The Mueller Report Isn't Required Reading For Republican Members Of Congress

Justin Amash (R-MI) caused quote a stir last month when he began calling for impeachment, mentioning in the process that most of his Republican colleagues in the House hadn't read the Mueller Report but that he had. I haven't heard much push-back from the GOP but several sources-- both Democrat and Republican-- have confirmed what Amash tweeted, namely that although Democrats have tended to read the report in a serious way. most Republicans haven't bothered or, if they had, just glossed over it in a few minutes. One senior Senate Democrat told me today that Republicans largely gave it to staffers and asked them to "see if there's anything important in it."

Georgia Republican Rob Woodall, who was in one of the closest reelection bids on 2018-- he retained his seat suburban seat northwest of Atlanta by 419 votes: 140,430 to 140,011-- and almost immediately announced he would be retiring at the end of this session. But he's still getting his salary ($174,000/year plus expenses, perks and staff) and, at least in theory, still doing his job. He went on CNN Sunday and bragged how he hasn't bothered to read the Mueller report. First watch him arguing nonsensically with David Cicilline on March 14 about transparency in regard to the investigation:

Speaking with MSNBC host Kasie Hunt Sunday night, the congressman offered several defenses for not reading Mueller's report on the Russia investigation. He first claimed that his overwhelming "trust" in Mueller's integrity meant he did not feel the need to review anything unless the Special Counsel had specifically requested such a move.

As Hunt appeared a bit shocked by Woodall's proud dismissal of reading any word in the report, the Republican doubled down and offered the additional defense that he also had no interest in the "salacious" accusations against former President Bill Clinton.

"Have you read the Mueller report?" Hunt asked Woodall Sunday evening.

"I have not," he replied. "I said when we started this conversation that I trusted Mr. Mueller and he took a lot of slings and arrows throughout this process but every U.S. attorney I knew said this is a man of great integrity and he's going to lead this investigation."

"So why not read the report?" Hunt pressed.

"Well I have a concern when you put the entire power of the United States Justice Department behind anything. You can achieve an agenda, you can drive a message."

"So you think the Mueller report was just driving an agenda? Hunt asked again, appearing visibly frustrated with Woodall's seemingly unconcerned replies. "There's nothing there that's, like, worth figuring out?"

But Woodall dismissed Mueller's move to refer 14 cases to other offices, saying the special counsel had every opportunity and benefit handed to his team in order to complete the report.

"Obstruction is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue," Woodall said, arguing that Congress has no obligation to review his report despite many believing Mueller set a road map for impeachment proceedings. The former special counsel said a sitting U.S. president could not be indicted but that he would have said if President Donald Trump was exonerated-- which he did not.

Woodall conceded Congress could review the investigation if they so choose, but he recalled not wanting to read into or pay attention to the salacious Kenneth Starr report and investigations into Clinton in the 1990s.

"I was a staffer on Capitol Hill in 1998 when Republicans went down this road and they thought it was going to be a wonderful thing to be able to impeach a sitting president and as you know Republicans lost seats in that 1998 election," he said. "The constituents I represent don't want to see criminal activity at any place, but they also don't want to see folks grinding their political axes when there are important economic issues, family issues, education issues that need to be handled."

This morning House Judiciary Committee superstar Ted Lieu (D-CA) reminded DWT readers that "In their wisdom, the Founders entrusted Congress with the essential role of providing oversight of the Executive Branch. Burying one's head in the sand and refusing to even consider the facts of an investigation into some of the most powerful officials in our government is an abdication of that solemn responsibility. It is also incredibly dishonest to make claims about a report without even reading it. It is willful ignorance from some of my Republican colleagues."

 It's likely that the next congressmember from GA-07 after Woodall steps down, will be progressive Democrat Marqus Cole. Cole isn't running against him. He'll be running against whichever imitation of him the GOP decides to run-- likely anti-Choice fanatic and right-wing all around crazy-person Renee Unterman. But when we asked Marqus about his current Rep, he told us that "Woodall got caught saying the quiet part out loud. Everyone back home in Gwinnett and Forsyth counties knows he doesn’t do the 'work' of being a congressman. Constituents can’t reach him, he never passes legislation to help the district and now we know he can’t even be bothered to read the most important report he government has produced in the past two years. Don’t believe me? Check out his official website. He doesn’t even bother to put an address for the district office. It’s like he doesn’t even want people back home to know where he is. Good riddance in retirement. At least then we won’t be spending our hard earned tax dollars paying him to NOT work."


 

House Passes Equality Act-- Republicans Whine It Impinges On Their Right To Discriminate Against Gays

Aside from being Republicans serving in Congress, what do these 8 men and women have in common: Susan Brooks (R-IN), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Brain Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Will Hurd (R-TX), John Katko (R-NY), Tom Reed (R-NY), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Greg Walden (R-OR)? They were the Republicans to stand up for their own LGBTQ constituents by voting with every single Democrat to pass David Cicilline's Equality Act (H.R.5). It's a simple, straight forward bill that prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. It allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. And it prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

The bill passed with a big bipartisan majority-- 236-173. McConnell has already signaled that he will not permit a vote on the legislation in the Senate, ironic since he's a lifelong closet case himself who was kicked out of the military many decades ago for fondling a private's privates. Republicans don't admit that they're bigots when they try to block this kind of legislation. They claim it-- equality itself-- imposes on their freedom. Banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination is against their bizarre religion and will lead, the insist, to persecution of Christians. (No, no they really tell each other that.)

