All But 34 Republicans Cast A Very Dangerous Vote Against Seniors On Wednesday

You would think that passing Bobby Scott's Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (H.R. 1230) would be easy as pie. And it kind of was. It passed the House Monday 261-155, every single Democrat voting yes-- even the worst of the Blue Dogs and New Dems and 34 Republicans jumping the fence to vote with the Dems-- a relatively very large number of Republicans. Almost all the endangered Republicans-- the ones most likely to be defeated in November and who are desperate for every vote they can corral-- voted yes. A dozen examples:

• Don Bacon (R-NE)
• Troy Balderson (R-OH)
• Mike Bost (R-IL)
• Rodney Davis (R-IL)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-OR)
• John Katko (R-NY)
• Brian Mast (R-FL)
• Michael McCaul (R-TX)
• Chris Smith (R-NJ)
• Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)
• Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ)

So why would so many Republicans cross the aisle and why would so many vote against it. The whole idea of the bill is the amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to "establish an unlawful employment practice when the complaining party demonstrates that age or participation in investigations, proceedings, or litigation under such Act was a motivating factor for any unlawful employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice (thereby allowing what are commonly known as 'mixed motive' claims). The bill (1) permits a complaining party to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence, which need only be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred; and (2) declares that a complaining party shall not be required to demonstrate that age or retaliation was the sole cause of the employment practice (thereby rejecting the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., which requires a complainant to prove that age was the 'but-for' cause for the employer's decision). The bill authorizes a court in a claim in which age discrimination is shown to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, but prohibits a court from awarding damages or issuing an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment. The bill applies the same standard of proof to other employment discrimination and retaliation claims, including claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973."

Sounds sensible? Well, there weren't many Republicans in real reelection battles this year who voted NO. The only ones I could find were extreme right ideologues Steve King (R-IA), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), John Carter (R-TX) and anti-union fanatic Greg Gianforte, a crackpot congressman running for the Senate in Montana. I talked with Dary Rezvani, the progressive in this Central Valley race, about Nunes' vote. "We have a responsibility," he said, "to take care of our most vulnerable populations, including our seniors. There are over 140,000 seniors that live in California’s 22nd district and with housing and medical costs only rising, you would think that Nunes would pay attention to the needs of his constituents. He is only concerned with carrying out the agenda of the Trump Administration and unfortunately that leaves our seniors with a representative who votes against them. Votes against protection against discrimination votes against the Senior Protection Act 2010, co-sponsored legislation in 2014 to eradicate the individual mandate, which we know will disproportionately affect seniors utilizing healthcare services. As a millennial running for office, I can see firsthand what happens when government services meant to support our seniors’ fail and it falls to a family safety net. Not all of our seniors have a family to rely on and it is our duty to provide basic government services to protect them and build a plan for long-term care."

Did Google Just Bribe Devin Nunes? Business As Usual For Google And Nunes

California’s 22nd congressional district is one of the dwindling 7 still left in Republican hands-- and likely one of the next to fall. The relatively compact Central Valley district, starts up in the northern and eastern parts of the city of Fresno, includes Clovis, Reedley, Dinuba, Visalia, Exeter, Lindsay and Tulare. The district is primarily rural and includes parts of two counties, Fresno and Tulare. The PVI is R+8, the least red of the districts still held by a Republican in the state. There are only 3 California congressional districts with Republican PVIs held by Democrats-- CA-45 (R+3, Katie Porter), CA-48 (R+4, Harley Rouda) and CA-49 (R+1, Mike Levin).

By the numbers, it’s nearly impossible for a Democrat to win an R+8 district. There are just too many Republican voters and too few Democrats. CA-22, however could break the mold because of the controversial nature of the incumbent, crackpot and Trump patsy Devin Nunes. The district gave Obama (both times) and Hillary around 42% of its vote, but McCain took 55%, Romney got 56.6% but Trump just 52.1%. It’s not especially popular in the district.

Last cycle, the DCCC couldn’t have found a worse candidate-- a worthless, anti-charismatic conservative who is barely a Democrat, Andrew Janz, someone, had he won, may have joined Jeff Van Drew in jumping ship-- yes, another DCCC pile of garbage. The reasons he got any votes at all was:

• 2018’s anti-red wave
• The insane pro-Putin incumbent
• an obscene $9,064,633, entirely raised against Nunes

The Central Valley has been largely ignored by a Democratic Party controlled by coastal elites, both state-wise and nationally. Hispanics have not been registered and political organizing has been minimal and decidedly not progressive. The area needs a lot of help, the kind of work Kim Williams is doing in the blue 16th district, a Blue Dog stronghold where voters are just becoming aware of what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican even is. The DCCC found themselves a clone of Janz for 2020-- actually Janz recommended him-- Phil Arballo, a guy who is never going to beat Nunes unless someone finds a hi-def video of Nunes raping that cow he sued. So far this cycle Nunes has raised $5,678,450. The 3 Democrats taking him on are lucky to have raised a tenth of that combined:

Phil Arballo (DCCC conservative)- $380,762
Bobby Bliatout (moderate liberal)- $204,599
Dary Rezvani (progressive)- $76,886

Arballo is running an identity politics campaign on Republican-lite platform that is word-for-word all the pablum the DCCC feeds it’s dumb-bell candidates who can’t write their own pablum. Bobby Bliatout’s isn’t as bad, but isn’t that much better either-- just garden variety Democrat. Day Rezvani’s priorities page is the only one that could actually generate any of the kind of enthusiasm needed to win this kind of district by inspiring young people and non-voters.

Monday morning, Popular Information, Judd Legum’s popular newsletter, published a piece called Google’s Holiday Gift To Devin Nunes, about the pernicious impact of how corporations buy American politicians. “In November,” wrote Legum, “Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was in the spotlight— the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, which was leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. He used his star turn to push "fantastical conspiracy theories" about Democrats. Nunes falsely accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) of trying to obtain nude photos of Trump. He promoted the discredited notion, advanced by Trump but rejected by the intelligence community, that Ukraine took significant steps to meddle in the 2016 election. The debunked contention is part of a broader Russian propaganda effort to absolve itself from hacking the DNC servers by pinning the blame on Ukraine. Nunes was warned during the hearings by Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council, that he was legitimizing a Russian disinformation campaign. ‘I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine-- not Russia-- attacked us in 2016,’ Hill said. ‘In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.’ Nunes was undeterred.”

