Mediaboss Marketing

Common Dreams

Why the Democrats Won't Wake Up Common Dreams Moments after rightwing Republican Karen Handel won America's costliest congressional race ever in Georgia's sixth district, the de rigueur post-election quarrelling erupted: Why did Democrat Jon Ossoff lose, and what does it mean for the Democrats and ... If Democrats want to win, here's what they must fixCNN Froma Harrop: Democrats should shake their depressionThe Providence Journal Polling Shows Nancy Pelosi 'Toxic' in Districts Democrats Hoping to FlipWashington Free Beacon Rasmussen Reports -Vox -The Hill (blog) all 157 news articles »

See more here:
Why the Democrats Won't Wake Up - Common Dreams

She's the colluder! (Above, the third presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on Oct. 19, 2016, in Las Vegas.)

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Compared with allegedly obstructing justice, allegedly profiting off the presidency in violation of the Constitutions Emoluments Clause, allegedly laundering money on behalf of Azerbaijani oligarchs and the Iran Revolutionary Guard in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly sexually assaulting women, and maybe even working with a foreign dictator to sway the U.S. presidential electionDonald Trumps crimes against the English language seem relatively minor.

On Sunday morning, however, the president tweeted the following:

I see what he did there. He took the word colludea word that journalists and voters use daily to describe alleged collaboration between Trumps campaign surrogates and the Russian governmentand slapped it onto Hillary Clinton, who for some reason Trump still considers his political rival. No colluder, no colluder! Shes the colluder!

Its worth noting some of the ways in which this tweet is interesting:

1. The tweet is nonsensical. Trump wants people to believe that hes under scrutiny for committing a crime that he did not commit and, moreover, that Hillary committed the same crime and got away with it. Trump is implying that he didnt secretly and illegally collaborate with Russia, but Hillary secretly collaborated with the Democratic National Committee, and unlike him, she was not investigated by Congress and the FBI for it! But while the conversations among DNC staffers that WikiLeaks published did show that the DNC tried to hurt Bernie Sanders candidacythe Unfair to Bernie! tag on Trumps tweet is its most reasonable clausethose emails did not show Hillary colluding with the DNC to commit a crime, which is what the allegations of collusion against Trumpworld are about. Websters defines collusion as a secret agreement for fraudulent or illegal purpose. When Trump says collude, he seems to mean merely works with.

2. The tweet is ironic. We only know about the DNCs moves to help Clinton win because hackers with ties to the Russians acquired and leaked the DNC emails showing as much. According to the U.S. intelligence community, they did this to help Trump win the election. So Trump here is pointing to HillaryDNC collusion that potentially came to light due to possible collusion between his own campaign and Russia, if such collusion occurred. Life, indeed, is a rich tome.

3. The tweet is strategic. Its fascinating to watch Trump try to turn around the words that have caused him so much trouble. Weve seen this schoolyard-bickering tacticIm not colluding, you arebefore, most saliently, in Trumpworlds wielding of fake news. The question now is: Will this strategy work?

Originally, the public conversation about fake news hurt Trump. Its existence and reach were tied to fictional stories that made him look good and made Clinton look badPope Francis Endorses Trump, Hillary Arms ISIS!!!, and what not. The popularity and spread of these stories suggested that Trump supporters were, at least in part, duped, and that if fake news was made-up garbage, real news from trustworthy outlets actually existed and was valuable. Trump didnt like that. After all, the real news was accurately covering his scandals and incoherent statements. So he transmogrified fake news, using it to discredit stories that he didnt like. And it worked. Surrogates like Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway starting using the phrase, too, beating back reporters questions simply by stating fake news. Fake news became their own.

Now, two other words are harming the Trump administration every time theyre uttered: obstruction and collusion. Since Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the Russia investigation, and particularly since fired FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate on June 8, theres been a lot of heat on Trump. Theres significant evidence that Trump at least attempted to obstruct justicein his effort to lean on Comey to let go of the FBIs investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and in his firing of Comey, which by Trumps own admission, he did at least in part because of the Russia investigationand so the gang has gone back to the well. Behold some tweets that Trump has burped out since Comeys testimony:

Monday morning, as the cock crowed, our boy was back at it:

What the White House does not seem to understand or appreciate is that obstructionand collusionpose dangers to the presidency far more serious than fake newsever did. Trumps battle for the meaning of fake newswas primarily one over perception and public opinion. If enough people believed fake newsmeant what the administration wanted it to mean, the administration had won. Fake news, both in its original meaning and in Trumps usage, might corrode democracy like so much vodkabut it isnt a crime.

