Kamala Harris shakes up flailing campaign
The staff moves represent a significant reorganization for the California senator’s bid, which is mired in single digits in the polls.
By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
Kamala Harris is shaking up the top ranks of her presidential campaign, the latest sign her once-promising bid is failing to meet expectations.
The staff moves amount to a significant reorganization for a campaign that’s dropped so far in polls that it risks becoming a postscript in the Democratic primary. Harris’ light early-state schedule, hiccups on the trail and lack of consistency in delivering her message have consumed much of the attention and blame for her mounting struggles.
Behind the scenes, aides said a lack of clarity among staff surrounding the roles of Campaign Manager Juan Rodriguez and Campaign Chair Maya Harris, the candidate’s sister, and inexperience across the organization are feeding a growing sense of indecision and aimlessness inside the campaign.
The California senator has decided to elevate her Senate Chief of Staff Rohini Kosoglu and senior adviser Laphonza Butler into new senior management positions in the campaign, including discussions about installing the pair as dual deputy campaign managers, sources with direct knowledge of the arrangement told POLITICO.
Butler and Kosoglu will effectively split responsibilities over the campaign’s departments in what was described as an effort to streamline a choked decision-making process. Rodriguez, a longtime Harris confidant who held the same job on her 2016 Senate campaign, will continue to oversee the budget while focusing on longer-term initiatives.
The campaign did not start holding regular senior staff meetings until September — nine months after launching — leading to a lack of coordination across departments. At one point, aides said, Harris hired executive coaches for senior campaign management to cope with the problems — a move viewed internally as a recognition of their collective inexperience.
Aides point to scheduling bottlenecks occurring among the campaign’s three top inside decision-makers: Rodriguez, Maya Harris and Harris, who has a reputation as a micromanager. Harris’ outside consultants, Ace Smith and Sean Clegg, partners with Rodriguez and Butler at the San Francisco-based consulting firm SCRB, and ad man Jim Margolis, don’t directly oversee campaign staff.
Kosoglu, who has worked closely with the campaign on coordinating the senator’s scheduling, and Butler, are expected to report to Rodriguez under the new plan. It’s unclear who will step in to serve as Harris’ Senate chief of staff.
“We continue to grow our organization as we enter the fourth quarter, and it has always been the plan to bring on additional management to oversee an expanded staff. As we double our organizers in Iowa and South Carolina and expand our digital team, we're in a strong position to execute our plan and win the nomination,” said Rodriguez in a statement.
Harris is also recalibrating her digital operation as she struggles to break out of the middle of the presidential pack. While she’ll still use Authentic Campaigns for digital ad buying, other functions — including content production, email, video, graphics and other work — are moving in-house. Harris’ campaign had already brought in Shelby Cole, the top digital aide on Beto O'Rourke’s Texas Senate run, from Authentic earlier this year.
Her heavy reliance on the high-dollar fundraising and recent difficulty in the digital fundraising space speak to broader structural dynamics in the campaign. Harris’ decision to run as a pragmatist rather than appealing more forcefully to the party’s progressive wing — combined with slumping debate and campaign trail performances since mid-summer — have affected her ability to gain traction with small-dollar donors.
Harris, who as a result spent much of the third quarter raising money at private events, is trying to refocus her campaign around Iowa, where aides say she needs a top-three finish to claw back into contention. She’s nearly doubling the size of her Iowa operation, from 65 to 120 staffers, opening new offices and planning weekly visits to the state.
The strategy corresponds with a more direct contrast with her top Democratic opponents. Harris has said in recent remarks that Americans aren’t keen to “inflame the ideological battles in our nation,” nor are they excited to “launch a nostalgia campaign to retread mindsets and goals from decades past.”
At the same time, Harris has been working to quiet persistent doubts about her own electability by pointing to earlier campaigns when she was underestimated only to storm back in the late stages of the contests.
“I heard it when I ran for district attorney and people said, ‘They’re not going to be ready for you. No one like you has done it before,’” she said at a recent stop in Iowa.
Harris bluntly offered that the reduced expectations about her in the past were “based on race, based on gender and based on what people expect and what they think about who can do what,” she added. “I didn’t listen. And the people didn’t listen, either. And we won.”
October 01, 2019
Collins resigns
Republican Rep. Chris Collins resigns ahead of expected guilty plea
The New York Republican was able to win reelection last fall despite being under indictment.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins has resigned his seat effective Monday, according to a Republican source, one day ahead of an expected guilty plea to federal insider trading charges.
The 69-year-old Collins, one of the first GOP lawmakers to back President Donald Trump before the 2016 election, is scheduled to make an appearance in federal court Tuesday in Manhattan. Collins will plead guilty to insider trading charges related to his investment in an Australian biotech firm, according to court documents and GOP sources.
Cameron Collins, the congressman's son, and another defendant, Stephen Zarsky, are also expected to plead guilty later this week, one GOP source said.
Neither Collins' office nor his lead attorney responded to requests for comment at press time.
Collins' upstate New York district is overwhelmingly Republican and there is little doubt the GOP can keep control of that seat following his resignation.
Collins, who was able to win reelection last fall despite being under indictment, was charged in August 2018 with securities fraud, wire fraud and making false statements to FBI agents investigating the case.
Collins was the largest investor and a member of the board of directors for Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian biotech company. He was charged with passing inside information on the company to his son and Zarsky, father of Cameron Collins' fiancee. Using that information, Cameron Collins and Zarsky were able to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses after a drug trial failed, authorities say.
At that time, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with Lauren Zarsky, Cameron Collins' fiancee, and her mother, Dorothy Zarsky, over allegations of insider trading. The pair neither admitted nor denied, but they agreed to give up "ill-gotten gains" and pay fines, the SEC said.
Collins was a successful business executive who first ran for Congress in 1998 but lost. In 2006, he was elected Erie County executive despite the heavy Democratic slant to the county. Collins helped remake the county government, including dramatically slashing debt. Collins considered a run for New York governor in 2010, yet then backed off. Collins then won a seat in Congress in 2012.
Collins originally supported former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during the 2016 presidential campaign, but threw his support to Trump after Bush's campaign stalled out. Collins was the first House Republican to back Trump.
"We need a chief executive, not a chief politician," Collins told CNN in Feb. 2016. "Donald Trump is the individual as president that can lead this country and reclaim our great state and provide a bright future for our children."
Following Trump's victory, Collins' national profile soared, and he became an unofficial Trump spokesmen and chief defender on Capitol Hill. Other GOP lawmakers used him as a conduit to contact the new president. And before Paul Ryan was reelected speaker in 2016, he asked Collins to second his nomination.
