Black Lives Still Matter, Con't

South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott has served his purpose: being the Black face of "criminal justice reform" for the Republican Party and subsequently killing said reforms for good.

Bipartisan congressional talks on overhauling policing practices have ended without an agreement, top bargainers from both parties said Wednesday, marking the collapse of an effort that began after killings of unarmed Black people by officers sparked protests across the U.S.

“It was clear that we were not making the progress that we needed to make,” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told reporters. He cited continued disagreements over Democrats’ efforts to make officers personally liable for abuses, raising professional standards and collecting national data on police agencies’ use of force.

Booker said he’d told South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the lead Republican negotiator, of his decision earlier Wednesday. Talks had moved slowly for months, and it had became clear over the summer that the chances for a breakthrough were all but hopeless.

Scott said he was “deeply disappointed” that Democrats had walked away from accords reached on several issues, including banning chokeholds, curbing the transfer of military equipment to police and increased funds for mental health programs, which address problems that often lead to encounters with law enforcement officers.

“Crime will continue to increase while safety decreases, and more officers are going to walk away from the force because my negotiating partners walked away from the table,” Scott said in a statement.

Democrats rejected a deal “because they could not let go of their push to defund our law enforcement,” said Scott, using a catchphrase of progressives from which most Democrats in Congress have disassociated themselves. “Once again, the Left let their misguided idea of perfect be the enemy of good, impactful legislation.”

The congressional effort followed high-profile, fatal police shootings last year of Black people including George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky. Those killings and protest demonstrations in scores of cities that followed called attention to abusive police behavior and the disproportionately high number of Blacks who are victims of fatal encounters with law enforcement.

Repeated visits to Washington by the families of Floyd, Taylor and others helped keep pressure on the issue.

But in the end, Booker said, “I couldn’t get to a point where I can meet with families and tell them that we were going to address the specific issues that were putting your family member in harm’s way.”

Booker cited support parts of the effort had won from police organizations, and said he was talking to the White House, other congressional Democrats and civil rights and other outside groups about still making some progress on the issue. But he avoided specifics.

“I just want to make it clear that this is not an end,” he said.

 

Scott is lying about defunding the police, but you can actually thank far left Democrats for falling into Scott's trap on it. Any efforts by Booker and Democrats for real police reform would have been called "defunding the police" and would have died in the Senate, and Booker got sick of it after eight months and walked away. 

Exactly what I said would happen on police reform happened.

Nothing.

Black Lives Still Matter though.

Black Lives Still Matter

ZVTS readers were right, as you usually are.

Now we know why last week's GOP Sen. Tim Scott "police reform" bill was such a screamingly obvious trap to try to turn white voters against Black Lives Matter and the Democrats, and Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris in particular. Something that terrible needed a Trojan Horse introduction, and it got one through former Obama adviser turned CNN "race expert" Van Jones.

Jones went on CNN’s Inside Politics with John King and Anderson Cooper 360 to enthusiastically commend Trump’s executive order—even as it was being criticized as cynical and unproductive by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and “delusional” by the Color of Change, an influential racial justice organization that Jones himself co-founded in 2005.  

CNN viewers weren’t informed that he had actually attended secret White House meetings with his new friend Jared Kushner, discussing ways to frame the presidential project. 

According to a knowledgeable White House source, who expressed satisfaction that there were zero leaks, Jones and California human rights attorney Jessica Jackson, who runs #cut50, a prison-reform group that Jones also founded, actively participated with law enforcement officials and White House staffers to help fashion the order and guide the politics of the discussion to what they considered “the sweet spot” between law enforcement and “the reasonable middle” and “the reasonable left.” 

Skyping from his Los Angeles home, with a biography of Nelson Mandela and a Black Panther graphic novel visible on the bookshelf behind him, Jones told viewers of CNN’s noon show Inside Politics: “The executive order is a good thing, mainly because you saw the support of law enforcement there... There is movement in the direction of a database for bad cops. We have never had a federal database for bad cops, that’s why all these cops go all over the place doing bad stuff… The chokeholds, that’s common ground now between Nancy Pelosi and Trump. Good stuff there.” 

Hours later, Jones doubled down on Anderson Cooper 360—again without disclosing his role advising the Trump White House. “What do you make of this executive order?” Cooper asked him. 

“I think it’s pushing in the right direction,” Jones told the CNN anchor. “What you got today is, I think, a sign that we are winning,” he added. “Donald Trump has put himself on record saying we need to reform the police department… We are winning! Donald Trump had no plan a month ago to work on this issue at all. The fact that we are now in the direction of moving forward, I think, is good.” 

