"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Sunday, May 31, 2020
New Blue America Congressional Endorsement-- In Nashville, Tennessee
>
People seem surprised when they find out that Nashville is a Democratic city and that Tennessee's 5th congressional district is safely blue. Obama won the district both times he ran. In 2016 Trump took just 38.2% of the vote- and in Davidson County (Nashville), he only got 34.3%). In 2018, Davidson County backed Democrats in both the gubernatorial race and the U.S. Senate race-- and performed at a D+43 level to reelect longtime incumbent Jim Cooper 177,923 (67.8%) to 84,317 (32.2%). Virtually all of Nashville's elected officials are Democrats including the mayor (John Cooper-- Jim Cooper's brother and their father was a former Tennessee governor) and the 10 state Reps. TN-05 has a solid PVI of D+7, but Cooper is a Blue Dog, best known for his conservative politics. When he was first elected, in 1982, Nashville wasn't part of his rural district but he gave up that district to run, unsuccessfully, for the U.S. Senate and when the Nashville district opened up, he spent nearly a million dollars of his family's money to buy the seat. He's never had a serious challenger since then. Republicans are happy with his conservative politics and Democrats have been afraid to challenge him in a primary.
Until now! Meet Keeda Haynes, a top-notch progressive reformer who vigorously backs Medicare-For-All, the Green New Deal, a $15 living wage, a national cap on rent and home price increases, top to bottom student loan reform, H.R. 40 (Sheila Jackson Lee's bill to set up a reparations commission), marijuana legalization, a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented individuals currently living in the U.S., competitive prescription drug costs and a whole platform built on solid progressive positions. This week, Blue America has endorsed Keeda and I asked her to introduce herself with a guest post-- and the brand new video directly below-- in the hope that everyone else would be as impressed as I was when I've been speaking with her by phone over the last couple of weeks. Please consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America Primary-A-Blue-Dog thermometer on the right. This is a very special candidate who would make an extraordinary member of Congress. Please dig as deep as you feel comfortable digging!
I Am That Change
-by Keeda Haynes Many Americans recently have recoiled in horror at the filmed slaying of 25-year-old, African-American Ahmaud Arbery by two vigilantes in Glynn County, Georgia. Another tragedy of epic proportions also occurred in Louisville when police officers-- without knocking and announcing their presence-- fatally shot 26-year-old Breonna Taylor, an emergency room tech, to death. Sadly, the cases of Ahmaud Armery and Breonna Taylor are not isolated incidents in the United States of America. They are pristine examples of a criminal justice system that too often disrespects and devalues the lives of African-Americans and other persons of color. But, beyond these high-profile killings of African-Americans, countless millions languish away in prison, shackled by a criminal justice system that locks them away and throws away the key. It’s what Michelle Alexander has called the New Jim Crow-- the systematic oppression of entire groups of people. The human toll of mass incarceration takes on many shapes and forms and no longer can we turn a blind eye to it. Many care little for our prisoners, assuming a person is in prison because of their criminal conduct. But a prison sentence should not be a death sentence…but that is what it has turned into for the hundreds of inmates that have died in custody due to the coronavirus. They were someone’s father, mother, sister, brother, daughter or son and their lives had value. Our prison population is one of the most vulnerable and they deserve to be protected. When I sat on the top bunk of my 3x8 prison cubicle in Alderson, West Virginia, looking back over the range at 100 other women, recently sentenced to seven years in prison for a crime I didn’t commit, I thought to myself” what if I die here.” The possibility of that happened back in 2003 wasn’t nearly as possible as it is today. Having served nearly four years in federal prison for a crime I did not commit, I know that fear, confusion and frustration that many incarcerated individuals are feeling right now. Only through my faith did I persevere and emerge from prison an even stronger individual, hell-bent on devoting my life to public service and fighting for those in need. After my release in 2006, I went to law school, passed the bar exam, and became a public defender in Nashville, Tennessee. I advocated in the trenches for those society has considered the least of these amongst us. Every day in the courtroom, I knew the difficulties my clients faced because I had sat in their shoes and felt those same feelings of desperation. Now, my public service has taken a different direction after working as a public defender for the past six and a half years, but my fight, passion and determination remain. I am running for Congress in TN-05 and I will take the same level of passion and determination to Washington to advocate on behalf of the community of District 5. I will stand alongside the community, fighting daily for access to quality health care, affordable housing and criminal justice reform. I will provide them with equitable access in government decision making and will make sure their voices are heard. Armaud Arbery shouldn’t have been killed while jogging. Breonna Stewart shouldn’t have been killed in her sleep. Hundreds should not have died in jails and prisons. I shouldn’t have served nearly four years in prison for a crime I did not commit. It is time that we in TN-05 have someone in Congress that understands that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world; that mass incarceration disproportionally affects black, brown and low- income communities; and, that we need to address the racist policies and procedures that have caused this large disparity. It is time for change in Congress. I am that change.
Movement Politics Meets The Machine-- In Queens... And The Machine Loses Again
>
Shaniyat Chowdhury is a first-generation American, a young marine corps veteran, for state legislative aide, international rugby star and Queens bartender… and candidate for Congress against one of the most corrupt machine politicians left in New York City— conservative New Dem Gregory Meeks. Last night, Meeks and his predecessor as County boss, Joe Crowley, saw their candidate for Queens District Attorney, former borough president Melinda Katz, defeated by the most unlikely of candidates, 31 year old public defender Tiffany Cabán. With 99% of precincts counted, Cabán led with 39.6% to Katz’s 38.3%— a 1.3% margin, above the 0.5-point threshold for a mandatory recount. Katz is refusing to concede. Cabán said that if elected she would work towards ending cash bail and closing Rikers Island and wouldn’t waste resources prosecuting farebeaters and sex workers.
Katz had been endorsed not just by Crowley and Meeks but by the widely despised governor, Andrew Cuomo, and by all but one of the Queens County members of Congress-- Pelosi stooge Hakeem Jeffries, Nydia Velazquez, Grace Meng and Tom Suozzi as well as Carolyn Maloney, Adriano Espaillat and all the toothless unions that do whatever the Democratic establishment tells them to do. Cabán had the local and national progressive movement in her camp, including AOC, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, John Legend, DSA, the Working Families Party. Tuesday morning Meeks attacked Bernie and Elizabeth Warren for endorsing Cabán without getting his permission, calling their move “arrogant” and “patronizing.” And that brings us back to Shan, the young progressive people are counting on to rid Congress of Meeks.
As the last votes were being counted, he told me that “the last couple of years we’ve seen the possibilities of what people powered movements can do. Our Queens DA-elect, Tiffany Cabán, and the many organizers who worked tirelessly for months, have shown that people power is legitimate— WE ARE legitimate. Gone are the days where elected officials take their communities for granted over corporate and real estate interests. We will continue do justice by our communities. We still have a lot of unfinished business.” Keep reading Chowdhury’s statement below... and if you like what you read, please consider contributing to his grassroots campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Primary A Blue Dog thermometer below.
