Is Biden Really Choosing Between Two Ex-Cops as VP?

by Thomas Neuburger

According to Charles Gasparino, a Fox News reporter whom you may or may not consider reliable (not because he's Fox; because he's Gasparino), Joe Biden has narrowed his VP search list to two names — Rep. Val Demings of Florida and former presidential candidate Kamala Harris of California.

Both are women, both are people of color ... and both are ex-cops of one stripe or another.

Kamala Harris is certainly a familiar name — ex-Attorney General of California and a former "top cop" who for years ran a "tough on crime" agenda. As the Guardian put it during Harris's candidacy phase, "In her career as a prosecutor, [Harris] supported increased criminalization of sex work, took no action in key police abuse cases and defended a troubled prison system. ... Among the many policies now drawing renewed scrutiny, Harris’s approach to sex work, police reform, prisoners’ rights and truancy reveal the tensions between her record in law enforcement and her current progressive rhetoric."

Tulsi Gabbard famously eviscerated Harris over her record as prosecutor during the August 2019 primary debate in Detroit:

"Senator Harris says she's proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she'll be a prosecutor president. But I'm deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.

"She blocked evidence — she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California."

Gabbard merely scratched the surface of all that's wrong with Harris, but this much is enough in these post-George Floyd times.

Val Demings is less well known, but aside from having been elected to the House in 2016, she's the former police chief of Orlando. A simple search, in Wikipedia no less, produces this damning information:

"According to a 2015 article in The Atlantic, the Orlando Police Department "has a long record of excessive-force allegations, and a lack of transparency on the subject, dating back at least as far as Demings's time as chief."^[10] A 2008 Orlando Weekly exposé described the Orlando Police Department as "a place where rogue cops operate with impunity, and there's nothing anybody who finds himself at the wrong end of their short fuse can do about it."^[11] Demings responded with an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel, arguing that "Looking for a negative story in a police department is like looking for a prayer at church" and added that "It won't take long to find one." In the same op-ed, she cast doubt on video evidence that conflicts with officers' statements in excessive force cases, writing, "a few seconds (even of video) rarely capture the entire set of circumstances."^[10]

"In 2010, an Orlando police officer flipped 84-year-old Daniel Daley over his shoulder after the man became belligerent, throwing him to the ground and breaking a vertebra in his neck.^[12] Daley alleged excessive force and filed a lawsuit. The police department cleared the officer as "justified" in using a "hard take down" to arrest Daley, concluding he used the technique correctly even though he and the other officer made conflicting statements. Demings said "the officer performed the technique within department guidelines" but also said that her department had "begun the process of reviewing the use of force policy and will make appropriate modifications." A federal jury ruled in Daley's favor and awarded him $880,000 in damages."

Of course, this just touches on the problems with Demings tenure as police chief. The Atlantic article quoted above says bluntly, "The [Orlando police] department has a long record of excessive-force allegations, and a lack of transparency on the subject, dating back at least as far as Demings’s time as chief."

In a just world, this would damn her VP chances, just as Amy Klobuchar's record as Hennepin County Attorney, home of Minneapolis, damned her VP chances, at least for now.

But this is not a just world. The presidential race has devolved into a contest both candidates deserve to lose, and Democratic voters have a choice of not voting for president or voting for a candidate who, Baptist-like, will prepare the way for the Next Donald Trump as surely as Barack Obama prepared the way for this one.

The presidential race is now Joe Biden's to lose. If indeed he's choosing between two tough-on-crime, pro-police candidates as his VP and successor, he appears to be trying to lose it, or testing how low he can go in progressive voters' eyes and still win.
 
  

State Of The Democratic Nomination Heading Into Xmas

The B-Team

Every Monday, Morning Consult posts the results of its daily polling of Democratic primary votes. Their data goes beyond just the horse race, which is basically that Status Quo Joe (31%), Bernie (21%), Elizabeth (15%) and Mayo Pete (9%) are the top tier candidates, with Bloomberg (6%), Yang (5%), Booker (3%), Klobuchar (3%) and Steyer (3%) drawing some attention.

I found it more interesting, for example, to see who the second choices was among voters who preferred the top candidates. Among Status Quo Joe backers, Bernie is the second choice with 27% of his voters. I know… makes no sense, except that most Biden backers are politically unsophisticated primarily operating on name recognition. Bernie supporters picked someone who make some sense— Elizabeth Warren (the choice of 30% of his backers). And 31% of her supporters picked Bernie as their second choice. Among Mayo Pete backers— looking for a candidate who won’t change anything— 22% picked Status Quo Joe. And among Bloomberg’s supporters, 36% said Status Quo Joe is their second choice. Best ticket would be Bernie and Elizabeth, right?

These are the candidates with the highest favorables (second number is unfavorables)

• Bernie- 74% (19%)
• Status Quo Joe- 71% (22%)
• Elizabeth- 63% (19%)
• Mayo- 50% (17%)
• Yang- 47% (13%)
• Booker- 46% (18%)
• Bloomberg- 44% (27%)
• Klobuchar- 40% (14%)
• Castro- 37% (18%)
• Steyer- 35% (16%)

It’s also worth noting who Democrats really don’t like. These are candidates who too many voters find unlikable:

• Tulsi- 30%
• Bloomberg- 27%
• Marianne- 23%
• Status Quo Joe- 22%

This week Neil Abercombrombie, a former congressman and then governor of Hawaii, called on Tulsi to resign from Congress immediately and also the week Dennis Kucinich endorsed her. She voted “present” on impeaching Trump and has generally continued pissing off Democrats who are increasingly realizing she’s not really running for president, just building name recognition and a donor base for a run for Hawaii’s gubernatorial election in 2022.

