"That's A Little Unusual"

 

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) presented a must-watch civics seminar during the Amy Coney Island Baby confirmation hearings. It was a little less than half an hour long but it really should be watched by every American, especially those wondering what all the noise is about around Coney Island Baby's nomination.

An antiquated seniority system among Senate Democrats puked up an incompetent and senile Dianne Feinstein as the completely ineffective leader of the Democratic efforts to derail ACB. Instead Feinstein, exposing Chuck Schumer as the anti-reform Senate leader he is. Whitehouse of Dick Durbin should have been leading the effort.

I had just returned to the U.S. from living almost 4 years abroad when I first heard of Dianne Feinstein. She was a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at the time-- a putative Democrat, but in reality the conservative Republican in all but name on that body. Harvey Milk was also a member and we were close enough friends for him to rail against her after nearly every meeting. Anyway, long story short, Feinstein is conservative and corrupt and I never voted for he when she ran for supervisor, nor for mayor-- I supported Jello Biafra-- nor for governor, nor for senator. Last time she ran I worked to try to elect progressive state Senator Kevin de León, who took 5,093,942 votes to her 6,019,422 (which included many Republicans, since there was no one from their own party in the general election). She won 18 counties-- including most of the big ones-- to de León's 40 counties (including Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno and Kern). There was plenty of monkey business from the Democratic Party establishment on her behalf but she was reelected. But that shouldn't mean a doddering fool should be placed in an important position simply because of seniority.

The Washington Post reported Feinstein's remarks as the hearing wrapped up: "This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in. It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions and even some ideas perhaps of good bipartisan legislation we can put together." She then thanked Lindsey Graham and walked across the room-- maskless-- and hugged him, also maskless.

“It’s time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “If she won’t, her colleagues need to intervene.”

His organization, which opposes conservative judicial nominees, accused the senator of undermining liberals’ calls for a filibuster and court reform, “straight through to thanking Republicans” for what it called “the most egregious partisan power grab” in the high court’s modern history.

...That she praised Graham’s oversight of the process, and then got up and hugged him, was simply the final provocation for many liberals.

“That she can say this about this ongoing travesty,” said Jon Lovett, a former aide to President Barack Obama and co-host of Pod Save America, “is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein.”

...[I]n recent years, the 87-year-old senator has often gotten more attention for her gaffes. Last year, she was panned on Saturday Night Live for a now-infamous interaction in which she dismissed a group of schoolchildren asking her to advocate for the Green New Deal.





In 2018, during the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett M. Kavanaugh, she drew intense scrutiny for waiting weeks to publicize sexual assault accusations against him from Christine Blasey Ford. The California Democratic Party denied her its endorsement that year, though she easily beat back a more liberal challenger.

Even before the Senate took up another nomination this month, Democrats expressed concerns that Feinstein-- the oldest lawmaker in her chamber and the second-oldest in Congress-- had grown too disengaged to fight the GOP tooth-and-nail over the future of Ginsburg’s seat.

Republicans, too, denounced Feinstein, seizing on comments she made about Barrett’s religious “dogma” during the judge’s confirmation proceedings for the 7th District U.S. Court of Appeals.

...[M]any observers on the left gave her failing marks. She did not, for example, put up much of a battle against Graham when the committee was not at quorum, they pointed out.

“I don’t care that Feinstein and Graham are friends,” wrote Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the Lawfare blog. “I care that Feinstein catastrophically mismanaged the hearings, was outwitted without realizing it, and did a grave disservice to the public.”

Others slammed Feinstein for offering positive praise to Graham as he is locked in a tight race against Jaime Harrison, a former South Carolina Democratic Party chair who has shattered fundraising records in recent months.

Many began floating ideas for ways to force her out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, especially if the Democrats take the White House: Vote her out. Replace her with Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) Appoint her to a Cabinet position. Send her to Paris!vv Or, as the comedian Billy Eichner said: “Time to retire.”

And, by the way, ProgressivePunch has given Feinstein's voting record a solid "F," only 13 Democrats voting against progressive roll calls more frequently-- none of them in safe blue seats the way she is. Please watch White House's tutorial and imagine what might have happened if Schumer had appointed him ranking member instead of Feinstein.

Ryan Knows-- Ryan Grim, That Is: Joe Biden’s Family Has Been Trading On Biden's Name For Decades-- And Democrats NEED To Acknowledge That... Now

Grim's right, of course. And if you're a regular DWT reader, you've known about it for years-- and this isn't just about Hunter Biden. That brother of his-- is he in prison yet?-- is even worse? Grim wrote that "The problem for Democrats is that a review of Hunter Biden’s career shows clearly that he, along with Joe Biden’s brother James, has been trading on their family name for decades, cashing in on the implication-- and sometimes the explicit argument-- that giving money to a member of Joe Biden’s family wins the favor of Joe Biden. Democrats have been loath to give any credibility to the wild rantings of Trump or his bagman Rudy Giuliani, leaving them to sidestep the question of Hunter Biden’s ethics or decision-making, and how much responsibility Joe Biden deserves. Republicans, though, have no such qualms, and have made clear that smearing the Bidens as corrupt will be central to Trump’s reelection campaign. The Trump approach is utterly without shame or irony, with attacks even coming from failson Eric Trump."

Biden has been taking political hits over of the intersection of his family’s financial dealings and his own political career for some four decades. Yet he has done nothing publicly to inoculate himself from the charge that his career is corruptly enriching his family, and now that is a serious liability. By contrast, one of his opponents in the presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT) went so far as to refuse to endorse his son Levi Sanders when he ran for Congress, saying that he does not believe in political dynasties. In defending the Biden’s nepotistic relationship, Democrats would be forced to argue that, to be fair, such soft corruption is common among the families of senior-level politicians. But that’s a risky general-election argument in a political moment when voters are no longer willing to accept business-as-usual. For now, Biden’s opponents in the presidential campaign appear to all hope that somebody else will make the argument, while congressional Democrats don’t want to do anything to undermine their impeachment probe. And so Biden skates.

...In 2006, Beau Biden, who died of cancer in 2015, was roped into an investment meeting led by James and Hunter Biden, at the firm Paradigm Global Advisors. The family was considering acquiring the firm, and James Biden told executives there he’d have no problem bringing in people looking for an in with Joe Biden, who was a U.S. senator at the time. “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden,” James Biden told officials with the firm, according to a Politico Magazine investigation.

Beau Biden turned red in the face, telling his uncle, “This can never leave this room, and if you ever say it again, I will have nothing to do with this.” Hunter and James Biden denied the account to Politico, but the magazine stood by it, citing multiple sources with similar recollections. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” a Paradigm executive recalls James Biden saying.

In 2014, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, Chris Heinz, gave Hunter a similar warning. The pair were partners in an investment firm, Rosemont Seneca, when Hunter Biden and a third partner, Devon Archer, were invited to join the board of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings.

