Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Immediately after Merrick Garland was sworn in as attorney general in March of last year, he summoned top Justice Department officials and the FBI director to his office. He wanted a detailed briefing on the case that will, in all likelihood, come to define his legacy: the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

Even though hundreds of people had already been charged, Garland asked to go over the indictments in detail, according to two people familiar with the meeting. What were the charges? What evidence did they have? How had they built such a sprawling investigation, involving all 50 states, so fast? What was the plan now?

The attorney generals deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Joe Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Speaking to reporters Friday, Garland said that he and the career prosecutors working on the case felt only the pressure to do the right thing, which meant that they follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead.

Still, Democrats increasingly urgent calls for the Justice Department to take more aggressive action highlight the tension between the frenetic demands of politics and the methodical pace of one of the biggest prosecutions in the departments history.

The Department of Justice must move swiftly, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a member of the House committee investigating the riot, said this past week. She and others on the panel want the department to charge Trump allies with contempt for refusing to comply with the committees subpoenas.

Attorney General Garland, Luria said during a committee hearing, do your job so that we can do ours.

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people, including officials in the Biden administration and people with knowledge of the presidents thinking, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.

In a statement, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, said the president believed that Garland had decisively restored the independence of the Justice Department.

President Biden is immensely proud of the attorney generals service in this administration and has no role in investigative priorities or decisions, Bates said.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

The Jan. 6 investigation is a test not just for Garland, but for Biden as well. Both men came into office promising to restore the independence and reputation of a Justice Department that Trump had tried to weaponize for political gain.

For Biden, keeping that promise means inviting the ire of supporters who say they will hold the president to the remarks he made on the anniversary of the assault on the Capitol, when he vowed to make sure the past isnt buried and said that the people who planned the siege held a dagger at the throat of America.

Complicating matters for Biden is the fact that his two children are entangled in federal investigations, making it all the more important that he stay out of the Justice Departments affairs or risk being seen as interfering for his own familys gain.

The department is investigating whether Ashley Biden was the victim of pro-Trump political operatives who obtained her diary at a critical moment in the 2020 presidential campaign, and Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for tax avoidance and his international business dealings. Hunter Biden has not been charged with a crime and has said he handled his affairs appropriately.

Justice Department officials do not keep the president abreast of any investigation, including those involving his children, several people familiar with the situation said. The cases involving Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden are worked on by career officials, and people close to the president, including White House counsel Dana Remus, have no visibility into them, those people said.

Still, the situation crystallizes the delicate ground that Biden and Garland are navigating.

When it comes to Jan. 6, Justice Department officials emphasize that their investigation has produced substantial results already, including more than 775 arrests and a charge of seditious conspiracy against the leader of a far-right militia. More than 280 people have been charged with obstructing Congress duty to certify the election results.

And federal prosecutors have widened the investigation to include a broad range of figures associated with Trumps attempts to cling to power. According to people familiar with the inquiry, it now encompasses planning for pro-Trump rallies before the riot and the push by some Trump allies to promote slates of fake electors.

The Justice Department has given no public indication about its timeline or whether prosecutors might be considering a case against Trump.

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack can send criminal referrals to the Justice Department, but only the department can bring charges. The panel is working with a sense of urgency to build its case before this years midterm elections, when Republicans could retake the House and dissolve the committee.

Biden, a longtime creature of the Senate, is aghast that people close to Trump have defied congressional subpoenas and has told people close to him that he does not understand how they think they can do so, according to two people familiar with his thinking.

Garland has not changed his approach to criminal prosecutions in order to placate his critics, according to several Justice Department officials who have discussed the matter with him. He is regularly briefed on the Jan. 6 investigation, but he has remained reticent in public.

The best way to undermine an investigation is to say things out of court, Garland said Friday.

Even in private, he relies on a stock phrase: Rule of law, he says, means there not be one rule for friends and another for foes.

He did seem to acknowledge Democrats frustrations in a speech in January, when he reiterated that the department remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law.

