Mediaboss Marketing

House Democrats on Wednesday panned President Donald Trumps pledge to pursue a major investigation into alleged voter fraud, describing the presidents demand as insecure and saying the probe will only increase voter suppression.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she "felt sorry" for Trump and even prayed for him after learning of his calls for an investigation.

Story Continued Below

For a person who is newly elected president of the United States to be so insecure ... to suggest and to undermine the integrity of our voting system, is really strange, she told reporters Wednesday during a news conference in the Capitol.

I frankly feel very sad about the president making this claim, she added. I felt sorry for him. I even prayed for him.

Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to call for an investigation into voter fraud and irregularities in the voting rolls two days after he repeated his claim during a private meeting with Hill leaders, without evidence, that he only lost the popular vote because millions of people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton.

Pelosi confronted Trump during that meeting, telling him his claim was false.

Now, Democrats are shooting back. In an attempt to prove Trump wrong with their own investigation, a trio of House Democrats sent a letter to top law officials in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., calling for a list of any known cases of voting fraud during the election.

The thing that I worry about with this argument about voter fraud is it gives the Republicans and others another tool and another reason to justify to the public of denying people the right to vote, Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said on MSNBC. Assistant House Minority Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.), top Democrat on House Administration Committee, also signed the letter.

The president can join me and my staff, and we will show him that there is no voter fraud, Cummings continued. The thing I do want him to do, I want him to investigate, are all of the people who don't get the chance to vote, who have been denied the right to vote.

The claim has been debunked by numerous independent fact-checkers. Some Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. Lindsey Graham, agreed this week that there is no evidence to support it.

In general, voter fraud in American elections is rare, and widespread voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. While one 2012 Pew Research study found that some voter registration records were out of date because people had died or moved, the studys author, David Becker, has said that there is zero evidence that voter fraud resulted from them.

Still, in recent years, generally Republican-led state legislatures have cited fears of voter fraud to make a case for enacting new regulations around voting, like voter ID laws. Civil rights groups charge that those restrictions are discriminatory because they disproportionately affect minorities and young people who lack government-issued photo identification and also tend to vote for Democrats.

Liberals sounded the alarm on Wednesday that Trumps talk of voter fraud could be used to support more of those measures going forward.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent who challenged Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, replied to Trumps tweet on Wednesday and charged that the president is telling Republicans to accelerate voter suppression, to make it harder for the poor, young, elderly and people of color to vote.

The great political crisis we face is not voter fraud, which barely exists. Its voter suppression and the denial of voting rights, he wrote. Our job is to fight back and do everything we can to protect American democracy from cowardly Republican governors and legislators.

David Axelrod, former chief strategist of Barack Obamas presidential campaigns, said on CNN: What I fear on this voter fraud stuff is that it becomes an impetus for those who want to further erode voter protections for people who legitimately want to vote and are facing a series of barriers.

If you want to investigate voting in this country, probably the most productive thing you can do is investigate that and try to ascertain whether these stringent new requirements in some states have, or more stringent new requirements, have kept some people from voting, he added.

Aidan Quigley contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
Democrats warn Trump's voter fraud investigation will increase voter suppression - Politico

So apparently the big noise in Democratic circles is this guy Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, wherein lies a nice little Catholic university that did not upset the Number One team in the nation Tuesday night. (Sorry for the diversion, but I take my wins where I can find them these days.) He has emerged as what used to be called "the Compromise Italian" during papal conclaves in the days before the Holy Spirit went crazy and started picking Poles, Germans, and Argentines. He's the consensus middle choice between Keith Ellison and Tom Perez. Frankly, I can live with any of these guys, although my preference is for Ellison, not least because he's willing to give up a safe congressional seat to do this thankless job.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

However, it is also my considered opinion that the Democratic Party should get its shit together in one quick hurry. Waiting until March, and dragging out a pointless internal slanging match for three months, is such typically Democratic bungling that it's almost classic. Get a chairman because, cats and kittens, they're coming already for what's left of you.

