40 Burst results for "House Democrats"
Fresh update on "house democrats" discussed on Morning News with Hal Jay & Brian Estridge
"7 18 w b a P little Randy Rogers man for you there. How? Happy Friday? Yes. Yeah, but great line in the song. Yeah, says one of things don't work out by the next song And you're looking for someone who can dance. I'll be right over there by the jukebox. A quarter in my hand trying to buy us Try. I'm not finished. Trying to, but never mind. 7 19 w B A P. It is a Friday morning news coming up here in 7 45. Tony Fauci has slammed the covert restrictions being lifted here in the state of Texas will get into that. But first, there's one more Senate bill that sounds here. H r one that looks at voting issues on House Democrats have aimed this and lowering the voting age to 16 and one of the things that's in there is a provision in that would restore voting rights to felons who've been released from prison. There's another in there that would automatically register as voters those already in certain government databases. So if you're in a government database, you we all are some. Yes. Yeah, you'll automatically be registered as a voter, but the databases of their choosing. Our unemployment. And food stamps. So if you're in those two databases, you're going to be automatically registered as early as age 16 to vote. Well, that's silly, because 16 year olds can't vote. Not yet. Yeah, well, but with this bill They're calling for that. Okay? Who would 16 year olds vote for what would their over their target? Be do that do that. Andrew Yang. You do Okay, because You know, I'm trying to think who would benefit What party from 16 year old voters. Democrats would would benefit from from this, and that's why they do it. In fact, I Ana Presley out of Massachusetts, one of the members of Congress behind this voting age amendment, she said that she doesn't have Children of her own. She said. This a 16 year old and 2021 possesses the wisdom. Maturity that comes from 2021 challenges, 2021 hardships and 2021 threats. Now is the time for us to demonstrate the courage that matches the challenges of bonding Day 16 and 17 Year olds. Well, she's a nut. I will tell you how I have a 16 year old and he ain't ready to vote. Yep. He's not ready for that responsibility, and he's a good kid, But he's not ready for that. Responsibility. Brother 16. So a lot of 18 year olds aren't ready for that. I know a lot of 30 year olds who make up Thank you, You know? Yeah, Exactly. There's very people out. There's a belt. It shouldn't even be allowed on the property to work. But I mean, but like we were talking earlier, you can influence my son with Cheez Doodles. You know, I mean, so they're not ready. Vote. So there you go. Little base to be. Yeah, it is. Don't start That conversation is get Steve involved in that. No, but so but so that's where we I mean. That's what they want. They want 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote. Well, how did they know that they would benefit the Democrat because how it's not about because what's happening now in our schools and in our colleges. Is not education. It is indoctrination. And so that's part of the indoctrination process, too. Want you because you think about it over the years. How Over the years. Most people tend to vote the same way, right. You know, if you voted Republican for the most part, you've always voted Republican s. So you get him started early, get started early Voting Democrat No vote Democrat the rest of their life. People don't change. Hmm. I would hope someone would vote Republican. Well, then, you son or let me take that back. You know, there's conservative and liberal. Yeah. Just vote. Your principles. Don't I don't care how you vote. Vote your principles. If you believe something voting that don't just get influenced by the cheese Doodle. Yeah. Which is there you have it? Yeah. Do not let a cheese doodle influence your voting habits. Yeah, speaking directly to Monte Cook, Who's got traffic.
House Passes George Floyd Bill Designed To Help Prevent Police Misconduct
"House of representatives passed a national police reform bill named effort a black man killed by police last year. George Floyd Justice and Policing Act would ban choke holds no knock warrants and end qualified immunity for police officers. The bills identical to one that House Democrats passed last year and response to nationwide uprisings against police brutality sparked by the police killing of Floyd in Minneapolis.
Fresh "House Democrats" from Morning News with Hal Jay & Brian Estridge
"G'kar head off the car, not the kid. From that I would be happy Weather center. We're gonna be partly to mostly cloudy, windy and mild with a few isolated showers and storms as a cold front comes through this afternoon. It's very minor. Though high today 67 wind shifting to the north 15 25 and dusty There is some rain east of us, but not in the area right now. Clearing, breezy and cool 44 Tonight 63 tomorrow 67 on Sunday and warmer early next week. Right now, I w b a p 56 degrees. Lot of love for you how being told by a chip expert? You can buy wise that target as of right now, Thank you and get him Progressive House Democrats, which means liberal, in case you're wondering. Liberal House Democrats try are trying to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16. They added An amendment to HR one yes, which is a voting rights package that amendment did fail. Okay by a vote of 302 to 1 25. So that means a bunch of Democrats hopped along with Republicans. They did Yes. The overall bill did pass to 22 to 10 and their parts of this bill. That would restore voting rights to felons who have been released from prison. All right, here's another one that I find interesting how And that is that there is a provision in this bill. That would automatically register as voters. Those already on certain government databases. All.
