Mediaboss Marketing

Unless the Trump-Russia nexus is much deeper and darker than it appears, the intelligence disclosure to Russia most likely doesnt expose Trump to any legal jeopardy, but the legal scholars of the website Lawfarewhich is not exactly a hotbed of resistance organizingreasoned persuasively that the breach may have violated his oath of office.

Congress has alleged oath violationsalbeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligationsall three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents, they wrote. Theres thus no reason why Congress couldnt consider a grotesque violation of the Presidents oath as a standalone basis for impeachmenta high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself.

It is certainly awkward that Trump made himself vulnerable to impeachment so quickly after inauguration, but that is a testament to his overreach, not Democrats.

The central risk of admitting this publicly isnt overreach so much as over-promising. Republicans in Congress arent likely to impeach Trump, and even if Democrats reclaim control of both the House and Senate next year, removing him from office would require many Republicans to vote to convict him. But this is only a problem if Democrats are incapable of distinguishing between the abstract merits of impeaching Trump and the political feasibility of it. By impeaching Clinton, Republicans demonstrated that its possible for the political climate to allow for the impeachment of officials who do not deserve it. Our current circumstances are precisely backward. Trump deserves impeachment urgently, but politics will insulate him from it for the foreseeable future.

But that shouldnt spook Democrats out of telling voters they understand how critical removing Trump from office isand that they will fight as hard as they can to do so, even if they ultimately fall short. In many ways the 2016 Democratic primary underscored the importance of finding this very kind of middle ground between promising to deliver popular endslike Medicare for alland opposing those ends outright on political-feasibility grounds. The promise to fight is an easy promise to keep.

I know that there are those who are talking about Well, were gonna get ready for next election, Waters, the House Democrat, rightly said last week. No. We cant wait that long. We dont need to wait that long. He will have destroyed this country by then. We cannot wake up every morning to another crisis, to another scandal.

It is extremely unlikely that Trump will find remedies for the problems hes created for himself by the end of next yearthat he will liquidate his business, disclose his finances, nominate a consensus FBI director, and be fully exonerated by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller. Unless Trump does, he should not be president, and politicians arent serving the public well by pretending otherwise.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats Should Proudly Call for Trump's Impeachment - New Republic

There wasn't a single Republican in the room on April 28, but Wall Street was well represented.

House Democrats had gathered inside the Financial Services Committee for a special minority hearing to discuss the dangers of rolling back the Dodd-Frank Act's sweeping regulations. Instead of bankers or traders or regulators, Democrats called none other than Sen. Elizabeth Warren to testify.

Warren loves to talk tough as though she is the crusading scourge of Wall Street. But is that really so?

There was a tension over what to do with Dodd-Frank. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said just after the 2016 election, "I wouldn't want regulation to be repealed in total." In a 2013 interview, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon bragged that Dodd-Frank helped his bottom line by building a "bigger moat" making it harder for competitors to get into the citadel of riches. As Congress considered the bill in 2010, Blankfein admitted that his bank would be "among the biggest beneficiaries" of Dodd-Frank.

So Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling hit the bullseye when he called the faux hearing "awkward for the Democrats."

"Barack Obama is pocketing $400,000 for a Wall Street speech and Prof. Warren is joining Wall Street CEOs in defending Dodd-Frank. How awkward for the Democrats," Hensarling said. "Community banks and credit unions are supporting the Financial CHOICE Act," Hensarling's bill to replace Dodd-Frank. "Wall Street CEOs and Democrats are the ones saying, Don't repeal Dodd-Frank.' "

The Congressional Budget Office on Thursday added heft to Hensarling's argument. It scored the CHOICE Act as saving taxpayers more than $24 billion, in a very special and telling way. The CBO reports that the bill "would repeal the FDIC's authority to use the [Orderly Liquidation Fund] to resolve large, systemically important financial firms (including banks and nonbank firms) that become or are in danger of becoming insolvent, subject to certain conditions."

The translation of this legalese is that Dodd-Frank's process for liquidating big banks risks taxpayer money. By removing that risk, the CHOICE bill would reduce the deficit. The odds of a bailout through the OLF is small, the CBO said, but it's still a risk. "Although the probability that the FDIC would have to liquidate a systemically important firm in any year is small, the potential associated cash flows would probably be large." By CBO's accounting, removing this risk counts as a $15.5 billion in savings over a decade.

Here's the other telling part of the CBO report. It says the biggest banks don't want to be freed from Dodd-Frank's regulations. Let's just say that again: big banks don't want to be freed from Dodd-Frank regulations. And we're supposed to believe the Democrats are crusaders against big banks? Seriously?