Heinz, through a spokesperson, told the Washington Post that he strongly objected to Hunter Biden and Archer taking the board seats. “Mr. Heinz strongly warned Mr. Archer that working with Burisma was unacceptable. Mr. Archer stated that he and Hunter Biden intended to pursue the opportunity as individuals, not as part of the firm,” the Post reported. “The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden.”

Obama administration officials, too, were concerned. Amos Hochstein, the special envoy for energy policy, raised the question with Biden, the New Yorker reported.

In April 2014, Hunter went ahead and accepted the invitation to join the board, along with a fee of at least $50,000 per month.

Beau Biden and Chris Heinz both recognized what was plainly before their eyes: Cashing in on the Biden family name was wrong. Now, Democratic voters are faced with the same quandary. They can see the corruption in front of their eyes, and they have to decide whether that’s the argument they want to have with Trump in 2020-- or whether they want to nominate someone else who will allow the party to make the corruption argument cleanly.

Hunter told the New Yorker he and his dad had a tacit understanding that they would never talk business. The Biden campaign claimed to the magazine that the two never spoke about his work in Ukraine, though Hunter says they did talk about it. “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do,’” Hunter told the New Yorker. (The Biden campaign declined to comment for this story.)

In trading on his father’s name and power to advance his career, Hunter Biden was following in the footsteps of James Biden, Joe’s younger brother. It began small. In 1973, one year after Joe Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29, James Biden opened the nightclub Seasons Change with what Politico, referencing contemporaneous local reporting in Delaware, called “unusually generous bank loans.” When James ran into trouble, Joe, as a senator, later complained that the bank shouldn’t have loaned James the money. “What I’d like to know,” Biden told the News Journal in 1977, “is how the guy in charge of loans let it get this far.” The paper investigated, and sources at the bank said that the loan was made because James was Joe’s brother.

James, in the ’90s, founded Lion Hall Group, which lobbied for Mississippi trial lawyers involved in tobacco litigation. According to Curtis Wilkie’s book The Fall of the House of Zeus, the trial lawyers wanted James Biden’s help pushing Joe Biden on tobacco legislation.

That same decade, in 1996, Hunter Biden got in the game. Fresh out of law school, with thousands of options before him, he chose to go work for MBNA, then a dominant issuer of credit cards, while also serving as Biden’s deputy campaign manager. MBNA was one of the most powerful corporations in Delaware, a state with no shortage of major companies thanks to its lax tax and regulatory approach, and has since been absorbed by Bank of America. Biden in the 1990s was known half-jokingly as the senator from MBNA, though he didn’t find it funny. “I’m not the senator from MBNA,” he said in 1999.

He was, however, MBNA’s greatest champion in the Senate. Throughout the 1990s, bankruptcies were on the rise, and MBNA began pushing hard to reform the law to make it harder for people to discharge debt. The controversy brought Elizabeth Warren into politics; a well-known bankruptcy law professor, she was appointed to a commission to review the law, which began her decadeslong clash with Biden.

In 2001, Hunter Biden transitioned full-time to a federal lobbyist, though he stayed on the payroll of MBNA as a consultant until 2005, when President George W. Bush signed Biden’s Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act into law. It was a savage piece of legislation, and Joe Biden even worked to block an amendment that would have offered bankruptcy protection to people with medical debt. The bill also blocked people from discharging private student loan debt under bankruptcy. Total student loan debt was under $400 billion in 2005; it surged in the wake of the law’s passage and is now over $1.5 trillion.

Hunter Biden’s transparent cashing-in on his name was becoming a political liability for his father, so Joe Biden pushed him to find non-lobbying work, Anthony Lotito, a New York financial adviser, said in a complaint he filed in a New York state court. (James and Hunter, in a separate filing, denied that Joe Biden had made the call to Lotito, their prospective partner in the Paradigm purchase.)

That Joe Biden saw Hunter’s work as politically damaging enough to him in 2005 demonstrates that he was entirely aware of the appearance it gave of corruption. His solution was to help Hunter and James into their positions at Paradigm Global Advisors. It was there that James told company officials that clients looking to “invest in Joe Biden” would come knocking, as Politico Magazine reported.

In 2007, James Biden teamed up again with some of the tobacco lawyers from the previous decade, planning to launch a lobbying firm that Hunter would also be involved in. Again, the affair became a political problem for Biden, thanks to a sordid moment in which James Biden’s two prospective partners were caught on an FBI wiretap saying, “We really need to push on the Senate bill,” and “We’re going to meet with the Bidens around noon,” apparently in reference to legislation to compensate black farmers for discrimination. The firm never came to fruition because one of the Bidens’ potential partners was arrested.

That year, Biden launched his second failed presidential bid, but he wound up on the ticket with Barack Obama, serving the next eight years as vice president. Hunter’s relationship with MBNA became a political problem again. A 2008 New York Times story, headlined, “Obama Aides Defend Bank’s Pay to Biden Son,” reads like deja vu: ”Obama aides said he had never lobbied for MBNA and that there was nothing improper about the payments,” which were reported to be $100,000 per year. News that the University of Delaware had paid Biden’s firm millions, and gotten many millions more in earmarks, also caused the vice presidential nominee trouble.

In the meantime, Paradigm Global Advisors fared poorly and shut down in 2010. James quickly found new work, joining a construction firm in November 2010. In June 2011, while Joe Biden was overseeing Iraq policy, the firm won a $1.5 billion contract building homes in Iraq.

The company’s founder, Irvin Richter, told Fox Business Network that having James on board helped. “Listen, his name helps him get in the door, but it doesn’t help him get business,” he said. “People who have important names tend to get in the door easier but it doesn’t mean success. If he had the name Obama, he would get in the door easier.”

Hunter, meanwhile, went into business with Heinz, forming the firm Rosemont Seneca, along with partners Devon Archer and Eric Schwerin. In 2012, Archer and Hunter Biden connected with Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private equity fund, Bohai Capital, and began talks about working together. They did a large real estate deal together in 2013 and began setting up a joint fund. In late 2013, Hunter Biden traveled with his father on official business to China, where he introduced the vice president to his partner, Li.

The new firm, Bohai Harvest RST, as The Intercept reported earlier this year, would go on to invest in facial-recognition technology used to surveil China’s Muslim population as part of its ongoing cultural genocide operation. The firm, according to the Wall Street Journal, planned to raise $1.5 billion in capital. Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have since contorted that reality into the notion that China simply handed Hunter Biden $1.5 billion. “I wonder where the hell that money is, man, because I’ve got to pay tuitions,” Biden has since responded. “God bless me!”

And then there’s Ukraine. In February 2014, Hunter Biden, less than a year after enlisting in the Navy, was discharged for testing positive for cocaine. But a new opportunity was about to present itself: That same month, protesters in Maidan Square overthrew the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, sparked by the government’s unwillingness to sign an association agreement with the European Union.