In 2016, Collins — who had made tens of millions of dollars during his business career — became the biggest investor in Innate Immunotherapeutics, which was developing a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis. His son and daughter were also major stockholders.
Collins pitched the stock to everyone he could, including fellow members of Congress and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. He was even overheard by reporters in Jan. 2017 bragging on the phone "Do you know how many millionaires I've made?" But Innate's stock price collapsed in June 2017 after the MS drug trial failed.
Collins allegedly told his son about the drug trial results months earlier, allowing the younger Collins, Zarsky and other family members to dump their shares before the news became public, prosecutors later charged. Collins himself did not sell his shares.
The FBI and SEC, however, began looking into the case, including interviewing Collins and his family. The lawmaker denied sharing any inside information.
Collins and the others were indicted in Aug. 2018. Collins stepped down from his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but he didn't resign from office. GOP leaders didn't pressure him to leave either. While Collins initially said he wouldn't run for reelection, he later changed his mind and put $500,000 of his own money into the campaign. Collins won reelection by one point in the heavily Republican district.
The New York Republican was able to win reelection last fall despite being under indictment.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins has resigned his seat effective Monday, according to a Republican source, one day ahead of an expected guilty plea to federal insider trading charges.
The 69-year-old Collins, one of the first GOP lawmakers to back President Donald Trump before the 2016 election, is scheduled to make an appearance in federal court Tuesday in Manhattan. Collins will plead guilty to insider trading charges related to his investment in an Australian biotech firm, according to court documents and GOP sources.
Cameron Collins, the congressman's son, and another defendant, Stephen Zarsky, are also expected to plead guilty later this week, one GOP source said.
Neither Collins' office nor his lead attorney responded to requests for comment at press time.
Collins' upstate New York district is overwhelmingly Republican and there is little doubt the GOP can keep control of that seat following his resignation.
Collins, who was able to win reelection last fall despite being under indictment, was charged in August 2018 with securities fraud, wire fraud and making false statements to FBI agents investigating the case.
Collins was the largest investor and a member of the board of directors for Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian biotech company. He was charged with passing inside information on the company to his son and Zarsky, father of Cameron Collins' fiancee. Using that information, Cameron Collins and Zarsky were able to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses after a drug trial failed, authorities say.
At that time, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with Lauren Zarsky, Cameron Collins' fiancee, and her mother, Dorothy Zarsky, over allegations of insider trading. The pair neither admitted nor denied, but they agreed to give up "ill-gotten gains" and pay fines, the SEC said.
Collins was a successful business executive who first ran for Congress in 1998 but lost. In 2006, he was elected Erie County executive despite the heavy Democratic slant to the county. Collins helped remake the county government, including dramatically slashing debt. Collins considered a run for New York governor in 2010, yet then backed off. Collins then won a seat in Congress in 2012.
Collins originally supported former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during the 2016 presidential campaign, but threw his support to Trump after Bush's campaign stalled out. Collins was the first House Republican to back Trump.
"We need a chief executive, not a chief politician," Collins told CNN in Feb. 2016. "Donald Trump is the individual as president that can lead this country and reclaim our great state and provide a bright future for our children."
Following Trump's victory, Collins' national profile soared, and he became an unofficial Trump spokesmen and chief defender on Capitol Hill. Other GOP lawmakers used him as a conduit to contact the new president. And before Paul Ryan was reelected speaker in 2016, he asked Collins to second his nomination.
In 2016, Collins — who had made tens of millions of dollars during his business career — became the biggest investor in Innate Immunotherapeutics, which was developing a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis. His son and daughter were also major stockholders.
Collins pitched the stock to everyone he could, including fellow members of Congress and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. He was even overheard by reporters in Jan. 2017 bragging on the phone "Do you know how many millionaires I've made?" But Innate's stock price collapsed in June 2017 after the MS drug trial failed.
Collins allegedly told his son about the drug trial results months earlier, allowing the younger Collins, Zarsky and other family members to dump their shares before the news became public, prosecutors later charged. Collins himself did not sell his shares.
The FBI and SEC, however, began looking into the case, including interviewing Collins and his family. The lawmaker denied sharing any inside information.
Collins and the others were indicted in Aug. 2018. Collins stepped down from his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but he didn't resign from office. GOP leaders didn't pressure him to leave either. While Collins initially said he wouldn't run for reelection, he later changed his mind and put $500,000 of his own money into the campaign. Collins won reelection by one point in the heavily Republican district.
Embassy begs public
Ukrainian Embassy begs public to stop using 'the Ukraine' after latest Trump flub
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Monday cheekily implored the public to stop using "the Ukraine," a request that came after President Donald Trump repeatedly used the outdated construction.
“Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.”
Story Continued Below
As the maelstrom surrounding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has grown over the past week and a half, resulting in the start of impeachment proceedings, “the Ukraine” has found itself back in the news. While Trump is guilty of using the construction, he is far from the only public figure to have appended the definite article.
The construction of Ukraine’s name has been politically fraught for years, as evidenced by the cheeky tone of the embassy’s tweet.
"These are the only politically correct terms that express respect to the country and its nation," the embassy wrote, advising readers to "be smart and avoid Soviet style clichés." The tweet closed with an emoji of a skeptical-looking person wearing a monocle.
That construction has also cropped up in media reports surrounding the allegations that Trump inappropriately pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, though The Associated Press, whose style guidelines have been adopted by a number of news outlets, dropped the definite article in 1991, in accordance with Ukraine's independence referendum that same year. Critics of the use of "the Ukraine" argue it belittles the country's status as a sovereign state, reducing it to its status as a former Soviet territory.
Some news outlets use “the Ukraine” frequently, as then-President Barack Obama occasionally did in the aftermath of Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
Amid sparring with reporters during his trip last week to the United Nations, Trump also parroted unsubstantiated claims about the Bidens and their work in “the Ukraine.”
But Monday's reminder from the Ukrainian Embassy came shortly after a morning tweet from the man whose presidency has been dealt a major blow by his relations with Ukraine.
Trump, who frequently deletes and reposts messages on his favorite social media platform, deleted a declaration that “Again, the President of the Ukraine said THERE WAS NO (ZERO) PRESSURE PUT ON HIM BY ME,” reposting it minutes later without the “the.”
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Monday cheekily implored the public to stop using "the Ukraine," a request that came after President Donald Trump repeatedly used the outdated construction.
“Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.”
Story Continued Below
As the maelstrom surrounding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has grown over the past week and a half, resulting in the start of impeachment proceedings, “the Ukraine” has found itself back in the news. While Trump is guilty of using the construction, he is far from the only public figure to have appended the definite article.
The construction of Ukraine’s name has been politically fraught for years, as evidenced by the cheeky tone of the embassy’s tweet.