A morally "upright" Republican hate-monger like Florida crackpot Ross Spano-- who stole his election and should never have been seated-- warned that HR-5 will "allow the government to force its rigid and unyielding fist inside the church... It would deliver a crushing blow to the base of the tree of religious liberty." Could you even image having a lunatic who talks like that as a Reprsentative? Another GOP gay-hater and bigot from the Sunshine State, Greg Steube, also voted no, he says, to protect women athletes.

The Florida Republican argued that the bill will inhibit competitiveness in women's sports and women's eligibility for athletic scholarships.

"A sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the ground that the former is male-bodied," Steube said on the House floor. "Yet, the reality is [when] putting male and female bodied athletes together in open sport ... females lose."

"This is fear mongering about trans women playing in sports," California Rep. Katie Hil largued in opposition to the amendment. "No person is trying to game the system to participate in women's sports. That is a sad scare tactic." The Republican motion to recommit failed with only one Democrat, Rep. Dan Lipinski, voting in favor of the amendment; seven did not vote. Lipinski was also the only Democrat not to cosponsor the legislation.

Republican opponents also argued the measure would restrict individual religious freedoms and mandate "specific accommodations" in shared facilities that would put burdens on small businesses, schools, and other community places.

"Its vague and circular definition of gender identity will lead only to uncertainty, litigation, and harm to individuals and organizations that will be forced to comply with a law the authors don’t even seem to understand," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the House floor Friday. "This is a classic example of passing something now and figuring out what it actually means later ... If the devil is in the details, we’re in for a lot of devilish surprises."

In response, Cicilline, the measure's sponsor, argued that the bill "does not, nor could any legislation," supersede the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.

"H.R. 5 allows the standards set by prior civil rights law to not interfere with worship and religious practices by religious organizations," Cicilline added.

It's worth reminding people who Virginia Foxx-- one of Congress' most hateful and homophobic psychics-- actually is. Do you remember the name Matthew Shepard? He was the young gay man who was crucified-- literally-- and left to die next to a lonely Wyoming highway. While his grieving mother sat in the congressional visitors' gallery, this is what North Carolina 's premiere contribution to national evil and hatred had to say.



Foxx never apologized and has voted against every equality bill that has ever come before Congress-- proudly and loudly, always making sure everyone knows she stands for hatred and intolerance. Her district is safely gerrymandered so that she is re-elected year after year without ever doing anything for anyone but herself and other selfish multimillionaires. Meanwhile, yesterday, what's left of poor old Pat Robertson was ranting and raving on evangelical TV. Clearly, God has cursed him:





Austin and Houston are what you could call WOKE cities. Both Travis and Harris counties-- the westernmost and easternmost components of a gerrymandered shitshow (TX-10) by Tom Delay-- are open and welcoming parts of Texas where people expect everyone to be treated fairly and equally. By cutting Austin up like a pie, Texas Republicans succeeded in disenfranchising voters there-- putting them into 4 bizarrely-drawn congressional districts, 3 of which are predominately Republican. One of the conservative anti-LGBTQ congressmen that gerrymander had forced on Austin is multimillionaire-- he married well-- crackpot and Trump bootlick Michael McCaul. Progressive Democrat Mike Siegel held him down to a 51.1% win last year and Siegel has every intention of finishing the job next year, In fact, please consider contribution to his campaign by clicking on the Lone Star State ActBlue thermometer on the right. After the vote on the bipartisan H.R.5 yesterday, Mike told us he would have gladly joined the vast majority of congressmembers who voted for it. "The Equality Act is about making sure everyone can access work and housing and education and other public services, without fear of discrimination. Unfortunately, here in the Texas 10th, in a district that includes strong LGBT communities in the Austin and Houston areas, our 'representative' voted to legalize hatred. To legitimize oppression and bigotry. To endanger his very constituents, who he is sworn to protect. This is only the latest example of Michael McCaul failing to stand up for Texans. We are working hard to ensure this is the beginning of his end."

The Trumpist Regime's Criminality Is Getting On Everyone's Nerves

SURPRISE!! Look who doesn't want Mueller to testify publicly

House Judiciary Committee member David Cicilline (D-RI) was a guest on Fox News Sunday yesterday, where he confirmed that Barr is going to wind up with a contempt citation if he continues to prevent Congress from seeing government documents relevant to Trump's treasonous activities with the Russians. The deadline is this morning (at 9AM). "Members of our committee need to see the full report and the supporting documents so we can continue to do our work, conduct oversight in a responsible and sober way." This is going right over the heads of Fox News viewers who overwhelmingly see this as a baseless anti-Trump escapade by disgruntled Democrats.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday, shows that voters are fed up with government. They hate Trump; they hate the Democratic Party; they hate the Republican Party and they hate William Barr. The only polled figure or entity who came out above water was Robert Mueller. 31% of voters have a positive view and just 19% have a negative view-- compared to 39% with a positive view of Trump and 49% with a negative view of Trump. Mueller is up 12 and Trump is down 10. But not among the topsy-turvy Fox viewers, where people admire Trump and distrust Mueller.

Robert Mueller Investigates by Nancy Ohanian

Republican national security expert Max Boot wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post yesterday, This Nation Is At The Mercy Of A Criminal Administration, a sentiment widely shared among Democrats, but not at all among Republicans. "imagine," he suggests, "that you live in a town that has been taken over by gangsters. The mayor is a crook and so are the district attorney and police chief. You can’t fight city hall. But at least you know you can turn for help to the state or federal government. Now imagine that it’s not a city or state that has been taken over by criminals-- it’s the federal government. Where do you turn for help? That is not a theoretical concern. After the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, it’s our grim reality." As they might say in Shtitsel, "Oy!"