Let us take, for a moment, Senator Professor Warren. She's undoubtedly Target A in 2018, if only to derail any possibility that she'll run for president. She would be a big prize in any case. They're already running attack ads against her on the radio up here and, on Tuesday, WBUR, one of the local public radio stations in Boston, came out with a poll that was remarkably gloomy on her prospects for re-election.

Melina Mara

There are other factors in play as well. First of all, there is no shortage of ambitious Republican tech millionnaires up here who can self finance a serious challenge. (Keep an eye on this guy Rick Green, an auto parts magnate who's close to Republican Governor Charlie Baker. Also keep an eye on Curt Schilling, if only for laughs.) Second, you can count on local press to stumble all over itself being fair to whoever the Republican candidate is. (More than a few people are nettled that Warren has failed to kiss up the way the the local press thinks it deserves.) Third, believe it or not, and sometimes even I don't, there are purity trolls on the left who have not forgiven her for endorsing Hillary Clinton last June, and for not jumping aboard the Bernie bandwagon prior to the Massachusetts primary.

She's not a lock, basically, is what I'm saying. And the one thing she doesn't need is a lengthy squabble over who's running the party, especially one that leaves delicate fee-fees wounded for months.

Our Most Dangerously Retrograde Government

(And all of that was the case before SPW announced that she would be voting for a completely unqualified space alien, Ben Carson, to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is going to require some 'splainin' back home.)

There are 23 Democratic seats up in 2018. Angus King and Bernie, the two independents, also will be running for re-election. There is no such thing as a mortal lock. And, by the way, if you think I'm a special pleader in this case, then look around the country. They're coming for Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, too.

Update (2:16 PM): Yeah, they're coming for her. Watch nervous Democrats run.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

Originally posted here:
The Democrats Need to Figure This Thing Out - Esquire.com

Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, an 11-page blueprint that shovels money into roads, bridges, waterways, airportsbasically anything that needs building or fixing, intended to boost jobs. In total, top Democrats said it would create 15 million jobs over the next decadea number designed to appeal to President Donald Trump, who has made infrastructure investment and job creation a top priority.

Only one problem: That job estimate is wildly unrealistic.

To come up with that 15 million figure, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumers office, the Democrats used a 2011 report from the Council of Economic Advisers that estimated that every $1 billion in infrastructure investment creates about 13,000 jobs. (Its unclear where the extra 200,000 jobs per year come fromlikely generous rounding.)

Unfortunately for the Democrats, and for any Republicans hoping to leverage spending into construction jobs, the economy has changed since 2011. Those numbers may have made sense back then, but they certainly arent applicable todayfor a couple of reasons.

In 2011, the unemployment rate for construction workers hovered around 15 percent, while the overall unemployment rate was around 9 percent. So there were plenty of unemployed workers who would jump at a chance for a job rebuilding a road or fixing up a school. Thats not the case today: The unemployment rate for construction workers has plummeted to around 5 percent, while the overall unemployment rate is 4.7 percent. Those numbers are near what economists consider full employmentany lower, and inflation could start to rise. In fact, in the construction industry itself, experts are more worried about a shortage of workers than a surplus. Any massive investment in construction will start driving up wages, which will be good for the Americans in that industry, but will make everything elsethose roads, as well as homes, schools, office buildingsmore expensive for taxpayers.

Second, if the Democrats infrastructure proposal does provide a huge stimulus to the economy, its effects would likely be offsetdeliberatelyby the Federal Reserve. In 2011, the Fed had set interest rates at essentially 0 percent. If the government had launched a major infrastructure plan, the Federal Reserve would surely have welcomed itin fact, Ben Bernanke, then the chair of the Fed, had been imploring Congress to do more to stimulate the economy. Today, however, the economy is in a much different positionunemployment is low enough that the Fed is worried about inflation. Facing a massive new government spending program, it would almost certainly raise its benchmark rate to prevent the stimulus from leading to a burst of inflation, cooling the economy down and negating much of the job creation in the Democrats plan.

That doesnt mean a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan is a bad idea. There are good structural reasons to rebuild Americas roads, bridges and airports. And its possible that a future economic crisis will cause millions of construction workers to lose their jobs, forcing the Fed to drop its interest rate back to zero. In that case, an ongoing infrastructure investment could act as a safety net, ensuring that the construction sector continues chugging along even as the broader economy falters.