My opponent, Gregory Meeks has represented NY-05 for 20 years. Over the years, he’s sold our communities out to real estate developers and corporate and Wall Street interests from which he has benefited. He put profits over people, leading him to be named one of the most corrupt members of Congress. We will hold him accountable. Our people are tired. Our communities deserve better. Our children deserve a future where they can breathe clean air, get the best education without financial burden, and build a future with their families rather tearing them apart. Our America should reflect a moral and just society; it must. What working class people of NY-05 need are the Green New Deal, Fair Housing, a reformed criminal justice system, free college tuition, and reparations. We need Medicare for All to make sure every American has health coverage, and a Federal Jobs Guarantee because no person should be too poor to survive in this world, and turned away for being caught up in the criminal justice system.
Or-- as Marie Newman in Chicago put it this morning when she woke up and saw the results out of Queens: "Machines can be broken: AOC, Mayor Lightfoot, Tiffany Cabán... more to come." YES! Good attitude! Same for Tomas Ramos in Bronx. He’s in a tough primary for the open Serrano seat and was very invested in the Cabán race. "The times of machine politics with corporate funded politicians are over," he told me early this morning. "Folks are starting to see that our democracy can work if we organize and get out the vote. New York City politicians should be shaking because not only are they losing power, but this win just proved that people powered campaigns will be the new status quo."
UPDATE: Eva Putzova (AZ-01): "Tiffany Cabán's apparent victory in her effort to become the next District Attorney for Queens is an inspiration to me and to all progressive democrats around the nation who are running against the Democratic Party's corporate machine. We are puncturing the aura of invincibility that the machine promotes to thwart challengers. Congratulations to Tiffany and to all those, who will fight for justice and equality for all, publicly and without compromise, despite the efforts by the party establishment to support one of their own and maintain the status quo. Time's Up for the status quo!"
Team Sport Day, Kids-- Do You Want A Blue Uniform Or A Red One?
>
Ro & Beto, 2 charismatic Democrats-- both refuse to give blanket endorsements to just anyone in a blue uniform... but for very different reasons
According to a CNN report last night, a Democratic Party robot in New Hampshire, Deb Nelson, the chair of the Hanover/Lyme Town Democrats, asked Beto to take the "Any Blue Will Do" pledge. That's because during his recent Senate race he probably caused the defeat of a mediocre Democratic candidate, Gina Jones, in a district , TX-23, he himself won. Beto, a middle-of-the-road, Democrat, is pals with the Republican incumbent, Will Hurd, a middle-of-the-road Republican. Jones, also a middle of the road nothing candidate, ran for Hurd's seat. There was a big to-do down in Texas because Beto was busy endorsing other Democratic candidates-- and helping them win-- but very pointedly and publicly refused to do so for Jones. And not because she was a worse candidate than the candidates Beto was helping. Beto beat Ted Cruz in TX-23 but Hurd scraped by with a narrow 103,285 (49.2%) to 102,359 (48.7%) win. The biggest county in the district, Bexar, is Beto country. He beat Cruz there by over 100,000 votes and by 20 points. But Jones fell seriously short of what she needed to win in the super-crucial Bexar portion of the district. And although Jones won in the El Paso part of the district, the second biggest county and Beto's home (where he eviscerated Cruz 74.4% to 25.0%), it is thought that had he pumped for Jones, she would have won the extra thousand votes there and in Bexar that would have put her over Hurd. Blue America didn't back Jones either, not because she wasn't better than Hurd-- she is-- but because she's isn't an especially good candidate. With a concerted push from the DCCC and establishment Texas Dems, Jones had beaten the progressive candidate, Rick Treviño, in a run-off primary. But Beto didn't not back her because she wasn't any good; he didn't back her because he preferred Hurd, his buddy. That's what robot Dems like Nelson are upset about-- which is understandable. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Blue Dog, who Nelson would insist Beto endorse-- and Beto would anyway-- is not just a Trump-Democrat who votes with the GOP on crucial issues, he endorses Republicans and even gives them campaign contributions! Should there be a pledge that forces Democrats to endorse someone like Cuellar? After she pestered him about his refusal to support Jones, he responded to Nelson that he "can't take a pledge to support every single Democrat in the country. I need to know about them first, right? Would you want me to make a blanket commitment about people I know nothing about, who I've never met?" Yes, Nelson would. Any blue will do-- whether a real Democrat with real Democratic values running on strong Democratic issues, or some fake Democrat-- a Blue Dog or a New Dem or any kind of stinking, corrupt right-wing garbage in a blue uniform. Beto's right on this, for the wrong underlying reasons. Gina Jones would have been an unoffensive and worthless New Dem back-bencher in Congress-- pretty much, unfortunately, what Beto was. On the partisan margins, Beto was a better member than Hurd. On the partisan margins, Jones would have been too. Beto helped worse candidates than her. He more-or-less admits why he preferred Hurd over her. "Will Hurd, Gina Ortiz Jones' opponent, the incumbent member of Congress and a good friend of mine, was someone who, in my day job as a member of Congress representing El Paso, I was able to work with," he told the New Hampshire Democrats, referencing a showboat, but otherwise meaningless, bipartisan road trip the two of them took, driving together from Texas to DC on Facebook. Nelson wasn't having any of it. "I get friendships, I do, but I think in this day and age where somebody befriends a Republican and legislation that we think is important doesn't get passed," she told reporters after he encounter with Beto. "And I think that's a concern. I know Gina Ortiz Jones was very close to winning in her district, and I know he made a decision not to endorse her, and he could be a friend and still endorse a Democrat who's an Iraq War veteran and a strong candidate. And I'm concerned about that... I think you can be friends with Republicans, I think you can be -- you can drive across the country with Republicans, but I think when it comes to actually effecting legislative change, I don't see it in this Republican Party." It's debatable whether or not being an Iraq War vet makes someone a good member of Congress-- right-wing jerks like Doug Collins (R-GA), Don Bacon (R-NE), Greg Steube (R-FL), Steve Watkins (R-KS), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), Duncan Hunter (R-CA and Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) are all Iraq veterans and all totally ghastly members of Congress who do not belong anywhere near Capitol Hill. And as far as Gina Jones having been a "strong candidate"... she wasn't anything more than a generic, garden variety DCCC pick. I agree with Nelson that Republicans are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Republican Party sucks. So do their candidates who are, one and all, confirmed Trump-enablers and ready to sell their country out-- including the Iraq War vets, apparently-- for partisan gain. Will Hurd is terrible, not as bad as some, but terrible. Directly below is a list of a dozen incumbents with their 2019 ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores. Justin Amash's score is the best of any Republican in the House, although still horrible and rated "F." But look at the scores of those directly below him:
• Justin Amash (R-MI)- 42.86% • Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 42.86% • Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 42.86% • Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 35.71% • Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 35.71% • Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 35.71% • Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 35.71% •Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 28.57% • John Katko (R-NY)- 21.43% • Elise Stefanik (R-NY)- 21.43% • Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)- 21.43% • Will Hurd (R-TX)- 21.43%
[Neither Cheri Bustos, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi nor anyone else involved with the DCCC would even blink when asking you to write a check to support Josh Gottheimer or to defeat Justin Amash.] If Beto wanted to differentiate between Democrats he supports and Democrats who he refuses to support based on policy, based on records of accomplishment, based on character... he'd be a hero... like Ro Khanna, who recently wrote a thousand dollar check to the primary campaign of progressive Democrat Marie Newman. Marie is running against right-wing, crooked Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, one of Khanna's own fellow incumbents. Khanna was also the only member of Congress to endorse AOC when she was running against corrupt conservative Joe Crowley, then an almost sure-thing-winner and extremely powerful and almost guaranteed-to-be-the-next-Speaker-of-the-House. Please think about the difference between what Beto did and what Ro Khanna did. And then think about this video below that compares and contrasts two very different Democrats in real time, each of whom is currently campaigning for president:
Criminal Accountability For Corporate Wrong-Doing? Elizabeth Warren Says It's About Time
>
It sickens me to see politicians get off with slaps on the wrist when they are caught in criminal activities-- even child rape. Same goes for banksters, corporate executives and the super-wealthy. These people should be punished more harshly, not less harshly because of their place in the social strata. Tuesday Elizabeth Warren laid out a plan, in an OpEd for the Washington Post that would bring more justice to the criminal justice system. Yesterday, she introduced legislation-- the Corporate Executive Accountability Act-- to make it easier to jail corporate executives at companies convicted of serious wrongdoing.
