Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
May 1, 2019
Attorney General William P. Barr is set to face two days of grilling by congressional Democrats. Fortuitously, this comes just after we’ve learned that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III privately criticized Barr’s highly misleading summary of the Mueller report, which gave President Trump weeks to falsely spin Mueller’s findings as “complete and total exoneration.”
Mueller wrote a letter to Barr only three days after Barr released his four-page summary, as The Post reports, complaining that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mueller continued, adding that this will undercut “full public confidence” in the investigation’s findings, thus undermining a “central purpose” of the appointment of a special counsel in the first place. Upon reading the phrase “public confusion,” Barr probably nodded with satisfaction, and said to himself: Mission accomplished. Here are a few lines of questioning Barr will likely face when he is questioned by the Senate and House judiciary committees on Wednesday and Thursday:
Why did Barr mislead Congress about Mueller’s views on the Barr summary?
In early April, Mueller’s team leaked their frustration over Barr’s summary, complaining it downplayed their conclusions, particularly on Trump’s obstruction of justice. At a congressional hearing soon after, Barr was pressed to say whether he knew what was behind those leaks, and replied: “No, I don’t.”
In fact, we now know Barr had been informed directly by Mueller of the latter’s concerns, well before this hearing.
“That was deliberately false and misleading,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told CBS News, noting: “What Barr is going to have to explain today is why he deliberately misled the Congress.”
snip
Five questions for William Barr, in light of new Mueller revelations
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/01/five-questions-william-barr-light-new-mueller-revelations/Attorney General William P. Barr is set to face two days of grilling by congressional Democrats. Fortuitously, this comes just after we’ve learned that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III privately criticized Barr’s highly misleading summary of the Mueller report, which gave President Trump weeks to falsely spin Mueller’s findings as “complete and total exoneration.”
Mueller wrote a letter to Barr only three days after Barr released his four-page summary, as The Post reports, complaining that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mueller continued, adding that this will undercut “full public confidence” in the investigation’s findings, thus undermining a “central purpose” of the appointment of a special counsel in the first place. Upon reading the phrase “public confusion,” Barr probably nodded with satisfaction, and said to himself: Mission accomplished. Here are a few lines of questioning Barr will likely face when he is questioned by the Senate and House judiciary committees on Wednesday and Thursday:
Why did Barr mislead Congress about Mueller’s views on the Barr summary?
In early April, Mueller’s team leaked their frustration over Barr’s summary, complaining it downplayed their conclusions, particularly on Trump’s obstruction of justice. At a congressional hearing soon after, Barr was pressed to say whether he knew what was behind those leaks, and replied: “No, I don’t.”
In fact, we now know Barr had been informed directly by Mueller of the latter’s concerns, well before this hearing.
“That was deliberately false and misleading,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told CBS News, noting: “What Barr is going to have to explain today is why he deliberately misled the Congress.”
snip
April 30, 2019
I don't think we'll ever see a Dem POTUS's SCOTUS nominee approved by a Rethug-led Senate again.
We can win the POTUS in 2020, but not take back the Senate, then have a SCOTUS justice retire or die (especially RBG, Breyer or Sotomayor) the day after our Democratic President is sworn it, and the Rethugs will simply refuse to vote on the new nominee for the next 2 years (or all four if they keep the majority after the 2022 mid-terms.) If we win re-election (POTUS) in 2024, but still do not re-take the Senate, they will do the same for the next 2 years, then again (if we fail again to re-take in 2026) for another 2 years, until 2028. Rinse wash repeat, until we get a Rethug POTUS again or retake the Senate.
Am I wrong?
April 28, 2019
Pete Buttigieg Tweet in regards to the deadly synagogue Shabbat attack at Chabad of Poway
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1122267158447190016
April 27, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-finance-202/2019/01/25/the-finance-202-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-fundamentally-about-fairness/5c4a2c5b1b326b29c3778cc1/?utm_term=.89b03cb80fdb
The proposal, word of which was first broken yesterday by my colleagues Jeff Stein and Christopher Ingraham, would apply a 2 percent annual “wealth tax” on the net worth of those 75,000 households with more than $50 million in total assets. Those with more than a billion dollars in assets would face an additional 1 percent tax.
It would generate $2.75 trillion over a decade, according to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the University of California at Berkeley economists who advised Warren on the plan.
But Warren, notably, is pitching the idea foremost as a means of rebalancing the concentration of wealth, a phenomenon she frames as a threat to democracy itself, rather than leading with the ambitious programs the new revenue could fund.
