Trump didn’t just break the GOP, he broke conservatism

Remember when you could all describe, in one succinct sentence, what the Republican Party was all about? “Family values, lower taxes, and a strong national defense.” Democrats spent decades trying to come up with their own pithy slogan and failed. We are just too diverse a coalition to condense into a single sentence. And turns out, we don’t need to, because the head of the conservative movement, Donald Trump, has exposed just how empty that statement of values always was. 

It was quite the feat, actually, to take the one man with inarguably the worst record on “family values,” and then rally around him with zero sense of irony or shame. Trump had multiples and then cheated on them with pornstars while ignoring his children. He didn’t (and doesn’t) go to church, give to charity, or show any semblance of humility. In fact, the did the opposite of charity—he used a charity to grift. 

In fact, has any one man ever embodied the seven deadly sins more perfectly than Trump? Pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth. He is a wretched human being, morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt. And through it all, evangelical Christians have stuck with him, proving that they never ever cared about any actual morality. 

On national defense, Republicans have acknowledged that Trump is a puppet of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. The current House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy, a solid Trump ally, who was recorded saying back in 2017, “There’s …there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Rep. Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … [laughter] … swear to God.” Then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, another Republican, thought that was funny, ““This is an off-the-record … [laughter] … NO LEAKS … [laughter] … alright?!”

Hilarious. 

We went through a whole impeachment process in which Trump’s attempts to enlist foreign governments to help his reelection campaign were fully exposed, and Republicans did nothing but shrug. 

But nothing tops revelations that Russia paid Taliban fighters in Afghanistan a bounty for every dead American they killed, and Trump couldn’t be bothered to give a damn. Instead, Putin’s loyal lapdog keeps checking in with Moscow every month, to discuss who knows what. You’d think Republicans would care about America’s top historical geopolitical opponent encouraging the murder of our troops, but nah. 

They did get to the “lower taxes” bit, however. Nothing like destroying our nation’s finances in order to justify the cutting of our social nets to really get Republicans excited. … Then again, “bailing out billionaires” isn’t particularly the most populist and popular policy plank on which to hang all your electoral hopes. 

So we know that all of this has utterly crushed the GOP, and we’re headed toward another anti-Republican wave election this fall. But now we’re seeing evidence that this goes deeper than simple anti-GOP sentiment. By exposing its flimsy pretenses, Trump is breaking conservatism itself. Check out Gallup’s polling on self-identified ideology over the course of this year:  

American’s ideology Jan/Frb mar/Apr May/Jun Conservative Moderate Liberal
40 37 34
34 36 36
22 23 26

That’s a stunning collapse in such a short period of time, while the long-demonized term “liberal” is making a strong comeback. (Many Democrats prefer the safer-sounding “moderate,” as you can see if you follow the link above. Black, young, Latino Americans all prefer “moderate” to “liberal,” when we know they are politically liberal.)

More Gallup:

The decline in self-identified conservatism in 2020 has been seen about evenly among men and women, and among all political party groups.

However, it was more pronounced among adults in upper-income households as well as among middle-aged adults (aged 35 to 54) than their counterparts.

The conservative falloff has also been stronger among White and Hispanic Americans than Black Americans. Relatively few Black Americans (25%) identified as conservative in January/February, and thus there may have been less opportunity for the rate to decline.

Among those who earn more than $100,000, the number of self-identified conservatives dropped 11 points, from 40% to 29%. And since we’ve tracked suburban voters so closely for the last several cycles, they are also leaving the conservative fold, from 36% to 28%. In fact, and this is crazy—there are fewer conservatives now in the suburbs than in cities (33%)!

Still, don’t count out rural areas, getting hit harder and harder by COVID-19. They’ve gone from 50% conservative to 43%. That’s why states like Alaska, Iowa, Montana, and Ohio are suddenly back in play at both the presidential and Senate levels. 

Republicans exist only insofar as conservatives exist, as they and Trump fight to make their tent even smaller and unwelcome to anyone who isn’t ideologically pure. Seeing at close range the kind of rampant hypocrisy, corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence inherent in conservatism, Americans are ditching the label and, with it, their votes for Republicans. 

And they still have a lot further to fall. 

Trey Gowdy Dares Jerry Nadler To Tell Murder Victims’ Families ‘That The Violence Is Manufactured’

Former Republican congressman and Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy told Sean Hannity Tuesday night that the tense House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr testifying showed the contrast between Republicans and Democrats ahead of the 2020 election.

“Do you want the anarchy that you see in Portland and Seattle?” Gowdy rhetorically asked. “Or do you want a country where everyone is safe and secure?”

RELATED: Trey Gowdy: Minnesota Cop Responsible For George Floyd’s Death Should Be Charged With First-Degree Murder

Trey Gowdy Absolutely Torches Jerry Nadler

“What you … saw today is what a serious, grown-up attorney general could do for this country and it makes me wish and wonder where we would be if he had been the AG from day one, if Bill Barr had been the president’s first AG,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy is the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Gowdy went on to portray Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler as “crazy Uncle Jerry.”