Opening unauthorized bank accounts. Cheating customers on mortgages and car loans. Mistreating service members. If you can dream up a financial scam, there’s a good chance that Wells Fargo ran it on its customers in recent years. Last week, after years of pressure, the company finally parted ways with its second chief executive in three years. But that’s not nearly enough accountability. It’s time to reform our laws to make sure that corporate executives face jail time for overseeing massive scams. In 2016, after the Wells Fargo fake-accounts scam came to light, I called out then-chief executive John Stumpf for gutlessly throwing workers at the bank under the bus-- and told him he should resign. Weeks later, he did. When Wells Fargo elevated longtime senior executive Tim Sloan to replace Stumpf, I told Sloan he should be fired for his role in enabling and covering up the fake-accounts scam. For years, I pressured federal regulators, urging Sloan’s dismissal, and last week Sloan “retired.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Sloan and Stumpf aren’t in charge anymore. But this isn’t real accountability. When a criminal on the street steals money from your wallet, they go to jail. When small-business owners cheat their customers, they go to jail. But when corporate executives at big companies oversee huge frauds that hurt tens of thousands of people, they often get to walk away with multimillion-dollar payouts. Too often, prosecutors don’t even try to hold top executives criminally accountable. They claim it’s too hard to prove that the people at the top knew about the corporate misconduct. This culture of complicity warps the incentives for corporate leaders. The message to executives? So long as you bury your head in the sand, you can keep collecting fat bonuses without risk of facing criminal liability. Even when in-house lawyers flag conduct that skirts the law, there’s little reason for executives to listen. The executives know that, at worst, the company will get hit with a fine-- and the money will come out of their shareholders’ pockets, not their own. It doesn’t have to be this way. With sustained resources and a commitment to enforcing the law, we can bring more cases under existing rules. Beyond that, we should enact the Ending Too Big To Jail Act, which I introduced last year. That bill would make it easier to hold executives at big banks accountable for scams by requiring them to certify that they conducted a “due diligence” inquiry and found that no illegal conduct was occurring on their watch. This would force executives to look for wrongdoing or face prosecution for filing false certifications with the government. The proposal would also create a permanent and well-funded unit dedicated to investigating financial crimes. But we can go further still. Wednesday, I’m proposing a law that expands criminal liability to any corporate executive who negligently oversees a giant company causing severe harm to U.S. families. We all agree that any executive who intentionally breaks criminal laws and leaves a trail of smoking guns should face jail time. But right now, they can escape the threat of prosecution so long as no one can prove exactly what they knew, even if they were willfully negligent. If top executives knew they would be hauled out in handcuffs for failing to reasonably oversee the companies they run, they would have a real incentive to better monitor their operations and snuff out any wrongdoing before it got out of hand. My proposal builds on existing laws that impose criminal liability on negligent executives in certain areas. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Clean Air Act hold top corporate executives criminally accountable if, as a result of their negligence, companies distribute misbranded drugs or pollute the air. My proposal would impose similar criminal liability for negligent executives of any company with more than $1 billion in annual revenue in a variety of circumstances, including if that company is found guilty of a crime or is found liable for a civil violation affecting the health, safety, finances or personal data of 1 percent of the U.S. population or 1 percent of the population of any state. It has been about 10 years since the financial crisis cost millions of people their homes, their jobs and their savings, and not one big-bank CEO has gone to prison-- or even been prosecuted. Tens of thousands of Americans have died after overdosing on commonly prescribed opioids, but not a single major pharmaceutical executive has gone to prison for their role in this tragedy. Corporate America needs a wake-up call. Four words are engraved over the front door of the Supreme Court: “equal justice under law.” It’s the fundamental principle that’s supposed to drive our legal system. But it’s not equal justice when a kid with an ounce of pot can get thrown in jail while a wealthy executive can walk away with a bonus after his company cheats millions of people. Personal accountability is the only way to ensure that executives at corporations will think twice before ignoring the law. It’s time to stop making excuses and start making real change.
Yesterday, her office explained that "executives at large corporations often escape prosecution because it is hard to demonstrate that they are personally aware of all their company's actions-- and establishing knowledge is a critical element of proving most crimes. However, some federal laws, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Clean Air Act, already impose criminal liability on corporate leaders when a company's negligence causes massive harm-- regardless of whether leaders personally approved actions that broke the law." Her Corporate Executive Accountability Act builds on these existing federal statues and makes it easier to send executives to jail for serious crimes by expanding criminal liability to negligent executives of corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue that:
• Are found guilty, plead guilty, or enter into a deferred or non-prosecution agreement for any crime. • Are found liable or enter a settlement with any state or Federal regulator for the violation of any civil law if that violation affects the health, safety, finances, or personal data of 1% of the American population or 1% of the population of any state. • Are found liable or guilty of a second civil or criminal violation for a different activity while operating under a civil or criminal judgment of any court, a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement, or settlement with any state or Federal agency.