In contrast, obstruction of justice and collusion with a foreign power to sway an American election are very much crimes. Public perception of what those words mean wont save Trump from Robert Muellers investigation. Obstruction and collusion accusations against Hillary or other Democrats may soon be common yawps from Fox News and the internets MAGA corners, but social media wont save Trump from the law, either.

Nevertheless, public opinion about just who is obstructing and colluding could help the administration in one realm: Congress. Republican majorities control the body that ultimately will need to prosecute the president if Mueller finds there is something to prosecute. Perhaps if enough Republican constituents side with the president on what obstructionand collusionreally mean and who engages in it, senators and representatives will feel the old pressure of base revolt and primary challengesand agree with the president that the real crime here is Hillarys collusion with the DNC.

Read more here:
Trump Is Now Accusing Democrats of Collusion and Obstruction - Slate Magazine (blog)

Agreement on a $1 trillion bill to fund the budget through Sept. 30 includes provisions that could affect New Jersey Wochit

The New Jersey State House in Trenton.(Photo: Nicholas Pugliese/northjersey.com)

As part of their $34.7 billion spending plan introduced Monday night, Democrats hope to spendsome $350 million on top of the budget Gov. Chris Christie proposed in February to give to schools, scholarships and other priorities.

That plan, however, relies on revenue assumptions that have provedoverly ambitious in five of the past seven years and would draw down the states surplus a cushion built into the budgetshould anything go wrong to a level lawmakers from both parties consider uncomfortably low.

All the while, New Jersey is facing a gaping structural budget deficit fueled by ballooning pension costs that will only get worse at the start of 2018, when the next round of Christie-backed tax cuts phases in, according to an analysis released last month by Moody's Investors Service.

It is not a budget that I think anyone particularly likes, Assembly Budget Chairman Gary Schaer, D-Passaic, said Tuesday. Historically, its the type of budget weve been doing each and every year under the Christie administration, which is simply try to get by.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer, D-Passaic.(Photo: Adam Anik/NorthJersey.com)

The fate of the Democratic spending plan is still unknown. Lawmakers have until the end of the week to pass a budget and send it to Christie, who has the power to veto it line by line before signing it into law.

Democratic leaders have sought in recent days to negotiate a budget with Christie that they know he will sign, but they remain divided over a controversial proposal to allow the state to funnel reserves from its largest health insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, into a fund for anti-addiction initiatives.

According to several legislative sources, Christie has tied passage of that measure and another to transfer the state lottery into the pension system to his support for the Democrats spending plan. The House and Assembly are expected to vote Thursday on the budget bill, which can still undergo revisions.

There are items for members of both parties to applaud in the Democrats version of the budget. On the education front, the plan provides $100 million in new state aid for public schools plus $25 million to expand prekindergarten programs throughout the state.

It allocates $25 million to extraordinary aid for special education, an element that apparently was added after discussions with the Christie administration. And more controversially, it redirects $31 million down from $46 million under a previous proposal to underfunded districts from those that receive more than the states existing school funding law says they should. Cuts to any one district are capped at 2 percent of state aid.

The budget proposal also finds money for a slew of relatively unobjectionable programs and causes: $8 million for prisoner reentry programs, $6.5 million for tuition aid grants, $2.2 million for domestic violence and rape prevention, $2 million for cancer research and $145,000 for Boys & Girls Clubs, among others.

But in a big-picture sense, the budget is disappointing to lawmakers like Assemblyman Declan OScanlon, the Republican budget officer from Monmouth County.

Why are we not talking about real reforms to fix our overall budget? he said Tuesday. The longer we wait, the deeper this hole gets.