Gowdy on Nadler: ‘Now you know, Sean, why the Democrats kept him hidden in the attic during impeachment’

“Now you know, Sean, why the Democrats kept him hidden in the attic during impeachment,” Gowdy said. “They didn’t want him anywhere near impeachment, and for anybody who wondered why the chairman of Judiciary had no role in impeachment, today you figured it out.”

Nadler accused Barr of sending federal agents to tamp down rioting in Portland just to provide Trump with footage for campaign commercials during Tuesday’s hearing. When Barr tried to reply and deny the charge, Nadler just spoke over him.

Nadler also refused Barr’s request for a five-minute break, to which the AG responded by calling Nadler – with tongue in cheek – a “class act.”

RELATED: Trey Gowdy Mocks Bolton: Pecking Away In His Pajamas, Saving the Country For Only $29.95

Gowdy: ‘Go find all the homicide victims, Jerry… and tell them that the violence is manufactured’

Gowdy defended the deployment of federal agents to Portland, saying “the number one obligation of government is public safety.”

“What I wish Nadler would do,” Gowdy continued, “is go find all the homicide victims and their family members in New York, go find the parents of that one-year-old who got killed and tell them that the violence is manufactured.”

“Go find all the homicide victims, Jerry, in your own backyard and tell them that the violence is manufactured,” Gowdy finished.

The post Trey Gowdy Dares Jerry Nadler To Tell Murder Victims’ Families ‘That The Violence Is Manufactured’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Dems Were Dying to Take Down Bill Barr. Then They Nearly Blew It.