Nunes' antics during the impeachment hearings capped a year when he filed six defamation lawsuits, seeking hundreds of millions in damages from Twitter, a GOP political operative, media companies, a retired farmer, and a fictional cow. The suits were all filed by an attorney, Steven Biss, whose law license was suspended twice by the state of Virginia.

In response, Google quietly rewarded Nunes' behavior with a check for $5000 to help him get reelected. The donation was revealed in a little-noticed FEC report that was filed on December 20.

Google says its "mission is to make sure that information serves everyone." But it is supporting a Congressman who has emerged as one of the most powerful sources of disinformation in the country.

It is a vivid example of a much broader problem that Popular Information has documented extensively. There is a yawning gap between the publicly stated values of powerful corporations and their political activities. A paper published by Harvard Business School (HBS) this month concludes that corporations have "funded, perpetuated, and profited from political dysfunction."

Corporations have a massive influence on the electoral process. In 2018, corporate spending on federal elections was around $2.8 billion. At the state level, "public companies were the largest source of funding supporting partisan groups in state-level races, such as the Republican Governors Association and its Democratic counterpart."

One chapter of the Harvard paper surveyed HBS alumni and found a shocking level of ignorance about the influence of the corporations they work for on the political system.

When asked whether their own companies’ election spending distorted the democratic process, just 4% said yes, while 30% disagreed (27% strongly disagreed). A remarkable 61% responded to this question with “Not applicable” or “Don’t know.” 

The authors said the responses from HBS alumni "suggests either that many business leaders have little knowledge of their companies’ political involvement...or that alumni are unwilling or uncomfortable disclosing their companies’ involvement in elections."

But when asked about corporate involvement in politics generally, most HBS alumni agree that corporate political donations are deleterious and warp democracy.

[A]mong HBS alumni who were asked not about their own company but about business as a whole, 60% responded that companies should not have corporate PACs as a vehicle for employees to contribute to candidates the company supports. And 71% of these same alumni believed that the overall business community’s election spending distorted the democratic process.

In other words, HBS alumni believe that corporate political donations are a big problem-- but the company they work for is an exception.

Political donations are part of a corporate "playbook" of political activity that includes lobbying, spending on ballot initiatives, and hiring former government officials. Overall, HBS alumni view their own company's political involvement as largely positive while viewing the activities of all the other companies' political involvement negatively.

Notably, 62% of HBS alumni surveyed say that the business community overall "worsens the political system by advancing policies benefiting special interests," but just 21% are willing to say the same thing about their company.

While corporate influence campaigns are effectively securing tactical political victories that increase businesses' immediate bottom line, the Harvard study suggests that this strategy is backfiring over the long run. 

Based on our research, we believe that much of today’s business involvement in politics may actually be working against business’s longer-term interests. It is not enhancing our nation’s productivity and competitiveness, failing to put business’s weight behind sound public policies to enhance the U.S. business environment, advance shared prosperity among citizens, and improve the communities on which business depends.

This makes sense. Ingratiating yourself with people like Devin Nunes, for example, may help you preserve a valuable tax loophole for another year. After all, he has a vote. It's unlikely, however, that Nunes and his ilk will have any interest in creating a functional social, economic and regulatory environment.

Toward a new meaning of corporate responsibility

Nearly all corporations seek a positive public image, including demonstrating a commitment to creating social good. Up to this point, these efforts have "been in areas like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving employee health, and, more recently, paying a living wage and improving training and career development for lower-income workers." Politics has been separate. There is little effort to harmonize corporate political activities with commitments to public responsibility.

The Harvard study found a surprising willingness among HBS alumni to change the corporate political playbook. A strong majority of HBS alumni believe corporations should end political donations, spend less on lobbying, and stop trying to buy outcomes in ballot initiatives.

This circles back to a dynamic discussed earlier: most corporate employees are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) their own company's complicity in the problem. How many Google employees, for example, know their company gave Devin Nunes $5000 last month? Without that knowledge, an abstract willingness to change corporate practices overall will not translate to internal pressure for things to change at a particular company.

Knowledge is only part of the problem. Corporate insiders are often reluctant to speak out, believing that doing so could cost them their jobs.

The author of the Harvard study is proposing a "set of voluntary standards, which we believe every company should adopt when dealing with politics and government." But with so much money at stake, most corporations will not reorient their political activities without a fight. Change, if it does occur, will need to be a product of external and internal pressure.

A Few Careerist Democrats-- Fools-- Are Afraid To Back Impeachment

3 conservative Democrats; Slotkin on the right

Michigan New Dem Elissa Slotkin is one of the most worthless wastes of a House seat Democrats elected in 2018. A cowardly careerist she has spent the last year shaking in her seat that she might say or do something wrong and lose her reelection bid. ProgressivePunch rates her a big fat "F." That's why she should lose her seat in the Detroit suburbs. The anti-red wave that swept Michigan in 2018 gave her a 4 point win over Republican incumbent Mike Bishop. She outspent Bishop 2 to 1-- $7,401,141 to $3,374,608 and the DCCC and its allies nearly $10 million more, much more than the NRCC and it's allies spent defending Bishop. So far this cycle, she has no primary opponent-- although she should-- and a gaggle of pathetic Republicans who haven't raised any money at all, though she's already brought in over $2,000,000. Her lifetime crucial vote score-- more Republican than Democrat at 43.14%-- is nestled comfortably between two of Congress' worse most GOP-oriented Democrats, a little better than Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and fractionally better than Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA). The only Democratic freshmen members with worse voting records than Slotkin are Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY) and Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), 8 shitheads, like her who have either decided to vote against impeachment or who are still trying to figure out if a vote for impeachment would help or hurt their miserable careers. Most of them are in much, much redder districts than Slotkin.

