New York Times | The Republican Fausts New York Times Many Republican members of Congress have made a Faustian bargain with Donald Trump. They don't particularly admire him as a man, they don't trust him as an administrator, they don't agree with him on major issues, but they respect the grip he has on ... |
Read the rest here:
The Republican Fausts - New York Times
Top Republican congressional leaders rushed to defend the Trump administration Tuesday after it was revealed that the White House directed GOP Hill staffers to not divulge the details of the extreme vetting and refugee ban they helped draft.
After a weekend of chaos over President Trumps controversial travel ban on seven majority Muslim nations and the resettlement of war refugees into the U.S., it became apparent that several pertinent committees, agencies and leaders were left out of the loop prior to the executive orders immediate implementation on Friday. But as Politico reported late Monday, at least one particular group was consulted beforehand.
Some staff of the House Judiciary Committee were permitted to offer their policy expertise to the Trump transition team about immigration law, but only after they were sworn to complete secrecy even keeping their own bosses in the dark.
OnTuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan remained unfazed andbrushed offthe reports of the Trump administration circumventing GOP leadership to consult Republican legislative staffers.
Congressional staffers help the administration all the time, Ryan said, before directing further questions to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia.
Asked about the remarkable situation in which his staffers were reportedly better briefed on a major immigration shift than he was, Goodlatte defended the Trumps administration on Tuesday.
My staff on the House Judiciary Committee are some of the best on Capitol Hill. They are experts in their respective fields and I proudly allowed them to provide their expertise to the Trump transition team on immigration law, Goodlatte said in a statement.
To be clear, while they gave advice to the new Administration, they did not have decision making authority on the policy. The final decision was made at the highest levels of the Trump Administration, and I support the Presidents executive order.
Major questions still remain about Goodlattes staffs involvement in the executive order specifically if he signed off on the reported NDAs.
The White Houses handling of the executive order has prompted calls from Capitol Hill that Trumps team needs to do a better job going forward of coordinating strategy and messaging.
I think we need to work on better communication, said House GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers,R-Washington, said on Monday.
Trumps order immediately caused confusion and protests at airports as even legal permanent residents of the US, who held green cards, were detained and denied entry at ports of entry.
Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, did not receive advance notice of the executive order.
In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right and dont undermine our nations credibility while trying to restore it, he said in a statement.
It would have been smarter to coordinate with us, Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, a Trump ally, told the Atlantic on Monday. They could have done a better job announcing how the complexities were going to work in advance.
Read the original:
Republican leaders proudly defend Trump poaching congressional staffers to help draft refugee ban - Salon
There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declaration of Independence to the marchers who are crowding the streets of America.
A view of the crowd at the women's march in Los Angeles on Jan. 21, 2017 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)
This post originally appeared at Counterpunch.
On Saturday, Jan. 21, I joined somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people in downtown Los Angeles as the city made its own unique contribution to the womens marches galvanizing more than a million people across the US and around the world.In LA, as elsewhere, activists fighting for a wide range of causes from reproductive rights to Black Lives Matter, from climate change to workers rights came together in a powerful display of unity.That is why, as organizers met after the march to maintain a unified momentum, I found it somewhat disconcerting to read Oregon Sen. Jeff Markleys statement that, Trump is the cure here; he brings everybody together.Yes, it is true that Trumps persona and actions have had a great deal to do with energizing and mobilizing the protests, and it is certain that he will continue to inspire resistance as he seeks to realize his agenda.
Yet in the long term, Trump can hardly sustain a movement as a cure or unifier. Something much deeper has to be involved, and that something is nothing less than the reclamation of our democracy and the democratic promise of the American experiment.
BY Harry Boyte | December 16, 2015
In saying this, I dont use the term democracy simply to refer to the formal institutions of representative government, nor to such practices as voting, nor even to the norms and unwritten rules that maintain the rule of law and the peaceful transition of power. Important as these elements are, they lack meaning without the presence of a living culture of democracy, a body of understandings and habits that bind us to one another in mutual responsibility and to a commitment to human equality and freedom. This is the vision of democracy powerfully expressed by political scientist Danielle Allen in her recent book, Our Declaration:A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality.This is a vision affirming that we are all not only entitled to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also to equality of access to government as the tool by which we secure those rights.