Dems Were Dying to Take Down Bill Barr. Then They Nearly Blew It.Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee waited months for the chance to interrogate Attorney General William Barr on everything from his handling of sensitive prosecutions to his clampdown on police protests. And by the time the five-hour hearing wrapped on Tuesday, they were claiming success in eliciting the type of newsworthy admissions and made-for-Twitter exchanges that could bolster their broader criticisms of the Trump administration.But the journey to those victories was decidedly rocky. And in the eyes of some friendly observers, Tuesday’s slugfest raised real questions about how the panel’s chairman and its most senior members are approaching oversight in the Trump era. The armchair quarterbacking began almost immediately after the hearing opened. But those doing it were not merely Twitter talking heads but top legal voices upon which the party relies. After Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) opened the hearing by trying to pin down Barr on whether the Department of Justice’s crackdown on Black Lives Matter protesters was informed by politics, Daniel Goldman—a former aide to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who was a lead inquisitor during Trump’s impeachment—tweeted tersely that the New York Democrat had conducted an “ineffective opening line of questioning.” Goldman’s charge raised plenty of eyebrows among Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill. But, privately, many didn’t disagree with his point. “Nadler is always trying to hit a target he can’t seem to hit,” said one Democratic staffer, who requested anonymity to discuss the committee candidly. “I think he feels the criticism.” AG Barr Calls Black Lives Matter Protests in Portland ‘an Assault’ on U.S. Government in Testy HearingThe criticisms weren’t limited to Nadler. When it was Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-TN) turn to question Barr, the result was a five-minute block that included an outraged reference to Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody. Prominent former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara tweeted “disappointing hearing.” Four minutes later, he added, “getting worse.”Another former prosecutor and cable news fixture, Elie Honig, tweeted after the first hour of the hearing that Democrats “have to bring it. Direct, factual, undeniable yes/no questions on the areas of most vulnerability. They have not done that at all so far.”The failure to knock Barr off-message risked depriving Democrats of the one chance they had to quiz a figure at the center of a myriad of controversies, seriously raising the possibility that the attorney general would skate through the final months of President Trump’s first term without the intense scrutiny on key points that many Democrats believe he deserves.And then, things changed. As House Judiciary Democrats went deeper into their bench, less senior lawmakers managed to get under the skin of the notoriously testy attorney general. Indeed, some of the most memorable admissions from Barr ended up coming from freshman lawmakers, like Reps. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA). To many Democrats, the flow of the hearing raised familiar questions about the party’s ability to effectively push back on the Trump administration. It also refreshed a long-running debate about the strength of the more aggressive, younger generation of Democratic lawmakers—and the need, perhaps, for the old guard to make way for them.The newer Democratic lawmakers study hard, said Philippe Reines, a longtime Democratic operative who worked in the House and Senate and has done hearing prep like this before. “They are also on fewer big committees so aren’t stretched as thin as more senior members. And more of them have prosecutorial backgrounds, or are closer to their prosecutorial days. It’s a hundred things. Including the likeliest: they’re really worked up about these issues / events.”The Barr hearing, said the Democratic staffer, “proves how impressive this freshman class is, and how senior members are still trying to figure out how to operate in the majority.” Judiciary Committee Demands Testimony From Prosecutors Who Quit Stone CaseThe criticism represents another rough spot for Nadler, who since taking the Judiciary gavel in January 2019 has faced strong headwinds in holding Trump to account. The chairman has had a dogged time getting Barr to hand over key documents and appear before the committee. And when Trump’s impeachment finally became unavoidable after news of Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign came to light, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) effectively gave the ball to Schiff, and even came close to wresting any control over the process out of Nadler’s committee entirely. But Nadler has plenty of defenders on and off Capitol Hill. In response to a question from The Daily Beast about the criticism directed at Nadler and other members, a spokesperson for the committee said, “we worked with every single member of the Committee on their questions, and worked through the themes we were trying to hit in today’s hearing, both in terms of substance and style.” “In the end, it is up to each member to make decisions on what they want their 5 minutes to focus on and how they want to conduct their questioning,” said the spokesman. “We felt all of the Committee Members did an excellent job today of showcasing the overt politicization AG Barr is carrying out on behalf of President Trump, which is exactly what this hearing was focused on.” The hearing with the attorney general—who had never appeared before the committee that oversees his department—was, indeed, highly anticipated by Democrats for over a year as a crucial opportunity to interrogate a man they see as Trump’s ruthless legal enforcer. Lawmakers were eager to press Barr not only on the Russia investigation but also the Department of Justice’s aggressive response to recent police protests, its efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act in court, and its stances on a range of issues from immigration to voting rights. The proceeding on Tuesday was tense throughout, with Democratic lawmakers and Barr frequently raising their voices and cutting each other off, while the GOP side of the dais needled Democrats and bucked up Barr. Against that backdrop, some observers felt that Nadler did a fine job in an unenviable situation. Max Bergmann, head of the Center for American Progress think tank’s Moscow Project, which focuses on Trump’s ties with Russia, said some of the criticism directed at Nadler was too harsh.“Nadler, to me, is the quarterback of the team—maybe his line of questioning could have been slightly more effective, but Barr is a formidable adversary,” said Bergmann. “I think Nadler laid out pretty clearly the critique and the concerns that Democrats have of Barr.”And Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel at the progressive group Demand Progress, said if Democrats’ goal was to show that Barr operates as an arm of Trump, they succeeded. “I thought they covered a lot of ground, more ground than I would have expected,” said Vitka. “With everything going on that needs to be asked of Barr, I wouldn’t have been surprised if they didn’t get to half the territory they got to today.”From the outset, Nadler signaled that pressing Barr over his handling of protests—specifically, his deployment of federal law enforcement in Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., to push back against demonstrators—would be a priority. But in his questioning, the chairman zeroed in on attempting to get answers about a DOJ rebrand of a specific inner-city law enforcement operation known as “Operation Legend” in the wake of protests over George Floyd’s death. Nadler got Barr to acknowledge that he misspoke in saying the program had resulted in the arrests of 200 people in Kansas City, when it had in fact resulted in one arrest. But he had a harder time wringing out of that point any larger admission from Barr over election-year politics at work in a DOJ operation. While Barr acknowledged that he speaks to the president about the election—itself, a revealing statement—he didn’t offer much more in the way of context, and pointed to the disruption of the coronavirus outbreak as an explanation for some of the DOJ's law enforcement plans.Other senior members were able to land fewer blows against Barr, but when some mid-level and junior members got their turns, they honed in on clear areas of vulnerability for the attorney general. One was his ouster of Geoffrey Berman, who was prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, Barr issued a statement saying Berman was “stepping down” from the post. The statement was deliberately untrue. Barr had been trying privately to get Berman out of his post and had failed to that point. Under questioning from Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), a second-term member, Barr admitted what Berman had told the committee before: that Barr was lying when he stated Berman was stepping down. When Neguse asked him about it later, Barr made one of the more eyebrow-raising admissions of the day: “he may not have known it yet,” the AG said of Berman, “but he was stepping down.”Later into the hearing, Scanlon scored another admission from Barr, who has himself raised Trump’s unsupported theories that foreign countries could manipulate the U.S. election by counterfeiting mail-in ballots. Asked by the congresswoman if he had any evidence for that claim, Barr conceded: “no, I don’t, but I have common sense.” To some Democrats observing, these questions from the so-called “bottom row” of the dais were the strongest moments of the hearing, and many lament that they tend to come hours into the proceeding after viewer’s appetites tend to wane.“There’s a real energy there, that we need to stand up to this” said Bergmann of the new guard. —With reporting from Sam SteinRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized

House Dems accuse Barr of using federal troops as ‘prop’ in Trump’s re-election

WASHINGTON — Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wasted no time accusing Attorney General William Barr of deploying federal troops as a “prop” in President Trump’s re-election bid when he finally appeared before them on Tuesday. Chairman Jerry Nadler (D. NY) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D. Calif), two leading players in the president’s impeachment trial,...
Posted in Uncategorized

With Trump’s Re-Election Almost Assured, Conservatives Need To Be Focused On The House And Senate

The Dems aren’t playing 3–D chess while the Republicans play checkers. Dems are ruthless and power-mad, but they’re malevolently intelligent, not smart in any normal sense of the word. They know the system front, back, and sideways. They have a script and stick to it, mostly.

They have a strategy (such as it is) driven by a rancid ideology, so they don’t have to “think,” really. Dems are emoting machines, not thinking machines. Dems perform, they do not work, as in “work for a living.”

The Dem strategy for impeachment runs parallel with other strategies with the shared goal of Fundamental Transformation – of this country, the dominant culture, contemporary society, norms, rules, conventions.

