Mediaboss Marketing

James Carville is furious. Its the LAW!!! If you do not enforce it, Dems will look as weak as people think they are, he texted me earlier this week. I would ask if we could use DC jail for Bannon.

What has Carville itching to put former President Donald Trumps ex-adviser behind bars? Defiance. The special congressional committee charged with investigating the January 6 insurrection gave former Trump White House officials Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Kash Patel, and Dan Scavino until the end of this week to comply with its subpoenas for testimony and records. Bannon has so far refused to cooperate.

Congressional Democrats, who control both chambers and have a majority on the January 6 committee, can ask the House or Senate sergeant-at-arms to arrest Bannon. Yesterday afternoon, though, Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the committee, announced that he will pursue a more moderate path: Next week, the committee will vote on whether to refer Bannon to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution.

We fully intend to enforce the subpoenas, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who is one of two Republicans on the special committee, assured me. That doesnt come with the snap of a finger, but we will get to the bottom of these questions and pursue all avenues.

Democrats want to uphold norms of interparty civility while also preventing Trump and his buddies from completely undermining democracy. But time is running out. The January 6 committee is one of Congresss last chances to narrate the Capitol riots and the Trump administrations efforts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power. The only way to fight fascism is with narrative, Masha Gessen, the writer and activist, once told me. The select-committee probe presents a real opportunity to do just that.

Enforcing the committees subpoenas isnt a controversial idea, Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. We must enforce congressional subpoenas not just for holding insurrectionists accountable but to show everyone in America that we all follow the same rules, he said. If Bannon and company are above the law, why wouldnt nonpublic figures toss their lawful subpoenas in the trash?

Perhaps Bannon thinks that the committee wont follow through, or that jail time might martyr him. Hes dodged consequences for alleged misconduct before. Last year, he faced prison for his role in the We Build the Wall scheme, which prosecutors said was fraudulent, but Trump granted him an 11th-hour pardon. At least hes had some time to think about what he might have to pack.

Read: Republicans refuse to reckon with January 6

The committee had hoped to depose Bannon, Meadows, Patel, and Scavino this week, according to lawmakers, but some members of that group have been more cooperative than others. While Mr. Meadows and Mr. Patel are, so far, engaging with the Select Committee, Mr. Bannon has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President, Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, wrote in a joint statement with Thompson.

Bannon seems likely to continue resisting his subpoena. The executive privileges belong to President Trump, and we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony, Bannons attorney, Robert Costello, wrote in a letter to the committee earlier this month. Bannon hasnt worked in the executive branch since August 18, 2017, more than 1,500 days ago. And Trump is no longer the chief executivehes just some guy playing golf at his country club. The Biden administration has already waived executive privilege for the Trump-era documents that the January 6 commission was seeking.

The committee is in agreement about pursuing criminal referrals for witnesses who refuse to cooperate with their subpoenas. We now have a Justice Department committed both to the rule of law and to the principle that no one is above the law. The January 6 committee will respond with equal swiftness to those who fail to comply, holding them in criminal contempt and referring them to the Justice Department for prosecution, Representative Adam Schiff of California told me.

The problem with enforcing congressional subpoenas, though, is that it pits two of the Democrats priorities against each other. Democrats have been tasked with both upholding democracy and defending constitutional norms. The norm of the past 90 years has been that congressional subpoenas are honored because the people subpoenaed are honorable. That doesnt seem likely to happen here. Still, Congress hasnt jailed a witness since 1934, when it found William P. MacCracken Jr. in contempt for refusing to participate in a Senate investigation into how federal airmail contracts were awarded. MacCracken was taken into custody by the Sergeant at Arms, although rumor has it that he was held at the Willard Hotel, according to the The Washington Post. A criminal referral to the Justice Department would likely move much slower than MacCrackens arrestand could prove easier to fight. If Bannon can delay long enough, he could simply run out the clock, and hope that Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022.

Because the January 6 committee cannot rely on members of Trumpworld acting honorably, it may have to go further, Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, told me. Historically, the enforcement mechanism for congressional subpoenas to executive-branch employees was as much political as it was legal, she explained. In other words, the parties negotiated over the scope of subpoenas, because the political cost of outright defiance was seen as too high. Trump broke that process, convincing his followers that refusing to submit to congressional oversight was a virtue, not a violation of our laws. If Congress cant regain the ability to enforce its subpoenas in the light of a norm-breaking presidency, its oversight abilities will be extinguished.