Dodd-Frank imposed regulations on banks with the aim of preserving safety and soundness. They were complicated, complex, and costly. The CHOICE Act's name derives in part from the choice it offers banks, the option to get out from the under these rules and all dealings with regulators and reporting requirements by setting aside more reserves as a bigger cushion. In other words, if a bank takes the traditional approach to safety and soundness, which is to set aside sufficient reserves, it doesn't have to live by some of Dodd-Frank's other rules.

But the big guys won't take this offer. "CBO anticipates that, for example, the eight large banks headquartered in the United States that are characterized as globally systemic important banks (G-SIBs) would not make the election because they would have to raise much more capital," the CBO concludes.

The clear implication is that the behemoths, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley, are content with Dodd-Frank's regulations. They can afford the lawyers, lobbyists, and financial gymnastics to fit their risk-taking into whatever rules the regulators (many of whom will someday work for the banks they are regulating) throw at them.

Regulation of any industry adds to costs, which big business is most able to absorb. The more government gets involved, the bigger the advantage for banks who have the best team of lawyers and lobbyists. And that's never Mom n' Pop of community banks.

The CHOICE Act would take some deregulatory steps that please the big banks, including repealing some Dodd-Frank rules for all banks and taming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Nonetheless, the CBO report helps rebut a standard Democratic myth, that their big-government policies stick it to the big guys while the GOP's opposition sticks it to the little guys.

The truth, which the big bankers admit, is that regulation and bailouts, that is, big government, is their preferred environment.

When it comes to banking, as when it comes to so many other things such as job creation, the Democratic Party is the party of the 'haves' and the GOP is the party of the 'have-nots.' That's doesn't fit with popular political myth, but it's the truth. It's a pity the Republicans are so bad at conveying this message, but that's another story.

Read the original here:
Big banks love Democrats' big government - Washington Examiner

Every controversy enveloping President Donald Trump spurs Democratic optimism about their partys future prospects. And just as the maneuvering for 2020 has started, so, too, has speculation about likely nominees.

Based on recent presidential campaign history, the ultimate Democratic winner might well be one of those making early trips to Iowa or New Hampshire.

But early polls and dope sheets will almost certainly be wrong or at least misleading.

More likely than not, the next president, to be elected in either 2020 or 2024, will be someone barely on the current radar screen. (Trump has already begun his own re-election race, but Republican 2020 speculation may be even less predictable than Democratic.)

Just look back four years to the initial jockeying to succeed Barack Obama. A 2013 fivethirtyeight.com analysis of early 2016 polling showed Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida leading 13 other Republicans. Not even mentioned: Trump, who even then was thinking of running but was not being taken seriously.

Among Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming front-runner, as she had been eight years earlier when she wound up losing to Obama. The seven others with some support did not include Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who nearly took the nomination from Clinton in 2016.

The next Democratic race will probably resemble the large 2016 GOP field, attracted by Trumps low approval numbers and his failure to expand his political base into believing that one of them will win in 2020. In a recent Fox News poll, a significant majority said theyd likely vote for someone new against Trump.

Those numbers, of course, are hardly more meaningful than the recent analysis by CNNs Chris Cillizza, listing 22 potential Democratic candidates, of whom three he said have a real chance to win the nomination if they run: Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Sanders will be 78, Biden 77 and Warren 70 in 2020, and many Democrats will want someone younger.

His lists main value may be its inclusiveness, though he omitted such rising younger Democrats as former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who might satisfy voters likely desire for someone new.

He included six senators, six current and former governors, two mayors, one House member, plus four business executives, including Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

Of the best known three, its unclear which, if any, will run, though Sanders may be best in position to influence the race with the large organization he is building.

The more interesting names were on Cillizzas list of eight with potential to be a major contender.

They included two senators already making quiet 2020 moves, New Jerseys Cory Booker and Californias Kamala Harris; two governors showing definite signs of interest, New Yorks Andrew Cuomo and Virginias Terry McAuliffe; 2016 vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine; little-known Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; and, perhaps most interestingly, comedian-turned-Minnesota Sen. Al Franken and Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.

Of those, Booker seems the likeliest to run, McAuliffe and Murphy perhaps the most promising. Kaine lacks a political base, and Cuomo and Harris might be ill-suited for the retail politics of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Frankens Minnesota colleague, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who recently headlined an Iowa Democratic fundraiser, was in a secondary group rated as having a chance. It also included former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley, who never stopped running after flopping in 2016; and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. Lastly were the rich business people like Cuban, Zuckerman and Sheryl Sandberg.

If I were betting, Id take the field against Biden, Sanders and Warren. And Id watch carefully for early responses in Iowa or New Hampshire to any of these lesser-known figures or perhaps someone else as yet unmentioned. Sanders May 2015 Iowa crowds were the first sign he might become a major 2016 player.