Quiet and reserved, Garland is well known for the job he was denied: a seat on the Supreme Court. President Barack Obama nominated him in March 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans blockaded the nomination.

Garlands peers regard him as a formidable legal mind and a political centrist. After graduating from Harvard Law School, he clerked for a federal appeals court judge and Justice William Brennan Jr. of the Supreme Court before becoming a top official in the Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno. There, he prosecuted domestic terrorism cases and supervised the federal investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing.

His critics say that his subsequent years as an appeals court judge made him slow and overly deliberative. But his defenders say that he has always carefully considered legal issues, particularly if the stakes were high a trait that most likely helped the Justice Department secure a conviction against Timothy McVeigh two years after the Oklahoma City attack.

During the presidential transition after the 2020 election, Biden took his time mulling over candidates to be attorney general, according to a senior member of the transition team. He had promised the American people that he would reestablish the department as an independent arbiter within the government, not the presidents partisan brawler.

In meetings, the incoming president and his aides discussed potential models at length: Did Biden want a strong personality in the job, like Eric Holder, who held the post under Obama? The relatively quick consensus was no.

Did he want someone who would be seen as a political ally? Some in his circle suggested that might be a good model to follow, which is why then-Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, a longtime friend of Bidens, was once on his shortlist.

But in the end, Biden went with Garland, who had a reputation for being evenhanded and independent.

Despite Bidens private frustrations with the attorney general, several people who speak regularly to the president said he had praised Garland as among the most thoughtful, moral and intelligent people he had dealt with in his career.

The two men did not know each other well when Biden selected him for the job. Garland had a closer relationship with Ron Klain, Bidens chief of staff, than he did with the incoming president.

Officials inside the White House and the Justice Department acknowledge that the two men have less contact than some previous presidents and attorneys general, particularly Trump and his last attorney general, William Barr.

Some officials see their limited interactions as an overcorrection on the part of Garland and argue that he does not need to color so scrupulously within the lines. But it may be the only logical position for Garland to take, particularly given that both of Bidens children are involved in active investigations by the Justice Department.

The distance between the two men is a sharp departure from the previous administration, when Trump would often call Barr to complain about decisions related to his political allies and enemies. Such calls were a clear violation of the longtime norms governing contact between the White House and the Justice Department.

Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came to his job as president with a classical, post-Watergate view of the department: that it was not there to be a political appendage.

Still, there is unrelenting pressure from Democrats to hold Trump and his allies accountable for the violence that unfolded at the Capitol on Jan. 6. While there is no indication that federal prosecutors are close to charging the former president, Biden and those closest to him understand the legal calculations. What Garland is confronting is anything but a normal problem, with enormous political stakes before the next presidential election.

Federal prosecutors would have no room for error in building a criminal case against Trump, experts say, given the high burden of proof they must meet and the likelihood of any decision being appealed.

A criminal investigation in New York that examined Trumps business dealings imploded this year, underscoring the risks and challenges that come with trying to indict the former president. The new district attorney there, Alvin Bragg, would not let his prosecutors present a grand jury with evidence that they felt proved Trump knowingly falsified the value of his assets for undue financial gain.

One of the outside lawyers who oversaw the case and resigned in protest wrote in a letter to Bragg that his decision was a grave failure of justice, even if he feared that the district attorneys office could lose.

At times, Biden cannot help but get drawn into the discourse over the Justice Department, despite his stated commitment to stay away.

In October, he told reporters that he thought those who defied subpoenas from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack should be prosecuted.

I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally, Biden said. When asked whether the Justice Department should prosecute them, he replied, I do, yes.

The presidents words prompted a swift statement from the agency: The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop.

See more here:
Garland faces growing pressure as Jan. 6 investigation widens - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

UNIVERSITY of Bradford postgraduate students practised real crime scene investigation skills during a dig on campus.

Students from the MSc in Forensic Archaeology and Crime Scene Investigation programme, were set a task to unearth a series of buried objects, and record their activities using skills commensurate with police CSI practice.