Meanwhile the Ending Too Big to Jail Act, which she reintroduced yesterday, makes it easier to hold financial executives accountable by:
• Creating a permanent investigative unit for financial crimes within the Treasury Department by giving the Special Inspector General for the bailout a new mission-- prosecuting financial crimes. • Requiring executives at big banks larger than $10 billion to certify that there is no criminal conduct or civil fraud within the institution, making it easier to prove wrongdoing if it is later discovered. • Putting deferred prosecution agreements under the jurisdiction of judges so that they can ensure that the agreements are in the public interest and can supervise their implementation.
Kamala Should Have Smoked A Joint Before Going On The Air With Charlamagne Tha God
>
Kamala Takes A Tumble-- drawing by Nancy Ohanian
Kamala Harris started the week oddly. The syndicated Breakfast Club with hosts DJ Envy, Angela Yee and Charlamagne Tha God aired an interview with her Monday that ran in almost 40 cities, including NYC (Power 105.1), Houston (KQBT), Boston (WJMN), Detroit (WJLB), Cincinnati (WEBN), Las Vegas (WVEG), Milwaukee (WKKV), Orlando (W283AN), New Orleans (WQUE), Atlanta (WRDG), Miami (WBIM) and two stations in South Carolina-- W257BQ in Charleston and WHTX in Columbia. She was asked to defend her "blackness" because her parents were born in India and Jamaica, she went to high school in Montreal and she's married to a white guy. "I'm black, and I'm proud of being black," she said. "I was born black. I will die black, and I'm not going to make excuses for anybody because they don't understand... "I think they don't understand who black people are. I'm not going to spend my time trying to educate people about who black people are. Because right now, frankly, I'm focused on, for example, an initiative that I have that is called the 'LIFT Act' that is about lifting folks out of poverty." She also said she has smoked marijuana-- a joint when she was in college (and when it was illegal)-- and that she thinks "it gives a lot of people joy and we need more joy." She says she's for legalization. What DJ Envy and Charlamagne Tha God didn't make Kamala address during their interview was a report that surfaced from the Daily Beast Monday morning, Kamala Harris’ A.G. Office Tried to Keep Inmates Locked Up for Cheap Labor. She has a mixed, though for good, record as D.A. of San Francisco and Attorney General of California. This report by Jackie Kucinich will make that record look even worse-- at least to Democratic primary voters. "Ordered to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded prisons," wrote Kucinich, "lawyers from then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office made the case that some non-violent offenders needed to stay incarcerated or else the prison system would lose a source of cheap labor."
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata that California’s prisons were so overcrowded that they violated the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Three years later, in early 2014, the state was ordered to allow non-violent, second time offenders who have served half of their sentence to be eligible for parole. By September 2014, plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit were back in court, accusing California of slow-walking the process, which lawyers for Harris’s office denied.
According to court filings, lawyers for the state said California met benchmarks, and argued that if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively impact the prison’s labor program including one that allowed certain inmates to work fighting California’s wildfires for about $2 a day. “Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation-- a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite. Not only that, they noted, draining the prisons of “minimum custody inmates” would deplete the labor force both internally and in local communities where low-level, non-violent offenders worked for pennies on the dollar collecting trash and tend to city parks. A federal three-judge panel ordered both sides to confer about the plaintiffs’ demands and the state agreed to extend the 2-for-1 credits to all eligible minimum security prisoners. “Once we ridiculed and flagged them for that, they changed their tune, but that was their initial response,” Donald Specter, executive director of the Prison Law Office and lead counsel on Brown v. Plata, said.
When the slave labor argument was made public, Harris ordered her staff not to use the argument any longer. She didn't change the policy, just did a p.r. move to make her department look less contemptible. Prison Law Office Executive Director Specter is on the side of progressives who point out that this incident "is just a small part of Harris’s long career as a prosecutor, which has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and activists who describe her as a late comer to the social justice movement. 'As far as I know, she did very little if anything to improve the criminal justice system when she was attorney general... The way I look at it is, she was really late to the party and more importantly when she had the authority to do something as attorney general she was absent. I’m very skeptical of her views of criminal justice at this point, she basically carried on the policies of her predecessor for the most part in battling us on getting the prison population down and anything else that the government wanted to do to prevent prison conditions from improving'."
Common Follows Up On Johnny Cash Concert At Folsom Prison-- 5 Decades Later
>
Do you wish you had been at Folsom Prison-- although maybe not as an inmate-- to see Johnny Cash perform two shows there on January 13, 1968? This is a recording that was released from those shows, which was a multi-platinum smash. I bet you've already heard it.
Yesterday I had lunch with California Senate president Kevin de León to talk about music. (He's a huge fan of a lot of the same bands I love-- like Depeche Mode, U2, Fleetwood Mac, Green Day.) But what he was really excited about was Common. He has just seen Common play a live show at Folsom Prison, the first live concert there since Johnny Cash's legendary performance. So what was Kevin doing at Folsom Prison seeing Common? Kevin is probably best known for 4 passions he's pushed in the legislature: the legitimate aspirations of the working class, the environment, criminal justice reform and public safety and immigration. And, if you know anything about Common beyond his "Love of My Life" duet with Erykah Badu or the song "Glory" he wrote for the film Selma, it's his activism on behalf of criminal justice reform. This year's Hope & Redemption tour included 4 concerts inside prisons and he just did a 5th one at Folsom, as part of his Imagine Justice Initiative.