Impeachment is simply more chaos, more uncertainty, more unhappiness. These are all desirable outcomes, as far as today’s Democrats are concerned. Spread the misery far and wide. It’s what the white patriarchy deserves.

MORE NEWS: Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Who Kneel During Anthem Just Like People Kneeling During “Religious Services”

By my estimation, four Republican seats might swing but only two Democrats. So unless there is something really big in October, the Senate is about even. I would hate to lose those judges and hopefully a new budget deal.

IT IS ALL EXTREMELY DIABOLICAL

The television news, talk, and late-night shows are all highlighting how righteous the DemocRATs are and how evil, vindictive, and revengeful Trump is. The media is a powerful weapon against Trump. This goes on 24/7. Senators listen to the TV and the polls, and they continue to hear that Trump is bad and must go.

Clever sound-bites are burying the truth.

The Dems and their media partners are extremely skilled in their psychological propaganda. Now secret recordings are being paraded to boost their case. The media is not covering the Trump defense like they did the prosecution, of course. It does not see the light of day, on purpose. And even though Trump’s lawyers are confident they have the truth, he could still lose (see last paragraph).

People need to prepare themselves because God forbid, Trump could lose.

That’s exactly what George Soros and other billionaire globalists (communists) are striving for. I have said it again and again that merely reelecting Trump is not enough. Look what the House has already done with their majority. If the Dems win in the Senate and keep the House, Trump will hardly be able to move.

It’s high time to put that popcorn aside that Trump is going to win in a landslide and concentrate heavily on the House and the Senate. Other than the heavy election and ballot fraud, Trump’s reelection is pretty much assured.

MORE NEWS: Senator Tom Cotton: Nadler Denying Existence Of Portland Antifa Rioters Like Denying Americans Tanks Were In Baghdad

DEMS ARE LOSING THE BLACK VOTE AND ARE DESPERATE

The left knows that they are losing the Black vote (and probably the Hispanic too), so they are desperately trying to get the white moderates and independent votes thru blaming President Trump for all the staged civil unrest.

The false compassion, white demonization strategy is very risky and deadly for Democrats because it relies on violent anarchists committing criminal acts to create fear and uncertainty. At the same time, the Democrats do nothing (and enable the chaos).

Eventually, reasonable people will be looking for who can control and reverse all the damage done. How can the Democrats be the solution to the problem they created?

The most frustrating thing about politics isn’t the rabid anti-American left; it is the gutlessness of our pro-American Republicans, who, with almost no exception, I don’t doubt that they love this country. I don’t understand how they can’t understand that millions of people would cheerfully support them if they stood up to this garbage.

THE MORE I THINK ABOUT THINGS ARE COOL

No one is enthusiastic about Biden. Most Trump supporters can’t wait to vote for Trump and I would rather Trump poll a little behind as it will be a reminder to go and vote for him. At the same time, the sleepy Joe voters will hopefully repeat 2016 and just stay home thinking that Joe has it in the bag and there is no reason to waste time voting for him, and they aren’t all that excited to vote for him anyway.

MORE NEWS: Suspect Taunts Cops In Viral Video, Saying ‘Come And Get Me B***h’ – Then They Do

I don’t think the Democrats are focusing on the “anybody, but Trump” vote is a winning strategy.

THAT’S WHY WE MUST DO THIS

Everyone here needs to get off of their ass and vote. We need people to do more than type about their beliefs. Vote. Get your friends and family to vote. This is one of the critical moments in history. If you don’t vote, you should be too ashamed to ever chat in forums like this again.

WAYNE RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

The post With Trump’s Re-Election Almost Assured, Conservatives Need To Be Focused On The House And Senate appeared first on The Political Insider.

‘It’s a tough hand’: Brutal year gets even worse for McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to pull off something of a miracle.

With fewer than 100 days until voters head to the polls, Senate Republicans are in trouble. More than 30 million Americans are out of work, tens of thousands of businesses are shuttered, and parents across the country are wondering whether they will be able to send their children back to school in the coming weeks.

Now McConnell has to help negotiate another massively complicated coronavirus relief package through a bitterly divided Senate to help address these huge problems. And this time, he faces flak from both his left and right, as Democrats are seeking trillions of dollars more in funding than the Kentucky Republican wants to approve while a large group of GOP hardliners opposes new spending altogether.

“I’ve said to him, ‘You’ve got the worst job,’” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) quipped. “I wouldn’t want his job for anything.”

Republican divisions have already forced McConnell to delay the unveiling of the $1 trillion proposal he released on Monday, an embarrassing setback for the party at a critical moment. McConnell has also openly said that the plan would have “fairly significant support” among Senate Republicans but “probably not everyone” — which is as close to a tell as McConnell gets to admitting his cards aren’t very strong.

And then there’s President Donald Trump and White House officials, who seem more concerned with saving the president’s political career than they are about preserving GOP control of the Senate. For Republicans, working with the White House to craft a unified position hasn’t always been easy these last few weeks; Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have repeatedly altered some of their demands during closed-door discussions with McConnell and other top Republicans during that period, or staked out positions they know Senate GOP leaders can't support, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Meanwhile Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sit back and wait. Schumer has repeatedly mocked McConnell over the divisions within the GOP ranks. And Pelosi has two big advantages heading into these negotiations: the House has already passed a bill, which while strongly opposed by Republicans, gives her leverage; and secondly, her majority is safe in November, something McConnell can’t say.