Associate Professor Robert Janaway, a forensic archaeologist with over 35 years experience, who has worked with a number of police forces and delivered training both here and abroad, said: We run a mixture of simulated crime scene experience days. On this occasion, students were involved in an early excavation to recover a number of buried objects.

"The techniques they use are the same that would be used in a police investigation, both in terms of recording and recovering material. They also have to carry out and record things like witness statements."

He added: Students from this course go on to a variety of things - some undertake PhDs, others go on to work as professional archaeologists and the police.

Student Emily Dobson, who was on the dig, said: Its really interesting to be able to get hands-on experience, especially with things we have learned about in the classroom.

Fellow student Marie-Clare Gilbertson added: These exercises enable us to gain practical skills and things like that are valuable when you come to apply for a job.

Chloe-Jade Carr, also on the course, said: "The lecturers make the practicals and content of the lectures so relevant and engaging that the skills I have learned can help me when I apply to become a detective after I have completed my masters."

Originally posted here:
University of Bradford students practice CSI skills - Telegraph and Argus

U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, a Ron DeSantis-mold conservative Republican, may have just coughed up an unforced fumble wrapped in an unforced interception.

Implications for the midterm elections are ... let us say, at this point, potentially interesting. What's clear is that political ineptitude is bipartisan.

Devoted Democrats, plenty beleaguered already, have expressed exasperation at the focus in this space on the tactical ineptitude of national Democrats. They ask: Why choose to assail Democrats when Republicans defend insurrection, restrict voting and undercut public education?

The answer begins with the fact that America's current political and cultural sensibilities are so perverted that the only way to win an election anymore is to explain that the other guy is even scarier than you.

With Republicans having just lost a vote against their frightfully megalomaniacal leader, and as they persist in allegiance to that creature, the only way Democrats could lose would be to give people something fresh to fear from them as well, or at least for Republicans to exploit with ease.

On cue, Democrats have given Republicans a tone-deaf move to the left that over-reaches their tiniest victory margins. Now Republicans could reap worsening inflation, supply-chain failures and rising gasoline prices--entirely matters of luck--to close their deal.

On the current seesaw, each party depends for success solely on the ineptitude of the other, assured that any loss will be short-term because few Americans want either of these parties for long.

The last thing Republicans would need with the seesaw teetering their way for 2022 is to propose actual policies revealing their true and frightful beliefs. That is where the aforementioned Rick Scott comes in with spectacular blunder.

As chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, he has decided unilaterally that his party colleagues who are on the ballot this year need to run on something, not merely rope the Democratic dopes.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a fine if cynical tactician, is beside himself. He wants 51 or more Republican votes in the Senate. And he knows the way to get them is to sit idly while Democrats donate them.

He said it clearly the other day, as if on truth serum. The only time for Republicans to outline a policy agenda for a Senate majority, McConnell said, is after they get one.

When it's your turn to go up on the American political playground's seesaw, by all means sit still.

Scott merely happens to be taking a turn as RSCC chairman. In that largely ceremonial and fundraising role, he has disastrously assigned to himself this advancement of an actual agenda that reads like the kook-right manifesto.

His 11-point midterm promise to voters in supposed behalf of Republican Senate candidates--he calls it "Rescue America"--wants the border wall finished and named for Donald Trump. It wants the federal Education Department abolished and for students to have free choice to attend the school that best meets for them a new mandate to assure that no children ever go home feeling guilty about something the history teacher said about what their country once did.

We will "rescue America" by explaining in our schools that the slaves were always free to go, that Rosa Parks always sat in the front row and that Trump killed Osama bin Laden with his tiny bare hands.

Scott's plan wants all federal services sunsetted in five years and forced to remake the cases for their continued existences. As written, that would include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

It wants all low-income persons to pay something in federal income taxes, which, depending on how that is structured, could raise taxes on the bottom economic half of the country.

Already Democrats are out with a commercial urging voters to fear that Social Security and Medicare might end and stand for judgment before modern-day Republicans who don't believe in them.

