Massachusetts Primary Results-- Progressive Movement Won The Big Prize, But...

Markey won his race handily tonight. Kennedy conceded. I bet Pelosi didn't call AOC and concede to her though. Every progressive group that endorsed Markey (other than Blue America) is trying to claim the credit but it really was a team effort that centered totally around Markey. Proof of that pudding. The other progressives picks (albeit not Blue America's)-- Alex Morse in the first congressional district and Ihssane Leckey in the 4th (the seat Kennedy gave up)-- lost.

A quick word about them. Both were perfect on policy and would have voted right all the time. That isn't all that Congress Members do though and although I thought Morse would make an infinitely better member than Richie Neal and that Leckey would have been better than Jesse Mermell, Jack Auchincloss, Becky Grossman or Natalia Linos-- each of whom appears to have out-polled her-- I didn't think I should ask Blue America contributors to give their money to either. Why? I got a feeling that neither had some intangible traits needed-- like "people skills"-- to succeed in Congress. I would have voted, without hesitation, for each of them, but that is different from contributing to them or urging other people to, especially when there are so many prospects in dire need of those contributions in a progressive universe that doesn't have infinite resources.

As for Kennedy, I expect he'll wind up in Biden's cabinet or be given some other stepping-stone job for his inevitable run for the presidency. Although... isn't he the first Kennedy to ever lose an election in Massachusetts?

Pelosi's endorsement of Kennedy turned out to be a kiss of death for him, starting with a big jump in contributions for Markey as soon as Pelosi interfered. Kennedy was never able to articulate a reason for voters to abandon Markey-- and neither could Pelosi (nor could Mark Pocan, another Kennedy endorser who fell flat on his face while splitting the Congressional Progressive Caucus from its grassroots supporters). 

The partial results available now show Markey beating Kennedy 55.52% to 44.86%. Establishment Pelosi ally Richard Neal is up over Alex Morse 59.02% to 40.98%. With all 14 precincts reporting Morse lost his own town, Holyoke, where he is mayor, to Neal, 4,366 (52.56%) to 3,940 (47.44).

With 80% of precincts counted, MA-04 is too close to call between Jesse Mermell (22.37%) and Jake Auchincloss (22.29%). Leckey came in 5th with around 11%.

All the results should be in tomorrow when I'll be a guest on Brad Friedman's radio show too discuss tonight's results.

Paaaaaarty!

Politico's Zach Warmbrodt wrote this week that "American International Group (AIG)-- once one of the most scorned corporations on Capitol Hill for its pivotal role in the financial crisis-- got a Washington birthday bash on Monday night with help from House lawmakers. Little more than a decade after the U.S. government committed $180 billion to avert the collapse of the insurance giant, AIG used the hearing room of the House Ways and Means Committee to host a 'centennial congressional reception' to mark the New York-based company's first century in business. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) presided over the event, which featured AIG CEO Brian Duperreault and other company leaders. 'We believe in the power of relationships to make a better world for everyone,' AIG said in an invitation obtained by Politico."

And it was a bipartisan party-- with crooked congress members from both sides of the aisle. So far this cycle, AIG has spent $1,400,000 lobbying Congress and has handed out $109,763 in legalistic bribes disguised as campaign contributions (including $2,500 to Chairman Neal). Last cycle they handed out $344,502 in these legalistic bribes-- $107,682 to Democrats and $70,820 to Republicans. These are their top dozen recipients serving in the House today:

• Kevin Brady, then chair of Ways and Means (R-TX)- $5,000
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $5,000
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,000
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- $5,000
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $3,625
• John Larson (D-CT)- $3,625
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $3,500
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $2,720
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- $1,938
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem (MI)- $1,753
• Mike Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,656
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $1,500

There were senior members from both the Democrats and the Republicans at the festivities-- along with finance industry lobbyists. Members of Ways and Means and the Financial Services Committee who were partying with AIG included Brad Sherman (D-CA), Bill Foster (D-IL), Steve Stivers (R-OH), Dan Kildee (D-MI) and Gwen Moore (D-WI).

The celebration is the latest sign that memories of the 2008 market meltdown have faded in Washington. A display at the event outlining milestones in the company's history jumped from 1999 to 2015 — omitting the financial crisis and taxpayer-backed rescue.

AIG was the focus of widespread public outrage over the massive bailout the company got to stay afloat after it was nearly brought down by risky derivatives trades. At the time, lawmakers demanded that AIG employees renounce their bonuses.

"AIG will live forever in history as the poster child for greed, recklessness and incompetent if not delusional management," said Dennis Kelleher, who advocates for stricter Wall Street regulation as president and CEO of the group Better Markets.

But things have returned to normal for the storied insurer in recent years, as the company shrank itself and paid back the bailout funds. AIG has ramped up lobbying and restarted spending by its political action committee.

In 2017, AIG was successful in convincing federal regulators to undo the company's designation as a "systemically important financial institution"-- a label imposed on the insurer after the Wall Street meltdown that carried with it stricter government oversight.

...AIG has disclosed lobbying on retirement savings legislation under the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction. The company's PAC and employees have given more to Ways and Means Committee members in this election cycle than members of other committees, according to committee totals compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"It comes as little surprise that these lawmakers would host a party for AIG, but it is deeply troubling that Congress would celebrate such a negligent and self-serving financial behemoth," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen.

Meanwhile, progressive congressional candidates went on the attack over the party with AIG. Kara Voght, reporting for Mother Jones, wrote that "For progressives waging primary challenges against entrenched House Democrats, Monday’s event was a perfect example of what they see as the inappropriate coziness between centrist incumbents and the corporate interests they are supposed to keep in check."

“A lack of [government] involvement in allowing corporate giants to do what they please, set the rules for themselves, is what led to the [2008] collapse,” Alex Morse, who’s running against Neal, tells me. “A decade later, nothing has changed. There’s an open door policy between members of Congress and executives working at these firms, and it’s a slap in the face to the people affected by the financial crisis.” Neal, it should be noted, recently accepted a $2,500 campaign contribution from AIG’s political action committee.

Rachel Ventura-- who is running against Rep. Bill Foster, a Financial Services member who attended the AIG event-- described the gathering as “disturbing.” In a statement, she said that Foster’s presence was “not surprising” and called for an ethics investigation into how the party came to be.

For the last several months, progressive challengers have waged their primary battles on multiple fronts. Support for prized liberal initiatives, such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, and promises to curtail corporate influence have been the bedrock of their campaigns. But so was a sharp rebuke of centrist incumbents who did not share progressive activists’ urgency in impeaching President Donald Trump. Morse had hammered Neal over his lack of support for an impeachment inquiry back in July. “I can’t purport to know the congressman’s strategy, but people are angry and scared,” he told me then. “Our democracy is dying right before us, and we need members of Congress that are there to uphold the Constitution.”