For the longest Senate GOP leader in history, 2020 just keeps getting tougher and tougher.

“Mitch has a long and storied history of pulling rabbits out of the hat,” Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Monday. “But you play the hand you’re dealt. And it’s a tough hand.”

The last six months have been one series of challenges after another for McConnell.

On New Year’s Day, Republicans looked like favorites to keep their majority, despite the unending swirl of controversy and conflict that characterizes the Trump era.

But McConnell — in the midst of his own run for a historic seventh term — first had to lead GOP senators through Trump’s impeachment trial. Despite some angst among Senate Republicans, they held the line for the president. "You did a fantastic job," Trump told McConnell in front of TV cameras in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 6.

Soon after that political knife fight, the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States, an ongoing national disaster that has killed nearly 150,000 Americans and decimated the U.S. economy. Trump’s poll numbers have slid badly due to his unsteady handling of the crisis, so much so that Trump now threatens to pull down the embattled six-year-old GOP majority with him.

With Mnuchin leading coronavirus negotiations for the White House earlier in the year, McConnell was able to eventually help craft two major deals with Schumer and Pelosi that pumped more than $2 trillion into the U.S. economy.

But now McConnell faces deficit fatigue among many Senate Republicans, who have seen the U.S. national debt total skyrocket to more than $26 trillion. The annual deficit will exceed $3 trillion, stunning the GOP.

“Simply shoveling cash from Washington is not going to solve the problem. And right now, all the Democrats and too many Republicans are contemplating doing just that,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “Massive spending and pork and ballooning deficits and debt are bipartisan problems.”

As more Republicans peel off, McConnell’s negotiating hand is significantly weakened heading into high-stakes negotiations with Democrats. Even if all 53 Republicans were united, McConnell would still need Democratic support in order to reach the 60-vote threshold. This time, though, McConnell will start off with far less support on his side.

“At the end of the day, [McConnell] has to accept the reality that probably half of our members in the Senate won’t vote for it no matter what’s in it,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who was deeply involved in talks with the White House over the spending portion of the GOP proposal.

“And so trying to come up with a bill that satisfies would not justify the effort that takes. At the same time, he has to justify to the rest of us that he has a bill that’s targeted on [fighting] the coronavirus, helping the economy, and getting kids back to school.”

The Republicans’ proposal unveiled Monday costs roughly $1 trillion, but Democrats have been pushing for upwards of $3 trillion in new spending and relief programs. And given how much help McConnell will need from Democrats, the final cost will almost certainly soar well past an amount that some Republicans can stomach.

“It’s going to lose a bunch of us that are fiscal conservatives, regardless of the content — just the amount,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). “It’s got some of the features in there that we weren’t really liking. I think you’re going to see a lot of Republicans that are probably not going to be for it.”

“We throw trillions around pretty casually around here,” Braun added.

On the other side are Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who downplayed concerns about the national debt, instead highlighting the nationwide surge in coronavirus cases and the cascading economic impacts as reasons to go big again on a new relief package.

“At the end of the day, we all have a need to pass something,” said Graham, who has also predicted that as many as half of the Senate GOP Conference could oppose the measure. “And you make the fiscal argument, we haven’t accounted for all the money in Phase Three, I get that. But the problems are worse on many fronts.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is up for reelection in November, insisted the difficulties facing Republicans weren’t as dire as they may seem from the outside. Cornyn also expressed total faith that McConnell, if anyone, could make a deal a majority of Senate Republicans would support.

“Well, you can’t really complain because we’re all volunteers. Nobody is making us do this,” Cornyn joked. “Obviously, there’s a lot of different points of view. But one thing I’m pretty sure of is we will pass a bill in the next two weeks. I just can’t tell you what it’s going to look like.”

Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized

Barr faces the Democratic barrage

It took 14 months, but the House Judiciary Committee finally got its man.

And after myriad controversies, Attorney General William Barr’s long awaited — and repeatedly delayed — testimony to the panel arrives Tuesday at the nadir of trust between Capitol Hill Democrats and the Justice Department. In fact, committee Democrats say they intend to distill their lengthy list of urgent issues down to one theme: that Barr has reoriented DOJ to serve Trump, rather than the nation.

“Bill Barr has been elevating Donald Trump’s personal interest above that of America,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “We want to shed light on those actions and find the basis for those actions if there are any.”

It’s a hearing whose importance has been magnified not least because it’s taken more than a year to arrange. Democrats first sought Barr’s testimony in May 2019, on the heels of the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. But Barr called it off after Chairman Jerry Nadler unveiled plans to allow staff counsel to question him. A subsequent effort for his testimony fell apart in March, after the Covid-19 pandemic overtook the agenda. Finally, Nadler threatened to subpoena Barr last month before the two sides at last agreed to the Tuesday hearing.

For Barr, the hearing will largely consist of parrying the torrent of attacks from Democrats who have been eager to upbraid him on national TV — and then catching his breath during what is likelier to be friendlier questions from the committee’s Republicans.

