1848 replies to this topic

[gmat]

Here’s the thing. I don’t have any intention of abandoning or excluding anybody. I would be perfectly happy with 100% turnout, which would necessarily mean an increase in people who would vote for Trump.

I just like to emphasize “younger and/or poorer and/or not-white” because that’s where the best ROI will be for the issues that are important to me. Not just in 2020, but 2030 and after I’m gone.

But 2020 of course has the added importance of getting rid of Trump. And recruiting new voters from those groups now, and over the next 2 years, will accomplish that

And having a black Speaker of the House fighting Trump, will recruit a lot more young poor PoC than tired old Pelosi or Hoyer (I think so anyway. I may be completely full of shit. It’s happened before, believe it or not)

I’m picturing Roscoe Lee Brown vs Bruce Dern in “The Cowboys”

[golden_valley]

Pelosi knows the ropes, is wiley, and probably knows where bodies are buried. Though I'd like to see a change to remove her as the wicked witch symbol now that Hillary is out, Pelosi is needed to get things moving on the right track. The last thing we need is someone who is will fumble around and miss opportunities to try to remedy the mess. Pelosi was right to caution Democrats to run on health care and not on impeachment. She will be needed to head off the impeachment prone folks and to direct their energy into some things that are more productive in attempting to remediate the damage of the last two years and can still show the world what Trump's Swamp looks like.

[LFC]

 golden_valley, on 11 November 2018 - 11:57 AM, said:

Pelosi knows the ropes, is wiley, and probably knows where bodies are buried. Though I'd like to see a change to remove her as the wicked witch symbol now that Hillary is out, Pelosi is needed to get things moving on the right track. The last thing we need is someone who is will fumble around and miss opportunities to try to remedy the mess. Pelosi was right to caution Democrats to run on health care and not on impeachment. She will be needed to head off the impeachment prone folks and to direct their energy into some things that are more productive in attempting to remediate the damage of the last two years and can still show the world what Trump's Swamp looks like.

I suspect that when the investigations get rolling Pelosi will be waaaayyyy in the background. I expect Adam Schiff to be one of the primary faces put forward. Others will appear as they dive in. The trick is to have an old hand with good political instincts (which I think she does) to make sure they don't accidentally hand the right-wingnuts a gift they can play over and over again.

[gmat]

Clyburn knows all that, can do all that, and has the added virtue of not having presided over a feckless futile effort for the last eight years.

[D. C. Sessions]

 gmat, on 11 November 2018 - 12:05 PM, said:

Clyburn knows all that, can do all that, and has the added virtue of not having presided over a feckless futile effort for the last eight years.

You mean the ACA?

[Traveler]

Yeah, I think Pelosi has managed things pretty darn well considering the cards she had to play. And with DWS in charge of the party, no matter how good her fundraising was, DWS wasted it. That was the real error. She can do a LOT behind the scenes while she is in Congress. She doesn't impress as one with an ego either.

[gmat]

 D. C. Sessions, on 11 November 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

You mean the ACA?

I’m thinking more of the general rout of the Democrats at the state and federal level, the loss of the USSC, the current occupant of the WH, that kind of stuff. How they just pissed it all away. Which did begin, now that you mention it, with the ACA.

I associate Pelosi with all that. The idea of her as Speaker gives me the same shitty feeling as Clinton running again in 2020, or Schumer running the Senate.

[D. C. Sessions]

 Traveler, on 11 November 2018 - 02:43 PM, said:

And with DWS in charge of the party, no matter how good her fundraising was, DWS wasted it.

I really can't judge DWS. She was playing the game that Democrats had played since Carter, just like journalists were playing the game they'd played since national media. The game that Bill Clinton and Obama played.

It's easy to say that they should have recognized that the game had changed. Certainly by now there's no excuse, although the media seem to be resisting the cluestick. But I suspect that there were damned few people in a position to get the job who were any quicker, and fewer still of them would have been chosen for it because until November of 2016 the rest of the Party machinery were just as out of touch.

