Category Archives: Democrat

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden answers a reporters question after remarks in Wilmington, Del., September 16, 2020.(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)They know that the media, corporations, schools, and even churches will cheer them on.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEWriting in The Atlantic recently, the sober-minded commentator Shadi Hamid says, I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory. For Democrats, having failed to cope with the 2016 election, and believing the polls that show a solid Joe Biden lead, another shock Trump win would provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high. And it would lead decent folks astray. They would seek remedies outside the political process, including through nonpeaceful means, though, not necessarily out of hope but out of despair.

Dont notice the gleam in the arsonists eye, hes really just heartbroken over the fate of the Biden-Harris ticket!

Given Hamids premises, why bother even having the election? Why not find a peaceful but extralegal procedure to make Joe Biden president right this second? We could relieve the whole nation of the suspense of what Democrats will do if once again theyve nominated someone who cant beat one of the most broadly unpopular political figures of modern times.

For what its worth, like Hamid, Im worried about post-election violence. But my view of the causes is slightly different. Hamid says, Losers of elections need to believe that they can win the next time around. Otherwise their incentives to play the spoiler increase. Okay, true enough.

He also says that the anxiety gripping the two parties is asymmetric. Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat, he says, and therefore theoretically more acceptable to Republicans, whereas Donald Trump represents the nativist wing of an already nativist Republican Party. His conclusion: Biden should win for reasons of civic peace.

Now leave aside the claims of leftists, including Obama, that Joe Biden has become much more progressive in his current campaign. And lets leave aside the question of whether Donald Trump is actually a moderate or liberal Republican on issues such as federal welfare spending. Hamid fails in his analysis because he is unwilling or unable to see things from the other side. Maybe its time to practice empathy.

What if the anxiety gripping the parties was asymmetric in the other direction? Conservatives dont see politics as just a matter of elective office, but of power generally. And they notice that the major corporations, Hollywood and pop culture, academia, whats left of mainstream media, most local institutions, the leadership class of their own movements through the years, and even their own churches are substantially to their left politically. They also notice that progressives notch major political and cultural wins even from conservative elites, and even following conservative victories.

Hamid might have noticed that conservative activism was born over despair of the sort he describes. It was born of the observation that even winning elections wasnt enough to secure political victories. Instead of the Electoral College or the Senate, conservatives had to face the more inscrutable Supreme Court, which for years overturned conservative legislation and enacted progressive victories that had no chance of receiving a democratic mandate. Conservatives response was to double down on electoral strategies, making an explicit case that they needed to win elections to reform the judiciary. Why didnt conservatives simply pout and threaten to abandon the democratic process altogether, as Hamid admits liberals are wont to do?

Perhaps because conservatives then, as now, knew on which side of the divide the institutional and oligarchic power landed. Progressives feel secure in making all but open threats of violence and revolution because they know that the heads of domestic security agencies are on their side, they know that the most powerful voices in media and academia are at the ready to craft apologies for their violence. And they know that their reputations will be restored or even burnished after committing violence on behalf of their causes.

The modern American conservative movement was a populist and democratic movement because it had to be. The modern Left knows where its power lies as well with the already powerful.

See the article here:

Democrats Promise to Be Sore (and Violent) Losers - National Review

WASHINGTON (AP) The State Department on Wednesday rejected Democrats charges of improperly firing its independent inspector general and defended its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

Democrats say the two are connected because Steve Linick, the former inspector general, told lawmakers in June that, at the time of his firing, his office had been probing Secretary of State Mike Pompeos emergency declaration that sped up the $8 billion in arms sales. Democrats and some Republicans complained that the move improperly bypassed Congress and that Linicks firing was part of a cover-up.

See: Democrats call White House counsels letter defending sidelining of inspectors general dismissive and completely inadequate

Three of the departments top officials testified Wednesday during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that Pompeo had asked President Donald Trump to fire Linick for a variety of management and ethical malpractice practices. Previously, they had blamed him for not advancing the departments mission and leaking details about the probe. Linick was fired in May.