There are also more than a few candidates who are still not well-known among Democratic voters. Virtually everyone knows Status Quo Joe and Bernie. But way too unknown to run for president:

• Deval Patrick- 47%
• Michael Bennet- 37%
• Marianne- 34%
• Tulsi- 31%
• Delaney- 30%
• Steyer- 27%
• Klobuchar- 24%

Among the frontrunners, only Mayo is still unknown by a significant number of Democratic voters: 18%.

And these were my own polls of twitter this week. First was how Democratic voters responded to Yang's announcement that he might pardon Trump (information that wasn't available for the Morning Consult polling:

And the other was an earlier poll asking if there is a candidate who participants just would not vote for, even if abstaining would make it easier for Trump to win a second term. The comment under the poll, represents the winning choice and it comes from progressive Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach.

No, Tulsi Is NOT Going To Run As A Third-Party Candidate For President

One of Tulsi's colleagues in Congress-- asked me for anonymity inorder to share some thoughts with me about her for DWT. I didn't ask her about Tulsi. She just brought her up on her own after she announced last week that she isn't running for reelection. Below are parts of the conversation that don't give away her identity.

She asked me to read this Igor Derysh piece at Salon about the foolish speculation that Tulsi may run as a third-party candidate. Last month I told you that Tulsi wasn't going to run for her House seat and that she's running for governor of Hawaii in 2022. People though I made it up; I didn't. And I can yell you as categorically that anyone talking about her running as a third party candidate is talking out of their ass. She isn't going to. Not under any circumstance. She wants to be president-- and is sure she will be-- and knows running as a third party candidate will give her as much a chance as ever becoming president as Jill Stein has. Being governor, on the other hand, would help.

My friend the congresswoman said that she thinks that "what’s happening is that she realizes that she can always run for Governor or Senator after this, but not if she’s defeated for her House seat. It’s also possible, however, that being the undercard at all of those Sanders rallies three years ago just went to her head, and she really thinks that she ought to be President."

No, she didn't need that. She was raised inside a bizarre cult by people who drilled it into her head that she would be president. Ever step she makes, every breath she takes is in furtherance of that inevitability.

"I don’t think that that’s going to work well for her," my friend replied. "She’s not Japanese or Filipino. Being a female combat veteran can get you elected to Congress, because no one really cares who represents them in Congress (and most people can’t even name their Member of Congress). But there are a huge number of special interests who care greatly who is Governor, especially in Hawaii (where the state government pretty much runs the state). Those special interests are going to back a compliant Japanese or Filipino candidate, to take advantage of the identity politics."

We had some back and forth about Hawaiian politics at that point and then she continued: "At some point, someone will check and see how many times she actually went back to Hawaii from DC during her terms in Congress. And someone else, someone besides you, will write about her and Michael Grimm. And someone else will write about her ties to Hindu extremist groups woven into her fundraising network. I actually think that she has come close to being what the country needs: a public critic of the military-industrial complex and endless military intervention. We spend billions of dollars bombing the crap out of people in countries that our idiot President couldn’t find on a globe, even if all the country names were on it, since he can’t read. But her level of self-absorption is so high that when she actually makes some useful point in that regard, it’s as though she’s emerging from a dream state."

I spoke with a friend of mine who's in the state legislature in Honolulu and follows Tulsi closely-- and warily. He agrees that the whole craziness last week isn't going to help her political ambitions. "Tulsi is in a no-win situation," he told me this morning. "If she stays in Congress, she'll continue to face withering criticism of her missed votes and lack of attention to her district from Kai Kahele, who had a real chance to defeat her in the primary. By giving up her seat, she blunts those attacks, but makes it much harder to get back into office by, for example, running for governor in 2022. Hawaii requires 70 percent of donations to a state candidate to come from in state, which means she'd no longer be able to rely primarily on her mainland Hindu nationalist donor base. Being out of office means the establishment support will dwindle. Last but not least, there are many well-known candidates already running, including Lt. Gov. Josh Green, Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, former State Senator Jill Tokuda, and potentially state Senator Kai Kahele, even if he wins the 2020 congressional race. Tulsi would be far from the favorite in the 2022 gubernatorial race."

Forget About Going Back To Normalcy-- That Does Not Exist Any Longer

Not normal: Federal Judge Sallie Kim held Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in contempt of court for violating an order to stop collecting loan payments from former students of scam colleges. Kim fined Education Department $100,000 for violating the preliminary injunction. "The exceedingly rare judicial rebuke of a Cabinet secretary came after the Trump administration was forced to admit to the court earlier this year that it erroneously collected on the loans of some 16,000 borrowers who attended Corinthian Colleges despite being ordered to stop doing so."

Not normal: Tulsi Gabbard pretending to be a Democrat and also still pretending to be running for president. Here's the video she sent out to her constituents last night finally telling them she's not running for Congress, though she didn't mention she has her sights set on the governors' mansion (2022)-- as a pathway to the White House (God forbid).





In her Intercept post yesterday-- Ilhan Omar Explains Why She Endorsed Bernie Sanders-- Akela Lacy explained that the once skeptical almost-Elizabeth Warren supporter was back-- firmly-- in Bernie's camp. "Sometimes," said Ilhan, "you have to be reminded about the vision you truly believe in, and where your core values lie. And for me, I know that there are people that have to switch some things around, and there are people that are just easy to believe in. And I was reminded that Bernie is one of the people."

Asked whether she meant that Warren had switched things around, Omar said, “For me.”

Most Democrats, she said, belong to the “Warren wing” of the party. “I mean it’s the one thing that everybody accuses us of. We think we’re the smartest in the room. We are very policy-oriented. We care about the details. And there is that aspect of Warren that is exciting. She has a plan for everything,” Omar said. “But there is, I think, an expansion of what universal values are, and how we should be thinking about what kind of revolutionary ideas this country needs in order for these structural changes that Warren talks about to be implemented. And that person who will carry that out is Bernie.”

