Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Last Call For It's Mueller Time, Con't

The legal question of if Congressional subpoenas of the Executive branch even matter anymore is one step closer to a conclusion, but don't expect White House Counsel Don McGahn to take any sort of stand before the 2020 election.

A federal appeals court convened a rare session of nine judges Tuesday to tackle an issue crucial to the future balance of power between the president and Congress: whether lawmakers can turn to the courts to enforce subpoenas aimed at exposing alleged wrongdoing in the executive branch. 
The high-stakes battle centers on the House’s demand for testimony from President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn. It could decide one of the most urgent political issues of Trump’s presidency, namely whether the White House can block Congress from using the legal system to force crucial witnesses to testify about alleged obstruction of justice by the president himself.

While the case judges mulled over Tuesday could ultimately resolve a centuries-old debate about the relationship between the political branches, it seems increasingly unlikely to be definitively decided on a timeline that would produce testimony from McGahn or other witnesses in advance of the November presidential election.

That reality, as some congressional Democrats feared, represents a win for Trump, whom they accused of tying up their case in unending litigation to prevent McGahn from publicly testifying about presidential wrongdoing. McGahn was a central witness in the two-year investigation led by former special counsel Robert Mueller into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians in 2016. 
He ultimately provided damning evidence that Trump repeatedly sought to obstruct the probe, though he declined to recommend criminal charges, citing a Justice Department prohibition on moving against a sitting president. 
House Democrats are hopeful for a victory from the full appeals court, which is heavy with appointees of President Barack Obama and generally seen as more favorable to their arguments than the three-judge panel the House drew earlier this year and ruled against them 2-1. 
But even if the D.C. Circuit ultimately orders McGahn to testify, Justice Department lawyers are expected to ask the Supreme Court to step in. The justices may well decide to freeze the status quo, putting potential high court arguments in the case off until the fall or winter and pushing off a final decision until well after Trump is sworn in for a second term as president or Joe Biden is sworn in for a first. 
The appeals court heard the case Tuesday by teleconference due to the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, it considered the McGahn dispute in tandem with another legal fight between the House and the Trump administration: a suit seeking to block officials from spending money on Trump’s border wall project.

While a ruling here will most likely come before the election, either way it goes to the Supreme Court this fall and won't be decided until next spring.  If Trump is still in the White House, we're going to have much larger problems than McGahn's testimony, I'm sure.

Biden, His Time Con't

Rebecca Traister argues that especially for women, there are no good choices for the Biden veepstakes, because whoever Biden does pick will immediately be called out for being part of the effort to bury the sexual assault allegations against him.

Part of what’s sickeningly clear is that if Biden remains the Democratic nominee, whichever woman gets the nod to be his running mate will wind up drinking from a poisoned chalice. Because the promise to choose a woman ensures that whoever she is, she will be forced to answer — over and over again — for Biden’s treatment of other women, including the serious allegations of assault leveled by Tara Reade. 
This double bind was already apparent this weekend, in advance of McHugh’s reporting, when New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confirmed once again that she would vote for Biden despite their sharp political differences. Ocasio-Cortez, who is progressive on many issues, has a long history of righteous fury at the ubiquity and impact of sexual harassment and assault. Back in 2018, she said that assault is “one of the most serious allegations anyone who cares to be a public servant can be accused of. Sexual assault is about the abuse of power. It is always women who are marginalized. It is the interns. It is the immigrants. It is the trans. They are always most at risk, because society listens to them the least.”

