Money Money Money Makes Chuck Schumer's World Go Round

Picture Chuck Schumer playing either Liza Minnelli or Joel Grey in this 1972 film, released while he was still in law school, earning a law degree he never used once, going straight into vacuuming up money from special interests to finance his grubby political career. And now, he's demanding that other Democrats do the same-- or else. In 2006 Schumer was a loyal Harry Reid henchman and ran the DSCC. One race I remember well was when he recruited a pointless party hack, John Morrison, a Wall Street puppet then serving as Montana state auditor. Progressives were all in on state Senate president Jon Tester who ran a populist campaign and cursed out Schumer, who proclaimed he was too liberal to win in Montana, daily. Despite all Schumer's efforts and sabotage-- including demanding all institutional money go to Morrison--Tester beat Morrison/Schumer overwhelmingly, 60.77% to 35.48%. Tester then went on to prove Schumer wrong in November by beating Republican incumbent Conrad Burns 199,845 (49.16%) to 196,283 (48.29%). Schumer was certain Tester would lose for two reasons:

1- Schumer hates progressives with all his being
2- Burns outspent Tester, $9,167,154 to $5,587,467

That easily describes Schumer's perspective in every Senate race since then. He recruits conservatives to and tells them the only thing that matters is money. He's often wrong, but being wrong has never stopped Chuck Schumer. Yesterday, writing for the National Review, Jack Crowe reported that Schumer has been up to his old tricks in North Carolina, working to make sure a conservative lackey gets the nomination in case an anti-Trump wave is big enough to take out Republican incumbent Thom Tillis. Ideas, character and values have no place in Schumerian electoral calculus-- just national trends and money for mass media. It's like he's still living in the era Cabaret won its 8 Oscars (Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Song, Best Art Direction and Best Sound. The Godfather won Best Picture, not a dishonorable loss. A leaked tape shows that Schumer, wrote Crowe, "has taken a heavy-handed, top-down approach to selecting Democrats to challenge vulnerable Senate Republicans this cycle, putting his thumb on the scale for candidates willing to shun grassroots outreach in favor of a smile-and-dial, fundraising-first approach."

In the recording, taken during a September 26 talk at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, North Carolina state senator Jeff Jackson describes the experience of courting Schumer while he was considering running for the Democratic nomination to challenge the state’s incumbent Republican senator, Thom Tillis, in 2020.

Jackson had grand ambitions: When he flew to Washington to meet with Schumer earlier this year, he told the minority leader that he was going to do “100 town halls in 100 days” and talk to as many North Carolinians as possible to get a feel for the electorate’s priorities. But Schumer, who had previously dispatched his staff to meet with Jackson at his home, had other plans.

“Wrong answer,” Schumer said when confronted with Jackson’s grassroots strategy, according to the account of their conversation Jackson gave at UNC Charlotte. “We want you to spend the next 16 months in a windowless basement raising money and then we’re going to spend 80 percent of it on negative ads about Tillis.”

Jackson explained that, while he didn’t technically require Schumer’s support to run, the minority leader’s control over the funds disbursed by major donors and the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), made running without his support an impossibility.

  “So, did I need his permission to run for that race? No,” Jackson said during his address at UNC Charlotte. “But talking to my family and seeing the opportunity we have-- sort of the obligation we have to try and take the majority to end gerrymandering in 2020-- and realizing that I probably wasn’t going to have the support of this group, which is important financially because I ain’t rich... I mean, they kind of tipped the scales in favor of not running.”

And if the lack of funding wasn’t enough, Jackson said he was turned off by Schumer’s insistence on running an entirely negative campaign against the incumbent, Tillis-- a preference that Jackson attributed to “artistic differences” between himself and the minority leader during his UNC talk.

Instead of Jackson, Schumer and national Democrats are throwing their considerable support behind Cal Cunningham, a former state legislator and Army veteran who, in apparent accordance with Schumer’s wishes, has given just three interviews since announcing his candidacy in June. Reached for comment, Cunningham’s spokesman denied that the candidate has eschewed public appearances and grassroots activism in favor of fundraising.

...A copy of Cunningham’s campaign schedule obtained by National Review lists 18 appearances at various barbecues, galas, and church services from August 10 to September 29. During his remarks at UNC, Jackson dismissed these appearances as meaningless window-dressing compared to the town halls he’d planned for his own campaign.

“Yes,” Jackson said when asked if Cunningham has been in “a windowless basement” since announcing his candidacy. “He hasn’t held a public event. He didn’t have a kickoff. This is like month three. He goes to Democratic-party events if you follow him, right-- places where they’re going to say, ‘And everybody, Cal Cunningham is here!’ And he gets to be like, ‘Hey!’” (Jackson did not respond to a request for comment, but announced his endorsement of Cunningham hours after he was contacted and learned of the existence of the audio recording.)

...Cunningham’s chief primary rival, state senator Erica Smith, who announced her candidacy roughly five months before him, has already taken note of the national party’s intrusion in the race.

“The special interest groups and big, wealthy donors out of New York are trying to buy this Senate seat, and it’s just shameful and it is embarrassing,” she told Crabtree. “I just worry about the people I serve in North Carolina. We don’t have the same demographics as New York, and this Senate seat is not for sale.”

Reached by phone, Smith lashed out at Schumer and the DSCC for being dishonest about their support for Cunningham, telling National Review that Schumer’s public and private stances on candidates were “diametrically opposed.” She claimed that shortly before she learned Cunningham was fundraising off of the DSCC’s email list, Schumer had assured her that he had not endorsed any particular candidate and would remain agnostic for the time being.

Smith also pointed out that in addition to avoiding appearances, Cunningham appears to be avoiding public-policy commitments altogether. The only information or interactive features on his website concern donations.

“We can’t find his policy positions either,” Smith tweeted in August in response to a message one constituent wrote about the difficulty she’s had in identifying where Cunningham stands on any policy she cares about.

The same pattern, in which Democratic leadership handpicks a preferred candidate to run against a vulnerable Senate Republican, is also playing out in Maine and Iowa. [Jack Crowe appears to have forgotten Colorado, where Schumer has decided the Democratic nominee will be Frackenlooper and has demanded that unions directly their contributions to him and not to Andrew Romanoff, who many working people prefer by a very wide margin.]