If there is due cause, as [has] been laid out, said R. Clarke Cooper, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, there is no cover-up.

See:House committees subpoena Pompeo aides over firing of State Department inspector general

And:Pence-aligned acting inspector general abruptly leaves State Department post

But Democrats insisted the allegations against Linick are after-the-fact excuses for dismissing an independent investigator who was probing allegations that could embarrass Pompeo. Linick was also investigating complaints that Pompeo and his wife, Susan, improperly used department staff to perform personal tasks for them.

We have real concern on this committee that the firing of Mr. Linick was an abuse of power, said Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. The fact that we had to drag you up here kicking and screaming itself makes me think that the department has been trying to hide the truth.

The session was an election-season effort by the Democratic-led House to challenge the Trump administrations well-documented refusal to cooperate with oversight. The struggle has played out across the courts and the committees of Congress since Trump took office in 2017, most notably during investigations that led to the presidents impeachment by the House and his acquittal by the GOP-led Senate.

Cooper, Undersecretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao and the departments acting legal adviser, Marik String, testified only after the committee prepared to subpoena Pompeo.

Linicks firing was one of several dismissals by Trump of people charged with preventing fraud and abuse in the government. The series of abrupt ousters concerned members of Congress, including some Republicans, who questioned whether Trump was interfering with legitimate oversight.

The State Department officials told the committee that Pompeo acted appropriately on all counts. The IG concluded that the arms sales did not violate the letter of the law but said the department did not take enough action to limit civilian casualties.

Cooper agreed with this criticism, a rare acknowledgment from the administration.

That is a finding I not only accept, but which I, my bureau, the department, and this administration take to heart, which we were working to address before the IG even put pen to paper, and which we will continue to address, he said.

Congress had pushed for a probe into administrations May 2019 decision to proceed with $8 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Jordan. To clear the way past lawmakers objections, the administration declared a national emergency due to tensions with Iran.

Members of Congress had been blocking some of the sales because they might contribute to the human rights disaster in Yemen. A Saudi-led series of bombings there caused significant civilian casualties.

Read on:State Department inspector general to prepare report on ambassadors reported pitch for British Open play at Trump club

View original post here:

State Department defends firing of inspector general, while Democrats say Pompeo, Trump and allies have offered only after-the-fact excuses -...

We hear often that the November election is the most consequential in our lifetime. But the importance of the election is not just which candidate or which party wins. Voters also face the question of whether the American democratic experiment, one of the boldest political innovations in human history, will survive.

Our democracys enemies, foreign and domestic, want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent; that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people; that our public discourse has been perverted by the news media and social networks riddled with prejudice, lies and ill will; that judicial institutions, law enforcement and even national security have been twisted, misused and misdirected to create anxiety and conflict, not justice and social peace.

If those are the results of this tumultuous election year, we are lost, no matter which candidate wins. No American, and certainly no American leader, should want such an outcome. Total destruction and sowing salt in the earth of American democracy is a catastrophe well beyond simple defeat and a poison for generations. An electoral victory on these terms would be no victory at all. The judgment of history, reflecting on the death of enlightened democracy, would be harsh.

The most urgent task American leaders face is to ensure that the elections results are accepted as legitimate. Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture. We should see the challenge clearly in advance and take immediate action to respond.

The most important part of an effective response is to finally, at long last, forge a genuinely bipartisan effort to save our democracy, rejecting the vicious partisanship that has disabled and destabilized government for too long. If we cannot find common ground now, on this core issue at the very heart of our endangered system, we never will.

Our key goal should be reassurance. We must firmly, unambiguously reassure all Americans that their vote will be counted, that it will matter, that the peoples will expressed through their votes will not be questioned and will be respected and accepted. I propose that Congress creates a new mechanism to help accomplish this purpose. It should create a supremely high-level bipartisan and nonpartisan commission to oversee the election. This commission would not circumvent existing electoral reporting systems or those that tabulate, evaluate or certify the results. But it would monitor those mechanisms and confirm for the public that the laws and regulations governing them have been scrupulously and expeditiously followed or that violations have been exposed and dealt with without political prejudice and without regard to political interests of either party.