During a Rose Garden ceremony that was actually a Trump campaign event—at which the president defended the police, touted his commitment to “law and order,” boasted about the stock market and the pre-coronavirus economy, and attacked Joe Biden—Trump was flanked by uniformed officers and police union officials as he signed the executive order in response to the pandemic of unjustified killings of unarmed Black Americans by white cops. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quick to call the event “a photo op” and the executive order “seriously short of what is required”; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer panned it as “weak tea” and the Rev. Al Sharpton—a longtime ally of Jones going back to the 1990s, when Jones was a self-avowed “radical” and social justice activist in Oakland—derided it as “toothless and meaningless” because it gives lip service, but no legal mandate, to banning chokeholds (unless officers decide their lives are at risk), improving police training, making use of mental health professionals, and keeping a national registry of bad cops. 

“I did not think the executive order was worth the paper it was written on,” Sharpton told The Daily Beast. “Van’s experiment with Trump is a case of him having more faith than I have, but I’m not going to attack him for doing it…I think he’s well-intentioned, but I think he totally underestimates the kind of guy he’s dealing with. I just disagree that the people he’s dealing with have a sincere bone in their body. But I can’t fault him for trying.”

Man, the best part of the article is Al Sharpton coming in with "Well at least he tried" church senior pastor to the junior pastor who went out on his own and got his wings clipped by city council shade I've seen in some time.

I understand that the perfect cannot become the enemy of the good, believe me.  But Van Jones and Trump's toothless executive order weren't good at all.  It was designed to e a palatable trap, and Van Jones helped them do it.

That pisses me off something fierce.

Black Lives Still Matter, Con't

Senate Democrats see right through GOP Sen. Tim Scott's "police reform" bill and will block it, giving Mitch McConnell exactly what he wants, a roll call vote against the lone black Republican senator's legislation being used as a cudgel to discredit Black Lives Matter.

The Senate's police reform debate is on a trajectory to crash and burn this week.

Top Democratic senators told Mitch McConnell on Tuesday that the Republicans’ policing overhaul is “not salvageable” — the latest sign that Democrats will filibuster the GOP bill on Wednesday and that the Senate is headed for deadlock on the issue.

In a letter to the majority leader, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) demanded that McConnell bring “meaningful legislation” to the floor and argued the GOP plan is not enough as even a starting point for negotiations. Republicans were immediately incredulous that after demanding a debate for days, Democrats were now ready to shut it down before it truly started.

McConnell says if Democrats want to amend his proposal, they need to cough up the seven votes needed to get to 60 and break a filibuster. Yet Harris, Booker and Schumer said they need a bipartisan negotiation at the outset rather than simply taking up a partisan police bill — and that even amendments can’t save the legislation written by GOP Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). Schumer said there is "overwhelming opposition" to the legislation among Democrats.

“We will not meet this moment by holding a floor vote on the JUSTICE Act, nor can we simply amend this bill, which is so threadbare and lacking in substance that it does not even provide a proper baseline for negotiations,” the three senators wrote to McConnell.

The debate comes amid a national reckoning on race and police violence after the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and nationwide protests.

Republicans’ proposal creates incentives for local police departments to reform their policies to stop misconduct; Democrats want to establish stiffer federal standards against the use of force and ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

Scott's bill currently has no Democratic supporters in the Senate and was brought directly to the floor rather than through the Judiciary Committee, where it could have been amended and negotiated by committee leaders. Republicans had not planned to hold a vote in June, but scrambled to restructure their agenda after the wave of protests as well as statements by Scott that the party needed to seize the moment now.
The note from the Democratic leader as well as its two Black members demonstrates that most other Senate Democrats are ready to block the GOP proposal absent new negotiations. Schumer said that "Leader McConnell is leading the Senate into a cul-de-sac: A process designed to fail."

It's designed to fail and always was, but a lot of voters aren't going to see it that way.

They're going to see the two Black senators, especially Kamala Harris, in the running for Biden's VP slot, voting against "police reform" and it's going to hurt, if not wreck, Harris's chances.

Which is precisely what Mitch McConnell wants and will get.  I'm upset that Senate Democrats fell for the trap again, but it's Kamala Harris who will pay dearly for this. The other half of the trap is already in play.

BET founder Robert Johnson is calling on the Black Lives Matter movement to form an independent political party. “I think it’s time that African Americans form an independent party, not be an appendage of one party or ignored by the other party.” pic.twitter.com/WBIyfbxAVx

— CNBC (@CNBC) June 23, 2020

This was always how Black Lives Matter was going to be destroyed, by using it as an excuse to convince Black voters to leave the Democratic party.

I'm angry as hell that the Dems are walking right into this "Blexit" bullcrap.

Meanwhile in Alabama, the FBI is saying that the noose found in Bubba Wallace's garage stall had been there since October of last year and there was no hate crime involved against NASCAR's only black driver.

NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime, the FBI has concluded after completing its investigation at Talladega (Ala.) Superspeedway, NASCAR announced in a statement Tuesday afternoon.

“The FBI report concludes, and photographic evidence confirms, that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall,” NASCAR’s statement read. “This was obviously well before the 43 team’s arrival and garage assignment.”

NASCAR President Steve Phelps is expected to address the development Tuesday evening in a conference call with reporters.

