685

In chapter (A) I’d largely come in off the ledge-it looked as if the Dems had a clear battle plan and were ready to hit the ground running on day one for investigating Trump. My main freakout since has been this absurd crusade by Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan to take down the most successful Congressional party leader in Congress.

https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/1064569508705259520

It appears that many of Moulton’s own constituents agree that this is an absurd vanity project that does nothing but play into ‘President Trump’s’ hands-at this point about the only hope he has is for the Dems to go on a needless circular firing squad.

https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/1064695822120611841

Ari Melber did everything on his show last night to get Eleanor Holmes Norton to agree that the 16 names released by Moulton and Tim Ryan yesterday pledging not to vote for Pelosi was ‘a big deal’-he literally asked her: but how big a deal is it? Her response? Not very. She made the anti Pelosi crusaders look pretty small pointing out that voters elected Democrats to protect healthcare, etc-they also want oversight on Trump I should add-and this is making the next six weeks all about themselves. She also stated she has no interest in supporting anyone who has decided they want to be Speaker last night. Instead, Congresswoman Norton declared they should actually do the work and have a plan before they expect her vote.

In the end this is a needless quagmire that Moulton has dragged some freshman Ds into-hardly the first fight they needed in Congress.

https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/1064618754171174912

Moulton also insisted last night that ‘women are driving’ the crusade against the most powerful and successful woman in Washington DC.

Saying ‘a lot’ of women support the anti Pelosi junta is a stretch to say the least

At the end of the day-I presume Pelosi will come out on top as Norton assures us she will-if Moulton did as some believe have aspirations for offices higher than MA-6 he might have just run them over with his own car.

They ought to Susan Collins the Pelosi hating clown.

Raise the gazillion dollars only to be released if he doesn’t cease this counterproductive crusade now so Democrats can focus on why they were sent to Washington DC: to protect healthcare and to investigate Trump.

I mean how did Moulton read the huge 40 seat-give or take-Blue Wave that Pelosi managed and interpret it not as a desire for a check on Trump but for a check on Nancy Pelosi?

Indeed, speaking of which there is a new Politico piece where a bunch of ‘squeamish Dems’ allegedly worry that somehow they will investigate Trump too much-which honestly isn’t possible-and the voters will punish them. Huh? They will be punished if they don’t provide a strong enough check on Trump. 

Exactly-Sargent makes a point I made in previous chapters (Find them) myself: there is no conflict between investigating Trump and doing policy. 

We still have around two months to go until Democrats formally assume control of the House. But, right on cue, some “moderate” Democrats are already warning against an overly aggressive approach to investigating the Trump administration.

“Politico reports that there is a “tension” between “cautious Democrats” on one side, and “those who want to train their subpoena firepower at the White House” on the other. This battle is supposedly unfolding between “establishment veterans” and “progressives out for revenge” against Trump:

While much of the base wants lawmakers to take on [President] Trump . . . more moderate members fear that oversight investigations will be a distraction or cause political blowback for the party. They want to see a policy focus instead and don’t want to be pulled too far to the left.

It is not clear to me how widespread this worry is.”

Let’s hope not very.

“But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume we are likely to see many more such concern-troll-like warnings.”

“So here is our contribution to this debate: Shut up and stop wringing your hands, “cautious Democrats.” This whole fear appears to be based on the notion that Democrats face some sort of zero-sum choice between investigating Trump on the one hand, and focusing investigative authority on policy and governing on the other.”

“But this distinction is largely an invention. It’s a false choice. In multiple important ways, examining policy and governing is investigating Trump. Such oversight would be brought to bear on the administration’s biggest governing fiascoes and abuses — which are themselves conspicuous outgrowths of Trump’s own bad-faith rationales for his most egregious policy failures and his own abuses of power for corrupt ends. Oversight of the former is tantamount to shining a light on the latter.”

Exactly. Like the latest bombshell on Ivanka Trump’s wide use of private email for government business. Lock her up! 

Meanwhile Trump and his Deplorables are still talking about ‘locking Clinton up’ now.

But this is a good example of something which could shine a real light on what Sargent is talking about:

“…the administration’s biggest governing fiascoes and abuses — which are themselves conspicuous outgrowths of Trump’s own bad-faith rationales for his most egregious policy failures and his own abuses of power for corrupt ends.”