The new government leaned heavily toward the West and away from Russia, and a jockeying for wealth and power shook the ruling class. Remnants of the old regime became targets, and one of those was Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, an oligarch and former government official tied to Yanukovych. Regulators in London had seized more than $20 million in cash from the firm amid claims by rivals that it had compiled its assets illegally. Zlochevsky needed Western bona fides, and he needed them fast, so Hunter Biden was brought on board.

The New Yorker article details Hunter Biden’s struggles with drugs and alcohol, which included run-ins with the law and stints in rehab. One particularly out-of-control bender, which involved a crack pipe found in a rental car, took place while Biden was making $50,000 a month serving on the board of Burisma. In 2014, he was gracing the front page of the company’s website, according to web archives.

My problem with all this-- aside from how repulsive the Biden family has always been-- is that I want to see an election based on issues that are important for the future of our country: the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, Education-for-All, Housing-for-All, Justice-for-All, etc. And not a campaign based on who lies more, who's more senile and who has a more disgusting, crooked family. I'm sure Trump is worse in every single case, but that doesn't make Biden worth voting for, at least not for me. Conservative Democrat Dianne Feinstein is impressed. She was the very first senator to endorse Biden but decided to reendorce him-- in case anyone forgot she is one of the worst Democrats in Congress. More people say they a Feinstein endorsement would make them vote against Biden than for him.

We Told You To Vote For Kevin De León

Feelin' the Bern yet? Watch that video above; it's short and sweet. "Our president is a liar," Bernie said yesterday. "The Green New Deal is a bold proposal that will radically transform our energy system into sustainable sources of energy while creating millions of jobs and revitalizing our communities. We must fight to ensure we leave a habitable planet for our kids and grandchildren."

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that Republicans aren't the only creeping crawling politicians working hard to sabotage the Green New Deal, some because they take bribes and some because their brains have calcified. In Dianne Feinstein's case, I would feel comfortable guessing it's both. Have you watched this video from yesterday yet?



While Feinstein was doing her spot-on Trump impersonation, I was at City of Hope... for a little tune up. At one point I was waiting for a scan and the guy sitting next to me saw me blowing away about Trump and struck up a conversation. "I voted for him. I'd never do it again." He went on for a while about why he wouldn't vote for Hillary when I interrupted and asked why he wouldn't voted for Trump again. He said "it's too embarrassing" and he explained that Trump is making the country into a laughing stock on the world stage. Fine; whatever it takes. But when I asked him who he'd prefer to see in the White House, he didn't know. He didn't feel comfortable with any of the Democrats running. I suggested Bernie. He said he liked his "honesty" but couldn't abide a socialist. I explained about how Bernie is a socialist the way FDR was a socialist and that it's just a word Trump is using to frighten people. Then it was time for my scan and I had to go before I could ask him to sign one of my DWT "I will vote for Bernie" pledge cards.

DWT California Voter Guide For Tuesday (Reprise)

We published this a few weeks ago for early voters but I figured I'd run it again-- with a bonus video at the end-- for Californians going to the polls on Tuesday. First and foremost on our list is the U.S. Senate race, in which we strongly back Kevin de León against fossilized conservative incumbent Dianne Feinstein.

We don't usually back better of two evil candidates-- which is what the Democratic Party usually encourages, particularly on the federal level. But, this year, because of the existential threat from Trump, we are doing just that. Vote for every Democrat and against every Republican-- even for candidates as lacking in anything to recommend them as Andrew Janz and Gil Cisneros. There I said it!. That said, we are genuinely excited about some Democrats, especially Katie Porter, the progressive running in Orange County (CA-45), Ammar Campa-Najjar, the progressive running for Congress in San Diego County (CA-50) and Jovanka Beckles, the progressive running for state Assembly in the East Bay. All of our California faves are on the Blue America thermometer on the right. Prediction: Gavin Newsom will win and any progressive who voted for him will be very, very sorry. For state Superintendent of Schools, there's a really good candidate: Tony Thurmond and a really bad canddiate, the charter school guy, Marshall Tuck. OK, that's the easy stuff. Now the statewide propositions:

• Prop 1- YES-- authorizes $4 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, farmworkers and veterans.
• Prop 2- YES-- authorizes $2 billion in bonds to provide supportive housing (i.e. ,mental health and drug rehab) for homeless Californians with mental illness.
• Prop 3- NO-- an $8 billion boondoggle for Big Agriculture, while causing environmental problems.
• Prop 4- YES-- authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds to fund building, renovating and equipping children’s hospitals.
• Prop 5- NO-- another boondoggle, this one for wealthy developers and older rich homeowners-- expands Prop 13.
• Prop 6- NO-- overturns the increase in gas taxes and vehicle fees that fund transportation infrastructure. Bad for Climate Change and deincentivizes electric car development.
• Prop 7- YES or NO-- empowers the legislature to adopt permanent daylight saving time, eliminating standard time in the future if it Congress gives the OK.
• Prop 8- YES-- requires notoriously profiteering dialysis centers to stop cheating their patients and to accept Medicare and Medicaid without discrimination.
• Prop 10- YES-- allows cities, towns and counties to pass and strengthen rent control laws by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
• Prop 11- NO-- An anti-union proposal that allows private ambulance companies to require workers to remain on-call during meal and rest breaks.
• Prop 12- YES-- an animal welfare measure set ting reasonable minimum floor space for pigs, calves and hens at one square foot.

L.A. County has Measure W, an excellent idea to fund rainwater capture, cleaning and storage projects in order to grow the county's local water supply. Vote YES.

And the city of L.A. has two measures, both worth supporting. Measure B amends the City’s charter to permit Los Angeles to establish a public bank. Vote YES.

Measure E sets the City’s primary election on the same date as the State’s primary election. Vote YES.

Feinstein TV Ad Proves We Need Kevin de León

-by Dorothy Reik
President, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains

Dianne Feinstein has no trouble stealing. In her latest commercial she even steals Kevin de Leon's campaign motto-- "California Values"-- as if she mirrors our values the way Kevin does! But she cannot steal his legislative accomplishments. After 24 years in the Senate you would think that Dianne Feinstein would have a laundry list bills signed into law that have helped her constituents but that is not the case. She points to three things-- money for subways, money for water and her long ago sunsetted assault weapons ban. What she does not point out is how she steered government contracts to hubby Richard Blum-- they have quite a lucrative partnership. Thanks to profits earned during her "service" on the Defense Appropriations Committee she and Blum were able to buy a $16 million mansion in San Francisco for weekends while spending the week in her $7 million dollar home in DC. Nice. And more recently (she was thrown of the Defense Appropriation Committee when her steering of contracts was discovered) Blum has gotten contracts on California's high speed rail and the selling off of our beautiful post offices-- one even went to Donald Trump!

Meanwhile Kevin de León in just a few short years has a list of accomplishments as long as your arm and, when he gets to DC, he will continue on his trajectory starting with endorsing Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill opposed by Feinstein. In his years in the Senate, two as the President Pro Tem, he has helped Californians more than her highness has in 24 years. He passed SB100 to mandate that California reach 100% renewable energy by 2045. He wrote and passed SB 54 to protect our immigrants and when Trump challenged it in court Kevin's bill, carefully crafted to withstand such an assault, was confirmed.