"These are the only politically correct terms that express respect to the country and its nation," the embassy wrote, advising readers to "be smart and avoid Soviet style clichés." The tweet closed with an emoji of a skeptical-looking person wearing a monocle.
That construction has also cropped up in media reports surrounding the allegations that Trump inappropriately pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, though The Associated Press, whose style guidelines have been adopted by a number of news outlets, dropped the definite article in 1991, in accordance with Ukraine's independence referendum that same year. Critics of the use of "the Ukraine" argue it belittles the country's status as a sovereign state, reducing it to its status as a former Soviet territory.
Some news outlets use “the Ukraine” frequently, as then-President Barack Obama occasionally did in the aftermath of Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
Amid sparring with reporters during his trip last week to the United Nations, Trump also parroted unsubstantiated claims about the Bidens and their work in “the Ukraine.”
But Monday's reminder from the Ukrainian Embassy came shortly after a morning tweet from the man whose presidency has been dealt a major blow by his relations with Ukraine.
Trump, who frequently deletes and reposts messages on his favorite social media platform, deleted a declaration that “Again, the President of the Ukraine said THERE WAS NO (ZERO) PRESSURE PUT ON HIM BY ME,” reposting it minutes later without the “the.”
Ethics panel review GOP Rep.
House ethics panel reviews complaint over GOP Rep. Bill Huizenga's campaign spending
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
The House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations that Rep. Bill Huizenga misused campaign funds, but the Michigan Republican is dismissing the case as a partisan stunt.
Michigan Democrats filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission last fall claiming Huizenga and his family improperly spent thousands of dollars in campaign funds, in addition to incorrectly itemizing reimbursements.
The FEC rejected the Democratic complaint, but apparently the independent Office of Congressional Ethics moved forward on the issue and recommended that the House Ethics Committee look into the matter.
Huizenga's office said the Michigan Republican cooperated with the OCE probe; his aides insist Huizenga's reelection campaign is in compliance with FEC rules on campaign disbursements and reporting.
"We are aware of the committee’s release. We have cooperated fully in this process and will continue to do so," said Brian Patrick, Huizenga's communications director. "This matter is the continuation of a partisan and politically motivated complaint filed by the Michigan Democratic Party prior to the 2018 election that has already been resolved by the Federal Election Commission.”
The House Ethics panel will have another 45 days following Monday's announcement to review the OCE recommendation. If Ethics takes up the case at that point, the full OCE report will be released. However, there is no final deadline for Ethics Committee action.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN
The House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations that Rep. Bill Huizenga misused campaign funds, but the Michigan Republican is dismissing the case as a partisan stunt.
Michigan Democrats filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission last fall claiming Huizenga and his family improperly spent thousands of dollars in campaign funds, in addition to incorrectly itemizing reimbursements.
The FEC rejected the Democratic complaint, but apparently the independent Office of Congressional Ethics moved forward on the issue and recommended that the House Ethics Committee look into the matter.
Huizenga's office said the Michigan Republican cooperated with the OCE probe; his aides insist Huizenga's reelection campaign is in compliance with FEC rules on campaign disbursements and reporting.
"We are aware of the committee’s release. We have cooperated fully in this process and will continue to do so," said Brian Patrick, Huizenga's communications director. "This matter is the continuation of a partisan and politically motivated complaint filed by the Michigan Democratic Party prior to the 2018 election that has already been resolved by the Federal Election Commission.”
The House Ethics panel will have another 45 days following Monday's announcement to review the OCE recommendation. If Ethics takes up the case at that point, the full OCE report will be released. However, there is no final deadline for Ethics Committee action.
Strong third-quarter
Buttigieg posts strong third-quarter cash haul, but falls short of Q2 high mark
His campaign brought in $19.1 million in the last three months.
By ELENA SCHNEIDER
Pete Buttigieg, who was the top fundraiser in the Democratic presidential primary from April through June, brought in another $19.1 million in the last three months.
Buttigieg's haul is expected once again to be among the highest Democratic totals this quarter. But the South Bend, Ind., mayor’s most recent take did not hit the high mark he set in the second quarter, when he led the field with $24.8 million raised.
During the third quarter, the Buttigieg campaign said it has 580,000 total contributors, a jump of about 182,000 new contributors since the previous quarter. The average contribution during the fundraising period was $32. Buttigieg’s campaign did not release a cash on hand total.
“Pete continues to stand out as having the vision and leadership voters know we need to tackle the urgent problems facing our country. It also positions us solidly as one of the top three fundraisers in this race,” said Mike Schmuhl, the Buttigieg campaign manager, in a memo released Tuesday morning. “We will have the resources to go the full distance, and to win, the 2020 nominating contests.”
Buttigieg’s announcement will kick off a series of fundraising declarations from rivals as the Democratic field counts their money after the third quarter, which ended Monday night. And while the summer fundraising period is often slower than others, as donors take vacations and check out from politics, the rising importance of digital fundraising could give some candidates an opportunity to build on big second-quarter totals.
Vice President Joe Biden was the only other candidate besides Buttigieg to crack $20 million in the second quarter, bringing in $21.5 million following his entry into the race. Sens. Elizabeth Warren ($19.1 million) and Bernie Sanders ($18 million) were close behind, followed by Kamala Harris ($12 million) — the only other candidate to break eight figures in the spring.
Candidates must file FEC disclosures detailing their third-quarter fundraising and spending by October 15.
Buttigieg's fundraising announcement comes amid an all-out push by the mayor's campaign to invest more heavily in early-state infrastructure. Buttigieg spent more than 20 percent of the quarter on the ground in Iowa, and his campaign opened 42 field offices across the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The campaign also expanded its staffing footprint in the early states over the summer.
His campaign brought in $19.1 million in the last three months.
By ELENA SCHNEIDER
Pete Buttigieg, who was the top fundraiser in the Democratic presidential primary from April through June, brought in another $19.1 million in the last three months.
Buttigieg's haul is expected once again to be among the highest Democratic totals this quarter. But the South Bend, Ind., mayor’s most recent take did not hit the high mark he set in the second quarter, when he led the field with $24.8 million raised.
During the third quarter, the Buttigieg campaign said it has 580,000 total contributors, a jump of about 182,000 new contributors since the previous quarter. The average contribution during the fundraising period was $32. Buttigieg’s campaign did not release a cash on hand total.
“Pete continues to stand out as having the vision and leadership voters know we need to tackle the urgent problems facing our country. It also positions us solidly as one of the top three fundraisers in this race,” said Mike Schmuhl, the Buttigieg campaign manager, in a memo released Tuesday morning. “We will have the resources to go the full distance, and to win, the 2020 nominating contests.”