Rachel Ventura, who has been endorsed by Blue America, told her supporters that her New Dem opponent, Bill Foster "voted for the 2008/2009 bailout and he was one of the 33 Democrats who recently voted with Republicans to roll back Dodd-Frank in 2018, relaxing protections for financial consumers and exempting some institutions from stress tests; ultimately opening up the doors to another financial crisis. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, Bill Foster has accepted over $1.4 Million in campaign contributions from commercial banks and hedge fund managers. If you ask me, that’s a conflict of interest. As a US Congresswoman, I will go in the opposite direction. My entire political journey has used the slogan, 'no strings attached.' It is even on my campaign T-shirts. In my congressional campaign I have remained consistent, rejecting all corporate PAC money and super PACs influences. The American people are sick and tired of a congress that is bought and paid for. Bill Foster is no exception. He has tossed aside his lab coat and is just another politician who is more interested in listening to his donors than being a voice for the people."

Alex Morse Is In! Pelosi Crony Richard Neal Gets A Primary Opponent

Alex Morse released this announcement video this morning. He's the 30 year old mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts, who originally won that office when he was 22 and beat an establishment politician who was very much like current MA-01 Congressman Richard Neal. "There's an urgency to this moment in Massachusetts’ First District and our country, and that urgency is not matched by our current representative in Congress. We need new leadership that understands that we can no longer settle for small, incremental, and compromising progress. We need to be on offense. We need to be fighting for something, not just against."

Neal, a Pelosi and Hoyer ally, isn't a Blue Dog or New Dem, but he's far from a progressive. ProgressivePunch grades him a "C." His western Massachusetts district, which includes Springfield, Pittsfield, Great Barrington, Easthampton and North Adams, has a strong D+12 PVI and went for Obama with 64% of the vote both times he ran. In 2016 Bernie edged Hillary in 2016 and in the general Hillary beat Trump 57.2% to 36.5%. Last year, the district went overwhelmingly for Elizabeth Warren in her Senate reelection. The Republicans didn't bother running a candidate against Neal. In fact, the GOP in the region has withered away so badly that the last time a Republican ran for Congress there was in 2010. Based on the district, Neal could easily be supporting the progressive agenda-- but he's 70 and satisfied, not the kind of guy who is backing impeachment-- in fact he's helping to hold it up-- nor Medicare-for-All. And 10 of Massachusetts' 11 member congressional delegation are cosponsors of the Green New Deal. The outlier? Richard Neal-- something his constituents have noticed... and something Morse is running on.

There is always a whiff of corruption around Neal, at least in part because more than half of his massive campaign contributions have been coming from political action committees. So far this year he has raised $1,420,369. Last cycle, with no opponent, he raised $3,554,755. The biggest sectors were all with business before the House Ways and Means Committee, that he chairs:

Holyoke's Valley Advocate reported this morning that "after months of speculation about his political plans," Morse had made it official, giving voters a real choice when they vote in the September 2020 primary.

When Morse was first sworn in as mayor of Holyoke in 2012, he was both the youngest mayor in the city at 22 and its first openly gay mayor. On his campaign website, he touted his efforts leading an “economic rebirth” in Holyoke, his work on the issue of affordable housing, his defense of reproductive rights, community policing initiatives and a needle exchange program he helped implement in the city.

...Neal has been a target both of progressive groups and of rural members of his district, who have long complained that he has been absent from their communities.

Neal is also under renewed scrutiny regarding his campaign spending at swanky, high-end Boston locales for donors, as well as his role in what critics have said is a sabotage of the free tax file system, which plays into the desires of Neal donors TurboTax and H&R Block. In his campaign release video, Morse vowed to eschew corporate PAC money, which makes up the vast majority of Neal’s campaign haul.

Tonight at 6, Morse will host a kick-off event at the Unicorn Inn at 126 High Street in Holyoke. During Morse's activist, progressive mayoralty, Holyoke has undergone something of a rebirth-- with private investment at an all-time high, unemployment at a 25-year low, crime down 40%, and the high school graduation rate having increased from 49% when Morse took office to 72% today... [H]e was among the first mayors in the country to declare his city a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants. If you'd like to contribute to his campaign-- and help him replace Richard Neal in Congress-- please click on the 2020 DownWithTyranny thermometer on the right. It's time for vigorous new leadership across the country and, despite Cheri Bustos, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi, that doesn't just mean replacing Republicans with more corporate Democrats. It also means tired old Democratic hacks with vigorous progressives with a vision and the will to see that vision through.

A Peek Behind The Curtain: Who Really Governs Our Decayed Democracy-- A Look At House Ways And Means Committee Chair Richard Neal

Congressional Committee Chairs tend to be paragons of corruption. They are charged with raising immense sums of money from the special interests their committees oversee. It's a system that should be illegal; instead it creates power for the worst crooks.

At a time when Democratic voters have been insisting that special interest money that corrupts politicians be banned, Pelosi's congressional Democratic establishment has double down. On Tuesday, two top journalists for the Daily Beast, Jackie Kucinich and Lachlan Markay, reported on how the DCCC has gobbled up all the sewer money Democratic candidates are rejecting. They're "raking in money from corporate political groups and registered lobbyists," wrote Kucinich and Markay, "even as the party’s left flank increasingly tries to distance itself from those traditional sources of financial muscle... [including] from 143 corporate political action committees in the first quarter of 2019... up substantially from the past two election cycles."

Lobbyist fundraisers are also ponying up for the DCCC. In the first three months of the year, eight registered federal lobbyists “bundled” more than $1.2 million in contributions for the committee. That’s nearly double the total during the same period last cycle, and nearly 40 times the DCCC’s lobbyist bundling haul during the entire first half of 2015.

The huge influx of corporate and lobbying donations cash underscores a truism about Washington D.C.: money follows power. Democrats hadn’t held the House majority since 2010. And now that they have control of that chamber, donors are showering them with support.

But plugged-in Democrats attribute the money boom to another factor: the increasing wariness among prominent progressives of political contributions by corporations and their K Street representatives. With a number of Democrats, both in Congress and among the party’s large field of presidential candidates, swearing off such contributions, donors have sought other outlets for their sizable political donation budgets. Party committees such as the DCCC are one logical alternative.

“That money is going to go somewhere,” said a former Democratic staffer familiar with the process. “It’s not evaporating, the committees are a natural place.”