He insured that California would lead in achieving the $15 an hour wage by negotiating a bill instead of taking a chance on a proposition.

As we watch another shooting, this time in Pittsburgh, Kevin can take credit for authoring SB 1235 requiring background checks for buying or selling AMMUNITION! And he worked on No Place Like Home, legislation to provide permanent housing for the homeless with mental issues-- the only way they can get well-- because you cannot get will while you are living on the streets!

He created retirement security for low wage workers by passing the Secure Choice Retirement-Savings Program-- the first in that nation! And he saved the Disclose Act from dying in the Senate. And he has started us on the road to free public college working hard to pass AB19 to insure the first year of Community College will be free-- one step at a time we will get to four years of free college!

His foreign policy advisors include Jodie Evans of CODEPINK-- so we can be sure Kevin will not be voting for endless wars as Feinstein did and he will not be voting to secretly spy on American citizens as Feinstein also did. She only objected to the spying when she herself got spied on!

Kevin has traveled up and down California, meeting voters and listening to their concerns. He has been to corners of the state Feinstein has never even heard of! And if the "non-likely" voters turn out on Tuesday we could be fortunate enough to have a Senator who will stand up to Trump and his fascists in Washington just as he has stood up to them here in California. There is no better Senator for California than Kevin de León. We cannot let this opportunity slip away only to have Gavin Newsom appoint some worthless Blue Dog [note from editor: Adam Schiff recently left the Blue Dogs and joined the other half of the Republican wing of the Democratic Partry, the New Dems] once Feinstein decides to retire to her mansion on the Knob Hill.

Slimy Conservatives Avoid Debates-- And When They Get Forced Into One... They ALWAYS Work To Limit Voter Access

Ted Cruz fancies himself a world champion debater. But somehow the political equivalent of a kindergarten toddler kicked his ass during the 2016 Republican primary season. Now he's up against a young congressman from El Paso, Beto O'Rourke and Beto beat him in every debate they've had so far-- hands down. When CNN invited Cruz and Beto to participate in an hour-long nationally televised town hall on October 18, Cruz refused and Beto accepted. Therefore Beto gets a one hour free segment on CNN at 9 PM (CT), worth millions of dollars, about 2 weeks before the election and right in the middle of early voting.

Believe it or not, the California conservative in the Senate race here, Dianne Feinstein, is even worse than Cruz. Feinstein is incapable of debating state Senator Kevin de León, her opponent in the D vs D general election. De León and virtually every major media outlet in the state have tried to get her to debate and she's dodged over and over-- just like she has for the past 2 decades of not debating.

Humiliated by the press, she finally agreed-- but to one with virtually no chance that anyone will see it. The "discussion" (absolutely not a debate) will take place at noon on Wednesday, October 17, sponsored by the Public Policy Institute. The only way to watch it is by registering on their obscure website. No TV or radio coverage will be allowed to broadcast it. Feinstein only agreed to do this if de León is not permitted to address her directly.

In the sprawling 36th district of Texas, east of Houston, Dayna Steele has been trying to get Brian Babin to debate for months. He refuses. Much like Feinstein, he allowed a private, non-broadcast "discussion"-- actually an endorsement screening--where he farted out his right-wing talking points and left. Dayna is still trying to get a real debate but Babin, a dentist and congressional backbencher with not a single accomplishment other than pulling some teeth, has adamantly refused.

Another cowardly conservative, Mimi Walters in Orange County (CA-45), has been hiding out and avoiding a debate, which Katie Porter keeps calling for. Katie's campaign manager, Erica Kwiatkowski, told us that "Walters is refusing to debate Katie Porter on key issues because she cannot defend her record of voting 99% of the time with Donald Trump, including to raise taxes for middle-class families, allowing oil drilling off Orange County coasts, and to take away healthcare from Orange County families including those with pre-existing conditions. Mimi has repeatedly refused to participate in town hall meetings with district residents and now won’t debate the issues that matter to voters."

Hoppy

Kendra Fershee is the progressive Democrat running in northern West Virginia (WV-01, a seat occupied by entrenched Trumpist David McKinely. He doesn't want to debate. Kendra laughed when I asked her and told me he won't even say her name. She told me her campaign has "been hounding him for a debate for months; he's completely ignored every request from us, and from other groups that have asked. But on Monday, he was quoted in the WVU student newspaper saying he would debate me if there's a neutral third party host willing to do it. So, I went on the biggest radio show in the state yesterday and the (somewhat conservative) host of that show (Hoppy Kercheval) called on Rep. McKinley to debate me. Hoppy has made at least two debate request inquiries of the Congressman in the last 72 hours and has been ignored. We have also asked the Wheeling Intelligencer to inquire of Rep. McKinley (that's the paper in his hometown), which has indicated that they may be willing to host as well. This morning, the WVU student newspaper ran a story about how the Congressman has ignored Hoppy's inquiries, and the largest newspaper in the state, the Charleston Gazette Mail, is working on a second story about how none of the Republican House of Representatives candidates will debate their opponents in West Virginia.

Jess King (PA-11) finally got her conservative opponent to debate on Monday. "It took time for the hosts to nail down our opponent," she said, "but he's agreed to two more. He is refusing to do any other forums though, so we are attending them without him."

Mike Siegel's campaign arranged for the League of Women Voters chapters in Houston and Austin to moderate debates. "McCaul," he told me, "refused to participate. His lack of participation is in the context of him not holding any public events in ten years. No town halls, no opportunities to respond to questions from the public. He even refused to respond to a Houston Chronicle candidate questionnaire, so their online voting guide has nothing from him. I'm about to enter a Chronicle editorial board screening. We'll see if he shows."

Up in Maine, the biggest congressional district east of the Mississippi is up for grabs, ME-02, a largely rural, spread-out swing district. It's very helpful for voters to get an idea of who the candidates are beyond just "R" and "D," which is why debates are so important. The incumbent, Trump enabler Bruce Poliquin, actually did a debate with progressive Democrat Jared Golden. He must have been shocked when his canned talking points failed to land any punches and Golden's issue-oriented approach wont day. Poliquin immediately pulled out of the next debate.

Is Dianne Feinstein Still Fit To Serve? A Debate Might Help The Voters Decide-- Which Is Why She Refuses

I've been following Dianne Feinstein's sordid-- as in corrupt-- conservative-- as in from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- career ever since she was a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as a close friend of mine, also a member, used to complain about her bitterly. That friend was Harvey Milk and his assassination-- and that of Mayor George Moscone (unlike Feinstein, a progressive)-- opened the door to Feinstein's political climb to the top. There were times, I hear, that she did debate her electoral opponents. Maybe it was back when she was in the Continental Congress or when California was first made a state. But in the last decade or so I've never found anyone who recalls her debating anyone. Nor does she debate anyone in the Senate. She just sails along, claiming her collegiality works wonders-- though it didn't work on her pal Susan Collins last week-- and that her so-called "mastery of Senate procedures" gets Republicans to compromise-- though that didn't work last week either.