Buttigieg’s announcement will kick off a series of fundraising declarations from rivals as the Democratic field counts their money after the third quarter, which ended Monday night. And while the summer fundraising period is often slower than others, as donors take vacations and check out from politics, the rising importance of digital fundraising could give some candidates an opportunity to build on big second-quarter totals.
Vice President Joe Biden was the only other candidate besides Buttigieg to crack $20 million in the second quarter, bringing in $21.5 million following his entry into the race. Sens. Elizabeth Warren ($19.1 million) and Bernie Sanders ($18 million) were close behind, followed by Kamala Harris ($12 million) — the only other candidate to break eight figures in the spring.
Candidates must file FEC disclosures detailing their third-quarter fundraising and spending by October 15.
Buttigieg's fundraising announcement comes amid an all-out push by the mayor's campaign to invest more heavily in early-state infrastructure. Buttigieg spent more than 20 percent of the quarter on the ground in Iowa, and his campaign opened 42 field offices across the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The campaign also expanded its staffing footprint in the early states over the summer.
Louisiana governor
GOP squabbles as Louisiana governor nears reelection
By DANIEL STRAUSS
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a conservative Democrat dismissed by many Republicans as an “accidental governor” when he was elected in a major upset in 2015, may be on the brink of winning a second term next week.
Edwards is running a classic red-state Democratic campaign, campaigning on an anti-abortion, pro-gun record — while Republicans want to nationalize the race in a state President Donald Trump won by 20 points in 2016. But with Republicans Ralph Abraham and Eddie Rispone sniping at one another, Edwards could win reelection before the GOP even picks its candidate.
That’s because, under Louisiana’s unique open-primary system, Abraham and Rispone are jockeying for second place in a potential November run-off against Edwards. But Edwards can win outright by getting a majority on Oct. 12, which would short-circuit the GOP’s chase for a governorship it lost in 2015 behind scandal-tarred former Sen. David Vitter’s candidacy.
Edwards is working hard to distance himself from national Democrats, touting things like signing into law a bill that restricts abortion rights, or his pro-gun stance that’s arguably more in step with Republicans. And Republicans who want to nationalize the race are crossing their fingers that the incumbent will fall short of 50 percent and give either Abraham or Rispone a one-on-one shot next month against Edwards.
“Look, some of the positions that I always held — and I’ve been clear and consistent about this from the beginning — are not consistent with the mainstream of the national party,” Edwards said in an interview at the governor’s mansion here last week. “But they are consistent with an awful lot of Democrats in Louisiana. I’m talking about being pro-life and my Second Amendment views.”
While Edwards flaunts his bipartisan bona fides, the two major Republican candidates — Abraham, a third-term congressman, and Rispone, a self-funding businessman — are trading attacks. Rispone launched a negative ad targeting Abraham last month, and Abraham struck back on Monday with a new spot calling Rispone “desperate,” telling voters, “Eddie Rispone is lying to you.”
Of the three off-year gubernatorial elections this fall — Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky — the Democratic Governors Association considers holding Louisiana its biggest priority, according to two Democrats with knowledge of national party strategy. And while Republicans, including both Abraham and Rispone, have repeatedly said they are confident they will force a runoff, Democrats have privately begun to entertain the possibility that Edwards could clinch reelection outright on Oct. 12.
Democrats say Edwards, if he falls just short of 50 percent in the primary, would still be well-positioned for a runoff — and they see the race as a potential blueprint for how other candidates could win in deep red states during an era of extreme national partisanship.
“For too long, I feel like our national party has not put enough emphasis on building political infrastructure in rural areas. We’ve seen the cost of that in 2016. We saw some improvement of that in 2018. But that’s a blue wave, not a sea change. And if we want a sea change, not just a wave, then we have to build long-term standing infrastructure in rural communities,” Isaac Wright, a veteran Democratic strategist with extensive experience running southern races, said. “And we’re at the precipice. I think there is a chance that for the first time we may recognize that.”
Former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, said for candidates running in deep red states like Louisiana or Mississippi, avoiding “close alliance with the national party or national issues” is an effective strategy to localize their races.
“I think John Bel Edwards has focused relentlessly on not trying to get gummed up on some of the issues of the national Democrats and stay relentlessly focused on issues like the economy, Medicaid expansion … education — those bread-and-butter issues," Hodges said, calling them the “successful recipe for Democrats running in Deep South states.”
Democrats have had little success across the Deep South over the past decade, but there have been some bright spots since Edwards’ 2015 victory. In 2017, Alabama Democrat Doug Jones avoided national policy stances and clung closely to health care and education in defeating another controversial Republican, Roy Moore, in a special election for Senate. And while Republicans are favored to hold the governorship in Mississippi next month, Democratic Lt. Gov. Jim Hood is considered Democrats’ strongest candidate in decades.
Faced with Edwards’ profile, Republicans have attacked his record on jobs and health care, rather than just pegging him as a liberal Democrat in line with the party’s unpopular national figures.
“We’re the only state, regardless of what the governor said, that has not created jobs in the last 12 months,” Abraham said in an interview. “We’re at the bottom of the barrel in health care and education, fiscal responsibility, job opportunity. Good Lord — what other issues do you need? I mean this is where we are, and we are better than that.”
On health care, neither Republican supports rolling back Edwards’ Medicaid expansion, but both say the Democrat has bungled the program.
“The way it’s done is unsustainable,” Rispone said. “It’s going to go broke if we don’t do something. Medicaid is for the people who cannot help themselves — and we keep expanding and expanding and expanding to more than that.”
But while both Republicans spend plenty of time hitting Edwards, they have increasingly taken aim at each other in recent weeks. Some public polls have showed Rispone, who has spent more than $11 million of his own money on the campaign, inching in front of Abraham.
Abraham countered last week with internal polling data showing him just two points ahead of Rispone. But the survey showed Edwards at 47 percent — dangerously close to 50 percent, with Abraham (22 percent) and Rispone (20 percent) well behind the incumbent.
In a televised debate last week in Lafayette, each GOP candidate worked to peg the other as a political insider. Rispone repeatedly attacked Abraham as a phony Trump supporter while framing himself as the real “outsider and a conservative.” Abraham shot back, saying he’s been a “a doctor, a farmer ... [and] owned three separate businesses” — while Rispone, a long-time GOP donor, “has been in politics a long time.”
National Republicans have sought to provide cover while Abraham and Rispone duke it out — and try to hold Edwards under 50 percent. A group funded by the Republican Governors Association has aired ads attacking Edwards on taxes and Louisiana’s jobs numbers during Edwards’ tenure.