...One senior Democratic lobbyist said Democratic members who choose not to take corporate PAC money “are just hurting themselves” since the cash would find its way into the political process anyways.

“I talk to a lot of members all the time; they are afraid of the left,” the lobbyist said, adding that the policy of forgoing such donations makes even less sense, “when you look at how the money is being spent, the $2,500 check that I write, versus the million some billionaire can put into a [super PAC].”

..."Corporate PACs give money to members of Congress to try to buy access and influence policy to benefit the corporation's bottom line,” said Patrick Burgwinkle, who formerly worked for the DCCC but is now the communications director for End Citizens United, a political action committee which has pushed campaign finance reform. “Democratic party committees exist to protect and expand Democratic majorities. Corporate PACs don’t decide on which races party committees spend, and the party committees make their decisions based on their determination of which races are the best to win elections."

That last paragraph calls for a tiny bit of explanation. End Citizens United has nothing really to do with ending Citizens United. It's a money-vacuuming operation started by DCCC and DSCC staffers. It's a scam operation the DCCC uses to sucker grassroots progressive-oriented small donors to give money that can be used for anti-progressive right-wing Democrats (basically Blue Dogs and New Dems) who small donors would otherwise not contribute to. When Burgwinkle claims that the DCCC and DSCC "make their decisions based on their determination of which races are the best to win elections," he's spitting out the party line that the DCCC and DSCC use to deceive the party grassroots and disguise the fact that both party committees are anti-progressive and overwhelmingly recruit and support conservative Democrats, while working hard to kill progressive candidates in the cradle.

Pelosi, Neal, Hoyer-- Time for Democrats to say goodbye to institutional corruption and to the party leaders who thrive on it

That said, early in April, we looked at one of Pelosi's very powerful and very corrupt party chairs, Richard Neal. He isn't very well-known outside of the Beltway and I was delighted this week when the Boston Globe blew the whistle on Neal-- a career of corruption Democrat. David Daley, author of Ratfucked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count, gave The Globe the exclusive exposé, largely based on Neal's newly released FEC fund-raising reports. "His three-month fund-raising haul of more than $520,000," wrote Daley, "offers a powerful reminder of who really governs our decayed democracy, and a discouraging example of the way politicians like Neal immediately rush to auction their positions to the nation’s business elite."

Perhaps it’s little surprise. After all, we’ve come to expect this debased system as politics as usual. Naturally, the largest corporations and industry lobby groups-- big banks, insurers, and health care interests, alongside General Electric, Deloitte, Eastman Chemical, and Prudential-- lined up with $5,000 checks for the man with significant power over the federal tax code.

It’s important to maintain a healthy sense of outrage over pay-to-play politics. But if that seems like merely petty corruption in today’s Washington, Neal’s latest report provides another frightful look behind the curtain-- at the high life members of Congress lead while they raise that money, and how they turn around and spend it on their own high-class travel, dining, and entertainment.

While Neal raised more than a half-million last quarter, and still sits 20 months away from facing voters again, he nevertheless spent over $467,000 from his campaign account during the first three months of 2019. (According to FEC records, he raised, and spent, more money during the quarter than any other member of the Massachusetts delegation; he also spent more money during the 2018 cycle than his colleagues, despite facing no GOP challenger as well as dispatching a first-time candidate in a September primary.) Much of his campaign money went to big-dollar fund-raising events at five-star restaurants, private boxes at sporting events, stays at luxury hotels, premium travel, and more.

In other words: Between January and March 2019, Neal spent hundreds of thousands of dollars wining and dining lobbyists at his fund-raisers. In return, he pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions-- many from elite donors with valuable interests before his committee. (One of his first-quarter donors was HR Block. Neal subsequently provided the tax-prep giant with its longtime legislative dream: a prohibition on an IRS free-file system that would undercut their profits.)

Neal rents the private box at the stadium or the table at the gourmet restaurant. Lobbyists buy access to his ear for the evening. Everyone enjoys the game, and the wine flows for free.

In January alone, days after taking the Ways and Means gavel, Neal moved to capitalize on the influential job. He paid the firm Washington Suite Life, which specializes in linking politicos with private boxes at concerts and ball games, $5,937 for an undisclosed event. Neal has previously worked with the Suite Life on boxes for Boston Celtics and Bruins games, as well as a James Taylor and Bonnie Raitt concert. He also spent $5,613.35 at Sixth Engine, a bar close to the Capitol. While we don’t have the invite to this reception, this bar is a Neal favorite. In February 2017, according to the invitation posted on the site Politicalpartytime.org, several well-heeled D.C. lawyers and lobbyists hosted a whiskey tasting there to benefit Neal. The price to enter: $2,500 to host, $1,000 to attend and taste. (C&G Associates, a murky D.C. firm with almost zero Internet presence gets $9,000 a month as Neal’s fund-raising consultants.)

Also in January: Neal hosted parties at the Dubliner pub in Washington ($4,950.30), Taste in Virginia ($4,686.05), Del Frisco’s Double Eagle steak house ($4,478.36), The Salt Line on the Washington waterfront ($3,259.66), and Charlie Palmer Steak ($1.301.40). There was also a $14,000 bash at the Red Lion Inn in the Berkshires, as well as several thousand dollars in travel, lodging, food, and beverage costs billed at Omni Hotels and Resorts in Texas and a Fairmont Hotel in California. In Manhattan, Neal’s campaign picked up just under $1,000 for a night at 11 Howard, a hotel that describes itself as “ultra-modern” “casual luxury” “in the heart of SoHo,” “where Danish minimalism meets New York realism.”

That’s just one month. In February, Neal spent over $5,000 on food and drink for an event run by Capitol Host, as well as thousands more at the trendy restaurants Garrison and Lucky Strike, to name just two. March looked like an even wilder cash-collecting orgy. Neal spent $6,630.05 for food, drinks, and lodging at a Florida Ritz-Carlton. It appears to be Fort Lauderdale, because while he was there, Neal’s campaign spent hundreds more on smaller meals at Terra Mare, Ocean Prime 57, and the Louie Bossis Ristorant. The man rarely eats a Big Mac.

But the Ritz-Carlton wasn’t even the fanciest hotel that hosted Neal in March. There’s a charge for $4,183.28 at the Hay Adams hotel across from the White House, where a one-bedroom suite with a view of 1600 Pennsylvania can go for $2,000 a night. Neal picked up additional four-figure tabs in March at a Library of Congress cafe, Charlie Palmer Steak, and at Bistro Bis across from the Capitol, where Neal has previously held $2,500 breakfast receptions allowing him to collect tens of thousands in campaign contributions over his morning coffee.