“Take Trump’s tax returns. It is true that any effort by Democrats to get them could yield fodder that damages the president politically. But such an effort would also be about determining whether there is additional self-dealing or financial conflicts of interest on Trump’s part that we don’t yet know about, and those things would implicate administration policy choices. Thus, shaking loose Trump’s tax returns would constitute shining a light on governing abuses or potential corruption.”

“Or take the investigation being conducted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have vowed to investigate topics such as Russian money laundering and the possible overlap with Trump’s finances. Yes, these things could potentially harm Trump politically.

As if that’s a bad thing…

“But as Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif), the incoming committee chairman, has noted, this would be all about determining whether Russia is in a position to “influence U.S. policy in a way that is against our national interest.” Here again, investigating Trump is investigating administration policy and what’s influencing it.”

“More broadly, in redirecting the committee towards Trump and questions involving Russia, Democrats will be ending the Republicans’ use of the committee to run a harassment campaign directed at the Mueller inquiry. This is, itself, an act of restoring a legitimate governing process to replace a thoroughly corrupt one.”

It’s rather amazing in itself that these ‘cautious, centrist Democrats’-who are they, Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan?!-see doing things that hurt Trump politically as bug rather than a feature. It again reflects what Sargent and Josh Marshall discussed recently-the hardball gap between the parties. 

As Sargent argues here and I argued in (Chapter A) the idea that there’s a choice between investigating Trump and policy and governing is a canard. Interestingly enough, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton and the GOP got a fair amount of legislation done-even as they were seeking to destroy him by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Indeed, the GOP once spent 140 hours investigating the Clinton’s Christmas list. The GOP never feared overreach investigating Clinton. And in the long haul it worked. True in the short term they actually lost 5 seats in 1998. But they did manage to so muddy the Clinton brand that while Bill survived Hillary was never able to escape it 20 years later.

I as a liberal Democrat wasn’t necessarily a fan of much of the legislation that Clinton and the GOP passed but it belies the idea that you can investigate or you can focus on policy but you can’t do both.

Having said that, it’s not likely much legislation will get done in the next two years. Let’s be clear if Trump really does want to do a real infrastructure deal-not a privatization scheme as was the case with all his previous proposals-the Dems should do it. But not in exchange for taking it easy on him.

But Trump has already shown his cards-he’s claimed-I don’t credit anything he claims-he wants to do deals with the Democrats but if they investigate him then it’s just a war footing. 

In truth Trump doesn’t care much about policy on his best day-not that he has any of those. In two years of total GOP control he signed one major piece of legislation-the fake tax reform bill that was actually a huge tax cut to the rich, the corporations, and a huge cutback on middle class tax credits-SALT-plus the rollback of the ACA mandate-which has gotten virtually no attention until now.

Despite the GOP triumphalism about it at the time, neither Trump nor the GOP discussed it during the elections-proof positive it was a political loser after all.

So the only real shot the Dems will really have to delve into policy will be via investigations.

“Then there are the ways House Democrats might pass legislation in a manner that fills the vacuum left by the GOP’s abdication of its oversight role. In a memo to House Democrats, the liberal Center for American Progress recommended that they do the following in the majority:

We strongly urge Congress to pass a law requiring all candidates for federal office, beginning in 2020, to disclose their tax returns. It is similarly critical that Congress pass legislation requiring independent judicial review of any firing of a special counsel appointed by the [Justice Department], thereby preserving their independence from an elected leader seeking to improperly stifle an inquiry into their own (or their friend’s or family’s) affairs.

These measures would, of course, be directed at Trump. But (while they would not become law) they are also about setting forth a commitment to transparency and legitimate process when it comes to — say it with me — governing.

FN: At this point it’s not clear if all these laws requiring tax returns won’t miss their mark-everyone else but Trump will be required to do so. Give credit to California for at least coming up with a law with teeth-it would keep anyone off the ballot who doesn’t disclose their taxes which, of course, would include Trump-this led to a bizarre MSM freakout that this was ‘discrimination’-the same MSM squeamish over simply calling Trump a racist-found their moral outrage here-no fair the ‘President’ should be able to withhold his tax returns if he wants to! Not to allow him is discrimination!

But CA is exactly right-what’s the use of all these prospective laws if Trump alone is able to ignore them? The only reason they are even necessary is because of Trump’s flouting of a long held political norm.

