Last May, when the Justice Department named former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel , virtually all lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — praised the choice.
.. I don’t believe he would ultimately remove Mueller, and the White House and the president’s legal team have indicated that he does not intend to do so. This bill becoming law would remove that narrative from the conversation.
.. I hope congressional Democrats, particularly on the House side, will not react by sending fundraising emails or by running to the closest camera to shamelessly use this bipartisan bill — the result of compromise on both sides — to attack Republicans and advance a partisan agenda. They would be intentionally distorting the spirit and intent of the bill to raise campaign cash and score political points heading into November’s midterm elections. Shame on them if they do so, because they risk harming any chance of the bill becoming law. In fact, such tactics would raise the question of whether that was their intention in the first place, as the bill becoming law could take a political issue off the table for the midterms.
.. Political grandstanding requires no courage — independence and compromise do.
Pollak: March for Our Lives – This is What Demagoguery Looks Like
As far as protecting the lives of students is concerned — which is, ostensibly, the entire point — the march organizers were uninterested in an open conversation about what might actually be effective.
.. The speakers demanded legislation, but there was no more legislation to pass — at least, no legislation that would ever survive the Supreme Court. Many of the marchers simply want to repeal the Second Amendment. There was little room for discussion of reasonable proposals.
The third thing to know is that the marches were backed by big leftist organizations, and accompanied by get-out-the-vote efforts.
These are further signs that the marches are largely about mobilizing support for the Democratic Party in the 2018 midterm elections. The speakers made little effort to hide that fact. They called for national unity — against the Republican Party.
.. The marches have featured signs calling for the National Rifle Association to be banned outright. One sign attacked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — one of the moderate voices on this issue — as a “killer,” and questioned his Catholic faith.
.. The “children” who are being impressed into service for the left — some savoring their moment in the “revolutionary” spotlight — are being misled by adults who should know better. They are being taught that those who disagree with them are literally their mortal enemies. And they are being taught to hate the Second Amendment before most have been taught what it is, or why it exists.
.. But the very reason we have the Second Amendment — and the First Amendment, which makes these marches possible — is that the Founders of our Republic wanted to put certain liberties beyond the reach of the majority. They understood that the dignity of the individual — including the inherent, God-given right to self-defense — could not withstand the temporary passions of the moment without special protection.
And so it would be more accurate to say: “This is what demagoguery looks like.” If it is the model for the activism of the next generation, America is in grave danger.
.. Those who own guns — or cherish the right to own them — should see these marches as a wake-up call. The rights and freedoms that make our country great are just one Supreme Court seat, and perhaps one election, away from destruction. Beyond the political frustrations of the moment, that is what is at stake in November.
Should Democrats Embrace the Center or Abandon It?
Over the next six months, Democratic voters will be asked again and again whether their party’s candidates should hew to the center or move to the left.
How voters answer that question will help shape the strategic plans of the dozen or more Democrats jockeying to beat President Trump in 2020.
.. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”
.. Does the path to victory lie in mobilizing the liberal base — by taking explicitly left-wing stands on immigration, as well as gun rights, universal health care, the minimum wage, racial justice and so on?
.. Or is the widespread hatred of Donald Trump — at least among Democrats — sufficient to turn out progressive and minority voters, which would make undecideds the constituency that must be more actively wooed?
.. “Democrats Can Run the Conor Lamb Strategy Over and Over” read the headline of an article by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine:
There are a lot of Conor Lambs out there. Very early in the election cycle, Democrats recruited candidates with nontraditional backgrounds, especially in the military, who would appeal to voters in red districts.
.. No way, Bob Mosher argued in a Rolling Stone essay, “Why Democrats Should Worry About Conor Lamb’s Victory.”
“The real message of Lamb’s campaign basically boiled down to this: ‘Look at what a fine young normal white fellow I am!’ ” Mosher wrote. The “clamor for centrism,” according to Mosher, risks
deflating the Resistance, turning off nonwhite voters, and dampening the turnout that Democrats should be able to expect in November, given the level of Trump animus across the country.
.. The evidence suggests that the balance of power among these voters is shifting to the left.
.. In 1976, conservative Democrats were a significant force within the party, making up 27 percent of its supporters. By 1992, their share fell to 24 percent, still a factor to be reckoned with, providing a crucial source of support to Bill Clinton.
House Intelligence Democrats Dispute Republican Report
Among other witnesses, Appendix B includes:
formal and informal campaign foreign policy advisors who have yet to appear before or produce documents to the Committee, including
- Reince Priebus,
- Stephen Miller,
- KT McFarland,
- Sean Spicer,
- Keith Kellogg,
- Joseph E. Schmitz, and
- Tera Dahl;
individuals with knowledge about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian emissaries, the stated purpose of which was to provide damaging information on Hillary Clinton, including Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered to cooperate, and Roman Beniaminov, a witness with relevant information who resides in the United States;
.. Appendix C identifies more than 20 entities from which the Committee has yet to request documents, including Deutsche Bank, the Estate of Peter Smith (and associated entities), the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce in the USA, and social media companies.
.. Appendix D outlines more than 15 persons and entities for which the Committee believes compulsory process for appearance and/or document production to the Committee is necessary. Included are witnesses who have refused to appear; who have invoked a nonexistent privilege to avoid pertinent testimony or who have simply refused to answer questions because the answers may be adverse to the interests of the President or his campaign; who have not produced any documentation; or whose production was insufficient and for whom we have a reasonable basis to believe that they possess documents responsive to the Committee’s investigation. This list includes, among others:
- Donald Trump Jr.,
- Michael Cohen,
- Jared Kushner,
- Hope Hicks,
- Attorney General Sessions,
- Erik Prince,
and the White House. The Committee must also initiate a contempt process to compel Stephen Bannon to testify to the Committee fully and without constraints.
In consideration of the Special Counsel’s ongoing investigative equities, the Committee also has deferred interviewing
- Michael Flynn,
- Paul Manafort,
- Rick Gates, and
- George Papadopoulos,
but these interviews will be essential to a complete understanding of the issues of collusion and obstruction of justice. To conduct a legitimate investigation, the Committee would need to interview these individuals, whether or not they have reached plea agreements or are the subject of criminal indictments.
For example, Mr. Flynn specifically informed the Committee via his attorney on June 7, 2017 that he planned to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination; the Committee did not demand his appearance, as a result. In light of Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea, the Committee should revisit his appearance and seek to negotiate his testimony. The Committee also ought to interview other individuals who may be of investig