Many economically disadvantaged seniors indeed might worry about a double-whammy--that Scott seems to be saying they should start paying some amount of federal income taxes on Social Security that would be imperiled and is all they have to live on, so meager in their cases that, after the standard deduction, it doesn't reach the level of income subject to taxation under current law.

We need to extract some skin for our game from those freeloaders, Scott's manifesto declares.

Please understand that none of that is likely to happen, thank goodness. That's not the point.

The point is that Democrats' best hope is for midterm swing voters to conclude that, while they don't like the job Democrats have done, they fear the Republicans will end Social Security and raise taxes.

Scott thus is the Democrats' best weapon.

He'll probably soon announce at McConnell's direction that radical leftists hacked his computer and contrived the whole thing. And he'll be widely believed.

John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

More:
OPINION | JOHN BRUMMETT: It's not just the Democrats - Arkansas Online

Reps. Jim Himes and Mikie Sherrill are Democrats from Connecticut and New Jersey, respectively, and members of the New Democrat Coalition.

The U.S. economy is rebounding from Covid, showing strength and resiliency, but real economic challenges remain. Due to the global pandemic and weak supply chains for critical goods like microchips and semiconductors, American consumers are feeling the stress of inflation at the supermarket and used car lots. The good news is that Congress is working to find agreement on a bipartisan innovation bill that addresses these issues by strengthening our supply chains, supercharging American innovation and helping America outcompete nations like China.

We must take urgent action to make critical investments in American innovation, reduce our reliance on despotic regimes and expand economic cooperation with our allies across the globe. The bipartisan innovation bill will not only be good for our economy and our pocketbooks, it's also critical for our national security. The Russian war in Ukraine and escalating Chinese aggression toward Taiwan show why Congress must swiftly send this legislation to the President's desk.

Following World War II, the U.S. established a global rules-based order that values democracy, free markets, and human rights. We made a generational investment in groundbreaking basic research that has driven American innovation since. We invented the microchip and supplied the world with this critical technology. Now, however, the U.S. finds itself overly reliant on external partnerships to maintain and increase our technological edge. Experts in national security and intelligence recognize that our investment in research and development is insufficient and our unrivaled human capital is underutilized.

In addition, the security of our supply chains is under threat as Russia invades a sovereign neighbor that is a key agricultural exporter and China threatens the independence of Taiwan, which supplies 90% of the world's chips. Depending on critical materials from autocrats, whether minerals from Russia or semiconductors from China, puts the security of the U.S. and our allies at risk. In just a few weeks, we've seen how Europe's dependence on Russian energy has made it vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and limited its ability to take action against a murderous tyrant. We could be in a similar bind if China invades Taiwan, causing us to lose our largest source of semiconductors.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

The New Democrat Coalition led the charge for this legislation and helped pass a strong innovation bill that will strengthen our supply chains, advance American scientific and technological leadership, and ensure America leads the global economic order. America once led the semiconductor market, and we can do it again. The bipartisan innovation bill will keep us competitive by increasing manufacturing everywhere and helping American businesses supply the world. It invests in research including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and advanced energy and domestic microchip and semiconductor manufacturing.

The U.S. is already increasing domestic production. Intel recently announced a new chips production facility in Columbus, Ohio, and this legislation will turbocharge these efforts. Ramping up production at home will enable us to meet high demand and reduce inflationary pressures, produce more goods, and prepare for the future so events on the other side of the world don't impact Americans' lives. Failure to boost production at home and in allied nations leaves us vulnerable to supply disruptions.

This bill will also help bolster diplomatic ties with Taiwan and respond to the Chinese government's genocide of the Uyghurs through sanctions, export control restrictions, and multilateralism. By advancing this legislation, we can defend democracy, diversify and secure global supply chains, help American businesses relocate operations back to the U.S. and allied nations, and reinforce trading partnerships with nations like South Korea and Australia. When America leads, our world is safer.