In his prepared opening statement released by the Justice Department, Barr also waded into the national reckoning on race and police, saying that "every instance of excessive force is unacceptable and must be addressed, as is happening now in Minneapolis."

But Barr's testimony also appeared to blame nationwide protests against police brutality on rising crime rates in some cities.

"When a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally become more risk averse and crime rates soar," he said. "Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our major cities."

Democrats practiced for the hearing on Sunday, paring down a list of concerns they acknowledge is too unwieldy to cover completely.

But the still-lengthy list is expected to include: Barr’s intervention in the prosecutions of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone; his orchestration of a security crackdown against a peaceful protest in Washington D.C. last month and subsequent crackdowns in other American cities; efforts to retool the Census; lawsuits against state and local governments for their management of the coronavirus pandemic; and Barr’s removal of Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor along with similar efforts to uproot the leaders of other U.S. attorney offices handling politically sensitive cases.

Barr signaled he was ready for a clash with Democrats by slamming "the grave abuses involved in the bogus 'Russiagate' scandal" in his opening remarks. He also accused committee Democrats of trying to "discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions."

"My decisions on criminal matters before the Department have been my own, and they have been made because I believed they were right under the law and principles of justice," he added.

Despite his defense of Trump as a hands-off president, Barr has previously bristled at Trump’s repeated efforts to lean on the department via Twitter and once said it was making it “impossible” to do his job.

Though the confrontation is likely to be fierce, committee aides say it’s unlikely to escalate to the rarely used step of on-the-spot subpoenas if Barr declines to answer questions, even if he suggests some answers might be subject to executive privilege.

“At the end of the day, a subpoena on the spot, although a dramatic tool, is not likely to resolve that situation,” said a Democratic committee counsel.

The 10:00 a.m. hearing is expected to last close to five hours, factoring in five minutes of questioning for each of its 41 members.

Republicans, too, have a lengthy list of questions for Barr with a completely different focus. The GOP is expected to zero in on the ongoing efforts by U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe that Mueller later took over. Trump and his allies have repeatedly predicted Durham would issue damning findings about political motivations behind the Russia probe, though lately those hopes have grown muted as hints have emerged that the investigation could linger past the election.

Judiciary Committee Republicans may press Barr on that timetable. But they’re also likely to echo his defense of the presence of federal law enforcement officers in Portland.

“It’s important to hear from them on how they’re doing this, particularly with the protection of federal property when communities have abdicated their responsibility,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.).

Armstrong predicted that Democrats would have trouble eliciting the soundbites and revealing information they’re hoping Barr provides. “He’s very good at this,” he said.

One aide to a committee Democrat said the hearing might disappoint those hoping for fireworks. Committee Democrats are much less amped up for the hearing than they were during the impeachment process, the aide said, and the hearing is unlikely to feature dramatic revelations or plot twists.

“It’ll be like impeachment on Prozac,” the aide said.

Barr, meanwhile, has had multiple meetings with staff to prepare for the hearing, DOJ officials told POLITICO. He’s preparing for questions on national policing controversies, violent crime, and the controversial government surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Three DOJ officials will accompany him to the hearing: top spokesperson Kerri Kupec, legislative affairs chief Stephen Boyd, and Barr’s chief of staff, Will Levi.

Posted in Uncategorized

Monica Lewinsky Nails It With ‘I Have A Joke’ Clinton Reference

Monica Lewinsky, the political world’s most famous intern, took a shot at the ‘I have a joke’ social media trend and delivered a knockout blow.

The competition was initiated by Nell Scovell, creator of the TV series ‘Sabrina the Teenage Witch,’ when she tweeted, “I have a Charles Manson joke and it kills.”

‘I have a joke’ was swiftly trending afterward.

To which Lewinsky offered up her own version.

“I have an intern joke and it … nevermind,” she wrote, at least leaving the final word to the imagination, though it’s hardly difficult to figure out where she was going.

RELATED: ESPN Host Who Mocked Trump For Saying Seattle Protesters Were Violent Comes Home To Find Apartment Complex Torched – Now He Wants A Gun

What Does She Mean?

If you’re too young to remember, Lewinsky had a politically earth-shattering affair with former President Bill Clinton in the ’90s, a relationship which would lead to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Clinton’s wife, Hillary, has staunchly defended her husband, insisting he never should have stepped down amidst the scandal, an act which ultimately brought us to today, when no scandal in politics is truly shocking any longer.

“Absolutely not,” the former First Lady insisted when asked if he should have resigned.

She said this less than two years ago when the #MeToo movement was in full swing.

“It wasn’t an abuse of power?” a reporter asked, to which she replied: “No. No.”

The affair between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky is widely seen as an abuse of power, due to the position held by each and the age differences. Clinton was 49 at the time, Lewinsky just 22.

The former President was also accused of multiple infidelities, sexual assaults, and even rape by Juanita Broaddrick, a former nursing home owner.

Clinton has said the ‘gutsiest’ thing she’d ever done in her personal life was to stay married to Clinton, despite these numerous affairs and accusations.