MI-08 includes parts of 3 counties, deep blue Ingham and redder parts of Oakland and Livingston. In 2016, Democrats in Ingham County turned out big for Bernie. He beat Hillary 22,909 (54.7%) to 18,287 (43.7%). Bernie also crushed Trump that day, who only drew 8,056 votes to Kasich's 7,725 and Ted Cruz's 7,042. Slotkin should be more worried about being primaried by a progressive than by being beaten by a Republican. Bernie also crushed Hillary in Livingston County-- 59.4% to 38.1%. Oakland County gave Hillary a narrow win over Bernie, but Bernie still beat Trump in the county. MI-08 voters wanted real change; instead they were cursed with a nervous nellie congresswoman who's like a plate of jello. NBC News reported over the weekend that "Slotkin is being lobbied by Republican colleagues who argue that Trump's actions-- even if imperfect-- don't amount to impeachable offenses and that she should accept, given her background, that the president needs room to use leverage in foreign policy... One Slotkin donor who contributed to her 2018 campaign after they got to know each other in Washington's national security circles told NBC News that it makes sense for her not to commit her vote early publicly. 'She’s been careful and conscientious about the process,' said the donor. 'It’s no surprise that she’s continuing to do that now by keeping her powder dry and waiting to see the articles of impeachment before she decides how she’s going to vote on them.'"

Many of the 2020 congressional candidates are far more courageous and far more driven by justice than Slotkin and the other conservative freshmen careerists are, including many in far redder districts.

The whole idea of this post came from something Omaha progressive Kara Eastman had written last week after Pelosi's speech about proceeding with impeachment: "This is a solemn day. There should be no celebration for the need to impeach the President. I have always said that I respect the office of the President. The problem America faces now is that Donald Trump does not respect the office. His actions involving Ukraine were bribery and extortion, pure and simple. As the evidence demonstrates, and as several legal scholars stated in public hearings yesterday, if this is not impeachable conduct, what is? As a candidate who intends to serve in Congress, my oath will be to uphold the Constitution. It is not to allow my oath to be clouded by partisan politics. That’s why I call upon my opponent, Representative Don Bacon, to rise above his partisan games and support Impeachment as well. He should recognize that now is the time to put country above party and defend the U.S. Constitution, as he is sworn to do."

I thought her framing was brilliant. I also liked the way Dana Balter in the Syracuse area district in upstate New York handled it. She sent her followers excerpts from an editorial from the Auburn Citizen demanding that the slippery Republican incumbent, John Katko "stop ignoring the facts" of impeachment. She noted that "As the process has unfolded in recent weeks, Rep. Katko has tied himself into knots feigning ignorance to the president’s abuses of power" and that Katko "has been a loyal footsoldier in the effort by Washington Republicans to divert attention from President Trump’s actions. Despite mountains of evidence, the Congressman has resisted the pleas of his constituents to do the right thing, instead deciding to make protecting Donald Trump his top priority. Rep. Katko is complicit in Trump’s corruption and it’s time that we replace both of them." Key excepts from the December 5 editorial:

• As the House Judiciary Committee considers articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Rep. John Katko owes it to his constituents to come to an informed and vocal position on the issue.
• Two weeks ago, Katko said that he hadn't watched a lot of the impeachment testimony but was being briefed by his staff. He said that he hadn't yet seen evidence of an impeachable offense, he also said that he hadn't reached a conclusion. The time has come for him to start paying careful attention.
• Katko has said that the entire inquiry into Trump concerns a single phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. But it can't be dismissed that easily, and if Katko had been paying closer attention he would know that witnesses have testified about things beyond a single phone call that raise serious questions about whether Trump violated his oath of office.
• Impeachment is not a minor thing. It can't be written off as a distraction to the issues facing Congress, and it's a cop-out to say that multiple things can't be done at the same time.

A few days later, Balter was on the attack again after another devastating report in another local paper, the Post Standard: "Every day, Congressman Katko twists himself into another knot so that he can protect Donald Trump. The evidence is clear and irrefutable: the president has abused his power. Congressman Katko must understand this and when he says otherwise, he is lying to his constituents. No one is above the law and the Congressman’s refusal to hold the president accountable is a betrayal of the law, his oath of office, and our democracy."

West of Balter's district, Nate McMurray is running for an open seat in a really red district in western New York, NY-27 (PVI is R+11, New York's reddest district). He also made good use of a piece from a local newspaper, the Buffalo News that was published in July. Their story began with a huge photo:

The news piece by reporter Stephen Watson was relatively light-hearted and more human interest than hard-core political. McMurray has built on the concept to make a case in a difficult district where Trump beat Hillary 59.7% to 35.2%. He comes across as a very forthright, courageous person, very much the opposite of people like Slotkin.

Sunday's dueling pro- and anti-Trump rallies in the Elmwood Village left us with several striking images.

Two men, one who lost his shirt, coming to blows over their opposing views of the president. A man dressed as Captain America being pulled over by Buffalo police for driving without a seat belt.

But perhaps the most vivid was the view former Congressional candidate Nate McMurray offered of his arms.

McMurray, the Grand Island supervisor and an organizer of the anti-Trump event, wore a sleeveless shirt to the protest. This didn't go unnoticed by people who saw photos and videos from the event.

"Yesterday I wore a-- God forbid-- SLEEVELESS T-shirt!" McMurray tweeted Monday. "I have received more comments on that shirt ..."

He said he wore it for practical purposes-- because he had to carry water bottles, tables and other items to and from the rally in Sunday's heat-- and not for vanity's sake.

"But maybe I’ll go sleeveless more often," McMurray wrote, using the hashtag "sunsoutgunsout."

His sartorial choice proved as divisive as the current political climate.

One Twitter user wrote, simply, "Dork."

But most people replying to McMurray offered compliments.

"I thought you looked great-- young and vibrant," one woman observed.

And a couple of wags made similar quips: "I believe in your right to bare arms."

