the best possible deal for American workers.

Ultimately, DeLauro has become the point of labor's spear in trying to defeat a bill that would give Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals. And Pelosi, who is claiming neutrality, has become a shield giving space for the White House and Speaker John Boehner to shepherd the trade bill through the House floor.

Read the rest; it's fascinating. This not only happened — it was reported as happening. Pelosi's careful cover story — she's widely self-described as being "neutral" or "silent" — is blown. Thank you, Vox.

Where We Stand

That was Wednesday and we're ages beyond that. The Pelosi-Boehner trickery has moved on. The "pay-for" to offset the anti-Medicare provision in TAA has now been put into the "Africa aid" bill (now "Africa Aid and Repeal Medicare Offset"), and it's being debated now.

In addition, the anti-Medicare provision will been taken out of the TAA bill ("rendered moot") per Republican Leader McCarthy's latest memo, if the Africa aid bill passes, and then put back in after the voting is done. (Yes, really.)

McCarthy:

After passage of the trade preferences bill tomorrow, the House will consider the Rule to bring up the TPA/TAA bill and the customs bill.  Instead of dividing the bill into two questions (TPA & TAA), the Rule will divide it into three questions (TPA/TAA/sequester). Since the House will have already spoken on the sequester provision, the Rule will consider as adopted the question of the sequester with no further vote since it has been rendered moot by the preferences [Africa aid] bill. This will leave the House to vote only on the remaining issues under the Rule: TPA, TAA and customs.

"Sequester" is the "reverse the Medicare provision" language, and as I said, it's now in the "Africa" bill and is expected to pass. The trick is that the Rule now means no direct vote on the offending TAA language.

But a vote on the Rule is still a vote on the Medicare provision — it's a vote to hide the anti-Medicare language in TAA, then reinsert it if TAA and TPA both pass.

McCarthy again:

On Friday, the House will begin with debate on a motion to concur on the TPA/TAA bill. The House will then debate the motion to concur on the customs bill with a House amendment. As I mentioned at Conference, the House will then request to go to conference with the Senate on the customs bill

After debate on both motions on Friday, the vote order will be as follows:

• Question 1 - TAA. If this vote fails, no further action will be taken on the remaining trade motions. If this vote passes, the House will proceed to:
   
• Question 2 - TPA. If this vote fails, no further action will be taken on the remaining trade motion. If this vote passes, the House will proceed to:
   
• Motion to concur on the customs bill with a House amendment

Do you see the tricks? If TAA fails, no one has to take a vote on TPA (which pleases Heritage Action, among others). Also, a vote on the "Rule" plus a vote on TAA is a vote for the anti-Medicare provision, since the anti-Medicare language has to be restored (by the Rule) into TAA if that bill is to be identical to the Senate version.

Will this pro-TPP trickery (thank you, Leader Pelosi) be enough to assuage enough frightened Democrats so that they can comfortably vote their contributors' wishes instead of their constituents' future incomes?

In addition, there's a long list of other things wrong with the so-called "customs" bill (formally, an amendment to H.R. 644, if I read things right). House leaders have larded it through with lots of bad provisions, like forbidding the U.S. Trade Representative to address climate change in a trade agreement (discussed here). There are many more like that.

The customs bill is so changed that it will have to go into a conference committee, but it's a giveaway bill anyway. It can take any form, and Obama can still veto it if and as he chooses. If TPA and TAA pass intact, he can sail into his "Bill Clinton future." All he needs is for Fast Track to pass and his golden era is assured.

Bottom line — Nothing has changed, but will Democrats think it has? Those ads still write themselves. Stay tuned. It's going to be an interesting set of votes.

Other bottom line — Nancy Pelosi is deeply the perp in all of this. Without her ceaseless effort, Fast Track is doomed. Do remember that. It's her last strong act before she enjoys her own golden era. Her office phone number is above.

[Note: Multiple small updates for accuracy.]

GP

Stealing From Medicare To Pay For TPP-- Unhealthy For Republicans... Deadly For Democrats

The vote of TPP is looming in the House and Obama has Jim Clyburn (D-SC) making all kind of handsome offers to Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to guarantee a big vote score from that circle. You won't find caucus members with integrity, like Barbara Lee and Donna Edwards, playing footsie with Clyburn on this, of course.

Would the Republicans suddenly agree to fund summer jobs over trade? Lord knows the President is great at bargaining in a lopsided fashion (2010 Obama: I’ll give up $4 trillion in tax revenue for one year of unemployment benefits).

Several pro-labor Black Caucus members have already said they will vote NO on the deal. Will the gifts change their mind? A whip count at last votes yielded lots of firm NOs even with the gifts. Stay tuned.

Donna Edwards' reaction was a petition against Fast Track Authority. "Fast Track and TPP just got a whole lot worse," she wrote. "Republicans have added $700 million in cuts to Medicare to pay for the trade adjustment assistance... The more the public learns about the wheeling and dealing done to get Fast Track and the TPP passed the worse it looks. And that doesn’t even include the the awful corporate and special interest giveaways inside the actual trade deal!

And while Donna, the progressive candidate for Maryland's open Senate seat, against a wishy-washy Establishment Democrat who stands for nothing beyond his own careerism, was launching her petition, CREDO was launching a Facebook ad campaign against trade reactionaries Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Mark Warner (D-VA) and Ami Bera (D-CA). That ad eviscerates the TPP gang for allowing the Medicare cuts. I'm sure Ron Johnson couldn't care less, but that message is likely to freak out Blumenauer and probably Wyden.



Democrats had insisted on financial aid and training for workers displaced by the job-killing TPP, but Republicans have countered that they would only go along if the money was taken out of Medicare. All the Blue America-endorsed candidates are adamantly opposed to Fast Track, to TPP and to pillaging Medicare. 

Mike Noland is an experienced progressive state legislator from Illinois running for the seat being left open by Tammy Duckworth's Senate campaign. He understands the sleight of hand the Republicans are trying to pull with TPP. "Having served in the Illinois General Assembly for the past eight years now," he just told us, "I know that budget sweeps are among the most undisciplined and unprincipled actions a legislator can take."

Funds earmarked for designated programs must be protected. Medicare is a sacred program that provides millions of seniors with the health care services they need. Demanding that funds for job training come from Medicare is just another example of Tea Party Republicans' attempt to dismantle any form of a social safety net. 

Mike's marijuana legislation passed the Illinois legislature yesterday-- 62-53 in the House and 37-19 in the Senate-- and went to the Governor's desk. Under the bill, possession of small amounts of cannabis-- 15 grams or less-- would be punishable by fines of no more than $125. He said, "There has been much talk this year about criminal justice reform and being smarter on crime,” said Noland.

With this measure the Senate and House take an important step in the right direction. The benefits we will see from this plan are innumerable. Today, we become smarter on enforcement of the law while saving judicial resources... 

Illinois has allowed the use of medical marijuana and we need to become prepared for what happens when people actually abuse that law and start driving under the influence. Now is the perfect time.

Noland's bill establishes a limit for driving while under the influence of cannabis. This limit can be tested through blood or through saliva, making Illinois one of the first states for oral fluid testing of THC.