Republicans also expect Trump to get involved in the race if there's a runoff. But Trump allies, including Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Donald Trump Jr., and Trump reelection campaign manager Brad Parscale, have all slammed Edwards on Twitter.
Meanwhile, a pro-Edwards outside group, Gumbo PAC, has continued to air ads bashing the two Republicans. Its latest ad mocks one of the GOP candidates as "phony Eddie Rispone."
Despite Louisiana’s Democratic tradition, no Democratic governor has won a second consecutive term since Edwin Edwards (no relation) won reelection in the mid 1970s. But the current incumbent is confident.
“If the election were held today, there would not be [a runoff],” John Bel Edwards said in the interview last week. “But it’s not today. It’s still October the 12th.”
“I like the movement I have seen in the last week or so in the polls,” added Edwards. “And either we’re going to win on October 12th, or we’re going to come extremely close.”
By DANIEL STRAUSS
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a conservative Democrat dismissed by many Republicans as an “accidental governor” when he was elected in a major upset in 2015, may be on the brink of winning a second term next week.
Edwards is running a classic red-state Democratic campaign, campaigning on an anti-abortion, pro-gun record — while Republicans want to nationalize the race in a state President Donald Trump won by 20 points in 2016. But with Republicans Ralph Abraham and Eddie Rispone sniping at one another, Edwards could win reelection before the GOP even picks its candidate.
That’s because, under Louisiana’s unique open-primary system, Abraham and Rispone are jockeying for second place in a potential November run-off against Edwards. But Edwards can win outright by getting a majority on Oct. 12, which would short-circuit the GOP’s chase for a governorship it lost in 2015 behind scandal-tarred former Sen. David Vitter’s candidacy.
Edwards is working hard to distance himself from national Democrats, touting things like signing into law a bill that restricts abortion rights, or his pro-gun stance that’s arguably more in step with Republicans. And Republicans who want to nationalize the race are crossing their fingers that the incumbent will fall short of 50 percent and give either Abraham or Rispone a one-on-one shot next month against Edwards.
“Look, some of the positions that I always held — and I’ve been clear and consistent about this from the beginning — are not consistent with the mainstream of the national party,” Edwards said in an interview at the governor’s mansion here last week. “But they are consistent with an awful lot of Democrats in Louisiana. I’m talking about being pro-life and my Second Amendment views.”
While Edwards flaunts his bipartisan bona fides, the two major Republican candidates — Abraham, a third-term congressman, and Rispone, a self-funding businessman — are trading attacks. Rispone launched a negative ad targeting Abraham last month, and Abraham struck back on Monday with a new spot calling Rispone “desperate,” telling voters, “Eddie Rispone is lying to you.”
Of the three off-year gubernatorial elections this fall — Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky — the Democratic Governors Association considers holding Louisiana its biggest priority, according to two Democrats with knowledge of national party strategy. And while Republicans, including both Abraham and Rispone, have repeatedly said they are confident they will force a runoff, Democrats have privately begun to entertain the possibility that Edwards could clinch reelection outright on Oct. 12.
Democrats say Edwards, if he falls just short of 50 percent in the primary, would still be well-positioned for a runoff — and they see the race as a potential blueprint for how other candidates could win in deep red states during an era of extreme national partisanship.
“For too long, I feel like our national party has not put enough emphasis on building political infrastructure in rural areas. We’ve seen the cost of that in 2016. We saw some improvement of that in 2018. But that’s a blue wave, not a sea change. And if we want a sea change, not just a wave, then we have to build long-term standing infrastructure in rural communities,” Isaac Wright, a veteran Democratic strategist with extensive experience running southern races, said. “And we’re at the precipice. I think there is a chance that for the first time we may recognize that.”
Former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, said for candidates running in deep red states like Louisiana or Mississippi, avoiding “close alliance with the national party or national issues” is an effective strategy to localize their races.
“I think John Bel Edwards has focused relentlessly on not trying to get gummed up on some of the issues of the national Democrats and stay relentlessly focused on issues like the economy, Medicaid expansion … education — those bread-and-butter issues," Hodges said, calling them the “successful recipe for Democrats running in Deep South states.”
Democrats have had little success across the Deep South over the past decade, but there have been some bright spots since Edwards’ 2015 victory. In 2017, Alabama Democrat Doug Jones avoided national policy stances and clung closely to health care and education in defeating another controversial Republican, Roy Moore, in a special election for Senate. And while Republicans are favored to hold the governorship in Mississippi next month, Democratic Lt. Gov. Jim Hood is considered Democrats’ strongest candidate in decades.
Faced with Edwards’ profile, Republicans have attacked his record on jobs and health care, rather than just pegging him as a liberal Democrat in line with the party’s unpopular national figures.
“We’re the only state, regardless of what the governor said, that has not created jobs in the last 12 months,” Abraham said in an interview. “We’re at the bottom of the barrel in health care and education, fiscal responsibility, job opportunity. Good Lord — what other issues do you need? I mean this is where we are, and we are better than that.”
On health care, neither Republican supports rolling back Edwards’ Medicaid expansion, but both say the Democrat has bungled the program.
“The way it’s done is unsustainable,” Rispone said. “It’s going to go broke if we don’t do something. Medicaid is for the people who cannot help themselves — and we keep expanding and expanding and expanding to more than that.”
But while both Republicans spend plenty of time hitting Edwards, they have increasingly taken aim at each other in recent weeks. Some public polls have showed Rispone, who has spent more than $11 million of his own money on the campaign, inching in front of Abraham.
Abraham countered last week with internal polling data showing him just two points ahead of Rispone. But the survey showed Edwards at 47 percent — dangerously close to 50 percent, with Abraham (22 percent) and Rispone (20 percent) well behind the incumbent.
In a televised debate last week in Lafayette, each GOP candidate worked to peg the other as a political insider. Rispone repeatedly attacked Abraham as a phony Trump supporter while framing himself as the real “outsider and a conservative.” Abraham shot back, saying he’s been a “a doctor, a farmer ... [and] owned three separate businesses” — while Rispone, a long-time GOP donor, “has been in politics a long time.”
National Republicans have sought to provide cover while Abraham and Rispone duke it out — and try to hold Edwards under 50 percent. A group funded by the Republican Governors Association has aired ads attacking Edwards on taxes and Louisiana’s jobs numbers during Edwards’ tenure.
Republicans also expect Trump to get involved in the race if there's a runoff. But Trump allies, including Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Donald Trump Jr., and Trump reelection campaign manager Brad Parscale, have all slammed Edwards on Twitter.
Meanwhile, a pro-Edwards outside group, Gumbo PAC, has continued to air ads bashing the two Republicans. Its latest ad mocks one of the GOP candidates as "phony Eddie Rispone."
