Republicans Starting To Panic As Public Anger Grows Over The Post Office

This week's most predictible endorsement went to Biden and Harris yesterday from the National Association of Letter Carriers, a 300,000 member union. With Trump and the congressional Republicans full steam ahead on trying to destroy the post office-- Trump so he can prevent widespread voting and the congressional Republicans as part of their privatization mania.

It isn't just the big postal workers union endorsement-- this whole war against the post office is hurting Trump. Otherthan doctrinaire Republicans, the public doesn't like it. As Jonathan Bernstein put it in his Bloomberg News column yesterday "The thing is that Trump, by opposing money for the U.S. Postal Service and supporting 'reforms' that have slowed it down, is just handing former Vice President Joe Biden yet another easy campaign issue. Democrats may or may not be able to overturn new procedures that are causing significant problems, but they certainly can make sure that anyone who’s waiting on a letter or a package thinks that Trump is responsible when it doesn’t show up on time. And that’s not the kind of thing politicians want voters to blame them for."

Erin Cox, Elise Viebeck, Jason Bogage a d Christopher Ingham reported that Trump's corrupted Postal Service warned 46 states-- as it slows down mail deliveries-- that some votes sent my mail may not be counted. "Anticipating an avalanche of absentee ballots, the U.S. Postal Service recently sent detailed letters to 46 states and D.C. warning that it cannot guarantee all ballots cast by mail for the November election will arrive in time to be counted... The letters sketch a grim possibility for the tens of millions of Americans eligible for a mail-in ballot this fall: Even if people follow all of their state’s election rules, the pace of Postal Service delivery may disqualify their votes. The Postal Service’s warnings of potential disenfranchisement came as the agency undergoes a sweeping organizational and policy overhaul amid dire financial conditions." Those dire financial conditions were entirely and purposefully created by conservatives.

"Cost-cutting moves," the Post quartet continued, "have already delayed mail delivery by as much as a week in some places, and a new decision to decommission 10 percent of the Postal Service’s sorting machines sparked widespread concern the slowdowns will only worsen. Rank-and-file postal workers say the move is ill-timed and could sharply diminish the speedy processing of flat mail, including letters and ballots."

Yesterday, when asked by Ayman Mohyeldin on MSNBC if the American people will have a free, fair and credible election in November, Pelosi say "Not if the president has anything to do with it... a domestic assault on our Constitution."

Petrified of the growing anger of voters-- and his open conference-- Kevin McCarthy lied his ass off, telling the public that Republicans do not support withholding funding from the Postal Service. "The Postal Service will have the funding that it needs. We will make sure of that. We want to make sure we have an accurate election. I think any Republican that gets their ballot in the mail should vote and make sure their vote is counted." People are wise to his word games as he licks Trump's boots, as even members of his own caucus are saying now.

Jessica Piper reported for the Bangor Daily News that Susan Collins-- losing her reelection bid and absolutely desperate to show she isn't joined-at-the-hip to Trump (which she is)-- found something she can oppose him on. Trying to sound like she just woke up and is suddenly on Mainers' side, she said that "efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to cut costs could backfire amid reported mail delays in Maine and across the country and reiterated support to increase funding to the embattled agency." Has she told Trump and McConnell?

Mitt Romney, somewhat more credibly than Collins, broke with Trump on this too, telling the Sutherland Institute that "politicians"-- a reference to McConnell and Trump-- "attacking the vote by mail system are threatening global democracy but stopped short of criticizing President Donald Trump, who has been openly against an expected surge of mail-in ballots. The United States must stand as an example to more fragile democratic nations to show that elections can be held in a free and fair manner, Romney said. He urged the federal government to make every effort to ensure that people are able to vote in the general election this November... Romney said he has seen no evidence that voting by mail has led to fraud and that this voting method may be even more secure than electronic voting because it’s less likely to invite hacking interference by foreign entities. He said he would support providing additional funds to states to strengthen their voting systems."

And this is the letter my friend Rod wrote to each of them this morning. Maybe you want to consider doing one like it too?

Gentlemen of the USPS Board of Governors:

Mr. DeJoy is engaged in a blatantly partisan exercise to cripple the institution you oversee ahead of November 3. With it, he seeks to effectively destroy American democracy. It is incumbent upon you to intervene to halt this treasonous activity.

Please do your job and remove him immediately!

One very concerned citizen,

Rod Colburn

P.S. You each appear to be white males. You don’t look at all like America, do you?!

Trump's November Toxicity Is Starting A Civil War Inside The Ranks Of Congressional Republicans

All summer, the polls Marist did for NPR-- there have been 4 so far-- have shown Trump's disapproval rating between 54 and 58%. Their newest poll has his approval at 39%-- and among Independent registered voters his approval is just 32% and his disapproval among this key cohort is 57%. You can win in Wyoming and Mississippi with numbers like that-- but it's tough in Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Montana and even South Carolina! The same poll shows that if the congressional elections were held today, 49% of voters would cast ballots for Democrats and just 43% would cast ballots for Republicans.

Those numbers are, at least in part, due to the fact that more and more voters don't trust what Trump says. In March, 37% of registered voters trusted what he had to say about the pandemic, while 60% did not. Today 67% do not and only 31% do. Among Independent voters just 25% trust what he has to say, while a staggering 71% know he's a liar. In the presidential horserace, it's Biden over Trump by 11 points (53-42%), up from an 8 point Biden-lead in June.

And a new poll by Pew, also released yesterday, shows that voters are basically anti-Trump, anti-Republican, not pro-Biden and not pro-Democrat. In fact, 56% of people who intend on voting for Biden say the main reason they're behind him is because of their negative opinion of Trump. Republican Members of Congress are slowing catching on.