By quickly passing and enacting the bipartisan innovation bill, we will set America up to lead the 21st century innovation economy with democratic values, create long-term supply chain stability in an uncertain world, and counter the influence of tyrants and autocrats around the world. This is America's moment to lead. We can't let it pass.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continued here:
Op-Ed: Congress must pass an innovation bill to fight inflation, boost national security - CNBC

Theres a bit of a family debate at The Bulwark regarding what Democrats should do to improve their electoral prospects. Some of us join Democrats like Ruy Tuxiera of the Liberal Patriot and William Galston and Elaine Kamarck in the belief that if Democrats want to climb out of the hole theyre in, they should disabuse themselves of several myths, such as that people of color will reliably vote D or that turnout is the magic bullet, and pivot hard to the center.

Others disagree. Observing yet another Big Lie-proselytizing, Ivermectin-hawking, full-on Trump cultist running for officethis time for Wisconsin attorney generalJonathan V. Last marvels that somehow the problem is Democrats being out of step? Why, he asks, does no one ever say Republicans Have to Stop Acting Crazy or Voters Will Punish Them?

It is a challenge of our time that one partyor at least a significant chunk of ithas become deranged. Many Republicans believe that the 2020 election was stolen, that COVID restrictions were fascism, that January 6 was a false flag operation by the deep state, and so on, and yet it is the Democrats who are perceived as out of the mainstream. How can that be? The majority of the country believes in none of those demented ideas, and in normal times, the very craziness of the GOP would repel voters.

But as Last concedes, when voters are dissatisfied with the state of things, they punish the party in power. That benefits the out party almost without regard to the nature of that party. The GOP is currently the only not Democrat party (or the only one that countssorry Libertarians and Greens), and therefore it is seeing gains as Bidens popularity sags. The Democratic party is now regarded more negatively (55 percent) than the GOP (51 percent).

This may be bad news for the health of democracy, but it is understandable as a matter of electoral politics. Why? Because Democrats have forgotten what they grasped in 2020 when they united behind Joe Biden: the overriding obligation to win. Thats rightnot to pass generational reforms, not to save the planet, but just to govern in a fashion that prevents the Q-Anon-indulging, Putin-friendly, truth-optional, insurrectionist party from returning to power.

In order to win, not just in 2022 but for the next several cycles or however long it takes for Republicans to regain their sanity, Democrats must prioritize broadly popular policies, they must tell the voters what theyre doing, and they must hang the crazy around Republicans necks.

It isnt that Democrats have done nothing popular. They just havent advertised it. In fact, theyve buried it. Included in the American Rescue Plan (which was too big and probably contributed to inflation, but thats a discussion for another day) was one policy that really was life-changing for many Americansthe child allowance. This passed into law. Parents of 60 million of Americas 73 million children began receiving a monthly check from the IRS of $300 a month for young children and $250 a month for older ones. According to a Columbia University study, child poverty in America declined by 40 percent during 2021 due to COVID-era spending and 25 percent of that reduction was due to the child allowance. Under Biden, child poverty reached its lowest rate in American history.

Have you heard about this dramatic accomplishment? President Biden mentions it from time to time, and its included in White House talking points. But it should have been shouted, broadcast, trumpeted, and crowed over. As Winston Churchill advised King George V when the latter had trouble getting his message across, If you have an important point to make, dont try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third timea tremendous whack. Democrats should have crowed about how Republicans talk about being pro-family, but Democrats really delivered.

Sadly, the program has now lapsed, a victim of Democratic infighting. Perhaps if Democrats had boasted properly, it wouldnt have died.

Nor have Democrats talked up the good economic numbers. With the exception of the inflation rate, the economic story is remarkably good. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2 percent when Biden took office to 3.9 percent today. Skeptics might attribute that mostly to the waning of COVID, but that shouldnt stop politicians from bragging. They get blamed for things they arent responsible for, so they might as well take credit for things they didnt really affect. Hiring is robust, wages are rising, unemployment is low, and the Dow is at 35,000.