Wallace, 26, who is NASCAR’s only African American driver on its elite Cup series, had called for the sport to ban the displays of the Confederate flag at its tracks earlier this month, and the sport did so June 10, triggering outrage among a subset of fans.

In other words the FBI's story is that it wasn't a noose, and it was pure coincidence that Wallace had been assigned the stall with the rope pull in the garage that happened to look kind of like a noose.

Sure. I guess.

Good job, NASCAR and the FBI.

Last Call For Dancing With Who Brought You

Democratic candidates in Iowa are chasing those elusive Midwestern working-class whites, and black women in the Hawkeye State are saying the field is taking the black vote for granted.  Again.

Blow dryers hum. Electric razors buzz. Steam rolls off strands of hair as they glide through a hot flat iron. This is the scene, on a brisk Saturday morning, at Tranzitions Salon & Beauty Bar in Des Moines, Iowa. A place where black women convene to talk beauty, business and, sometimes, politics.

The Hawkeye State is preparing for what the Iowa Democratic Party predicts will be record turnout at this year’s presidential nominating caucus on Monday.

But, some black women say they may sit this one out.

“I'm not sure if I’ll caucus this year,” 63-year old Cheryl Barnes told NBC News. “Because I'm not sure about the candidates yet.”

Brandy McCracken, a 42-year-old Democrat, echoed that sentiment. “It will basically come down to me finding time to caucus — if there's someone that interests me.”

These women are not alone in their indecision. The latest Iowa poll shows only 40 percent of likely caucusgoers have picked a candidate. However, what may distinguish this group is why they remain largely undecided.

While black women, including Barnes and McCracken, turned out in droves to help secure a caucus win for Barack Obama in 2008, some say this time around they feel left out of the special treatment that comes with being a voter in the state up first in the presidential nominating process.

"They're reaching out more to the rural areas of Iowa than they are in Des Moines to me,” said 61-year-old Kim McCracken-Smith. “And in rural Iowa, there's no black people.”
Obama’s historic win in Iowa in 2008 came with his managing to pick up key delegates in rural Iowa while also winning counties in the state where voters of color are concentrated.

African Americans make up only about about 4 percent of the state's population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But with such a large field of candidates heading into caucus night, community activists say every vote this year will matter.

“Those are the kind of percentages that get you over the hump when it’s close, and it’s going to be close in a lot of places,” Izaah Knox, executive director of Urban Dreams, a community organization in Des Moines, told NBC News.

While campaigns have worked to replicate Obama’s diverse coalition of voters — with many hiring outreach directors tasked with targeting specific communities — that hasn’t been enough to win over some black caucusgoers.

Some potential caucusgoers said the outreach they’ve received has seemed rote and impersonal.

“I’ve just been getting these generic text messages and calls that I know are just the standard they’re reading off of the paper,” TranZitions salon owner Tyechia Daye said. “Come and see us — if you want our votes.”

It's weird that with every candidate still in the race saying they need every vote and every delegate in order to get through the first four contests to Super Tuesday a month from now, how this is happening and how black voters in red state primaries are being ignored.

Then again, I live in Kentucky, I know exactly what this feels like.  Oh wait, Obama came here three times in 2008.  Booker and Harris did visit black Iowans too, but Booker and Harris were run out of the race before a single vote was cast.

We notice stuff like this, guys.  Just saying.

Last Call For Another Hat Leaves The Ring, Con't

Sen. Cory Booker is out of the 2020 presidential contest and that's not a good thing.

Sen. Cory Booker announced Monday that he will end his campaign after failing to qualify for the Democratic debate planned for Tuesday in Iowa. 

"It was a difficult decision to make, but I got in this race to win, and I've always said I wouldn't continue if there was no longer a path to victory," Booker said in an email to supporters Monday. 

The New Jersey Democrat's announcement came a day before six presidential candidates will participate in the CNN/Des Moines Register's debate in Des Moines, Iowa. He did not qualify for the event. It also came as the Senate gears up for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. 

"Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win -- money we don't have, and money that is harder to raise because I won't be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington," Booker wrote. 

His announcement marks another departure of a high-profile black candidate from the 2020 race. After not making the December debate, Booker criticized the rules that kept him from qualifying for the event and was outspoken about the growing lack of diversity on stage.

It's that last part that's a genuine problem for Democrats. A party that is almost majority non-white having long-shots Andrew Yang and Deval Patrick as the only non-white presidential hopefuls heading into Iowa in three weeks is not the situation I'd hoped the Dems would be in.

Booker will continue to fight for criminal justice reform along with Kamala Harris and I wish him well, but it was clear that this remains a problem.  Biden is still the safe and comfortable choice increasingly for black voters like myself who are afraid that we will greatly suffer if Trump wins a second term, and nobody seems to want to address this situation directly to show us that they're any better.

I don't ever want to vote out of fear, but hope.  I understand those who do, however.  Especially in 2020.

It's a matter of survival.