White House narrows income limits for stimulus checks
"Of a threat from far right groups, including followers of the Cuban on conspiracy. Those extremists claim Donald Trump will retake the presidency today. This is not stopping the Senate from carrying on the House adjourned, but not before Democrats passed two major bills last night. One on voting rights, the other on police reform for more. We're joined by NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis. And so Democrats have railed against bills passed in state houses across the country that would make it harder to vote curbing things like mail in voting and early voting that work expanded last year during the pandemic. So what would this federal voting rights bill do about that? Well, this legislation has been a top priority for the party. It's not new. It was introduced in passed in the house in the last Congress. So this vote this week was a bit of a do over. They've called it the most sweeping government reform bill since the post Watergate era. And what wouldn't do it would do things like allow for automatic voter registration, it would make Election day of federal holiday. It would restore voting rights to people with past felony convictions. It would also expand early voting that we saw you so much in the 2020 elections. It would also do things like create more independent redistricting commissions to sort of end party controlled drawing of congressional district. On campaign finance. It would require more disclosure of big donors. It would require transparency about those ads you see in your social media feeds, and it would create a new public financing system for congressional candidates. Would also do things like expand conflict of interest laws that would ban members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and require presidents by law to disclose their taxes. Okay, sweeping to say the least. Thea other bill passed last night is the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Police reform has been a democratic priority for a long time. What's in this one? This is another bill that passed in the previous congress. So they're doing it again. This'll legislation would do things that would ban choke holds, it would change so called qualified immunity protection so it would make it easier to pursue claims of misconduct against police officers. It would put restrictions on no knock warrants, and it would require new data collection on a police encounters. It would also direct more money to community based policing programs. This one is not. I mean, it's not as controversial as the voting reforms Bill, which has very strong Republican opposition. No Republicans supported it. There is a bit more support among Republicans for police reform, especially in the Senate. There's competing measure by Tim Scott, who's a Republican of South Carolina. So there's maybe a chance there could be more bipartisan effort to move that bill forward, But the other measure is purely a symbolic one of the stage. It's still a tall order in the House Democrats know based on previous failures that these bills don't have much hope of getting to 60 votes in the Senate, which, of course, is the magic number to break a filibuster, they would need 10 Republicans to vote with Democrats. So why are they so determined to pass them if the prospects looked in Part of this is just elections are making good on their promises. These issues are very important to the Democratic base, and I think it's about keeping that promise. But you're right. I mean, I think that's going to be one of the cork tensions, if not the court tension of this Congress. I think Democrats really sensitive this fact that they control Washington. Now they have Congress and the White House and they want to be able to run in 20 to 2022 on accomplishments. But they have these really narrow majorities in the House and Senate, which really limits what they're going to be able to do. You know, it's not just the filibuster to the parties are really divided right now. There's not much that they agree on. The bigger picture, though, is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer just doesn't have the votes to change the filibuster, and it's not clear that he ever will in this Congress. One of the biggest opponents, a centrist Democrat, Joe Manchin, of West Virginia. He was asked last week if he could ever see changing his mind. And he literally yelled never at the reporters who asked him the question, Okay, digging in on the filibuster, So just in the moment we have left we have the Senate is still in session. They're debating that Cove in 19 relief package. What's the latest? You know they're making some tweaks to the bill. They've done things like reduced the income limits for people to get those $1400 stimulus checks. There was concerns among Senate Senate Democrats that too much money was going to people who didn't need it. Otherwise, The bill seems to be on a glide path. They don't expect to get any Republican support. But Democrats seem pretty unified behind it. If it passes this week, they gotta send it back over to the house to pass it back over there, but Right now. They're on track to meet a march 14th deadline that they've set, which is when current extended unemployment benefits run out, and they don't want to see those benefits lapsed. So there's a real pressure campaign to get it done by then. OK, that's NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis with the latest thanks to your right welcome. Well, every
Fresh update on "house democrats" discussed on Eric Harley and Gary McNamara
"Just days after President Biden's first airstrike in the Middle East. It aims to repeal to authorizations for the use of military force. Jennifer Griffin has more bipartisan group of lawmakers are challenging the Biden administration to reclaim control over Congress's war powers. Senator Tim Kaine suggests the old war authorizations for Iraq. Give the White House a blank check to bomb wherever and whenever they want without consulting Congress, You know they could be used in mysterious ways to justify actions long after the Original crisis is passed in a statement, Senators cane and Republican Todd Young say some authorizations need to be repealed at the Pentagon. Jennifer Griffin Fox News House Democrats have passed police reform bill that Republicans are you actually hurts police boxes Jackie Heinrich reports from Capitol Hill. Democrats say that George Floyd Justice in Policing Bill holds.
House passes sweeping voting rights bill, a Senate filibuster may stand in the way
"Voting rights bill has passed in the House over Republican opposition House Democrats passed a sweeping voting and ethics bill Wednesday, sending the legislation to the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate. The bill would be the largest overhaul of U. S election law in at least a generation HR. One would restrict partisan Jerry Mandarin of congressional districts strike down hurdles to voting and require so called dark money political groups to disclose anonymous donors. The House vote was to 22 to 10 with every Republican voting against passage. Although vice president Kamila Harris holds the tie breaking vote for most legislation in the 50 50 Senate, 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Mike Rossi, a Washington
Fresh update on "house democrats" discussed on The Daily Mash-Up
"I saw it on Mulberry Street. Get out of that book, Dangerous. Count Lee. This is actually what someone received. This is the email from eBay they received All right. They sent it to the user said you're listing was removed Offensive material policy. We had to remove your listing because it didn't follow our capitalized offensive material policy listings that promote or glorify hatred or violence or discrimination. They aren't allowed. Actual Yeah, And then it said, um We've ended your item We've refunded. You're selling fees. As long as you do not release the item. There will be no negative impact here account. It's so offensive. I mean, so there it was a woman who was selling them. The cats quiz er. But then you still have seven speeches by Minister Louis Farrakhan all about hating Jewish people. You can get that and you can get mine comp on eBay. And with descriptive bibliography. So you can get all that, but not Dr Seuss. Too dangerous. Unbelievable. So that's where we are. It is insane. So I think I'm I mean, I think Do I have any of these on my own? Are any of our kids books? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I never ever get rid of a book. So Don't know. I just Oh, my word. All right, So a couple of other things, House Democrats, they You know the HR one that I was telling you about warning you about Democrats have passed it through the house, which I told you was gonna happen. And this is a huge attack, not just on free speech, but also on voting rights because it looks to nationalize voting. And not it, Z. I don't know how this is. I don't see this being easy going through the Senate. But it didn't go through the house and made it to the house and it's had to deal with it. Basically. Tries to control speech through campaign finance finance laws. It's bad, it's bad all around, so it passed. And now it's going towards the Senate. And then now the Senate is also dealing with a massive debate. For the coronavirus bill. And it's It's just it's gonna, Yeah, I This is where Mitch McConnell's importance comes into play because he's going to make this is excruciatingly painful as possible as he should. So the Senate Democrats remember yesterday I told you how they were making a deal with Biden. Senate Democrats were to reduce the number of people who would actually receive not the $2000 checks, but the $1400 checks. And then they phase out completely for single filers at 80,000 and Joint filers at 100 and 60,000. And The socialist the soup, while the publicly socialist Democrats are infuriated. That they had an amendment. That was barred. Where they wanted illegal entrance. Illegal aliens to receive these checks. Also And it was a big Oh, that was a bigger fight, so They say they're close, but they're they're duking it out. And then, of course, Sanders wants to offer an amendment that's going to raise the minimum wage. And even though the parliamentarian was like that's violates Senate rules That you can't do that so We'll keep you updated as to how that fight goes, we have more on the way. You know, with Neanderthal thinking, apparently. And we have Florida. Man come happens. Well, you don't wanna mess as we get moving on. You know that when you're using Any kind of social media. You probably think that they're just providing these services for free. I don't know. May I think some people did up until you know, thankfully recently, but If you wondered how these companies make their money, it's because you are their product. They track your searches your video history. Everything you click on how long you watch the video and they sell all of this data your product, and when you use express VP in what you're doing is taking that power away from them. You're you anonymous much of your online presence because you're hiding your I P address and that makes your activity More difficult to trace and sell to advertisers..
House passes sweeping elections and police reform bills
"Bill has passed in the house over GOP opposition House Democrats passed a sweeping voting and ethics bill Wednesday, sending the legislation to the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate. The bill would be the largest overhaul of U. S election law in at least a generation HR. One would restrict partisan Jerry Mandarin of congressional districts strike down hurdles to voting and require so called dark money political groups to disclose anonymous donors. The House vote was to 22 to 10 with every Republican voting against passage. Although vice president Kamila Harris holds the tie breaking vote for most legislation in the 50 50 Senate, 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Mike Rossi, a
Fresh "House Democrats" from Press Play with Madeleine Brand
"You sunny skies tomorrow highs in the mid to upper sixties at the beaches mid seventies inland right now, 55 degrees in Carpinteria at seven o'clock. Thistles Press play on KCRW. I'm Madeleine brand. The house passes a massive election reform and voting rights bill, But it will go anywhere in the Senate. Unless Democrats get rid of the filibuster is the question of the hour right now. I mean, there's just so many bills that house Democrats have been passing Two black surfers experience racism in Manhattan Beach..
House passes sweeping voting rights bill over GOP opposition
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting the house passes sweeping voting rights legislation over GOP opposition house Democrats passed a sweeping voting and ethics bill Wednesday sending the legislation to the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate the bill would be the largest overhaul of the U. S. election law in at least a generation H. R. one would restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts strike down hurdles to voting and require so called dark money political groups to disclose anonymous donors the house vote was two twenty two to ten with every Republican voting against passage although vice president Kamilla Harris holds the tie breaking vote for most legislation in the fifty fifty Senate sixty votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster Mike Rossio Washington
Biden, Senate Democrats agree to limit eligibility for $1,400 checks
"Senate Democrats have reached an agreement with the White House to tighten eligibility requirements to receive the next round of stimulus checks. NPR's Kelsey Snow reports, moderate Democrats demanded that the payments be more closely targeted on the basis of income. Senate Democrats plan to maintain a maximum payment of $1400 per eligible person. The new agreement would allow people earning up to $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000 per year to receive the full benefit. Payments would be reduced for people earning more and would be eliminated entirely for individuals are in over $80,000 and couples earning over $160,000. Those top income limits are much lower than they were under the House passed plan. Critics, including some House Democrats, who represent cities with a high cost of living, say the new limits penalize their constituents, particularly single parents, who have to earn more to support families. Healthy smell. NPR NEWS
Fewer Americans might get a $1,400 stimulus check
"Senate Democrats have reached an agreement with the White House to tighten eligibility requirements to receive the next round of stimulus checks. NPR's Kelsey Snow reports, moderate Democrats demanded that the payments be more closely targeted on the basis of income. Senate Democrats plan to maintain a maximum payment of $1400 per eligible person. The new agreement would allow people earning up to $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000 per year to receive the full benefit. Payments would be reduced for people earning more and would be eliminated entirely. For individuals earning over $80,000 and couples earning over $160,000. Those top income limits are much lower than they were under the House passed plan. Critics, including some House Democrats, who represent cities with a high cost of living, say the new limits penalize their constituents, particularly single parents, who have to earn more to support
Schumer Says Senate Could Soon Pass COVID Relief Bill
"White House Democrats in the senator going through a proposed $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief measure, looking to narrow differences on a number of key points such as emergency jobless benefits and remaining issues. Measure, if approved, would be a major victory for president by news is expected to address lawmakers via conference call. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he intends to bring the sweeping build the Senate floor as soon as
House Democrats charge ahead with bills likely to stall Senate
"Poised to advance a sweeping election reform bill through the house, the Democratic led house passed before the people at last Congress, it's told in the Senate Democrat They're bringing it up again this week, a measure that would require early voting windows, expand voter registration access and require future presidents to disclose their tax returns. A response the former president Trump's refusal to follow that tradition. Republicans opposed the measure. They describe it as a Democrat Political Protection Act that would shift control of elections from states to the federal government. Prospects in the Senate do remain uncertain without Republican support to overcome a 60 vote filibuster threshold.
$1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package bashed by Kemp as backers in Atlanta stress benefits
"In a statement Saturday, Governor Brian can blasted senators Raphael Warnock and Jonah's off on the $1.9 Trillion Covert 19 relief bill passed by House Democrats, Theo governor said quote I strongly urge our two U. S senators to use their considerable influence in an evenly divided Senate to level the playing field for hardworking Georgians and put the people of our state ahead of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's pandemic politics. CBS 46 reports Senator Ossoff's often Said. Under the bill, aid will come from federal authorities and go directly to cities of mayors who will then distribute the federal dollars to needy Georgians.
NY House Democrat calls for Cuomo to resign after latest allegation
"Just moments ago. New york congressman caffeine rights. Democrat called on new york governor. Cuomo to resign. The time has come. She says governor signed that comes after a third woman has now come forward to tell the new york times when we'll made unwanted advances to her at a wedding touching her hair back and asking if he could kiss her. That is the picture of taking at the moment of the moment in question. Now that news breaking tonight just hours. After new york's attorney general letitia james announced. Her office will move forward with an independent investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. by cuomo. promising that quote the findings will be disclosed and a public report over the weekend. A second former aide had gone on the record new york times accusing the governor of sexual harassment. Cuomo the allegations. He released an apology on sunday. Saying i now understand. My interactions may have been insensitive or two personal that some of my comments given my position made others feel in ways i never intend
House Democrats pass Biden’s $1.9 trillion relief plan despite setback on minimum wage
"A massive $1.9 trillion covert relief plan now heads to the Senate after passing the House Democrats and President Biden not happy about the bill moving forward without the $15 an hour minimum wage they had wanted. Hawaii Democratic Senator Maisy Hirono on ABC is this week. People who are suffering most from the minimum wage and what's happening in there? In the pandemic are the essential workers. Many of them are women. Many of them are getting paid very low wages. Republicans, for their part, opposed the bills. Massive price
House Passes $1.9 Trillion Pandemic Relief Bill
"Morning, the house passing a $1.9 Trillion pandemic relief package early this morning. Here CBS is Lilia Luciano Yays are 2 19. The nays are 2 12. The bill is passed without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. House Democrats have passed the Cupid Relief package, which includes $1400 in direct payments to tens of millions of Americans, an extension to unemployment benefits, food aid, housing assistance and billions of dollars to expand vaccine distribution and testing fresh the virus yet our economy back on track and transformed the lives of impoverished Children. Republicans argued The bill is too expensive and only Fraction of it will go to pandemic relief. There's next to nothing to save Main Street businesses or get America's unemployed back to work. The bill headed to the Senate also includes a provision to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour really Luciano CBS NEWS Many businesses here in Massachusetts
House Democrats to keep minimum wage hike in COVID-19 relief bill for Friday vote
"The Senate parliamentarian rules against including the minimum wage in the covert relief bill. While Democrats had pushed for the increase to be included, its removal may actually make it easier to pass the covert bill, and they wind up avoiding a messy fight over whether to strip it out of the bill or compromised the finding by Elizabeth McDonough, the parliamentarian, the chambers, nonpartisan arbiter of its rules. Comes as Democrats prepare for House approval tomorrow of the initial version of the $1.9 trillion package. She has ruled that the increase to $15 per hour did not meet a strict set of guidelines needed to move forward. In the Senate reconciliation process, So that means the Senate will have toe strip the minimum wage provision out and then eventually, the House will have to pass the bill again. At the end of the process.
House Democrats unveil full $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill details
"Stimulus checks for most Americans and an extension of $400 Weekly federal unemployment benefits. The Democrats goal to get the bill on the president's desk before those benefits expire on March 14th. Just last week, 861,000 Americans filed new unemployment claims and more than 18 million Americans are collecting benefits from ST And federal government program. ABC is Alex Parrish, a protest in Denver. Ah, Group of workers for the Mental Health Center of Denver. Protest Ng
House Democrats unveil full $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill with minimum wage increase
"Yesterday, House Democrats unveiled their version of a covert 19 stimulus bill, which contains an increase to the minimum wage. House Democrats are pushing and Senate Democrats pushing for this $15 minimum wage hike. That figure has been a signature of the Democrats wish list, but the president has hinted May Not be possible. Now Politico reporting that President Biden told governors and mayors last week in the Oval Office just may not be the right time boxes David Sponte. The bill also includes more than $100 million Burn underground rail project in California's Silicon Valley, according to documents obtained by the Fox Business Network. The project has been in the works for years, but ground has yet to be broken. Republicans are opposed to the covert package. But under a process called budget reconciliation. Democrats could approve the bill without GOP
House Democrats Unveil Details of Next Coronavirus Relief Bill
"House Democrats have unveiled the details of the next coronavirus relief bill. NPR's Winsor Johnston reports the White House as up the pressure on Congress to pass it's nearly $2 trillion relief plan, which includes another round of direct payments and additional aid for state and local governments. The measure includes $1400 relief checks for Americans making $75,000 per year or less. It also extends extra weekly unemployment benefits through the end of August and includes additional funding for vaccine distribution and a testing. Another provision calls for the gradual increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, a clause that's received pushback from Republicans and some moderate Democrats. Abiding measure is likely to face some hurdles in the Senate and need support from every Democrat to pass with a simple majority. The House is expected to vote on the legislation by the end of next week. Winter Johnston. NPR
Democrats Closer Than Ever to Passing Mammoth COVID-19 Relief Bill
"Congressional democrats closer than ever to getting much needed relief into the hands of americans today. House house democrats unveiled be five hundred ninety one page text of president biden's coronavirus aid package house. Budget committee is set to take up legislation on monday. And the bill's expected to come to the house floor for a vote late next week. President biden called out republican critics of the package this afternoon. Let me ask what would they have me cut. Oh they believe are should we invest twenty billion dollars to vaccinate the nation. Should we not invest two hundred ninety million dollars to extend unemployment insurance for the eleven million. Americans are unemployed so they can get by. This is united states of america. God's sake we invest in people who are in need to invest thirty five billion dollars. People keep a roof over their heads. I could go on but you get the point for all the obvious. Gop criticism republicans are struggling to derail the president's relief plan because it's so popular the new york times reports many of its core provisions poll strongly even with republicans more than seven in ten americans. Now back mr biden's package. According to new polling for the online research firm survey monkey for the new york times that includes support from three quarters of independent voters to and five republicans and nearly all democrats
"house democrats" Discussed on Radio Boston
"Is to making sure that we can support state and local governments that we can feed people who are going hungry that we can support people's businesses so they can protect their livelihood to we can get this pandemic under control. That is where we just did. Not see mitch. Mcconnell for example even coming to the table. He says he'll come now. We're still there waiting and ready. This is relief. The american people need. And i think that republicans and the president in particular This pandemic revealed and his subsequent negotiations revealed that this is all about him and that he just wasn't able to see and meet the needs of americans. You are one of the senior leaders in the democratic caucus in the house. Is there bridge-building to do inside the democratic big tent between the moderate elected representatives in the more progressive representatives. In your own party. You know there's always a theme with with winning parties after elections especially with democrats in disarray. But i can tell you that. I have talked to So many members across our our caucus in the last few days and there is a real commitment and unity that this is a moment where our country needs us to come together to unite behind those issues. That people talk about The keep them up at night worrying about and making sure that we show people that we don't just oppose donald trump which we do but that we're ready to govern and we're ready to come together and put those issues that are so key to success in the immediate with the pandemic and in the long term to protect our planet to finally address the toxic roots of slavery in our country and root out systemic. racism These are issues that people care very deeply about and we will be a united front and we will reach out across the dial and hope that with the new president with an emphasis on unity and truly being a president for all american people. We're going to find new partners in this work and we're going to be able to expand access to health care work on racial justice. Make sure we're dressing. Climate change pass a robust infrastructure. Bill get people back to work And back in school by a by addressing this virus and bringing down infection rates. This is the work we have to do. And i see and hear from my caucus members a true commitment to doing that together. Not only with the members of our caucus but with the american people. You are running to be assistant speaker of the house Can i ask you how you see your prospects there how you feel. That's going. I am very about my prospects and you know a few people. Ask me after the election where you sure you still want to do this. You know i was hoping you'd have a supermajority but it's more important than ever This position is a building block for the skills and experiences. And the trust i've been able to build throughout our caucus because i believe in the individual success of each member helps us be successful for the american people and we do have a diverse caucus and what makes it. Wonderful is that reflects the diversity of the beautiful mosaic of our country. And so i'm going to continue that work to be more of a listener Than a talker to make sure that we are hearing from our historically diverse membership. Because that's the way we put the voice of the american people at our leadership table and that's what we need to do. We have no shortage of challenges. But i am optimistic about our ability to meet them that is massachusetts congresswoman katherine. Clark of the fifth district congressman. I appreciate you taking the time to join us today. Thanks thank you to the iana..
"house democrats" Discussed on The Beat with Ari Melber
"Congressional Democrats now marching towards impeachment right now releasing this new formal report that argues president trump betrayed the nation through multiple felonies. Meanwhile L. Center Schumer has basically broken his silence. And there's coming out swinging. He's putting pressure on Republicans in the Senate over the looming trump trial the house. Meanwhile still planning to hold this floor. Vote on impeachment Wednesday today. The Judiciary Committee is releasing as mentioned this exhaust of six hundred and fifty page report. Let me give you some quick key. Highlights lights they allege which has been said before the Donald trump quote committed an abuse of power. But there's some other stuff here that's new. You'll notice quote. The constitutional offense of bribery. Multiple multiple. Federal crimes betrayed the nation. All of that part of this closing argument by the Democrats now. The Senate is no longer waiting to see what happens. You have Democratic leader leader. Chuck Schumer demanding that trump's trial include the kind of firsthand witnesses that the White House has been blocking including Mick Mulvaney and of course Mr drug deal himself John. Bolton trials have witnesses. That's what trials are all about to engage Asia trial without the facts. Coming out is to engage in a cover-up the American people will rightly ask. What are you leader? McConnell title and what is President Trump hiding Democrats also reminding Republican senators of the exact oaths. They actually have to publicly. Take it to start at the trial. Something we've covered right here on the beat. It is a pledge to do quote impartial justice according to the constitution and the laws. So help me. God You could keep that oath in mind though as you listen. Listen to Republican senator. Lindsey Graham I am trying to give a pretty clear signal. I've made up my mind a year. I am clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in in the process so I don't need any witnesses. He doesn't need any witnesses. He doesn't even need any more information. That's the president's one of his staunchest defenders of course in the Senate and that's previewing one approach here boasting of kind of bias while basically saying let's shut this whole thing down. And that may certainly appeal to trump some some trump supporters. This is a political process process. It's been said well. The congress is going to have things that are done for political reasons but also watch what's happening that kind of approach coming out swinging before the Senate even established the entire procedure for the trial it may alienate some of the very senators trump needs as jurors. I think it would be extremely only inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over. I think we ought to hear what the house Petri managers have to say. And what will those house impeachment. The managers say well depends of course on who they are. I can tell you tonight. Speaker Pelosi is now expected to name them very soon within a matter of potentially days and some Democrats are pushing for an interesting name name former Republican House member just a mosh to be on the team who better to make an argument that this is a time for people to be open to changing aging their minds as he did but as we get ready to bring in our experts. I want to mention to you. There is something larger going on right now as you look at all this jockeying. What's going on is a fundamental under mental question between two houses of Congress? The house sits marching to impeach in the Senate that will catch that impeachment indictment and decide how to try. What do they want to do the more that you hear that well the votes are counted? And there's not going to be a big difference in whatever goes down the Senate the more you have to ask yourself. That's the case. Why are so many people like like Mr Graham who I just showed you going out of their way to try to reduce this to a sham? This is a moment in history not only for the president who stands accused of quote multiple crimes tonight in this a new report. It's also a moment for the Congress because the rules in the Senate haven't been set you can bet. There is a lot more jockeying to decide whether this is going to be a deliberate sham. Don't even try to be fair or something. More something appealing to the oath in the constitution. These people are sworn to uphold to get into into all of this. I want to bring her in right now for federal prosecutor. Paul Butler and Eleanor clift Washington correspondent for the daily beast who closely covered the Clinton impeachment. Good evening to both of you. Eleanor your your view of what we're seeing based on your knowledge of this town Washington. The way runs today and the way it's handled past impeachments if the house goes goes ahead and votes on Wednesday. That's a twenty one years almost to the day that the Clinton impeachment vote occurred in one thousand nine hundred ninety ninety eight and after the articles passed in the house in a Republican House. In that year they went to the Senate Senate where the Republican leader and the Democratic leader agreed on the format for the trial and the rules for the format were passed. I unanimously now. Bill Clinton when you compare his experience today in terms of numbers I think he lost something like thirty one. Democrats Kratz in the House that that supported impeachment and when it got to the Senate There was real suspense about whether the president was going to survive the re Republican Senate and they were not able to muster the two thirds supermajority to convict him and remove him from office They weren't even able to get a majority vote. So you had a number of Republicans supporting The president staying being in office and you had Democrats universally condemning the president's behavior but arguing that it wasn't impeachable so today we're looking at the Senate and we seem to be pretty confident that the outcome will favor President trump. I don't know that history will But the Republicans don't have that big a march and they can only afford to you to lose two Republicans on the procedural votes that set the format for this trial oil. And you now see Senator Schumer came out today and over the weekend with his letter basically Taking a page from the Republican playbook book and arguing procedure that this is a kangaroo court in the in the Senate. You have Senator Lindsey Graham as you pointed out saying I don't need need witnesses. I don't need information. I know Alan going to vote. I think it's a powerful argument. It may not work Mitch. McConnell has proved himself slavishly Davish -Ly Capable of sticking to a net his narrow interpretation of what will serve President Trump and Republican the Senate and sort of ignoring the country. Well damn he gets a fight worth having to your point The opening bid for how to do this was done in the Clinton case ace in a private setting between the senators kind of seriousness about the process that led to the unanimous agreement. As you mentioned the opening bid here was made on on Fox. News on Sean. Hannity and the Schumer's office was then saying okay. Well I guess we're GonNa do this in public. They release their letter briefly. Because then I want to bring in Paul. What does that tell you about? The different dynamics were in right now. You're addressing now to me it will it first of all. It's the introduction of Fox News which I was a you know a a minor minor pret- wasn't even it wasn't even around. You have much more bifurcated media. You have two parallel so tracks One fake news and one fact news and you have the president and the Senate majority leader basically we in cahoots along with a very powerful media outlet and the debt the Democrats they have an opportunity here If if if they can seize it to make the case to the country how this it's rare it set up it's a sham. What what trump has been saying? Now it's coming in coming to bear and let me bring in Paul Fake News. In fact news sound similar and yet so different chairman Nadler has been hammering. The president here in the closing argument. Take a look. This is a crime in progress against the constitution and against the American democracy. We cannot take the risk That the next election will be corrupted. Far Interference solicited by the president. Who which he is clearly Trying to do what do you see as important in the closing argument. Argument where Democrats are going beyond. The Constitution doesn't require crimes Regular felonies to impeach but they are actually going out of their way in the report today to say. There are multiple crimes. The report that makes the case of the president is a present danger to national security and free and fair election so it rebuts the argument that we should just wait. Wait until the election and let the voters decide whether the president should remain in office. If you read the report you see this consistent pattern of corruption. It's not just the July twenty fifth thug act by the president against the president of Ukraine. It's also during the twenty twelve campaign his openness to Russian interference to get him elected. And what do we know about last week Rudy. Giuliani was in Ukraine. Trying to help out man of the president of the United States so donald trump has not been determined by the Russian investigation and he has not been deterred by impeachment. What do you think of the strategy to call it that or the offsetting of of the arguments that the Democrats basically have a report now? That has more bad stuff in it. Then the articles of impeachment which only two things so. I think the Democrats are going about this in a very strategic way. They're keeping the American people on the ball. Aw It's about the way that the president cheated and the way that he's ignorant congress that he's not subject to any restraints and so if he's not removed from office by the Senate are liable to do anything and we have evidence to support those two main cases the evidence is is again all of his other criminality. It doesn't have to be statutory crime. It turns out that the president were he not in the head. Working the head of state could be indicted for honest services. That's a wire fraud based in telephone calls with Ukraine and also bribery. Yeah statutory as well this constitutional offenses will you lay it out. A lot of us are wondering what we're where would bribery. These other claims fit in and they're fitting in sort of the supporting architecture and if there is a trial wow with evidence presumably it could also be presented their Paul Butler on the law. Eleanor clift on the swamp. My thanks to both of you. What will the Senate do well? Ability to bring in two experts. A current member of the United States Senate Senator Richard Blumenthal who's on the critical judiciary committee and acting solicitor solicitor. General Neal Cacho who argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and the Obama Administration and his new book fittingly called impeach the case against Donald Trump. Good evening.
"house democrats" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"The House Democrats announced two articles of impeachment against President trump including abuse of power. Judiciary Committee Chair jerrold Nadler made the announcement is an impeachable offense for the president. Is it into exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or in injuring during the national interest. That is exactly what President Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our two thousand twenty presidential election thus damaging our national security undermining the integrity of the next election and violating his oath to the American people the second article relates to obstruction of Congress. Democrats alleged president trump prevented at least nine officials goals from testifying and blocked the federal government from sharing documents with lawmakers joining me. Now Is Wall Street Journal reporter Chaban Hughes Chevron what can you tell us about. Democrats strategy in narrowing down to two articles of impeachment against the President and Democrats had a couple of big goals. They wanted to keep their caucus together and they wanted to present a case to the American people that was clear and muddled both of those goals. Help explain why. Democrats limited their articles of impeachment only to focus on obstruction of congress and abuse of power. For what was left out was a charge of obstruction of justice and what's significant about that is obstruction of justice. Is the charge that would have covered did donald trump's actions as detailed and special counsel Robert Muller's report and that report. Mr Muller painted a picture of a president who obstructed justice on at least five occasions according to an analysis by Democrats and others that includes trying to get then White House is counsel Don mcgann to force Robert Mueller out of office to basically take him off of the probe and then in other cases to try to get Mr Muller to narrow his probe that focused only on future meddling and what happened in twenty sixteen for a lot of Democrats especially the thirty one democrats in the district's but Donald Trump won. That would have been a bridge too far it would have been a stretch. Some of those Democrats had said the only reason they were willing to vote for articles. Live impeachment this time with because of the Ukraine probe. Not because of anything that had happened before. And then and that's he Pelosi wanted to keep her caucus together. I'm glad you mentioned that. Because of course this impeachment inquiry is proceeding against the backdrop of heading into the two thousand twenty elections. And I'm curious how much that plays into to the calculus here in terms of which articles to seek and how for Democrats are willing to go here. Democrats have publicly stated that their their motivations are not at all political that they're acting out of a desire to really stand up for the constitution. But it's pretty clear that electoral L. Politics are certainly in the backdrop and that it does help. Democrats limit their risk by focusing only on two articles of impeachment. uh-huh it inoculate them from charges. That Democrats are broadly negative against Mr Trump and are willing to throw an entire book. Look at him without thoughtfulness consideration. Chaban as we look forward to potentially seeing this on the House floor. How might those electoral politics play out out there? Well in a couple of ways most prominently. The politics will play out in terms of the number of votes that has democrats amass. Nancy Pelosi has a reputation for never bringing something to the floor. That won't pass. She said unless you're passing legislation or resolutions. All you're doing is having a conversation but there is still the risk that some of those thirty one democrats could break with her. So what we are watching for are the numbers of Democrats who ended up defecting and then both parties have been saying that the Senate is unlikely to impeach the president we would need a two-thirds majority they're exactly and Republicans have fifty three votes in the Senate compared with forty seven for Democrats. So what this means is a full twenty. Twenty Republicans would have to side with Democrats and vote to convict the president which is why that seems unlikely. Now Democratic senator. Chris Murphy gave a very very interesting interview last week in which he said he thought as many as five Republicans might side with Democrats and vote in favor of conviction so that would show a party. Hardy rift that would be significant but clearly a far cry from the numbers needed for a conviction. If President Trump Wall Street Journal reporter show Von Hughes keeping keeping us up to date on all the impeachment proceedings joining us.