Meanwhile Richard Neal has dithered so long that now they may not even get his tax returns before the 2020 election-Neal’s grand retort is that he’s on no timetable. Sure they’ll be worth just as much in 2021 when they can’t be used to hold him accountable in an way.

Maybe we will get a reprieve from Neal’s abdications as Deutsch bank just revealed in court that they do have tax returns and documents subpoenaed by the House-among those documents quite possibly is both Trump’s tax returns and financial documents.

End FN.

“Or take immigration. Democrats might investigate the processes behind the thinly-veiled Muslim ban, the dramatic cuts to refugee levels or the family-separations policy (particularly if Trump restarts the last in some form). In all these cases, both governing abuses and Trump’s particular pathologies would be scrutinized. Examining their implementation would also shine a light on the deep saturation of bad faith at their core, which has included ignoring Homeland Security studies blowing up the travel ban’s rationale, deep-sixing administration data showing refugees are a net economic positive, and shrugging at warnings that separations could traumatize children — all to carry out Trump’s determination to implement a white-nationalist agenda.”

“Are there scenarios in which Democrats might pull a Benghazi and overreach in dramatic fashion, embarrassing themselves and activating voter sympathy for Trump? Sure, but it seems unlikely.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and argue that are so many legitimate avenues of investigation into Trump as there are-and legitimately impeachable offenses-it’s impossible to ‘overinvestigate’ Trump. If you doubt it just read this book! That this narrative started among the Democrats within a week of a historical victory says it all about why the Democrats get outwitted so often-talk about negotiating with yourself.

“On impeachment, as Brian Beutler points out, if anything, House Democrats have erred on the side of foreclosing this option for themselves regardless of what vigorous oversight (or the Mueller investigation) ends up revealing. And Trump is not Bill Clinton. Majorities already believe the Mueller investigation is examining legitimate matters, and believe that Trump has tried to interfere with the inquiry and has lied about it. Americans just voted in Democrats to act as the very check that Trump has resisted at all costs.”

“If Democrats focus their oversight authority on serious abuses of power, governing fiascoes and corruption — and stick to where the facts lead — they’ll be, yes, investigating Trump, while also standing for a restoration of transparency, accountability, legitimate governance and the rule of law. There’s no need to allow this to get hyped into a false choice or a cause for hand-wringing, Democrats.”

Very good point-many of these ‘cautious, centrist Democrats’ seem not to realize there’s a difference between the mostly overhyped sins of Clinton and the very real crimes of Donald Trump.

Ironically many of these squeamish types were calling for Clinton to step down in 1998-revisionist history has it the Dems protected Clinton like the GOP protected Trump; far from it-are now squeamish getting tough at all on Trump.

Indeed, these ‘squeamish Democrats’-hopefully more imagined than real-are the only thing that can save Trump in the next two years. It’d be very nice to believe their imagined because if they’re real, they are too absurd to be believed. 

“That tension between cautious Democrats and those who want to train their subpoena firepower at the White House is being repeated throughout the House, as establishment veterans face off against progressives out for revenge against President Donald Trump.”

“While much of the base wants lawmakers to take on Trump and big corporations that have benefited from his tax cuts and deregulation, more moderate members fear that oversight investigations will be a distraction or cause political blowback for the party. They want to see a policy focus instead and don’t want to be pulled too far to the left.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who in 2016 flipped a seat long held by Republicans, said the financial services panel “ought to be able to walk and chew gum.”

“There’s a good opportunity for more access to credit and housing reforms,” he said. “Oversight’s important, but I just think we’ve got a broader responsibility.”

“Himes, a committee member who chairs the centrist New Democrat Coalition and also serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said Democrats should be mindful of punishment that Republicans received after antagonizing President Bill Clinton.”

“There are enough questions around Deutsche Bank that it’s worth getting some answers,” he said. “But again, I think we’re going to need to make sure that we don’t get too carried away on investigations.”

Geez, someone on the House Intelligence Committee worries about ‘getting carried away?’ Trump stands accused of collusion with Russia to win an election-how is it possible to get carried away investigating that? 

It’s like someone raped and murdered your daughter and your first thought is Ok let’s investigate what happened but let’s not get too carried away. On the level of the American people that’s what Russia-quite possibly with the complicity of the Trump campaign raped our democratic process. And Jim Himes is warning about ‘overreach?’

Again Bill Maher has it right-if you can’t make treason a political issue it’s time to hang it up.

“It’s not the only potential conflict Waters is facing. She’ll also likely confront resistance from moderate Democrats on the committee who aren’t eager to bash bankers. Some have been willing to work with Republicans to ease rules for large financial institutions in recent years, even when Waters wasn’t.”

“Finance industry watchdogs are hoping that Waters will use her gavel to advance new consumer protections and shine a light on how the Trump administration’s and Wall Street’s wrongdoing may be hurting Americans.”

“They’re less interested in exposing Trump’s ties to Russia. Dennis Kelleher, who advocates for tougher Wall Street regulation as president of the nonprofit Better Markets, said Deutsche Bank’s business conduct is worth an investigation but the American people don’t care whether Trump got a loan from the bank “20 years ago.”

“The American people are sick and tired of politics,” he said. “What the Democrats have to do is have a robust policy agenda that concretely resonates with Main Street Americans, who care about their jobs and their wages and their retirements.”

If Kelleher thinks ‘the American people’ don’t care about the rigging of an American election with the help of a hostile foreign power he ought to stop speaking for them as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

“With Democrats raising concerns, Waters in recent days has sought to reassure her colleagues that she will focus on policy and that investigations will not bog down the committee, lawmakers say. She gave what Himes said was a “very deliberate and thoughtful” presentation to members.”

“Waters has said she wants to tackle housing, credit reporting reform and supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has touted her pragmatism and ability to work across the aisle, including a bipartisan bill she negotiated this year to ease financial market rules.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a senior committee member, said policy will be the committee’s main priority and that investigating Deutsche Bank will not be a focus, despite the attention it’s getting.

“We’re coming here to try to get some stuff done,” he said.

Investigating Trump and holding him accountable is ‘getting stuff done’-and does Cleaver really think Trump is going to be signing all these Democratic House bills?

Trump’s loans to Deustche Bank should be investigated as it’s part of figuring out Trump’s connections to Russia which bears greatly on the issue of Russia collusion.

And not for nothing if loans Trump got don’t matter because it was ’20 years ago’-actually a little less than that-how do you explain Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation?

So first these sensible centrists claim to want to only discuss policy, then you hear they also don’t want to be too tough on Wall St.

“But even drilling down on Wall Street may be a challenge for Waters, who once called for Wells Fargo to be broken up in light of the fake customer-account scandal that affected potentially millions of Americans. She has introduced legislation that would punish big banks that hurt their customers by threatening to put them out of business. She has cited that bill as one of her accomplishments in her pitch for chairwoman.”

So don’t be tough on Trump don’t be tough on Well Fargo… Who do they want to be tough on?

Presumably Nancy Pelosi.

UPDATE: Certainly this chapter gives me the opportunity to say with Keynes: when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?

I certainly have to update the narrative of this chapter in important ways.

I basically have to take back much of what I said about Moulton as he’s strongly in favor of impeachment. He’s certainly right that the Dem leadership has been failing on impeachment. 

I say has as there’s some reason to hope this will change-though I’m assuming nothing. Turns out Moulton supported it since 2018. Indeed all the main advocates to replace Pelosi have come out for impeachment-Moulton, Marcia Fudge, Tim Ryan, Kathleen Rice. If anything Moulton made a mistake in how he made the case against the Speaker-had he focused on her apparent impeachment phobia that now is not the time for appeasement, for Neville Chamberlain politics, he may have won-certainly would have been a more compelling case.

Clearly the cautious Democrat argument looks even more absurd than it did then-whatever you want to say about the first eight months of a Democratic Congress it’s not that they overinvestigated-quite the opposite. Often it seemed like the most fitting epitaph was adventures in running out the clock-certainly that’s Neal’s legacy thus far.

This is a moment in history that requires us and our leaders to stand up and be counted. Is Pelosi and Friends up to this moment-they themselves have called this a Constitutional crisis-or will history remember her as America’s Neville Chamberlain to Trump’s Adolph Hitler?

 

Democracy is deeply in peril-look at what just happened in Britain.

Just to make it clear to us there’s no guarantee that good will win over evil

History is watching Madame Speaker.

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book