Progressive Democrat Ian Todd is running in an even redder district (R+12), Michelle Bachman's old redoubt in Minnesota, currently occupied by the chair of the NRCC, Tom Emmer, who the DCCC has a non-aggression pact with. Ian told us that he thinks "the debate among Democrats whether or not to 'throw the book' at Trump and put every crime we know of in the articles of impeachment is a microcosm of our two tiered justice system. Penniless folks with no power often have ridiculously overblown charges against them as leverage for a plea deal, but many Democrats aren't sure if we should add the clear cases of obstruction of justice or not. The privilege of the powerful is not easy to watch when you know how the rest of us get treated."

I was interested in how Dary Rezvani was using impeachment, since he's the progressive taking on one of the impeachment investigations' arch-villains, Devin Nunes. But impeachment isn't foremost on his mind-- nor, he said, on the minds of CA-22 residents. "We have not really addressed impeachment. We have been trying to focus on local issues that the federal government can impact. Aside from the people entrenched in our local Democratic Party, it is not really an issue. We have so many things happening here that impeachment is really a luxury. I believe Trump should be held accountable and obviously Nunes is directly involved with the entire situation but most of the people I have spoken to believe we should work on making sure we vote him out in 2020."

Jennifer Christie is running for an open seat in a pretty red district in the suburbs and exurbs other of Indianapolis. She's taking the kind of strong, principled stand for impeachment that frightens the DCCC and conservative Democrats, "Congress has had a Constitutional obligation to impeach Trump since 2017," she told us. "He committed obstruction of justice by firing James Comey as well as the other 10 counts of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report. Trump has also been in violation of the Constitution each day that he receives and accepts money from foreign governments who stay at his resorts and hotels. He has promoted his personal businesses through his office and certainly has profited from it. Trump's campaign accepted a meeting with a foreign agent to receive 'dirt' on  his opponent and then lied to the American People about it. He said, if given the chance, he would do it again. And he did. This time, it was Trump who bribed the Ukrainian President to announce an investigation into his political opponent. Trump did not do this for our country; he did it for himself just like he has used the Presidential office for his personal gain since he took office. The current hearings document and attest to the blatant abuse of power exhibited by President Trump. The founders of our Constitution gave the mechanism of impeachment exactly for the purpose of removing a president who is willing to put his own interests above the country's and to abuse the office for his own profit and gain. This is a nonpartisan issue; this is a moral and Constitutional issue. It doesn't matter which party you belong to. Congress takes an oath to the Constitution alone. Every member of the House and Senate-- Democrat, Republican, and Independent-- should vote yes to impeachment because, if they don't, they are saying it is ok to bribe and accept a foreign government's help in an election. And if that is ok, then our Democracy is lost."

We need more members of Congress like Jennifer Christie and fewer like Elissa Slotkin. Same goes for Nabilah Islam, the progressive running for the open red seat in the suburbs northeast of Atlanta. She tells the constituents there that "Trump’s only priority is himself. I was the first person to call for impeachment proceedings in Georgia. It’s unfortunate it’s taken so long for Congress to act. He’s committed multiple impeachable offenses including but not limited to obstruction of justice. I’m glad proceedings have begun but sad it’s taken so long to finally begin. It’s clear Donald Trump asked a foreign government to investigate one of his opponents in the Presidential election and threatened to withhold funding in order for them do so. This is a clear case of quid pro quo. The only way we can return dignity to the Office of the President is through his removal. He needs to be impeached now."

Heidi Sloan is a Democratic Socialist running in a gerrymandered Texas district that goes from Austin right up to the southern tip of Tarrant County and the Fort With exurbs. Her opponent, a rich used car salesman named Roger Williams, is a Trump fanatic. This is from an e-mail Sloan sent to her supporters last month:

The betrayal of Donald Trump and his corrupt administration was laid bare yesterday during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Donald Trump is hateful, criminal, and incompetent. He, and everyone in his administration, deserve to be removed from office immediately.

But career politicians see this as an opportunity to get off the hook. Even Democrats would rather talk about impeachment than have to take a position on the issues that matter most to working class Americans. We need national rent control. We need Medicare For All - the real deal, right now, not in three years and not a public option. We need a Green New Deal and to prosecute fossil fuel executives. We need an immediate moratorium on deportations and to abolish ICE. And we need candidates who are committed to fighting for that vision.

That's how we're going to beat Trump and his allies in Washington. Impeachment grandstanding will not deliver these gains to us, only a fighting organized working class will. When our people are struggling living paycheck to paycheck and unable to even pay attention to impeachment proceedings, there is a problem with our democracy, and I’m the only candidate in this race that understands that problem. The problem is power, and until regular folks have power, our electeds simply won’t be able to win the fight against corruption and injustice.

Stand with us to win the demands of the working class. That’s what I’ve been doing since before I was asking for votes, and that’s what we’ll do-- together-- when I'm in office.

Former Columbus mayor, Teresa Tomlinson, is running for the Georgia Senate seat occupied by lockstep Trump ally David Perdue. This is what she's saying out on the stump about Trump's impending impeachment: "The Senate vote on President Trump's articles of impeachment will determine the outcome of the Senate majority and leadership in 2020. Our Founding Fathers tell us so. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton explained precisely on point with the debate of today that senators must be called to account as to the standard for our presidency. If the Senate refuses to vote to impeach upon evidence of abuse of power, then they will allow the president to become the 'author of their mismanagement and disgrace,' and the people will hold the senators to account at the ballot box." (That's from Federalist Paper, No. 66.)

The Third Stooge: Devin Nunes

Devin Nunes has been one of Trump's most consistent defenders, co-conspirators and enablers in Congress. As Mark Sumner pointed out yesterday at Daily Kos, Nunes has been pretending to be an investigator, when he was part of the criminal syndicate all along. At the very least, an Ethics Committee investigation is required and likely inevitable-- and probably a great deal more. Vicky Ward's CNN exclusive yesterday was a shocker-- and possibly a harbinger of the end of Nunes' career in politics. Lev of Igor and Lev has ratted him out-- and in a big way!