The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.
There is a direct line of inheritance from the Declarations writers to the marchers who crowded the streets of American cities on Jan. 21.The writers who generated the Declaration of Independence did not compile their grievances against King George III by brainstorming their complaints in closed session, but by placing advertisements in newspapers across the country.They relied on what Allen called the collective intelligence of ordinary citizens to build their argument for independence.As Allen said, In developing their list of complaints against King George and in coming to understand their situation, the colonists became the free people capable of self-government that, with their declaration, they asserted themselves to be.In other words, they were developing the habits of freedom even before the nation became formally independent.They reinforced this process by drafting constitutions for the future states even before signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
By the same token, the marchers of Jan. 21, 2017 didnt wait for a midterm election to enact a vision of what democracy is and can be.Despite the oligarchic, authoritarian nature of the Trump candidacy and presidency, the marchers moved boldly to reclaim their democratic heritage by reinterpreting it in the light of contemporary circumstances.The marchers I know understood that today the phrase, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness incorporates the unalienable right to decent, affordable health care.They equally understood that this powerful phrase includes the unalienable right to a healthful environment and the right to counter powerful economic interests that elevate short-term profit above the well-being of all.
Take A Look: Bill Moyers Essay: Thomas Jefferson's Betrayal
Moreover, the marchers I know understand that reclaiming democracy necessitates coming to terms with the tragic distortions and exclusions coiled within the DNA of the young American republic. They know that reclaiming democracy means coming to terms with the legacies of slavery, genocide and racism, and that democracy must now mean full inclusion of all people within the American polity.That is why, ultimately, we dont need a Trump as a cure or unifier.Certainly, resistance will and must continue.But it is democracy itself that is the unifier.The issues represented in the marches Black Lives Matter, immigrants rights, Standing Rock, reproductive rights, among others are all deeply connected by the sacredness and dignity of human life, and by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for this generation and all generations to come.
At one point in the LA march, I looked up in the blue, cloudless sky and saw a lone airplane trailing a banner proclaiming, Congratulations President Trump on Your Inaugural.A young woman standing next to me noticed my glance and said, looking up at the plane as well, That looks like one of Trumps tweets.But theres just one of him, and theres all of us. Looking down Hill Street at some of the hundreds of thousands of people that day, and perhaps with King George III in the back of my mind, I knew she was right.
Will the Real Journalists Please Stand Up?
Donald Trumps Mission Creep Just Took a Giant Leap Forward
Here is the original post:
Reclaiming Our Democracy - BillMoyers.com
Before this month, Seattles democracy vouchers were just an idea. Now candidates are knocking on doors to gather them up.
When a Seattle City Council candidate showed up at Carlos Garcias door on a Saturday last month and asked for his democracy vouchers, he was a little surprised.
Garcia recalled voting in 2015 for a ballot measure creating the vouchers, and a package from the city had just come in the mail. But he was fuzzy on the details.
I dont even really know how the program works, said Garcia, 46, standing on the front porch of his Beacon Hill home with the council candidate, Jon Grant.
Youre asking for my vouchers, and Im like, Do I have one? Do I have four? Do I tear it off like a coupon and hand it to you? Is that how it works? Garcia said.
His confusion was understandable. Seattle is the first city in the country to finance campaigns with taxpayer-funded vouchers, and the program is launching this year.
Voters authorized the program when they passed Initiative 122, authorizing a 10-year, $30 million property-tax levy to pay for the vouchers.
Last month, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission mailed each of the citys registered voters four $25 vouchers to distribute to candidates in 2017.
There are races this year for the councils two citywide seats and for city attorney. Theres also a race for mayor, but the vouchers wont be allowed in that contest this time around.
Voters can return their vouchers to the commission directly (by mail, email, fax or in person) or to candidates (by mail or in person) for relaying to the commission. Doing nothing with the vouchers is OK, too.
To become eligible to collect the vouchers, candidates must pledge to take part in debates, agree to lower campaign-contribution limits and agree to campaign-spending caps.