Amanda Terkel reported how ultra-endangered Colorado Senator Cory Gardner (R) was pressured by the Trump campaign to run reelection ads for himself glorifying Señor Trumpanzee, so he did-- on Facebook... everywhere but in Colorado. It's filled with lies and the kind of bullshit that would penalize Gardner if Colorado voters were to see it, so they made the ad non-shareable and non-embeddable. Terkel points out that "every other Facebook ad Gardner is running is being seen in Colorado."

McConnell is watching his Senate majority circle the drain. Republican incumbents likely to lose their seats in November, aside from Gardner-- widely considered among the walking dead-- are Susan Collins (ME)-- desperately looking for issues to disagree with Trump on-- Thom Tillis (NC), Martha McSally (AZ), Steve Daines (MT), Joni Ernst (IA), Dan Sullivan (AK)... and even David Perdue (GA). Lindsey Graham (SC) and Miss McConnell (KY Jelly) himself are playing defense.

The situation in the House is also dire for the GOP-- and they know it. At dawn on Friday morning, the Washington Post published a piece by Rachel Bade, To The President, He's 'My Kevin.' To Some Republicans He 'Does Nothing But Lick Trump's Boots.' The DCCC isn't targeting McCarthy and the California Democratic Party is largely ignoring his R+14 district, where Hillary only managed to pull 36% of the vote in 2016 and where McCarthy was reelected 131,113 (63.7%) to 74,661 (36.3%) during the so-called "blue wave" election of 2018. He even won in the Los Angeles County part of the district! By the end of June, McCarthy had raised $16,638,004 and his Democratic opponent, Kim Mangone, had raised $486,753. There has been no significant outside spending in the race.

McCarthy's problem isn't in California; it's in Washington. Bade wrote that "Discontent with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is on the rise in the House, as Republicans increasingly fearful of a loss by President Trump on Election Day gear up for an intraparty war over the future of the GOP. A cluster of GOP lawmakers is starting to privately question whether the California Republican is putting loyalty to the president over the good of the conference. And a small group of members is discussing whether someone should challenge him for minority leader if Trump is defeated Nov. 3."

Yesterday, the biggest lagging indicator in the country, the Cook Report moved 11 races in a Democratic direction and 4 in a Republican direction. Yawn; read them on November 4 when they will have mostly caught up with reality. The one ratings move of interest was in NJ-02, where they have down-graded DCCC Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew, who is now a Trumpist Republican from "lean R" to toss up. Generous of them, considering that the latest poll shows Van Drew losing his seat to Democrat Amy Kennedy 51-46%. But Cook is followed closely in DC-- it's kind of a closed feedback loop-- and the GOP incumbents they are ranking as endangered include, aside from Van Drew, seats being contested by Blue America-endorsed candidates that are tenuously held by Donald Bacon (NE-02), Michael McCaul (TX-10), Fred Upton (MI-06), John Katko (NY-24), and, to a lesser extent, Roger Williams (TX-25). Other endangered Republicans, according to Cook-- which is always weeks behind reality-- include Mike Garcia (CA-25), Ann Wagner (MO-02), Chip Roy (TX-21), Steve Chabot (OH-01), David Schweikert (AZ-06), Scott Perry (PA-10), Lee Zeldin (NY-01), Ross Spano (FL-15), Jim Hagedorn (MN-01), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Don Young (AK-AL), Richard Hudson (NC-08), Rodney Davis (IL-13), and Van Taylor (VA-03).

The matter bubbled to the surface this week with the primary election of Marjorie Taylor Greene, a fringe House candidate in Georgia who espouses the QAnon conspiracy theory and has made numerous racist comments. Multiple Republicans implored McCarthy to help defeat her by supporting her primary opponent. But McCarthy refused, phoning the candidate in an apparent peace accord before the primary, while Trump embraced her on Twitter this week as a “future Republican Star.”

However, the frustration with McCarthy had already been brewing for weeks as Trump’s polling has sagged behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. According to interviews with more than 10 House Republicans-- all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to be frank-- some GOP lawmakers are worried that McCarthy has tied the conference too much to Trump, refusing to stand up to the president or act as a buffer to distinguish the conference from him.

Others are also furious that he did not shield them from a recent Trump campaign demand that House members donate to the president’s reelection effort.

“There’s no doubt that McCarthy is a Trump loyalist, through and through,” said Doug Heye, a former House GOP leadership staffer who has known McCarthy personally for decades. “I think the challenge for everyone in the Republican conference is, at some point there will be a post-Trump world-- whether that’s coming in three months or later. What direction does the party go?”

One House Republican was blunt in criticism of McCarthy, whom Trump has referred to as “my Kevin”: “He does nothing but lick Trump’s boots. That’s all he cares about-- so no, it’s not helpful.”

The feeling, however, is far from unanimous. McCarthy, an affable politico, maintains a loyal crop of followers, including many conservatives who once viewed him as a foe. He also has raised $82 million for Republicans this cycle, more than the previous two GOP speakers.

...McCarthy’s ultimate test will come on Election Day, when not only Trump but the fates of several dozen Republican lawmakers and candidates hang in the balance. If Republicans pick up seats in conservative districts, McCarthy would be more likely to stave off a challenge.

“He becomes damaged goods [if Trump loses], but it could be offset if he is successful in helping the GOP conference win back a bunch of seats,” said one senior House Republican. “But if we lose... the Republican conference is probably going to be looking for something different in leadership.”

...Freedom Caucus members such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) are among McCarthy’s top allies, while those with complaints hail from the moderate or establishment wings.

McCarthy’s embrace of Trump has baffled some who knew the moderate, small-business owner who came to Congress in 2007. But McCarthy, more so perhaps than predecessors such as former speaker Paul D. Ryan, is a political animal who understands alliances. When Trump won the nomination in 2016, he made a choice: He was going be with Trump, even as his other colleagues were squeamish.

“He changed and became fully committed on the Trump train,” said one House Republican. “Kevin has never been a conservative guy; he’s one of the most moderate guys in the House if you look at his voting record. But all of a sudden there was this metamorphosis where it was ‘Everything Trump.’ And look, there’s high-risk, high-reward with that.”

In 2016, it was McCarthy who persuaded Ryan and other House Republicans not to break with Trump over the Access Hollywood tape in which the then-candidate claimed that he could grab women by their private parts with impunity. And during Ryan’s tenure as speaker, McCarthy would often encourage the Wisconsin Republican to keep his disputes with Trump private for the sake of unity.

As minority leader, McCarthy has implored his members to do the same, as seen last fall when Republicans rallied together against Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. McCarthy was able to unite the far-right and the moderates under one set of talking points, a turn that might have been more difficult in previous years.

But still, some Republicans have questioned whether McCarthy has given Trump too much of a pass. In the summer of 2019, several Republicans implored him to stand up to Trump when the president told four Democratic congresswoman of color to “go back” to their countries of origin, though they were all Americans. McCarthy told one of those people, Rep. Paul Mitchell (Mich.), that Trump doesn’t like to be criticized.

In May, despite Trump’s massive war chest breaking records, McCarthy worked with the Trump campaign on a plan to get House Republicans to donate to the president’s reelection. A few weeks later, news broke that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s 42 most vulnerable members had an average 5-to-1 cash advantage over their GOP opponents, while 30 Democratic challengers outraised their Republican opponents in the second quarter of 2020-- putting Democrats in a prime position to grow their majority.

Some GOP members were livid, wondering why they were called on to help fund the well-oiled Trump money machine when some of their own were in trouble.

...There’s also uncertainty about who would take his place or whether anyone would have the nerve to challenge him. Some Republicans have eyed House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), who recently took a political risk and worked to undermine Greene, realizing how much of a problem she could be for the House.

But while Scalise at one point pondered a McCarthy challenge years ago, the two seem to have made amends and worked together in the minority. Additionally, Scalise has also been loyal to Trump-- so if Republicans go in another direction post-election, they could cast their eyes elsewhere.

That’s one of the reasons for all the recent chatter surrounding House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (WY), who has sought to create a lane for herself where she both supports Trump on most policy matters but isn’t afraid to call him out. At a time when Trump wouldn’t wear a mask and seemed to make fun of those who did, Cheney tweeted that real men cover their faces. She also backed Anthony S. Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, when the administration turned against him.

Democrats have never even tried to turn McCarthy into a demon in the eyes of the public, the way the GOP has done with Pelosi (and the way Democrats have done with McConnell). No one is voting against any Republican incumbents because of McCarthy toxicity. Most voters outside of Kern County don't even recognize his name. It's a different dynamic than in Senate races, where support for McConnell-- as well as for Trump-- is a factor in voters' decisions to flip seats from red to blue. In the House races, it's much more purely about Trump and about Democratic candidates successfully campaigning about the unpopular issues that Trump and his enablers have foisted-- and are trying to foist-- on the public. I asked Kara Eastman how that is playing out in her Omaha-based district, as she successfully points out the connected-at-the-hip relationship between Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Bacon. "It’s on us," Kara told me last night, "to continue to remind voters that Don Bacon refused to stray from Trump’s bitter shadow when it mattered the most: First, when he voted against the health care of the district to destroy the affordable care act, next when he supported the tax scam giveaway to the wealthiest Americans, and recently when he voted no to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Despite his smooth-talking demeanor, Bacon can’t help but vote time and time again with the most extreme Trumpian Republicans."

Liam O'Mara told me that he and his campaign team have been focussing a lot of their outreach on independents, and finding that "their support for the Trump approach has indeed been slipping. If the national approval ratings for Trump get applied to Calvert's share of the NPPs [no party preference voters] here, then he cannot win, so all our fighting right now is concentrated on turning out our respective base and swaying those independents who are frustrated by Trump. But Calvert is in a tight spot, since he needs to brag about how close he is to Trump in order to motivate his Republican base-- and he has, telling them he's voted with Trump 98% of the time-- but that same point plays badly with the non-partisan NPPs who want to know their concerns are heard. Given how shamelessly partisan and obsequious the Republicans have been to Trump, races all over the country are going to be decided by large numbers of independent voters, and if your message cannot resonate with their economic concerns, good luck!"

Gavin Newsom Rose To The Occasion-- While Trump Is Looking For Ways To Use The Cover Of The Pandemic Emergency To Push The Country Further Right

I'm not a big Gavin Newsom fan-- to put it mildly-- but he finally did what every governor needs to do and what that dumbass, predator in the White House needs to do, to begin the process that will flatten the curve enough to actually confront the pandemic in the U.S Newsom issued the statewide stay-at-home order that could save millions of lives. It took guts, guts other governors-- not to mention the cowardly Trump-- have not exhibited. Half steps won't do it. As Singapore and Taiwan showed (and perhaps China), total societal shutdowns work; half steps, like in Italy and Spain, just let the virus run wild and infect everyone.

So, while Señor Trumpanzee is still all about his deadly Don't Test/Don't Tell agenda-- like asking states to abstain from releasing surging unemployment-claims figures, Newsom took the steps needed and that Trump will have to take eventually-- unless he dies first.

So what stays open in California?

• Gas stations
• Pharmacies
• Food: Grocery stores, farmers markets, food banks, convenience stores, take-out and delivery restaurants
• Banks
• Laundromats/laundry services

Everything else is closed. Brain-dead GOP minority leader and congressman from Bakersfield, Kevin McCarthy, already attacked the order on Fox News. Newsom: "There is a social contract here. People, I think, recognize the need to do more and to meet this moment. People will self regulate their behavior. They’ll begin to adjust and adapt as they have been quite significantly. We will have social pressure, and that will encourage to do the right thing, and just, to nod and look, and say, 'Hey, maybe you should reconsider being out there on the beach, or 22-strong at a park.'" He also said that he projects that "roughly 56 percent of our population-- 25.5 million people-- will be infected with the virus over an eight week period." (Worst case scenario.)

So what was Trump doing while Newsom was making the correct decision for California and showing the guts to do it? The NY Times reported that Under the Virus’s Cloak, Trump Pursues Long-Sought Policies. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni wrote that "from border controls to anti-union efforts, the Trump administration is using the coronavirus to seek policies that the president wanted before the pandemic." And that includes "the stonewalling of congressional oversight."

And across the government, departments have been citing the “whole of government” response to the pandemic as they push through the same policies they sought before the crisis. Just this week during a coronavirus briefing, Mr. Trump said his administration would use authority granted to the surgeon general to immediately turn away those who crossed the border illegally.

At the Agriculture Department, officials said they were teaming up with companies like PepsiCo to quickly deliver food boxes to students in rural areas, although Congress has repeatedly rejected the Trump administration’s push for such meals, arguing that they contained low-quality food without healthy alternatives.

Administration officials insist that such long-sought policies are necessary to stem the outbreak. But opportunism is clearly in play.

...[T]he Federal Labor Relations Authority published a little-noticed rule that would make it easier for federal workers to stop the withholding of their union dues, saying it would increase wages at a time of economic crisis. Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called the proposed rule “just another in a series of activist steps the F.L.R.A. has taken to advance this administration’s goal of busting unions.”

Mr. Kelley said it was “disgraceful” that the administration would push forward with the rule “in the midst of a pandemic” that depended on federal employees like caregivers at the Veterans Affairs Department, airport screeners and food inspectors, all of whom are performing their jobs under hazardous conditions.

...Some lawmakers said the crisis was presenting the administration with a mixed bag of policies that furthered its agenda, and ones that ran counter to it.

“They’re exploiting it for their ideological purposes, but they’re also having to simply acquiesce on traditional Democratic and progressive values as well,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia. He noted that Republicans and Mr. Trump had been forced to support paid family leave, as well as the largest stimulus bill in history in a rush, “signing into law things they have historically opposed.”

Anti-Science Republicans Playing Dangerous Games With Coronavirus Outbreak

Last Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 6074, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, by a lopsided bipartisan vote-- 415-2. Two far right sociopaths, Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Ken Buck (R-CO), voted against it, whining about the high cost. Several other Republicans were also whining about the cost but in the end they feared their constituents and voted for the $8.3 billion package. Crackpot Matt Gaetz, who is now in quarantine and also opposed the bill but voted for it in the end, caused a kerfuffle when he showed up to vote and make light of the pandemic in with an absurd gas-mask (a couple of days before one of his constituents died of COVID-19).

No one wants to sit near Panhandle crackpot Matt Gaetz

This is the complete bill:

This bill provides $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies to respond to the coronavirus outbreak. Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the bill provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations for

• the Food and Drug Administration,
• the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention,
• the National Institutes of Health, and
• the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund.

In addition, the bill provides supplemental appropriations for

• the Small Business Administration,
• the Department of State, and
• the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The supplemental appropriations are designated as emergency spending, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.

The programs funded by the bill address issues such as

• developing, manufacturing, and procuring vaccines and other medical supplies;
• grants for state, local, and tribal public health agencies and organizations;
• loans for affected small businesses;
• evacuations and emergency preparedness activities at U.S. embassies and other State Department facilities; and
• humanitarian assistance and support for health systems in the affected countries.

The bill also allows HHS to temporarily waive certain Medicare restrictions and requirements regarding telehealth services during the coronavirus public health emergency.

And then Pelosi sent it over to the Senate, Trump saying he would sign it if the Senate passed it. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment that would take the $8.3 billion from foreign ad. Not many people thought that was a good idea and it was defeated 81-15. The 15 were all Republicans, of course:

• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• Mike Braun (R-IN)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)-- currently quarantined
• Steve Daines (R-MT)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• John Kennedy (R-LA)
• James Lankford (R-OK)
• Mike Lee (R-UT)
• Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)
• Rand Paul (R-KY)
• Sonny Perdue (R-GA)
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)

When the House bill authorizing the $8.3 billion, only one person voted no, Rand Paul.

Meanwhile, Pelosi and Schumer issued a joint statement yesterday that goes even further. "We are hoping to work with the administration on a coordinated, government-wide plan to respond to the coronavirus. However, President Trump continues to manufacture needless chaos within his administration, and it is hampering the government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak... The administration must move more quickly and seriously to address the severe impacts of the coronavirus on the financial security of America’s families." What they're asking for is pretty straight-forward-- paid sick leave, a temporary increase in unemployment insurance and "widespread and free" testing for the coronavirus.

How are Republicans responding to all this? Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures yesterday and told Maria Bartiromo that Pelosi didn't bring up the bill fast enough and that, in fact, she intentionally delayed it so Democrats could run Super Tuesday ads. "We should have had this bill a week earlier. The Democrats actually held this bill, so Congresswoman Bustos, who runs the DCCC, could run ads against Republicans."

The ads McCarthy was angry about noted that "The Trump administration would rather pad the pockets of drug manufacturers than provide access to an affordable coronavirus vaccine." The Democratic response to McCarthy's accusations, which he had made earlier on Laura Ingraham's show, was pretty good:

"Leader McCarthy should be embarrassed that he cares more about his political fortunes than ensuring working Americans can afford an eventual coronavirus vaccine. Washington Republicans are already blocking bipartisan House-passed legislation to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. It’s disgraceful that their obedience to drug manufacturers is holding up the government’s response to a virus that threatens millions of Americans."

Republicans Will Do Anything To Sabotage The Impeachment Against Trump

"Please stop using the Latin phrase 'quid pro quo' regarding the impeachment inquiry," is what 33 writers suggested in the NY Times yesterday. "Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record. That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase-- which means simply 'this for that'-- as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead. Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use 'bribery' or 'extortion' to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act."

Eric Swalwell, a guest on Face the Nation was good with that yesterday. He picked "extortion," as you can see if the clip up top. "We have" he told Margaret Brennan, "enough evidence from the depositions that we've done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme, using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president's opponent."

Adam Schiff by Nancy Ohanian

This is all driving Trump out of his adderall-infected mind. On Saturday he tweeted or retweeted 82 times, many of the tweets fighting against impeachment. He mentioned "impeachment," "impeach" or "impeachable" nine times, "Schiff" eleven times, the same number of time he mentioned "whistleblower."

And if he wasn't crazy enough before, what do you think this Rolling Stone title will do for him: Trump Sycophant Lindsey Graham Says 'Whistleblower' Is From the 'Deep State'. The loony and instinctually deceptive South Carolina closet queen and Senate Judiciary Committee chair has been all over the map on the transcripts. He boasted he hasn't and never will read the transcripts and the following day said he's read every word of them and has come to the conclusion there's no there there. "I’ve written the whole process off. I think this is a bunch of B.S.," he insisted. He's cracking up almost as much as Trump is.

Peter Wade wrote in his Rolling Stone piece that Trump and his regime "are too incompetent even to attempt the extortion plan, saying that the administration’s Ukraine policy was 'incoherent,' adding, 'They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.' So, the over-the-top Trump sycophant decided to go full Alex Jones and has turned to conspiracy theories to take heat off of the president. On Sunday, Graham told fellow Trump ally and Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo that the whistleblower, who initially brought the Ukrainian scandal to light, is part of the fictional entity called the deep state while also accusing Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of wrongdoing.

Unfake News by Nancy Ohanian

Lindsey: "When you find out who is the whistleblower is, I’m confident, you’re gonna find out it’s somebody from the deep state. You’re gonna find out find they had interactions with Schiff and this thing’s gonna stink to high heaven." Wade added that "With public hearings set to begin next week, we can expect more of the same from the president’s defenders. Trump’s actions have given them few other options."

Whites are now a minority in Kevin McCarthy's district Central Valley district and yet-- for some reason they have refused to answer satisfactorily-- the DCCC has continued never recruiting a candidate to run against him. Odd, isn't it? You can walk-- hike-- from the northern tip on Adam Schiff's district (Soledad Canyon Road) to Quartz Hill at the southern tip of McCarthy's district-- straight through CA-25. But it wasn't very neighborly for McCarthy to assert on Fox News yesterday that Schiff is single-handedly orchestrating a calculated coup against Trump and that Pelosi is the speaker in name only. Like everyone in DC, McCarthy is aware that Schiff doesn't make a move without clearing it with Pelosi first. McCarthy, as always, is just continuing to suck up to Trump. Why doesn't the DCCC go up against this pathetic clown?





Russia's on-going interference in the Brexit campaign-- and European elections-- were test cases for their on-going interference in American electoral politics. Other than Devin Nunes and Moscow Mitch there aren't many people who can deny that Russian money flooded into elections in Germany, Holland, France and the U.K... and then, the U.S. Now, in the midst of a U.K. snap election, is Russian money financing the Conservative Party again?

Yesterday, the Sunday Times reported that Britains' intelligence agencies are furious over Boris Johnson blocking publication of a report on Russian money flows into U.K. politics. Wealthy Putin cronies in London-- some of whom have become close with Johnson-- have given millions of dollars to the Conservative Party. Alexander Temerko, for example, who has worked for the Kremlin’s defence ministry and speaks about Johnson as a friend, "has gifted more than £1.2m to the Conservatives over the past seven years." The giving has increased dramatically since Jonson moved into Number 10 Downing Street. Between November 2018 and October 2019 Russians connected to the Kremlin have been around half a million pounds into the Conservative Party.

Culprits include Russian bankster Lev Mikheev, energy oligarch Alexander Temerko and Lubov Chernukhin, wife of Putin-s uber-corrupt former finance minister Vladimir Chernukhin. In 2014 Lubov donated £160,000 to the Conservative Party for a game of tennis with Johnson and former prime minister David Cameron, as well as a further £30,000 for dinner with the current Education Secretary Gavin Williamson. In total-- just last year-- Lubov gave the Conservatives £450,000.

A Labour Party official, Andrew Gwynne, responding to Johnson blocking publication of the report by pointing out that "Billionaires fund the Conservative Party, so this sordid cover up shouldn’t be surprising. The Tories blocked this report and oppose tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged."

The Tories insist they're not purposely blocking the report, just that it takes a long time for things to get published.

Suddenly it matters which one is Lev and which one is Igor

And speaking of Russians... how about Ukrainians? Late yesterday, the NY Times dropped a doozy on Trump's head, Giuliani Associate Sats He Gave Demand For Biden Unquiry To Ukrainians. Lev-- of Lev and Igor-- went to Kiev before Zelensky's inauguration and announced that unless the new government publicly announced that it was investigating the Bidens, "Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid." Lev will be swearing to this when he testifies before Congress in the impeachment inquiry. This directly challenges the narrative of events from Señor Trumpanzee and his goon squad and directly links Giuliani "to threats of repercussions made to the Ukrainians, something he has strenuously denied." Igor denies there was any ultimate. And Giuliani said "Categorically, I did not tell him to say that."

The dispute represents the clearest indication yet that Mr. Parnas, who was indicted along with Mr. Fruman last month on campaign finance charges, has turned on Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani.

...Mr. Parnas’s account of the meeting, if corroborated, would reveal the earliest known instance of American aid being tied to demands for Ukraine to take actions that could benefit Mr. Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. It would also represent a more extensive threat-- to pull Mr. Pence from the inaugural delegation-- than was previously known.

...Only three people were present at the meeting: Mr. Parnas, Mr. Fruman and Serhiy Shefir, a member of the inner circle of Mr. Zelensky, then the Ukrainian president-elect. The sit-down took place at an outdoor cafe in the days before Mr. Zelensky’s May 20 inauguration, according to a person familiar with the events. The men sipped coffee and spoke in Russian, which is widely spoken in Ukraine, the person said.

Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph A. Bondy, said the message to the Ukrainians was given at the direction of Mr. Giuliani, whom Mr. Parnas believed was acting under Mr. Trump’s instruction. Mr. Giuliani said he “never authorized such a conversation.”

A lawyer for Mr. Fruman, John M. Dowd, said his client told him the men were seeking only a meeting with Mr. Zelensky, the new president. “There was no mention of any terms, military aid or whatever they are talking about it-- it’s false,” said Mr. Dowd, who represents Mr. Fruman along with the lawyer Todd Blanche.

In a statement on Friday, Mr. Shefir acknowledged meeting with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman. But he said they had not raised the issue of military aid. Mr. Shefir said he briefed the incoming president on the meeting. Mr. Shefir was a business partner and longtime friend whom Mr. Zelensky appointed as his chief adviser on the first day of his presidency.

“We did not treat Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman as official representatives, and therefore we did not consider that they could speak on behalf of the U.S. government,” Mr. Shefir said. He added Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman had requested that Mr. Zelensky meet with Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Shefir said in his statement that he had told Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman “that we could consider meeting with Mr. Giuliani, but only publicly and officially and only after the inauguration of the newly elected president.”

The statement from Mr. Shefir, issued in response to an inquiry from the New York Times, did not directly address Mr. Parnas’s claims that he had delivered an ultimatum about American aid in general and Mr. Pence’s attendance at the inauguration. A representative for Mr. Zelensky did not respond to a request for further comment.

Mr. Bondy, Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, challenged Mr. Shefir’s characterization. “It would simply defy reason,” he said, “for Mr. Shefir to have attended a meeting with Mr. Parnas if he did not believe Mr. Parnas spoke for the president, and also for Mr. Parnas not to have conveyed the president’s message at this meeting.”

Mr. Pence did not attend the inauguration. His office said in response to questions from The Times that it had told Ukrainian officials on May 13, a week before the swearing-in, that the vice president would not be there.

Pence, Lev & Igor, Trumpanzee, Rudy-- The Gang's All Here

It Isn't Just McConnell-- Is McCarthy Also Plotting With China To Become A Colonial Power Over the U.S.?

That's McCarthy with Stella Li and Wang Chuanfu

People who don't follow politics closely still don't know who California Rep. Kevin McCarthy is, even though he's the Republican House Leader and Trump's chief protagonist in Congress. The DCCC never runs a candidate against him-- even though CA-23 is now a minority-majority district-- and has been hostile towards local Democrats who have tried taking him on in the past. Around 38% of the people who live in the district are Hispanic and the DCCC hasn't done a voter registration drive there ever. Cheri Bustos plans to skip CA-23 again this cycle.

Yesterday, Scott Paul, president of the non-partisan Alliance For American Manufacturing, was considerably less complacent about McCarthy than Bustos is. He wrote that it is outrageous that "McCarthy went out of his way to stop a bipartisan effort to prevent China from dominating U.S. transit systems."

There are widespread national security concerns-- shared by bipartisan Members of Congress-- about China’s role in building U.S. rail cars and buses. But McCarthy used his leadership power to strip language from a recent spending bill that would have limited Chinese companies from building transit.

Fortunately, new bipartisan legislation aims to stop companies with ties to China’s government from building U.S. trains and buses.

I recently testified before Congress and exposed China’s government plan to take over the U.S. transit market by any means necessary.

Chinese government-owned companies severely underbid on U.S. transit contracts, like ones to build new subway cars or electric buses. But unlike companies that operate in a free market, these companies aren’t out to make money-- they’re merely the vehicle China is using to take over the system.

One of these companies is Build Your Dreams (BYD), which makes electric buses. But China has even grander ambitions for BYD-- it wants to use it to eventually dominate the global auto market.

Well, BYD contacted McCarthy about blocking language that would have prevented bus or rail manufacturers supported by the Chinese government from winning transit contracts.

And McCarthy complied.

There are 90,000 high-wage jobs up and down the U.S. transit supply chain. If China were to control the U.S. transit market, most of those jobs are likely to disappear-- all at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, who are footing the bill for transit projects.

And if BYD gets its way and does eventually dominate the auto industry, nearly 900,000 well-paying jobs are at risk.

That’s not the only concern, either.

Security experts warn that China could use facial-recognition technology or other means to spy on Americans. Giving China access to building high-tech railcars and buses also opens us up to being hacked, and even threatens the Defense Department, which relies on freight rail to move sensitive equipment.

Kevin McCarthy might not want to put a stop to this threat, but I do-- and I bet you do, too.

What China is attempting to do is a kind of economic colonialism. Michigan Republican Congressman Paul Mitchell told the Washington Post that three of BYD’s five board members are connected to the Chinese government in some form, and that the company has also raked in $338 million in grants from China. Zachary Kahn, BYD Motors lobbyist, lied to Congress on May 16 when he claimed China doesn't control the company.

BYD was savvy enough to start building a factory in Lancaster in McCarthy's district when the GOP still controlled the House. But, even in the minority, he has still been delivering for the Chinese Communist government project. On top of that, the president of BYD Motors, Stella Li, launders Chinese money into McCarthy's accounts (as well into Mike Pence's PAC, the Great America Committee).

McCarthy’s intervention was striking because the close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump sought to protect Chinese interests at a time when Trump and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill are attempting to curb Beijing’s access to US markets, particularly in industries deemed vital to national security.

Last week, Trump put Chinese telecoms giant Huawei on a trade blacklist that severely restricts its access to U.S. technology. The action leaves about 90 days for companies to do some business with Huawei.

McCarthy’s move to protect a Chinese company’s interests frustrated even some fellow Republicans because they have warned repeatedly that allowing Chinese-backed firms access to U.S. infrastructure systems could pose a national security risk.

Lawmakers of both major parties have complained that U.S. tax dollars should not be used to support projects that benefit foreign companies.

...Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy, defended the congressman’s actions. He said McCarthy has long advocated for companies in his district and denied any connection between McCarthy’s receipt of campaign contributions from BYD and his actions on Capitol Hill.

“McCarthy is proud to support job creation for his constituents and community,” Sparks said.

McCarthy’s work on the transit issue affecting BYD began last year and continued for several months, culminating in a February spending bill that omitted the ban on Chinese-backed companies getting federal transit contracts.

BYD officials initially contacted McCarthy’s office because the Senate had approved such a prohibition, which would have applied to bus or rail manufacturers supported by the Chinese government and would have prevented them from winning state or local contracts that use Federal Transit Administration dollars, as such contracts often do.

Sparks confirmed McCarthy’s aides listened to the issues BYD raised about the bill.

A House version of the bill, which McCarthy supported, exempted bus manufacturers from this prohibition, according to McCarthy’s office-- a key provision that would have protected BYD.

Senate negotiators wanted their broader, bipartisan restrictions pushed into the final law, but McCarthy objected, according to three officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks.

Ultimately, all of the proposed restrictions were scrapped because the impasse threatened to cause another government shutdown. Supporters of the stricter Senate version said the goal was to protect U.S. national security and domestic manufacturing.

“I think we’re right to try to protect America’s national security interests but also protect our domestic producers against that sort of unfair competition,” said Senator John Cornyn, an author of the Senate provision.

Trump and his top aides have complained that China unfairly subsidises large companies in a way that puts US firms at a disadvantage, but there has never been a full accounting of how much U.S. government business those firms reap.

The enterprises are either partially owned by the Chinese government or receive financial support from it, and critics say those direct or indirect subsidies give them an unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers.

The Trump administration has engaged in broad trade negotiations with China, which have soured in recent weeks-- in part over the issue of China’s extensive network of government-backed enterprises.

Beyond economic concerns, lawmakers from both parties have said it is dangerous for Chinese-linked firms to have access to U.S.an transit systems because of the potential for espionage or other threats to national security.

Among other things, they have argued that in time, China-backed companies could use facial recognition technology or other means to surveil unsuspecting Americans.

...Business magazine Fast Company last year called BYD “The Biggest Electric Vehicle Company You’ve Never Heard Of.” Forbes in 2017 listed BYD’s billionaire chairman and president, Wang Chuanfu, as one of the richest men in China.

The company has promoted its ties to McCarthy in the past.

At an October 2017 ribbon cutting to expand its Lancaster plant, McCarthy was seated on the stage next to the billionaire, according to a photograph posted on BYD’s website.

“I am proud that BYD has chosen to expand their facility here in Lancaster,” BYD’s website quotes McCarthy as saying.

“As BYD continues to develop cutting edge technology that helps transform the transportation industry here in the Antelope Valley and around the country, this investment will help create jobs in our community, keep Lancaster on the forefront of technological advancement, and put emission-free vehicles on our streets.”

One month before the event, BYD’s Li made several political donations that benefited groups tied to McCarthy, according to the Federal Election Commission. She gave US$1,350 to Kevin McCarthy for Congress, US$2,700 to California Victory 2018 and US$1,350 to the Great America Committee.

Li had never given McCarthy or either of the political action committees money before that time, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Frank Girardot, spokesman for BYD Motors, said the donations were made as part of a political fundraising event but disputed any impropriety.

“If you’re going to characterise this as being some kind of influence type thing, nothing could be further from the truth,” Girardot said.

...BYD has faced scrutiny for years. Some Democrats have accused BYD of manufacturing batteries for its vehicles in China and then shipping the unfinished products to the US, where they are put in a special casing and then labelled in a way that allows them to qualify under “Buy America” restrictions.

The Buy America designation is crucial in order for the company to qualify for certain contracts funded by US taxpayer dollars.

BYD officials have denied accusations that they are not properly adhering to the rules, insisting that the company’s buses meet or exceed Buy America requirements.

Back to Paul Mitchell, who represents blue collar suburbs north of Detroit (Macomb, St. Clair, Lapeer, Sanilac, Tuscola and Huron counties), said that "Whether this is technically state-owned or state-influenced, we have a problem here. What’s been made abundantly clear by the Chinese government is they plan to assume a dominant position in the world by 2025 in all aspects, including economic. This is a threat to the security of this nation, so let’s not dress this up and say that BYD is not state-owned."

How Many House Republicans Are Willing To Commit Political Suicide Defending Alabama's Abortion Ban?

Please don't spread this document around. It's Top Secret

I laughed at Jeremy Peters' stupid assessment of the abortion controversy when he first beclowned himself at the NY Times on May 16 by announcing the Democrats are doomed because of the GOP's brilliant abortion strategy (Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, at al). Then yesterday, it was time for another laugh at poor Peters' expense. I think I can squeeze in one or two more laughs over this. First a really easy and direct metric: a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released today shows that "Americans have become more supportive of abortion rights over the past year, even as a wave of Republican-controlled state governments have imposed new restrictions. The poll found that 58% of American adults said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, up from 50% who said that in a similar poll that ran in July 2018... Eighty percent of respondents told Reuters/Ipsos they support abortion in cases of rape or incest," flying right into the face of the Republican Party strategy and "brilliance."

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the GOP minority leader, sees what's coming because of these stupid decisions in Republican-controlled states to end women's choice. Many members of Congress whose districts aren't blood red enough need independent voters to win elections; they're seeing how badly the announcement of the ban is being taken, especially in suburbs. Nevertheless, the very right wing Republican Study Committee is urging Republicans to defend the ban, in some cases, by committing political suicide.They distributed a silly document that tell members to say that an abortion would be committing more violence against a woman who was raped or survived incest. They want GOP members to sell the idea that the legislation, which is overwhelmingly unpopular, is "bold new pro-life legislation."

Committing a second violent act with abortion to a woman who has already been victimized by an act of rape or incest could physically or psychologically wound her further... Every single child should be afforded the opportunity to live, regardless of how they were conceived.

The "how to" messaging document is labeled "strictly off-the-record and not to be printed or reproduced by/for the media." I guess that explains why I only got 3 of them rather than the 25-20 I would have normally gotten. The RSC blames the media for the controversy on the bands: "Unfortunately, the media is attempting to use these new developments to create 'gotcha moments' for Republicans and a divide within our party."

McCarthy, who is an anti-choice lunk-head, understands that these bans on Choice-- even in cases of rape or incest-- will mean members like Fred Upton (MI), Brian Mast (FL), David Joyce (OH), Mike Bost (IL), Don Bacon (NE), Lee Zeldin (NY), Peter King (NY), Ross Spano (FL), Pete Stauber (MN), Ken Calvert (CA), Ann Wagner (MO), Steve Chabot (OH), Pete Olson (TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), John Katko (NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Rodney Davis (IL), Mike Kelly (PA), Brian Steil (WI), Michael McCaul (TX), Trey Hollingsworth (IN), Mike Gallagher (WI), Tom Reed (NY), Michael Waltz (FL), Chip Roy (TX), Tim Walberg (MI), Andy Barr (KY), Sean Duffy (WI), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Michael Turner (OH), Will Hurd (TX), Rob Woodall's seat (GA), George Holding (NC), Jim Hagedorn (MN), Elise Stefanik (NY), Steve Stivers (OH), Kenny Marchant (TX), Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA), Richard Hudson (NC), Scott Perry (PA), to name a few off the top of my head, are in jeopardy. Some of them-- Cathy McMorris Rogers and Elise Stefanik, for example-- are already distancing themselves from the extremist abortion bans.

McCarthy made it clear it's up to each member top decide how to respond to these bans. He gave his members very different advice from the RSC: "I believe in pro-life. I believe in the protection of children. I do not believe in infanticide, I believe in three exemptions only: Life of the mother, rape and incest. Members run and take positions. It's a personal position, and they have to stake out their own personal position, just as I have." It sounds like Monkey-boy coordinated his own message with McCarthy:

By the way, this Republican candidate for the open GA-07 seat already has committed political suicide with his introductory campaign video. This will certainly work with extremists in the Republican Party, but that's not enough to get anyone elected. Most voters in Gwinnett County-- and even Forsyth County-- are not ready to hitch their wagons to the candidacy of some violent asshole threatening to bring a military rifle to Congress to shoot Alexandria Ocasio and Bernie Sanders. Gwinnett County is very different now than it was when Newt Gingrich was be elected there. Stacey Abrams won the county and the congressional district in her gubernatorial race and progressive Democrat Marqus Cole is planning to win the congressional seat in 2020. A choice between Cole and the sociopath running on this video-- Harrison Floyd-- would give Cole a landslide win.





A few days ago, Aaron Blake did a little analysis for Washington Post readers that's worth thinking about at this moment: Why Democrats Shouldn't Assume Impeachment Would Backfire. He notes that Pelosi is pushing back against pressure from Democrats to begin impeachment hearings-- and even denying any such pressure exists. "Pelosi’s reluctance to go down this path," he wrote, "is clearly a political calculation. She has emphasized that impeachment is a divisive process for the country and said Trump is 'just not worth it.' It’s pretty apparent that she and others believe it could blow back on Democrats, especially given that a majority of Americans are opposed to impeachment at this point and it’s highly unlikely to succeed in actually removing Trump from office. And much of the punditry and analysis on this topic seems to agree that there’s more potential downside than upside. But what if those assumptions are wrong?"

Today, there is actually time for the impeachment proceedings to register with the American people. The process can take as little as a few months, meaning Democrats need not even let it linger into the 2020 calendar year.

And witness what happened to Clinton and his party as time moved on. While that 73 percent approval rating was his highest ever, it was really just a blip on the screen. Clinton’s approval had hovered in the 60s before impeachment began, and after it was completed, he spent the remainder of his presidency in the high 50s and low 60s.

Then his party lost the presidential election in 2000. So, however bad a blunder impeachment supposedly was, it didn’t prevent the GOP from winning back the presidency two years later, which is actually a more similar timeline to the one we have today.

Clinton’s popularity is another key point here. He was popular before and after impeachment, which meant people were more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Trump isn’t and has never been popular. Polling also shows a large majority of Americans are receptive to the idea that he has committed crimes.

There’s also the nature of the conduct involved. While Clinton was accused by independent counsel Kenneth Starr of obstruction, his alleged obstruction pertained to a highly, well, personal matter-- and one that most Americans regarded as such. Trump’s alleged obstruction, meanwhile, pertains to how he has carried out his duties as president.

The Clinton scandal was relatively simple. He engaged in an affair, lied about it and covered it up. Trump’s actions, by contrast, are more complex and difficult to digest and put in the correct legal context. There is an argument to be made that impeachment proceedings could shine a spotlight on his actions and make them register with the American people-- the vast, vast majority of whom have not and never will read the Mueller report.

The argument against all of this is that Trump is already a wounded president, but one with a strong base. Impeachment proceedings could inflame and motivate that base. Polls show 54 to 56 percent of registered voters say they won’t support Trump in the 2020 election. So if you’re a Democrat, why mess with those fundamentals and potentially make Trump look more like the victim of a “witch hunt” he has long claimed to be? Polls also show Americans prefer Democrats to simply investigating Trump. Why not just proceed as-is and hope that you continue to have what appears to be a good shot at unseating him?

There are compelling arguments both for doing it and not doing it, but the argument that this would hurt Democrats-- or even just that it would be more likely to harm than help-- is based on plenty of guesswork. Nobody should over-extrapolate the lessons of 1998-99 onto 2019.

And of course, whatever clear-eyed strategy calculations Pelosi and Co. might be making could soon be out the window, as their own conference becomes more adamant about the moral imperative to impeach.