Ward wrote that Joseph Bondy an attorney for Giuliani crony Lev Parnas told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings Nunes had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up-- or manufacturing-- dirt on Joe Biden and his son. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes. Shokin is the crook who Biden helped get fired for not persecuting corruption cases. Bondy told CNN that Lev and Nunes "began communicating around the time of the Vienna trip. Parnas says he worked to put Nunes in touch with Ukrainians who could help Nunes dig up dirt on Biden and Democrats in Ukraine." So... Nunes was the third stooge-- Igor, Lev and Devin!

Bondy tells CNN his client is willing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for documents and testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry in a manner that would allow him to protect his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Bondy suggested in a tweet on Friday that he was already speaking to House Intel though the committee declined to comment.

Giuliani has told CNN previously about his conversations with Shokin and  Parnas, saying that this was part of his legal work for his client, President Trump. Parnas' claims about Nunes' alleged involvement offers a new wrinkle and for the first time suggests the efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens involved a member of Congress.

Parnas' claims that Nunes met with Shokin, which has not been previously reported, add further context to a Daily Beast report that Parnas helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Nunes last year, citing another Parnas' lawyer, Ed MacMahon.

Those revelations came to a head on Thursday when Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell raised the Daily Beast story publicly during the impeachment hearing.

Parnas, who was indicted on federal campaign finance charges last month, worked with Shokin and Giuliani to push a pair of unfounded claims: that Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats, and that Biden was acting corruptly in Ukraine on behalf of his son Hunter, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings.

According to Bondy, Parnas claims Nunes worked to push similar allegations of Democratic corruption.

"Nunes had told Shokin of the urgent need to launch investigations into Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, and any purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election," Bondy told CNN.

...Parnas is currently under house arrest in Florida and has pleaded not guilty to charges of federal campaign finance fraud.

Over the past two weeks, CNN approached Nunes on two occasions and reached out to his communications staff to get comment for this story.

In the Capitol on Nov. 14, as CNN began to ask a question about the trip to Vienna, Nunes interjected and said, "I don't talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime."

"At any time," Nunes added. "On any question."

Asked again on Thursday about his travel to Vienna and his interactions with Shokin and Parnas, Nunes gave a similar response.

"To be perfectly clear, I don't acknowledge any questions from you in this lifetime or the next lifetime," Nunes said while leaving the impeachment hearing. "I don't acknowledge any question from you ever."

Congressional travel records show that Nunes and three aides traveled to Europe from November 30 to December 3, 2018. The records do not specify that Nunes and his staff went to Vienna or Austria, and Nunes was not required to disclose the exact details of the trip.

Nunes' entourage included retired colonel Derek Harvey, who had previously worked for Trump on the National Security Council, and now works for Nunes on the House Intelligence Committee. Harvey declined to comment.

Bondy told CNN that Nunes planned the trip to Vienna after Republicans lost control of the House in the mid-term elections on Nov. 6, 2018.

"Mr. Parnas learned through Nunes' investigator, Derek Harvey, that the Congressman had sequenced this trip to occur after the mid-term elections yet before Congress' return to session, so that Nunes would not have to disclose the trip details to his Democrat colleagues in Congress," said Bondy.

At the time of the trip, Nunes was chairman of the Intelligence Committee. In January, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff  took over as chairman of the powerful committee, which is now conducting the impeachment inquiry.  

Bondy says that according to his client, following a brief in-person meeting in late 2018, Parnas and Nunes had at least two more phone conversations, and that Nunes instructed Parnas to work with Harvey on the Ukraine matters.

Parnas says that shortly after the Vienna trip, he and Harvey met at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where they discussed claims about the Bidens as well as allegations of Ukrainian election interference, according to Bondy.

Following this,  Bondy says that in a phone conversation Nunes told Parnas that he was conducting his own investigation into the Bidens  and asked Par nas for help validating information he'd gathered from conversations with various current and former Ukrainian officials, including Shokin.

Parnas says that Nunes told him he'd been partly working off of  information from the journalist John Solomon, who had written a number of articles on the Biden conspiracy theory for The Hill, according to Bondy. 

  ...Bondy tells CNN that Parnas is also willing to tell Congress about a series of regular meetings he says he took part in at the Trump International Hotel in Washington that concerned Ukraine. According to Bondy, Parnas became part of what he described as a "team" that met several times a week in a private room at the BLT restaurant on the second floor of the Trump Hotel. In addition to giving the group access to key people in Ukraine who could help their cause, Parnas translated their conversations, Bondy said.

The group, according to Bondy,  included Giuliani, Parnas, the journalist Solomon, and the married attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing.  Parnas said that Harvey would occasionally be present as well, and that it was Parnas' understanding that Harvey was Nunes' proxy, Bondy said. 

Solomon confirmed the meetings to CNN but said that calling the group a team was a bit of a mischaracterization. Solomon said that connectivity happened more organically, and that his role was only as a journalist reporting a story. 

Solomon also said that Di Genova and  Toensing, his lawyers, introduced him to Parnas as a facilitator and interpreter in early March. "Parnas was very helpful to me in getting Ukraine officials on the record," Solomon told CNN. "I only gradually realized Lev was working for other people, including Rudy Giuliani."

...In the weeks since his arrest, Parnas has become disenchanted with Trump  and Giuliani, according to Bondy as well as other sources who spoke to CNN. Parnas, these sources say, was particularly upset when Trump denied knowing him the day after Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were arrested in October.

Last week, CNN reported that Parnas had claimed to have had a private meeting with Trump in which the President tasked him with a "secret mission" to uncover dirt on Democrats in Ukraine.

"He believes he has put himself out there for the President and now he's been completely hung out to dry," a person close to Parnas told CNN. Last week, the White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment to a series of questions regarding the meeting and Trump's relationship with Parnas.

On Thursday, Bondy promoted the hashtag #LetLevSpeak on Twitter in response to a number of questions about whether Parnas would testify in front of Congress.

Bondy tweeted directly at Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy Thursday night after McCarthy accused Schiff of blocking important witnesses from testifying, saying "I don't agree with your premise, but please, if you mean what you say, call my client, Lev Parnas. #LetLevSpeak."