RELATED: Kayleigh McEnany Rips Biden For Hiding From Fox News’ Chris Wallace

Not Monica’s First Joke

This isn’t the first time Monica has joked about her famous affair.

Last summer, Vice President Mike Pence suggested Americans need to spend more time praying than on the internet, though his advice was truncated by the Washington Times.

They tweeted: “Mike Pence: ‘Spend more time on your knees than on the internet.'”

Freelance journalist Lauren Duca offered a snarky response to the Times tweet of the column: “OK, who’s gonna tell him?”

That’s when Monica chimed in …

This last joke, however, according to actress Mia Farrow, deserves props.

“Monica wins the internet,” she wrote.

The post Monica Lewinsky Nails It With ‘I Have A Joke’ Clinton Reference appeared first on The Political Insider.

The underbelly of impeachment: A tangle of principles, politics and personalities

The renewed national debate over the purity of America's founders has highlighted an unmistakable truism: the people who have led this country — throughout its glorious and troubled history — are flawed, full of contradictions and far too easily lionized, their sins airbrushed for polite company.

So the arrival of a rapid-fire history of the House’s impeachment of Donald Trump, set to hit shelves Tuesday, provides some notable candor about the figures who led the nation into and through the third-ever Senate trial of a U.S. president.

“A Case for the American People,” by Norm Eisen — an architect of the House Democrats’ impeachment strategy —isn’t shy about its conclusions: Eisen believes in his bones that Trump is a recidivist criminal who must be ousted to save the republic. He also believes that the Democrats who engineered Trump’s impeachments are heroes on par with the founders. The book is, at bottom, an effort to convey those conclusions — and Eisen's centrality to the impeachment effort — to the wider world.

But Eisen’s 280-page chronicle of the impeachment era, replete with his inside-the-room knowledge of how the process unfolded, juxtaposes lawmakers’ lofty pronouncements about protecting democracy with the often provincial tensions and messy House politics that drove decisions of national significance.

Eisen, who signed up as a House Judiciary Committee attorney in early 2019 with an eye toward impeachment, also describes the hail of early “f--- you’s” he delivered to House Intelligence Committee aide Daniel Goldman, who he said had accused him of treading on the committee’s turf. (They would later get past the initial tension, Eisen says). He describes how internal Democratic politics led him to shave a planned 10 articles of impeachment — encompassing a sweeping range of allegations such as “collusion” and “hush money payments” down to three, and then two, after vulnerable Democrats rejected charging Trump with obstruction of justice.

Eisen reveals the sometimes painful conflicts between House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) — in Eisen’s eyes, the unsung hero of impeachment — and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who often resisted Nadler’s lead-foot on the impeachment accelerator. Nadler drew Pelosi’s ire throughout the process by leaning into calls for impeachment faster than the rest of the House was ready for, and Eisen said Nadler had accepted that it would take time to restore his “former level personal warmth” with the speaker.

Eisen is the unlikely narrator for a book about a gloomy period in American history. The preternaturally affable former ambassador often seemed out of place in the take-yourself-too-seriously backrooms of the U.S. Capitol. Eisen can often be found in the backdrop of iconic images of the impeachment hearings and trial, sporting a sly perma-grin beneath a head of tight curls.

He describes his own mischief, at times, noting that when rumors emerged that Pelosi was considering a select committee to wrest the impeachment process away from Nadler, he worked with fellow Nadler staffers to crush the idea.

“We immediately started talking to everybody, from the antiTrump neocon right to the progressive left, to try to put the kibosh on the select committee idea,” Eisen writes. [Nadler chief of staff Amy Rutkin] and I furiously worked our Rolodexes, as did the entire staff.”

Among their successes? Eisen writes that he convinced anti-Trump conservative Bill Kristol to rescind support for a select committee and that Rutkin convinced progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to retweet Kristol’s reversal, adding her own note of urgency to leave the process with the Judiciary Committee.

In short, Eisen’s book is “This Town” for the impeachment era, an x-ray vision view of Washington’s seamy interconnectedness, transplanted to the most consequential stage of all: the floor of the U.S. Senate during a doomed attempt to remove Trump from office.

Eisen — a former ambassador to the Czech Republic and Obama White House’s ethics czar — regales readers with his decades-old entanglements with many of the figures involved in Trump’s trial, from Trump's trial lawyers to even the State Department's impeachment witnesses, like former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who he describes as "my friend and former colleague."

“Judge Ken Starr, the Clinton independent counsel, and Professor Alan Dershowitz. I had worked for Dersh in law school—my first legal job,” Eisen writes. “Starr had also been kind to me when I was a young lawyer and gofer on the Clinton impeachment. Both had visited me in Prague.”

Eisen also self-deprecatingly recounts, during a spate of clandestine pre-impeachment negotiating sessions with White House lawyers, he had an inadvertent run-in with Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

“‘Norm Eisen, what are you doing here?’” Eisen recalls Conway asking. “I evaded her question, genuinely concerned she would put the kibosh on the negotiations. After some not-so-gentle teasing back and forth about which of us was more corrupt, she said she was on her way to see the president. “‘I’ll tell him I saw you!’” she said, per Eisen’s telling.