“Today in America, the top one-tenth of 1 percent has amassed about as much wealth as 90 percent of America: Upper middle class, middle class, working class, working poor and the poor poor,” Warren said in an interview last night on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes.” “And the consequence of having amassed that much wealth is bad for our economy — a tiny group of people making decisions that always tend to favor a lot of big corporations — and bad for our democracy. Because it means, just like you hear, it’s now a democracy that is influenced by the wealthy, the well connected, and it's not working for the people.”
snip
WaPo: The Finance 202: Warren's wealth tax is fundamentally about fairness
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) just dropped a tax policy bombshell that should explode any lingering doubt that her party is veering left on the issue — and preparing to make the yawning wealth gap a central focus of the 2020 presidential campaign.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-finance-202/2019/01/25/the-finance-202-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-fundamentally-about-fairness/5c4a2c5b1b326b29c3778cc1/?utm_term=.89b03cb80fdb
The proposal, word of which was first broken yesterday by my colleagues Jeff Stein and Christopher Ingraham, would apply a 2 percent annual “wealth tax” on the net worth of those 75,000 households with more than $50 million in total assets. Those with more than a billion dollars in assets would face an additional 1 percent tax.
It would generate $2.75 trillion over a decade, according to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the University of California at Berkeley economists who advised Warren on the plan.
But Warren, notably, is pitching the idea foremost as a means of rebalancing the concentration of wealth, a phenomenon she frames as a threat to democracy itself, rather than leading with the ambitious programs the new revenue could fund.
“Today in America, the top one-tenth of 1 percent has amassed about as much wealth as 90 percent of America: Upper middle class, middle class, working class, working poor and the poor poor,” Warren said in an interview last night on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes.” “And the consequence of having amassed that much wealth is bad for our economy — a tiny group of people making decisions that always tend to favor a lot of big corporations — and bad for our democracy. Because it means, just like you hear, it’s now a democracy that is influenced by the wealthy, the well connected, and it's not working for the people.”
snip
April 26, 2019
Hi,
Moving forward, Pete for America will not accept any money from lobbyists and we are returning all donations from registered lobbyists who have contributed to date -- that's $30,250 from 39 individuals.
Mayor Pete will not be influenced by special-interest money, and we understand that making this promise is an important part of that commitment.
We understand that making this decision and being vocal about our values is important; that the decision means more than just whether or not we are willing to accept money from a specific individual.
Standing up for our collective values not only includes saying we believe that campaigns should not take money from lobbyists; it also means being aware of the loopholes that still allow special interests to impact the campaign.
This campaign will:
Not accept money directly from individuals who are registered as federal lobbyists
Not allow registered lobbyists to serve as bundlers for our campaign, because that would still allow them to use their influence to benefit our campaign
Add new language to our contribution forms about our standards around lobbying and donating
Implement internal procedures and audits to ensure we are living by these commitments
Not accept money from corporate PACs
Not accept money from the fossil fuel industry
You've held us to a higher standard, and we're grateful for your partnership. We're going to need your continued support.
We've launched a grassroots fundraising team -- a group of supporters who is organizing around campaign finance goals. Already, that team of supporters has raised close to a half million dollars from their personal networks.
If you're interested in joining that team, please sign up here:
www.peteforamerica.com/grassroots-fundraising-team
Thanks for your support, your commitment to our better future, and for holding us to a higher standard.
Mike
Mike Schmuhl
Campaign Manager
Pete for America
DONATE HERE
Pete for America
PO Box 1226
South Bend, IN 46626
United States
Paid for by Pete For America.
Pete Buttigieg: Today we're giving our lobbyist money back -- here's why:
Hi,
Moving forward, Pete for America will not accept any money from lobbyists and we are returning all donations from registered lobbyists who have contributed to date -- that's $30,250 from 39 individuals.
Mayor Pete will not be influenced by special-interest money, and we understand that making this promise is an important part of that commitment.
We understand that making this decision and being vocal about our values is important; that the decision means more than just whether or not we are willing to accept money from a specific individual.
Standing up for our collective values not only includes saying we believe that campaigns should not take money from lobbyists; it also means being aware of the loopholes that still allow special interests to impact the campaign.
This campaign will:
Not accept money directly from individuals who are registered as federal lobbyists
Not allow registered lobbyists to serve as bundlers for our campaign, because that would still allow them to use their influence to benefit our campaign
Add new language to our contribution forms about our standards around lobbying and donating
Implement internal procedures and audits to ensure we are living by these commitments
Not accept money from corporate PACs
Not accept money from the fossil fuel industry
You've held us to a higher standard, and we're grateful for your partnership. We're going to need your continued support.
We've launched a grassroots fundraising team -- a group of supporters who is organizing around campaign finance goals. Already, that team of supporters has raised close to a half million dollars from their personal networks.
If you're interested in joining that team, please sign up here:
www.peteforamerica.com/grassroots-fundraising-team
Thanks for your support, your commitment to our better future, and for holding us to a higher standard.
Mike
Mike Schmuhl
Campaign Manager
Pete for America
DONATE HERE
Pete for America
PO Box 1226
South Bend, IN 46626
United States
Paid for by Pete For America.