Also, this commission would be responsible for monitoring those forces that seek to harm our electoral system through interference, fraud, disinformation or other distortions. These would be exposed to the American people in a timely manner and referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies and national security entities.

Such a commission must be composed of national leaders personally committed by oath to put partisan politics aside even in the midst of an electoral contest of such importance. They would accept as a personal moral responsibility to put the integrity and fairness of the election process above everything else, making public reassurance their goal.

Commission members undertaking this high, historic responsibility should come from both parties and could include congressional leaders, current and former governors, elder statespersons, former national security leaders, perhaps the former Supreme Court justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, and business leaders from social media companies.

This commission would be created by emergency legislative action. During that process, its precise mandate, composition, powers and resources would be defined. Among other aspects, the legislation would define the relationship between the commission and the intelligence and law enforcement communities with the capability necessary for the commissions work. And it would define how the commission would work with all the individual states.

Congressional leaders must see the need as urgent and move quickly with common purpose. Seeking broad bipartisan unity on such an initiative at such a fraught time goes against the nature of the political creatures we have become. But this is the moment and this is the issue that demands a higher patriotism. No member of Congress could have any valid reason to reject any step that could contribute to the fundamental health of our Republic. With what should be the unanimous support of Congress, the legislation must call upon the election campaigns of both parties to commit in advance to respect the findings of the commission. Both presidential candidates should be called upon to make such personal commitments of their own.

If we fail to take every conceivable effort to ensure the integrity of our election, the winners will not be Donald Trump or Joe Biden, Republicans or Democrats. The only winners will be Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Ali Khamenei. No one who supports a healthy democracy could want that.

Dan Coats was the director of national intelligence from 2017 to 2019. He served as a U.S. senator from Indiana from 1989 to 1999 and again from 2010 to 2016. From 2001 to 2005 he was the U.S. ambassador to Germany. Currently, Mr. Coats is a senior adviser with the law firm King & Spalding.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the rest here:

Dan Coats: We Need a Commission to Oversee the 2020 Elections - The New York Times

The November election is complicating the Democratic strategy in the looming government shutdown fight.

Feeling momentum as they aim to win back the Senate and the White House, Democrats are divided overwhether toagree to a the GOP-favored stopgap bill that lasts into December or push for a longer deal to fund the government into early 2021.

A shorter bill, supporters hope, would force Congress to reach a larger funding deal before the end of the year. But a bill that lasts into next year would take a lame duck shutdown fight off the table and give Democrats more leverage if Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Memo: Warning signs flash for Trump on debates Senate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden National postal mail handlers union endorses Biden MORE is elected president.

Weve gone back and forth, its a split decision in the caucus. If you can tell us what happens Nov. 3 it is a lot easier. ... The uncertainty about the presidential election is an element, Senate Democratic Whip Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinSenate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden Top GOP senator calls for Biden to release list of possible Supreme Court picks GOP ramps up attacks on Democrats over talk of nixing filibuster MORE (Ill.) said when asked about the length of a bill.

Congress has until Sept. 30 to strike a deal and pass a stopgap funding bill known as a continuing resolution (CR), which will continue current funding levels and let Washington avoid a messy shutdown roughly a month before the election.

Though House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPowell warns failure to reach COVID-19 deal could 'scar and damage' economy Overnight Defense: House to vote on military justice bill spurred by Vanessa Guilln death | Biden courts veterans after Trump's military controversies Intelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings MORE (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinDemocrats scramble on COVID-19 relief amid division, Trump surprise American Airlines, unions call for six-month extension of government aid Trump undercuts GOP, calls for bigger COVID-19 relief package MORE have informally agreed to a clean spending bill, they have not struck an agreement on the length of the legislation.

Neither Pelosi nor Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats scramble on COVID-19 relief amid division, Trump surprise Pelosi, Schumer 'encouraged' by Trump call for bigger coronavirus relief package Schumer, Sanders call for Senate panel to address election security MORE (N.Y.) have publicly endorsed a timeline. A House Democratic aide noted that behind-the-scenes negotiations about what the strategy should be are ongoing.