Not EVERYONE Is Afraid To Talk About Sanctuary Cities-- Guest Post From TX-07 Candidate Jason Westin
>
-by Jason Westin Congressman John Culberson is a career politician, first elected to office nearly 30 years ago. Prior to politics, like many politicians he went to law school, but apparently he has forgotten how the law works. In an interview with the Houston Chronicle in March, Culberson said "I'm the one who's going to make the final decisions, along with the president. No judge can compel me to release the money." In the same article, he called himself the "judge and jury" for these funds. U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick ruled on April 25th that Mr. Trump’s executive order that linked these federal law enforcement grants, worth billions of dollars, to immigration enforcement was illegal. Perhaps Judge Orrick and "Judge and Jury" Culberson should talk. This article, full of ridiculous quotes, raises two questions about Mr. Culberson: How did he come to the wrong conclusion about his being above the law, and what money is he refusing to release? Both of these questions are related to the idea of a "sanctuary city," a catchy phrase but a nebulously defined term. The phrase usually refers to large cities that do not turn over people who come across the police radar and are immigrants in the U.S. illegally. The term gained traction after a tragic event occurred in San Francisco, a criminal who had been deported multiple times murdered a young woman named Kate Steinle. San Francisco is labelled a "sanctuary city" as it bars local police from helping federal authorities kick out immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and critics say this allowed Steinle’s murder. It seems pretty straightforward: bad guys in the US illegally should not be allowed to stay here and commit crimes. I don’t think you would find many people who would argue with that simple argument. Unfortunately, most things in life are not as simple as they seem. There is a federal law (Section 1373 of title 8, chapter 12 of the United States Code), signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, that states: a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. As a lawyer, Congressman Culberson is surely capable of understanding this law. The law is written in legalese, but is worth reading again-- it requires local governments to not prohibit or restrict information to be exchanged with Immigration and Naturalization Services-- but it does not compel this information to be shared or require keeping someone in jail without a warrant. Local governments can be within compliance of this law even if they don’t turn over people who cannot prove there are citizens. Thus, the strict definition of a "sanctuary city" would be one with a local law prohibiting or restricting information exchange with the federal government-- a rare event that doesn’t sound as sensational as Fox News would like. Using the looser definition of a "sanctuary city" that doesn’t volunteer information on all its detainees, it turns out that many "sanctuary cities" are not cities at all, they are faith communities who view immigrants as refugees, or local sheriffs or police chiefs uncomfortable with or unable to jail people for up to 48 hours for minor offenses while awaiting the arrival Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Janice Stewart ruled that Clackamas County had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Maria Miranda-Olivares by jailing her for 19 additional hours after a case was settled to give ICE enough time to investigate her immigration status. The ruling stated that the local law enforcement had no right to hold her without a charge, and that it was responsible for paying over $30,000 in her legal bills. Most local governments constantly struggle with their budget, and this case made many of them re-think their relationship with ICE. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, there are now more than 360 counties and 39 cities that won’t cooperate 100% of the time with ICE requests. Beyond the financial ramifications of detaining immigrants, local law enforcement also worries about the impact on their ability to do their job effectively. If immigrants fear any interaction with police could result in them and their family being detained and/or deported, why would they ever help the police with information about a crime? Why would a woman or a child ever report domestic abuse? Indeed, there are now multiple reports of ICE detaining women who are leaving domestic abuse hearings, and of women who have dropped their domestic abuse cases for fear of repercussion against themselves or their children. Now that we’ve better defined the difficulties around the challenges around the “sanctuary city” term, let’s talk about the money Congressman Culberson is threatening to hold. These funds, including the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG), are given to communities to determine their most pressing needs. These funds can be spent on a variety of needs as long as they fall within seven broad categories including law enforcement, crime prevention and education, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness programs. These are not slush funds and are not used for trivial purposes – these are funds the law enforcement community depend upon to improve public safety. New York requested $9.2 million dollars in Byrne JAG funds in 2016 to:
1. Improve the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of criminal justice records. 2. Improve the capabilities and quality of work of forensic laboratories in DNA identification, ballistic evidence processing, new technologies, and improved quality. 3. Enhance the quality and effectiveness of violent crime and drug prosecution and enforcement, especially as it relates to gangs and to illegal possession and use or sale of guns, and gun violence reduction initiatives. 4. Improve the comprehensive investigation of non-fatal shooting cases. 5. Establish a New York State Criminal Justice Research Consortium to link criminal justice practitioners with academic researchers. 6. Improve the quality and effectiveness of prosecution and defense services. 7. Provide additional support for the State’s Regional Crime Analysis Centers who share information and provide law enforcement with accurate and timely data. 8. Enhance local law enforcement efforts to effectively and efficiently reduce the incidence of crime and violence in their locality through the use of evidence based, proven strategies. 9. Improve procedural justice in law enforcement agencies throughout the State.
All of these areas have the underlying goal of improving public safety, and none of these fund requests are controversial. These funds should not be a political football. Imagine if Clackamas County were forced to decide to whether to risk lawsuits from detained immigrants or risk losing funds to reduce violent crimes. Back to Congressman Culberson’s inflammatory statement: "I'm the one who's going to make the final decisions, along with the president. No judge can compel me to release the money." Culberson added, "If you want federal money, follow federal law. Particularly if you're dealing with John Culberson and Donald Trump, who will not give you the money unless you follow federal law. You can take that to the bank." As the chair of the appropriations sub-committee, Culberson does have discretion over the budget of the Department of Justice. But his statement is not a threat to amend the next budgetary plan, it is a threat to deny funds already allocated to these programs by law. It is also a threat that he would defy a direct court order, which I assume he learned in law school is not a good idea. Using the purist definition of a "sanctuary city" as one with a law prohibiting information to be shared with ICE, Congressman Culberson is right that these rare local laws may be in violation of Section 1373. But he seems to be over-interpreting what 1373 actually says – it does not say that local governments have to inform ICE, hold persons of interest, or do anything other than not restrict information by law. The implication that he will withhold JAG and other related funds if “sanctuary cities” don’t comply with the law is that this law will have a big impact on getting “bad guys” out of the United States, and thus cities choose to protect the “bad guys” or receive the funds. This is dichotomization is wrong-- cities can protect their immigrant communities, including allowing women and children to feel safe to speak to the police, by legally complying but not volunteering information or holding people without a warrant, and thus still receive the funds. In the same Chronicle article, Culberson also called himself the "CFO of Justice." As this case develops over the coming months, with a planned appeal by the Trump administration and Attorney General Sessions, it will be very interesting to see if the courts are impressed with Mr. Culberson’s self-appointed titles. Will the "CFO of Justice" refuse to comply with a court order to release these funds as ordered by the federal budget to the very few cities who have a legal restriction on providing information to ICE? Will local law enforcement agencies interpret the “sanctuary city” term more broadly, like the Fox News definition, change their plans for the upcoming year, not knowing if "Judge and Jury" Culberson will "release" the funds? As the chairman of the sub-committee, Mr. Culberson has responsibilities outside of solely representing our district, the 7th Congressional District of Texas. But ultimately, he is in Washington to represent his constituents. According to the census, of the 777,640 residents of TX07, 242,199 are Hispanic and 80,182 are Asian. Obviously, people counted in census are nearly all legal residents of the United States, but that does not mean that they are immune to being targeted by ICE or Customs and Border Patrol. In March, a local story from Houston received national attention when two doctors, legally in the US for 10 years, were nearly deported due to an obvious paperwork mistake. These doctors were not accused of any crime, were upstanding members of our community, and respected members of the medical profession with thousands of patients relying on their expertise and care. Despite this being an obvious mistake that would cause terrible harm to these doctors who were in the US legally for years, their US born children, and their American patients, they were only granted a reprieve in the final hours because of their attorney and the media attention to their case (link inserted). Why did this happen? The insidious nature of the Trump and Culberson anti-immigrant crusade is having many consequences, including causing Customs and Border Patrol to turn a blind eye. The over the top statements of Career Congressman Culberson that "no judge can compel me" make this problem worse. It creates the impression that the "sanctuary city" term is much more broad that in reality, that Culberson has the ability to refuse funds to any city he sees fit, and that Culberson is above the law. It sounds like Mr. Trump’s personality may be contagious, and that Mr. Culberson may have caught a bad case. Luckily, the TX-07 voters will have the cure for our Representative on November 6, 2018.