One Versus Six

The impeachment of Donald Trump won't be over anytime soon, and a Senate trial, assuming Mitch McConnell doesn't just toss the whole proceeding in the fireplace, could last well into the 2020 campaign season.  That means six Democratic (well, 5 and Bernie) Senators are going to have to balance a trial that could last months with a primary campaign, and that's very much the realm of uncharted waters.

On its current path, the impeachment case against President Donald Trump is on a collision course with perhaps the most pivotal period in the Democratic primary, threatening to unravel the campaign plans of some of the top 2020 contenders. 

The House is unlikely to vote on impeachment until the end of the year, meaning the Senate trial against Trump figures to begin in January — just weeks before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses. It’s an event that could require the six Democratic presidential prospects to remain in Washington every workday for at least a month.

Depending on when the trial begins, or if it drags on, the trial could affect the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, a day shy of the 21st anniversary of President Clinton’s acquittal after a five-week Senate trial.

There’s no consensus over which Democratic contenders are advantaged by an impeachment trial. Candidates such as Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg won’t be chained to senatorial desks, leaving them to stump unfettered in the two early states. But the six senators — Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren — will occupy the national spotlight as jurors, located at the center of the political universe of impeachment. 

“We’re in uncharted waters. There’s no model for this,” said Joel Benenson, an adviser to Buttigieg and alum of Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. “We’ve never seen an impeachment trial in a presidential election year ever, let alone multiple senators running for president.” 

Aside from being away from the campaign trail during the trial, the senators would face an additional potential burden: They wouldn’t be allowed to speak publicly on the matter in chambers during the weeks-long trial because they’re supposed to sit as silent jurors — a rare restriction for politicians accustomed to using congressional hearings as opportunities to grandstand or create a viral moment. They could comment during breaks outside of the Senate chamber, however. 

The complexities of a Senate trial and its effects on the Democratic primary are only now being discussed in earnest in top Democratic circles. The conversation came into sharp focus after Thursday’s House vote ratified the impeachment process that, if all goes the way House leadership hopes, would end by the holiday season, with Hanukkah starting Dec. 22. That would put a Senate trial as the first and only order of constitutional business to start the new year.

We'll see where things go, but if I'm Mitch McConnell, I want to drag my feet on this for months, causing chaos though at least Super Tuesday and possibly beyond by calling witness after witness in a Senate trial and keeping Democrats tied up and unable to do much of anything for January through March, especially if the plan is to set up Biden for a fall.

Or then again, the trial could be over a day.  I don't know how Mitch is going to play it, and anyone who does is lying.

Last Call For Our Little Domestic Terrorism Problem, Con't

Another week, another arrest of a monster spurred on by Trump who wanted to kill Democrats, especially black Democrats.

Federal authorities today announced that John Kless, a 49-year-old resident of Tamarac in Broward County, called three Democrats at their Washington, D.C. offices April 16 and left voicemail messages threatening murder. The lawmakers included California Congressman Eric Swalwell, Detroit Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

In all three messages, Kless referenced his hatred for Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar — repeatedly calling her a "towel head" and a member of the Taliban. In his message to Tlaib's office, Kless referenced Omar's recent "some people did something"comments about 9/11 — a statement Omar made to argue that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of the few who committed the attacks. But conservatives have taken Omar's comments entirely out of context to falsely argue that Omar was diminishing the impact or tragedy of 9/11.

"It was your Taliban bitch, the one who opened up her fucking towel-head mouth about how 'some people did it,'" Kless allegedly said in his message to Tlaib. "You know what? She's lucky she's just getting death threats, bitch. So are you. All right? You're lucky they're just threats, motherfucker, 'cause the day when the bell tolls, whore, and this country comes to a war, there will be no more threats. Your life will be on the fucking line."

Kless allegedly continued to say the following: 

No one wants to fucking hear you or that other little whore. I'd like to take that bitch and throw her right off the Empire State Building, that fucking whore. Tell her to shut her fucking mouth. You fucking fuck her all the time probably. So tell her to shut the fuck up, all right? From one towel head to another. You stanking, fucking, smelly, fucking bitch. Fuck off. I wish all of you the worst. You can go fuck off in life. Fuck you, and fuck Mohammed too, you bitch fucking cunt.

Kless also allegedly criticized Swalwell's stance on gun control. Kless reportedly said if Swalwell enacted gun-safety laws, someone would kill the lawmaker. He also called Swalwell a communist.

"The day you come after our guns, motherfucker, is the day you'll be dead," Kless said, according to a federal indictment. He added, "You're gonna die. Don't wanna do that shit, boy. You'll be [on] your deathbed, motherfucker, along with the rest of you Democrats. So if you want death, keep that shit up, motherfucker."

Kless repeatedly used the N-word to refer to Booker and called him a "monkey," according to court records, adding he wanted to kill black men like the senator. "You're a fucking disgrace," Kless allegedly said. "We need to kill all you motherfuckers, man, every fucking one of you, man." He added that the terror attack in Charlottesville, Virginia — in which a white supremacist drove a car into progressive protester Heather Heyer — killed only "one fucking person." He then said Booker should tell his "colleague with the towel on her head to shut up about 9/11."