Despite Louisiana’s Democratic tradition, no Democratic governor has won a second consecutive term since Edwin Edwards (no relation) won reelection in the mid 1970s. But the current incumbent is confident.
“If the election were held today, there would not be [a runoff],” John Bel Edwards said in the interview last week. “But it’s not today. It’s still October the 12th.”
“I like the movement I have seen in the last week or so in the polls,” added Edwards. “And either we’re going to win on October 12th, or we’re going to come extremely close.”
Huge third-quarter
Sanders rakes in huge third-quarter cash haul
The third quarter was Sanders' most successful fundraising period of his 2020 campaign.
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN
Bernie Sanders raised more than $25 million in the third quarter of his presidential campaign, his aides announced Tuesday.
The large haul demonstrates that the Vermont senator, despite slipping to third place behind Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden in national polling averages, remains a fundraising juggernaut. Sanders also recently revealed that 1 million people have donated to his bid for the White House — a milestone he reached faster than any Democratic presidential candidate in history.
Sanders' staffers said that the most common profession among his contributors during the quarter was teacher, and the most common employers of his donors were Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks. The average contribution was just over $18, they said.
“Bernie is proud to be the only candidate running to defeat Donald Trump who is 100 percent funded by grassroots donations — both in the primary and in the general,” said Sanders' campaign manager, Faiz Shakir. “Media elites and professional pundits have tried repeatedly to dismiss this campaign, and yet working-class Americans keep saying loudly and clearly that they want a political revolution.”
The third quarter was Sanders' most successful fundraising period of his 2020 campaign. He raised about $18 million in each of the first two quarters of the year.
Sanders' aides said that the second best fundraising day of the year was Monday, when Sanders announced a plan to tax high-earning CEOs in an effort to reduce the widening gap between the nation's rich and poor.
Though Shakir did not mention his rival by name, his statement could be interpreted as a reference in part to Warren, who said that she would not participate in big-money fundraisers in the primary but would not unilaterally disarm against President Donald Trump in a general election. Sanders has sworn off high-dollar fundraisers for the entire campaign.
Sanders' team said he also transferred an extra $2.6 million from his other campaign accounts, but that figure is not included in the his reported haul of $25.3 million.
The third quarter was Sanders' most successful fundraising period of his 2020 campaign.
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN
Bernie Sanders raised more than $25 million in the third quarter of his presidential campaign, his aides announced Tuesday.
The large haul demonstrates that the Vermont senator, despite slipping to third place behind Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden in national polling averages, remains a fundraising juggernaut. Sanders also recently revealed that 1 million people have donated to his bid for the White House — a milestone he reached faster than any Democratic presidential candidate in history.
Sanders' staffers said that the most common profession among his contributors during the quarter was teacher, and the most common employers of his donors were Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks. The average contribution was just over $18, they said.
“Bernie is proud to be the only candidate running to defeat Donald Trump who is 100 percent funded by grassroots donations — both in the primary and in the general,” said Sanders' campaign manager, Faiz Shakir. “Media elites and professional pundits have tried repeatedly to dismiss this campaign, and yet working-class Americans keep saying loudly and clearly that they want a political revolution.”
The third quarter was Sanders' most successful fundraising period of his 2020 campaign. He raised about $18 million in each of the first two quarters of the year.
Sanders' aides said that the second best fundraising day of the year was Monday, when Sanders announced a plan to tax high-earning CEOs in an effort to reduce the widening gap between the nation's rich and poor.
Though Shakir did not mention his rival by name, his statement could be interpreted as a reference in part to Warren, who said that she would not participate in big-money fundraisers in the primary but would not unilaterally disarm against President Donald Trump in a general election. Sanders has sworn off high-dollar fundraisers for the entire campaign.
Sanders' team said he also transferred an extra $2.6 million from his other campaign accounts, but that figure is not included in the his reported haul of $25.3 million.
Lied to Mueller????
Trump may have lied to Mueller, House Democrats say
Dems believe the special counsel's grand-jury materials could aid their Ukraine investigation, according to a court filing.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
Lawyers for the House of Representatives revealed on Monday that they have reason to believe that the grand-jury redactions in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report show that President Donald Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks.
The attorneys made the stunning suggestion in a court filing as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s bid for Mueller’s grand-jury materials, which have remained secret by law.
“Not only could those materials demonstrate the president’s motives for obstructing the special counsel’s investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which was in response to the Justice Department’s opposition to the disclosure of the grand-jury information.
To back up their claim, the House’s legal team — led by House General Counsel Douglas Letter — cited a passage in Mueller’s report about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s testimony that he “recalled” Trump asking to be kept “updated” about WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Democratic National Committee emails. There is a grand-jury redaction in that passage, the lawyers note.
“The text redacted ... and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee’s investigation,” they wrote.
“Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks,” they added.
In a text message to POLITICO, Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said the suggestion that Trump lied to Mueller’s investigators is “absurd.”
The White House, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Monday’s filing also referenced the most recent scandal engulfing the Trump White House — the president’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden — which caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to formalize an impeachment inquiry. Letter, the House general counsel, and his deputies argued that Mueller’s grand-jury evidence could also be useful for the House’s ongoing Ukraine probe.
“Those events may also be relevant to the House’s investigation of the president’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election,” the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump’s efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
More specifically, they said Mueller’s grand-jury materials “would further” the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to prosecute individuals who testified against Manafort.
The House lawyers also argued in Monday’s filing that the Justice Department has no grounds to determine whether the House is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, which is the House’s central claim to Mueller’s grand jury files.
“Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, and the authority the Constitution vests in the House alone to structure its proceedings, that power is not DOJ’s for the taking,” the lawyers wrote, adding a reference to Pelosi’s pronouncement last week that the House was launching an “official impeachment inquiry.”
In its previous filing, the Justice Department seized on House Democrats’ lack of a consistent message on impeachment, which came amid divisions among party leaders over whether to pursue the president's removal based on Mueller’s evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the investigation.
Mueller did not reach an official conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice, however, and Attorney General William Barr, along with his then-deputy Rod Rosenstein, concluded that the evidence Mueller‘s team assembled “is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But in the wake of new revelations about Trump’s efforts to pressure Zelensky, House Democrats have adopted a unified front in favor of an official impeachment inquiry.
Dems believe the special counsel's grand-jury materials could aid their Ukraine investigation, according to a court filing.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
Lawyers for the House of Representatives revealed on Monday that they have reason to believe that the grand-jury redactions in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report show that President Donald Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks.
The attorneys made the stunning suggestion in a court filing as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s bid for Mueller’s grand-jury materials, which have remained secret by law.