Even before Mueller’s probe ended, federal prosecutors in New York had implicated President Trump in ordering his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate federal campaign finance laws. Mueller then documented at least six ironclad incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump along with numerous instances of misconduct that, while not criminal, are definitely impeachable. The New York Review of Books reported that two prosecutors working for Mueller said that if Trump weren’t president, he would have been indicted.

Now the administration is obstructing attempts to bring the president to justice for obstruction of justice. William P. Barr isn’t the attorney general; he is, as David Rothkopf said, the obstructor general. We now know that Mueller wrote (in Barr’s description) a “snitty” letter objecting that Barr’s deceptive summary of his work, designed to falsely exonerate Trump, “threatens to undermine … public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Yet when Barr testified to Congress after receiving the Mueller letter but before releasing the Mueller report, he claimed not to know whether Mueller disagreed with his conclusions. “He lied to Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) charged. But even if it could be proved that Barr committed perjury (no sure thing), who would prosecute him? Is he (or his deputy) going to appoint a special counsel to investigate himself? Unlikely. And if he did appoint a special counsel, would he heed the counsel’s conclusions? Also unlikely.

Barr’s jaw-dropping performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday dispelled any lingering confidence in the impartial administration of justice-- the bedrock of our republic. He actually testified that if the president feels an investigation is unfounded, he “does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” Given that no president has ever felt justly accused of any misconduct, this means that the president is above the law. Barr is endorsing the Nixon doctrine: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”

The administration makes clear that this is precisely its intent with its scandalous stonewalling of Congress. Barr himself refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Trump is suing to prevent his accountants and financial institutions from sharing his business records with Congress, while his treasury secretary is refusing to comply with a lawful demand for his tax returns. Trump is also blocking numerous current and former officials, including former White House counsel Donald McGahn, from testifying about his misdeeds. His conduct is redolent of the third article of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon for failing “to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas” from Congress.

While conferring legal immunity upon himself, Trump is eager to weaponize the legal system against his opponents. The Mueller report documents three separate occasions when Trump demanded a Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton. Now, the New York Times reports, Trump and his attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, are attempting to instigate a criminal probe of his leading 2020 opponent, Joe Biden, on what appear to be trumped-up charges of corruption. In one of the more chilling exchanges during his Senate testimony, Barr would not say whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested” that he open an investigation. If the answer were “no,” he would have said so.

It is hard to think of any president in the past 230 years, including Nixon, who has ever sabotaged the rule of law so flagrantly or so successfully to protect his own hide. And, sadly, it is hard to imagine that anything can be done about it before Nov. 3, 2020. The House could try to compel compliance with its subpoenas, but the Justice Department will never file criminal charges, and the courts could take years to decide a civil suit. The House could vote to impeach Trump or Barr-- which they richly deserve-- but that would be a purely symbolic act and could backfire politically because Senate Republicans, like the O.J. Simpson jury, would vote to acquit regardless of the evidence.

So for the next 18 months, at a minimum, this nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration. I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in self-rule. Before Mueller filed his report, it was possible to imagine the president being brought to justice. That fantasy is no longer tenable. Instead we are left with the dismaying likelihood that the president will now feel emboldened to commit ever greater transgressions to hold onto power-- and thus delay a possible post-presidential indictment.

I suspect, though, that Fox Nation doesn't read the Washington Post. Over the weekend, the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune quoted Federalist No. 51 by James Madison: "But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." For those who might find it too obtuse or abstract, the editors explained what they are getting at:

Madison’s plan for the survival of popular government was nowhere to be seen last week, as Republican members of Congress put their loyalty to a president of their own party ahead of their sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

By abandoning the role the Constitution assigns them, to jealously defend the power of their branch of government against encroachments by other branches, Republicans in Congress surrender their duty, their power and their part in defending American democracy.

Ambition no longer counteracts ambition.

And for what?

To get themselves on the good side of a chief executive who is so clearly corrupt, engaging in obstruction, campaign and ethics violations, using the presidency as a cash cow for his personal business interests, who disrespects the separation of powers, freedom of the press, the rights of minorities and immigrants and our long-standing international alliances.

Some will look at the situation and argue that the Democrats are being as partisan in their questioning of the president and his attorney general as the Republicans are in their defense of both.

Maybe. But there can be no question that, at least in the matter that was before the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day, these blind squirrels have come upon a very large cache of nuts.

Senate Republicans, including Utah’s Mike Lee, spent the day feeding Attorney General William Barr softball questions and trying to make the case that there was nothing to see, there’s no collusion and no corruption and no obstruction of justice. Time to move along.

These are arguments that can only come from willful partisan ignorance of the facts as they are before us.

The report from special counsel Robert Mueller laid out a litany of fishy contacts during the campaign and acts by the new president that would have been obstruction of justice if anyone had carried out the president’s orders. Or if it were considered possible, as Justice Department guidelines faithfully followed by the Mueller team says it is not, to indict a sitting president.

Mueller’s handicap through all of this is that he is an honorable man who stands by the rule of law, operating in a city that is neither. Investigating a president through the federal grand jury system is difficult because prosecutors are used to assembling and presenting their evidence in secret and only making it public if there is an indictment-- which triggers a process in which the accused is able to defend himself.