Interestingly, over the past few days, the ActBlue "Bernie Congress" page-- which you can link by clicking on the thermometer on the right-- has started filling up with courageous congressional candidates who feel the same way Ilhan does. Bernie's the one... more than any of the other potential presidential nominees. He's the polar opposite of not just Trump, but also of Biden ("Status Quo Joe") who doesn't seem to understand that going "back to normalcy" will do nothing but guarantee another extreme reaction that will bring us another Trumpist kind of response from voters who are fed up with what Biden and his big money backers think is "normalcy."

UPDATE: I Was In Elizabeth Warren's Camp

Kim Williams worked as a diplomat under Obama and then worked as a university professor. Now she's running for Congress in California's Central Valley, for a seat held by a reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Costa. "Like Rep. Omar," she told us this morning, "I was in Elizabeth Warren’s camp. Anyone who’s ever heard me speak knows that I spend a great deal of time talking about policy. We simply can’t fix the many problems my district faces without bold and detailed plans. But we also need a heart, and we have to show up. And that’s what Bernie Sanders has done here. The three counties in my district are often referred to as the forgotten California. It’s the poorest district in this wealthy state, and one of the poorest districts in this nation, which probably explains why few presidential candidates make their way here. Bernie is the only candidate to have prioritized and invested in the Central Valley. Bernie has not only had the political courage to go against the media and the moneyed interests that have hurt so many working Americans long before anyone else, he has shown a genuine affection for so many forgotten people that are tired of Democrats who only care about them on election years. In his words and deeds, he has shown up, and that gives me the confidence to know he’ll show up in every way that counts as president."

Republican senators are not going to save us from Trump. We have to do that ourselves-- hopefully by replacing him with Bernie in 13 months. The House is going to impeach him and the Senate is going to find him "innocent." And then it will be up to the voters to remove Trump and his Senate (and House) enablers. National Review editor Rich Lowry dispelled the fantasy of a Trump removal for Politico yesterday. Republican senators," wrote Lowry, "will soon be receiving an invitation to tear apart the Republican Party ahead of the 2020 elections, and they are going to decline to accept it. It’s a trope of pro-impeachment commentary that it should be simple for Republican senators to swap out President Donald Trump, who puts them in an awkward position every day, for Vice President Mike Pence, an upstanding Reagan conservative who could start with a fresh slate in the runup to the 2020 election." [Feh!]

Lowry points out that the idea may sound fine but it's big flaw "is that is entirely removed from reality. If Senate Republicans vote to remove Trump on anything like the current facts, even the worst possible interpretation of them, it would leave the GOP a smoldering ruin. It wouldn’t matter who the Democrats nominated for 2020. They could run Bernie Sanders on a ticket balanced by Elizabeth Warren and promise to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez secretary of the Treasury and Ilhan Omar secretary of Defense, and they’d still win." Don't we wish!

A significant portion of the Republican Party would consider a Senate conviction of Trump a dastardly betrayal. Perhaps most would get over it, as partisan feelings kicked in around a national election, but not all. And so a party that has managed to win the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988 would hurtle toward November 2020 divided.

How does anyone think that would turn out?

A lot of Trump supporters are going to want to blame the Republican establishment even if Trump loses in 2020 fair and square, with the backing of the united party apparatus. Imagine what they will think if a couple of dozen Republican senators decide to deny him the opportunity to run for reelection, without a single Republican voter having a say on his ultimate fate. It’s hard to come up with any scenario better designed to stoke the populist furies of Trump’s most devoted voters.

Trump himself isn’t going to get convicted by the Senate and say, “Well, I’m a little disappointed in your judgment to be honest. But it was a close call, and Mike Pence is a great guy, and I’m just grateful I had the opportunity to serve this country in the White House for more than three years.”

He won’t go away quietly to lick his wounds. He won’t delete his Twitter account. He won’t make it easy on anyone. He will vent his anger and resentment at every opportunity. It will be “human scum” every single day.

And it’s not as though the media is going to lose its interest in the most luridly telegenic politician that we’ve ever seen. The mainstream press would be delighted to see Trump destroyed, yet sad to bid him farewell. The obvious way to square the circle would be to continue to give Trump lavish coverage in his post-presidency. He’d be out of the White House but still driving screaming CNN chyrons every other hour.

In other words, Trump’s removal wouldn’t be a fresh start for Pence and the GOP in an accelerated post-Trump era; it would be more like getting stuck in the poisonous epilogue of the Trump era, awaiting the inevitable advent of the Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg era.

All of this is why the “cracks in the Republican Senate” coverage is so ridiculous and overwrought. It depends on the idea that GOP senators-- who, it is true, are continually frustrated by Trump’s controversies-- are on the verge of engineering their party’s own destruction. There was even some “cracks showing” analysis around Mitch McConnell saying the other day that he didn’t remember a conversation with Trump, as recounted by the president, praising his call with the Ukrainian president. The obvious explanation is that McConnell really didn’t recall such a conversation, not that the shrewdest, most realistic politician in Washington was getting ready to immolate himself and his party as soon as the articles of impeachment arrive from the House.

Mitt Romney has gotten a lot of coverage for his excoriating comments about the Ukraine mess and the Syria pullout. He really might vote to convict when it comes to it, but he’s not a broad indicator of the direction of the party. As goes Romney on impeachment ... so goes Romney on impeachment.

It’s possible to come up with a scenario in which Ukraine developments are much worse than it’s possible to imagine right now, and Trump’s support craters, even among Republicans. Then, you might have GOP senators voting to convict. This is just another path to the destruction of the party’s hopes in 2020, though, because there’s no way it would snap back from a Nixonian meltdown at the top in less than a year.