In Maine, incumbent Republican senator Susan Collins is sure to face a tough reelection amid the liberal backlash to her support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Schumer and the DSCC have made clear that their preferred candidate is state House speaker Sarah Gideon. Like Cunningham, Gideon has carefully avoided the spotlight and policy commitments. And like Cunningham, she’s benefited from her deference to Washington: She raised more than $1 million in the first ten days after she announced her candidacy in June, and she’s reaped the high-profile endorsements that follow from being taken under Schumer’s wing.

Like Cunningham’s opponent, Smith, Gideon’s opponent, Betsy Sweet, has taken notice.

“An open letter to Democratic leadership,” reads an August fundraising email from Sweet’s campaign. “How many times. How many times are you going to interfere with primary races by picking an opponent before the people do?”

In Iowa, it’s Theresa Greenfield, a real-estate-development executive and first-time candidate, who has been chosen to follow the Schumer playbook. The DSCC endorsed Greenfield just three days after she announced her candidacy in June, shunning J. D. Scholten, who vaulted to national acclaim last year after nearly beating the racist Republican representative Steve King in the state’s fourth district.

“We don’t need a primary,” Schumer reportedly told Scholten on a phone call at the end of May.

Michael Franken is the best of the Iowa senatorial candidates-- but not Schumer's favorite. So Schumer is trying to destroy his campaign by telling donors to not give him any money and by working hard to get a candidate nominated who is only known for her own corruption, a candidate who can't win. "Iowans," said Franken, "are first-on-deck in choosing Presidential nominees, so we should be more than capable of picking the best U.S. Senate candidate, as well. I didn’t ask a party chief’s permission to serve my country for many decades and I shouldn’t need to ask permission to continue that record of service in the US Senate."

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a candidate for the empty U.S. Senate seat in her state, made a reputation for herself as a successful corruption fighter. That's a major turn-off for Schumer, who is more afraid of reformers than Dracula is of garlic. This morning Maggie told us that "The Washington establishment wants to keep big money in politics and keep progressive leaders out. That's not how democracy works. Voters-- not Chuck Schumer, not special interests, not corporations--choose their elected leaders. All the money in the world isn't enough to buy establishment leaders the bold vision and core values that voters want. I'm not running on big money or poll-tested talking points. I'm running to make sure every American has health care; to finally address the climate crisis; and to get big money out of politics once and for all."

The three billboards above-- in Colorado, Maine and North Carolina-- appear to be the work of the NRSC, even if they really look like they were designed and played by Little Chucky Schmucky. My dream for 2022: Schumer vs AOC. I pledge to max out.

Trump Is Abandoning Family Farms. Will Family Farmers Abandon Trump?

Trump doesn't own a dog; he doesn't understand that relationship. In fact, he hates animals. And he laughs at farmers-- even if was, after all, rural counties that made him president. The AP reported that on Tuesday Trump's Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, a longtime wealthy exploiter of family farmers, went to a town hall type of event at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin where he told reporters that the government isn't interested in propping up small family famers any longer. "In America," he said, "the big get bigger and the small go out. I don't think in America we, for any small business, we have a guaranteed income or guaranteed profitability."

Perdue's visit comes as Wisconsin dairy farmers are wrestling with a host of problems, including declining milk prices, rising suicide rates, the transition to larger farms with hundreds or thousands of animals and Trump's international trade wars.

Wisconsin, which touts itself as America's Dairyland on its license plates, has lost 551 dairy farms in 2019 after losing 638 in 2018 and 465 in 2017, according to data from the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The Legislature's finance committee voted unanimously last month to spend an additional $200,000 to help struggling farmers deal with depression and mental health problems.

Jerry Volenec, a fifth generation Wisconsin dairy farmer with 330 cows, left the Perdue event feeling discouraged about his future.

"What I heard today from the secretary of agriculture is there's no place for me," Volenec told reporters. "Can I get some support from my state and federal government? I feel like we're a benefit to society."

Getting bigger at the expense of smaller operations like his is "not a good way to go," said Darin Von Ruden, president of Wisconsin Farmers Union and a third generation dairy farmer who runs a 50-cow organic farm.

"Do we want one corporation owning all the food in our country?" he said to reporters.

Perdue said he believes the 2018 farm bill should help farmers stay afloat. The bill reauthorizes agriculture and conservation programs at a rough cost of $400 billion over five years or $867 billion over 10 years. But he warned that small farms will still struggle to compete.

"It's very difficult on an economy of scale with the capital needs and all the environmental regulations and everything else today to survive milking 40, 50, or 60 or even 100 cows," he said.

Perdue held a town hall meeting with farmers and agricultural groups to kick off the expo. The former Georgia governor seemed to charm the crowd with his southern accent and jokes about getting swiped in the face by a cow's tail.

Jeff Lyon, general manager for FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative in Madison, asked Perdue for his thoughts on Trump's trade war with China.

Trump's administration has long accused China of unfair trade practices and has imposed escalating rounds of tariffs on Chinese imports to press for concessions. The administration alleges that Beijing steals and forces foreign companies to hand over trade secrets, unfairly subsidizes Chinese companies and engages in cyber-theft of intellectual property. China's countermoves have been especially hard on American farmers because they target U.S. agricultural exports.

According to a September analysis by the U.S. Dairy Export Council, U.S. dairy solids exports to China fell by 43 percent overall in the 11 months starting in July 2018, when China enacted the first round of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. dairy products. About 3.7 billion pounds of U.S. farmers' milk had to find other markets during that span, the analysis found.

Chinese leaders have said they're ready to talk but will take whatever steps are necessary to protect their rights.

Perdue responded to Lyon's question by calling the Chinese "cheaters."

"They toyed us into being more dependent on their markets than them on us. That's what the problem has been," he said. "They can't expect to come into our country freely and fairly without opening up their markets."

The secretary said the Trump administration is working to expand other international markets, including targeting India, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan and Malaysia. He said he had expected Congress to ratify a new trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA but noted that Washington has been distracted over the last few days, an allusion to impeachment proceedings against Trump ramping up last week.

I asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates in districts with big rural constituencies how this kind of thinking plays out. We've been discussing this with North Carolina progressive pastor and candidate (NC-02) Jason Butler all cycle. This morning he reiterated what he's been campaigning on. "Alas, the Republican policy is revealed: push out the small business farmer and support big corporations. Counter to their 'small government' rhetoric this is their policy as they are beholden to big donors, big corporations, and big special interests. Nearly every Saturday I go out to local farmers markets in my district and I see small farm after small farm creating entrepenurial farm to table business models that are helping to meet the demands of our growing families. Farmers are the backbone of our nation and we need to create policies that support both big and small farmers. No Mr. Perdue, you are wrong. This is America and there is a future for everyone here and we will work to reverse your damaging ego-driven trade policies to ensure a flourishing future for every farmer-- no matter how big or small.

Maggie Toulouse Oliver is running for the Senate in a largely rural state, New Mexico. "The Trump Administration," she told me, "is giving up on family farmers. That's not acceptable. Cattle, pecans, green chile-- you name it, we've got a family in New Mexico working the land to raise it or grow it to put food on other people's tables. Family farms are a key part of New Mexico's heritage and economy. You better believe that when I'm in the Senate, I will fight to help New Mexico farmers and ranchers."

J.D. Scholten is running for Congress in Iowa's most rural district, Steve King's beleaguered IA-04. The district is 75% rural and gave Trump a 60.9% to 33.5% win over Hillary. The soy bean farmers in his district know better than anyone that Trump has destroyed the soy bean market forever and that it's never coming back. They voted for Trump and he ruined their lives.

J.D. told us that "King has left behind the renewable fuel folks for years. It didn’t shock anyone when he endorsed one of the biggest anti-ethanol folks in D.C., Ted Cruz, for president in 2016. The corn growers and the renewable fuels industry are looking for solutions and leaders. If we are going to get carbon-neutral or decarbon, renewable fuels are a part of that equation. But instead, Trump’s EPA is rewarding oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron with RFS waivers, saving them hundreds of millions of dollars while corn growers and folks who work in the renewable fuels industry are struggling just to get by. Trump and his cronies like King will keep lining the wallets of the oil industry at the expense of our farmers." Yesterday, after Perdue's bone-headed remarks, J.D. put out a press release with a sharp title: "Secretary Perdue's Comments Are 'Middle Finger' To Family Farmers." He said that "Dairy farmers across the country have been struggling. For Secretary Perdue to say that there’s ‘no guarantee’ that small dairy farms will survive is essentially giving the middle finger to family farmers. In reality, it’s policy that dictates their survival. If we continue allowing agriculture monopolies to dictate the markets, we will continue down this dangerous path of consolidation. If we enforce our antitrust laws, we will give farmers a chance."

Progressive activist Kathy Ellis is taking Trump lapdog Jason Smith on this cycle and she told me that "In the past year, Missouri has seen a 96% increase in farm bankruptcies. Our local economy is suffering in the 8th District, and while Jason Smith visits farmers and takes pictures on his 'farm tour,' he isn't working towards any real, sustainable solutions for our agricultural economy. Perhaps Rep. Smith could have less photo opps and instead ask farmers what they'd like to see change in the district. They know best, and Smith has continually ignored them to instead be a rubber stamp for Trump's damaging policies. Farmers are forced to choose between continuing in the work that they love and providing for their families. All of this, combined with Big Agriculture taking over many of the once local-run farms, has hurt our local economy. While many farmers supported Trump in 2016, many are now telling us that Trump's policies are hurting them. Many are losing hope."

Nate McMurray is the progressive Democrat running in the big rural/suburban district in western New York where Trump's best friend in Congress, Chris Collins just resigned and plead guilty to being a slimy swamp creature. Nate noted today that "Trump is killing the very places that voted for him. The people of NY27 trusted him, and he’s taken that trust and used it on trade wars and a failed immigration policy that hurts our farmers. We are in an emergency situation."

Teresa Tomlinson, until very recently the mayor of Macon, is very aware of the Perdue family. She's running for the Georgia U.S. Senate seat held by the other one, David Perdue. She noted that Sonny's "recent comments make clear what we already knew: Trump and his administration don’t give a rip about family farms and the critical role they play in feeding America and the entire world. After DC dysfunction prevented Hurricane Michael disaster relief aid from reaching those hardest hit by the storm for more than 200 days, Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue literally added insult to injury when he called family farmers whiners and made clear the Trump administration has no intention of helping to level the playing field for family farmers when corporate Agribusiness continues to gobble up more and more of the market and push out multi-generational family farms."

Audrey Denney's opponent is Trump enabler Doug LaMalfa in the northeast corner of California, one of the most rural districts in California. She told us that "the Trump Administration policies are directly hurting farmers all over the country. According to the American Farm Bureau, farm bankruptcy filings for 2019 through June were up 13 percent from 2018 and loan delinquency rates are on the rise. North State farmers are asking for trade policies that expand markets and immigration reform that helps them get the labor they need. Congressman LaMalfa-- a farmer himself-- has failed to be an advocate for the industry he represents. I’ve worked in agriculture education my entire career and can’t wait to fight for North State farmers and ranchers when they send me to DC... Every year it becomes harder and harder for farmer and ranchers to make their work pencil. Tariffs are adding increasing pressure on farmers’ already razor thin profit margins-- add this to an inability to find and retain skilled labor-- and many North State farmers are really hurting. Every multi-generational family famers’ nightmare is being the generation that loses the farm. My family lived that reality with the 2008 recession-- this is a personal issue for me."

This is also something specifically addressed by Bernie in his platform: Policies Leveling the Playing Field for Farmers and Farmworkers. "Corporate control over agriculture: We need to address corporate consolidation and control of our food and agriculture system-- all the way up the food chain from seed companies; fruit, vegetable, and grain growers; food processors; food distributors; and grocery chains. When markets become too concentrated, they begin to act more like monopolies than free markets."

• Enact and enforce Roosevelt-style trust-busting laws to stop monopolization of markets and break-up existing massive agribusinesses; Place a moratorium on future mergers of large agribusiness corporations and break-up existing massive agribusinesses. According to Food & Water Watch, “consolidation in the pork packing industry has contributed to the 82% decline in the number of hog farms in Iowa between 1982 and 2007.” In our country, just four companies slaughter 85% of beef cattle. USDA reports that between 2000 and 2015 "soybean sales from the largest four sellers rose from 51 to 76%." Additionally, after the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the two largest conglomerates now control 78% of the corn seed market. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, you know what he would say to these behemoth agribusiness companies: He would say, break them up. And, working together, that is exactly what we are going to do.
• Place a moratorium on vertical integration of large agribusiness corporations. As Food & Water Watch details “Pork packers often secure livestock through contract marketing arrangements with farmers. Farmers agree to deliver a certain number of hogs at a future date. These contracts give farmers a guaranteed market for their hogs, but large contract buyers can extract lower prices and distort and conceal prices.” According to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, 42% of hogs and 96% of chickens in the US were grown under production contracts where the farmer never owns the animal. We must impose an immediate moratorium on agribusiness mergers.
• Reestablish and strengthen the Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the agency that oversees antitrust in the packing industry. Lobbyists and the Trump administration have gutted GIPSA and blocked rules helping farmers. As the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition details, “The 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to write regulations to empower GIPSA to provide basic protections for farmers who do business with these companies. But when USDA tried to write the regulations, the meat and poultry industries launched a full-scale attack to get GOP lawmakers to pass appropriations riders to block USDA from finalizing those farmer protections.” Working together, we will restore the agency that enforces antitrust laws in the meatpacking industry-- an agency that Trump eliminated.
• Ensure farmers have the Right to Repair their own equipment. In rural America today, farmers can’t even repair their own tractors or other equipment because of the greed of companies like John Deere. As noted in Wired Magazine, “Farmers can’t change engine settings, can’t retrofit old equipment with new features, and can’t modify their tractors to meet new environmental standards on their own” without going through an authorized repair agent. When we are in the White House, we will pass a national right-to-repair law that gives every farmer in America full rights over the machinery they buy.
• Reform patent law to protect farmers from predatory patent lawsuits from seed corporations. We cannot continue to allow Monsanto to control 80% of U.S. corn and more than 90% of U.S. soybean seed patents – a situation that has only gotten worse after the Trump administration approved Monsanto’s disastrous merger with Bayer. We are going to reform our patent laws to protect farmers from predatory patent lawsuits from companies like Monsanto.
• Change regulations to improve markets for family farms-- Strengthen organic standards so behemoth agribusinesses cannot circumvent rules and cut out small producers who make investments in their communities and environment. We must begin by reversing the erosion of standards in recent years. According to the Organic Trade Association, The organic food market is now a $50 billion market, and over the last five years, the organic-food business has grown 10% annually, and makes up about 6% of the total food sold in America. The Trump administration has been working to rescind organic rules that organic farmers want. Those certification rules strengthen the sales pitch of organic products to consumers. When we are in the White House, we will undo this damage.
• Allow meat slaughtered at a state-inspected facility to be sold across state lines. Foreign meat that has “equivalent” inspection standards as our federal standards can be sold across state lines freely in the United States, while state inspected beef cannot, even when those state standards meet or exceed federal standards. This puts domestic producers at a disadvantage. We must level the playing field.

Fair trade deals: Our current trade policies encourage overproduction and push low-cost commodities on foreign countries, effectively undercutting and destroying local agricultural systems while enriching multinational corporations. Our agricultural trade policies should not threaten the domestic food security of the U.S. or any of our trading partners.

• Classify food supply security as a national security issue. We need trade policies that safeguard food security at home and around the globe. Over 800 million people worldwide are affected by undernourishment or food deprivation, including millions of small farmers threatened by climate change, volatile prices, and unfair trade practices. By 2050, food demand is expected to grow by 60% while at the same time the amount of arable land is estimated to shrink due to climate change, urbanization, and soil degradation. We’ve already seen how food insecurity and conflict are linked in ongoing famines in East Africa, South Sudan, and Yemen. When we are in the White House, food supply security will be the core of our national security.
• Develop fair trade partnerships that do not drive down the prices paid to food producers and that, instead, protect farmers here and abroad.
• Enforce country-of-origin-labeling so companies cannot import foreign meat for slaughter, passing it off as American grown to undercut domestic producers. Unfair trade policy has let foreign countries overturn our country-of-origin-labeling laws even though 90% of the American people support country-of-origin labeling. We must respect the will of the people and allow them to know where their food is coming from.

Ensure a fair price for family farmers: Independent family farms have been decimated by past and current farm policies, in the pursuit of short-run economic efficiency. The food security of the nation still depends on farmers on family-scale farms who are committed to being good stewards of the land and good citizens of their communities and nation.

• Enact supply management programs to prevent shortages and surpluses to ensure farmers make a living wage and ensure consumers receive a high-quality, stable, and secure supply of agricultural goods.
• Re-establish a national grain and feed reserve to help alleviate the need for government subsidies and ensure we have a food supply in case of extreme weather events. As we saw with the most recent flooding in the Midwest, we can lose a huge amount of agricultural land and goods in a single weather event.
• Reform agricultural subsidies so that more federal support goes to small- and mid-sized family farms, rather than that support going disproportionately to a handful of the largest producers.
• Transition toward a parity system to guarantee farmers a living wage. That means setting price floors and matching supply with demand so farmers are guaranteed the cost of production and family living expenses. • Pass comprehensive disaster coverage and allocate payments to independent family farming operations.
• Provide relief to help prevent independent family farm bankruptcies, which in areas like the Midwest are at their highest level in a decade.
• Help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers get fair access to land and resources. When the average age of farmers is 58 and 95% of farmers are white, we need to help new farmers transition on to the land and ensure farming is a viable profession to support their families.
• Strengthen oversight of foreign acquisitions of American farmland in order to prevent that farmland from being controlled by foreign governments and foreign corporations. According to the New Food Economy, “the most recent figures from USDA show that roughly 25 million acres, about 2% of our national total of 930,000,000 acres, are in foreign hands. And the pace of investment seems to be picking up.” This is a national security issue and we must treat it like one.
• Invest in beginning farmers to purchase land and equipment for sustainable farming.
• Allocate government funding to purchase easements to ensure land stays in agriculture.
• Incentivize community ownership of farmland to allow more people to work the land and produce food for local consumers.
• Make government owned farmland available as incubator farms for beginning farmers.
• Incentivize programs-- including 4H, extension programs, or others-- to ensure diversity of age, race, gender, ability, and sexual orientation so we begin to eradicate systems and cultures that prevent fair access to agricultural land and opportunities. In 2017, 95% of all farmers accounted for were white, with black farmers reporting ownership declining at ten times the rate it did for white farmers. That’s on top of Black farmers losing 80% of their land between 1910 and 2007, in no small part due to systematic discrimination. Today only about 5% of black farmers reporting earning over $50,000, compared to 15% of white farmers.. 52% of American women farmers said they felt gender discrimination. When we are in the White House we will eradicate discrimination in agricultural land and opportunities.

Rebuild regional agricultural infrastructure: Past and current policies that support large corporate infrastructure have destroyed small and medium scale agricultural and food processing infrastructure in rural communities.

• Fund development of local, independent processing, aggregation, and distribution facilities.
• Incentivize rural cooperative business models and utilities, such as rural electric cooperatives, food co-ops, and credit unions. In 2009, of the 2.2 million total farms in this country, 2,389 were farm co-operatives. What we know is that when employees have an ownership stake in their company they will be more productive and they will earn a better living.

Conservatives Like Trump And Biden Don't Back The Idea Of Free College, But New Mexico Is Moving Ahead Anyway

Maggie Toulouse Oliver is New Mexico's Secretary of State and currently the progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Tom Udall is retiring from. This morning she told me, in a statement, that "As a single mom who is still paying off student loans-- and has taken on additional loans to pay for my oldest son's college education-- I know how much this innovative plan will help New Mexicans. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is leading where Washington has failed. I look forward to bringing the lived experience of a single mom who worked her way through college to the U.S. Senate. And I look forward to taking bold New Mexico ideas, like universal free college tuition, with me to D.C. so that we can improve the lives of all American families."

You know how states are supposed to be the petri dish of innovative government? Yesterday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that the state will pay the tuition for all students at New Mexico's 29 public two-year and four-year colleges. Bernie's platform in action! (Needless to say, Republicans and Status Quo Joe oppose these kinds of plans.) New Mexico will use revenues from oil production to pay for the program. Simon Romero and Dana Goldstein broke the story yesterday for the NY Times, emphasizing the universality of the plan and dubbing it "one of the boldest state-led efforts to expand access to higher education. The move comes," they wrote, "as many American families grapple with the rising cost of higher education and as discussions about free public college gain momentum in state legislatures and on the presidential debate stage. Nearly half of the states, including New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have guaranteed free two- or four-year public college to some students. But the New Mexico proposal goes further, promising four years of tuition even to students whose families can afford to pay the sticker price."

“I think we’re at a watershed moment,” said Caitlin Zaloom, a cultural anthropologist at New York University who has researched the impact of college costs on families. “It used to be that a high school degree could allow a young adult to enter into the middle class. We are no longer in that situation. We don’t ask people to pay for fifth grade and we also should not ask people to pay for sophomore year.”

By some measures, the tuition initiative will be the most ambitious in a growing national movement. College costs and student debt have emerged as major issues in the Democratic presidential primary, with two of the leading contenders for the nomination-- Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren-- promising to make all public colleges and universities free. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has a more limited proposal to eliminate community college tuition.

So far, states, not the federal government, have led the way-- sometimes out of a hope that a more educated work force would attract businesses and improve local economies. As of 2018, 17 states had programs promising free college to at least some students, according to an analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of those programs cover tuition only at two-year institutions.

...Like the New York program, the New Mexico plan would cover only tuition, not living expenses, and the funds would be available only after a student drew from existing state aid programs and from federal grants.

But the New Mexico proposal does go further than New York’s Excelsior Scholarship in two regards: It is available to all students, regardless of family income, and it includes funds for adults looking to return to school at community colleges.

“This program is an absolute game changer for New Mexico,” Governor Lujan Grisham said in a statement. “In the long run, we’ll see improved economic growth, improved outcomes for New Mexican workers and families and parents.”

Officials contend that New Mexico would benefit most from a universal approach to tuition assistance. The state’s median household income is $46,744, compared with a national median of $60,336. Most college students in the state also come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds; almost 65 percent of New Mexico undergraduates are among the nation’s neediest students, according to the state’s higher education department.

The new program in New Mexico would be open to recent graduates of high schools or high school equivalency programs in the state, and students must maintain a 2.5 grade point average. In contrast to other states, like Georgia, that have curbed access to public colleges by unauthorized immigrants, New Mexico would open the tuition program to all residents, regardless of immigration status.

Carmen Lopez-Wilson, the deputy secretary of New Mexico’s Higher Education Department, said the program would benefit about 55,000 students a year at an annual cost of $25 million to $35 million. She added that the state was trying to bolster its higher education system, which endured spending cuts of more than 30 percent per student from 2008 to 2018.

“We’re giving money directly to students,” Ms. Lopez-Wilson said. “This is the best way to begin rebuilding the infrastructure of higher education in New Mexico.”

Ms. Lopez-Wilson said the relatively low cost of the program reflected low tuition costs in the state, with many students already receiving forms of assistance. Other states that have less extensive tuition assistance proposals are spending far more.

A year of tuition at the state’s flagship campus, the University of New Mexico, costs $7,556 for state residents. At the state’s largest community college, Central New Mexico Community College, tuition costs are generally less than $3,000 per year.

New Mexico already has some of the lowest debt rates for graduates of four-year colleges. In the class of 2017, they owed $21,237 on average, compared with a national average of $28,650, according to the Institute for College Access & Success.

...[B]oth chambers in New Mexico are controlled by Democrats, and while fiscal conservatives still have considerable sway in the state, legislators have already shown willingness recently to increase spending on public education. State and federal spending on early childhood programs, including prekindergarten, is climbing to $546 million this year in New Mexico, a $135 million increase from the previous year.

In a departure from the belt-tightening after the 2008 financial crisis, New Mexico also gave raises to public-school teachers and the faculty and staff of the University of New Mexico this year.

The free-tuition plan points to the shifting political landscape in New Mexico, traditionally a swing state that was up for grabs by both major parties. It is now emerging as a bastion of Democratic power in the West, standing in contrast to other large oil-producing states controlled by Republicans. At the same time, an oil boom in the Permian Basin shared by New Mexico and Texas is lifting the state’s revenues.