Wonderful man.

Really is a race at this point to see if Capitol Police and the FBI can keep Democrats safe from Trump fans.

Another Hat Lands In The Ring, Con't

Both former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and NJ Sen. Cory Booker have now entered the 2020 race.  Booker is fighting his own soft on Wall Street record, something that may prove fatal to his hopes, but Schultz's independent bid died within days, as America isn't about to hand the country over to a billionaire jackass who got rich selling $6 coffees.

Change Research conducted a poll from January 31-February 1 of 1,338 likely 2020 general election voters to assess former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s potential independent candidacy for President in 2020. 

Schultz is less known to the electorate than other declared and potential presidential candidates (56% have never heard of him or don’t have an opinion). 

Among those who have an opinion, just 4% view him favorably compared to 40% unfavorably — a 10:1 unfavorable to favorable ratio, far higher than any other candidate tested (for comparison, 52% of respondents rate President Trump unfavorably vs. 42% favorably). 

Schultz is viewed unfavorably by Democrats (50% unfavorable — 4% favorable), Republicans (43% unfavorable — 4% favorable), and Independents (31% unfavorable — 4% favorable).

Change Research tested hypothetical matchups with and without Schultz of Trump running against different Democrats: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, and Bernie Sanders, with the order shown randomized. 

Schultz takes an average of four points away from what the Democratic candidate receives in a two-way race, while taking just 1% away from Donald Trump. That means Schultz’s presence in the race makes Trump’s margins between 2 and 4 points better than they would be without him in the race.

So no, at this point all Schultz would do is hurt the Democratic candidate and everyone knows it.  He's looking for the exit, and a lot of centrists are suddenly feeling rather scared.

The rising Democratic enthusiasm for big government liberalism is forcing a trio of leading 2020 contenders to rethink jumping in, several sources tell Axios.

What's happening: Michael Bloomberg and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, each of whom were virtual locks to run, are having serious second thoughts after watching Democrats embrace "Medicare for All," big tax increases and the Green New Deal. Joe Biden, who still wants to run, is being advised to delay any plans to see how this lurch to the left plays out. If Biden runs, look for Bloomberg and McAuliffe to bow out, the sources tell us.

That would leave Biden as the only real Obama-era centrist in the race unless Hillary decides to come back, and somehow, I don't think either one is going to be a primary favorite come this time next year.

Cory Booker on the other hand has more of a chance, but he has a lot of Senate baggage to overcome, especially on Wall Street.

Mr. Booker announced his candidacy on the first day of Black History Month to the sound of snare drums and with a clarion call for unity. In an email to supporters, he drew on the spirit of the civil rights movement as he laid out his vision for a country that will “channel our common pain back into our common purpose.”

“The history of our nation is defined by collective action; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists; of those born here and those who chose America as home; of those who took up arms to defend our country, and those who linked arms to challenge and change it,” Mr. Booker said in an accompanying video.

The Democratic field now features two black contenders — Mr. Booker and Senator Kamala Harris of California — and four women: Ms. Harris, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, and Representative Tulsi Gabbard. There is also a Hispanic candidate, Julián Castro, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Barack Obama, and a gay candidate, Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind.

The field reflects a party in which women and candidates of color have injected a surge of new energy, and given urgency to the Democrats’ imperative of ousting President Trump. And it follows midterm elections in which women and minority candidates for Congress won in record numbers and have assumed some key positions in party ranks.

“It shows the growth of the country and that many of us who have struggled for civil and human rights feel that we are in a new moment that we wanted,’’ the Rev. Al Sharpton said in an interview. He added: “It’s like the new America against the old America and a lot of Americans who are older and younger want to make sure they participate in the new America.”

We'll see.  At this point, I'm ignoring all the polls until 2020 rolls around, because frankly at this stage they don't matter (unless you're Howard Schultz and polling at a 4% favorability number.)

Last Call For Supreme Misgivings, Con't

Republicans have been doing everything possible to hide the judicial record of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, from scrutiny.  They've sat on literally one million such documents, and only released about 45,000 of them the night before the Senate Judiciary hearings got underway on Tuesday.  

When Democrats objected to such nonsense, chair Sen. Chuck Grassley assured the Democrats that his office had reviewed every document, and that it was Democrats who were not doing due diligence.

Cory Booker then went off, daring Grassley to cesure him by releasing these documents himself.

Still, that meant hundreds of thousands of documents were being blocked under executive privilege from Kavanaugh's time working as White House counsel for George W. Bush. and it was only a matter of time before the nastier documents on Kavanaugh's judicial views leaked to the press.

As a White House lawyer in the Bush administration, Judge Brett Kavanaugh challenged the accuracy of deeming the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision to be “settled law of the land,” according to a secret email obtained by The New York Times.