We are now looking at anomalies in the rest, and well figure out the timing when we do, Pelosi said during her weekly press conference.

Schumer added that Democrats were discussing what time the CR should go to and we haven't formulated our position yet.

Some Democrats are open to a stopgap bill into December, arguing that they want to finish work on the fiscal 2021 bills by the end of the year. That could let Democrats focus on other legislative priorities next year and avoid an immediate funding fight.

I think we could get a good package done in the lame duck, said Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyGOP chairman to release interim report on Biden probe 'in about a week' This week: House returns for pre-election sprint Battle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy MORE (D-Conn.), a member of the Appropriations Committee. Im never a fan of CRs in general and not a fan of long CRs. Id like to believe we could use the lame duck to write a good budget.

Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineThe Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by The Air Line Pilots Association - Pence lauds Harris as 'experienced debater'; Trump, Biden diverge over debate prep Catholic group launches .7M campaign against Biden targeting swing-state voters GOP senator to quarantine after coronavirus exposure MORE (D-Va.) said he thought the funding bill should go into mid-to-late December, adding we ought to try to wrap it all up before Christmas.

Theres no guarantee a December deadline would force Congress to reach an agreement on full fiscal 2021 bills, and doing so during the lame duck could be a herculean legislative task.

The House is scheduled to be in session for 13 days between the election and the end of the year. And while the House has already passed 10 of the 12 fiscal 2021 government funding bills, the Senate hasnt even introduced one amid a standoff on amendment votes.

Others are pushing for a longer bill that would keep the government funded into next year. That strategy would avoid a year-end shutdown fight, and could give Democrats more leverage to craft a package in 2021 that includes more of their priorities if November goes well for the party.

Polls show Biden leading Trump, and the battle for the Senate majority has moved in Democrats favor compared to the start of the cycle.

Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyBattle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy Hillicon Valley: Russia 'amplifying' concerns around mail-in voting to undermine election | Facebook and Twitter take steps to limit Trump remarks on voting | Facebook to block political ads ahead of election Top Democrats press Trump to sanction Russian individuals over 2020 election interference efforts MORE (Vt.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is pushing for a longer CR, and has floated a bill that goes as far as into March.

I would prefer a longer one. ... I think it gives more stability and saves money Leahy said.

But passing a stopgap bill into early next year could add to what is expected to be a lengthy legislative to-do list for Democrats if they win back the White House and hold majorities in the House and Senate for the first time since President Obamas first two years in office.

Ive heard it argued both ways. But I just want to tell you that if we have a new president, a new administration and even new leadership in the Senate its going to be a very busy January, Durbin said.

Demanding a longer CR would set up a clash with Republicans, who are supportive of passing a continuing resolution that runs into December. Congress has a tight timeline to haggle over the funding bill. When the House convenes on Monday, it will have 12 legislative days until the Sept. 30 deadline.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSenate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden Hillicon Valley: DOJ indicts Chinese, Malaysian hackers accused of targeting over 100 organizations | GOP senators raise concerns over Oracle-TikTok deal | QAnon awareness jumps in new poll The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden asks if public can trust vaccine from Trump ahead of Election Day | Oklahoma health officials raised red flags before Trump rally MORE (R-Ky.) told reporters this week that he would back a clean CR that goes into December. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyDems discussing government funding bill into February GOP short of votes on Trump's controversial Fed pick This week: House returns for pre-election sprint MORE (R-Ala.) indicated that Mnuchin is also supportive of the timeline.

Were advocating a December deal. Thats what the leader wants, thats what I want; I think Mnuchin is on board on that, Shelby said.

Asked about some Democrats wanting a longer stopgap bill, Shelby noted that he had spoken with Leahy but I told him we werent going to do that.

Excerpt from:

Battle over timing complicates Democratic shutdown strategy | TheHill - The Hill

A congressional committee is asking for answers from Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar following NBC News reporting that he and other Trump administration officials were invited to a May 2018 meeting in the White House Situation Room where they voted by a show of hands to separate migrant children who crossed the border illegally with their parents.