Despite the Trump experience, early efforts have been a tipoff ever since John F. Kennedy decided to seek the White House right after narrowly losing the vice presidential nomination at the 1956 Democratic Convention.

Another valuable sign: look for the non-Trump. Voters tend to pick someone clearly different from the incumbent. For the Democrats, that means someone younger with governmental experience and less of an alpha male.

Like most out of power parties, the Democrats are leaderless now. That ultimately will change. And it wont stop pundits and pollsters from producing multiple analyses of which one might emerge.

But the meaningful ones may only be evident in retrospect.

Originally posted here:
Carl Leubsdorf: Democrats already looking to 2020 - Omaha World-Herald

The on-again, off-again threat from the White House to shatter the Affordable Care Act appeared to be on again Friday, as Politico reported that President Trump told aides in a Tuesday Oval Office meeting that he wants to end subsidies for people who buy health insurance on the state and federal exchanges.

The theory is audacious: Despite marking his fourth month in office, and despite the control his party holds over Congress, the plan from the president, party leaders and Republican campaign groups is to blame any increase on premiums on the Democrats. But so far, Republicans have stayed on message and Democrats have struggled to draw attention to tremors in the insurance market that can be traced to the White Houses shaky management.

Its very clear that President Trump and Republicans here in Congress are not interested in improving the exchanges, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said at a news conference this week. President Trump said, The best thing, politically, is to let Obamacare explode. Heres the thing: Theyve been doing the detonating from Day One.

At issue are several vital components of the ACA, and the response of insurers to the White Houses on/off signaling. In his first week as president, Trump signed an executive order neutering the individual mandate, absolving the IRS from trying to collect a penalty from people who declined to buy insurance. The White House also briefly canceled advertising ahead of the ACAs winter enrollment period analysts argued that the decision cut down on new enrollees, even after the advertising started up again.

But the subsidies fight has always been seen by Republicans as a way to make the ACA unaffordable, thereby kick-starting the death spiral that the current funding system prevents. Out of power, Republicans sued to stop the subsidies, arguing that they were illegally paid out because Congress had not specifically appropriated the money that the Obama administration was distributing. Today, the subsidies could be stopped by that lawsuits success or by the presidents decision.

The wrinkle: Republicans are portraying any market failure not as a result of their management but as the basic ACA structure self-destructing. When the American Health Care Act was resurrected, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) led Republicans in citing the decision of Medica to pull out of Iowas exchange as proof of the ACAs collapse.

Iowa is down to one insurer, Ryan said. Now that one insurer is saying that it will have to pull out of 94 of 99 counties. This is happening right now! This is a crisis, and it is happening right now!

In an interview with The Washington Post before the vote, Medica Vice President Geoff Bartsh cited the uncertainty over the governments commitment to the ACA as unknown risks influencing the companys decision. Yet since their push for repeal began in January, Republicans have talked about a rescue mission, portraying any market failures as inevitable. The urgency to pass the bill which does not provide subsidies to people on the exchanges is packaged as a response to the natural progress of the ACA.

Whatever they do, they need to act, because more people are losing their health care, premiums are continuing to rise, said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in a Fox News interview this week, referring to the Senate.

Not for the first time, the two parties are engaged in political messaging that assume alternative realities. Democrats clutch to polling that has universallyfound voters readyto blame Trump and Republicans if the health-care system spins out of control. In a Kaiser poll released last month, three-quarters of all voters including 51 percent of Republicans said that the president and Congress should make sure the current law works. A majority of Democrats and independents said that any further problems would be the fault of Republicans.

Yet in that poll, just 34 percent of Republicans said that health insurance setbacks, such as higher premiums, would be the fault of Trump and Congress. Republican messaging plays not to the skeptics but to the base and to a sense that Democrats would be hypocrites if they blamed anyone but themselves for a staggering ACA.

Last year, Democrats blamed the insurance companies. Now, theyre blaming Republicans, wrote Republican Nationial Committee rapid-response director Michael Ahrens in a Friday email to reporters. Not surprisingly, no one is buying it.

That messaging email, however,provided just three pieces of evidence. Two were CNN interviews in which Democrats were reminded that insurers were leaving before Trump won. One was a 2016 campaign clip of NBC reporting on higher premiums posing a risk for Democrats.

The rest is here:
Democrats accuse White House of causing ACA tremors, then shifting blame - Washington Post

Democrats also need to beef up their foreign-policy analyses.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. (Olivier Douliery / Abacapress.com; Charles Sykes / AP Photo)

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic establishments premier think tank, gathered luminaries and potential 2020 candidates this week for what it billed as an ideas conference. Their goal was to focus not what could have been, as CAP Vice President Winnie Stachelberg said, but on new, fresh, bold, provocative ideas that can move us forward.