Nonetheless, Sean Eldridge's Stand Up America has decided to spend six figures trying to persuade House Republicans in swing districts to vote for impeachment-- you know, the Republicans that Trump called "human scum" the other day. Eldridge's list of targets:

• Fred Upton (MI)
• Will Hurd (TX, retiring)
• John Katko (NY)
• Francis Rooney (FL, retiring)
• Chip Roy (TX)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA)
• Peter King (NY)
• Chris Smith (NJ)
• Elise Stefanik (NY)

Eldridge didn't include his own congressman, Lee Zeldin, even though he would be a perfect strategic target. "It's time for Republicans in Congress," said Eldridge, "to grow a spine and defend our democracy by supporting the impeachment inquiry, because no one-- including Donald Trump-- is above the law." (DCCC talking points.)

Tulsi v Hillary... Godzilla v Destroyah

Although... she's not wrong about the personification of the rot

Not everyone wishes Hillary would go away-- or at least go silent until after the election-- but everyone I know does. This blog has been a bastion of anti-Tulsi sentiment for at least 6 years, when she started serving in Congress. And it really has been a go-to-spot for all Tulsi's history long before she was known on the national stage. Take a look. I had a nice meeting with her before she declared she was running and she answered all my questions and then asked me to stop writing about her so negatively while she was running for president. I've refrained from the gratuitous remarks and covered her the same way I would cover any candidate. Now she's not really running for president any longer. She's running for governor of Hawaii (2022). She sees it as a better path to the White House in the future. Yesterday, though, Hillary gave her her biggest day of the campaign.

What Hillary had to say on David Plouffe's podcast was beneath her. She shouldn't have mentioned Tulsi-- even if she actually never actually did (at least not by name)-- at least in part because she doesn't know what she's talking about. Tulsi isn't going to run as a third party spoiler and it just made Hillary sound like a conspiracy nut to say so.

I doubt the Russians are "grooming" Tulsi but maybe Hillary knows more about that than I do. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians... They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far." What is Plouffe doing, a gossip show?

"If the nesting doll fits," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said when asked if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard.

"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

Gabbard, in a late August interview with CNN, ruled out a third-party bid.

"I will not," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN. "No, I have ruled that out."

Gabbard has tried to fight off the charge that she is being pushed by Russian interests.

"Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears," Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. "This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable."

Clinton also accused Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 elections, of being a "Russian asset."

"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

Now read these tweets. They're absolutely epic!

Now Tulsi is raising money by bashing the hapless, bumbling Hillary. In a fundraising e-mail, her campaign wrote "Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard-- a combat veteran, soldier and Major in the Army National Guard-- of being 'groomed' to be a 'Russian asset.' ... If this a fight she wants to have, one that has implications for all of us and the future of our democracy, then I challenge her to come out from behind her proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media, and face me directly." And late last night Justin Amash (I-MI) jumped into the fray as well... and I have to admit, I like this man's thinking on this matter:

Tulsi Isn't Going To Be President-- The QuestionIs Whether She Can Be Re-elected To Congress At This Point

Tulsi never seems to have any problems with genocidal fascists

Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign is going badly. Did anyone ever expect it to do better? She's a polarizing figure and I always guessed she was running for a cabinet or sub-cabinet position anyone. Her RealClearPolitics national polling average is 1.0. The new YouGov poll from The Economist. Brought more bad news when it was released yesterday. Only 5% of Democrats have a very favorable opinion of her. 23% of Democrats have a somewhat favorable opinion. 28% have an unfavorable opinion and 44% have either never heard of her or don't have enough information to make an assessment. That number goes up even higher among independents. Among Democrats and independents who say they plan to participate in the Democratic primary, only 5% say they would even consider voting for her. And when asked who they would vote for if the primary was today, her number is just 2%.

Could the news get any worse? Oh, yes. None of her colleagues have endorsed her-- no one from Congress and no one from Hawaii, other than her crackpot right-wing, bigoted father. Texas Republican Ron Paul endorsed her, which is a little tricky to use in a Democratic Party primary campaign, and so did filmmaker Oliver Stone and some guy from Russia's Sputnik News. But all that's good news compared to the PPP survey last week of her own congressional district, HI-02, the whole state outside of Honolulu and southern Oahu. Not only do most of her constituents think she should drop out of the presidential race, 50% of Democratic primary voters in the district say they would prefer to vote for someone else, compared to just 38% who say they want to back Tulsi.

Dean Debnam, President of PPP noted that "Hawaii has open primaries and given the hopelessness for Republicans of electing their own candidates to most posts in the state, a lot of conservative leaning voters participate in the Democratic primary because it's their best chance to influence who their elected officials will be. Trump voters are one segment of the Democratic primary electorate that Gabbard is leading-- she gets 26% with them to 15% for Joe Biden with nobody else in double digits." Because she stumbled into backing Bernie in 2016-- part of her war with Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- many progressives on the mainland have always assumed she was a progressive, something Hawaiians find humorous and ignorant. Mainland progressives have started waking up a little as the presidential campaign brought her into clearer focus. The video in this tweet from Monday was enlightening for many since it was clear she was denouncing the impeachment inquiry with Republican Party talking points:

My concern all along has been that impeachment has been something that has been used as a partisan talking point to undo the results of the 2016 election... I think that there certainly have been a lot of voices who've been looking for a reason to impeach Trump because they did not want to impeach the outcome of the 2016 election..."

Who talks that way? Fox News? The Freedom Caucus? The NRC? Trump and Giuliani? Her father?