The email, written in March 2003, is one of thousands of documents that a lawyer for President George W. Bush turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Supreme Court nominee but deemed “committee confidential,” meaning it could not be made public or discussed by Democrats in questioning him in hearings this week. It was among several an unknown person provided to The New York Times late Wednesday.

Judge Kavanaugh was considering a draft opinion piece that supporters of one of Mr. Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees hoped they could persuade anti-abortion women to submit under their names. It stated that “it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.”

Judge Kavanaugh proposed deleting that line, writing: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

[Read the e-mail.]

He was presumably referring to then-Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, conservatives who had dissented in a 1992 case that reaffirmed Roe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court now has four conservative justices who may be willing to overturn Roe — Justices Thomas and John C. Roberts Jr., Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — and if he is confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could provide the decisive fifth vote.

Still, his email stops short of saying whether he personally believed that the abortion rights precedent should be considered a settled legal issue.

This alone should have disqualified Kavanaugh, clearly he's going to overturn Roe and allow states to decide whether or not abortion is legal.

What Democrats are going to do to stop him, I don't know, but the charade is clearly over.

Last Call For Haley And The Comments

After being made to look stupid and foolish by being the Trump regime grunt to float the notion that the US would be dropping out of the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea in February because of "security issues with North Korea" (and totally not because Putin and the Russians were kicked out for doping and Russia demanded Trump abandon them in order to delegitimatize the Games) UN Ambassador Nikki Haley suddenly has an issue with her boss, the serial abuser of women.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Sunday, in light of a growing number of probes into sexual misconduct against lawmakers, that "the time has come" to start bringing "a conscience" to the situation surrounding the treatment of women in the workplace as well as on Capitol Hill.

When asked what she thinks of the "cultural shift" taking place in the U.S., Haley said she is "incredibly proud of the women who have come forward." 

"I'm proud of their strength. I'm proud of their courage," Haley said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."

Haley's comments came after three lawmakers in one week, including Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan and Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, announced they would step down from office following allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment. 

When asked to assess similar allegations of misconduct leveled against President Trump during the 2016 campaign, Haley replied, "Women who accuse anyone should be heard. They should be heard and they should be dealt with."

"I think we heard from them prior to the election. And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up," she added.

Considering the White House's official position on the more than dozen women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct is "every single one of these women is lying and should not be believed" Haley's statement is a serious problem for the Trump regime now.

How much of a problem remains to be seen, but this is the first real crack in the unified regime defense of Trump's admitted sexual assault.  I have a feeling that the first woman that the regime will "hear and deal with" is Haley herself.

Meanwhile, Democrats are at least starting to say in the post-Franken era that Trump should actually resign, to his credit, Bernie Sanders did on Twitter last week but now NJ Dem Sen. Cory Booker has called for Trump to resign.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker called on President Donald Trump to resign Saturday night over the allegations of sexual harassment that have dogged him since the presidential campaign.

Booker made the comments at a campaign appearance in Alabama for Democratic candidate Doug Jones, who is locked in a tight race against a Republican candidate facing his own allegations of sexual abuse, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. 

Sen. Al Franken resigned this week under growing pressure from members of his own party after multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him. But Booker said Trump’s record was worse. 

“I just watched Sen. Al Franken do the honorable thing and resign from his office. My question is, why isn’t Donald Trump doing the same thing — who has more serious allegations against him, with more women who have come forward. The fact pattern on him is far more damning than the fact pattern on Al Franken,” Booker said in an interview with VICE News.

Oregon Dem. Sen Jeff Merkley is also calling for Trump's resignation.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley on Thursday called on President Trump to resign due to accusations by multiple women that Trump sexually harassed or sexually assaulted them. 

"The president should resign because he certainly has a track record with more than 17 women of horrific conduct," Merkley said during an appearance on MSNBC's Meet The Press. Merkley joins Sen. Bernie Sanders in calling for Trump to quit his office. Sanders said Thursday that Trump should "think about resigning" because he faces multiple sexual misconduct allegations.

This is a no-brainer for all Democrats in DC right now:  Al Franken and John Conyers (and Republican Trent Franks now) resigned over much less.  When does Trump step down?

Cory Throws The Booker At Jeff

I've had my differences with Cory Booker in the past (there's zero chance you end up a US senator from New Jersey without Wall Street money getting involved) but it looks like he's willing to start taking on Trump, beginiing with his "esteemed Senate colleague" Jeff Sessions.

Sen. Cory Booker is set to make history this week when he testifies before the Judiciary Committee against Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination for attorney general in hearings that begin Tuesday morning. 

Booker's office said Monday that the Senate historian had been unable to find any previous instance of a sitting senator testifying against a fellow sitting senator nominated for a Cabinet position. 

Noting that "I'm breaking a pretty long Senate tradition," the New Jersey Democrat said Monday on MSNBC's "All In": "We've seen Jeff Sessions — that's Senator Jeff Sessions — consistently voting against or speaking out against key ideals of the Voting Rights Act, taking measures to try to block criminal justice reform." 