In a letter sent from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, three Democratic members said the recent reporting is at odds with Azars previous statements that suggested he was not aware the Trump administrations zero tolerance policy would separate children.

You testified that you were disappointed that you were not told about potential family separations, and when asked whether you would have stopped the policy, you testified, [i] I had been alerted to it, I could have raised objections and concerns, absolutely, the letter said.

NBC News reported that Azars name was among others on an invite list to the meeting where, according to two officials present, then Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there were not enough resources to prosecute parents and return them to their families in a timely manner.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Without a swift process, the children would enter into the custody of Health and Human Services, where Azar was and is still in charge. White House advisor Stephen Miller moved the issue to a vote, and by a show of hands the attendees agreed to move forward with the policy, the two officials told NBC News.

It was not clear whether Azar attended the meeting or was merely invited.

The committee is asking Azar to answer questions, including whether he attended the meeting and, if he did, how he voted. They are also asking for any documents related to the meeting.

If you attended this meeting and were informed of this policy proposal, why did you testify before the Committee that you were not aware of this policy and its impacts on HHS until after it was publicly announced? the letter said.

Throughout the fallout of the family separation crisis, you have worked to distance yourself from the policy, claiming that the policy originated at DHS and the Department of Justice, and was forced upon HHSBut if this new reporting is accurate, it indicates that at best, you should have known about the implications of the proposed family separation policy but did not object to itand at worst, you were complicit in the decision to separate thousands of vulnerable children from their families, the three committee members wrote.

HHS spokesman Michael Caputo said at the time of publication of the NBC News story, This never happened.

Caputo has recently taken a leave of absence following comments he made on his Facebook page about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Azar has until October 1 to respond to the committees questions, the letter said.

We will respond to Congress," a Health and Human Services spokesperson said Thursday.

Julia Ainsley is a correspondent covering the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Continue reading here:

Democrats demand answers from Azar after NBC News report on family separation vote - NBC News

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Before the coronavirus pandemic sickened Florida's economy, and before the Black Lives Matter movement widened her eyes to racial injustice, Kelly Johnson had little interest in politics except to occasionally cast a ballot. In 2018, she voted for the Republican in the Florida governor's race, and four years ago she supported Donald Trump.

Now, the unemployed, white single mother of eight is running for office as a Democrat in a bid to oust a state legislator who's one of Florida's rising Republican stars. She knows it's a long shot, but she hopes even a loss will serve a purpose for Democrats: boosting turnout in the race to evict Trump from the White House.

"There's a greater good happening," she said. "And I'm glad to be part of that."

Johnson's campaign is part of a major change in strategy for Florida Democrats. Long accustomed to being on the losing side of razor-close races, state Democrats are mounting challenges in Republican strongholds not necessarily to win but to lose by less. And they're convinced that competing in traditionally Republican areas will help former Vice President Joe Biden eke out a victory against Trump in a key battleground state.

The party is fielding its largest slate of legislative candidates in decades, with Democratic candidates vying in all but one of the 141 statehouse seats up for election in November. (One Democrat is challenging her exclusion from the ballot after being disqualified because of a technical issue.)

"We need to start thinking of candidates as field organizers, people who are on the ground and connecting with the community," said Janelle Christensen, a state party activist in charge of candidate recruitment.

By most accounts, Florida is a must-win state for Trump. While his newly adopted home state has tilted Republican in recent years, the COVID-19 outbreak is threatening to reshape the political landscape. Democrats hope to seize the opportunity to retake the state, and its 29 electoral votes, ever mindful of their prior disappointments.

For years, Florida Democrats largely have focused on running up the score in heavily Democratic urban precincts in South Florida in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. While they've scrapped with Republicans for independent voters in central Florida, they've mostly ceded huge swaths of Florida long dominated by the GOP.

That concession has had consequences.

While a quarter of Florida's 13.9 million voters have no party affiliation, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 275,000.