Republican Of The Year Nominee #4: It’s A Sad Thing When Cousins Marry Edition
>
2016 In Review: America Off The Rails, Part 9
Um, Rudy, near the end there, do you realize what you're saying?
by Noah
Before I get to the winner of my little Republican Of The Year contest (in tomorrow's installment), I thought it would be downright mean of me to leave out some other participants. I call them not just deplorables but also Dishonorable Mentions.
I also want to mention that I am not one who believes in that every-participant-gets-a-trophy nonsense. But I do want to give my No. 4 pairing below an award. I did, after all, declare Michigan's own Lex Luthor, Gov. Rick Snyder, the winner in the Governors' category for overseeing the poisoning of his citizens. So, with that in mind, James Comey and Rudy Giuliani are getting some well-deserved recognition. You can't just lightly dismiss people who will sell their souls (if they ever had souls to sell) and then sell out their country. For this, as you will see, they have earned, if not (regrettably) actual prison time, at least a very special award.
1. FRANKLIN (son of BILLY) GRAHAM
I haven't done any research into Franklin's mother, but he's blathered enough over the years to make me suspect that she was way too closely related to his father. Billy Graham was certainly very religious, very respected, and sane. Franklin? Well, maybe not so much.
I don't have any scientific information. I don't have a stack of emails to read to you. But I have an opinion: I believe it was God. God showed up. He answered the prayers of hundreds of thousands of people across this land who had been praying for this country.
I'm always amused by people who "give glory to God" for a victory. It's especially prevalent in the sports world. Some guy wins, the microphone is in his face, and he says he prayed to God and God came through. Well, what about the folks on the other team who prayed to God? Why did God choose you and not that loser on the other sideline? Is your ego so big? Are you so wonderful? In Franklin's case, he must think he's really extra-special, since he led so many in prayer and God sided with him. Then again, maybe God has had it with us and he's gone all biblical and decided it's time to rid the Earth of humankind.
2. NYS gubernatorial candidate CARL PALADINO
Bromancers Donald and Carl -- sticking up for the, er, little guy?
Republicans constantly whine that "The Left" is always accusing them of being racists. They go on and on, pretending to be mystified as to why. I saw one of these "out on a day pass" types just the other night on MSNBC. She was a guest panelist for a discussion about the nomination of Alabama $en. Jeff Sessions or some other KKK sympathizer to be a member of Comrade Trumpinsky's administration.
Over at FOX "News" it's an hourly, sometimes minute-by-minute whine. They do it so much on FOX that the total effect is like a yard full of straining, shorting, dull-bladed hedge clippers. It's so bad, you can smell the acrid smoke. They push it and push it and they just don't know when to turn it off.
Dear Republikooks: You are racists, and that's all there is to it.
Here in New York, republicans recently chose Carl Paladino as their candidate for governor against dem incumbent Andrew Cuomo. He lost badly, but New York is not Maine, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mississippi, or any other state that wants to proudly point to a racist governor as "one of us."
Still, Paladino is known for his racist and pornographic e-mails. In the past, he has sent out e-mails to his coworkers and his legions of republican fans which are are laced with N-words, pictures of President Obama dressed as a pimp, apes (i.e., to republicans: black folks), and, maybe worst of all, a clip of some African tribal dancers which he described as rehearsals for the Obama inauguration. More recently, he made a Michelle Obama-and-gorilla connection.
I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.
Damn, Carl! You've managed to express republican bigotry toward not only African-Americans but transgender people as well, all in one sentence! Just one question: How does one return to being a male yet still be a she?
That republican "black = apes-swinging-from-the-trees" bit never gets tired for the republican freaks that walk among us. You'll see it with the next morons covered in this post, too. Best of all, when it came time for Carl to apologize for his e-mail about Michelle Obama, he said it wasn't racist because it wasn't meant to be seen by the public!
He's a birther guy, too, just like his friend and idol, Donald Trump. It turns out, Trump and Paladino have a mutual-admiration, bromance kind of thing going on -- forged in racism, no doubt. You see, Trump made Paladino the New York State chairman of his campaign. Kellyanne Konartist will, of course, whine that their words are just words and we don't know what's in Trump's heart. Oh yes we do.
3. Clay County, WV's PAMELA RAMSEY TAYLOR
and MAYOR BEVERLY WHALING
Don't you see, Pamela's the victim here!
Who, you say?
Leave it to "ordinary" republicans. The ordinary voters and officials who toil in near-anonymity. Because these are the people who often get to the heart of the matter when it comes to defining exactly who the foundation of the republican party is and revealing it to us all. Such was the case when Ms. Taylor, the now-former director of the Clay County (West Virginia) Development Corporation, proudly spread her republican freak flag and let it fly.
She had those best words, those best words that she just had to share on her Facebook page. She just had to let the world know what she thinks of incoming First Lady Melanoma Trump as opposed to outgoing First Lady Michelle Obama:
It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a ape in heels.
First Lady-in-waiting Melania -- classy is as classy does?
Mayor Whaling, as you can see below, was in total agreement:
I suppose I should just let that hang there, but hell, I bet they'll get jobs in the Trump administration, or maybe they'll just have Taylor do her stand-up republican comedy act at the inauguration.
Meanwhile, Whaling has resigned, but Taylor isn't going so easily. No, she's got a lawyer and she's pulled out the old, well-worn republican "I'm a victim" card. She says the retribution she has reaped is a "hate crime against me" and is charging that she's being done in by, get this, "reverse racism."
You go, girl! You go directly to hell!
4. RUDY GIULIANI and JAMES COMEY
Just another bromance, or criminal co-conspirators too?
Here's another republican bromance, FBI and republican operative James Comey and senile useful-idiot-crank Rudy Giuliani, who by the way really did marry a cousin.
Lost in all the discussion about the so-called shock of the Trumpinsky win was Rudy Giuliani's appearance on FOX "News" a few days before the election, which you can see at the top of this post. Go back and take a close look at it. Forget about Rudy's correct prediction. Forget about him failing to mention how Kerry "lost" Ohio in 2004. Forget (if you can) that wide-eyed crazed look. There are more noteworthy things in this clip.
One is Rudy's compulsive need to repeatedly state that he, the magnificent Rudy, "over-
performed," "overperformed," "overperformed"! This is an assclown with some
insecurity issues.
Number two comes towards the end, where Rudy states, reassuringly, to the FOX bozette (on October 25th):
And then I think he's got a surprise or two that you're gonna hear about in the next few days. I, I mean, I'm talking about some pretty big surprises. You'll see . . . We're not gonna go down. We're certainly not gonna stop fightin'. We've got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this around.
What the complicit media has failed to lay out for the American people is the relationship between Comey and Giuliani. It seems Comey, a former employee and still good friend of Rudy's, was just a phone call away. The result of the letter was a media barrage filled with false charges by Trump and Rudy that Comey's letter proved Clinton was a criminal.