Voters sent Neal to Washington to do the people’s business. We didn’t elect him king of Manhattan boutique hotels or to a never-ending circuit of steak houses, let alone legendary, annual “Boston weekend” fund-raisers, or $5,000 summer gatherings on Cape Cod. If constituents want to talk to him? Sorry, your representative is at a fund-raiser at the Ritz-Carlton or a private box at a James Taylor concert. If constituents want his ear on policy? Wealthy folks pay $2,500 for that. And if constituents want to hold him accountable for putting special interests before the public interest? The money helps protect him from a challenge back home.

This is our seat. Richard Neal’s living the high life, on someone else’s dime. We all pay the cost.

Pelosi, Rangel, Neal-- the joke has always been on us-- trying to believe that the Democratic establishment is somehow less corrupt than the Republican establishment

Neal's district (MA-01), covers the entire western part of the state, along the New York border, from the border with Vermont to the border with Connecticut. Springfield, Great Barrington, South Hadley and Pittsfield are the main population centers. The district is safely blue, with a D+12 PVI. Trump did better than most Republicans (36.5%)-- primarily because the Dems fielded such a weak candidate-- but the GOP didn't even bother running a candidate against Neal. The last time the GOP bothered running anyone was 2010, when he beat Republican Tom Wesley 57.3% to 42.7%. Aside from that the GOP fielded candidate in 1996 (21.9%), 1994 (36.3%), 1992 (31.1%) and 1988 (19.7%). Neal was unopposed in 11 re-election campaigns. That tends to make a member of Congress forget who they work for.

When Charlie Rangel's blatant corruption finally got him kicked out of his House Ways and Means Committee chair, Neal rose in power. If he learned anything from Rangel's behavior and disgraceful end, it was to be less blatant about taking bribes. It appears that Neal may have a real challenge this cycle with a primary from Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse, a 30 year old, openly gay progressive, who defeated the incumbent mayor when he was just 22. No one knows if he's going to run or not, but progressive groups in Massachusetts and across the country are trying to persuade him that if he beats Neal, his work in Congress would still be helping folks in Holyoke, who he seems very committed to.

Can Alex beat Pelosi's powerful Ways and Means Chair? Will he try?

In Pelosi-World Drug Manufacturers Come First-- Democratic Voters Can Eat Dirt

Pelosi and Pallone-- allies of the Sickness Industry... betrayers of Democratic voters

Two powerful Pelosi lieutenants, Frank Pallone (NJ)-- the corrupt head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee-- and Richard Neal (MA)-- the corrupt head of the House Ways and Means Committee-- have both painted primary targets on their own backs. I want to share some numbers before we proceed. Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the Health Sector:

• Frank Palone- $6,152,155 (#1 in Congress)
• Richard Neal- $2,515,526

Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the drug manufacturing industry:

• Frank Palone- $674,920 (#4 in the House)
• Richard Neal- $400,700

Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the pharmaceutical companies:

• Frank Pallone- $1,377,855 (#3 in the House)
• Richard Neal- $780,271

The lesson here is not that Pallone is even more corrupt than Neal; both are plenty corrupt. And both owe their success inside Pelosi's Democratic House caucus to the Sickness Industry, for which they are always doing favors and are about to help out again. Pelosi and Hoyer and their henchmen-- Pallone and Neal among them-- have promised the Sickness Industry to never allow Medicare-For-All the become law and have promised the drug industry to never seriously cut prices.

Tangent Warning: A drug I need is called locasamide (VIMPAT). Under Republican Medicare Part D, that used to cost me $3,000/month. Then I realized I could buy it in Thailand for $600/month (same drug made in the same factory). I bought a lot last time I was there and just ran out. On Monday, my doctor suggested we check with Medicare again, hoping the price had come down. It didn't. It went up and now costs $3,400/a month. Why? Because they can. Because Congress lets them. Luckily, I like Thailand a lot-- and Turkey, which is another country where it sells very inexpensively. It sells inexpensively everywhere in the world in fact, in except in our country.

Pelosi wants to lower the prices for drugs a little bit, a kind of sop for the base that put her in the speaker's chair again. As you know, she's better than a Republican. Democrats are better than Republicans. My grandfather once explained to me when I was very young that the only thing in politics worse than a Democrat-- and they were less horrible then than they are now-- is a Republican. Yesterday afternoon, The Hill reported that the progressives in the House who Pelosi is trying to neuter are pressuring Pallone and Neal "to support a far-reaching drug pricing bill that would allow the government to strip drug companies of their monopolies if they refuse to sell drugs at a reasonable price."

The progressives also pushed back on a competing proposal under discussion that would allow an outside arbiter to help set drug prices, warning that the idea would be too weak.

The meeting comes as House Democrats try to bridge a divide that has opened up within the party on the best way to move forward on lowering drug prices, one of their signature issues.

Lawmakers said the chairmen listened during the meeting and expressed openness to different ideas while not offering  a plan of their own.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office is working on a drug-pricing proposal that would use arbitration, though lawmakers leaving the meeting Tuesday did not mention the Democratic leader when criticizing the arbitration idea.

Progressive Caucus leaders said a bill using arbitration-- instead of the stronger mechanism of stripping monopolies-- could lose many of their votes.

"There are members in our caucus who, if it comes out to be a weak arbitration bill that doesn't include a comprehensive list of drugs, I would have a hard time seeing something like that personally, as well as many other members," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, said after the meeting.

Neal did not rule out the stronger bill that the progressives want, which is sponsored by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), when leaving the meeting.

Asked about that bill, Neal said, "All of these will be parts of the conversation, yeah, and I think the conversation is going to continue."

Asked if he is wedded to the idea of using an outside arbiter to set drug prices, Neal simply said, "No."

Doggett said leaving the meeting that it was a positive discussion and said he appreciated that the chairmen were not ruling out ideas.

"I don't view arbitration as really negotiation, it is just a way of shifting responsibility to an unaccountable third party," Doggett said. 

Earlier, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair with Pocan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, spoke for her members, saying "We wanted to make it very clear that it needs to be something bold that has teeth in it, and I think that’s what Rep. Doggett's bill has in it." Pelosi, who laughably claims to be a progressive because she once was a couple of decades ago, will not allow that. She would rather support the source bribery for her members from the Sickness Industry than fulfill her oath to the voters who put her party in power in the House.

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) is standing up to Pelosi and Her PhRMA allies

When Doggett introduced the same bill, Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2018 (HR 6505), last year, he hard 104 co-sponsors. In February Doggett re-introduced the bill (H.R. 1046) and now has 122 co-sponsors, all the members of the House who are serious about lowering drug prices. Pelosi and her cronies are not among them and even though more than half the Democrats are behind the bill, she refuses to accept her caucus has moved on and left her in the policy dust.