Assemblyman Declan OScanlon, R-Monmouth, at a 2016 press conference.(Photo: John C. Ensslin/NorthJersey.com)

Moodys wrote in a May analysis that a mix of tax hikes and structural spending cuts is the only way to ward off a looming financial crisis in New Jersey. Otherwise, economic growth alone is unlikely to fill a budget gapthat could reach $3.6 billion by 2023.

In other words, revenue is not predicted to keep pace with the state's fiscal obligations, primarily those related to its beleaguered pension system.

That report was released a week after the Christie administration said it was facing a projected $527 million revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year, an announcement that has become something of a springtime routine in the Christie years.

The administration has missed its revenue targets in five of itsseven budgets, and state revenues will face even more pressure in 2018 as additional cuts to the sales, estate and other taxes negotiated by Christie last year in exchange for a 23-cent-a-gallon increase to the gasoline tax are phased in.

Liberal activists held a press conference outside the State House on Monday to criticize the Democrats' proposed budget for not doing more for environmental programs, NJ Transit and low-income families. Spending on those items has been crowded out by other budget demands.

Even against this backdrop, Democrats believe they have found a way to pay for all their 2018 budget priorities.

Most significantly, they rely primarily on revenue estimates from the Christie administration that, as of May, were about $231 million higher than estimates from the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services. State Treasurer Ford Scudder said in May that he could generate $200 million in additional revenues in the2018 fiscal year by improvingNew Jerseys tax collection methods.

Democrats would also tap New Jerseys Homestead Benefit program, which is designed to lessen the property tax burden on elderly and disabled homeowners. Just as the Christie administration this year intends to delay some payments to municipalities and homeowners until July to help manage its projected revenue shortfall, Democratic lawmakers plan to defer $145 million in Homestead payments to the 2019 fiscal year to free up money for other priorities.

In addition, Democrats plan to draw down the states surplus to $413million, or 1.2 percent of theirbudget. Thats $39million less than what the Christie administration has proposed and much lower than the national median of about 5 percent of state appropriations.

Its your cushion, OScanlon said of the purpose of the surplus. If you have a cushion, it makes dealing with a revenue shortfall realistic.

Running a low surplus, however, leaves New Jersey little wiggle room should state revenues take an unanticipated hit.

Who loses then? OScanlon said. Its the people who depend on state services. The poor, the middle class, people with developmentally disabled loved ones.

Schaer agreed that New Jerseys low surplus is troublesome and has been for many years.

The problem is obviously that the more money you put into surplus, the less money you have to meet the needs of New Jerseyans, Schaer said.

Email: pugliese@northjersey.com

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2tlSFC5

Read more:
NJ Democrats' $34.7B budget proposal comes with risks - NorthJersey.com

A string of decidedly conservative rulings from new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has Democratic senators grumbling: We told you so.

During his less than three months he has occupied late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court, Gorsuch is sending signals that he could be one of its most conservative jurists. He has often aligned himself with the judicial stalwarts of the right, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Story Continued Below

Gorsuch publicly disagreed with his colleagues' decision to pass up a challenge to the McCain-Feingold law's ban on so-called soft money. He dissented from a ruling enforcing same-sex couple's rights to have their names on their children's birth certificates. He lamented the court's refusal to hear a case about the right to carry a weapon in public. He took a strong stand in favor of churches' right to public subsidies. And he signed an opinion saying he would have allowed President Donald Trump's travel ban to go into effect now, in full.

"We've got another Scalia," declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein told POLITICO she'd looked at Gorsuch's early rulings and saw no sign of moderation from conservative orthodoxy. "Right down the line. Everything everything," she said. "I'm surprised that it's so comprehensive."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut a former Supreme Court clerk said Gorsuch's early record on the court is in tension with the humble and evenhanded approach he touted during his confirmation hearings in March.

Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

"In a way, I'm surprised that he hasnt demonstrated more independence. I am surprised because in his demeanor and his tone he really made a huge effort to show his openness which some of us thought might be more an act than it was a real persona," Blumenthal said, before adding: "So far, I have to say Im disappointed."

While some thought Gorsuch's history of concern for religious freedom might give him pause about Trump's travel ban executive order seen by critics as part of a ban on Muslims, the new justice joined Thomas and Alito in an opinion issued Monday saying Trump had a strong chance of prevailing in the litigation and should be able to move ahead with his plan.