Read: The Capitol rioters won

Last year, Congress drafted a resolution to be used with noncompliant members of the Trump administration. It was meant to give congressional subpoenas teeth. As a police officer, you see a lot of people who think theyre above the law, Val Demings, one of the sponsors of the resolution, told me. We called them habitual offenders, and the only way to stop them is to hold them accountable. When theres no enforcement mechanism, its no surprise that we see corruption, cover-ups, and contempt towards those of us trying to bring accountability to Washington No one is above the law, up to and including the president of the United States.

Will putting Bannon in jail make him tell the truth about what happened leading up to and on January 6? Dont count on it. Will jail be something Bannon can use for fundraising and publicity? Thats one of his core competencies. But a fight with Bannon over congressional power and criminal referrals, however protracted, could help Democrats too. Drawing more attention to the committees investigation and its high stakes isnt necessarily a bad outcome for those of us who want to preserve democracy. If the January 6 committee can hold widely watched, televised hearings, with or without Bannon, perhaps some of the truth will get through to Americans so far unmoved by what happened early this year. The committees power to convince, rather than its power to punish, will matter most.

Read the rest here:
Democrats Are Ready to Send Steve Bannon to Jail - The Atlantic

While they prepare the bill for floor action, majority party leaders are deciding whether to pair the must-pass funding package to avoid a shutdown with a measure to tackle the approaching debt cliff a plan Republicans vehemently promise to reject. A bill that addresses both fiscal threats would likely pass the House, but its odds are highly questionable in the Senate, where all but four GOP lawmakers have promised to vote against raising the debt limit.

The premise that Republicans are not going to vote in any way, shape, form or fashion for a debt limit increase is a correct premise. That would not happen, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) warned this week.

Democrats would be remiss to pass the funding bill without debt limit action, since the Treasury Department is expected to run out of borrowing ability sometime next month a breaking point likely to trigger economic turmoil. Majority party leaders can maximize their leverage over Republicans by coupling the issues, forcing GOP lawmakers to either fall in line or go on record against billions of dollars in disaster aid, preventing a government shutdown and avoiding debt default.

"The debt limit is something that we should do almost automatically," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said this week. "So any opportunity that we have to pass it, the sooner the better. ... Wherever we can get a bill in, I hope we can get the debt ceiling included in it."

A cap on the nations ability to borrow money was reinstated on Aug. 1. The Treasury Department has since implemented a number of workarounds to keep paying the governments bills on time, but Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned those measures could be exhausted as soon as next month a scenario that would wreak unparalleled economic havoc.

Earlier this week, some Senate Republicans indicated a willingness to support a stopgap bill that includes billions of dollars in hurricane and flood relief requested by Biden, citing their own needs in states rocked by Hurricane Ida and other storms throughout the year.

But any measure to raise or suspend the debt limit must be left off, GOP lawmakers said, insisting that Democrats handle a typically bipartisan issue alone, since the majority party is pursuing multitrillion-dollar spending plans without Republican support.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) bluntly said Monday that he would not support a continuing resolution that includes disaster aid and action to stave off a debt default.

This debt limit is all justifying their robbing the bank to spend a whole bunch of new social programs that are going to feed the fires of inflation, he said.

See original here:
Biden dials top Democrats as shutdown countdown begins ...

House Democrats want to raise taxes on the largest corporations and wealthiest Americans to help pay for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package. The series of proposed tax code changes are set to spark heated debate on Capitol Hill as Republicans and some centrists Democrats push back on the sweeping spending proposal that tackles a range of President Biden's policy priorities.

The House Ways and Means committee tasked with drafting the funding proposal unveiled its text on Monday. It comes as the committee is set to mark up the legislation on Wednesday, the same day Speaker Nancy Pelosi has set as the deadline for all committees to complete their drafted portions of the legislation.

House Democrats are proposing increasing the corporate tax rate to $26.5% up from 21% for businesses that have incomes above $5 million. At the same time, they've proposed lowering the tax rate even further for the smallest businesses making up to $400,000 to 18%. Corporations with incomes falling in the middle range would not see corporate tax hike.

This comes out just below President Biden's own proposal unveiled this spring. He called for the tax rate to be increased to 28% after it was slashed from 35% to 21% under President Trump in 2017.

The proposal also revamps the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans, increasing the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37% which applies to individuals with a taxable income of more than $400,000, married individuals filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000 and heads of households with taxable income over $425,000.

Under the proposal, the top capital gains rate would increase from 20% to 25%. This is less than the President's proposal which included nearly doubling it to 39.6% rate on households with an income of more than $1 million. Instead, the proposal includes a 3% surtax on individuals making more than $5 million.

Another proposal in the drafted legislation increases the tax rate on tobacco products.