But Republicans control both chambers of the Florida statehouse. A Democrat hasn't occupied the governor's mansion in 20 years, and both the state's U.S. senators are Republicans.

Four years ago, Trump prevailed over Democrat Hillary Clinton by a little more than 1 percentage point not even the closest of recent heartbreak races for Democrats. In 2018, Republican Rick Scott ousted incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson by just 10,000 votes out of nearly 8.2 million cast.

"These margins are microscopic for such a large state as Florida," said Dr. Fergie Reid Jr., a Democratic activist whose voter registration campaign is often credited with helping flip the Virginia Legislature from red to blue.

This past spring, Reid set his sights on replicating that success in Florida and began reaching out to Democratic groups across the state to help field candidates in every legislative race. By the filing deadline, 29 House seats and seven Senate seats that were previously uncontested had contenders in place.

"Florida is ripe for the taking. All we have to do is take it," said Reid.

Conventional wisdom says it's the candidate at the top of the ticket who draws voters to the polls. But Florida Democrats are hoping that enthusiasm rises from the bottom up and compounds quickly.

"If only for the fact that if that person's friends and family might equal 50 people and you add that up across the state, that's enough to turn more than one election," said Kevin Cate, a Democratic consultant who worked for the only Democrat currently in statewide office, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried.

Republicans scoffed at the tactic.

"They are fielding candidates just to say that they have candidates in races. We're fielding candidates to win races, and we think that Trump will win Florida," said Florida Republican Party Chair Joe Gruters, who's running for reelection to his state Senate seat.

"They're going to have a great time coming together on election night and crying on each other's shoulders," he said.

But Democrats are pressing on. On the stump and on social media, the Democrats running in red districts are campaigning on traditional party themes protecting the environment, expanding Medicaid, limiting access to guns and promoting racial equity.

But they are also appealing to Trump voters who have soured on the president and his close ally Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis for their handling of the pandemic.

"At first there were some good things about Trump. A lot of things made sense early in his presidency," said Johnson, who became a community activist after losing her job because of the outbreak and struggling to get benefits from the state's broken unemployment system.

"But there was this underlying tone of not all people in America are created equal -- and I didn't like that. Now with the pandemic, things have just totally fallen apart."

In Florida's conservative Panhandle, another Democrat says Trump prompted her to run making her the first Democrat to compete in Senate District 1 in two decades.

"You can't be on the sidelines and complain to your friends on Facebook," said Karen Butler, a 20-year Air Force veteran running in a region with a strong military presence.

In an overlapping House district, Democratic candidate Angela Hoover says she's clear-eyed about her chances.

"I don't care what anybody says. I did the research. I know the demographics, I know the issues. And I know the odds," said Hoover, the first Democrat to run for House District 3 since 2010.

"We don't just campaign for ourselves," she said. "We're also campaigning for the party and everybody up the ticket. When we talk about Joe Biden, we don't just put ourselves out there. We're all campaigning for each other."

Continue reading here:

Florida Democrats running to boost Biden from the bottom up - Minneapolis Star Tribune

1. Trump threatens to send more troops to Democrat cities  The Mercury News
2. Trump to send federal law enforcement to Democrat-led cities  Al Jazeera English
3. Trump threatens to deploy federal agents to Chicago and other U.S. cities led by Democrats  The Washington Post
4. Trump is sending unidentified ICE agents to arrest protesters in Democratic-run cities.  Slate
5. Trump uses homeland security agency to fight his political battle against Democratic cities  CNN
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

View original post here:

Trump threatens to send more troops to Democrat cities - The Mercury News

Behind the congressional Democrats warning are the efforts of a Ukrainian lawmaker, Andriy Derkach, who was educated in a K.G.B.-backed school and was, until recently, closely aligned with a pro-Russian political faction in Ukraine. In May he released tapes of what he said were fragments of telephone conversations between Mr. Biden, then the vice president, and Ukraines president at the time, Petro O. Poroshenko.