"He has a posture and a positioning that I think represent a real danger to our country," Booker said.

In 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee killed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sessions to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after four former Justice Department colleagues testified that he had made racially offensive statements. 

Sessions, R-Alabama, turned the rejection into a launchpad for his political career. He was elected attorney general of Alabama before being elected in 1996 to the U.S. Senate, where he is considered among the more conservative members.

That's unheard of for a reason: Booker's not going to be making very many friends with this move. One has to wonder if he doesn't plan on being in the Senate too much longer, or if he has higher political aspirations.

Several other prominent African-American figures in addition to Booker also plan to testify against Sessions, including two members of the House: Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, a leader of the civil rights movement of the 1960s; and Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-Louisiana, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

The NAACP has also strongly opposed Sessions' nomination, calling him "a threat to desegregation and the Voting Rights Act."

According to prepared remarks obtained by NBC News, Sessions will testify that he understands "the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters." 

The only African-American Republican senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, said in a statement Monday that he would be supporting Session's nomination after placing "special emphasis" on the decision at a time of "racial and societal unrest like we have not seen in a generation." 

Scott said after doing his own homework, working with Sessions for four years and meeting with him personally, that he had determined Sessions to be a "consistently fair person" who is committed to upholding the Constitution.

I'm not under the naive impression that any of Trump's nominees will be blocked.  Frankly I expect Sessions to sail through and get plenty of Democrats voting for him, particularly those Democrats in red states like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.  To his credit, Ohio's Sherrod Brown says he'll already oppose Sessions regardless.  But I think he'll still end up getting at least 60 votes.

The one nominee who may actually be in trouble is Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, her hearing has already been delayed until next week over serious financial and ethical questions.

But we'll see what Booker can do here.

The Core Of Cory Booker

Over at TNR, Ryan Cooper asks why Sen. Cory Booker is "trying to undermine President Obama" on Iran sanctions despite last weekend's agreement to move forward with a six-month interim deal starting Monday.

American and Iranian negotiators came to an agreement Sunday on a six-month deal to put the Iranian nuclear program on hold in exchange for easing sanctions slightly, in the hopes of reaching a more permanent agreement in the interim. Meanwhile, at last count, 59 senators are supporting a bill that would impose new sanctions—among them Cory Booker, the brand-new New Jersey senator. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto it. 

The bill's supporters insist that they're simply trying to improve the U.S. negotiating posture. On Twitter, Booker insisted that he favors a peaceful solution, adding, "I'm 4 additional sanctions if current negotiations fail 2 start or fail 2 work." A senior aide told Joshua Hersh and Ryan Grim, "The goal isn't to disrupt things, it's to make Iran even more willing to make serious concessions by making them aware of what will happen if they don't." 

This isn't credible. First of all, the administration presumably has some idea of what's best for its negotiating position, and it has been lobbying furiously against new sanctions. Second, the timing is suspect—these senators hurriedly drew up this bill only after the breakthrough in negotiations was announced. Third, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif himself said new sanctions would signal a lack of good faith that would kill any long-term agreement. 

No, this bill is an attempt to kill the Iran deal, whether Booker and company admit that or not. No other explanation makes half as much sense.

Yes and no.  Booker's "good cop, bad cop" explanation is overly simplistic, but so is "He's undermining the President".  The reality is a lot more complex.

This is Booker's first major Israel vote as a Senator, and like it or not, Democrat or not, a Senator from New York or New Jersey in post-9/11 America is going to take the hard line again Iran, even if he's a dove like Booker.  This is as much a regional political reality as Jay Rockefeller being nice to King Coal, Mary Landreiu and Mark Begich being nice to offshore drilling, and Harry Reid (or Booker himself now) respecting the casino gaming industry.

Secondly, I have a problem calling Cory Booker specifically out over this.  Why not the other Senate Dems backing this bill, including Schumer, Gillibrand, and Menendez?  No offense, but if the issue is bowing to AIPAC, Schumer and Menendez in particular have a hell of a lot more to answer for.  Booker just got to the Senate...and he never would have if he didn't toe this particular line.

Cooper ends with this:

The activist left has been disappointed by much of the Obama presidency, wrong-footed in the face of an austerian coalition between the center and an energized, reactionary right. But from New York to Los Angeles, there is clearly some new momentum on the left. If these Senate Dems manage to kill the Iran negotiations, or push us into yet another Middle East catastrophe, none of them will ever be president.

He's correct on that account. The activist left was disappointed in Obama from day one, of course. But I'm going to say that if Iran wanted to kill these negotiations, they'd find an excuse to do it, and hanging that on Cory Booker's neck is almost as bad as continuing to be disappointed in President Obama, who got this deal done in the first place.

I don't agree with it.  But that's how the game works.  You can either play the game and try to change it, or let the Republicans run it.  I'm going to go with the former.