White House spokesman Andrew Bates praised the proposal, noting it "makes significant progress towards ensuring our economy rewards work and not just wealth by cutting taxes for middle class families; reforming the tax code to prevent the offshoring of American jobs; and making sure the wealthiest Americans and big corporations pay their fair share" and meets two of the president's core goals.

While the legislation includes changes to the tax code, it also includes $80 billion in funding for the IRS over the next decade which would increase enforcement on the wealthiest Americans.

According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% have avoided paying an estimated $163 billion in taxes a year. The full tax gap between what is owed and what is actually collected is an estimated $600 billion annually and could reach an estimated $7 trillion over the next ten years. The increase in funding to the IRS would allow the collection of an additional $200 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

According to a document on the House Democrats' tax proposal circulated among lawmakers and obtained by CBS News, the series of tax changes and provisions would raise an estimated $2.9 trillion in revenue including an estimated additional trillion from the wealthiest individuals and another $900 billion from corporations.

Along with the White House's estimated $600 billion in growth, the document states, the proposal would pay for the $3.5 trillion spending plan, which includes provisions such as expanding Medicare, extending the monthly Child Tax Credit, implementing a 12-week paid family and medical leave policy nationally, providing universal pre-K to all 3- and 4-year-olds, making two years of community college tuition free and more.

But the tax-and-spend agenda has a long way to go on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee will continue its work marking up its portion of the legislation, known as the Build Back Better Act. In a statement, Chairman Richard Neal said its investments can all be funded "responsibly" and taken together, the proposals "expand opportunity for the American people and support our efforts to build a healthier, more prosperous future for the country."

But over the weekend, Senator Joe Manchin continued to pour cold water on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, saying Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not have his vote on a package of that size. The West Virginia Democrat suggested Congress needs to scale down its number to meet urgent needs, putting him at striking odds with progressive Democrats such as Senator Bernie Sanders, who said Sunday whittling down the package to $1.5 trillion was "absolutely not acceptable" to him.

Democrats have 50 seats in the Senate leaving no room for dissension. The Senate returns from recess Monday.

See original here:
Democrats' new tax proposal takes aim at corporations and ...

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Denouncing the thousands of Haitian asylum-seekers who are camped out under a South Texas bridge as an "invasion," Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick accused Democrats of allowing their entry into the country for political gain.

"[Democrats] are allowing this year probably 2 million [immigrants], that's who we apprehended, maybe another million, into this country," Patrick said on Laura Ingraham's Fox News show. "At least in 18 years even if they all don't become citizens before then and can vote, in 18 years if every one of them has two or three children, you're talking about millions and millions and millions of new voters and they will thank the Democrats and Biden for bringing them here. Who do you think they're going to vote for?"

He said President Joe Biden and Democrats had begun a "silent revolution" to take over the country by winning over the votes of migrants.

"This is trying to take over our country without firing a shot," he added.

Patrick's rhetoric mirrors a far-right theory started in France known as the Great Replacement, which says that elites are replacing white populations with nonwhite populations through mass migration and demographic growth. These writings influenced the worst mass shooting of Hispanics in recent U.S. history in El Paso in 2019. The shooter, who killed 23 people and injured 23 others, ranted about a Hispanic invasion and told police he came to the city to kill Mexicans.

Patrick has repeatedly called the increase of migrants at the border an "invasion" throughout the year.

State Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, who leads the House Democratic Caucus said blasted Patrick for his comments.

"These comments are not only vile, they are incendiary and dangerous," Turner said on Twitter. "Leaders have a responsibility to not incite with their words & actions - Patrick fails that test, again."

Patrick, a two-term Republican, was responding on Thursday to the thousands of asylum-seeking migrants most of them from Haiti who are waiting under an international bridge in Del Rio. The Caribbean country experienced a 7.2 magnitude earthquake last month that destroyed thousands of homes.

State and federal government butted heads on how to handle the migrants' arrival, with Gov. Greg Abbott backpedaling on an order to close the ports of entry after U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency had not asked the state to do so. Abbott has blamed the Biden administration for the increase of migrants on the border this year.

Patrick told Ingraham the state received a "call for help" from U.S. Border Patrol, which led Abbott to order the closure of the ports of entry. A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said the agency had no information on Abbott's decision to close the ports.

"Then we found out that Border Patrol did not have permission from Homeland Security or the president, and so they came out and said 'No, we didn't say we needed any help. We didn't say that,'" Patrick said. "Someone in the administration flip-flopped on the issue, Texas did not take a back step."