"On the travel ban, I think hes fulfilling the worst expectations so far of his opponents and probably the best hopes of his supporters," Blumenthal said. The conservative faction "gave every indication they were ready willing and able to uphold the travel ban in its entirety. So as for any objection he has, he seems to be firmly in the administrations corner."

At Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, some Democrats like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said the enthusiastic support the 10th Circuit judge was getting from groups like the Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and others showed that they had very solid indications that he would back their views on issues like campaign finance or gun rights, even though his record of writings and rulings on those topics was slim.

"It sure looks like I was right," Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Tuesday. "Its too early to draw any final conclusions but the early signals are ominous about him being the tool of the creepy billionaire coalition."

Whitehouse said Gorsuch's indication last month that he wanted to consider overturning the ban on soft money was the "most alarming" of his actions thus far.

"When you look at what the Supreme Court has done to enable the dark money deluge that the Republicans backers profit so much from, he sent a pretty strong signal that hes all for unlimited money, dark money and the rest of the pestilence that Citizens United unleashed," the Rhode Island Democrat said, referring to the high court's 2009 ruling that set in motion the rise of Superpacs and a flood of undisclosed political donations.

Like some Democratic nominees before him, Gorsuch was cagey about many of his views during his hearings. But Whitehouse said there's a complex method of signaling, second-hand reports and vouching that informs key leaders on where a nominee stands.

"When the power brokers see enough semaphore, they can draw the logical conclusion that this is going to be our guy," Whitehouse said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans had a sharply different assessment of Gorsuch's early tenure.

"He's fantastic. Hes awesome. I'm a huge fan," gushed Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a former Supreme Court clerk and the only lawmaker on Trump's list of potential justices. "Its going as I expected and my expectations were high and Ive not been disappointed in the least."

"I think he is performing as a principled constitutionalist, which is exactly what we hoped for and expected," added Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another former clerk.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Gorsuch's early moves were "stretching the thinking of the justices."

"He's going to go down in history as one of the great ones," Tillis said confidently.

Tillis also said he's sure Gorsuch will demonstrate independence from the Trump administration. "I have no doubt in my mind. ," the North Carolina Republican said. "Justice Gorsuch has a lifetime appointment. The beauty of it is: nobody can fire him. I think he's been independent and is going to continue to be independent."

Some Democrats did say they are still holding out hope on that front, to some degree or another.

"There may be some issues I think where you see the loyalties of the Republican appointees tend to be more toward the right-wing billionaire coalition than to a particular president, so if Trump does something dumb or flagrantly unconstitutional, I dont see him getting a big pass on that," Whitehouse said.

Blumenthal noted that the justice he clerked for, Harry Blackmun, started out conservative and grew more centrist or even liberal over the years.

"The jury is still out. He has yet to finish a full term. Well see what his profile is on a lot of cases," Blumenthal said. "The big question will be whether he veers away from the ideological lane where he started and grows in the job."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See more here:
Democrats pan early Gorsuch rulings - Politico

President Trump suggested the special prosecutor's team might not be fair, impartial investigators because of previous political contributions, legal clients and personal friends. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

The people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters. Some of them worked for Hillary Clinton. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous, if you want to know the truth, from that standpoint. President Trump, interview with Fox & Friends, June 23, 2017

Then who does Mueller select to help lead the independent investigation? Four top lawyers, all major donors to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Party. One of them even worked for the Clinton Foundation. Only in Washington could a rigged game like this be called independent. Pro-Trump group Great America Alliance, political ad, June 23, 2017

President Trump and his surrogates are attacking the judgment and independence of former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation and related matters. They are criticizing the political contributions of some of the attorneys hired to Muellers team, questioning the investigators independence.

Trump claimedthe attorneys are all supporters of Hillary Clinton and worked for her. The ad described the hires as a part of a rigged game.Lets dig into it.

The attacks aimed at discrediting Mueller one month into his special investigation are similar to efforts by former president Bill Clintons supporterstwo decades ago. Democrats at the timeworked to undermineKenneth Starr, special counsel whose investigations ultimately led to Clintons impeachment in the House. They painted Starr as an unethical investigator with a conflict of interest conducting a partisan witch hunt.