And, yes, please see the recent research on how much everyone inside the Beltway grossly misjudges the actual views of the people out here in the rest of the country.

[D. C. Sessions]

 gmat, on 11 November 2018 - 02:44 PM, said:

I’m thinking more of the general rout of the Democrats at the state and federal level, the loss of the USSC

You do realize that the SCOTUS change was under Reagan, don't you? Likewise, the States have been disproportionately run by Republicans for decades now.

Did Republicans play a smarter game at the State and local level? Absolutely. As everyone here has heard from me too many times, they figured out in the 70s that building your campaigns around appeals to the mythical median voter was a loser compared to rousing the base. It's taken Democrats -- all of them -- forty years to catch on. Bill Clinton's "triangulation" just reinforced the error, with Democrats chasing the Overton Window which (surprise!) kept moving ahead of them, with the punditocracy sagely opining that the Democrats always needed to run a little faster to the right (exactly where those pundits were at any given time, curiously.)

[gmat]

I meant the loss of the USSC for the next generation or 2. Thats what the 2016 election was about for me.

Look, I have zero interest in playing Who Fucked John? or trying to persuade anybody.

I only know I dont want any more Pelosi, and I know why that is. Beyond that, I’m just making shit up. But I voted for Cockburn and Kaine. 1 out of 2.

I’m not even a Democrat, but it’s a 2 party system, and I know which party will further my interests. I hope whoever is Speaker leads a successful effort to check Trumpism

[andydp]

Deleted and moved to more pertinent thread:

"Russia Investigations"

[LFC]

Democrats are preparing for the kinds of investigations they plan on firing up. As a result they're preparing to hire money laundering experts. Trump must be losing his shit over this.

Quote

Democrats who will soon take control of the House Intelligence Committee are hiring money-laundering and forensic accounting experts to investigate Donald Trump’s financial ties to Russia.

Three sources who spoke to the Daily Beast revealed that the panel intends to hire the experts, and one confirmed that Democrats on the committee are doing so “to examine unanswered financial questions about Trump and Russia.”

The experts would also work with the panel on all of the topics before the panel, the source told the Beast.

The report noted that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the likely pick to take over the committee, has signaled in the past his interest in investigating Trump’s relationship to Germany-based Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank loaned money to Trump at times when other lenders wouldn’t, the report noted, and the president may still owe it money.

[LFC]

What goes around comes around.

Quote

After Republican leadership on the House Oversight Committee spent two years blocking Democrats’ subpoena requests related to the Trump administration and other matters, NBC News’ Chuck Todd had what seemed like an unexpected question for incoming Democratic committee chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD): “Do you plan on granting your ranking member, whoever it is on the Republican side, subpoena authority?”

“Uh, no,” Cummings replied.

[LFC]

Trump isn't remotely prepared for what's coming. I guess this happens when nobody competent wants to work for you.

Quote

There are 25 lawyers currently working in the White House counsel’s office, a Republican close to the Trump administration told Politico.

White House counsel Don McGahn left before the midterms and his replacement — Pat Cipollone — is still undergoing a background check and hasn’t started working yet. In the next few weeks, Annie Donaldson, who was a top aide for McGahn, is expected to make an exit, leaving the scarcely staffed office likely unprepared to handle the influx of subpoenas after Democrats take over the House.

“They only have roughly 20 dedicated White House lawyers and a bunch of detailees who could leave at any time,” one ex-White House official told Politico. “I don’t think anyone who is paying attention thinks they are prepared for a Democratic takeover.”

Another Republican close to the administration described the office as “denuded and shrinking” and blamed the slow roll of Cipollone’s start date on McGahn’s departure.

[LFC]

Bring the pain to Donny Junior!