Ocasio-Cortez was also among the first politicians to suggest that Reade’s claims were “legitimate to talk about” and deserved further investigation, for which Reade thanked her on Twitter. But since Ocasio-Cortez has indicated that she intends to vote for Biden, Reade has told the conservative website the Daily Caller how disappointed she is that AOC has chosen to “toe the line,” and on Sunday she tweeted, “Those who remain silent are complicit to rape” and tagged Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, and Ocasio-Cortez; it was retweeted 6,000 times. 
One of the grim ironies here is that it’s some of these people who have worked most fiercely to keep Biden from becoming the nominee. But now that he is the presumptive choice, he may in fact be the only presidential bulwark against Donald Trump, who is both murderous and incompetent and whose reelection would lead to further cataclysmic collapse of our environment, health-care system, courts, and democracy, with fatal results that will redound more negatively to women than to men and most negatively of all to women with the fewest resources. In the fight to prevent this, Biden and his campaign will be calling on women — especially the women who have challenged him in the past, including on feminist grounds — to help him build support by rallying other women around him. That rallying will now have to entail somehow papering over the disgust and dismay provoked by multiple allegations of inappropriate touching and alleged assault made against yet another would-be president.
What a grievous mess. Biden’s critics on the left should be hoping for the selection of a powerful progressive to run alongside him, and perhaps succeed him, whenever that might be. But any politician who might fulfill those requirements — whether your fantasies run toward Warren or Abrams or Barbara Lee or Ayanna Pressley (AOC is too young) — will also, tautologically, be a politician who has taken an aggressive stand against sexual harassment and assault. So on the one hand, these are women who left-leaning feminists should hope Biden picks. They are women who themselves might for extremely good ideological reasons want to lead the country and see Biden’s vice-presidency as an opportunity to make his administration, and thus the country, better. Some, especially Abrams, have been very vocal about their desire for this job, which is itself a radical approach to voicing ambition. 
Yet in putting themselves forward as subsidiaries to Biden, in accepting an invitation that he might extend, or even in voicing their support for his campaign, these women wind up imperiling themselves by getting tied to him and the mess of his historical shortcomings, often on exactly the issues that have driven them into politics. In fact, they are quite likely to have their own history of righteous advocacy held up against them, used to make them look like hypocrites for agreeing to be on a ticket with a man who has been credibly accused of behavior they have aggressively condemned, and as sops to a system that they are in fact working hard to change. (These kinds of turnarounds have been made by former male rivals all the time, and, in fact, Bernie Sanders has come in for some criticism for having endorsed Biden after Reade’s allegations were made public; but we have a higher tolerance for inconvenient hypocrisy when it comes from male politicians, likely because we have centuries of experience with it and, in this case, because the contested ground — the unequal distribution of power along gendered lines — isn’t at the very heart of the matter.) 
But is the only alternative to hope that Biden picks a milquetoast woman who has never distinguished herself as a feminist or progressive advocate and who, therefore, dispiritingly, cannot be called out for hypocrisy? This is indeed one of my fears, as Reade’s story gets firmer corroboration and the Biden campaign and its supporters in the Democratic Party begin to grapple with its seriousness: Will it alter the calculus around his vice-presidential pick, leading him to pick A Woman whom he can count on to diminish Reade’s claims? Is the cost of a nominee who is a disappointment to many feminists on the left a running mate (and thus likely presidential successor) who is just as disappointing? Even those women will still be asked about Reade — Amy Klobuchar and Gretchen Whitmer, both reportedly on his shortlist, have already been asked about it — and any willingness to defend him or shield him from this story will leave them vulnerable to being held responsible for the misdeeds of the mediocre man to whom they will now be publicly bound. 
This kind of chilling calculus, even before the Reade allegations, led many Biden critics (including me) to hope that he did not become the nominee from the start. The damage often inflicted by sexual power abuses extend far beyond those who have been abused to others who are reliant on those accused of abuse — whether as employees, dependent economically; family members, dependent emotionally and economically; or voters, dependent politically. One of the hallmarks of systemic gender inequity is that women wind up paying for the misdeeds of the more powerful men to whom they are subsidiary, a setup that reinforces men’s ability to perpetuate and profit from abuse. 
Democratic women got a taste of this when Al Franken was accused of harassment. While he denied the allegations and asked for an investigation, his female colleagues were asked repeatedly by those on both sides of the aisle to condemn him or be understood as hypocrites — willing only to come out against those accused of harassment if they belong to the opposition party. Democratic women — including possible Biden VP picks Harris and, eventually, Franken’s close friend Warren — wound up asking that the Minnesota senator resign. New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a longtime advocate against sexual harassment and assault in the military and on college campuses, has not stopped paying the price for having been the first to call for Franken’s resignation. She was the first of the six women running to drop out of the Democratic presidential-primary contest this summer and is still widely cast as an opportunist, despite the fact that challenging widely beloved and powerful men has never been a golden goose for women in politics or public life in any era. Recently, when Gillibrand endorsed Biden and called him a “champion for women,” she was criticized for it. That criticism may have been fair, but it is also an illustration of the grim tax women are expected to pay, always in reaction to the more powerful men whose authority they don’t get to challenge without being pilloried for it, but that they always must carefully reflect and correctly comment on.

And make no mistake, if Biden loses, regardless of his running mate, even as feminists are being criticized for hypocrisy in not condemning him more swiftly, it will also be feminists and women who are blamed for his loss, for encouraging an environment in which claims of sexual harm are taken seriously enough to damage a politician.