April 26, 2019
Moving forward, Pete for America will not accept any money from lobbyists and we are returning all donations from registered lobbyists who have contributed to date -- that's $30,250 from 39 individuals.
Mayor Pete will not be influenced by special-interest money, and we understand that making this promise is an important part of that commitment.
We understand that making this decision and being vocal about our values is important; that the decision means more than just whether or not we are willing to accept money from a specific individual.
Standing up for our collective values not only includes saying we believe that campaigns should not take money from lobbyists; it also means being aware of the loopholes that still allow special interests to impact the campaign.
This campaign will:
Not accept money directly from individuals who are registered as federal lobbyists
Not allow registered lobbyists to serve as bundlers for our campaign, because that would still allow them to use their influence to benefit our campaign
Add new language to our contribution forms about our standards around lobbying and donating
Implement internal procedures and audits to ensure we are living by these commitments
Not accept money from corporate PACs
Not accept money from the fossil fuel industry
You've held us to a higher standard, and we're grateful for your partnership. We're going to need your continued support.
We've launched a grassroots fundraising team -- a group of supporters who is organizing around campaign finance goals. Already, that team of supporters has raised close to a half million dollars from their personal networks.
If you're interested in joining that team, please sign up here:
www.peteforamerica.com/grassroots-fundraising-team
Thanks for your support, your commitment to our better future, and for holding us to a higher standard.
Mike
Mike Schmuhl
Campaign Manager
Pete for America
Today we're giving our lobbyist money back -- here's why:
Moving forward, Pete for America will not accept any money from lobbyists and we are returning all donations from registered lobbyists who have contributed to date -- that's $30,250 from 39 individuals.
Mayor Pete will not be influenced by special-interest money, and we understand that making this promise is an important part of that commitment.
We understand that making this decision and being vocal about our values is important; that the decision means more than just whether or not we are willing to accept money from a specific individual.
Standing up for our collective values not only includes saying we believe that campaigns should not take money from lobbyists; it also means being aware of the loopholes that still allow special interests to impact the campaign.
This campaign will:
Not accept money directly from individuals who are registered as federal lobbyists
Not allow registered lobbyists to serve as bundlers for our campaign, because that would still allow them to use their influence to benefit our campaign
Add new language to our contribution forms about our standards around lobbying and donating
Implement internal procedures and audits to ensure we are living by these commitments
Not accept money from corporate PACs
Not accept money from the fossil fuel industry
You've held us to a higher standard, and we're grateful for your partnership. We're going to need your continued support.
We've launched a grassroots fundraising team -- a group of supporters who is organizing around campaign finance goals. Already, that team of supporters has raised close to a half million dollars from their personal networks.
If you're interested in joining that team, please sign up here:
www.peteforamerica.com/grassroots-fundraising-team
Thanks for your support, your commitment to our better future, and for holding us to a higher standard.
Mike
Mike Schmuhl
Campaign Manager
Pete for America
April 26, 2019
WASHINGTON ― It’s supposed to be the first congressional hearing ever on “Medicare for All” ― a huge win for single-payer advocates and progressives in Congress. But next week, when the House Rules Committee holds that landmark hearing on the expansive health care legislation, Medicare for All advocates may actually be getting screwed.
There are four people testifying for Democrats: Sara Collins from the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund; Dr. Doris Browne, the former president of the National Medical Association; Dr. Farzon Nahvi, an emergency physician and professor in New York City; and Dean Baker, the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Of those four witnesses, perhaps only Nahvi is actually an advocate for Medicare for All, the single-payer health care system that would transition everyone to Medicare. And even then, sources tell HuffPost that Nahvi’s testimony is supposed to be limited to how patient experience would change. That means that when the Rules Committee convenes this hearing on Tuesday, there may not be any witness testifying who will make the case for Medicare for All over other health care plans.
“There is a heated debate right now about what is this best way forward,” Adam Gaffney, the president of Physicians for a National Health Program told HuffPost. “Medicare for All is one proposal. Medicare for All is the best proposal. Is someone going to make that case?” Gaffney was actually one of the witnesses that single-payer advocates put forward to testify. But the Rules Committee nixed his appearance, along with those of more than a dozen other suggested witnesses.
snip
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1121478783834439681
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1121477908072103937
https://twitter.com/PeterSullivan4/status/1121158355144204292
Single-Payer Advocates Worry 'Medicare For All' Hearing Could Be A 'Farce'
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/medicare-for-all-hearing-farce_n_5cc1dfbee4b0ad77ff8164fe?1f8WASHINGTON ― It’s supposed to be the first congressional hearing ever on “Medicare for All” ― a huge win for single-payer advocates and progressives in Congress. But next week, when the House Rules Committee holds that landmark hearing on the expansive health care legislation, Medicare for All advocates may actually be getting screwed.