When asked about Comey's letter on November 4th, the day after the election, Rudy responded, arrogantly and perhaps stupidly:
thought it was going to be about three or four weeks ago . . . I did nothing to get it out. I had no role in it. Did I hear about it? You're darn right I heard about it, and I can't even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.
Note how Rudy goes to great lengths to say that he is honest and tells the truth. Then he says he knew about it for three or four weeks, quickly adding that he had nothing to do with getting the letter out, "no role." I believe the technical term for this is covering one's ass. But he admits he was in direct contact with the FBI, and, given his long relationship with Comey, we can assume that it wasn't just "agents" he was in contact with. Is this on-air public admission the reason why Rudy was suddenly no longer being considered for a cabinet position? His phone records should be seized, along with all of his phones and computers. Let's have a look at his e-mails!
The key sentence is: "You're darn right I heard about it, and I can't even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents." This is a public, on TV, admission that he could be a co-conspirator, along with current and former FBI people. He could be in violation of U.S. criminal code 18 U.S.C. § 1512 c (2): "Whoever otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Where are the media on this? Where is the investigation? Where is the outrage?! Our media and our Congress might as well be listed as co-conspirators -- if we had a real criminal-justice system in this country, that is. In the absence of a proper investigation, the least we can do is declare Rudy and Jimmy co-winners of the First "In Treasonous Service To Trumpinsky" Award.
POSTSCRIPT: RE. TRUMP, DIRECTOR COMEY, AND THE RUSSIANS
Digby writes today about the new rumors swirling regarding links between Comrade Trump and the Russian. In "Comey and the Russian rumors," she notes, for example, CNN's report --
that a former operative for the British intelligence agency MI6, who had proved to be a credible source in the past, had produced some reports alleging that the Russian government said it had compromising information on Trump and that there had been contacts and deals made between Trump campaign associates and Russian agents.
After taking pains to note that allegations included in an "addendum" circulated to DC officialdom by the intelligence services remain unverified, Digby concludes:
[A] healthy dose of skepticism is called for, as always, when it comes to this fast-spreading new Trump scandal. There are many reasons why a foreign government might say it had compromising information and illicit ties to a presidential candidate, even if it’s not true. But according to the Guardian article ["a comprehensive article," "John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI"], at least some of the early reports [from MI6's previously "credible" source] did turn out to be true. It’s also true that some of Trump’s mysterious campaign behavior, or the odd circumstances under which pro-Russian language was injected into the GOP platform, might make more sense in light of this timeline of events. This is far from the end of this story, and we’ll undoubtedly know more in the coming days.
All we can say for sure right now is that this is a perfect illustration of the way Comey improperly inserted himself into the election. These scandalous rumors connecting Trump to the Russian government information are unproven and unverified, and the FBI director was right not to reveal this material prior to the election. He completely ignored that principle when it came to Clinton, and there can be no doubt that it made a difference in the outcome. The fact that Comey clearly knew at the time it was at least possible that Trump had been compromised by a foreign government makes his decision even more shameful.
Well, yes, this is what I'm saying!
#
2016 IN REVIEW: AMERICA OFF THE RAILS
Here it is, Noah's completed Year in Review for 2016:
Who Wants To Double Down On The Catastrophically Failed War On Drugs?
>
Monday we learned exactly who. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy scheduled a debate on Charlie Dent's Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act (H.R. 3537) for Monday. It puts 22 synthetic compounds-- including 11 used to create synthetic marijuana (K2 or Spice)-- on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), forcing mandatory minimum sentences on violators. Proponents of the legislation claim it's meant to combat drug abuse. The vote was 258-101 but it was an interesting breakdown. Most Republicans voted YES and most Democrats voted NO, but that doesn't really tell the story at all. McCarthy and Dent led 192 Republicans to back it and they were joined by 66 mostly right-wing Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Blue Dogs like Gwen Graham (FL), Henry Cuellar (TX), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Jim Cooper (TN), and Brad Ashford (NE) and New Dems like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Ann Kuster (NH), Patrick Murphy (FL), Gerald Connolly (VA), John Delaney (MD), Jim Himes (CT), Scott Peters (CA), Denny Heck (WA) and drugged up mess Pete Aguilar (CA). Meanwhile, the House Liberty Caucus led the opposition and 20 Republicans joined 81 Democrats in voting against the bill. 72 members-- 33 Republicans and 39 Democrats-- weren't able to vote on the bill at all, many because of air traffic delays.
Most, though not all of the progressives joined Pelosi in voting NO, including Raul Grijalva (AZ), Barbara Lee (CA), Matt Cartwright (PA), Mark Pocan (WI), Judy Chu (CA), Donna Edwards (MD), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ), John Conyers (MI), Mike Honda (CA), and John Lewis (GA). After the vote, Mark Pocan of Madison told us why he and many of his colleagues opposed the legislation. "This bill significantly expands mandatory minimum sentences. We are talking about ruining people’s lives with 20 year mandatory sentences without really thinking through the real issues of the war on drugs. Many of us in Washington are desperately trying to find ways to reform our criminal justice system and rectify the devastating effects of drug addiction, and adding these synthetic drugs as Schedule I is missing the larger point."
Similarly, Donna Edwards told us she sees the bill as "a sad step backwards at a time that the nation should be focused on reforms that roll back the flawed policies of mandatory minimum sentencing that contributed to mass incarceration. The bill adds 22 synthetic drugs to the federal schedule that could result in the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. The problem of drug abuse that is so destructive to families and communities must be met with smart, fair, and balanced policies that invest in treatment rather than more incarceration." The companion bill in the Senate was proposed by noted anti-civil libertarians Chuck Grassley and Chuck Schumer. Among the House Republicans more enlightened about how the criminal justice system is evolving than the very involved Schumer, not to mention Grassley, were pretty far right members of Congress like Dave Brat (VA), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Mark Sanford (SC), Barry Loudermilk (GA), Mick Mulvaney (SC), Justin Amash (MI), Tom McClintock (CA), Raul Labrador (ID), Scott Garrett (NJ) and Mo Brooks (AL), not exactly "bleeding heart liberals."
How Do You Make The Criminal Justice System Fairer? Ted Lieu Is Working On It
>
Ted Lieu: "We cannot both be a nation that believes in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, yet incarcerate over 450,000 Americans who have not been convicted of a crime"
When Blue America endorsed Ted Lieu for Congress in 2014 we didn't expect him to just kick back in his prestigious new job and vote correctly. His record of achievement in the California legislature made us certain he would go to Congress as a leader, not a follower. And his peers saw him the same way; he was immediately elected president of the freshman class. And we were right about him. Ted's the opposite of a go-along-to-get-along backbencher and has already been working to solve real problems for real people in his new role, while many of his colleagues get bogged down in partisan bickering that leads nowhere. In February, Ted introduced the No Money Bail Act, not exactly something any class of wealthy campaign donors is going to get all excited about-- and not an issue Congress has considered before. But it is an issue constituents back in the Los Angeles area have talked with him about. Now there are 27 co-sponsors who have signed onto the bill, including some of Congress' most senior members on issues of criminal justice, like Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Mike Honda (D-CA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Conyers (D-MI) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). This week, Ted wrote an OpEd at Talk Poverty about the injustices of the current system and how his bill addresses the problem.