To qualify to actually receive the funds that the vouchers represent, candidates must gather a baseline number of small donations.
Incumbent City Attorney Pete Holmes last week became the first candidate to qualify.
The commission will be releasing the funds to qualified candidates at least twice a month.
Proponents say the program will get more people involved in local politics and help less-known candidates compete against candidates backed by wealthy donors.
Thats what Grant is counting on. The housing activist, who lost in 2015 when he challenged incumbent Councilmember Tim Burgess, is running again for Position 8.
Burgess isnt seeking re-election this time around, but Grant considers himself an underdog still. He says he wont take any campaign contributions from corporations.
Were funding our campaign on small donations and democracy vouchers, the candidate told Garcia. Thats why were going door to door to ask for your support.
Grant is eligible to collect the vouchers but not yet qualified to receive the donations they represent.
Other Position 8 candidates collecting vouchers include Sheley Secrest, Teresa Mosqueda, Ryan Asbert, Mac McGregor and Roger Kluck.
Persuading voters to part with their vouchers so far ahead of time is challenging. The primary election isnt until August and the general election isnt until November.
Most voters are recovering from last years election rather than thinking about 2017. But Grant wants to snag as many vouchers as possible before too many are replaced and tossed away.
The commission is working on a replacement-voucher form, but it isnt ready yet.
Youre asking people to make a decision to support someone way before they normally have to make that decision, Grant said.
But these vouchers arent votes. Theyre a means to support grass-roots candidates. We need to get started early so we can build up the resources to go up against corporate-backed candidates.
Garcia didnt give Grant any vouchers, nor did his husband, James Harris.
The Pioneer Square business owner thanked the candidate for going door to door. But he expressed skepticism about the vouchers program, calling it provincial.
Im hoping it will work, get more people involved, Harris said. Well see how it plays out. But right now, it just seems hokey.
Grant is seeing some success, however. In his first week, he collected about $8,000 in vouchers, he says.
Kashina Groves, 32, and her husband, Apu Mishra, 40, assigned all eight of their vouchers to Grant. Theyd seen a reminder from him on Facebook.
So I didnt just dump them in the recycling, Groves said.
One of Grants strategies is to ask for at least one voucher, if not all four. Thats what worked with Rupert Berk in the same neighborhood where Grant visited Garcia.
The candidate is targeting areas he won in 2015, such as Beacon Hill.
Berk, 47, reacted positively when Grant described his views on affordable housing but initially balked when the candidate asked for his vouchers.
Im probably going to do more research, he said.
So Grant tried again: I know you want to do your research, but were just trying to get off the ground. Would you support us with just one just $25 at no cost to you?
Berk thought for a few beats. Then he relented, shrugging his shoulders.
Sure, he replied.
See more here:
Seattle candidates already on hunt for 'democracy vouchers' - The Seattle Times
Not long ago, Brazil was "ontop of theworld," as one 2010 headline described it.
With a steadily growing economy and expanding social programs thatlifted millions out of poverty, the South American nation was seen by many as an emerging global power and a shining example of good governance and inclusivity. Lula da Silva, Brazil's president from 2003 to 2010, was widely credited for his countrys remarkable success; President Obamacalled him"the most popular politician on Earth."
But over the last few years, Brazil's economic and political panorama has dramatically shifted. Recent news headlines include "Brazil in Free Fall" and "The Darkest Hour."
In early 2014, Brazil's economy began to tank. The causes included the Latin American and global economic slowdown, but also neoliberal economic policies favored by Brazil's powerful financial community, including budget and credit tightening at the wrong time andexorbitantly high interest rates.
Meanwhile, revelations surfaced regarding a vast bribery scheme commonly known as "Lava Jato" (car wash) involving state energy company Petrobras and numerous senior figures from Brazils major political parties. This perfect storm of economic and political setbacks contributed to a rapid decline in the popularity of da Silva's successor, Dilma Rousseff, and created a golden opportunity for right-wing sectors to unseat Rousseff and her left-leaning Workers' Party.
But rather than attempting to retake the presidency through elections, sectors of the right conspired to remove Rousseff by triggeringlegally unjustifiedimpeachment proceedings against her.