There are four people testifying for Democrats: Sara Collins from the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund; Dr. Doris Browne, the former president of the National Medical Association; Dr. Farzon Nahvi, an emergency physician and professor in New York City; and Dean Baker, the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Of those four witnesses, perhaps only Nahvi is actually an advocate for Medicare for All, the single-payer health care system that would transition everyone to Medicare. And even then, sources tell HuffPost that Nahvi’s testimony is supposed to be limited to how patient experience would change. That means that when the Rules Committee convenes this hearing on Tuesday, there may not be any witness testifying who will make the case for Medicare for All over other health care plans.
“There is a heated debate right now about what is this best way forward,” Adam Gaffney, the president of Physicians for a National Health Program told HuffPost. “Medicare for All is one proposal. Medicare for All is the best proposal. Is someone going to make that case?” Gaffney was actually one of the witnesses that single-payer advocates put forward to testify. But the Rules Committee nixed his appearance, along with those of more than a dozen other suggested witnesses.
snip
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1121478783834439681
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1121477908072103937
https://twitter.com/PeterSullivan4/status/1121158355144204292
April 26, 2019
Washington (CNN)Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told investigators from the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General that he called the F-35 fighter jet program "f----d up," but made clear that he wasn't referring to the aircraft itself, which he said was "awesome," according to a Department of Defense report released Thursday.
Shanahan's comments were detailed as part of an ethics investigation by the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General into allegations he was promoting the interests of his former employer, Boeing, and repeatedly disparaging the company's competitor, Lockheed Martin, which is the primary contractor for the F-35 fighter jet.
Ultimately, Shanahan was cleared of any wrongdoing as investigators determined his "comments about the F-35 program were substantive, related to the program's performance, and were consistent with comments about the F-35 program made by other senior Government officials." But his troubling assessment of the state of the F-35 program, particularly his concern about the lack of spare aircraft parts, was only amplified by a separate report released Thursday from a federal watchdog group.
Nearly 30% of the US military's F-35 stealth fighter jets were unable to fly during a months-long period last year due to a shortage of spare parts, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
snip
Trump's acting defense secretary called F-35 fighter jet program 'f----d up'
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/pentagon-gao-patrick-shanahan-f-35/index.htmlWashington (CNN)Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told investigators from the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General that he called the F-35 fighter jet program "f----d up," but made clear that he wasn't referring to the aircraft itself, which he said was "awesome," according to a Department of Defense report released Thursday.
Shanahan's comments were detailed as part of an ethics investigation by the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General into allegations he was promoting the interests of his former employer, Boeing, and repeatedly disparaging the company's competitor, Lockheed Martin, which is the primary contractor for the F-35 fighter jet.
Ultimately, Shanahan was cleared of any wrongdoing as investigators determined his "comments about the F-35 program were substantive, related to the program's performance, and were consistent with comments about the F-35 program made by other senior Government officials." But his troubling assessment of the state of the F-35 program, particularly his concern about the lack of spare aircraft parts, was only amplified by a separate report released Thursday from a federal watchdog group.
Nearly 30% of the US military's F-35 stealth fighter jets were unable to fly during a months-long period last year due to a shortage of spare parts, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
snip
April 25, 2019
Something I absolutely agree with Biden on: Joe Biden Calls For Free Public College For All
AND it is something he advocated for FOUR years ago
Joe Biden Calls For Free Public College For All
https://thinkprogress.org/joe-biden-calls-for-free-public-college-for-all-fbe46efdfce7/
On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden announced that he won’t run for president. But he also took time to lay out a number of issues he wants to see addressed in the campaign, including college education.
“We’re fighting for 14 years,” he said, likely in reference to President Obama’s plan to provide two years of free community college. “We need to commit to 16 years of free public education for all our children,” he said.
“We all know that 12 years of public education is not enough,” he continued. “As a nation, let’s make the same commitment to a college education today that we made to a high school education 100 years ago.”
As he pointed out, the country guarantees free education from first through 12th grade, but students are by and large on their own to afford a college education. Tuition keeps climbing while student debt has tripled over the last decade. Today about 70 percent of students graduate with debt, owing $29,000 on average. Yet Pell Grants, the government’s direct aid program to help pay for the costs, cover the smallest percentage of college expenses since the program was created.
snip
April 24, 2019
LOL at MSNBC trying to bait Buttigieg and others into endorsing all INCARCERATED felons being given
the right to vote.
Fucking numpty rotters try to truly stir the shit, draw out a massive losing stance, AND carrying water for the Sanderites.
Steve Kornacki can fuck right off.
On edit, the ONLY reason I used the terms Sanderites in this post is that that was the driving force behind the entire segment, the panel was scolding Buttigieg and others for not living up to Bernie's stance. I find that fair game to call out. I am not taking a gratuitous potshot at his DU supporters.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,281