“Not only could those materials demonstrate the president’s motives for obstructing the special counsel’s investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which was in response to the Justice Department’s opposition to the disclosure of the grand-jury information.
To back up their claim, the House’s legal team — led by House General Counsel Douglas Letter — cited a passage in Mueller’s report about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s testimony that he “recalled” Trump asking to be kept “updated” about WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Democratic National Committee emails. There is a grand-jury redaction in that passage, the lawyers note.
“The text redacted ... and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee’s investigation,” they wrote.
“Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks,” they added.
In a text message to POLITICO, Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said the suggestion that Trump lied to Mueller’s investigators is “absurd.”
The White House, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Monday’s filing also referenced the most recent scandal engulfing the Trump White House — the president’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden — which caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to formalize an impeachment inquiry. Letter, the House general counsel, and his deputies argued that Mueller’s grand-jury evidence could also be useful for the House’s ongoing Ukraine probe.
“Those events may also be relevant to the House’s investigation of the president’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election,” the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump’s efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
More specifically, they said Mueller’s grand-jury materials “would further” the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to prosecute individuals who testified against Manafort.
The House lawyers also argued in Monday’s filing that the Justice Department has no grounds to determine whether the House is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, which is the House’s central claim to Mueller’s grand jury files.
“Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, and the authority the Constitution vests in the House alone to structure its proceedings, that power is not DOJ’s for the taking,” the lawyers wrote, adding a reference to Pelosi’s pronouncement last week that the House was launching an “official impeachment inquiry.”
In its previous filing, the Justice Department seized on House Democrats’ lack of a consistent message on impeachment, which came amid divisions among party leaders over whether to pursue the president's removal based on Mueller’s evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the investigation.
Mueller did not reach an official conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice, however, and Attorney General William Barr, along with his then-deputy Rod Rosenstein, concluded that the evidence Mueller‘s team assembled “is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But in the wake of new revelations about Trump’s efforts to pressure Zelensky, House Democrats have adopted a unified front in favor of an official impeachment inquiry.
On a cold morning....
Yea it seems winter as come before Fall... It is cold this morning.. But here is a little warmth.
Long list of investigations.
Impeachment FOMO hits a long list of investigations
The House impeachment inquiry offers new life for a wide range of investigations. But they risk being left behind by the Ukraine focus.
By ANITA KUMAR
House Democrats have spent all year investigating allegations President Donald Trump illegally used his office to make money, obstructed justice during the Russia probe and paid to silence women who had sexual encounters with him.
Now, some are worried those serious accusations of wrongdoing will be ignored.
House leaders are considering focusing their impeachment inquiry on Trump’s asking a foreign leader to hurt a political rival. But other lawmakers and outside groups are pushing to include other potentially criminal acts in the inquiry.
"You can’t ignore that," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, who called for an impeachment inquiry after special counsel Robert Mueller finished his investigation into whether Trump associates worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. "How do you take an oath to protect the Constitution ... and then ignore obstruction of justice by the president?"
Everything — even obstructing an investigation — could be used against Trump in the case for removing him from office for what the Constitution describes as the ambiguous “high crimes and misdemeanors," lawmakers and impeachment experts say.
“If you are just looking at Ukraine, there are significant crimes and wrongdoing that are left on the table,” said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, an advocacy group that works closely with staff of House committees.
And after months of stonewalling by the White House, Democrats have gained more power to seek documents and testimony from the administration now that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry.
House Democrats believe judges will be more willing to force the administration to turn over documents and witnesses — and turn them over faster — if it’s part of an impeachment inquiry from Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers and congressional aides.
“Its power is at its constitutional zenith when conducting an impeachment inquiry,” said Austin Evers, former senior counsel in State Department who is now executive director of American Oversight, a watchdog group working with Congress on oversight. “It maximizes its authority.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers she is considering narrowing the House inquiry to Trump's call with the president of Ukraine, but said late last week that she had not excluded the other investigations yet. One lawmaker told POLITICO that even if she focuses on Ukraine, she would quietly allow a couple other issues to be included in the impeachment inquiry, likely including obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation.
Last week, she directed six House committees — Justice, Oversight, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, and Financial Services — to continue their investigations as part of an impeachment inquiry.
“The broader inquiry will emphasize abuse of power generally,” said Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor who wrote the forthcoming book, “The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents.”
“All of these episodes illustrate a failure to respect the office and protect the Constitution,” Brettschneider said.
The committees, which are looking into everything from Trump’s finances to his communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin, are being asked to send relevant information to the Judiciary Committee for what is expected to be a formal vote.
“The key is for the House to define the scope of any impeachment inquiry,” said Ross Garber, a lawyer who defended four governors facing impeachment. “Right now, it’s unclear what the issues are or which committees are responsible for which issues.”
Trump admitted he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into whether former Vice President Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who investigated Biden’s son’s company, but he insisted there was nothing wrong with what he did.
He is defending himself in much the same way he did during the two-year investigation into whether he and his aides colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections — attacking the Democrats, the media and his critics.
“What they've done to this country is a disgrace,” he said last week. “They've hurt this country very badly. And no other president should have to go through what I've gone through.”
Trump has released documents related to his contacts with Zelensky, saying he wants to be transparent in the investigation, leading some to speculate that he, too, would like to keep the House focussed just on Ukraine.
The Trump administration is expected to ignore other requests and subpoenas despite the impeachment label, according to several people familiar with the White House plans, meaning the two sides may end up in court. But the Democrats could use those setbacks to their advantage.
“The White House refusing to comply with subpoenas can be used toward an impeachment charge,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor who has written books on impeachment and testified before Congress on the topic.
House Democrats have launched dozens of investigations, but the allegations garnering the most attention for impeachment involve Trump violating the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution by allowing federal employees and service members, and foreign officials to stay at Trump resorts; paying $280,000 to silence former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign to cover up his sexual encounters; and trying to thwart special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.
But Trump also faces allegations that he inflated and deflated the value of assets to acquire loans and pay less in taxes and that he allowed top aides, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, to receive security clearances they were not qualified to have.
Republicans insist the House needs to vote on impeachment before Democrats have any additional powers. But many experts say that’s not necessary.
Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, argued Pelosi’s announcement on impeachment last week didn’t change anything legally. “There has been no House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry,” he said.
A study on impeachment by the Congressional Research Service doesn’t indicate a vote is needed, according to Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight.
But Garber said a House vote could help a judge decide whether Trump’s assertions of executive privilege outweigh the interests of the House.
“In both Nixon and Clinton [impeachments] the House formally endorsed impeachment inquiries and granted subpoena authority to committees for purposes of conducting those inquiries,” he said. “That has not happened here. A court could, therefore, easily conclude that the statements of the speaker do not convert the inquiries that had been underway into impeachment proceedings.”