Eva Putzova is a progressive Democrat running for a swing district seat in Arizona. The Democratic Party should be overjoyed. Instead toxic DCCC chair Cheri Bustos is snarling, menacing Eva's race, furious that she is challenging an "ex"-Republican Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, in a primary. Unlike the corrupt O'Halleran, Eva doesn't take corporate bribes-- and vows she never will. Yesterday she told us that she "will never accept a single penny from any corporation or a corporate PAC, because that's the only way we can ensure we legislate in the interest of the people and not corporations. We institutionalized, legalized and sanitized corruption and now we have to undo it by replacing incumbents who are bought by (not only) big PhRMA."

In 2020, San Francisco voters will have an alternative to Pelosi if she decides to run again. Shahid Buttar is, like she used to be many, many years ago, the real thing. "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure," he told me this morning, "and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Tomas Ramos is a progressive community activist in the South Bronx, who is aiming to replace retiring Congressman Jose Serrano. Last night he told me that "It's unconscionable to think that there are lawmakers who don't deem it necessary to pass common sense legislation to rein in the reach of big PhARMA. I support the progressive caucus' efforts to clamp down on this industry, and I look forward to joining them once I'm elected."

Aside from Pelosi, others on her craven and disgraceful leadership team who want to feather the drug makers' nests-- and refuse to co-sponsor Doggett's legislation-- are Steny Hoyer (MD), Ben Ray Luján (NM), Jim Clyburn (SC), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Cheri Bustos (IL), Frank Pallone (NJ), Richard Neal (MA) and Katherine Clark (MA). SHAME! Freshman members who have signed on and are backing their own constituents over Pelosi's allies at PhRMA are:

• AOC (NY)
• Ilhan Omar (MN)
• Rashiba Tlaib (MI)
• Ayassa Pressley (MA)
• Joe Neguse (CO)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Andy Levin (MI)
• Katie Hill (CA)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Chuy Garcia (IL)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• Debra Haaland (NM)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Josh Harder (CA)
• Joseph Morelle (NY)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
• Tom Malinowski (NJ)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Dean Phillips (MN)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Jason Crow (CO)
• Susie Lee (NV)
• Sean Casten (IL)

Maybe someone should ask Central Valley freshman TJ Cox is he thinks voters in Bakersfield don't want more reasonable drug prices. Greg Stanton in Phoenix might be asked the same question. Ditto for "ex"-Republican Harley Rouda. Sure, Rouda is very, very wealthy but does he think voters in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach don't want fairer prices for the prescription drugs they need? Lucy McBath is nuts if she thinks voters in Alpharetta, Sandy Springs and Roswell only care about gun control and not also about high drug prices. Maybe Donna Shalala has been hibernating this month but voters in Miami want fair drug prices too and if she doesn't wake up and smell the roses she's going to wind up with even more time to sleep after November of 2020. The detestable Republican-lite brigade of Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Elaine Luria (VA), Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY) can always be expected to oppose anything and everything that's good for working families; so why should fair drug prices be any different? Only primaries can save us from Pelosi and her team and the mindless freshmen who do whatever she says with no regard for the folks back home-- which is exactly why she gave Cheri Bustos the OK to squelch primaries.

What a shame that Pelosi, Hoyer and Bustos decided to skip the hearing-- just like Kevin McCarthy and other opponents of Medicare-For-All:

Who Wants To See Trump's Dumb Old Taxes Anyway?

John Kennedy is a Republican senator from Louisiana. He used to be a Democrat and served as Secretary of the state Department of Revenue and was then elected State Treasurer, as a Democrat, twice before going over to the Dark Side in 2007. Kennedy knows how to read a tax return and figure out where the fraud and corruption lies. And he told a CNN audience the other day that he "would like to see" Señor Trumpanzee's taxes. "I would like to see the President’s taxes, I wouldn’t be adverse to turning over my taxes, I don’t have anything to hide." Almost 70% of Americans agree with Senator Kennedy and would like to take a look at Trump's tax returns.

Richard Neal, Pelosi's sketchy House Ways and Means Committee chair has finally told the IRS to send them over-- something you could have should have done in January. The law is clear: House Ways and Means Committee chair tells IRS to send over taxes; IRS sends over taxes. But this Trump Regime isn't about laws. And they're refusing. Charles Rettig was a Beverly Hills attorney specializing in helping rich people avoid paying taxes. Trump appointed him IRS commissioner in February of 2018 for one reason-- to have a patsy at the IRS would would never turn over his taxes. Rettig has until Wednesday to comply.

Aside from Trump's personal returns, Neal has told the IRS to send over the returns from crooked organizations Trump has used to corruptly enrich himself: Bedminster golf course LLC, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, DTTM Operations LLC, DTTM Operations Managing Member Cor, LFB Acquisition Member Corp, and LFB Acquisition LLC.

Yesterday Bloomberg ran an OpEd by it's executive editor Timothy O'Brien, who is also author of the 2005 best-seller, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, the book that claimed Trump's true net worth was $250 million, not the billions he was claiming. Trump sued and the judge threw the suit out of court. Trump appealed and the appeals court judge and the appeals court told Trump to stop wasting everyone's time with his publicity-seeking frivolous lawsuits. Since being installed by Putin, Trump has had to bear O'Brien frequently been invited on TV to make fun of him. Yesterday's column, I’ve Seen Trump’s Tax Returns and You Still Haven’t, is sure to enrage Trump, whose mental health is already fragile. O'Brien begins by asking his readers if they "remember back in early 2016 when Donald Trump, who was still regarded as something of a long shot for the presidency, promised he would disclose his tax returns publicly-- just like every other candidate had done voluntarily since 1973. Trump told Meet the Press at the time, "I have big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we'll be working that over in the next period of time." O'Brien noted, as any serious Trump-watcher would that the "next period of time" turned out to mean "never."

Once Trump became skittish about releasing his returns he landed on one recurring reason for why he couldn’t put them out there, as forever memorialized when he was asked about his taxes during a presidential debate.

“As far as my return, I want to file it, except for many years, I've been audited every year,” he said in Houston on Feb. 25, 2016. “Twelve years or something like that. Every year, they audit me, audit me, audit me.”

An audit doesn’t prevent anyone from releasing their tax returns. If they really want to, they can go right ahead. Richard Nixon-- RICHARD NIXON-- released his tax returns when he was being audited. And it is extremely rare, also bordering on never, for someone to be audited several years in a row, much less twelve. So maybe Trump hasn’t been entirely forthright about his audits. But who knows? When asked during one interview why he thought he had been targeted, he gave a faith-based response. “Well, maybe because of the fact that I'm a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it, maybe there’s a bias,” he once offered.

In the end, Trump, who regards disclosure of his tax returns as a financial form of open-heart surgery, decided that people should just stop bothering him. “I'm worth more than $10 billion by any stretch of the imagination. Has tremendous cash. Tremendous cash flow. You don’t learn much from tax returns,” he told Meet the Press several months before Election Day in 2016. “But I would love to give the tax returns. But I can't do it until I'm finished with the audit.”

All that talk of an audit may have put Trump in a corner. On Wednesday night, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee asked the Internal Revenue Service to release six years of the president’s personal and business tax returns, attributing their request to Congress’s oversight role. Representative Richard Neal, chairman of the committee, said he was making the request precisely because he wanted to make sure that the IRS was properly auditing Trump.

Trump has already said he isn’t inclined to release his tax returns in accordance with Neal’s request, so this is certain to ignite a legal battle. In the interests of good government and the avoidance of financial conflicts of interest in the Oval Office, I hope Congress wins this one. And I know, for a fact, that it’s not true that you don’t learn much from a tax return. As I noted back in early 2016, I have seen Trump’s tax returns, and I think you should too.

Trump unsuccessfully sued me in 2006 for libel over a biography I wrote called TrumpNation, citing unflattering sections of the book that examined his business record and wealth. He lost the suit in 2011, and during the litigation he was forced to turn over his tax returns to my lawyers.

As I noted in 2016, I think there are five broad categories of disclosure related to his returns that should matter to voters, politicians, and anyone else interested in making sure the White House is conflicts-of-interest free.



1) Income: The returns would offer a gauge of how financially robust the president’s businesses actually are and how much of that money flows to him.

2) Business Activities: Trump has always said that the Trump Organization employs thousands and that U.S. companies shouldn’t relocate overseas and take jobs away from U.S. workers. Tax returns would offer a view of Trump’s global footprint and provide a clearer sense of the size and scope of his company.

3) Charitable Giving: Trump has often bragged about being a dedicated philanthropist. If that’s true, his returns would prove it.

4) Tax Planning: The president uses a lot of shell companies, or LLCs, as part of his business and personal dealings. Some wealthy people have also used shell companies overseas to mask their fortunes and hide the money from authorities. Trump’s returns would show how actively he has used tax havens, if at all.

5) Transparency and Accountability: This may be the most important category of all. Trump is now, arguably, the most powerful and influential man in the world. His tax returns would provide a much clearer picture of potential financial conflicts or pressures that would come to bear on him in the White House. They would also provide a way of monitoring whether the president is more interested in his financial self-interest and deal-making than policy-making.

Neal has only requested six years of Trump’s returns, which is, I think, regrettable. Some of the transactions that may interest investigators the most took place around 15 years ago, when Trump, suddenly flush with cash, went on a shopping spree. He bought and developed golf courses, launched a new hotel and condominium in Chicago, and deepened his involvement with the Trump SoHo Hotel in lower Manhattan.

It is still curious to me how Trump, who always used to finance his transactions with debt, raised the funds to do all that in the mid-2000s and pay cash. To find out, Neal will have to dig deeper than six years ago.

Maybe Pelosi Needs A New Chair For House Ways And Means-- Neal Is Dragging His Feet On Trump's Taxes

Mnuchin and Richard Neal, who REALLY doesn't want to get the Adam Schiff treatment from Trumpworld

When the Biden p.r. machine stirs up shit against Bernie-- which they never stop doing (it's like a pit of vipers whispering in the ears of any journalist foolish enough pay them any attention)-- one of the first things they always bring up is that he hasn't released his taxes. Really? When he ran in 2016 he did release his taxes for 2014; they were boring and very white bread. He has since pledged to release 10 years this time, but virtually every anti-Bernie pundit who has raised this, wrongly claims he's never released any tax returns.

You know who didn't release any tax returns of course. And, according to Greg Sargent's column in the Washington Post yesterday, the Democrats-- particularly Richard Neal-- seem to be dragging their feet and screwing it up. Trump's "absurd claim" that Barr's 4-page press release purporting to be a "summary" of the report granting him "total exoneration," is laughable and only hardcore Trump 2-digit IQ worshippers believe it-- oh, and the corporate media. Trump's "efforts to bully Democrats and the media into groveling with forgiveness for supposedly having gotten this scandal wrong, are all about what lies ahead. The obvious game is to chill further scrutiny, which very much constitutes a live threat to Trump that no amount of furious tweeting about 'exoneration' can make disappear." Sargent points out that that is precisely "why Democrats should, if anything, be intensifying their effort to access Trump’s tax returns right now, not dragging their feet on it."

He sites a new memo-- from centrist Dems no less-- hoping to amp up the pressure on Neal and Pelosi, arguing that "getting the returns is a legal slam dunk, and is absolutely justifiable, or even imperative, as a matter of oversight and good governance," since as head of the House Ways and Means Committee, Neal has the law in his side, a law that says he can "request any individual’s tax returns, after which the Treasury Department 'shall' furnish them." Neal has asked multiple House committees to each furnish a rationale rooted in governing or oversight for getting the returns, the theory being that this will place the request on firmer institutional footing and make the legal case stronger. The Trump administration will challenge the request, leading to a long court battle."

Over the weekend, Arthur Delaney at HuffPo reported that the overly cautious "Neal is in no hurry and seemingly doesn’t care if Democrats don’t get the documents before the next election." Back to Sargent:

The idea is that, while it may be understandable for Democrats to want to build a strong institutional and legal case, this cannot become an excuse for further delay. Notably, the memo points out that while there is no precedent for seeking a president’s tax returns under this particular provision of the law, that’s because for decades, presidents and presidential candidates voluntarily released them.

That is, until Trump blithely shredded this most basic norm of transparency-- meaning that his own unprecedented contempt for this norm is what necessitates the House taking this aggressive step in response.

Along those lines, the memo further argues that doing this would represent a thoroughly legitimate and reasonable exercise of Congress’ oversight function. Among the reasons:

• To determine whether Trump’s foreign financial dealings create conflicts of interest, or worse, whether he’s compromised by them in some way. We still do not know whether special counsel Robert S. Mueller III defined his investigation to avoid looking at Trump’s finances. Whether he did or not, the memo argues, Congress has its own obligation to scrutinize these questions.
• To determine whether Trump is violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause by receiving payments from foreign governments without Congress’ consent. The memo argues that the fact that the clause allows for Congress to consent to certain emoluments-- or not to-- itself requires getting the returns, so it can exercise its responsibility to determine whether any particular emoluments either are, or are not, deserving of congressional consent.
• To determine whether-- or to what extent-- Trump and his family have profited off the huge tax cut he signed, which could be substantial. The memo argues that this information could help Congress determine whether to go along with whatever future tax policies Trump proposes, such as making certain provisions in the new tax law permanent.

Here’s the thing. The urgency of all these matters should not in any way be seen as diminished by the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. That’s because, even if no criminal charges were brought for conspiracy with Russia, the Mueller probe and its spinoffs added substantially to the broader case against Trump’s corruption.

This is a case that will continue to build, as the multiple other investigations resulting from Mueller’s work, as well as those launched by House Democrats, proceed. As Timothy L. O’Brien, who understands the depths of Trump financial murk like no one else does, puts it, “reality is likely to keep intruding on everybody who has been ushering Trump-Russia coverage into the grave.”

After all, because of those investigations, we have learned that Trump carried on negotiations with Russia over a Moscow project for many months while GOP voters were picking their nominee; that he has been directly implicated in a criminal campaign finance scheme; and that Trump concealed both these things from America. Getting Trump’s tax returns could help shed light on whether there are other such foreign dealings, and on his tax treatment of the hush money payments, among other things.

We have also learned from Trump’s own former lawyer that he may have gamed assets for insurance and tax fraud purposes, and that Trump’s tax returns could contain clues to those things-- not to mention clues to the extensive history of tax fraud used to inflate his inherited fortune, something we learned about from that big NY Times expose.

Rather than getting drawn into a sad-sack debate over whether Democrats should “move on” from the Mueller investigation, it’s more natural to just keep the focus on Trump’s corruption, as a matter of basic oversight. The political ground for maintaining that focus is actually more fertile right now, due to everything we’ve learned-- and continue to learn-- as a result of the Mueller investigation. And getting Trump’s tax returns is central to that basic mission.

A couple of years ago Dr. Stephanie Sarkis, author of Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative And Emotionally Abusive People-- And Break Free, wrote a piece for Psychology Today 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting-- Gaslighting is a manipulation tactic used to gain power. And it works too well. The only way we're going to break free of Trump's gaslighting is at the polls in a little over a year and a half, but it's important to understand one of Trump's most used coping mechanisms. Sarkis defines gaslighting as a common tactic used by abusers, dictators, narcissists and cult leaders to gain more power, while making a victim question their reality. These are her 11 warning signs. How many of them do you recognize in Trumpanzee?

• They tell blatant lies-- with a straight face.
• They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
• They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
• They wear you down over time.
• Their actions do not match their words.
• They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
• They know confusion weakens people.
• They project.
• They try to align people against you.
• 10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
• 11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

Wednesday's Michael Cohen Hearing-- Trump's Hidden Tax Returns

Cohen's testimony was riveting. But I was shocked to hear an obviously deranged old woman who slipped by the NPR call filter last night. She was unable to complete a single thought and was either severely drug addicted and/or so intellectually impaired that dialing the phone must have been her biggest accomplishment of the month. All she could say is that Trump is her president and Cohen should be sent to jail. The host took her seriously and questioned her as though she had an IQ above 70, which she clearly didn't. He couldn't get anything out of her before he realized the whole call was a mess. I'm guess she accurately represents 99.9% of the Trump base. The rest are the billionaires.

Late Wednesday, Issie Lapowsky, writing for Wired noted that the efficacy of Cohen's testimony was...in the eye of the beholder. And there are a lot of really dumb beholders in our anti-science/anti-education country. "Cohen," wrote Lapowsky, "is a flawed man with nothing left to lose, charting a path to redemption by finally coming clean about crimes and misdeeds allegedly committed by the president of the United States. Either that, or he’s a cheat and a crook who can’t be trusted, who’s already pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and isn’t above doing it again if it’ll help him land a book deal. These are the two interpretations of Cohen’s hearing before the House Oversight Committee that manifested online Wednesday. As they’ve done so many times before-- during the Benghazi investigation, during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings-- the internet’s tribal factions retreated to their corners over the course of the day to tell utterly opposite stories about the much-anticipated hearings and what they revealed about Cohen and Trump.

On social media and on partisan sites, the conversation split into like-minded echo chambers, with each side parroting the talking points of their party’s members who were sitting in the hearing room. What emerged was a sort of cacophonous bizarro world that would have seemed implausible just a year ago: Conservative pundits and political operatives, including Trump’s own children, worked overtime to discredit a man who spent 10 years as a close confidante to Trump, and until last June, served as deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee. Liberals, meanwhile, spent their 240 characters sticking up for and even applauding the humility of a man who’ll head to prison in May for, among other things, lying to Congress to defend Trump and making hush money payments on his behalf.

In a world of divergent media diets and carefully curated filter bubbles, just which story you heard depends mostly on your timeline.

Liberal Twitter woke up Wednesday to an avalanche of stories about Cohen’s core arguments. In his opening testimony, which was reported by several media outlets before the hearing began, Cohen called Trump “a racist,” “a con man,” and “a cheat” who knew as early as July of 2016 that Wikileaks was planning “a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Cohen stated that, while serving as president, Trump personally signed a check to reimburse Cohen for hush money payments he made to women who said they’d had affairs with Trump, and that Trump once challenged Cohen to name a single country run by a black person that isn’t a “shithole.” In his remarks, Cohen painted Trump as a petty tyrant, who had Cohen threaten a high school to prevent it from leaking the future president's grades and SAT scores and who once enlisted a bidder to buy a portrait of Trump at an auction, only to repay the bidder out of his charity’s funds.



Both voices on the left and mainstream outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and Wired seized on these accusations as the focal point of the day. This was, after all, the evidence that Cohen had been called on to present. And, as WIRED contributor Garrett Graff pointed out, despite Cohen’s history of lies, he had come to Congress armed with receipts in the form of checks and other documentation that backed up much of his testimony.

However, you wouldn’t find stories about any of this evidence if you scoured social media circles on the right; you wouldn’t find any questions from Republican committee members about these issues either. Instead, conservative outlets pumped out stories casting doubt on Cohen’s credibility. “Cohen Admits He Can’t Corroborate his Allegations Against Trump,” read one headline in the Daily Caller. “Republican Congratulates Cohen For Being First Witness to Testify Before Congress After Being Convicted of Lying to Congress,” read another. Breitbart’s homepage, meanwhile, led with a story about Debra Messing, John Cusack, and other celebrities exploding with “hot takes” about the hearing. They also ran stories like “Michael Cohen Won’t Deny Plans for Book, Movie Deal Under Oath” and “Trump Campaign Dismisses ‘Convicted Perjurer’ Michael Cohen Testimony.”

Ken White noted for Atlantic readers that the committee's Republican neanderthals failed to destroy Cohen's credibility, committing the classic cross-examination blunder. "House Republicans needed a trial lawyer-- or even a moderately bright junior-high mock-trial participant-- to tell them how to do anything," wrote White. Cross-examination is hard. It’s not just barking at the witness. It takes meticulous planning and patience. Republicans could have marshaled Cohen’s many sins of the past to undermine his statements today. Instead, they returned repeatedly to lies and misdeeds he’s already admitted, wallowed in silly trivialities such as the 'Women for Cohen' Twitter account, and yelled. The effect was to make an unsympathetic man modestly more sympathetic. Republicans committed the classic cross-examination blunder: They gave the witness the opportunity to further explain his harmful direct testimony. They provided Cohen with one slow pitch up the middle after another, letting him repeat the cooperating witness’s go-to explanation like a mantra: I did these bad things so often and so long because that’s what it took to work for your guy. I have seldom seen a cross-examination go worse.

Charlie Pierce went further. To his ears, the committee Republicans, "products of the conservative bubble," so completely and utterly disgraced themselves so badly that they "made a career hoodlum look good." In fact, Cohen "gave as good as he got, and it was easy to forget for a moment what a bought-and-paid-for hoodlum he'd always been. He did the contrition dance deftly and, by and large, managed to stay cool under Meadows's provocation and Jordan's idiocies. He even did a better job debunking some of the alleged Trump misdeeds-- love-children, the mysterious meeting in Prague-- than the Republicans on the commitee bothered to do. There was something about him that yearned for the old days when he was sitting around Trump Tower with the boss, paying off porn stars and threatening high-school records offices. It would have been poignant if it wasn't all as sordid as the worst brothel on the Singapore docks."



Anyone who watched the first half of the questioning has to agree with White's assessment, basically that "this was an opportunity to build the outline of a case against Trump. Democrats didn’t. Instead, they triumphantly repeated Cohen’s more salacious accusations, speechified, and uncritically embraced Cohen’s I-am-a-sinner-seeking-redemption narrative." Once they got back from their voting for gun control break, though, the questioning abruptly changed. The tired old lawyers with all the seniority and dulled chops, like the useless Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were replaced by fiery, younger members who were out for blood and weren't interested in bragging about themselves. Ro Khanna (D-CA) led the way, along with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), all potential MVPs who had the innate understanding of what they needed to get out of Cohen that the sleepy senior members seem to have lost long, long ago.

Perhaps the most significant testimony came while AOC was questioning Cohen. Watch:



The Democrats haven't subpoenaed Trump's taxes yet. Why not. People tend to blame House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-MA), which is fine-- except he's not alone in his clear dereliction of duty. What about House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY)? House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA)? Or, very obviously, House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD). They all have something in common-- Pelosi. She decides something that big, not them. Recently CREDO Action and several other groups sent Pelosi a note complaining about Neal's reticence. They sent it to the right place.

We are writing you as organizations who believe that fairness and equity in both the writing and implementation of tax law is of critical importance. Our commitment to fairness is why we urge you to take every available step to ensure that the House Ways and Means Committee fulfills its Constitutional obligation to provide stringent oversight.

Congress’ oversight authority is broad, encompassing investigation designed to hold both government and corporations accountable. Zealous oversight is how lawmakers learn what laws must be tweaked and what new laws must be drafted. And in the field of tax, the need for reform could not be clearer.

Yet despite the exigency of strong oversight of tax collection, we have watched with growing concern as the Ways and Means Committee has been conspicuously slow to investigate the critical departments and agencies within its jurisdiction. Trump’s Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are charged with not only the difficult task of fighting “run of the mill” tax avoidance and tax evasion, but also to implement a sweeping new tax law written in considerable haste in late 2017.

Hanging over these complex issues of interpretation and policymaking is the fact that the President and his family have not divested themselves of a sprawling business empire. Additionally, many of the key figures in his administration, such as Jared Kushner, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, retain vast and complex portfolios either personally or within their families.

In other words-- even if the Trump Administration were an ordinary presidency, the decaying ability of the IRS to collect revenue owed by the richest individuals and corporations would demand serious attention. And the nature of the Trump tax law and the conflicts of interest which envelop Trump Administration’s senior personnel only serves to deepen the urgency.

Chairman Richard Neal’s term heading the Ways and Means Committee has not commenced in a manner that gives us confidence that under his Chairmanship the Committee is poised to provide the timely and stringent oversight America’s rule-abiding taxpayers deserve. Doing that requires both focusing the work of the entire committee as well as unleashing the Oversight Subcommittee chaired by Congressman John Lewis-- including ensuring that the Oversight Subcommittee has adequate resources for vigorous and wide-ranging oversight work.

Because we believe that the Trump Administration’s implementation of its tax collection and tax law interpretation responsibilities cries out for energetic oversight, we ask for you and your leadership team to work with Chairman Neal and the Ways and Means Committee to make sure that the 116th Congress fulfills its Constitutional responsibilities.

A month ago Eleanor Eagan and Jeff Hauser, writing for the Center for Economic and Policy Center's blog, also tried pressuring Neal, reminding him that Democrats ran and won on an anti-corruption platform and that they now needed to "fulfill their promises to bring accountability to Trump, his powerful allies, and corporate bad actors. Oversight is an incredibly powerful tool that can shine a light on overlooked issues, unearth answers about clandestine misbehavior, and generate consensus around reforms.

"Unfortunately," they continued, "Richard Neal (D-MA), the Chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means, has already retreated from his earlier promise to request Trump’s tax returns expeditiously. Since Neal’s alarming decision became clear, we have worked diligently to make the case that his aversion to conflict with Trump and powerful corporate interests is wrong and that his hesitancy to conduct stringent oversight is of broad public concern," who they accused of being-- provably-- a corrupted corporate Democrat from a bright blue district who has spent way too much time in DC to be an even remotely effective agent of change.

Forget Richard Neal. Look what AOC did in her question time (in the PBS video above). By asking Cohen about how Trump cheated the IRS-- with questions like "Do you think we need to review his financial statements and his tax returns in order to compare them?" and about how he reduced his real estate tax bills by deflating the reported value of his assets-- she absolutely gave Cummings a casus belli to request the returns. "Would it help for the committee to obtain," she asked Cohen, "federal and state tax returns from the president and his company to address that discrepancy? Cohen, the in the straight man role he relishes: "I believe so."