The progressive Democrat running for Nunes' Central Valley seat, Dary Rezvani told me that "All of this just continues to show how little Congressman Nunes actually cares about being a representative. The country is largely focused on just how corrupt these actions are and I have seen multiple comments asking how our district could ever vote for someone like him. Nunes has continued to be Trump biggest defender in Congress and this just shows how far he has been willing to go in his attempted protection and defense of Trump. All of that being said what is more concerning to me is that all of this protection has taken precedent over serving the constituents of CA-22. As our opioid crisis continued to worsen, as healthcare providers continued to leave our rural communities, and as our air and water quality continues to rank as some of the worst in the nation, Nunes has decided that further implicating himself with the corrupt actions of this administration was more important than addressing any of the issues impacting his district. He would know that if he had taken even a moment of time to hold a town hall in the last ten years. We are losing family farms to large corporations who don’t care about the district and continue to poison our communities with harmful pesticides yet he totes himself as a farmer who protects farmers. He is nothing more than a politician who protects his own interests and those of corporations seeking to make a quick buck off of an already impoverished  community that lacks the resources to fight back. I want to believe that at one point he became an elected official to do the right thing but the more I talk to farmers in our south valley, the less I believe this was ever the case. The reason Nunes has continued to be re-elected is because our district’s issues are systemic and just saying how bad Nunes is will never work simply because we have such low voter engagement. We will replace him when our Democratic nominee understands the root cause of our issues and has plans to fix them."

The Democratic Party has long ignored CA-22 in the Central Valley. As the party discovered last cycle, that's been big mistake. Had they been registering voters and building infrastructure over the last few years, Nunes would have bee defeated in 2018. Right now the district's population is 39.1% white, 47.5% Latino, 7.6% Asian and 2.9% black. That sounds like a winnable California district. But party registration isn't reflected in those demograhics. The Fresno County part of the district has 93,787 registered Republicans, 75,314 registered Democrats and 54,439 decline-to-state voters. The Tulare County part of the district has 50,371 registered Republicans, 39,635 registered Democrats and 32,590 decline-to-state voters. Please consider helping Rezvani replace Nunes in Congress by contributing to his campaign via the Blue California thermometer on the right.

Greg Sargent wrote today in his Washington Post column that "We need a deep reset. It's time to rhetorically treat Trump's defenders like his criminal accomplices." Yes-- and not just rhetorically... judicially as well.

UPDATE: Nunes Says He's Suing

The Central Valley crackpot says he's suing CNN and the Daily Beast. Nunes to right-wing media site Breitbart: "These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving." I wonder if they get to sit next to @DevinCow, who Nunes is also supposedly suing.

Which Crap Centrist Will Represent The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party In The End-- Definitely One From The B-Team

Last night the ad above started airing in New Hampshire. Bad news for Status Quo Joe, who depending on which poll you're looking at, is coming in first, second or third. The ad calls for the clueless candidate to drop out of the race and directs viewers to Roots Action's BidenFactSquad page which lists various quotes from Biden and his backers illuminating his history on issues such as income inequality, racial injustice, climate change, and criminal justice reform.

Jeff Cohen a co-founder of Roots Action's Action for a Progressive Future said in a statement that they "launched this ad to convey a simple message-- that Democrats would have a hard time defeating Trump with a candidate who belittles young voters and their very real struggles... Poll after poll shows that people under 35 are more progressive and more anti-Trump than older voters. Biden’s dismissive attitude raises the specter of a re-run of the 2016 Democratic defeat, when too many young people did not vote or voted third-party... The absolute wrong way to urge young people-- or any group-- into action is by minimizing the serious obstacles they confront."

Remember, turnout among voters under age 30 increased by almost 50 percent in the 2018 midterm elections (compared to 2014). People ages 18 to 35 will make up more than one-third of the electorate by November 2020. They aren't interested in an old white establishment hack fighting for the status quo ante. Being against Trump is necessary, but voters want more than just that. Poll after poll has shown that Biden has virtually no support among voters under 35, a demographic that heavily favors Bernie.

The B-Team... as in blecccchhhh

Yesterday Ben White and Daniel Strauss penned a piece for Politico insinuating that Bloomberg might be a factor among young voters, even though most young voters detest him. They refer to him as the new candidate of the young elite and makes the absurd claim that Mayo Pete is battling Biden and Bloomberg for young voters. Once you begin reading, you realize they're just talking about these young voters, overpaid Wall Street coke freaks. They wrote that Mayo Pete, somewhat absurdly, "was quickly locking down a solid lane in the Democratic primary: a young, vibrant, gay, midwestern, war veteran mayor with progressive ideas and plenty of money-- but both feet planted in fiscal prudence. Young Wall Street and tech-entrepreneur types were starting to fall in love-- with his poll numbers and fundraising totals underscoring the Buttigieg boomlet. He was the Parks and Recreation candidate in the Democratic field and an alternative to seventy-somethings Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who are both looking to lock down the hyper-online progressive, anti-Wall Street crowd as well as blue collar workers across the Midwest." That's the "in-case-Biden-self-destructs" line the establishment keep repeating. They're eager to point out that Mayo is a lot younger than Status Quo Joe, "who has lagged in fundraising and hardly taken off in the big-donor crowd the way many expected. Buttigieg was poised to perhaps emerge as the leading moderate alternative to Biden." Biden is 76. But Bloomberg is a year older.

But then a funny thing happened last week: Another 70-something candidate beloved on Wall Street-- billionaire mogul Michael Bloomberg-- made an unexpected splash by suggesting he may still enter the race.

Bloomberg will not steal Buttigieg’s momentum with younger, wealthier Democratic voters and donors, people close to the South Bend mayor say. But the former NYC mayor does give Big Finance, Big Tech and other more corporate-friendly Democrats another progressive prospect as an alternative to Biden, Sanders and Warren.

“My own feeling is that Bloomberg getting in might-- if he stays in — might wind up getting rid of Cory Booker and Kamala Harris and others who haven’t done all that well,” said one of Buttigieg’s biggest New York bundlers. “At the end of this year, I still think it’s going to be Warren and Pete and Biden. And Pete will have plenty of money when it’s time to get into the big spending season and I don’t think Bloomberg will hurt his fundraising at all."