Quote

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee plan to probe the phone records of Donald Trump Jr. to determine who he called on the night he planned the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, USA Today reports. Trump Jr. has denied calling his father or informing him about that meeting, before which he was promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. But on that night, he made a phone call to a blocked number that Democrats believe could have been now-President Trump. Later, Trump Jr. changed his story, claiming that he didn’t know who he called that evening.

Republicans, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, declined to probe the phone records when they controlled the committee. “Republicans refused to look at the phone records so that we could find out, because they were afraid of what the answer might be,” Adam Schiff, the California rep who will take control of the panel, told USA Today. Schiff added that he hopes to entice Republicans to cooperate with Democrats during the investigation. “We can’t obviously force them to work with us,” he said. “They’ll have to make the decision for themselves whether they’re interested in finding out the truth or they’re interested in merely being extensions of Rudy Giuliani.”

[LFC]

Betsy DeVos is being lined up too.

Quote

With Democrats now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, several members of House-led committees are preparing to challenge Department of Education Secretary Besty DeVos on several policies.

POLITICO reports that at least five committees could take DeVos to task next year on some of the more controversial policies enforced by the Dept. of Education.

Among them will be the House education committee where Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott is expected to be named chairman. Scott has been vocal about many of the policies enforced by DeVos, including the secretary's rollback of sexual assault policies on college campuses.

"The proposed rule creates a new process and evidentiary standard that makes it harder for survivors of harassment, abuse, and assault to achieve the justice they deserve," Scott said in a statement after reports of DeVos' policy plans surface. "Campus sexual misconduct is already underreported and those who do come forward are too often denied respect, compassion, and a fair investigation of their claim."

Another opponent, expected to lead the Veterans' Affairs Committee, will be Rep. Mark Takano.

The California Democrat told POLITICO he plans to investigate the effects the reduction of regulations meant to stop misuse of funds from for-profit colleges. Those colleges, Takano said, enroll thousands of veterans each year.

A House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees education funding is expected to be led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who told Politico that DeVos' record on student debt was "appalling."

According to DeLauro, the committee will, "hold Secretary DeVos accountable for her agency’s failure to uphold federal protections for our students.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, known for her public spats with President Donald Trump, could be an ally for DeLauro as she is believed to be the future chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

Waters has publicly condemned DeVos' policies, saying earlier in November that the Education secretary is conducting a “full-on attack on civil rights protections for students — particularly students of color, students with disabilities, transgender students, and survivors of sexual assault.”

Waters told POLITICO that her position will largely spotlight big banks and Wall Street, but the Financial Services Committee also oversees student loan companies and the Consumer Protection Bureau.

DeVos has no love lost with members of the CPB, either. The bureau's top student loan officer, Seth Frotman, resigned in August as a form of protest against policies enacted by DeVos and the Trump Administration.

“Betsy DeVos has brought a special mix of incompetence and malevolence to Washington — and that’s rocket fuel for every committee in a new Congress that will finally provide oversight,” Frotman said.

[LFC]

Unlike when Trump assumed power with little preparation the House Dems are preparing like crazy ... to investigate the myriad of Trump's crimes, lies, and corruption. It sounds like they will truly be ready on day one.

Quote

The House Judiciary Committee is looking for a few good lawyers.

A recent committee job posting reviewed by CNN asked for legislative counsels with a variety of expertise: "criminal law, immigration law, constitutional law, intellectual property law, commercial and administrative law (including antitrust and bankruptcy), or oversight work."

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee needs lawyers, too, posting jobs for "executive branch investigative counsel."

The advertisements give a window into the Democratic recruiting that's ramped up ahead of the party gaining subpoena power for the first time in eight years when it takes over the House in January.

While Democrats publicly talk up their interest in focusing on legislative priorities like health care and voting rights -- not to mention ending the ongoing partial government shutdown -- they are quietly preparing for what will likely be the largest congressional investigation of a sitting president in recent memory. Party leaders and committee chairs have spent months ironing out potential targets, from President Donald Trump's taxes and business dealings to the conduct of current and former Cabinet members.