Democratic leaders suggested the impeachment inquiry might be more effective if it’s narrowed, because the Ukraine call is an issue that has resonated with the American public and lawmakers. The House could lose support, especially with some moderate lawmakers, if it expands to other investigations, they say.
Connolly said he understands why some colleagues want to narrow the focus and said he‘s “torn” about how the House should proceed on impeachment.
“Do you go forward with your best case that’s the clearest and most compelling, so that we try to keep the country as united as possible as we undertake impeachment of the president?“ he asked. “Or do you go and lay out all of the case with the understanding some of them are not going to carry majority support and will be picked apart and can distract and are hard to follow sometimes?”
Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee, who has supported impeachment for months, told reporters last week that most members don’t want to exclude what he called egregious violations.
“It may be that if push comes to shove, and we do have multiple articles, that not all of them will get the same level of support,” he said. “Maybe some will, maybe some won't pass.”
The House has not set a deadline for impeachment, but some lawmakers want articles of impeachment to be considered by the end of the year.
The House impeachment inquiry offers new life for a wide range of investigations. But they risk being left behind by the Ukraine focus.
By ANITA KUMAR
House Democrats have spent all year investigating allegations President Donald Trump illegally used his office to make money, obstructed justice during the Russia probe and paid to silence women who had sexual encounters with him.
Now, some are worried those serious accusations of wrongdoing will be ignored.
House leaders are considering focusing their impeachment inquiry on Trump’s asking a foreign leader to hurt a political rival. But other lawmakers and outside groups are pushing to include other potentially criminal acts in the inquiry.
"You can’t ignore that," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, who called for an impeachment inquiry after special counsel Robert Mueller finished his investigation into whether Trump associates worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. "How do you take an oath to protect the Constitution ... and then ignore obstruction of justice by the president?"
Everything — even obstructing an investigation — could be used against Trump in the case for removing him from office for what the Constitution describes as the ambiguous “high crimes and misdemeanors," lawmakers and impeachment experts say.
“If you are just looking at Ukraine, there are significant crimes and wrongdoing that are left on the table,” said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, an advocacy group that works closely with staff of House committees.
And after months of stonewalling by the White House, Democrats have gained more power to seek documents and testimony from the administration now that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry.
House Democrats believe judges will be more willing to force the administration to turn over documents and witnesses — and turn them over faster — if it’s part of an impeachment inquiry from Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers and congressional aides.
“Its power is at its constitutional zenith when conducting an impeachment inquiry,” said Austin Evers, former senior counsel in State Department who is now executive director of American Oversight, a watchdog group working with Congress on oversight. “It maximizes its authority.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers she is considering narrowing the House inquiry to Trump's call with the president of Ukraine, but said late last week that she had not excluded the other investigations yet. One lawmaker told POLITICO that even if she focuses on Ukraine, she would quietly allow a couple other issues to be included in the impeachment inquiry, likely including obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation.
Last week, she directed six House committees — Justice, Oversight, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, and Financial Services — to continue their investigations as part of an impeachment inquiry.
“The broader inquiry will emphasize abuse of power generally,” said Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor who wrote the forthcoming book, “The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents.”
“All of these episodes illustrate a failure to respect the office and protect the Constitution,” Brettschneider said.
The committees, which are looking into everything from Trump’s finances to his communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin, are being asked to send relevant information to the Judiciary Committee for what is expected to be a formal vote.
“The key is for the House to define the scope of any impeachment inquiry,” said Ross Garber, a lawyer who defended four governors facing impeachment. “Right now, it’s unclear what the issues are or which committees are responsible for which issues.”
Trump admitted he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into whether former Vice President Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who investigated Biden’s son’s company, but he insisted there was nothing wrong with what he did.
He is defending himself in much the same way he did during the two-year investigation into whether he and his aides colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections — attacking the Democrats, the media and his critics.
“What they've done to this country is a disgrace,” he said last week. “They've hurt this country very badly. And no other president should have to go through what I've gone through.”
Trump has released documents related to his contacts with Zelensky, saying he wants to be transparent in the investigation, leading some to speculate that he, too, would like to keep the House focussed just on Ukraine.
The Trump administration is expected to ignore other requests and subpoenas despite the impeachment label, according to several people familiar with the White House plans, meaning the two sides may end up in court. But the Democrats could use those setbacks to their advantage.
“The White House refusing to comply with subpoenas can be used toward an impeachment charge,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor who has written books on impeachment and testified before Congress on the topic.
House Democrats have launched dozens of investigations, but the allegations garnering the most attention for impeachment involve Trump violating the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution by allowing federal employees and service members, and foreign officials to stay at Trump resorts; paying $280,000 to silence former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign to cover up his sexual encounters; and trying to thwart special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.
But Trump also faces allegations that he inflated and deflated the value of assets to acquire loans and pay less in taxes and that he allowed top aides, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, to receive security clearances they were not qualified to have.
Republicans insist the House needs to vote on impeachment before Democrats have any additional powers. But many experts say that’s not necessary.
Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, argued Pelosi’s announcement on impeachment last week didn’t change anything legally. “There has been no House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry,” he said.
A study on impeachment by the Congressional Research Service doesn’t indicate a vote is needed, according to Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight.
But Garber said a House vote could help a judge decide whether Trump’s assertions of executive privilege outweigh the interests of the House.
“In both Nixon and Clinton [impeachments] the House formally endorsed impeachment inquiries and granted subpoena authority to committees for purposes of conducting those inquiries,” he said. “That has not happened here. A court could, therefore, easily conclude that the statements of the speaker do not convert the inquiries that had been underway into impeachment proceedings.”
Democratic leaders suggested the impeachment inquiry might be more effective if it’s narrowed, because the Ukraine call is an issue that has resonated with the American public and lawmakers. The House could lose support, especially with some moderate lawmakers, if it expands to other investigations, they say.
Connolly said he understands why some colleagues want to narrow the focus and said he‘s “torn” about how the House should proceed on impeachment.
“Do you go forward with your best case that’s the clearest and most compelling, so that we try to keep the country as united as possible as we undertake impeachment of the president?“ he asked. “Or do you go and lay out all of the case with the understanding some of them are not going to carry majority support and will be picked apart and can distract and are hard to follow sometimes?”
Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee, who has supported impeachment for months, told reporters last week that most members don’t want to exclude what he called egregious violations.
“It may be that if push comes to shove, and we do have multiple articles, that not all of them will get the same level of support,” he said. “Maybe some will, maybe some won't pass.”
The House has not set a deadline for impeachment, but some lawmakers want articles of impeachment to be considered by the end of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)