No indictment, because the president can’t be indicted, means no trial. Means no chance for the president to defend himself. Means it all gets packed up and delivered to the attorney general and then, maybe, to Congress and to the American people.

One bright spot in all of this-- small but important-- is the call from Utah’s other senator, Mitt Romney, for Congress to hear from Mueller directly. That is exactly what should happen, and soon.

It may be painful for the special counsel to publicly call out the attorney general for willfully misrepresenting-- that is, lying about-- the conclusions of his report and the underlying evidence.

But Mueller can handle it. Even if the Republicans in Congress cannot.

Editorial boards around the country are expressing similar sentiments-- without mention of Mike Lee or Mitt Romney. Republican senators who will have to face the voters next year in swingy states-- like Iowa (Joni Ernst), Colorado (Cory Gardner), Maine (Susan Collins), Arizona (Martha McSally), North Carolina (Thom Tillis), maybe even Georgia (David Perdue), Texas (John Cornyn) and Kentucky (McTurtle)-- don't want their Fox Nation viewers seeing these kinds of editorials in local newspapers. One more thing to consider though: Pelosi's role in refusing to impeach the criminal and treasonous Trump-- and for strictly political reasons. America deserves better than Nancy Pelosi.

Ball and Chain by Nancy Ohanian

Congress Has A Lot More To Do Than Just Investigate Trump

David Cicilline (D-RI) is now the chair of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. There's not doubt we can count on him doing a much better-- and very different-- job than the one former chair Tom Marino was doing. In fact, with nightmare Republican extremist like Matt Gaetz (FL), Ken Buck (CO), Darrell Issa (CA), John Ratcliffe (TX) and Doug Collins (GA), nothing worthwhile has come out of that subcommittee for a long longtime. Welcome to a new day. This week, Barry Lynn, head of the Open Markets Institute wrote that "over the last year, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joe Simons has been strongly criticized for his failure to enforce the agency's 2011 consent decree on Facebook but has largely skirted scrutiny of his unwillingness to address the ongoing merger frenzy in any meaningful way. Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief Makan Delrahim, meanwhile, has largely escaped the public spotlight, with the notable exception of his agency’s poorly thought-out case to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The new Democratic majority in Congress means this is now likely to change." 

The new Chairman of the House Antitrust Subcommittee is likely to be Congressman David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Democratic House leadership. Cicilline is an aggressive anti-monopolist and has a track record of skepticism towards tech platforms. He has written legislation allowing newspapers to bargain collectively over advertising revenues with large online ad companies and has pledged to author new legislation expanding antitrust authority against dominant platforms.

Cicilline is also willing to act. Last month, he questioned Google CEO Sundar Pichai on the search giant’s plans to launch a Chinese product. He said Facebook executives “will always put their massive profits ahead of the interests of their customers” and noted that “it is long past time for us to take action.” In 2017, ;Cicilline ;called for hearings on the Amazon-Whole Foods merger. With his new authority, Cicilline can now bring pressure on both agencies to actually do the jobs they were hired to do. Delrahim’s failure to take on corporate concentration has been especially striking. Early on, Delrahim pledged to be a strong enforcer, portraying himself as a traditional pro-competition conservative. Delrahim attacked the idea f complex deals designed to let mergers go in exchange for conditions that require the agency to monitor a corporation’s post-deal behavior. Instead, ;he advocated preventing mergers outright, and took an especially strong stance against vertical integration, like in the tie-up between AT&T and Time Warner. Delrahim even called for jail time for employers engaging in wage-fixing against employees.

But in recent months, the Antitrust Division seems to have closed up shop even before the government shutdown took effect. Delrahim’s team conditionally cleared the drug store giant CVS to acquire insurancance company Aetna, despite innumerable conflicts of interest such a vertical deal creates, incurring the wrath of a generally pro-monopoly Judge Richard Leon. The DOJ also intervened in favor of Apple in the Supreme Court case Apple v. Pepper, which asks whether iPhone users can sue Apple for abusing its monopoly over the sale of apps. Delrahim has also not followed through on pledges to file criminal charges against wage-fixers. Perhaps most disturbingly, the DOJ has moved to restrict the rights of state enforcers and private plaintiffs to bring cases against instances of monopolization.

The libertarian anti-enforcement bent of the DOJ’s political team was made clear in recent comments by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch, who argued in a December speech at a Capitol Forum conference that “consumers often benefit from concentration” and that antitrust laws “are concerned with competition, not concentration.” He called suggestions to break up or regulate tech platforms “drastic” and warned that any such actions would reduce entrepreneurial activity.

Simons and Delrahim came into their offices with strong words for would-be monopolists. In 2019, Simons and Delrahim can expect at least one congressional committee chairman to demand answers on why this has not happened.