Indeed, multiple Wall Street executives who like Bloomberg suggested in recent days that they see a very narrow path forward for the former mayor. And that could leave Buttigieg hanging around as not-ultraliberal, not inclined to bust up major industries and not as old or potentially shaky as Biden.

And that leaves some young Democrats who work in tech and finance pretty optimistic.

For this group, a strong distaste for Warren and Sanders-- mixed with increasing doubts about the viability of Biden-- are creating the kind of opening to gain even more political and financial support that Buttigieg has been hoping for among key donor groups like Wall Street and the tech industry.

The Buttigieg boomlet in the financial community is enough to seriously annoy die-hard Biden backers on Wall Street who think the only way to stop Warren and Sanders is to double down on the former vice president, who still leads in most national polls despite his dips in some early primary states.

And Buttigieg’s youth, inexperience relative to other Democrats and thin support among the African American community are still giving potential donors pause.

“Look, Pete is definitely the new candidate of the young elite,” said a senior executive and major donor at a big Wall Street bank who backs Biden. “The problem is you can’t win the Democratic nomination without African American support. He doesn’t have any and nobody really knows who he is.”

That sentiment-- that Buttigieg is unknown-- is not borne out by either his rising poll numbers or his large fundraising numbers. Overall, Buttigieg's campaign has raised over $51 million, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Interviews with nearly a dozen Buttigieg backers in the investment community suggest the South Bend mayor’s mix of progressive stands on social issues and more moderate approaches to taxation, health care and the financial industry more broadly have kicked off a mini-movement among younger investor-types.

Buttigieg checks many of the boxes Wall Street executives are looking for: He’s more moderate on banking and health care than Warren but not too conservative as to turn off progressive voters. And he speaks the Wall Street language, as a Harvard-educated, former McKinsey consultant whose eyes light up at any chance to get technocratic.

Some Buttigieg bundlers say lately, as Biden’s candidacy has faltered, interest for the mayor has increased. “It started to feel like there was a high probability that Biden could falter and then there would be a big opening in the moderate lane,” said a bundler who hosted an event for Buttigieg over the summer but declined to be identified by name to avoid offending the former vice president or other candidates.

“A lot of the other candidates like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris kind of tried to straddle the moderate and progressive lanes and it just hasn’t worked for them. Mayor Pete took the approach of saying, ‘I’m just going to go with what I believe,’” this bundler said.

“The big obstacle really is the African American vote and he’s not proven he can win there yet and that bothers me. And it bothers me that part of that is because he’s gay. If he doesn’t win, fine. But I hope it’s not because he’s gay.”

It’s a sentiment many Buttigieg backers acknowledge: Mayor Pete winning the Democratic nomination is far from a sure thing. And now they face a new wrinkle with Wall Street-favorite Bloomberg possibly entering the race, occupying the lane of a mayor with extensive experience advocating for progressive policy changes.

Other Wall Street donors and bundlers are still holding back, waiting to see if Buttigieg can actually win something, before committing. “There are some people who are impressed with him but they really think he’s the guy in high school with the great future,” said a second Buttigieg Wall Street bundler of his conversations with potential new big donors. “I tell them he’s got a legitimate shot even though it sometimes feels like a crazy thing to tell people.”

Other campaigns are also taking note of Buttigieg’s support from Wall Street and tech donors and using it as a sharp line of attack, arguing that it shows he would lack boldness in reforming big industries and raising taxes on the wealthy to fund big new social programs like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.

Buttigieg has supported a “Medicare for all who want it” approach. And he’s made the environment a centerpiece of his generational appeal but stopped short of fully embracing the most far-reaching elements of plans like the Green New Deal. Buttigieg praised the approach in a recent interview with Politico but stopped short of backing the enormous tax hikes associated with it. “We’re going to take our time doing our math before you see kind of a detailed tax policy framework from our effort,” he said.

Buttigieg’s ties to Wall Street donors probably won’t translate into the precise policies most financiers want. President Barack Obama, for instance, took plenty of donations from the finance world but still pushed and signed the Dodd-Frank law that so much of Wall Street opposed.

Still, some prominent liberals see the mayor as unacceptably close to the community of Wall Street and banking donors.

“He has more donations from billionaires than any other candidate. There are no surprises here. He made it very clear who he's standing with,” said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, the co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. The “corporate types, the oligarchs of this country know that if Sen. Sanders wins he’s going to do the bidding of the 99 percent and not them.”

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows how registered voters nationally, 34 and under are looking at the Democratic primary contenders right now. I don't see Bloomberg, with his reactionary policies and repulsive personality is going to catch up with Yang, let alone with any of the top tier candidates.

• Bernie: 31%
• Elizabeth: 30%
• Mayo Pete: 12%
• Kamala: 6%
• Status Quo Joe: 6%
• Yang: 4%

Yesterday I spoke with exactly one dozen young candidates running for Congress. Not one of them indicated that they consider Mayo Pete a serious contender and not one of them had anything positive to say about him. 29-year old Dary Rezvani, for example, is the progressive Democrat challenging Trump enabler Devin Nunes in California's Central Valley. He told me that "Pete is a dangerous candidate because he is young and well-spoken, much like Obama. I think that the idea of identity politics, especially with millennials, is fading. We have seen so many politicians who just pander in order to get votes that we want someone that we can actually trust. Most of the under 30 crowd that I have spoken to only see him as an opportunist. If there is a candidate that I think actually has a chance of capturing tech and Wall Street it would be Yang."

Any Republicans Looking To Have A Friendly Chat With Trump To Tell Him It's Time To Resign? Oh Sure!