Perhaps most consequentially, Eisen describes an old friendship with Robert Trout, who became longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks' lawyer during the House's quest to investigate Trump. Trout, Eisen said, was "an old friend and mentor" and personally disagreed with the White House's claim that Trump's aides were "absolutely immune" from testifying to Congress, a legal theory that courts have largely rejected too. So Trout became the first lawyer to negotiate in-person testimony for a high-level Trump aide — in exchange for a promise to do it behind closed doors.

"Trout’s offer was a no-brainer," Eisen said.

I spoke with Eisen, who I observed from afar throughout the impeachment process, about dichotomies on display in his book, which I said playfully could also be dubbed “The Gospel of Jerry.” (Someone on Schiff’s team would have to write “The Gospel of Adam” to capture the Intelligence Committee’s side of the story, large swaths of which are omitted here.)

In the interview, Eisen acknowledged telling a Nadler-centric version of events, in part because of his vantage point from the dais of the Judiciary Committee. But it’s also because he describes Nadler as “the least well known and in some ways the most complicated” member of what he calls impeachment’s “Great Triumvirate,” along with Pelosi and Schiff.

The complexity, he said, stems from Nadler’s long history with Trump. The two battled during Nadler’s days as a local New York politico — when Trump was a celebrity developer — and understand each other better than most. It’s why, Eisen posits, Trump called from Air Force One to check in on Nadler in May 2019 after the would-be impeachment manager briefly fainted from dehydration at a public event.

“Shortly after the call, I asked Jerry if he thought Trump was doing it to rub it in or to lord it over him after he felt ill,” Eisen writes. “‘Absolutely not,’ he said without hesitation. Jerry said that Trump sounded lonely and that it was an opportunity for him to make a connection—yes, with an adversary, but nonetheless one who had known him the longest of all of his current primary antagonists.”

Eisen said Trump’s long history with Nadler is another example of the complexities beneath the surface of the impeachment process — everyone knew everyone, sometimes for decades.

“There's a story like that for literally anyone who was involved in this impeachment,” Eisen said in the interview. “This is a small town, it is an industry town. Government is the company store that we all live off of.”

The book is also the story of typically anonymous staffers — some who prefer to remain that way — into the storylines that they help drive and shape for their more powerful bosses. Judiciary Committee fixtures like Perry Apelbaum, Aaron Hiller and Arya Hariharan play featured roles in crafting and pushing the House's impeachment strategy, alongside Eisen and co-counsel Barry Berke.

Eisen recalls Pelosi becoming frustrated during one closed-door meeting — details of which leaked out at the time — because of the efforts Judiciary Committee staff (Eisen included) to drive the House toward impeachment before she and the caucus were ready.

“They may think they run the place, but they do not,'" Pelosi told colleagues, in Eisen's telling. "That’s a caucus decision, not theirs. And you can tell them that."

Eisen writes that the speaker's go-slow approach became a challenge of sorts: to convince her that the case against Trump was so overwhelming that she should reverse. That led to repeated friction with the speaker, who Eisen described as justified in her approach.

"Pelosi was rightly concerned about the whole caucus, including the forty or so front-liners and new members who represented districts that Trump had won and who had given her the majority," he writes. "She had been annoyed with our pushing, which Jerry accepted. We had a job to do, and she had a job to do."

Another undercurrent throughout Eisen’s book is disappointment. He’s consistently let down by figures he viewed as principled who, by the end of the impeachment trial, he came to see as corrupted by the influence of Trump — he names Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein, who (surprise!) Eisen has known since 1993 when he says they vied for the same Justice Department job. But he saves his most unsparing criticism for special counsel Robert Mueller, a figure he said he once revered but who he said let the country down in the aftermath of his investigation of the Trump campaign’s 2016 contacts with Russia.

Eisen, as a Judiciary Committee lawyer, helped lead the drive to bring Mueller to Capitol Hill, but was among those who was underwhelmed by Mueller’s testimony and felt he "abdicated" during the probe by failing to meet the urgency of the allegations against the president.

That frustration carried over, Eisen said, to efforts to secure Mueller’s testimony on July 24, 2019.

“Mueller’s colleagues seemed more concerned about protecting Mueller from questioning than about protecting our democracy,” Eisen writes. “What difference does a pristine reputation make when Rome is burning around you?”

I asked Eisen about renewed efforts by Senate Democrats and Republicans to bring Mueller back to Capitol Hill before the election, and he was quick to reject the view that it could be a do-over of sorts. "He did not finish the job. He did not go to the limits of his prosecutorial authority," Eisen said. "When you're facing down a criminal of the president's nature, that is unforgivable."

The book is at its best when it’s providing a front-row view to the closed-door investigations of the Judiciary Committee or the Senate impeachment trial. Eisen describes a conversation on the floor with Starr and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who would later become the only GOP senator to back Trump’s removal from office.

“Romney told Starr how much he appreciated his presentation, but proceeded to ask him a series of penetrating questions that spoke to a mind that had not been made up,” Eisen writes.

It was his earliest clue, he says, that Romney’s vote was up for grabs, and it helped the House’s impeachment managers tailor their arguments to at least capture his vote, even if the trial itself was lost.

Posted in Uncategorized