Right now Elizabeth Warren is leading the presidential contest in Tulsi's district:

Elizabeth Warren- 25%
Status Quo Joe- 22%
Bernie- 13%
Tulsi- 13%
Mayo Pete- 5%
Andrew Yang- 5%
Kamala- 3%
Beto- 1%
Cory Booker-1%

Tulsi's rival for the congressional seat, state Senator Kai Kahele, was in L.A. for meetings yesterday and he popped by for a chat. I asked him a few questions about the issues he's campaigning on. Most of them are also on his official campaign website. Medicare-for-All, for example... he said he's all in and his website? Read it yourself:

Same with the Green New Deal. All in when he sat in my office talking with me about it and all in on his website:

I asked him about gun control. He said he would co-sponsor David Cicilline's sales ban on assault weapons "in a heartbeat." Affordable housing is one of the biggest issues in Hawaii and he starts the conversation by recognizing that "housing is a basic human right." And when I asked him if he backs a $15.00 minimum wage his only hesitation was that he thinks it should be $20/hour.

Isn't It Congress' Solemn Duty To Impeach Trump? What The Hell Are They Waiting For?

Funding Trump's concentration camps was inexcusable and horrific and every Democrat who voted to follow Pelosi into it has to live with that-- as do their constituents who vote to reelect them next year. Refusing to impeach Trump, the worst criminal in the history of the American presidency by far, is another issue legislators will have to live with for their whole lives. I would never, under any circumstance, vote for someone who hasn't come out clearly and publicly in favor of impeaching him. Their careers are important to them and their families-- but the country should come first, especially on a matter as existential as this one is.

Every now and then the real Tulsi Gabbard pops out-- as it did yesterday on the premiere of Greta Van Susteren's new show, Full Court Press (KTLA here in Los Angeles, KPIX in New York City and KHNL and KGMB in Honolulu). The Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate-- who once applied for a cabinet post in the Trump regime-- said she opposes impeachment: "I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart." She couldn't be more wrong about what's in the best interest of the country, which is exactly why the Founders put impeachment into the Constitution.

Michael Owens is running for a suburban Atlanta seat currently occupied by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, David Scott. Micael doesn't see this the way Tulsi-- or David Scott-- sees it. "Over 130 members of Congress, a majority of the House Democrats," he told me this morning, "understand that it is their constitutional responsibility to pursue an impeachment inquiry. I agree with them that we must begin an inquiry. No one is above the law and with the investigation of Mueller-- and in some cases, Trumps own admissions-- there should be enough to start the inquiry and allow the process to uncover the obstruction and myriad of other things that will come to light. I'm dissappointed, that my opponent, hasn't signed on and continues to remain silent on this issue. Our district is a solid blue district that is calling for change. Impeaching Trump will not immediately fix everything. But impeachment is an investigative process that allows Americans to uncover and see the corruption and greed of this administration and begin restoring faith in this democracy at home and worldwide."

Marie Newman is also running for a solid blue seat held by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski, who opposes impeaching Trump. "For me," she said today, "this is simple, the overwhelming majority in my district believe serious crimes have been committed and  they want impeachment inquiries to start. I stand with my district."

On Friday, Politico's early morning team wrote that "There’s a multi-faceted divide in the Democratic caucus right now but it can easily be broken down like this: From what we can tell, most every Democrat wants to impeach Trump. For the most part, those who are not publicly saying they support impeachment believe the politics do not break in the Democrats’ favor. Few Dems these days oppose impeachment on the merits." In other words, instead of doing what they think is right for the country, they are following Pelosi and her disgraceful-- disgusting-- political calculus that breaks down basically to worrying about reelction bids of half a dozen Blue Dogs in red seats, all of them cowardly scum who vote consistently badly and don't belong in Congress in any case.

Later in the day, 3 other Politico reporters wrote about how Jerry Nadler's beleaguered House Judiciary Committee is struggling with this. Kyle Cheney, Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan pointed out that the committee "is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing 'impeachment investigation' of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions. The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be released Monday morning."

The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the “officialness” of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.

Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses. There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday’s call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.

Advocates of opening a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump have clamored for the Judiciary Committee to more clearly spell out the contours of its investigation-- a move they hope strengthens the House’s hand in a handful of court cases to obtain evidence and testimony against the president.

In early August, Nadler publicly declared that his committee had already launched impeachment proceedings despite taking no formal vote to do so. The claim sparked confusion, even among some Democrats, who sought clarification as they faced questions from progressive constituents about the status of the House's effort to recommend Trump's removal from office.

The committee has also repeatedly described an ongoing “impeachment investigation” in court filings submitted during the recess, part of legal efforts to compel testimony from witnesses to allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. By declaring impeachment under active consideration, the committee has sought to convince judges of the urgency of providing Democrats with the evidence they're seeking.

But Republicans on the committee protested loudly that impeachment proceedings require a vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's resistance to a formal impeachment inquiry-- despite her support of the Judiciary Committee's legal filings-- has complicated the House's posture further.

In addition to probing potential obstruction of justice by Trump, the Judiciary Committee is weighing allegations that Trump directed hush money payments to women accusing him of extramarital affairs in the weeks before the 2016 election, as well as evidence that Trump has sought to steer U.S. and foreign government spending to his luxury resorts, raising questions about whether he has violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

Until now, Trump-related investigations had been a patchwork effort by six congressional committees. The Ways and Means Committee, for example, is pursuing Trump's tax returns in court. The Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee are seeking Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. The Foreign Affairs Committee has sought details about Trump's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the intelligence community has assessed sought to boost Trump's 2016 electoral prospects. And the Oversight Committee had initially taken the lead on allegations about hush money payments, calling Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to testify in February before he went to prison on charges connected to the scheme.

The Judiciary Committee had mostly kept focused on obstruction of justice and the fallout from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report, made public in April, that revealed hundreds of contacts between Russians and Trump campaign associates, as well as repeated attempts by Trump to constrain or shut down the probe altogether. Mueller testified publicly to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in late July, days before the House departed for its six-week recess.