After reading about the recent death of 26-year-old Jeffrey Pendleton-- who was being held in a New Hampshire jail simply because he couldn’t afford to pay $100 in bail-- my reaction was anger. Why was Mr. Pendleton held in jail in the first place? He had not been convicted of a crime, nor did he appear to pose a flight risk or danger to the public. He was locked up simply because he was poor. And he died in a jail cell. Tragically, stories like his are far too common in America, and they are the reason I have introduced the No Money Bail Act of 2016 to reform our system of pretrial detention. Last July, Sandra Bland was pulled over for failing to signal while driving in Texas. She was put in jail and bail was set at $5,000, an amount she could not afford to pay. Three days later she was found hanged in her cell. And Qiana Williams, who shared her story at the White House last December and on Capitol Hill this past February, spent weeks in a St. Louis jail because she couldn’t afford to pay court and traffic fees. Across the country, it comes down to this: People of means are able to pay their way out of jail, while the poor remain behind bars awaiting their day in court. Even for those who can muster the funds, the money bail system is unfair. In San Francisco, 29-year-old Crystal Patterson, who gets by on a $12.50-an-hour job, paid a bail bondsman $1,500 plus interest to post her $150,000 bail so she could return home to care for her grandmother. She also signed an agreement to pay back the $15,000 bond posted by the bail bondsman. Afterwards, the District Attorney dropped the charges, but, though the bail bondsman would have been returned the $150,000 bail, Patterson is unlikely to ever see the money she paid to the bail bond company. At any given moment, more than 450,000 Americans are locked up without ever having been convicted of a crime. In my home state of California, more than two-thirds of those in jail haven’t been convicted, a total of more than 42,000 people. Moreover, even a few days in jail can be devastating for families-- especially those that are already fighting to make ends meet. Perversely, money bail gives inmates a strong incentive to plead guilty, even when innocent, because they cannot afford bail and need to get back to their families, jobs, or education. Being locked up can also increase an individual’s risk of suicide and depression. Finally, unnecessary pretrial detention of low-risk defendants is expensive. State and local governments in the U.S. spend an estimated $14 billion annually to incarcerate people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. In contrast, pretrial systems based on risk, rather than wealth, cost on average $7 per day. For these reasons, most nations consider money bail an obstruction of justice. In fact, the only other country that maintains a large commercial bail bond industry is the Philippines. In the case of our disgraceful bail system, American exceptionalism is decidedly not a good thing. Any serious effort at criminal justice reform must address our feudal-like bail system, which amounts to modern-day debtors’ prisons. The “No Money Bail Act of 2016,” which I introduced earlier this year, would eliminate the payment of money as a condition of pretrial release at the federal level, and also would give states three years to switch to alternative systems or else forfeit law enforcement grants. Justice in America should not be bought and paid for. For the sake of Jeffrey Pendleton, Sandra Bland, Qiana Williams, and the countless other Americans who have suffered at the hands of our unjust money bail system, it is long past time that the United States join the rest of the civilized world when it comes to pretrial incarceration.
Ted's No Money Bail Act has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Pretrial Justice Institute, The Drug Policy Alliance, The Sentencing Project, The National Legal Aide and Defender Association, and the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. If you'd like to help Ted in his reelection campaign, he's one of a tiny handful of incumbents Blue America has endorsed this year.
With Republicans running the show in the House, H.R.461 is sitting in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, which is chaired by Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and populated primarily with right-wing GOP crackpots-- like Louie Gohmert, Trey Gowdy,and Ken Buck-- who don't see the Justice system in terms of fairness but in terms of retribution and revenge. Two members of the subcommittee, Karen Bass and Judy Chu, have signed on as co-sponsors, but legislation of this nature isn't ever going to get out of committees and subcommittees to even be debated ad voted on until the Republican grip on Congress is broken. That's why we spend so much time here at DWT railing against the incompetent corrupt conservatives who run the DCCC and prevent Democrats from winning back the House. Both Blue America and Ted Lieu have endorsed Lou Vince for the congressional seat currently held by right-wing Republican Steve Knight, who hasn't signed onto Ted's bail bill. Lou Vince, an L.A.P.D. detective, explained why he will sign on and help Ted pass it:
After 21 years on the streets of Los Angeles, I know that our criminal justice system is in sore need of reform. The money bail system is the perfect place to start. The current system disproportionately harms low-income people that often times don't have the means to pay the lowest amount of bail, forcing them to remain in jail. The United States is one of the very few countries in the world that even have this type of system. In the state of California, where our jails are already overcrowded, we can solve two problems with one bill. We can reduce prison overcrowding and take a serious, meaningful step towards addressing the many injustice of our criminal justice system. I would be glad to join Congressman Lieu as a co-sponsor of this important legislation and use my background and experience in the criminal justice system to push strongly for this bill.
But it isn't just congressives Republicans uninterested in helping reform the system. Ostensibly, New Jersey machine candidate Donald Norcross is a Democrat. Like Steve Knight, he has signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill either. The progressive running against him in the Camden/Cherry Hill area of South Jersey, Alex Law, in eager to work with Ted on passing this bill. This morning he told us "I fully support Ted Lieu's No Money Bail Act of 2016. Ted is taking courageous action to help those less fortunate in our country. It is plainly obvious that our criminal justice system is broken. Plans like this are an excellent start to make sure not only our criminal justice system improves, but also in that the bill moves our governing philosophy as a nation towards one with more compassion in it. When I get to Washington, this is exactly the kind of policy I would support."
I doubt anyone thought Debbie Wasserman Schultz would ever consider co-sponsoring Ted Lieu's legislation, or even votung for it. She stands firmly behind her campaign donors in the private prison industry and their business model requires keeping cells full, guilt of innocence be damned. Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger this year, reformer Tim Canova, offers South Floridians an entirely different perspective. "I support Ted Lieu’s bill, H.R. 4611, the No Money Bail Act of 2016," he told us yesterday. "The present money bail system punishes the poor, is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, and according to research, fails to prevent nearly half of the most dangerous pretrial detainees from being released without supervision. The present bail system costs taxpayers $14 billion a year, while lining the pockets of the private for-profit prison industry and the politicians who support the prison privatization agenda. According to the bill, pretrial detention should not be based on the ability to pay money as a condition of pretrial release, but instead 'on whether the accused is likely to fail to appear in court is a threat to public safety.' Public safety and the interests of taxpayers both demand that we rethink our costly and ineffective money bail system."
And that's exactly why we're trying to help reform-minded Democrats like Lou Vince, Alex Law and Tim Canova win their races. If you'd like to help, you can follow the thermometer:
