Mediaboss Marketing

It didn't.

And now, less than 36 hours removed from the shots ringing out in Alexandria, Virginia, we are already into the condemnation stage of our all-too-predictable political process.

Pelosi was asked Thursday about "the possibility that this incident could be used against Democrats or the Democratic Party politically" because some conservatives had suggested "vitriolic rhetoric from the left being in some way to blame."

Here's how she responded:

"I think that the comments made by my Republican colleagues are outrageous, beneath the dignity of the job that they hold, beneath the dignity of the respect that we would like Congress to command. How dare they say such thing? How dare they? Well I won't even go into the whole thing. I can't even begin, probably as we sit here, they're running caricatures of me in Georgia once again, earned over a hundred million dollars of vitriolic things that they say, that resulted in calls to my home constantly, threats in front of my grandchildren. Really, predicated on their comments and their paid ads. So this sick individual does something despicable and it was horrible what he did, hateful. But for them to all of a sudden be sanctimonious as if, they don't, never seen such a thing before. And I don't even want to go into the President of the United States. But in terms of some of the language that he has used."

Think the question touched a nerve?

Pelosi's broader point is that demonizing the people who disagree with you isn't unique to Democrats.

And, she's right. Both parties -- particularly in the last decade or so -- have embraced the idea that people who disagree with your political views are, at best, misguided and, at worst, evil. Phrases like "disagree without being disagreeable" or "reasonable people can disagree" have disappeared from our political dialogue. People who disagree with you are to be scorned, shunned and ignored -- not engaged.

People hate the "both sides do it" nature of some corners of mainstream journalism, believing that it creates a sense of equivalency when there is none. Fair enough.

But in this case, both sides do do it! Casting your political opponents as not just wrong but dangerous motivates the bases of the respective parties. And fired-up bases turn out. And that, for most politicians, is plenty of justification to keep playing to the extremes rather than trying to land somewhere in between those two poles.

Until the electorate stops rewarding politicians for saying the most outlandish things about the other party, they will keep right on doing it -- no matter how many attacks like the one Wednesday morning happen. Depressing but true.

See the article here:
Nancy Pelosi just went off on Republicans attacking Democrats over the Scalise shooting - CNN

Democrats are vowing to make Russian collusion hysteria an issue through the November 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats should absolutely continue to press on Russia in Congress and in the national press, said Josh Schwerin, spokesman for Priorities USA, speaking to McClatchys D.C. news service.

And Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said he would introduce articles of impeachment, to be filed in the House.

It has more senior Democrats concerned. At a caucus meeting on Tuesday, House Democrats reportedly told impeachment-eager Democrats that they were risking the rest of the caucus in their zeal to get President Donald Trump at all costs.

The Russian narrative as far as Trump is concerned was largely seen as having fallenapart after fired FBI Director James Comey's testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey told the committee that Trump was not under investigation for any collusion.

Comey even went a bit further than that, dismissing a Feb. 14 story in The New York Times that suggested Trump associates met with Russian intelligence officials in the lead-up to the Nov. 8 election.

The Comey remarks on the Times story seemed to bury the narrative the conspiracy theory that there was collusion between "Trump associates" and Russian hackers.

But thenarrative and many Democrats just can't quit each other, despite the obvious pitfalls and potential for ugly backfire. Here are the top five reasons staying obsessed withRussia through 2018 could get ugly for Democrats.

Violence

This potential downside would have been lower on any list, until Wednesday morning.

But Democrats have been saying since the 2016 election that Trump was a stoogeto Russia, helping the regime of Vladimir Putin undermine American democracy. Alleging the president was too close with Russia and worked with the Kremlin to win the White House has become a key narrative employedto undermine the president.

But you cannot keep saying the president and his associates conspired with Russians without riling up the wackos and provoking a nasty and violent fringe element.

That's just what many Democrats and liberal commentators did when a gunman took shots at Republican members of Congress practicing their game at an Alexandria baseball park Wednesday. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) remainedin critical condition as of Wednesday night.

Forgetting the Actual Hacking Democrats are also making clear they don't care about the main problem caused by Russian hacking into Democratic campaigns: That foreign governments routinely hack into our political and governmental systems.

In 2015, the Chinese reportedly hacked into the Office of Personnel Management and made off with a massive volume of vital data, such as information on those with top secret clearances.

The issue of foreignhacking is serious business and deserves serious attention. It won't be getting it from Democrats anytime soon.

Political Damage

If the Democrats keep insisting there is some sort of political element within the United States to Russian hacking, they risk repeating their mistake of 2016 losing focus of the jobs issue.

Americans care about the economy, their wages and other important issues like their health care. An intense focus on issues of D.C. intrigue could lose Democrats ground in thehigh-stakes midterm elections in 2018.

One Democratic consultant told LifeZetteit's a gamble worth taking because Democrats have lost most elections, even on their key issues, since 2010.

A Leftward Tilt Democrats also risk moving their party to the left for years to come, also music to Republicans' ears.

Right now, the main people pushing the Russian narrative are far left-wingers such as Sherman, Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Ted Lieu all from California.

The angry voices get the Democrats plenty of attention. But the move also risks one thing more: alienating voters outside of California and the Northeast, the only areas where Democrats seem to thrive despite talking the most Russia and about their various left-wing wish lists including universalhealth care and clamping down on energy production.

A Failure to Impeach Thereal ultimate objective for many Democrats pushing the Russian collusion issueis to get Trump removed from office.

But impeachment and removal is unlikely, even if Democrats win the House and Senate in 2018.

Thus, Democrats face disappointing their base, and making Trump a political martyr.

Waiting on such a backfire especially as the economy booms worked for former Democratic President Bill Clinton, whom the House Republicans actually impeached in late 1998 for obstruction of justice and perjury.