But his testimony uncorked a surge of support for launching formal impeachment proceedings. More than half of the House's 235 Democrats now support taking that step. The number has grown steadily, even after Nadler suggested impeachment proceedings had begun.

But the momentum has been tempered by Pelosi, who warned Democrats in an Aug. 23 call that public sentiment hasn't kept pace. Polls show most Americans still generally oppose opening impeachment proceedings, even though Democratic voters largely support the move.

Many of the Democrats who declared support for an impeachment inquiry did so because they said it would help break through Trump's stonewalling of the six committee investigations. They argued that without formal impeachment proceedings, Trump could continue to claim blanket immunity for his top aides and allies, preventing them from testifying or complying with congressional subpoenas. Trump has blocked several of his most senior aides-- including former officials who provided some of Mueller's most damaging testimony-- from speaking to Congress.

They include former White House counsel Don McGahn, who told Mueller about multiple attempts by Trump to have the special counsel removed and described an atmosphere of chaos in the West Wing shortly after Mueller's appointment. They also include former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who provided limited testimony to the committee but refused to discuss her tenure in the White House.

Candidates elected in 2020 are unlikely to have to deal with impeachment because it is highly unlikely Trump will be reelected. But it is still valuable to know how they feel about impeachment when deciding whether or not to support them. So I asked a few, including some from extremely difficult districts.

Late last June, Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive candidate in the race for the Georgia Senate seat held by avid Trump enabler David Perdue, used her Kos diary to advance the need to impeach Trump. "I am a lawyer who has worked my entire life fighting for justice and the rule of law. I’ve read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and all 448 pages of the Mueller Report. And I’ve heard the President’s own disturbing and destabilizing words. I have no doubt it’s time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings against President Trump. Even if impeachment results in his acquittal in the Senate, it is the legislative duty of our elected officials to lead in accordance with the oath they swore to defend our Constitution."

It’s not about nullifying or affecting an election: it’s about ensuring power is checked and checked immediately before future abuses occur. The Constitution requires the impeachment process from Congress if, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the President has "abused their confidence.” A president is subject to impeachment when they have "proved themselves to be unworthy of the confidence" placed in them. The Founding Fathers say allowing a President who has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors (which actually means “misdeeds”) to avoid impeachment brings “disgrace” on the Congress for failing to act. (See Federalist Papers, No. 66).

What we miss is that the impeachment process is not destabilizing or partisan, as the refusals to pursue it suggests. The impeachment process is elucidating and cathartic to the public and it actually fortifies our system. Thwarting our constitutional checks and balances for polls or election strategy demeans an important underpinning of a representative republic.

...The U.S. Constitution is the greatest civic document the world has known. Let’s use it.

North Carolina state Senator Erica Smith is the progressive Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Trump ally and rubber-stamp Thom Tillis. She was living in Crystal City when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton on spurious charges and she's told ne she read the entire Mueller Report and felt disgusted by Trump’s "commission of ten impeachable offenses, continuous acts of obstruction, disgraceful conduct, speech, and prideful pontification of 'grabbing women by the p-parts', paying off prostitutes with hush money and denials of his predatory conduct toward past women based on their appearance [and saw] "the overwhelming substantive evidence of his misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. Impeachment proceedings," she said, "must commence, with deliberate speed and predilection. I, personally, would like to see him defeated in 2020 and tried as a private citizen and imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and our country. However, as our military has court-martialed officers and criminal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned every day citizens who’ve committed far fewer and less egregious crimes than President Trump-- he should be impeached!"

Brianna Wu is running for a Boston area seat where voters are much less inclined to trust Trump than the current congressman, New Dem Stephen Lynch. "This is not about tactics or strategy," said Brainna. "This is about the survival of our republic. Does the Constitution still matter? Does the rule of law still apply? If we don’t act now to hold Trump accountable, history will judge us harshly. The political gamesmanship that delayed impeachment hearings is why Americans don’t trust either party. We have to be bold, and honest and vulnerable with the people that are trusting us to do our constitutional duty. I don’t know what will happen with pursuing impeachment, but I am certain what will happen if we do not."

In another up-for-grabs district in the suburbs of Atlanta, Marqus Cole is running in an open seat. He said that "Even in a swing district, I recognize that my unique position as a former prosecutor allows me some latitude to be completely honest. An un-indicted co-conspirator to a federal crime currently resides in the White House. Full stop. Further, the ongoing and public pouring of tax dollars into the President’s private companies is a full blown scandal. Finally, the ten (10) acts of obstruction documented by the Mueller investigation all lead me to the reasonable conclusion that the House should exercise its constitutional power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Leave it to Moscow Mitch and Senators up for re-election to determine if they will put party over country."

Eva Putzova is in a hot primary race in Arizona. The incumbent, Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, is a former Republican state legislature pretending to be a Democrat but opposing impeachment. Eva sees the need to uphold the rule of law by impeaching Trump. "If House Democrats," she told me, "think that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses they have the constitutional obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise, what value are they putting on the 'rule of law?'  When I am elected to Congress, and if Trump is still in office, I will support his impeachment based on the evidence collected so far, including obstruction of justice as described in the Mueller Report, and his clear violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. Our obligation is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States...,' not ignore that obligation in order to get re-elected. Serving people should be our representatives' top priority and that also means holding our president accountable. I personally believe that the House leadership's political calculation is also misguided and agree with Laurence Tribe: 'An impeached Trump who escapes conviction in the Senate will be weaker in 2020 than a Trump who can brag that not even a Democratically controlled House could impeach him. And GOP Senators who give him a pass will be easier to defeat than ones who’re spared any need to be counted.'"