Traister makes it clear early on that the choice between Biden and Trump is still a no-brainer in favor of Biden, but she also makes the solid point that the political cost to Biden's running mate will be catastrophic.

Luckily, there's one person in the Democratic party whose voice in this situation carries a lot of weight, and she's come down firmly on the side of believing Joe Biden.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president in a video released early Monday, becoming the latest Democratic heavyweight to formally back the presumptive Democratic nominee. Pelosi, who remained neutral during the primary, touted Biden as an experienced and tested leader well-positioned to handle America's current and future problems. "As we face coronavirus, Joe has been a voice of reason and resilience, with a clear path to lead us out of this crisis," Pelosi said, adding that he led the economic response to the Great Recession of 2008-09, helped save the Affordable Care Act, and was in charge of a high-profile "moonshot" to cure cancer. 
"I am proud to endorse Joe Biden for president: a leader who is the personification of hope and courage, values, authenticity, and integrity," Pelosi said. "With so much at stake, we need the enthusiasm, invigoration, and participation of all Americans — up and down the ballot, and across the country."

If there were anything to the accusations against Biden, Nancy Pelosi is the one person who could call for his head and get it.

She's endorsing him outright.

That's good enough for me.

Trump Goes Viral, Con't

Like a junkie unable to avoid a quick fix, Donald Trump canceled his narcissist speedball press conference for all of three hours yesterday before rescheduling it later Monday afternoon for a full-on Rose Garden presentation of the White House's big plan for "reopening the economy". It should be no surprise that the big plan is "states need to do more work".

President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the federal government should not be responsible for bailing out states and cities that are struggling financially because of the coronavirus pandemic
"Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help?" Trump tweeted Monday morning.

"I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?" he added. 
State and local governments have pressed for federal aid in recent weeks as the coronavirus pandemic dries up many of their revenue sources, threatening a fiscal catastrophe. State and local governments have said they may need as much as three-quarters of a trillion dollars. 

Mitch McConnell's "let them go bankrupt" comment last week on the states was such a disaster that he's now admitting money's going to come...but at a steep, steep price.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday there would likely be more money approved for state and local government relief in the next legislative package Congress passes to address the coronavirus outbreak, a shift in the messaging for the Kentucky Republican. 
McConnell last week said he wasn't sure if more money -- which is a key priority for Democrats and many Republicans -- was needed and indicated he was reluctant to provide billions to some state governments he believes have mismanaged their debt. 
"There probably will be another state and local funding bill," McConnell said in an interview with Fox News Radio on Monday. "But we need to make sure that we achieve something that will go beyond simply sending out money." 
The GOP leader also defended his remarks last week -- that caused an uproar with prominent Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and least a few high-profile Republicans -- that laws should be changed so states can declare bankruptcy to help them shed some of their debt. 
"I wasn't saying they had to take bankruptcy. I think it's just an option to be looked at that unfortunately states don't have that option now, cities do. I wasn't necessarily recommending it. But I was pointing out they have their own fiscal problems that predate the coronavirus and I was not interested in borrowing money from future generations to fix age old problems that states have that they created themselves wholly unrelated to this," he said. 
McConnell also said his "red line" in negotiations for the next legislative package is ensuring "litigation protections" for employers, businesses and healthcare professionals, shielding them from lawsuits, as states reopen. "The whole country will be afraid to go back to work... if businesses are afraid they're going to be sued constantly," he said.

So legal immunity for businesses who force their employees to go to work during a pandemic. This is McConnell's top priority.  Awesome.

Meanwhile, Trump wants America's kids to head back to school, despite the fact that basically the first thing all 50 states did was to close schools.

As states continue to roll out plans to reopen their economies, President Donald Trump told governors during a Monday phone call that they should also "seriously consider" reopening their schools. 
"Some of you might start thinking about school openings. Because a lot of people are wanting to have the school openings. It's not a big subject, young children have done very well in this disaster that we’ve all gone through," Trump told governors, according to a recording of the call obtained by ABC News. "So a lot of people are thinking about the school openings."

The president added the governors should "seriously consider" it and "maybe get going on it."

The "or else your state doesn't get a dime" is merely implied.  You see, Trump knows that if governors send kids back to school, all the governors go down with him should things turn horrific with new cases and kids getting sick and dying.

That's where we are right now, with Trump trying to be as sociopathic as possible while touting an 8-point plan for reopening the economy that according to the White House already has 7 points done.

This is like checking off my plan to write a college research paper with step 1 being "wake up" and step 8 being "Write research paper".

Utterly sad.


Related Posts with Thumbnails