Her time is up. She should retire already, not wait 'til corporate whore Gavin Newsom is in place to appoint another conservaDem, Adam Schiff, when Feinstein "suddenly" decides she has had enough in a year or so. People see right through her gambit-- anything but a progressive, now and forever. That's always been her motto. This is the DiFi I always knew, the one who was always delighted to use Republican talking points to appeal to conservatives and bigots:



Back to that debate problem. San Francisco political write, Joe Garofoli seems to think she may debate Kevin de León. I hope he's right... but I doubt it. She's neither intellectually or physically capable of a debate-- or even a detailed policy discussion. Garofoli in the SF Chronicle:

The last time Sen. Dianne Feinstein debated an opponent in a Senate election was in 2000. That means no voter under age 35 has had the privilege of deciding whom to send to Washington after seeing California’s senior senator match wits with a campaign foe.

We’re a little more than a month from election day, and so far, Feinstein’s debate-free campaign streak lives on-- though maybe not for long. It’s possible she’ll actually share a stage with her opponent and fellow Democrat, state Sen. Kevin de León.

We’ve seen DiFi’s debate tap dance before. Six years ago, I asked Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s longtime campaign consultant, why she wouldn’t debate her opponent that year, Republican Elizabeth Emken, whom Feinstein was drubbing in the polls.

“I don’t know if this makes much sense,” he told me. After all, Carrick said, Feinstein didn’t debate state Sen. Dick Mountjoy in 2006, “and he was an elective officeholder.”

When I called Carrick this week, it seemed that little had changed.

“Oh, come on,” Carrick told me. “I couldn’t have got you to cover an Emken debate if I brought you there with a police escort.”

He could have at least tried. Who could turn down a police escort? Especially if he threw in a pizza.

But let’s be real: de León is no Emken.

Emken had never held political office. De León is the former state Senate president pro tem and has been endorsed by the California Democratic Party’s executive board. De León has also been endorsed by three California House members-- including Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont-- along with five members of the Board of Supervisors in Feinstein’s hometown of San Francisco and the 2.1 million-member California Labor Federation.

I heard Feinstein promise The Chronicle’s editorial board in April that she would debate her opponent. Every major news outlet in the state, including The Chronicle, has offered to co-host a throw-down. De León even volunteered to travel to Washington, D.C., to debate Feinstein, since she says she has been too busy with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings to participate.

(By the way, the hearings didn’t stop fellow Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Ted Cruz from scheduling three debates with his Democratic challenger in Texas, Rep. Beto O’Rourke.)

“You’ve got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Voters deserve the dignity and respect of a conversation about the issues that affect them,” de León spokesman Jonathan Underland told me. “In California, we hold elections, not coronations.”

Carrick insisted that “there will be a debate.” And indeed, there may be some sort of event featuring de Leon and Feinstein in mid-October. A spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California told the Chronicle on Wednesday that the organization is “very close” to finalizing a date in San Francisco. Terms are still being negotiated, but it could end up being a “conversation” in which a moderator would ask questions and the candidates would have timed responses.

Whether that's a debate is a debate unto itself.

California needs a fighter in DC. We've had enough of Miss Cordiality. And we need someone who can understand the problems Californians have, not another crooked billionaire or whatever the hell she is now. Is there any reason we can't have someone as good as Elizabeth Warren?

It's Time For California To Elect An Actual Progressive Leader To The U.S. Senate-- Meet Kevin de León

Please start by watching the two and a half minute video, the first for Kevin de León's Senate campaign. If it feels familiar it's because it was made by the same filmmakers who were responsible for the Randy Bryce video launch that electrified us all. This one is also very powerful, very emotive and compelling-- and uniquely Californian.

Blue America specializes in finding great state legislators and helping them become national leaders. Some of the best members of Congress showed what they could do in leadership positions in their state legislatures-- Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, Karen Bass, Jeff Merkley, Judy Chu, Keith Ellison... were all in leadership positions in state legislatures when we met them and started helping to promote them to national office. Now they are the hope of the Democratic Party and the hope of the United States. Kevin de León's record of accomplishment as president of the California state Senate-- on virtually every aspect of the progressive vision from Medicare-for-All to Climate Change amelioration-- led me to beg him to run for the Senate seat Dianne Feinstein has used to hinder and blockade the progressive agenda for 26 years.

I've known Dianne Feinstein long before that-- since she was the fake Democrat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors trading grubby favors for cash from wealthy developers. When ardent progressives, Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were gunned down in City Hall, Feinstein made her big move, first as mayor and then senator, always using her elected positions to create mind-boggling business opportunities for Richard Blum, her husband. Today she's one of America's wealthiest politicians. And today she's 85 and unable to debate the issues with KDL. Unable. So instead, she's assembled a team of character assassins to denigrate Kevin and threaten anyone working in state politics that if they work for the KDL campaign their career is finished. She's assembled a truly vile warchest. Up against the $1,310,851 in grassroots money he's raised, she put together $15,263,210 (a third of which, $5,006,050, she just took from the money she and her husband have made from her influence-peddling).

It's time for her to go-- and she knows it. And she plans on it as well. She's done. She just wants one thing-- to keep "her" seat from falling into the hands of a progressive. If she wins this election, she'll retire quickly, allowing neoliberal corporate Democrat Gavin Newsom to appoint another conservative Democrat-- probably Blue Dog/New Dem Adam Schiff. Then when the special election comes, Schiff-- who has no electoral opposition in his (my) congressional district and has raised $4,624,476-- will be able to run as an incumbent. Yep... all packaged with a red ribbon bow on top.

The one spanner in the plan: the California Democratic Party, shockingly, rejected Feinstein's reelection bid and endorsed Kevin. This one will make a big difference. He's a real game-changer, a proven one. She's neither effective nor even awake and just a stalking horse for another conservative who will get in without being elected. So bad for a state like California! Anyway, see that Act Blue thermometer up top? Please tap on it and contribute what you feel comfortable giving to Kevin's campaign.

Brett Kavanaugh's #MeToo Moment — Questions Raised As His Accuser Comes Forward

"Frat fun" or rape culture in action? Signs on a frat-connected house near Old Dominion University in Virginia (source)

by Gaius Publius

This is Brett Kavanaugh's #MeToo moment. An accusation of attempted rape (a crime) against Brett Kavanaugh has been lodged against him.

Initially the accusation came via a letter given in July — at separate times and under request of confidentiality — to the Washington Post, to House Rep. Anna Eshoo, and to Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein.

Senator Feinstein, as a member of the Judiciary Committee sitting in hearings on Kavanaugh, was the only person in position to act. Here's what she did (or failed to do):

• For two months, failed to reveal the existence (not the contents, just the existence) of the letter to fellow Democrats
• Then, when its existence was leaked to the public, refused to reveal its contents to fellow Democrats
• Finally, after coming under fire for withholding the letter, sent the letter only to the FBI, who will not investigate further

End of matter, or so Ms. Feinstein thought.