Whistleblower by Nancy Ohanian

Early yesterday, Texas Democratic congressional candidate Mike Siegel tweeted "Let history remember that @RepMcCaul used his last term in office to cover up Trump’s gross abuse of power. It is despicable that a President used military aid to coerce a foreign nation to attack a political rival. And it is certainly impeachable." Simultaneously, Jon Hoadley, the progressive Democrat running in southwest Michigan for the seat help by Trump-enabler Fred Upton, issued this statement: "The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of American democracy and is not a partisan issue. I support an impeachment inquiry. Congressman Fred Upton has a decision to make. Does he, or does he not support an impeachment inquiry after the release of the phone call transcript and whistleblower report." Pretty much every Democratic candidate should be using similar messaging. Mitt Romney, Moscow Mitch and Kevin McCarthy will never do for Trump what Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), House minority leader John Rhodes (R-AZ) and Senate minority lLeader Hugh Scott (R-PA) did for Nixon on Aug. 7, 1974 when they strolled over the White House and told him he was doomed and should resign. No one will because they all know Trump doesn't listen to anyone.

The whistleblower complaint-- released as we were all waking up (on the West Coast) yesterday-- begins like this: "In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well." It gets worse.

Yesterday, during the hearings, Dary Rezvani, the progressive candidate taking on hard-core-- and increasingly deranged-- Trumpist Devin Nunes in California's Central Valley: "It’s clear that Nunes does not have the mental capacity for the role that he serves. The hearing this morning was just the latest in a series of absolutely idiotic statements in his misguided attempts to protect the president. His inability to understand the gravity of this situation is just more evidence of his incompetence. Aside from legitimately being an enemy of the state, he is an absolute embarrassment to the Central Valley. He would rather kiss the ring than show any form of having a spine. We look forward to his retirement next year."

In reporting the release of the complain for the Washington Post, Devin Barrett noted that "An unidentified intelligence official was so alarmed by the conversation, and related interactions between Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and Ukrainian officials, that they filed a whistleblower complaint to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence agencies. Some members of Congress were allowed Wednesday to view a classified version of the whistleblower complaint on Wednesday, while the White House made a redacted version available to a larger group of lawmakers. That complaint, filed in August, became the subject of a high stakes back-and-forth among government agencies about how it should be handled. While the inspector general sought to alert Congress to the concern, lawyers at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded it should not be shared with Congress. The Justice Department decided it was not a proper whistleblower complaint, because it involved the conduct of the president, who is not an employee of the intelligence agencies. Instead, the complaint was relayed to the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in late August as a possible violation of cmapaign finance laws. After reviewing the matter for several weeks, Justice Department officials concluded the law had not been broken and closed the matter without ever opening a formal investigation."

I guess it will be hard for the establishment to keep Barr out of prison in the long run. But I'm sure they'll manage.

Let's go back to the political blowback from this. On the Democratic side, even the worst of the Blue Dog scumbags who normally lick Trump's ass-- take Henry Cuellar of Texas as an example-- have now hinted they may vote for impeachment. Late Wednesday night, Cuellar himself wrote "I agree with Speaker Pelosi that the respective committees in Congress must continue their investigations to see if these allegations are true before we proceed with impeachment. However, no one is above the law and if investigations prove that impeachment is the necessary course of action, then I will be forced to act on impeachment proceedings." The other Texan who had been holding out-- crooked Blue Dog Vicente Gonzalez-- released a few hours earlier his own statement: "The president, in holding back information required by law, chose to violate the law of our land by subverting the ability of Congress to uphold its constitutional oath. It is my duty as a patriot and as a member of Congress to defend the Constitution, and that is why today I must support the formal impeachment inquiry."

There are now over 220 statements like that-- enough to impeach Trump. And which garbage is left over, still not backing the rule of law, still not standing up for the Constitution? Well... every single Republican-- plus a tiny gaggle (one dozen) of political cowards and fake Democrats:

• Anthony Brindisi (Coward-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Coward-SC)
• Tulsi Gabbard (Fake Dem-HI)
• Jared Golden (Coward-ME)
• Kendra Horn (Coward-OK)
• Ron Kind (Fake Dem-WI)
• Conor Lamb (Coward-PA)
• Ben McAdams (Fake Dem-UT)
• Collin Peterson (Coward-MN)
• Max Rose (Coward-NY)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Coward-NM)
• Jeff Van Drew (Coward/Fake Dem-NJ)

At the Atlantic Festival yesterday, Romney, voicing frustration about his GOP colleagues fecklessness and cowardice, said "I think it’s very natural for people to look at circumstances and see them in the light that’s most amenable to their maintaining power, and doing things to preserve that power."

Nonetheless, Robert Costa reported for the Washington Post about the cracks beginning to open between congressional Republicans. "One Senate Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly [later identified as Ben Sasse of Nebraska], said the transcript’s release was a 'huge mistake' that the GOP now has to confront and defend-- while the party argues at the same time that House Democrats are overreaching with their impeachment inquiry of Trump."

Trump sought to make sure Republicans would stay in line so-- something he learned from Mafia attorney Roy Cohn an all-around scumbag and historical monster Trump idolizes-- he attacked Romney in a way no Republican facing election wants to see his or her name attached to. Look at this disgusting Trump tweet aimed at humiliating and shaming a member of his own party, while threatening other Republicans to not step out of line. The following say Trump was slightly-- for him-- more subtle. Here's a look at his Twitter feed early in the morning:

Axios reporters Margaret Talev and Alayna Treene took a swing at showing how Señor Trumpanzee is trying to revive his 2016 playbook, "trying to sully or smear the Biden family reputation, like he did with the Clintons during his last campaign." Personally, I'm certain he's doing this to ensure that Democratic primary voters who loath him so passionately will give him the weakest opponent. Whether that's true or not, these six parts of the playbook would be seen as hurting Biden in the general:

• Argue that your opponent is guilty of something as bad or worse than the accusations against you.
• Create constant fog, amplified by Twitter. Allege the media is guilty, too.
• Convince party leaders and Fox News to fall instantly in line, focused solely on your opponent’s supposed transgressions.
• Demand documents and testimony, fostering an “everyone’s dirty and hiding something” atmosphere.
• Stymie anyone on your side who’s thinking of dissenting by torching them on Twitter, like he did to Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT).
• Bet that your own standing, while getting no better, gets no worse.