In some ways, the burst of interest in free public college is a return to the nation’s educational past. As recently as the 1970s, some public university systems remained largely tuition-free.

As a bigger and more diverse group of undergraduates entered college in recent decades, costs rose, and policymakers began to promote the idea of a degree as less of a public benefit than a private asset akin to a mortgage, according to Professor Zaloom, of N.Y.U. Many states raised tuition, and students became more reliant on grants and loans.

“We should be looking at the examples from our own history,” Professor Zaloom said. Free college educations from the University of California, the City University of New York and other public systems, she added, have been “some of the most successful engines of mobility in this country.”

When we first endorsed Eva Putzova, one state over in Arizona, she told us she supports "fully publicly funded education from pre-K through college for all. Education is the great equalizer and foundation of any prosperous, civil society. Today, college students are $1.3 trillion in debt. This is a huge burden on them as they start their lives after school and enter the workforce.  We managed to provide a debt-free education to veterans after World War II, and to the baby boom generation as well. In 1969, in Arizona, annual tuition was $272 and one could earn that working in a minimum wage job for 1 month. Today's students in Arizona have to work for more than 6.5 months to pay for their year in college. Imagine what we could achieve if we approached education in a spirit of solidarity: today's graduates working and paying taxes which would allow a new generation to benefit from the same education they once received. Just like healthcare, education should be a right, not a privilege."

This is also of great concern to Milwaukie, Oregon mayor Mark Gamba, the current progressive challenger for the Oregon congressional seat held by conservative Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. It's one of the issues he's running on. "Our current system of secondary education here in America largely sets young people up for failure while theoretically setting them up for success," he told me last night. "Young adults coming out of college with massive debt can’t afford to take a job that pays poorly even though it might be the right stepping stone to the career they’ve always dreamed of, instead they are required to find a job that pays them well enough to keep up with their debt payment. It didn’t used to be this way, it shouldn’t be this way and it isn’t this way in many of the countries we compete with on the world market. Rather than a system of education designed to enrich bankers, we should have a system of education designed to have the most well-educated population in the world. That’s why I’m a strong proponent for free public college education for anyone carrying a decent GPA out of high school."

Jennifer Christie, the progressive candidate in an open Indiana congressional district in the suburbs north of Indianapolis, got back from walking the UAW picket line last night and wrote me that she "worked very hard to pay for my own college education and to pay off every single penny of my student debt. I had sleepless nights working 2nd and 3rd shifts in a nursing home to pay for my tuition while I was in school. I graduated with honors in both Chemistry and Biology... two degrees paid for mostly by me. I was the first to graduate from college in my family. So why do I support free college tuition? Because I know what a college degree did for me. Because we have tough problems to solve and education fosters innovation. Because it was so hard to fund it by myself. Because I don’t want my kids to have to do what I did. Because a simple tax on Wall Street speculation would pay for it. Because we bailed out Wall Street. Now it’s time for Wall Street to return the favor for my kids and yours. It will be the best investment they’ll ever make!"

Maggie Toulouse Oliver versus The Machine, The Swamp, Schumer, The DC Stink

So far Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate in 2020, outstanding incumbent Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and two progressives in hot primary races against conservative Establishment shleps: Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, the current Secretary of State. Before Romanoff can get to incumbent Republican Cory Gardner he'll probably have to beat failed presidential candidate Frackenlooper. And before Maggie Oliver gets to whichever conservative loser the GOP spits out for the seat, she'll have to beat the DC Establishment candidate for the seat Ben Ray Luján.

Yesterday, Ryan Grim, reporting for The Intercept asked if New Mexico will go with the progressive or with the ex-head of the DCCC. "The party establishment," he wrote, "has already unified behind Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico congressman, to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, who is retiring. Luján-- who is assistant House speaker, a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last cycle-- was quickly endorsed by Pelosi after announcing his bid in April. In an unusual move, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, rather than letting the primary play out, endorsed him as well."

Leave it to Schumer and the DSCC to always pick the more corporate and more conservative candidate! And the one most easily controlled by party leadership. Their move should be enough of a reason to contribute to Maggie's campaign immediately. (Please do so by tapping on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.) Maggie Toulouse Oliver is too progressive for Schumer's taste and too independent-minded and New Mexico-focussed for the transpartisan corrupt DC Establishment. As Ryan reminded his readers, "As the chair of the DCCC, Luján oversaw the party’s effort to beat back progressive challengers in open primaries across the country. Now, he faces such a challenge himself."

On August 13, the Working Families Party, which has become an increasingly potent player in the state’s politics, endorsed Maggie Toulouse Oliver, joined later by the Action PAC (a project affiliated with The Intercept columnist Shaun King). Oliver, a 43-year-old single mom whose children were on Medicaid when they were younger, began her career with the League of Conservation Voters and was elected secretary of state in 2014. An outspoken progressive, she backs a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency; as secretary of state, she enacted automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

The Lujáns, on the other hand, are a political dynasty in New Mexico and arrived in the region as Spanish colonial settlers long before it was part of the United States. Ben Ray’s father, Ben Luján, was speaker of the New Mexico House. Michelle Luján Grisham serves as the state’s governor, and her uncle, Manuel Luján Jr., was a Republican who served in the U.S. House and as George H.W. Bush’s interior secretary. Eugene Luján was chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The New Mexico race is the first serious attempt in 2020 by progressives to take the 2018 House primary playbook and port it over to a Senate campaign. For the DSCC to so quickly get behind Luján reflects a less secure party power structure, one that feels under siege in Washington from a rising progressive wing.

At a meeting on August 14 of major progressive groups in the state, Eric Griego of New Mexico WFP pushed for the movement to unify around Oliver, he said, but the groups-- representing unions, the environment, and reproductive rights-- were worried about taking on Luján and are so far staying out. “They’re looking at the bare-knuckle politics,” he told The Intercept. “Their heart is with Maggie, and everybody is scared shitless to get in the race.”