Patrick urged Republican-led states to tell the White House they were being "invaded," adding that Democrat-led states did not care.

"This is not authorized by the state of Texas," he said. "It's not welcome by the state of Texas or any other Republican state that I know and they're not invited."

Patrick invoked Article IV of the Constitution, which guarantees states protection from invasion.

"What's a republican form of government? It's defined as a government that focuses on citizens running their government," he said. "We now will have illegals in this country denying citizens the right to run our government. Because our government, our representatives that we elect, can't even stop them from coming."

"This is denying us our government that's run by our citizens with illegals who are here who are going to take our education, our health care, all [of it]," he said. "This is selling out our country."

Join us Sept. 20-25 at the 2021 Texas Tribune Festival. Tickets are on sale now for this multi-day celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news, curated by The Texas Tribunes award-winning journalists. Learn more.

See the original post here:
Dan Patrick warns Democrats are allowing in immigrants for silent revolution, mirroring language of far-right extremists - The Texas Tribune

The big headline is that the California recall failed. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom gets to keep his job. He handily fought off the Republican challenge.

But there is a worrisome detail in the data, one that keeps showing up, one that Democrats would do well to deal with: Black and Latino men are not hewing as close to the party line as Black and Latina women.

There are, of course, issues with exit polls, and results often change as more votes are counted. But that said, the California exit polls do seem to reflect what polls have shown for some time now.

In CNNs exit poll, nearly half of the Hispanic men surveyed and nearly a quarter of the Black men voted to support the recall. The largest difference between men and women of any racial group was between Black men and Black women.

Even if these numbers are later adjusted, the warning must still be registered.

For many of these men, saying Republicans are racist or attract racists or abide racists isnt enough.

For one thing, never underestimate the communion among men, regardless of race. Men have privileges in society, and some are drawn to policies that elevate their privileges.

For instance, many Black and Hispanic men oppose abortion.

Some men liked the bravado of Donald Trump and chafed at the rise of the #MeToo movement. Some simply see trans women as men in dresses and want to carry guns wherever they want.

The question for Democrats is how do they lure some of these men back without catering to the patriarchy. From a position of principle, the party cant really appeal to them; it must seek to change them.

Add to the patriarchal issues a sense of disillusionment with the Democratic Party and its inability to make meaningful changes on the issues that many of these men care most about, such as criminal justice reform and workplace competition. Democrats often resort to emotional appeals in election season, telling minorities that they must vote for liberal candidates as a defense, to prevent the worst. But many of these men believe that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

The idea of always playing defense and never offense is, well, offensive.

Instead, Democrats have to craft a message of empowerment and change. They have to say to these men that they dont have to operate from a position of weakness and pleading, holding back the forces that would otherwise overwhelm them.

To be honest, a robust, offensive messaging campaign would resonate with all people who tend to vote Democratic men and women.

The truth is that in a two-party system, voters have only two choices, so protest votes are self-defeating, as is sitting out elections or supporting the opposition to scare your favored side into better behavior.

In a two-party system, if you dont want the Trump Republicans to win, you must vote Democratic. You are trapped in that way, and no one likes the feeling of being trapped.

But trapped is not an inspiring campaign message, particularly to people who spent a lifetime feeling trapped and have tired of it, as these men have.

Yelling at them isnt going to work; neither is shaming them or thinking that you are educating them.

My fear is that these men will continue to drift away from the Democratic Party, not because the Republican Party is the most welcoming of spaces, but because Democrats cannot or will not do more to appeal to Black and Latino men.

To my mind, the Democratic Party must do a few things:

Admit that it makes many promises to Black people in election seasons that it not only doesnt accomplish, but sometimes doesnt even take up.

Acknowledge that many of these men feel that the system itself has failed them, that the status quo has failed them.

Give the plight of Black and brown men the same prominence that both parties have given the plight of working-class white men.

Black and brown men need to feel that they are being seen as more than victims of a predatory justice system or part of the so-called immigrant crisis. They need to be rendered in full and seen as whole.

When they are not, it leaves an opening for Republicans to exploit, and conservatives have done a clever job of doing just that in recent elections.

If you are like me, you are thinking: These men should know better. They are voting in ways that invite injury or not voting at all. They shouldnt be coddled. The world is sick of coddling selfish men.

But we, too, are stuck in this two-party system, and as such, we must do whatever it takes to prevent calamity and eke out progress.

In that world, when men of color vote against the interests of people of color and out of the male ego, we must gingerly talk them down rather than aggressively chant them down.

Read the original here:
Opinion | Democrats Continue to Struggle With Men of Color - The New York Times