The woman who wrote the accusatory letter has now come forward to tell her story in her own voice and for attribution. It's quite an explosive tale, and the bomb it contains threatens not just Kavanaugh and committee Republicans, but Democrats as well. Parallels to Democrats' handling of Anita Hill and her accusations against Clarence Thomas are obvious and striking.

The Story

First the accusation. Part of it is contained in a New Yorker piece by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, which maintained the woman's anonymity (at her request). The full story comes from this piece in the Washington Post (my emphasis throughout):

Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

A timeline of events:

Christine Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. Her work has been widely published in academic journals.

She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential.

According to the Post, Blasey Ford took and passed a polygraph test in August: "The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she [that] said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate."

There's more in the Post account, which should be read in full.

Questions

This new information raises a number of questions.

About Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and Christine Blasey Ford:

1. Did Brett Kavanaugh commit the crime of which he's accused while attending an elite academy, Georgetown Preparatory School, in the Washington D.C area?

2. If he did, does that disqualify him for a seat on the Supreme Court?

3. Will any further investigation, by anyone, take place?

4. Both Kavanaugh and Judge have denied the incident happened at all — i.e, that this isn't a he-said, she-said story, but a complete fabrication. Will Kavanaugh and Judge stick to their denials if other corroboration emerges?

5. Mark Judge has written a book about his life as a teenage alcoholic (Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk). This plays into a narrative that "something may have happened but we don't know what" — not a  narrative of "she's flat out lying." In addition, The Post says this about Kavanaugh:

In his senior-class yearbook entry at Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh made several references to drinking, claiming membership to the “Beach Week Ralph Club” and “Keg City Club.” He and Judge are pictured together at the beach in a photo in the yearbook.

And later in the article, notes that:

[In his book] Judge ... described his own blackout drinking and a culture of partying among students at his high school, renamed in the book “Loyola Prep.” Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the book, but a passage about partying at the beach one summer makes glancing reference to a “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who “puked in someone’s car the other night” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”

In Ms. Ford's telling, both men were "stumbling drunk." Will the optics of heavy drinking undermine all the denials?

6. Is there something we don't know about Kavanaugh's current drinking?

7. Judge has since implied that this could have been an incident of "rough-housing": "I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other ... I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls." Is his story starting to drift?

8. The accuser has taken and passed a lie detector test. Will Kavanaugh submit to a lie detector test? Will Mark Judge? How will the public respond if both refuse?

9. Will Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, hold up under the pressure of a story this explosive, with the stakes this high?

About the politics:

1. Republicans called this a "late hit" and a "last ditch smear." (If you google "Kavanaugh late hit" you'll find the phrase everywhere on the right, suggesting coordination.) How else will they respond?

2. Will Republicans attack Ms. Blasey Ford's character as they did Anita Hill's? Through an operative (David Brock) they accused Anita Hill of being "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." How will they attack Blasey Ford?

3. Will Democrats abandon Kavanaugh's accuser as they did Anita Hill?

After the Thomas hearings concluded, it emerged that Senator Joe Biden, who was the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, had failed to call three additional women to the witness stand who had been willing to offer testimony confirming Hill’s complaints about Thomas’s inappropriate behavior toward women. Last December, Biden, who may run for President in 2020, publicly apologized for failing Hill, saying, “I wish I had been able to do more.”

Edit Biden's quote to read "I wish I had decided to do more" and the statement fits the facts. Democrats made a calculation that put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Only their own cowardice, self-interest, or complicity prevented them from calling the corroborating witnesses they had available.

4. Will Democrats take maximum tactical advantage of this new information, or will they continue to go through the motions, treating this confirmation fight as hopeless while making strong speeches?

5. Will any Republican men stand up for Blasey Ford?

About Dianne Feinstein:

1. What were Dianne Feinstein's motives in keeping other committee Democrats in the dark about this letter?

Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation. “We couldn’t understand what their rationale is for not briefing members on this. This is all very weird,” one of the congressional sources said. Another added, “She’s had the letter since late July. And we all just found out about it.”

Feinstein had the letter since July, yet confirmed its existence only in September, when the story leaked. She was clearly trying to control the way the rest of the committee handled the nomination: "Feinstein also acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh."

Was she trying to help Kavanaugh deliberately or just inadvertently?

2. Will Dianne Feinstein, up for re-election in 2018, pay a price with voters, especially with women voters, for her apparent sabotage of Democratic efforts to block Kavanaugh's confirmation?

3. Will Dianne Feinstein pay a price with Senate women for her part in what looks like a #MeToo cover-up? Al Franken, let's not forget, was driven from the Senate by Kirstin Gillibrand and others based on a #MeToo accusation and prior to any investigation.

4. If not, why not?

About Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski:

1. Will this revelation affect the Kavanaugh confirmation votes of senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski?

2. Or will Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly and Doug Jones make it easy for them both by voting yes to confirm, allowing Collins and Murkowski to vote no "on principle"?

3. Will Maine voters give Susan Collins another term in the Senate anyway? After all, she's been silent on Kavanaugh since the nomination was announced and the threat to Roe v. Wade became apparent.

Finally, next steps and the future:

1. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh on Thursday, September 20. Will Republicans accelerate the schedule in order to fast-track the confirmation?

2. If Democrats are ineffective in handling this story — if they look like they're just "going through the motions" — will it affect the anticipated blue wave of 2018? Will Democrats continue to be seen as heroes of the anti-Trump resistance, or will enough voters give up on them to reduce the wave to a large and interesting ripple?

3. Will Republicans pay a price in 2018 with Republican women if this story evolves badly for them?

4. At what point will the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court rend the fabric, the American social contract, beyond repair?

Much to consider. Much to watch.

And if this plays out as it looks like it might, much to respond to when the dust has settled and the bipartisan deed has been done.

GP
 

Do Senate Democrats Want to Block Kavanaugh? Feinstein Withholds Damaging #MeToo Document from Fellow Democrats

Subtract Anthony Kennedy from the image above and add Brett Kavanaugh. Thanks to Senate Democrats, he's as good as confirmed. This is your Supreme Court for the next generation (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Updated below.

In years to come, when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, smart as a whip and Koch brothers–ideologue to the core, spearheads destructive 5-4 decision after tragic 5-4 decision, blame Senate Democrats for what the nation will suffer under. Our constitution-as-practiced is about to change radically, starting as soon as October, thanks to Senate Democrats.

They should be playing the strongest card in their hand, which is a full, immediate and open release of all documents in their possession to the public. Instead, they're acting as enablers.

First, it's clear that Senate Democrats are all aligned to protect their pro-Kavanaugh, certain-to-confirm-him colleagues like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly:

Liberal critics say Schumer is giving Kavanaugh a pass, and Republicans are trying to hitch vulnerable red-state Democrats to the New Yorker. But no matter: Schumer is expected to have broad support heading into 2019. Even a loss of Senate seats this fall is unlikely to significantly shake Schumer’s level of support.