There's an asymmetry in how the parties approach primaries in relatively uncompetitive states. Republicans tend to fill open red Senate seats with true believers and ultraconservatives, as the party’s business wing and its activist base are largely aligned on major ideological questions. In the Democratic Party, the corporate donor base and party activists are at odds, with the former typically out-muscling the latter, which tilts the balance of power toward moderates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Establishment Democrats often argue that they would prefer to elect more progressive candidates, but the demands of pragmatism, and the tilt of the electorate, require them to support centrist candidates with corporate backing. A 2018 academic study, however, cast significant doubt on that claim, offering evidence that those party leaders prefer centrist candidates but mask that preference in the language of pragmatism.

The tendencies on either side have had drastic implications, as Senate Republicans have moved to reshape the Senate into a vehicle for minority dominance, and Senate Democrats have largely attempted to hew to Senate norms. It took former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some five years to do modest filibuster reform, as he worked to overcome objections from inside his caucus to changing Senate rules. At the first hint of opposition to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

One obstacle for progressives in blue states is that they often have to run, in primaries, against candidates who aren’t obviously objectionable to Democratic voters-- and have major backing from high-dollar donors. That combination is difficult to beat. Leading into the primary election between former New York Rep. Joe Crowley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, there was no upsurge in local or national opinion that there was something terribly wrong with Crowley. Sure, he was heavily backed by corporate donors, but he largely voted the right way on the House floor. Only in victory has Ocasio-Cortez been able to demonstrate the genuine difference between the two to a national audience.

Oliver faces the same challenge in New Mexico. “It’s not easy because he’s not somebody that people dislike. He’s not the enemy, but he’s not the best possible option,” said Heather Brewer, Oliver’s campaign manager. “There’s nothing wrong with Ben Ray Luján, but there’s something right about electing the first woman and a strong progressive from the blue state of New Mexico.”

And Luján has become even less wrong since running for Senate. After chairing the DCCC for three cycles and raising extraordinary sums of corporate money, he quickly raised some $200,000 of corporate PAC money for his Senate campaign. Yet after Oliver swore off corporate PAC money, Luján made the pledge too (though he has declined to return what he has already taken). Lujan also signed on to the Green New Deal, introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in February, after launching his campaign. Though he had never before supported former Rep. John Conyers’s Medicare for All legislation, in June, he finally co-sponsored the one written by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) which earned him Jayapal’s endorsement.

Still, he hasn’t moved left on everything. Though Luján is the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in Congress, and has condemned Trump’s policy of separating families and caging children, he has not aimed his fire squarely at ICE. Oliver is more outspoken on the question and has called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, with its responsibilities distributed to other agencies that do not act as rogue secret police forces.

And while Oliver has been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump, Luján has hewed to the Pelosi line that it’s premature to move forward. “On the books, he’s got a decent record; he’s not bad, we could do worse,” Griego said. “He’s a consummate inside player, and a really loyal soldier to Pelosi.”

New Mexico has become increasingly progressive in recent years and, as the GOP has faded as a political force, leftist activists have focused their energy on corporate Democrats. The biggest win so far came in 2018 against Debbie Rodella, a powerful state lawmaker who was a one-woman obstacle to progress. WFP recruited and backed an insurgent challenger, Susan Herrera, who stunned the state by ousting her in a state House primary. WFP and other progressive allies are again focused on a handful of corporate-backed Democrats at the state level in 2020, even as the groups aren’t united behind Oliver.

The race for Oliver could come down to whether she can win the backing of reproductive rights groups and win heavily among women, who not only lean Democratic but tend to be more active on behalf of candidates than men. Getting the backing of EMILY’s List is critical; the organization’s brand is so strong with female donors that if a candidate doesn’t have that endorsement, it’s hard for them to raise money. Call back when you have their endorsement, multiple candidates have been told repeatedly during their own runs.

EMILY’s List endorsed Oliver’s run for secretary of state, but backing her against Luján would require the group to challenge the Democratic power structure, of which EMILY’s List is a part. Still, EMILY’s List staying out of the race would also be politically difficult. Only 56 women have served in the Senate in the entire history of the upper chamber, with just 25 serving today. And Luján, as chair of the DCCC, angered pro-choice groups by arguing that opposition to reproductive rights should not be a litmus test for candidates (but quickly backtracked under fire).

The longer it takes for Oliver to win the backing, the harder it becomes to raise the kind of money she’ll need to compete against Luján. (EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast.”) Luján has raised more than $1.6 million so far to Oliver’s roughly $200,000, a disparity that was flagged by the progressive groups this week in their argument for why they should stay neutral.

Brewer said she was hopeful the campaign would earn the support of EMILY’s List. “I would assume given they’re a strong organization that supports pro-choice women, that that is their only consideration in how they make decisions,” she said. “I couldn’t speak to how Washington insiders might be trying to manipulate that.” And, Brewer argued, New Mexico races are relatively inexpensive; Oliver will be able to get her message out statewide for just a few million dollars, which Brewer was confident they could comfortably raise.

Ben Ray, a coincidentally named spokesperson for EMILY’s List, said that no decision had been made. “Our endorsements are a rolling process,” he said. “We are always happy to see strong women leaders like Maggie get in races like this.” (Rolling is one way to describe it; while outside activists often perceive EMILY’s List as dragging its feet, its endorsement process is cumbersome and laborious, involving a choice council that is difficult to convene at one time.)

Oliver, meanwhile, is also hoping to lock down national progressive endorsements from groups like Justice Democrats, MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, the local Indivisible, and more. That could make up for the lack of support from other mainline progressive groups afraid to take on the party establishment.

Sad about Pramila. I didn't know that.

As Grim implied, Luján is a follower-- never a leader, never an independent thinker. This campaign has been funny inasmuch as whatever Oliver does, Luján follows. He's always opposed Medicare-for-All but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. He's always opposed the Green New Deal but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. And now, he's suddenly backing impeachment, many months after most Democrats have-- and after he looked like a fool because Maggie did and he didn't... and voters were noticing. It's fine that Luján has decided to copy everything Maggie does. Maggie does good things. But what happens if he gets into the Senate and starts copying Schumer-- which is exactly what Schumer is counting on. That won't be nearly as good. New Mexico deserves an independent-minded Senator like Tom Udall, not some hack career politician.

Did Pelosi And The Rest Of The Fear-Based Democrats Screw Up Impeachment?

Quote of the week comes from Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson, a progressive, a super-smart attorney and, until earlier in the year, the very successful mayor of Columbus:

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

Instead of doing her constitutionally-mandated duty of beginning the process of removing the criminal in the White House, Pelosi-- a victim of her own hype about how sharp and strategic she is-- has been playing political calculus and, in the process, may have blown the chances to impeach Trump.

Early yesterday morning, the Sun Sentinel broke the news that garden variety congressional Democrat Ted Deutch, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has finally gotten around to backing impeachment. It was in an OpEd penned by Deutch himself, No More Debate. Impeachment Inquiry Is Underway. But have they waited too long to win the battle of TV ratings-- and public support? "Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony may not have been a summer blockbuster," wrote Deutch, "it confirmed the damning conclusions of his report. The investigation revealed substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And that the Special Counsel did not exonerate him."

Why it wasn't a summer blockbuster isn't addressed by Deutch. Everyone inside the Beltway was tuned in-- but not the national audience that would have been had it been "important enough" to be part of impeachment. If the Democrats didn't think it was impeachment material, why should people take time out of their busy days to watch this "inside baseball" stuff? That's where Pelosi (and Nadler) miscalculated. Did they blow the chance to turn public opinion decisively in favor of impeachment, the way the Nixon television impeachment hearings did?

The most recent Reuters poll (by Ipsos) has some important numbers to consider. Among registered voters, 59% say the country is heading in then long direction. (55% of independents agree.)

Among registered voters, Trump's job approval is 40%, with disapproval at 59%. (Among independents, it's 42% approve and 51% disapprove.)

People polled say the Mueller testimony didn't sway them much in terms of impeachment. "Among those [71%] who read, saw or heard about Mueller's testimony, 47% said it made no difference in their views about impeaching the president. The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony. Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony."

Even after the hearings in which Mueller explicitly said he did NOT exonerate Trump, 35% of voters believed the had exonerated Trump and just 41% were clear-minded enough to understand that he hadn't. And a new Quinnipiac poll shows that although 51% believe Trump is a racist and that 71% are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" that a foreign government may try to interfere in the 2020 elections, and that a 52% to 40% majority said that Trump did attempt to "derail or obstruct" the investigation into the 2016 election, 60% of registered voters said Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against him. (61% of Democrats do support impeachment.) Now... back to Deutch: "Trump," he wrote, "claimed victory. He seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. The inquiry has already begun." But did Pelosi and her fear-driven caucus botch the process with their incremental approach to even this?

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole authority of impeachment. Officially launching an impeachment inquiry has never been a prerequisite to using that authority. The Judiciary Committee may refer articles of impeachment to the whole House for a vote at any time.

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry.

But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers-- powers that Chairman Nadler retains today.

No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

The Judiciary Committee officially started its investigation into the abuse of power by President Trump on March 4, 2019. The stated purpose was to consider all constitutional remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment. In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee already has the power to refer articles of impeachment to the whole House.

The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented and unconstitutional actions to ignore congressional subpoenas and pressure witnesses not to appear. President Trump has turned the White House into a black box. The Justice Department fabricated a theory of blanket immunity and distorted claims of executive privilege. The Administration wants to silence the witnesses to the President’s obstruction.

But the American people deserve to hear from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, under oath, about when the President ordered him to fire Mueller. And from Corey Lewandowski about when he was asked to narrow the scope of the investigation to protect the President. And from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about President Trump’s pressure campaign to take back control of the investigation.

If the suggestion that we are already in the midst of an impeachment inquiry sounds farfetched, look to last week’s court filings by the House counsel. To break the administration’s stonewalling, the House lawyers explained that the Constitution gives the House “a constitutional power of the utmost gravity-- recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Since Department of Justice policies won’t allow the prosecution of a sitting President, only the House of Representatives can ensure that the President is not above the law.

As we told the court, we already have the power. We don’t need a vote. We need President Trump to stop obstructing.

The committee has said repeatedly that impeachment is on the table. Legal experts, and now Robert Mueller himself, confirmed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was never capable of holding a sitting president accountable. Justice Department regulations ensured that was the case.

The remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment, are in Congress’s hands. Now that we have Special Counsel Mueller’s report and testimony, it is time for the witnesses of the President’s wrongdoing to appear before the committee as part of our ongoing investigation.

As Chairman Nadler noted in his opening statement last week, “We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

We don’t need to launch an impeachment inquiry. It has been under way since March.

Yesterday, Politico's whip list showed that over half the Democrats in the House (118 out of 235) now favor opening formal impeachment proceedings against Trump. The latest members to announce their support, besides Deutch, are Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Katherine Clark (D-MA), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Politico: "The lawmakers quietly working to organize support for Trump’s impeachment say there are two important figures to watch in the next few weeks. Assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), who is running for an open Senate seat against a primary opponent who has embraced impeachment proceedings, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon who has questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election but so far deferred to Pelosi on impeachment. Though there’s no indication he’s changing his tune, Luján’s support for impeachment proceedings could help unlock the backing of a slew of freshman Democrats who Luján helped elect in 2016, when he ran Democrats’ campaign arm, pro-impeachment lawmakers say. And Lewis’ support would carry significant sway with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have remained on the fence so far. Lewis has repeatedly been asked for his opinion on impeachment proceedings but has repeatedly indicated that he’s deferring to Pelosi."

That primary opponent Politico referred to as the person Luján is running against and who has embraced beginning impeachment proceedings is New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a strong and dedicated progressive. She had forced the generally conservative Luján to flip flop on issue after issue. Because of her he now claims to support Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, though he barely understands what either is. Yesterday, Oliver gave us a statement on Luján's hemming and hawing about impeachment. "For the good of our democracy," she wrote, "I am asking Congressman Lujan to use his leadership position and join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by the president. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

Please consider contributing to Maggie's campaign for the New Mexico Senate seat by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer just above on the right. Not only will she make a better senator than Ben Ray Luján ever would, she'll actually make a great senator, one like Jeff Merkley, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz and, most of all, Tom Udall, the New Mexico progressive who is retiring now. It would be tragic to replace a progressive like Udall with a fear-based conservative like Luján.