In the basement of Georgetowns Four Seasons Hotel, the posh watering hole for Washington lobbyists, lawyers, and visiting wealth, the conference was at turns a debate about the future, and a demonstration of the difficulty in talking about a positive agenda when Trump looms over everything.

Virtually every speaker dutifully invoked the theme of the day: Resistance is not enough; Democrats must propose what they are for. Each then proceeded to rail at one Trump folly or another, and called on progressives to join in defending what was achieved over the last eight years.

There was a vigorous competition on who had the best Trump putdown. Instead of the sign on Harry Trumans desk that read The buck stops here, Senator Cory Booker offered, Trumps should read The ruble stops here.

Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff werent in prison, Elizabeth Warren said, hed be in charge of the SEC right now? Representative Maxine Waters topped them all by calling for Trumps impeachment: We dont have to think impeachment is out of our reach, she said.

The first sessions of the day on the economy revealed that Bernie Sanderss agenda is gaining ground among mainstream Democrats. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti described his success in passing a $15 minimum wage, a large infrastructure program, and tuition-free community college. Senator Jeff Merkley, the sole senator to support Sanders in 2016, indicted the trade and tax policies that give companies incentives to move jobs abroad, and called for major investments in infrastructure, renewable energy, and education. Medicare for All still appeared to be off the table, however, with most speakers focused on defending Obamacare against the Republican assault.

Senator Elizabeth Warren used her presentation to present a broader argument for Democrats. She argued that concentrated money and concentrated power were corrupting our democracy, and noted that Trump did not invent these problems. On concentrated money, she argued not simply for overturning Citizens United and moving to publicly financed elections but also for taking on the revolving door between Wall Street and giant companies and government, the bought and paid for policy experts, and the armies of lobbyists that distort our politics. She also argued for picking up the anti-trust stick to break up monopolies and the big banks, and revive competitive markets.

Investor and environmentalist Tom Steyer, one of the Democrats billionaire benefactors, provided a clear agenda for addressing catastrophic climate change, as well as savvy advice on the coalition needed to bring reform about. Since Republicans are hopeless and business wont lead, Steyer called for building a coalition around a green-jobs agenda that offers jobs that pay a decent wage, reaching out to labor, people of color, and businesses that will gain in the transition in a bold plan to rebuild the country.

The foreign-policy discussion, in contrast, was virtually bereft of new ideas or serious analysis. The United States is mired in wars without end and without victory. Its war on terror has succeeded in spreading violence and minting terrorists. Its humanitarian intervention in Libya has produced a failed state. Its globalization strategy has been devastating to Americas working class. Were facing rising tensions with both Russia and China. Both parties are pushing for spending more on the Pentagon, which already consumes 40 percent of global military spending. The clear and present danger of climate change doesnt get suitable action, but we can commit $1 trillion to a new generation of nuclear weapons.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Surely progressives ought to be at least considering a fundamental reassessment. Instead, Susan Rice, Obamas former national security advisor, offered platitudes. She called for the US to sustain its mantle of global leadership. Instead of Trumps vow to bomb the (bleep) out of ISIS, we should use our full arsenal. She called for a balanced approach, including strong defense (able to respond to any threat at a moments notice), skillful diplomacy, smart development and domestic strength.

On the foreign-policy panel, Senator Chris Murphy, who is seen as a leader of progressive foreign-policy thinking, criticized Trumps foreign policy by improvisation and delivered a strong defense of diplomacy and the State Department. Bizarrely, with the US headed into its sixteenth year of war in Afghanistan, the only mention of the debacle came tangentially from Representative Adam Schiff, who invoked disgraced former General David Petraeus on the importance of US aid in building a competent government in Afghanistan. Apparently pouring over $100 billion in that feckless effort is not yet enough.

The national press treated the event as an early audition of potential 2020 presidential contenders. Senators Kirstin Gillibrand laid out her national paid family leave plan. Senator Kamala Harris took apart Attorney General Jeff Sessions revival of the failed war on drugs. Virginia Governor McAuliffe warned about gerrymandering and the importance of winning gubernatorial races before the 2020 census and state-level redistricting. But Senator Merkley and Representative Keith Ellison, the only Sanders supporters present, were placed on panels, and Sanders wasnt even invited.

The most interesting contrast was between Warren and Senator Cory Booker, who were both given star turns. Warren was full of fire and brimstone, while using her speech to put forth a clear analysis and reform agenda that pushed the limits of the Democratic debate. Booker closed the conference with a passionate address, invoking the progressive movements that have transformed America, concluding that Democrats cant merely be the party of resistance, but must reaffirm Americas impossible dream. It was a speech brutal on Trump, replete with good values, sound goals and uplifting oratory, and unfortunately devoid of concrete ideas.

Read more from the original source:
How Can Democrats Form an Agenda When Trump Looms Over Everything? - The Nation.