The purported tapes did little to change the understanding of the elder Mr. Bidens engagement with Ukraines leadership. Mr. Biden had publicly insisted that aid to Kyiv could be tied to the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor, whom the United States and European nations had accused of corruption. So far, the accusations emanating from Mr. Derkach and others about Mr. Biden and his son, Hunter, have either been debunked or not been substantiated by any independent sources.

But the accusations, fueled by release of the tapes, led to more online conspiracy theories, which American intelligence officials have warned may well have their origins in Russia. Mr. Johnson has at various moments said he would subpoena evidence surrounding the dealings with Ukraine in the last years of the Obama administration, and The Washington Post reported this month that there was an effort among Ukrainian officials to pass the tapes to Mr. Johnsons committee.

Mr. Trump has cheered his work. Pressure Mr. Trump put on Ukraines leaders last year to investigate some of the same issues ultimately led to his impeachment, and in addition to raising questions about Mr. Biden and his son, Mr. Johnsons investigation has lent some senatorial legitimacy to Mr. Trumps claims about the matter.

The investigation focuses on Hunter Bidens work for a Ukrainian energy firm, Burisma Holdings, and whether his presence and lucrative paycheck were meant to improperly curry favor with the Obama administration. Politico first reported that the Democrats concerns were connected to Mr. Johnsons work.

A spokesman for Mr. Johnson, Austin Altenburg, said the chairman and his staff had already requested briefings from F.B.I. officials, and he accused Democrats of hypocrisy for ignoring recently declassified documents that suggested the F.B.I. may have relied on potentially tainted information in its investigation of ties between Mr. Trumps campaign and Russia.

The letter from the Democrats asked for the F.B.I. to share what it knows with all lawmakers, given the seriousness and specificity of these threats. The Democrats requested a briefing on the matter by the end of the month, when lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington for several weeks.

Continued here:

Democrats Warn of Possible Foreign Disinformation Plot Targeting Congress - The New York Times

We are in an era of increasing partisanship. The Pew Research Center found that since 2016, Republicans and Democrats have grown more frustrated with each other. Commentators worry that tension between the two parties could soon make democracy unworkable. If Republicans see Democratic victories as illegitimate, for example, could a defeated President Donald Trump refuse to leave the White House? Would his party support him?

If Republicans see Democratic victories as illegitimate, could a defeated President Donald Trump refuse to leave the White House? Would his party support him?

A presidential election has led to a crisis once before. After Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, Southern Democrats refused to accept him as president. Two months after the election, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the union. Nathan P. Kalmoe's new book, "With Ballots & Bullets: Partisanship & Violence in the American Civil War," is an examination of how partisan commitments and division led to violent conflict in the 19th century. It illustrates some of the worst aspects of partisanship. But it also, surprisingly, shows how partisanship can be valuable and even necessary.

It's easy to see the dangers of partisanship in the 1860s. And as Kalmoe points out, America's very bloody Civil War was preceded by decades of escalating partisan violence, often around elections.

Get the think newsletter.

Parties had their own groups of "toughs," who tried to intimidate the other parties' voters; electoral riots and fights injured many and killed a handful of people in the 1830s and the 1850s. Partisan tension in Congress was so high that representatives often carried guns or knives to defend themselves, Kalmoe writes, and there were a number of open brawls. In 1856, Democratic Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina severely beat Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, an antislavery Republican, with a cane in front of colleagues.

Despite this strong record of polarization, historians have often downplayed the role of partisanship in the Civil War. In this interpretation, people voted for Republicans when the war was going well and for Democrats when it wasn't.

In the summer of 1864, for example, the war was going poorly, and Republicans feared that a public sick of defeat would toss Lincoln out of office. Then Gen. William T. Sherman won a resounding victory at Atlanta in September. Lincoln's landslide re-election in 1864 seemed to many at the time and since then to be the result of that military success.

But by analyzing House elections in 1864, Kalmoe uncovered a different story. In the 1860s, congressional contests were held over the course of the entire year, rather than on the same day as the presidential contest. If Republicans were in trouble before September, House GOP candidates should have been crushed by Democratic challengers. But instead, Kalmoe found, Republican vote share changed little over time. Lincoln was on his way to win before Atlanta. Republican partisans supported the president even though the war was going poorly, as they did when the war was going well.

In the Civil War era, partisanship had a strong effect on how people interpreted good or bad news.

In the Civil War era, partisanship had a strong effect on how people interpreted good or bad news. That shouldn't be a surprise, Kalmoe told me. You can see this in public response to Trump's handling of COVID-19. FiveThirtyEight tracked polls from March to mid-July and found that partisan approval of Trump's response barely changed; Republicans consistently gave him around 80 percent to 85 percent approval, while Democratic voter approval dropped from around 27 percent to 10 percent. "The same folks who liked him before think he's doing well, while those who disliked him before see how disastrously he's performed," Kalmoe said. COVID-19 is "a monumental event, yet partisans haven't moved more than an inch so far."

Republican refusal to abandon Trump seems ominous. Trump's disastrous response to a national health crisis has led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If his voters aren't moved by that, how can we hold government accountable to the people at all? Partisanship seems to be a recipe for denial, dysfunction and death.

But, Kalmoe told me, it's important to remember that "partisanship can be leveraged for good or bad purposes." During the 1860s, partisanship rallied Democrats to the cause of slavery and treason. But it also led Republicans to make great sacrifices for the Union even when the war seemed to be going against them. It ultimately pushed many Republican voters to support the abolition of slavery.

Similarly, partisanship today has rallied resistance and opposition to the Trump administration. Democratic voter turnout surged in 2018, when the party took the House back from Republicans. Intention to vote in 2020 among Democrats was at 70 percent in April, 9 points higher than in 2016, according to a Reuters poll. Voting intention remains high as of mid-July.

Democratic voters in Wisconsin even risked their lives when Republicans refused to postpone an election in April during the pandemic. Anger at Republican intransigence led Democrats to vote in large numbers despite the virus. "People wanted to fight back with everything they could," Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler told The New Yorker. And so they did, handing Republicans a stinging defeat in a key state Supreme Court contest.

Partisans are stubborn and recalcitrant. They can be willfully blind and violent. But Kalmoe's book is a reminder that partisanship also was a key factor in allowing the Union to resist and fight disunion, racist treason and slavery. Pro-Lincoln partisanship, Kalmoe told me, was necessary to combat "partisan violence in service of evil in this case, reinforcing slavery and rejecting legitimate elections." Similarly, Trump is buoyed by partisanship. And if we're going to defeat him, we'll need partisanship to do it.

Noah Berlatskyis a freelance writer and critic in Chicago.

Here is the original post:

Trump, the American Civil War and a lesson for Democrats on the value of partisanship - NBC News

OAKLAND, Calif. (KRON) President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to send federal agents to major US cities including Oakland to deal with unrest.

This comes after federal police in Portland, Oregon were seen taking demonstrators away in unmarked cars over the weekend.

Were sending law enforcement, Trump told reporters at the White House. We cant let this happen to the cities.

Trump mentioned New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Oakland as possible places for sending federal forces, noting the cities mayors as liberal Democrats.

Im gonna do something, that I can tell you. Because we are not gonna let New York, and Chicago, and Philadelphia, and Detroit, and Baltimore, and all of these Oakland is a mess, were not gonna let this happen in our country. All run by liberal democrats, he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in his COVID-19 briefing Monday said the answer is no and we would reject it when asked if he had received prior notice about the possibility of federal agents being sent to Oakland or any other city in California.

In an interview the same day, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf called on the president to send COVID relief not troops.

Oakland needs COVID relief not troops from our President, Schaaf said. He should stop slandering diverse, progressive cities like Oakland in his racist dog whistles and divisive campaign tactics.

Schaaf went on to note that her city had not been disrupted by any recent protests.

We are not experiencing any civil unrest right now. But the presence of Trump-ordered military troops to Oakland would likely incite it, Schaaf added.

Latest Stories:

Read the original:

Trump threatens to send federal forces to Oakland, other Democrat cities - KRON4