And it isn't just Cicilline's subcommittee where this kind of important work is going to be done. There are high expectations now that Maxine Waters has replaced Jeb Hensarling as head of the House Financial Services Committee. The committee that is charged with congressional oversight of, among other things, Wall Street has been captured by Wall Street. Every Republican and all the New Dems and Blue Dogs on the committee are there specifically to set themselves up as bribe-taking machines. Wall Street pumps immense amounts of money into the members of one of Congress' most popular committees and have gotten to write their own legislation in return. Nice deal. Of the members still on the committee, these are the criminal who have taken $2 million or more from the Finance Sector:

• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $6,327,421
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $6,279,357
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $5,598,776
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,586,542
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)- $4,111,253
• Brad Sherman (D-CA)- $3,823,403
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $3,772,203
• ean Duffy (R-WI)- $3,679,647
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $3,661,288
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $3,568,176
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- $3,260,344
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- $3,165,972
• Peter King (R-NY)- $3,092,721
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $3,041,599
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,967,427
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $2,801,450
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $2,780,919
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $2,483,427
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $2,408,711
• French Hill (R-AR)- $2,386,049
• Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)- $2,380,936
• Gwen Moore (D-WI)- $2,184,850
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $2,152,130
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)- $2,084,356

Yesterday in a post about committees at The Intercept by David Dayen, Ryan Grim and Aida Chávez, an assertion was made that "Democrats have struggled to find many members to serve on Financial Services, leading to speculation that the party would actually shrink the size of the committee. Alternatively, that quandary could result in progressives being added as a last resort." That would be a drastic change over past years, when members would practically murder each other to get onto the biggest honeypot committee in Congress.

Dayen and his team further reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Katie Porter (D-CA) are being assigned to the committee, and that Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) may be as well. "The imminent Financial Services Committee announcement," they wrote, "would take some sting out of several disappointments for the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s high-profile rising stars, who on Wednesday were largely shut out of new assignments to three critical committees where they sought expanded representation."

The Progressive Caucus had cut a deal with Pelosi for increased representation on the so-called money committees that handle most domestic legislation. They sought membership on the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Appropriations, and Financial Services committees equal to their roughly 40 percent membership in the Democratic caucus.

...The Progressive Caucus’s demand for 40 percent representation was stymied by the composition of the caucus itself. There are no real barriers to membership and the caucus rarely whips its members for votes, meaning that members who want to wear a progressive badge without altering their legislative record can do so. Some members of the Progressive Caucus are even also affiliated with its centrist counterpoint, the New Democrat Coalition

Pelosi and House leadership made skillful use of those progressive/New Dem hybrids in making the committee assignments, which may be cynical from a leadership perspective, but was only possible as a result of the Progressive Caucus’s less-than-stringent membership rules-- rules that are within their own control.

And adding CPC members who are not genuine progressives to positions of power on committees could actually be a net loss, argued some operatives. Indeed, it sets up a dynamic in which weak legislation could earn the imprimatur of an influential CPC member, which makes it more difficult for the CPC itself to oppose.

...Instead of pushing for proportional representation for a disorganized, amorphous caucus, the CPC should have first organized itself, then pursued power, argued Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which backed Ocasio-Cortez and other freshmen whose bids for the committees were rebuffed. “Numbers won’t mean much if being progressive means nothing. If everyone has their own definition and now has increased personal power through a seat on an executive committee, accountability to the progressive movement will be more difficult,” Shahid told The Intercept.

The move by Pelosi, to tap CPC members who are also in the New Dems, should have been anticipated, he argued. “Pelosi played by the CPC’s rules and appointed some of the least committed progressives to executive committees, including five CPC members who are also members of the centrist, corporate-friendly New Democratic caucus. Nearly all of the CPC members appointed to executive committees still receive corporate PAC donations,” he said.

“Instead of racing for numbers, the CPC should consider demanding stricter membership criteria-- such as rejecting corporate PAC money, co-sponsoring priority legislation, and willingness to engage in bloc voting-- otherwise progressive ideas risk being significantly watered down,” he said.

Zachery Warmbrodt also mentioned Ocasio-Cortez's likely assignment to House Financial Services and also referred to it as "a victory for progressives fighting to curb Wall Street's clout in Washington and inside the Democratic Party itself." I'm, a little wary that Pelosi is going to put that kind of power into the hands of genuine-- rather than Pocan-manufactured-- progressives. Something doesn't smell right here. Warmbrodt wrote that the assignment "would pit the 29-year-old New Yorker not only against banks that make up a major local industry but also potentially against business-friendly [outside the Beltway, that means stinking of corruption and in need of a long prison sentence, but "business-friendly" sounds more genteel] Democrats who have backed financial deregulation. Some moderate [again-- corrupt conservatives are described as "moderate" in Politico] Democrats have privately raised concerns that they’ll be targeted by the former bartender-turned-progressive icon, whose willingness to challenge her party’s establishment propelled her to Congress and the national spotlight... Ocasio-Cortez, who identifies as a democratic socialist, has criticized Democrats for supporting deregulation. She has also shunned corporate campaign donations-- traditionally a big draw for lawmakers to join the Financial Services Committee. 'This is why I am running for Congress," Ocasio-Cortez said after the House passed a sweeping set of banking rollbacks in June 2017. 'Because we cannot stand idly as big banks gut every last protection working families have left.'" The corrupt sack of runny shit who she defeated, Joe Crowley, was a big-time bankster-buddy who served on the House Ways and Means Committee and was happy to be the proud recipient of $7,446,114 in bribes from the Finance Sector, $1,276,890 last year alone.

With a single tweet, Ocasio-Cortez could frustrate efforts by moderate Democrats to cut deregulatory deals with Republicans, said Jeff Hauser, who tracks corporate influence as executive director of the Revolving Door Project.

"When industry lobbyists or their shills in Congress throw shade at a new member, it probably reflects a genuine fear that the newcomers will become a force for fixing a broken system," said Porter McConnell, campaign director of the Take On Wall Street coalition.