But right now, there are no signs of such an economic downturn on the horizon, although, to be fair, economists track record of predicting recessions is not good. Until that changes, the Democrats promiseor anyones promiseto create 15 million jobs through a $1 trillion infrastructure plan should be treated as highly unlikely to bear out in reality.

Read more:
The trouble with Democrats' infrastructure job promises - Politico

New York Times

Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan New York Times Senate Democrats will unveil a $1 trillion infrastructure plan and offer President Trump their support if he backs it. Mr. Trump has invited Senate leaders and the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to the White House ... Senate Democrats unveil a Trump-size infrastructure planWashington Post Senate Democrats Propose $1 Trillion Infrastructure PlanABC News Democrats to Unveil Massive $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan. Will Trump Bite?Slate Magazine (blog) Business Insider -New York Magazine all 196 news articles »

More:
Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan - New York Times

FourteenSenate Democrats joined all but one Senate Republican in confirming Rep. Mike Pompeo as the new CIA director on Monday evening, failing a crucial first test of whether Democrats would present a united front to defend human rights and civil liberties in the Trump era.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the lone member of his party to voteagainst his confirmation.

Pompeo is a far-right Kansas Republican who has in the past defended CIA officials who engaged in torture, calling them patriots. Last week, he left the door open to torture by acknowledging in his written responses to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he would be open to altering a 2015 law prohibiting the government from usingtechniques notlisted in the Army Field Manual.

Asa member of Congress, he repeatedly appearedon the radio program hosted by anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney, and has portrayed the war on terror as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. He has also claimedthatIslamic leaders across America [are] potentially complicit in terrorism because they supposedly dont speak out against it, which is not true.

While Pompeos confirmation was opposed by Human Rights Watch, itnetted votes from a variety of Senate Democrats, including the caucus leader:Chuck Schumer of New York.

In addition to his stances on torture and Islam, Pompeo has also come under fire for his views on surveillance. In a 2016op-edin the Wall Street Journal, he attacked a2015 law that that hevoted for, which endedthe bulk collection on phone records by the NSA. The op-ed calls onthe government to collectall metadata and lifestyle details on Americans.

The CIA is prohibited by executive orderfrom conducting electronic surveillanceinside the United States. But the specific rules and policies governing CIA surveillance aresecret and can be reinterpreted without public debate. Despite a push for transparency following the revelations in documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the Obama administration did not declassify a secret legal opinionabout the CIAs collection of financialrecords. And days before President Trump took office, the Obama administration issued new rules that would allow the CIA to sift through much of the raw data the NSA collects on Americans.

In his confirmation hearing, Pompeo tried to assure Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that there were legal boundaries tocompiling dossiers on Americans, but that the government would be grossly negligent to ignorepublicly available information.

On the Senate floor Monday, Wyden called Pompeo the wrong man for the job.

On issue after issue, Wyden said the congressman has taken two, three, or four positions, depending on when he says it and who he is talking to. He has done this with surveillance, with torture, with Russia, and a number of other subjects.

He added: Congressman Pompeo does not seem familiar with the broad consensus that torture, in addition to being illegal, immoral and contrary to our national values, does not work.

But Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said on the floor that although he does not agree with some of the views that Congressman Pompeo holds, he convinced me that he will follow the law banning torture.

Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA,called the confirmation votea clear sign that Congress has not done enough extreme vetting of President Trumps nominees views on human rights.

She continued: While Pompeo sailed through his confirmation hearing, his written answers to the Senate contradict his earlier testimony and could lay the groundwork for the agency to return to torture and secret detention. Torture is a war crime and a grave human rights violation.

The Democrats who voted to confirm Pompeo were:

Angus King, the independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, also voted in favor of Pompeos confirmation.

Connecticut Democrats Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy did not vote.

Top photo: Pompeo at his confirmation hearing on Jan. 12, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

Read the original here:
14 Senate Democrats Fall in Line Behind Trump CIA Pick Who Left Door Open to Torture - The Intercept