How about that bipartisan infrastructure bill? All of the lead pipes in America are going to be replaced, saving God knows how many kids from brain damage. The legislation will begin the important process of mitigating the effects of climate change by building dykes, dams, and other infrastructure. It will repair roads, bridges, and airports, and do much more. Have you heard about it? My guess is hardly at all and then only in reference to Democratic infighting over whether the physical infrastructure bill was going to be held hostage to the human infrastructure bill they were also considering in 2021.

The story of Bidens first year-and-a-half could have been about the robust recovery, the dramatic support for struggling parents, and the passage of the much-overdue infrastructure plan. Instead, the message from the Democrats in Washington was that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema were traitors and enemies who stood in the way of a bill that was never described in any way except as a price tag. A bunch of progressives wanted to spend another $2 trillion and Manchin and Sinema thought it was a bridge too far. Since most Americans are probably ideologically closer to Manchin and Sinema than to Bernie Sanders or Pramila Jayapal, the message they received was that the Democratic party was not representing them. Ninety percent of the attention has gone to what Democrats were (unrealistically) shooting for rather than what they achieved. So they drowned their own accomplishments in a miasma of recriminations.

Nor have Democrats competently pushed back on defund the police and abolish ICE and other left-wing slogans that Republicans have employed to great effect to tar their whole party. Yes, President Biden has proposed $32 billion spending on police training and crime prevention. And yes, he had a good one-liner in his State of the Union address. Dont defund the police. Fund the police. He said it three times. Well done. But it should have been said 3000 times, and not just by Biden but by Kamala Harris and his cabinet members and leaders in Congress and surrogates of every kind. They needed a bullhorn or Churchillian pile driver on that issue.

They used to be better at this.

As someone who was on the other side for decades, I well recall that when Paul Ryan supported a plan that would permit Americans to funnel up to 40 percent of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts that would earn higher returns and be heritable by heirs, interest group ads depicted him as a ghoul who was willing to wheel granny off a cliff . I also recall the libelous ads run against George W. Bush in 2000 that falsely suggested he was soft on lynching. And the Obama campaign commercial that falsely pinned responsibility for a womans cancer death on Mitt Romneys firm.

All of that was scurrilous and I would nevertruly neversuggest that Democrats lie about Republicans. But why can they not tell the truth?

Rick Scott, chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee, is out with a plan that explicitly calls for raising taxes on 57 percent of American households. According to his plan, All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax. Could Democrats make something of that? And if not, what are they doing in politics?

Democrats have bickered over voting rights bills, focusing on trivialities like the number of days of early voting or whether an absentee ballot application had to be requested or should just be mailed to everyone. Thats nothing. The real threats are elsewhere, such as Republican proposals to make honest mistakes by election officials subject to criminalpenalties. Thats intimidation and goes to the heart of fair election administration. Further, its inexplicable that Democrats have not used their slim majorities in Congress to reform the Electoral Count Act, whose ambiguity makes election stealing easier than it needs to be. If they need a refresher, the American Law Institute has just put out a blueprint.

Finally, at least one reason that Democrats are perceived to be out of the mainstream is that the right-wing information ecosystem relentlessly nut picks the most outlandish things any Democrat says or does and magnifies it out of all proportion. They also lie incessantly. And it has an effect. Like toxic sludge, it seeps out of the realm of talk radio and Fox and Facebook and convinces even people in the middle that Democrats are too extreme.

By contrast, Democrats have utterly failed to elevate the profiles of sinister figures like Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn, or Lauren Bobert. These Putin-defending, white supremacist, malevolent creeps are rock stars among the far right, but virtually unknown to most Americans. Where are the Democratic ads pointing out that the way you get in trouble in todays GOP is by standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution (see Cheney, Liz and Kinzinger, Adam), but not for attending a conference organized by a Holocaust-mocking white supremacist? We used to say the ads write themselves, yet the Democrats cant seem to manage it.

Get better Democrats. The stakes couldnt be higher.

Read the original:
Democrats Need to Get Better at PoliticsFast - The Bulwark