Morgan Harper is running for the Columbus, Ohio House seat (OH-03) occupied by old skool moderate Democrat Joyce Beatty. She was waffling on impeachment before Morgan announce her candidacy but tried jumping on the band wagon once she realized she was been primaries. "Donald Trump has broken the law," Morgan said resolutely, "and is a threat to our country every day he remains in office. I have been clear since the day I launched my campaign that we should impeach him. Getting rid of him is a top priority for many people I meet in Franklin County."

Rachel Ventura is running for a Chicagoland seat held by conservative New Dem Bill Foster. This morning, Rachel told us that "Like many Democrats, Bill Foster weighed the politics of impeachment as more important than holding the president of the United States accountable for clear violations of the emoluments clause. Trump has from the beginning of his administration, used his office for private gain, from his hotel in D.C. to his resort Mar-a-Lago in Florida, favorable treatment for his and his family’s trademarks by China and continued business with foreign nationals while serving as president. These are direct violation of the emoluments clause. And until the political calculus changed and I entered the race to give voters in Illinois’ 11th Congressional District a stronger voice, Bill Foster voted against impeachment at least four times. On August 28th, he switched his position and decided to support impeachment. We can’t afford to wait for someone who is always doing the political calculus, especially on the burning issue of climate change where scientists have given us as short as 18 months to act. Are voters really going to endure another decade of inaction on healthcare reform from someone who, at his core opposes Medicare for All? I will be a strong leader with a moral compass, capable of making solid judgement calls and moving the nation forward, not waiting for the political winds to change. As a politician, it is not my job to do what is popular but to do what is right, and make it popular."

A Way-Too-Early Look at Bernie Sanders' VP Choices

by Thomas Neuburger

What is Bernie Sanders looking for in a potential vice-presidential pick? What should he be looking for? These two questions, while it may be too early to ask them, are nonetheless worth considering.

For one thing, the issue of Sanders' age, for those who are inspired by his policies, can be easily countered if he chooses a vice-president who is a) younger and b) just as progressive or nearly so. Questions about his age are appearing now. So let's take an early look at potential Sanders vice-presidential picks.

Who Is Bernie Sanders Most Likely to Choose?

As the video below points out, Sanders has already said that he was looking for someone who is "maybe not of the same gender as I am, and maybe somebody who might be a couple of years younger than me, and somebody who can take the progressive banner as vice-president and carry it all over this country to help us with our agenda and help us to rally the American people."

These criteria produce many choices, and the video lists them:

• Kamala Harris
• Tulsi Gabbard
• Rashida Tlaib
• Ilhan Omar
• Pramilla Jayapal
• Nina Turner
• Stacy Abrams
• Marianne Williamson
• Elizabeth Warren

Of these, Harris is a strong campaigner but not very progressive. Though she's been presenting her progressive social justice side recently, she has a history in California as a tough prosecutor, including of minorities and including for minor drug crimes. She has enough negatives to make her vulnerable on social justice and prosecution of bank fraud, both important Sanders issues.

Gabbard is also a strong campaigner, but doesn't have much of a relationship with Sanders. Her background and résumé also raise questions that have yet to be answered, for example about her support for Modi in India. Her polling is also extremely low.

The young congressional women — Tlaib, Omar, Jayapal — seem unlikely choices. All are too unknown; Omar is too controversial (due in part to her own party's attacks on her); and Omar is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Nina Turner is a possibility given her relationship with Sanders and Our Revolution, but may not pass the experience test. Marianne Williamson has no government experience at all (though she is an excellent speaker and might be a desirable choice anyway based on policies she supports).

Stacy Abrams is not polling very well, and while she's considered a progressive by the media, many of her policies are not, and she recently joined the Board of CAP, the Center for American Progress, where she said this: "Led by the extraordinary Neera Tanden, CAP has been at the forefront of progressive policy development and activism for years. Together, we will find and support bold solutions on health care access, voting rights, the economy, and other critical issues our nation faces."

CAP's positions on Medicare for All and economic issues, among many others, are decidedly neoliberal and decidedly donor-driven. For this reason, I'd be shocked and disappointed if Sanders chose Abrams.

That leaves Elizabeth Warren, who in many estimations is the most likely woman to be chosen, if Sanders chooses a woman.

Note: The video acknowledges (at 10:57) that "Bernie supporters remember her failure to back him during the 2016 primaries." I think this is one of the reasons that Warren hasn't gained traction this year among the strongest Sanders supporters on social media, and may partially account for her low polling. After all, in the early days of the 2016 primary, "Run Liz Run" was quite the rallying cry.

Warren has failed to recapture her 2015 "Run Liz Run" magic this time around, which helps explain her mid–second tier polling among 2020 Democratic candidates — she's below people like Harris and above people like Klobuchar, with the Pete's and the Beto's of the world floating up and down, above her and below, as the moment and local political winds may move them.

Yet Warren's weaker position may actually work out to Sanders' advantage, as I'll detail in a future piece. It may also work to Warren's advantage as well — given her lower polling, she's unlikely to feel she has to attack Sanders to capture his place alongside the ephemeral Joe Biden. 

Who Besides Warren Might Sanders Consider?

There are negatives, of course, to choosing Warren. Her favorability rating isn't particularly high — I know a number of Republican voters who would strongly consider Sanders over Trump but would not consider Warren — yet that may not be an issue were she second on the ticket. In addition, she doesn't add geographic diversity and she doesn't have special expertise, for example, in foreign policy, that supplements what Sanders offers.

Non-Warren alternatives suggested in the video include:

• Pete Buttigieg — a direct counter to the freakishly Christian Mike Pence in the VP debate

• Andrew Yang — a tech-savvy entrepreneur with many progressive policies who knows how to talk to rust-belt and disaffected workers (for example, see 15:05 in the video above)

But neither of these people, plus others like Beto O'Rourke, are choices Sanders would make. To start, Yang is too unknown (and male), Buttigieg is too neoliberal (and male). There are other reasons for Sanders to avoid them as well, and I think he will.