The former president is regularly vilified in Brazil's conservative media, which dominates the nation's airwaves and press. The telegenic federal Judge Sergio Moro, elevated to near-superhero status by much of Brazils major media, has been leading abiased and politicized investigationtargeting da Silva, and has repeatedly violated the former president's due process rights.
The Obama administration has failed to speak out against these assaults on Brazil's democracy, but U.S. congressional members have taken notice since Rousseff's impeachment trial began in May 2016, and have been forcefully appealing for the respect of rule of law and human rights in Brazil.
In July 2016, 43 Democratic members of the House of Representatives senta letterto then-Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryCongress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Take it from Italy's past, don't tinker with US electoral systems Trumps dangerous move to politicize the National Security Council MORE expressing "strong concern" regarding Rousseff's impeachment and noting that its main promoters faced corruption charges, including Romero Juc, a key political ally of current President Michel Temer caught on tapeplottingRousseff's removal. The objective, Juc said, was to prevent corruption investigations from moving forward.
Temer, Rousseff's replacement, promptly appointed an all-white, all-male Cabinet that embarked on far-reaching reforms, including drastic cuts to social programs.
In early August, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersEllison tops Perez in DNC race fundraising Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously Biden endorses Perez for DNC chair MORE (I-Vt.) issueda statementarguing that: "The United States cannot sit silently while the democratic institutions of one of our most important allies are undermined."
Kerry ignored these appeals. OnAug. 5, as the impeachment trial was still underway, he held a friendly joint press conference with Temer's foreign minister and made no mention of the unconstitutional efforts to remove Rousseff. The signal to Brazilians was unmistakable: Washington supported what many considered an illegal coup d'etat.
Though Brazil has largely disappeared from the news in the U.S., the dire political and social situation there is still of great concern to a number of members of Congress.
On Jan. 18, 12 members of the House, including four of the five top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent aletter to Brazil's ambassadorin Washington, denouncing the repression of peaceful protests in Brazil and the criminalization of the Landless Workers' Movement and other groups opposed to the Temer government. The letter also denounces the ongoing judicial persecution of da Silva:
"Since the beginning of [2016], Lula has been targeted by a judge Sergio Moro whose biased and unwarranted actions have severely jeopardized Lulas due process rights. For instance, Moro ordered the arbitrary arrest of the former president simply to serve a subpoena, although there was no indication that the former president was unwilling to provide testimony.Media outlets were on site as the arrest occurred, suggesting that the primary purpose of the detention was to create the perception that Lula was implicated in criminal activity despite the lack of charges against him at the time."
The letter describes Moro's open participation "in political events opposing Lula" and his endorsement of a sensational book lionizing him and presenting da Silva as guilty of alleged criminal charges. It notes that Moro leaked phone intercepts to the media,a violation of Brazilian law.
The letter, led by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth and other organizations, goes on to say:
"Even following testimony against Lula obtained through plea bargains, there is not yet any credible evidence implicating Lula in criminal activity. We are concerned that the true goal behind the proceedings is to severely tarnish Lulas image and disable him politically by any means, as occurred with former President Rousseff."
Despite these attacks, the Workers' Party announced on Jan. 17 that da Silva would be its candidate for president in Brazil's 2018 elections. Two days later, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki died in a plane crash seen by many assuspiciousgiven that Zavascki had been analyzing testimony implicating many powerful Brazilian politicians in corruption.
Zavascki had been widely considered to be the most independent and principled member of the court. He had been identified in the leaked Juc tape as the one justice "closed off" to making a deal to help remove Rousseff. And he had firmly objected to Moro's leaks of tapped phone recordings of da Silva in early 2016, earning him vicious attacks in the right-wing press and protests in front of his home in So Paulo.
With Zavascki gone, it appears unlikely that any higher judge will step in to counter the excesses of Moro and others who use their judicial or political power to arbitrarily target opponents.
Given this alarming situation, it's more important than ever for members of Congress and others in the international community to shine a bright light on the attempted demolition of democracy and basic rights that is taking place in Brazil.
Alexander Main is senior associate for international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.
The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.
Here is the original post:
Congress must take attacks on Brazilian democracy seriously - The Hill (blog)