“There is universal confidence in the Democratic Caucus for Sen. Schumer, whether they’re the progressives or the more conservative members of our caucus. There’s strong respect and admiration for how he handles diversity in our caucus,” said Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin.

"Universal confidence" in Schumer, even among self-styled progressives like Sheldon Whitehouse who "praised Schumer for 'holding a very wide ranging caucus together in a way that has made strong points in the hearing without causing problems for our 2018 candidates.'" Whitehouse added, "There is what I call Democrat disease, which is to waste our time fighting with each other and quarreling over purity contests."

So much for our heroes of the resistance.

Feinstein Withholds Damaging Kavanaugh Letter

Now, and even worse, Judiciary committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein appears to be protecting Kavanaugh by withholding a damaging document, not just from the public, but from the rest of the Democrats on the committee.

The Intercept's Ryan Grim with the story:

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have privately requested to view a Brett Kavanaugh-related document in possession of the panel’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, but the senior California senator has so far refused, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

The specific content of the document, which is a letter from a California constituent, is unclear, but Feinstein’s refusal to share the letter has created tension on the committee, particularly after Feinstein largely took a back seat to her more junior colleagues last week, as they took over Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings with protests around access to documents.

So Feinstein is protecting Brett Kavanaugh. Ultimately this goes back to Chuck Schumer, who as noted has taken a hands-off position on the Kavanaugh nomination. Contrast that with how Republicans handle their caucus on matters they care about.

Which leads to the question, just what do Senate Democrats care about, blocking Kavanaugh or appearing to block Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh's #MeToo Moment?

What's in the letter? Here's a tantalizing glimpse:

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own. ...

The woman who is the subject of the letter is now being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors.

No one is commenting further, not the law firm, not the Democratic House member who passed the letter to Feinstein, and not Feinstein herself.

Are Democrats Enabling Kavanaugh's Confirmation?

I think we can draw two fair conclusions from this. First, if the letter weren't damaging, it would have been released by now. So, it's damaging, and my headline reflects that. All indicators point to a #MeToo revelation about Kavanaugh, at precisely the time when #MeToo moments are powerful.

Second, how can anyone believe that Senate Democrats want to block Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation? They're acting to enable it

The only real question is: Are they doing it on purpose, Schumer and Whitehouse and Feinstein and all the rest? Sure looks like it from the cheap seats.

Update 1: According to Buzzfeed, Feinstein has not released the letter because "[t]hat individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities."

Feinstein says "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further." So, that's where we're at. Who knows with the FBI, as they're not saying anything yet.

— Joan McCarter (@joanmccarter) September 13, 2018

If so, that seems fair enough. I still question, however, the lack of full release of the 200,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents in Democratic hands, and am more than concerned that Democratic "resistance" to Kavanaugh (which seems more brave-but-futile than let's-go-get-him) is less than what is needed, and less than they could do.

I'm convinced there will be at least three Democratic votes for Kavanaugh on the Senate floor, which will put Kavanaugh on the Court and save the jobs of Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — all because Schumer, with the full backing of his caucus, allowed this.

Update 2: And then there's this. Feinstein has had the accusatory letter since July and seems to have kept it secret, even from other Democrats on the committee. That is, she not only kept its contents secret; she kept its existence secret as well.

More (emphasis added):

Feinstein’s decision to handle the matter in her own office, without notifying other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stirred concern among her Democratic colleagues. For several days [after other senators learned of the existence of the letter], Feinstein declined requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s letter and other relevant communications. A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.” On Wednesday, after media inquiries to the Democratic members multiplied, and concern among congressional colleagues increased, Feinstein agreed to brief the other Democrats on the committee, with no staff present. [...]

Sources familiar with Feinstein’s decision suggested that she was acting out of concern for the privacy of the accuser, knowing that the woman would be subject to fierce partisan attacks if she came forward. Feinstein also acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh. Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation. “We couldn’t understand what their rationale is for not briefing members on this. This is all very weird,” one of the congressional sources said. Another added, “She’s had the letter since late July. And we all just found out about it.”

So, Dianne Feinstein had this letter since July and sat on it, even to the extent that she didn't alert other committee senators of its existence, acting "out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues".

And she made this decision alone, in the same way that she decided by herself to "take care of" the matter by herself.

I think we're back to a question of motive. Why she did she taking it on herself to manipulate other senators in her caucus by unilaterally controlling the ground on which the Kavanaugh battle was fought on?

Was she protecting Kavanaugh, or in some weird way, the Party? Or both?

GP
 

Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword

The two venal and equally corrupt party establishments have created an electoral system where the cost of entry has put all the power into their own hands. The parties' leaders in DC have helped prove the costs of elections so sky high that no one can afford to participate other than themselves and the wealthy self-funders they back.

I was laughing my ass off the other day when one of my informers inside the DCCC told me that after the DCCC got stuck with a nearly unelectable candidate, Gil Cisneros, in what should be the easiest of the Orange County GOP-held districts (CA-39, the one Hillary one with the biggest margin), their whole vile scheme started coming apart of the seams. Cisneros is a conservative "ex"-Republican who knows as much about public policy than Rue and Rooney, the two dogs in the neighborhood that I give dog biscuits to on my hike every morning. The DCCC didn't care about the district until after the current incumbent, Ed Royce decided to retire. But by then, it was too late. The DCCC had directed Cisneros and another candidate to run there instead of in the district they both lived in because they did care about the other district but not about CA-39. (The most inept of all the lame DCCC staffers, Kyle Layman, was largely responsible for this kerfuffle.)

Anyway, to make a short story long, the DCCC embraced Cisneros because he's rich and bribed everyone he needed to bribe. He spent $4,739,403 on the primary, after putting $4,552,762 of his lottery winnings into his campaign. After he beat legitimate candidates who could have won, he told the DCCC and California Democratic Party he expected them to start paying for things, like field organizers. They told him to go fuck off and as much as admitted to him that the reason they backed him was so that they wouldn't have to spend their own funds in the district. Now they're at a standoff another air is heavy with acrimony.

Remember when Obama did an event for the DCCC on Saturday in Anaheim? So far the only southern California candidate Obama has refused to endorse is Cisneros. But Layman stuck him up on stage with Obama anyway. He also neglected to invite Ammar Campa-Najjar to the event and when Obama personally invited him and sent him tickets, Layman wouldn't allow him onstage. That guys like Layman-- rather than elected politicians-- are allowed to run loose without supervision is disastrous for the Democratic Party. Polling in CA-39 may turn around but right now it shows Cisneros losing. The latest polls in CA-50 show a 46-46% between Ammar and Drunken Hunter-- with momentum completely with Ammar. Leave it to Layman and the DCCC to force another loss.