It looks almost certain therefore that Warren will be his VP choice. The question then becomes, when should he announce it?
  

Who Will Vote With Trump Today To Shred The Constitution?

On Wednesday, Pelosi indicated that Joaquin Castro's Joint Resolution of Disapproval will be debated and, presumably, voted on, today. [I was just told the vote will probably be Tuesday, not today.] The resolution is short and sweet:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated. 


Pelosi: "I write to invite all Members of Congress to cosponsor Congressman Joaquin Castro’s privileged resolution to terminate this emergency declaration... The President’s decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated." The first co-sponsor was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and there were already 100 co-sponsors by the time Pelosi's "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to all Democrats and Republicans. There was some question whether even Republicans who agree with the Constitution that Trump is shredding the separation of powers with the implications of his fake state of emergency would even vote for Castro's resolution, let alone co-sponsor it.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is a member of the Judiciary Committee and this is exactly the kind of powerful and crucial moment in history he takes more seriously than almost anyone. Yesterday he told us that "It may be tempting to dismiss Donald Trump’s declaration of a state of emergency as a laughable attempt to distract everyone from his failure to get either Mexico or the United States Congress to pay for his $35 billion medieval  fantasy border Wall, but the stakes are actually enormous. The hallmark of a Banana Republic is that the Executive unilaterally declares national security and military emergencies and spends the people’s money on his pet projects without legislative consent. If Trump gets away with overriding the clear will of Congress by spending federal money that we have explicitly refused to spend, he puts America squarely in the Banana Republic camp. The House of Representatives must act forcefully to reject this plain violation of the separation of powers and usurpation of our power to appropriate federal funds. It’s a big test to see whether there are any Republicans left who really believe in the Constitution."

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi comes to a similar conclusion. "This is not about Donald Trump, the border wall or any other topic of the day," he just told us. "This is about the United States of America, the Constitution, the separate branches of government, and our system of checks and balances. Any Republican who is not concerned about this, should be concerned about a future Democratic President who would potentially try and use this precedent to use executive power to overrule an unwilling Congress. Everyone should wake up."

Republican columnist George Will seems to be blowing a gasket over their reticence. On Wednesday he wrote that Republicans who back Trump on this "should be expelled." It's more likely that the Republicans who refuse to back Trump would be the ones facing expulsion. He is worried that "a majority of congressional Republicans seem poised to support Trump’s evisceration of the Constitution’s architecture of checks and balances. By opposing a binding resolution disapproving the president’s declaration of an emergency, they would approve Congress’ acquiescence in the loss of its core power, that of controlling spending. These Republicans raise two questions: Why is there a Congress? And why are such Republicans receiving salaries? Every Republican who supports the president in this trashing of the Constitution, whose creation began here, thereby violates his or her sworn oath to defend it and to 'bear true faith and allegiance' to it. Voters should expel all of them from public life."

GOP leadership, predictably, is sticking with Trump. How many Republican members will break with them and cross the aisle? Will be a tiny handful-- say Justin Amash (MI), Tom Massie (KY), Brian Fitzpatrick (NY) and a couple for random "gypsy moths?" Or will there be significant numbers of Republicans who take this as an opportunity to stand up for democracy? And among Democrats... can Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn hold onto the Blue Dogs whose instincts are to keep their heads down and vote with Trump on something this controversial, especially the real cowardly career types like Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Cunningham (SC), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Elaine Luria (VA), Kendra Horn (OK), Ben McAdams (UT), Max Rose and Tom O'Halleran (AZ) who are always more into the calculus of how to preserve their jobs than to do their jobs.

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) looks forward to debating Trump one-on-one after the primaries. For now, she told me last night that his "action declaring a 'national emergency' is unconstitutional and usurps Congressional authority to authorize and appropriate funds to serve the needs of the American people. This blatant power grab sets a dangerous precedent that threatens our democracy. Both Democrats and Republicans alike must put our country and our constitution first and take action to terminate this emergency declaration immediately."

Shahid Buttar is a constitutional attorney who has written about this very topic for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where he's the director of grassroots outreach. You may remember him from the 2018 campaign when he made a courageous run against Pelosi in his San Francisco district. (Many people are trying to persuade him to try again in 2020.) Yesterday I asked him about Castro's joint resolution and he told me that Trump's "assertion of emergency powers lacks any basis either in statute or the constitution. In fact, our constitutional system of checks and balances is gravely threatened by baseless claims of emergency powers, which Congress and the courts must resist to restrain the executive branch. Given the right wing’s success at co-opting our federal courts, Congress must be especially assertive here not only to avoid the misappropriation of federal funds, but also to prevent executive power from expanding beyond its already untenable inflation."

You already know Ted Lieu, although do keep in mind that, like Jamie Raskin, he's one of the most activist members of the Judiciary Committee. Here's what he told us last night (and sent along the accompanying cool video): "Republicans had complete control of government for two years and they didn't fund Trump's vanity wall. So now the President is trying to circumvent Congress and our Constitutional system of government to fulfill a nonsensical campaign promise. Putting aside for a moment that there is a mountain of objective evidence showing there is no crisis on our southern border; putting aside that Trump's wall is a stupid idea to begin with; and putting aside that he promised Mexico would pay for it-- Trump's national emergency declaration is a dangerous power grab by the Executive Branch. For decades consecutive congresses have ceded the war-making power, which has had disastrous results for our national security. With this emergency declaration, Trump threatens to do the same with the power of the purse. Congressional Republicans must stand with Democrats against this blatant unconstitutional power grab."