Lobbyists privately expressed mixed views on the prospect of her joining the committee. Some see her as a potential threat when it comes to Democrats working out legislation with Republicans. But others say she will be one among dozens on the committee and that it will be difficult for a low-ranking member to make noise.

For Waters, who is touting a committee agenda focused on consumer protection and housing, having an outspoken Democrat to her left could be a new kind of test, in addition to the tensions she has faced with more centrist members who have been more willing to work with Republicans. ["Centrist" at Politico means right-of-center but not fascist.]

But Waters has praised the fighting spirit of incoming lawmakers, and her own agenda could be bolstered by recruiting like-minded members. In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the committee is expected to take on other new progressive members including possibly Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), a protégé of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

"You're going to see a new kind of approach in the hearings that we have," Waters said in a recent MSNBC interview. "They're going to come right out with it. They won't be ashamed. They won't be afraid. They really believe in what they're doing. I think that's good for the institution."

..."Who knows," said [Rep. Lacy Clay, a real sleaze bag on the committee]. "She may deal with some issues over this first term and her supporters may start referring to her as a sellout."

Apparently he thinks everyone is just like he is. AOC isn't-- and neither is Katie Porter.

Can Anything Prevent The Trump Take-Over Tomorrow?

This is what Trump has done to the Lincoln Memorial (the jumbo-tron is not photoshopped)

Tomorrow, America will see the inauguration of a deranged and narcissistic fascist with shady ties to brutal Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. According to a CBS poll released Wednesday, Trump's approval rating is just 32%. In contrast, other recent presidents of both parties have had sky-high transition approval ratings. George H.W. Bush's was 82%, Bill Clinton's was 81%, Obama's was 80% and even George W. Bush's, which wasn't nearly as high (72%), was still way over double Trump's. And yet... barely over a third of the Democratic congressmembers are boycotting the horror tomorrow. And not a single senator is joining them. (At last count, there were 70-something congressmembers who have announced they're staying away from the Day of Shame events.)

The 3 top leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-chairs Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva and first Vice-Chairman, Mark Pocan, are staying away. Grijalva explained why he's going to be in Tucson Friday. Rather than participate in the inauguration," he explained, "I will be joining with members of my district to reaffirm and renew this democracy and the people that are part of it. My decision to skip the inauguration is not motivated by disrespect for the office of the president, or by disrespect for the government. It is an individual act of defiance at the disrespect shown to the millions of Americans by this incoming administration."

Donald Trump wants to deport millions of people who call this country home, create a national registry for Muslims and repeal the Affordable Care Act. Skipping his inauguration is a necessary step in the fight to reject his harmful policies and stand with those who will be most at risk during his presidency.

The majority of voters rejected Trump-- they deserve respect. The 20 million Americans threatened by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement-- they deserve respect. And the millions of voters who did not participate in the election because they blame both parties-- they deserve respect, too.

That's why during the inauguration I will be at home in Arizona meeting with seniors, the immigrant community, health care providers, and folks that care about the environment and climate change. I will join with the people of Tucson to demand respect from the Trump administration.

Now is the time for us to come together to defend and protect the future of all Americans.

David Cicilline is a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He's decided that he should go top the Trump Inauguration and he explained why-- after hearing from lots of angry Rhode Islanders-- on his Facebook page yesterday. He points out that he "worked hard to prevent Donald Trump from becoming our 45th President. When Trump's affinity for Vladimir Putin came into focus last summer, I asked President Obama to cut off his access to classified intel. I denounced his deplorable comments on women and people with disabilities, and his attack on Latinos as the hate speech that it was. And I condemned his selection of Mike Pence, a running mate with an unambiguously anti-LGBT record. Since his election, I have refused to give a single inch to the President-elect. I led more than 160 of my colleagues demanding that he rescind his appointment of Steve Bannon as White House chief strategist. I introduced new legislation that requires him to release his tax returns so we finally know what he's hiding. And just this past weekend I condemned him for his outrageous comments about John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement and a man who I am proud to call my friend."

And yet, Cicilline is still going tomorrow. Why? This is what he says:

I understand the frustration that people are feeling over the results of this election, and I share it. Some of my colleagues have decided the most powerful way to express their opposition to the incoming administration and the policies of the new President is to boycott the inauguration. I have deep respect for their decision and recognize that this is one way to express strong opposition. Others, like me, think it's an equally powerful message to attend the inauguration to make it clear that we're in this fight from the very first minute he takes office and for the next four years.

Tens of thousands of Americans and many Rhode Islanders are taking time out of their lives to travel to Washington D.C. to protest the incoming Administration on Inauguration Day, and I will be there in solidarity and in opposition to the policies and the rhetoric of Donald Trump. And to carry on that message, on Saturday, I will join the Women's March on Washington to oppose Trump’s agenda and to commit to fight for our shared values.

Serving our state is the honor of my life. It's a responsibility that I never take lightly. And as your Representative, I promise that I will not surrender the field to Donald Trump for a single moment. He may be our 45th President, but I will be there to make sure your voice is heard loud and clear in Washington.

I take him at his word. He's a good member of Congress; better than most. The DWT strategy-- articulated by Noah: "Disdain, Derision and Zero Tolerance"-- isn't the same as Cicilline's but that doesn't mean I don't respect his decision and his service. This is a symbolic effort. I believe in it.

Alan Lowenthal, a progressive policy wonk who represents Long Beach, California had been reported by the L.A. Times to be going. He told me he never spoke with the Times about it and that he's been undecided and trying to figure out the best thing to do after Trump's deranged attacks on John Lewis. He told me this morning that "After much soul searching, and two days of listening to my constituents, I felt I could not attend the inauguration." In a message to those constituents he said that "On inauguration day, our nation invests the President-elect with executive power. We do not anoint the President with respect.  Respect must be earned. Donald Trump, in his attacks on Rep. Lewis, and minorities, and women, and the disabled, has yet done little to earn my respect. For that reason, and in solidarity with those he has attacked, I have decided not to attend the inauguration. I sincerely hope that over the next four years President Trump will work hard to earn the respect of all Americans, not just those who voted for him. The American people deserve it and the office of the President requires it."

Meanwhile, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the most truly disgusting and unworthy member of Congress on either side of the aisle-- if Trump was smart, he'd ban her from his inauguration-- decided to send out an e-mail implying she was resisting Trump. She asked her supporters to send her money because Friday is the inauguration. What she didn't say, of course, is that she's one of the corrupt deplorables who can barely wait to mingle with the lobbyists and fellow insiders at the inauguration. She'll be there... in all her contemptible shame and lack of dignity.

Blue America started this page when only a tiny handful of members were supporting Luis Gutierrez's call for a boycott. We've raised nearly $12,000 in 4 days for members to encourage this kind of resistance. But, in the end, what we're looking for is men and women in Congress willing to hold the line on bad policies and bad nominees. Bernie says he's going to the inauguration. So are Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Did you hear their questioning of Trump's horrible nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary Wednesday? That's more important. The votes from Democrats on Tom Price's putrid  nomination will mean a lot more-- in every way-- than whether or not they decide to go to the Trumpanzee inauguration. But if you want to show solidarity with the members who aren't going... here's the place (just tap that thermometer):

Who Does Wall Street Own In Congress?

The Grayson Takano No Cuts letter is the gold standard

The House doesn't usually stay in sessions Fridays, let alone take serious votes, but this past Friday, as we mentioned yesterday, Boehner and Cantor kept the Members in town to repay a promise they had made to their Wall Street masters to further weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. A bill Wall Street lobbyists wrote with one of their most pathetic congressional shills, Scott Garrett (R-NJ)-- and co-sponsored by 23 other bankster asswipes (20 of them members of the House Financial Services Committee who brazenly take large legalistic bribes from Wall Street firms they're supposed to oversee on behalf of the American people) came up for a vote. The bill to weaken Dodd-Frank passed 235-161.

Here's a list of the House Financial Services Committee members who co-sponsored the bill (+ Boehner and Cantor) with the bribes they took from Wall Street banksters last cycle, strongly pointing to an illegal quid pro quo:

• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,415,075
• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $902,400
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $537,020
• Michele Bachmann (R-MN)- $79,024
• Spencer Bachus (R-AL)- $286,677
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- 0
• John Campbell (R-CA)- $79,750
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)- 0
• Stephen Fincher (R-TN)- $55,650
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Mafia)- $209,732
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $51,800
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL)- $136,500
• Robert Hurt (R-VA)- $127,000
• Peter King (R-NY)- $128,950
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $80,000
• Gary Miller (R-CA)- $32,750
• Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)- $500
• Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- $125,500
• Stevan Pearce (R-NM)- $19,950
• Robert Pittenger (R-NC)- 0
• Dennis Ross (R-FL)- $18,200
• Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)- $15,250
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- 0

Don't worry about the 4 Republicans with zero dollars from Wall Street. They're freshmen and weren't doing errands for the banksters in 2012, the way they are now. Next year, each will get thousands of dollars from Wall Street. As economist Dean Baker explained last week in Cutting Social Security and Not Taxing Wall Street, "Wall Street bankers have a lot more political power than old and disabled people who depend on Social Security." Like many of us, Baker is frustrated that Obama isn't fighting the Wall Street/GOP approach... and perhaps even embracing it.

As we move toward the fifth anniversary of the great financial crisis of 2008, people should be outraged that cutting Social Security is now on the national agenda, while taxing Wall Street is not. After all, if we take at face value the claims made back in 2008 by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner, Wall Street excesses brought the economy to the brink of collapse.

But now the Wall Street behemoths are bigger than ever and President Obama is looking to cut the Social Security benefits of retirees. That will teach the Wall Street boys to be more responsible in the future.

Most people are now familiar with President's Obama's proposal to cut Social Security by reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). While the final formula is somewhat convoluted, the net effect is to reduce benefits by an average of roughly 3.0 percent.

Since Social Security benefits account for more than 70 percent of the income of a typical retiree, this cut is more than a 2.0 percent reduction in income. By comparison, a wealthy couple earning $500,000 a year would see a hit to their after-tax income of just 0.6 percent from the tax increase that President Obama put in place last year.

While President Obama is willing to make seniors pay a price for the economic crisis, his administration is unwilling to impose any burdens on Wall Street. Specifically, it has consistently opposed a Wall Street speculation tax: effectively a sales tax on trades of stock and derivatives. The Obama administration has even used its power to try to block efforts by European countries to impose their own taxes on financial speculation.

If the idea of taxing stock trades sounds strange, it shouldn't. The United States used to impose a tax of 0.04 percent until Wall Street lobbied to eliminate it in the mid-1960s. Many countries, including the United Kingdom, Switzerland, China, and India already impose taxes on stock trades.

The tax in the UK is 0.5 percent on stock trades (0.25 percent for both the buyer and the seller). It dates back more than three centuries. The country raises more than 0.2 percent of GDP ($32 billion in the United States) from the tax each year. The tax has not prevented the London stock exchange from being one of the largest in the world.

There are currently two bills in Congress for a similar tax in the United States. A bill by Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison would impose the same tax as the UK on stock trades and would apply a scaled rate to options, futures, credit default swaps and other derivative instruments. It could raise more than $150 billion annually or more than $2 trillion over the ten year budget window.

A second bill has been put forward by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio. This bill would apply a 0.03 percent tax to trades of stock and a wide range of other financial assets. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the bill would raise close to $40 billion a year or over $400 billion over a ten-year budget window once it is implemented.

Unfortunately the administration has consistently opposed both bills. It claims that it is concerned about the incidence of these taxes-- that ordinary investors would see large burdens from the tax. It also claims to be worried that the taxes will disrupt financial markets by making trading more costly.

Neither of these stories passes the laugh test. Ordinary investors don't trade much, and therefore are not going to feel much impact from the tax. If someone with $100,000 in a 401(k) (this is much larger than the typical 401(k)) turns it over at the rate of 50 percent annually, they would pay $15.00 each year as a result of the Harkin-DeFazio tax.

Furthermore research shows that investors reduce their trading as costs increase. This means that if the tax increases trading costs by 20 percent, then investors will reduce their trading by roughly the same amount (in this example, turnover would fall to 40 percent annually). That means that the net cost of turnover in a 401(k) will barely change for a typical investor as a result of the tax. Wall Street would just see much less business.

So the Obama administration wants us to believe that it is willing to cut the Social Security benefits of retiree living on $15,000 a year in Social Security by $450 but it opposes a Wall Street speculation tax because it is concerned that investors with $100,000 in a 401(k) may pay a few dollars a year in additional trading costs. Only a reporter with the Washington Post would believe a story like that.

The other part of the Obama administration's story is equally laughable. The cost of financial transactions has plummeted in the last four decades because of computers. Even the Ellison tax rate would just raise costs back to their mid-'80s level. The Harkin-DeFazio tax rate would probably still leave costs lower than they were in 2000.

The country certainly had a vibrant capital market and stock exchange in the 1980s, taking costs part of the way back to this level will not prevent Wall Street from serving its proper role of transferring capital from savers to borrowers. It will just clamp down on speculation.

The basic story is very simple. Wall Street bankers have a lot more political power than old and disabled people who depend on Social Security. That is why President Obama is working to protect the former and cut benefits for the latter.

David Cicilline, a co-signer of the Grayson Takano No Cuts letter to Obama, proposed a congressional resolution that isn't as strong and definitive, and (therefore) has attracted more support in the House:

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost-of-living-adjustments for Social Security Benefits

Whereas the Social Security program was established more than 77 years ago and has provided economic security to generations of Americans through benefits earned based on contributions made over a worker's lifetime;

Whereas the Social Security program continues to provide modest benefits - averaging approximately $14,000 per year-- to more than 53,000,000 individuals, including 37,000,000 retired workers in February 2013;

Whereas the Social Security program has no borrowing authority, has accumulated assets of $2,700,000,000,000, and, therefore, does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit;

Whereas the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund projects that such Trust Fund an pay full benefits through 2032;

Whereas the Social Security program is designed to ensure that benefits keep pace with inflation through cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that are based upon the measured changes in prices of goods and services purchased by consumers, currently the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a supplemental measure of inflation, the Chained Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), or "Chained CPI," which adjusts for projected changes in consumer behavior resulting from price fluctuations known as the "substitution effect," which occurs when consumers buy more goods and services whose prices are rising slower than average and less of those rising faster than average;

Whereas studies indicate typical Social Security beneficiaries spend significantly greater shares of their budget than consumers generally on health care, prices for which have increased at higher than average rates, and health care may not easily be substituted by consumers such as seniors;

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce Social Security benefits by .25 percent per year as compared to current policy, resulting in a reduction in outlays of $112,000,000,000 over the first decade;

Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits from using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would continue to compound over time, and the AARP Public Policy Institute estimates that such reductions would grow to 3 percent after 10 years and 8.5 percent after 30 years;

Whereas Social Security Works estimates that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce annual Social Security benefits of the average earner - who is making $43,518-- by $658 at age 75, $1,147 at age 85, and $1,622 at age 95; and

Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits would harm some of our most vulnerable populations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits.

So far over 90 Democrats have signed on, spanning the ideological divide inside the congressional caucus from extreme right-wingers like Ron Barber (AZ) and Kirkpatrick (AZ), who are always looking for opportunities to tell their constituents they're against Obama, to normal liberal Democrats like Jan Schakowsky (IL), Judy Chu (CA) and Donna Edwards (MD) who prefer to support Obama. Here's the list of Democrats urging Obama to untangle himself from another Republican assault on American working families:

Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
Karen Bass (D-CA)
Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Robert Brady (D-PA)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Cheri Bustos (D-IL)
Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Lacy Clay (D-MO)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Bill Enyart (D-IL)
Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
John Garamendi (D-CA)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Brian Higgins (D-NY)
Rush Holt (New Dem-NJ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Shiela Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Bill Keating (D-MA)
Dan Kildee (D-MI)
Ann Kirpatrick (AZ)
Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA) Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Richard Nolan (D-MN)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Raul Ruiz (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Carol Shea Porter (D-NH)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Mark Takano (D-CA)
BennieThompson (D-MS)
Dina Titus (D-NV)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)
Mark Veasey (D-TX)
Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Frederica Wilson (D-FL)