Is it any wonder billionaires who can, have been going around the party establishments and doing their own thing? Yesterday McClatchy ran a piece by Adam Wollner, Rogue billionaires are giving the GOP and Democrats a migraine, about people with enough cash to tell their respective party establishments to buzz off and play politics the way they want to, not the way party bosses what them to. Wollner is sympathetic to the establishments. I'm not. He focuses in on how Republican Richard Uihlein and Democrat Tom Steyer are "irritating" the bosses, who Wollner refers to as "their political parties" and "party leaders" instead of... oh, say "assholes" or "incompetents" or something more descriptive and accurate. Wollner assumes that people like Kyle Layman know something. He should rethink that.

The two billionaires have backed candidates and causes that Republican and Democratic leaders believe are detrimental to their chances in November. Uihlein, the founder of a Wisconsin-based shipping supplies company, has boosted insurgent conservative candidates over the GOP’s choices in several races. Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund manager, has poured cash into a campaign to impeach President Donald Trump, an effort many Democrats view as counterproductive at best.

“Both parties have never been weaker than they are at this point in time,” said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic operative. “It allows vanity projects to dominate the process. These wealthy donors are taking over functions that have usually been left to the parties in years past.”

While Uihlein and Steyer have ranked among the most generous donors in recent elections, they are stepping up their activity in 2018 as they try to pull their parties further from the political center.


Both have contributed nearly $30 million each to outside groups so far this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending.

It’s unclear how much more Uihlein plans to give, but he’s already spent more than he did in the last two election cycles combined-- $24 million. And Steyer, after spending $74 million in 2014 and $90 million in 2016, has pledged to spend a total of $120 million in 2018.

Only Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam have outpaced them to this point, shelling out $55 million so far to two super PACs aligned with Republican congressional leadership.

Uihlein hasn’t picked many winners this cycle, and some Republicans think his efforts have only weakened their position in races across the country. Following multiple accusations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore last year, most Republicans in Washington abandoned their nominee in his Alabama Senate race. Not Uihlein, who gave $100,000 to a pro-Moore super PAC.

In Illinois, where Uihlein resides, he backed state Rep. Jeanne Ives to the tune of $2.5 million as she challenged GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner in the primary. Rauner survived, but is considered to be one the most vulnerable governors running for re-election this fall.

Most recently, Uihlein spent nearly $11 million in the Wisconsin GOP primary to support Kevin Nicholson, a Marine veteran who had never run for office before, and attack state Sen. Leah Vukmir, who was endorsed by the state party. After the bruising contest, Vukmir now faces a tough battle against the well-funded Sen. Tammy Baldwin.


Charlie Sykes, a former longtime conservative radio host in Wisconsin, said the primary forced Vukmir to tack to the right and constantly reinforce her support for Trump, which could now weaken her in the general election.

“The entire race basically occurred because Uihlein was willing to dump in eight figures behind Nicholson,” Sykes. “He would not have been a legitimate candidate without that one donor behind him.”

“If we lose in November, a lot of people are going to look at Uihlein and say, it’s your fault,” added one Wisconsin Republican strategist involved in the race, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

The next test for Uihlein comes in Mississippi where a special election to replace Sen. Thad Cochran takes place in November. Uihlein supports conservative state Sen. Chris McDaniel over GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is serving out the rest of Cochran’s term. Republicans fear that if McDaniel emerges from primary, Democrats would have an opportunity to win the seat.

Uihlein has already given $750,000 to a pro-McDaniel super PAC, which has some Republicans concerned that more could be on the way.


“That is a genuine risk. In a small state like Mississippi, if he pumped another $2 million in before the election, he could have a big impact,” said one Republican operative involved in the race. “I worry about that everyday.”

Josh Holmes, a leading GOP strategist, said he thinks Uihlein has been a victim of bad advice, and is holding out hope he will be as active in the general election as he was in the primaries.

“If your advice is to throw $30 million behind Roy Moore, Kevin Nicholson and Chris McDaniel, you’re going to lose all that money. That’s an investment that’s akin to setting a pile of money on fire,” Holmes said. “It’s not the return on investment Republican donors should expect.”

Uihlein did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But one of his closest allies, Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman, explained Uihlein’s donations by saying, “Dick believes in the underdog.”

“He believes it’s important to build mechanisms of accountability for lawmakers from both parties,” Tillman said. “He is pragmatic and realistic about every investment he makes, whether it’s in policy, politics or charitable giving.”

While Uihlein stays out of the spotlight, Steyer embraces it.

Through his “Need to Impeach” campaign, he has starred in his own ads, held town halls across the country, and frequently appeared on TV for interviews. In total, he plans to spend $40 million to encourage voters who want to kick the president out of office to actually vote on Election Day.

Many Democrats, including the party’s leadership in Washington, believe pushing for Trump’s impeachment ahead of the midterms will backfire.


 “The message of impeachment revs up the Republican base,” said Sheila Nielsen, a Democratic donor from Illinois. “I’d rather have those people sleeping on the couch than coming out to vote. Let’s not talk about impeachment right now.”


Steyer’s efforts also have some Democrats wondering whether the billionaire is more concerned about boosting his own profile as he toys with a 2020 presidential run, or helping the party take control of the House of Representatives.

“It’s a bad strategy,” Manley said. “I’d rather see him put that money behind candidates than impeachment.”

Steyer’s groups have been less active for candidates thus far. NextGen America gave more than $1 million to Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, a progressive who scored an upset in the Florida Democratic gubernatorial primary this week. At the federal level, the group spent less than $700,000 on ads across eight races. In total, NextGen plans to spend $32 million on the midterms across 11 states, with an emphasis on mobilizing young voters.

Steyer also endorsed liberal state Sen. Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the Democrat-versus-Democrat Senate race in California. But he has yet to spend money on the election aside from a personal donation to de León’s campaign.

From Steyer’s perspective, the Democratic Party does not have a history of success in the midterms because it has failed to get its core voters to the polls. He and his team are convinced the prospect of removing a despised figure like Trump from office will be a more potent turnout tool for the party’s base than any policy area.

“Democrats need to stop worrying about Republicans, and worry about our base voters that continuously don’t show up to vote for midterm elections,” said Kevin Mack, a political adviser to Steyer.

The pro-establishment bias in this piece is so pronounced and so unselfish-conscious that I suspect Wollner would be shocked to hear he needs to go back to journalism school and start all over again from scratch. Is he, for example, even aware that Feinstein, one of the most shockingly corrupt members of the Senate-- and utterly senile and unable to function-- was rejected by the California Democratic Party for reelection and that the party endorsed Kevin de León? Is he aware that conservative Democrats keep being nominated for statewide office and keep being rejected and that the reason a half million more Democratic primary voters turned out this cycle than anyone predicted was because they were excited to have someone and something to vote for instead of another Republican-lite nothing like Gwen Graham or Philip Levine?

Not talking about impeachment is one approach; talking about it is another. Did Wollner think the two approaches through and make a decision which was better before turning in his OpEd disguised as a news story?