Last Call For Steve Lonegan

Oh look, in a result that surprised precisely nobody, Cory Booker has beaten Steve Lonegan in today's special election for New Jersey Senate.

Can't imagine why voters would be angry at Republicans on today of all days, now can you.

Last Call For Getting The Shaftan

Just in case anyone still thought Republican Steve Lonegan had any realistic shot at upsetting Democrat and Newark Mayor Cory Booker for New Jersey Senate next week, the answer to that question is "Lonegan just fired his senior staffer over a massive gaffe".

Republican New Jersey Senate candidate Steve Lonegan said Friday he planned to fire his senior staffer Rick Shaftan after Shaftan made several several profanity-filled remarks about Lonegan's opponent, Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, earlier in the week.

"Mr. Shaftan's comments are not reflective of my views or that of my campaign," Lonegan said in a statement through his campaign spokesman. "His comments are distasteful and offensive, and his contract as a vendor for my campaign will be terminated immediately."

Shaftan gave an interview to TPM on Thursday in which he described Twitter messages Booker sent to an Oregon stripper as "weird" and "like what a gay guy would say." A spokeswoman for Booker's campaign described Shaftan's remarks as "disgraceful and demeaning."

Republicans can't run away from the Pretty Hate Machine they've constructed, and America is sick of it. The federal shutdown is going to hand Cory Booker a huge win (Terry McAuliffe too in VA for Gov) and the goal now is to remind everyone that this is the GOP and will be until the Tea Party is expunged.

Last Call For Cory Booker's Doormat

Three observations on Steve Lonegan, the Republican running to lose spectacularly to Cory Booker in October's special election in NJ:

1)  Steve Lonegan is an idiot, has no chance in hell, and will lose by 20 points.

New Jersey Senate candidate Steve Lonegan (R) told MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki on Saturday that single mothers don’t need to rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, because his mother raised a family by working hard and building a successful career following the death of her husband.

“We never had to have SNAP, when I was a kid,” Lonegan said during an appearance on Up with Steve Kornacki. “Ok, so, this thing that every single mother is the poster child for the welfare state is nonsense… I know a lot of single moms go out to work and do very, very well for themselves.”

2)   Why is Up with Steve Kornacki giving Lonegan a platform anyway?

3)  I'm hoping the answer to number 2 there is "to show people Steve Lonegan is an idiot and has no chance in hell, he's going to lose by 20 points."  I'm not so sure about Kornacki's motives.

4) This is the 15,000th post on ZVTS.  Damn I write a lot.

Last Call

Cory Booker is running for Senate in 2014, probably eliciting a sigh of relief from Gov. Chris Christie.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker will not challenge New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in next year's gubernatorial race and will instead run for U.S. Senate in 2014, political sources familiar with his decision tell NBC 4 New York.

 

Booker will seek the seat held by fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg when his term is up in 2014, those sources tell NBC 4 New York. Lautenberg, 88, is the oldest current senator. He first served in the U.S. Senate from 1982 to 2001 and has served since his re-election in 2003.

Booker's decision not to challenge Christie comes as the Republican incumbent enjoys record-high approval ratings in polls taken since Sandy hit the Garden State.

Considering Lautenberg will be 90 in 2014, I think it's a pretty safe bet he'll be retiring.   Can Booker win the primary?

Well...I guess.  But nothing in New Jersey politics is a safe bet.  We'll see.

Last Call

As expected, Newark Mayor and high-profile Democrat Cory Booker is definitely testing the waters for higher office.

“I’m really thinking about both offices right now and which one I can better serve on the issues I’m passionate about and the things I feel driven to contribute to,” Booker said.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is up for reelection in 2013 and is enjoying a rise in popularity, according to the polls, after his aggressive response to Hurricane Sandy. If Booker decided to run next year, it could set up a marquee race that would grab national attention with two of the parties’ stars facing off against each other.

“Yeah, I’m absolutely considering running for governor as well as giving other options some consideration,” Booker said. “I will be focused on that for the next week to ten days or so and really come up with a decision that answers my basic questions … hopefully, the voters later might agree with me, but where do I believe I can make the best difference for the city I love, the state I love and the nation that I have pledged my life to.”

Booker said to expect a decision soon from him at least on the governor’s race.

“It’s going to be within in the next two weeks, especially in New Jersey, because there’s a lot of very good candidates for governor in New Jersey on the Democratic side and I have got to give my party and be part of my party’s push forward, whether it’s with me as candidate or with supporting other candidates for that office,” Booker said.

Asked if he was considering a run for Senate too, Booker said that is on his radar as well.

I've had my problems with Booker before, mainly on his heavy pro-Wall Street stance.  It's not like the last Dem in the Governor's mansion in Trenton was any good, either.  If he can drop the Wall Street crap and keep the rest, he'd be one of the best voices in the party.

Booker would be far more effective as a Senator, I would think.  However, he could really derail Chris Christie's White House chances by winning next November.  We'll see.