The Senate declined to remove Clinton in February 1999, and Republicans lost their Senate majority in 2001 and only won the White House by a few hundred votes in Florida.

Go here to read the rest:
Five Ways Russian Hysteria May Backfire on Democrats - LifeZette

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is among more than 190 Democrats who are suing President Trump over his business deals involving foreign governments. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is among more than 190 Democrats who are suing President Trump over his business deals involving foreign governments.

More than 190 Democrats in Congress have joined together to sue President Trump on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

They say Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by profiting from business deals involving foreign governments and doing so without congressional consent. And they want the court to make it stop.

Trump has "repeatedly and flagrantly violated" the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters on a conference call.

The clause says that "without the Consent of the Congress," the president can't accept benefits "of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Blumenthal said Trump "has never sought the consent of Congress" for the profits from deals in the more than 20 countries where he has business operations.

Just one example he offered: Trump has sought and obtained valuable trademarks from China's government, but did not clear those transactions with Congress.

Blumenthal, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it took "a lot of research" involving legal experts to determine who would have legal standing to successfully sue the president. "We have standing that no one else has" because the Constitution makes it clear "the consent of Congress is absolutely essential," he said.

The Democrats believe that Trump "must either sell his vast holdings ... or he must tell us and disclose now" all of the benefits he gets from foreign governments, he said. They want to see the president's tax returns and business records.

This suit is just the latest in a series of legal efforts to force Trump to fully separate himself from this business interests. Other suits have been filed by a public-interest group representing private businesses and the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia representing their jurisdictions.

That means Trump is now facing a triple threat in court, with plaintiffs coming at him from 1) the private sector, 2) the state level and 3) Congress. Each group must try to convince a court that it has the legal standing to challenge a president.

The private businesses say they are being harmed because Trump's D.C. hotel is presenting unfair competition, i.e., foreign officials take their business to Trump to win his favor. And Maryland's attorney general says that state's National Harbor resort just across the river from Washington also faces unfair competition.

But the Democratic lawmakers are focused on what they call the harm being done by being stripped of the consent power granted by the Constitution.

Trump has stepped back from daily management of the Trump Organization, but he has moved the assets into a trust, headed by his two oldest sons and a business associate. Trump is the sole beneficiary of the trust, and his son Eric Trump has said the president gets regular updates on profits.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the attorneys general lawsuit, and he replied that Trump's business interests "do not violate the Emoluments Clause."

Spicer noted that the lawsuits are being brought by Democrats. "It's not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations" for filing suit, Spicer said.

Read more here:
Democratic Lawmakers Sue Trump, Handing The President Another Legal Challenge - NPR

New York Times

California Today: Division Among Democrats New York Times LOS ANGELES The Democratic Party is so dominant in California that there are barely enough Republicans around for even the most rudimentary political brawl. So state Democrats are turning to the next best thing: Democrats. The state party here has ... and more »

Read more from the original source:
California Today: Division Among Democrats - New York Times

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.

The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs 196 than any legal action previously taken against a president. No Republicans had joined in the lawsuit so far, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said.

An advance copy of the legal complaint reviewed by The Washington Post argues that those in Congress have special standing because the Constitutions foreign emoluments clause requires the president to obtain the consent of Congress before accepting any gifts.

The legal effort, led in the House by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), is likely to escalate tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill, where at least five committees are investigating various issues related to the Trump administration.

News of the lawsuit emerged less than 24 hours after attorneys general in the District and Maryland, both Democrats, filed suit alleging that payments to Trump violated the Constitutions anti-corruption clauses. In another lawsuit filed against Trump by business competitors, the Justice Department recently defended Trumps actions, arguing that he violated no restrictions by accepting fair-market payments for services.

Legal scholars consulted by the congressional plaintiffs said their complaint is distinctive because of the special standing granted to Congress.

The Framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the incoming dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.

When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role, Chemerinsky said. Congressional lawmakers ... have a duty to preserve the constitutional order in the only way they can: by asking the courts to make the President obey the law.

Other legal scholars were skeptical, particularly since the lawsuit was filed only by Democrats, the minority party in both houses of Congress.

Just because they cant convince their peers doesnt mean you can go to court to get what you want, said Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.

Generally, a lawmaker can sue if he or she has suffered individual injury, Grewal said. In addition, Congress can sue as a body, as has happened in the past, such as with the lawsuit challenging President Barack Obamas health-care overhaul.

But a case like this is problematic, he said,

Because this is individual legislators who dont have any individual injuries, it will be hard for them to get standing, he said.

However, Norman Eisen who served as a co-counsel in the other two emoluments-clause lawsuits, said he thought the congressional plaintiffs in this case do have proper standing to sue. He pointed out that in the lawsuit filed on behalf of Trump competitors, the Justice Department argued that Congress had special capacity to deal with questions related to emoluments.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night, but on Monday, press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the lawsuit filed by the two state attorneys general, saying its not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations.

The 37-page congressional complaint contends that the nations founders were concerned that foreign powers could interfere with American affairs. The suit says that the founders were particularly worried that foreign states would give benefits and rewards to the nations chief executive to subvert his loyalty.

As a result, they wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution with language both sweeping and unqualified, the lawmakers lawsuit says.

The obscure clause in ArticleI of the Constitution says: [N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. The language is interpreted as prohibiting any officeholder including the president from accepting a gift, payment or other benefit from a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

A memo prepared by the Senate plaintiff states that these benefits include any compensation for services rendered in a private capacity such as when a foreign government throws a party at a hotel owned by a federal official.

Although the emoluments clause has a complex history, the request by the lawmakers is rather simple. It asks the court to enjoin the president from accepting any benefits from foreign states without first obtaining Congressional consent.

View original post here:
Congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump - Washington Post