To handle all this investigative work, House Democrats are expected to double the number of their staffers. Though they can't officially hire anyone until the new Congress is seated, plans are well underway, with House members saying that candidates -- especially those with specific investigative skills, from money laundering to contracting -- are coming from all directions.

[LFC]

It looks like the citizenship question on the upcoming census is going to be an early target of Democratic investigations.

Quote

There is no shortage of Trump administration controversies for Democrats to investigate next year when they take over the House Oversight Committee. But near the top of their list is an issue that has flown under the radar in the first two years of the Trump presidency but has major consequences that will be felt for at least a decade.

Oversight Democrats are signaling that a priority of their committee will be investigating the Trump administration’s move to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

The decision, made by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, has rarely cracked front pages when competing with the dozens of administration-related scandals. However, the question has prompted broad concern among civil rights advocates, policy wonks and even officials at the Census Bureau, who believe it will lead to an undercount of immigrant communities discouraged from participating in the survey. That, in turn, will shift political representation and federal funding away from those populations, while also skewing data upon which local and state governments — as well as private business — depend to plan their operations.

Adding to the anxiety — and prompting suspicion among Democrats — is that the administration appears to have misled Congress and the public about its reason for adding the question, which is now the subject of numerous lawsuits. Internal records released with the litigation have contradicted Ross’ congressional testimony about the question. Incoming Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings has already previewed plans to invite Ross back to testify, and committee Dems are also interested in speaking to other officials who can weigh in on the move.

Democrats are also facing a June deadline for when the Census forms will go to the printer and it will no longer be possible to reverse the decision to have the question added.

[LFC]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not but it's certainly interesting.

Quote

Douglas Letter, a 40-year veteran at the Department of Justice who left this spring, is now re-entering government life as general counsel for the House of Representatives, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Friday.

When Letter left in March, he was restrained in his criticism of the administration, but hinted at the dysfunction that has come to dominate the DOJ under President Donald Trump.

“One obviously has to be concerned about the Justice Department and the future of the Justice Department,” he said then per NPR.

He first joined the department in 1978 and is considered a bastion of institutional knowledge.

“Douglas Letter has an outstanding and highly decorated record of achievement in service of America,” Pelosi said in a statement. “He will bring deep experience and legal expertise to the House, as he counsels and represents our institution, Members and staff as House General Counsel.”

[LFC]

It's obvious to anybody with two neurons to rub together that there's no way the Democrats will get Trump impeached. Even if Mueller finds out that Trump is receiving instructions directly from Putin it wouldn't matter. They'll protect him at all costs. BUT...it appears that they learned from the way it played with the media when Clinton was impeached. It looks like the strategy is to keep the work "impeachment" in the news and not write it off, even if they know there's no way they'll ever pull the trigger. Probably smart politics. Here's a rumbling about getting it out there.

Quote

A California Democrat plans on re-introducing Thursdays articles of impeachment against President Trump, just as House Democrats take control of the new Congress, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), originally rolled out the measure in 2017, which includes allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey.

Then, it was up to Republicans, who controlled the House and have largely remained aligned with Trump, whether to take the impeachment articles up. Now the decision rests with Democratic leaders, who have walked a careful line of not ruling out impeachment proceedings entirely but also not encouraging them.

Pelosi isn't saying yes or no yet. She's taking the high ground while twisting the knife.

Quote

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that she wouldn’t decide one way or another on beginning impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump until special counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation.

She agreed that impeachment would be a “sad and divisive” thing for the country and added that “we shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason.”

Later on Thursday, Democrats will retake the House majority, endowing them with the power to pass articles of impeachment. However, the GOP still enjoys a majority in the Senate, making it unlikely that Trump would be convicted and booted from office.

Pelosi also said that current DOJ precedent that a sitting President cannot be indicted should be an “open discussion in terms of the law.”