Mueller has hired 13 attorneys and is expected to hire more. Most are veteran attorneys at the Justice Department or the FBI, or attorneys Mueller worked with at the WilmerHale law firm, which he left in May whenhe was appointed special counsel. The members who have been made public:

Four (Quarles, Weissmann, Rhee, Prelogar) have made political contributions to Democrats and four (Zebley, Dreeben, Page, Jed) have no record of making political contributions. Previous news reports incorrectly identified Dreeben as a Democratic donor, mistaking him for a furniture designer in Chicago named Michael W. Dreeben.

Quarles gave the most political donations out of the four nearly$33,000 to various Democrats since 1999, Federal Election Commission records show. Recipients included Obama for America, Hillary for America and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Quarles is the only one who donated to Republicans. In 2005, he gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia.In 2015, he gave $2,500 to Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight Committee who later wouldinvestigate Hillary Clintons private email server use.

Weissmann donated $4,300 total to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and the Democratic National Committee in 2006. Rhee gave $5,400 total to Hillary for America in 2015 and 2016; $5,800 total in 2008 and 2011 to the Obama Victory Fund; and $250 to the DNCin 2004. (Quarles and Rhee gave maximum contributions of $2,700 to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.)Prelogar donated $500 total to Obama Victory fund in 2012 and Hillary for America in 2016.

Rhee was a partner on the defense team representing the Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit over Clintons use of her private email server. Zebley once represented a Clinton aide at WilmerHale, PolitiFact found.

So Trump twisted the facts: Not all of Muellers hires supported Clinton, and none of them worked for Clinton directly.The White House did not provide an explanation of Trumps claim.

A Great America Alliance spokesman said the ads message is that hiring four high-profile attorneys who contributed to Democrats means Mueller cannot credibly claim to conduct an investigation without some inherent bias or conflict.

An independent investigation should actually be independent and Mr. Mueller is failing to achieve that standard, the spokesman said. Stacking the investigative team with political opponents of the president will not achieve an unbiased result and we are committed to exposing this reality.

But that overlooks important context. Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsels Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations.

Under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, attorneys are permitted to participate in matters involving their former firms clients so long as they have no confidential information about the client and did not participate in the representation, said Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsels Office. Moreover,attorneys are bound by confidentiality rules and may not useinformation they learned from one client (say, Clinton Foundation) and divulge it in another case (say, the Russia probe).

The Justice Departments ethics experts found Mueller and those he hired from his former firm are consistent with DOJ rules, Carr said. This was despite concerns over WilmerHales representation of Trumps former campaign manager Paul Manafort, son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump.

Mueller reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. In a June 13 Senate hearing, Rosenstein said it is not a disqualification for a lawyer in the Special Counsels Office to have made a political donation, and that as a general matter, it is not a disqualification for a lawyer to have represented Clinton in the past.

That Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation is irrelevant, said Stephen Gillers, expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law:The Mueller investigation is not about Clintons emails. The two matters are apples and oranges. A lawyer could work on both.

In fact, the lead defense attorney that Rhee worked with on the Clinton Foundation case now represents Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

Trump mischaracterized the donations from Muellers attorneys and falsely claimed some even worked for Hillary Clinton. Four out of eight attorneys made public so far have contributed to Democrats, including Clinton and Obama. The other four have no record of political contributions.

One attorney who donatedthe maximum amount to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 lawsuit. Another attorney who made no political donations represented a Clinton aide at one point. Both attorneys worked for WilmerHale, a firm that also represents Trumps former campaign manager, daughter and son-in-law.

Further, Trump and the ad use these political contributions to suggestbias orconflict of interest. But that twists the facts that misleads the public to believe there is something nefarious going on. Legally and under federal ethics rules, there is no conflict of interest. The DOJ is legally barred from discriminating career appointees based on political affiliation, so Mueller cant decide his team based on their contributions. That half of the publicly named special counsel attorneys donated to Democrats is not an indication that Mueller has failed to achieve a standard of independence. We award Three Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Do you rate this claim as true or false? More Pinocchios for false, fewer based on your opinion of the statement's truthfulness. (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Read more from the original source:
Do Russia probe attorneys' donations to Democrats threaten their independence? - Washington Post