"house democrats" Discussed on The Beat with Ari Melber
"Politicians not giving us due process not giving US lawyers. The whole thing is everybody is at the White House. Strategy has been pretty muddled but as we are on the brink of impeachment. I can tell you it's basically boiled down to this first stonewall where possible denying hearings featuring FAC witnesses like Mick Mulvaney. Second when that fails else when Gordon saw drops a dime on you then lie about what he said and third as the evidence of articles of impeachment attack the process now the first I to our deceitful there about hiding attacking the truth. The third can overlap with Alad points. And there's some news tonight. In this new White House counsel letter arguing that the hearing process has basically rushed Donald Trump and they contrast it to the two and a half weeks notice Phil Clinton got before a key impeachment hearing they also note that Clinton's team was engaged aged afforded the option selected date which matters ray busy White House and they even got to call fourteen witnesses now. Those are relevant comparisons. But they're all built on a faulty premise. The Clinton team was participating in the process so they got more of a say if you stonewall and boycott you have less of a say way. Because that's the move you played or as the old Washington saying goes congratulations. You played yourself and that's what top. Democrats are now emphasizing digging into Donald Trump's boycott as a kind of a towel arguing if he and his lawyers really could make the case and public. WHO This evidence wouldn't they take advantage of that if he has not done anything wrong? Certainly anxious to hear his explanation of that I am joined now l.. By Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson Jerry Bash. who was chief counsel to this House? Intelligence Committee also served in senior roles at CIA and Pentagon. Good evening to both of you being curry. Jeremy you're here given your knowledge of what is going on behind closed doors tonight. What this intelligence committees doing? But I I want your view on on what we just went through. The Donald Trump is bowing out of engaging this clearly he does not want to legitimate this process in any way because he fears that if he shows upward lawyers appear that it will give an argument. That somehow he's blessing this process and he wants to stand on the sidelines and condemn it but of course he he is invited to provide any information any evidence any witness testimony. He wants to and I don't think this is going to slow the Democrats up. I think they are wary. Because they've seen the way he fought muller and and and basically got out of having to testify live and in person the Democrats. Don't WanNa wait for that kind of STONEWALL THEY WANNA move with all delivered speed and I suspect are that they're going to have a condensed process here in the Judiciary Committee. They're going to write articles of impeachment. And this thing is going to be on the floor within the next few weeks gene. Here's what what what. One trump ally was saying to another trump allies. Steve Bannon talking to Matt Gaetz about the decision to not engage to not fight. Take a listen I would always you know. Bring every cool To the fight so I don't quite understand that decision by the White House. Not Two cents a Bologna. He's a very gifted lawyer and I think we do a good job. We are in a brass brass knuckles political fight and I think that the more voices we can bring today. Are the better gene. Well if you have an argument to make certainly you should make make it and I think it indicates they don't have an argument to me. They don't want to argue on the facts of this case because the facts are clear and and a lot of the relevant facts ax perhaps the most other than fact that transcript of that phone call would be with presents. Alinsky was released by the White House itself so they can't dispute it. They don't want to argue argued the law. I think because as we've discussed the president's actions almost fit the federal bribery statute to a T.. Bribery being mentioned specifically as an impeachable offense in the constitution so rather than descend simple only two two two pound the table so They're they're trying to stall and delay and band. Draw this out as much as possible and I think As as Jeremy said I think the Democrats Kratzer have decided not to play that game. They're just not gonNA GONNA play along with that and they're going to proceed and then the other part of this Jeremy as you know always I if there isn't impeachment vote and it goes Senate trial sooner or later in that process. Someone's got to come down there and present. The president's case we were looking history is a guys we often do. And I'll show you one of the Time magazine covers of the Nixon lawyer at the time. Defending Nixon James Saint Clair and the New York Times. Today has an interesting piece about a lawyer. We've seen less of that will show you by contrast near Times reporting on John J Secolo. Who's been on this program and others and says he coordinates the efforts of eight outside lawyers? Who helped Mr Trump all? He doesn't have an office in the White House. I'd also has an interesting interesting tidbit. Jeremy I don't know if you've heard this got in Washington but we'll throw in there. They say he actually voted for Clinton in two thousand sixteen. But sooner or later whether you get a time cover or not someone's gotTa show up in the Senate if there's a trial right I think that's right. Rem Of course. That'll be much more friendly terrain because Mitch McConnell will fundamentally and only be controlling the process and I think something to watch for over the next couple of weeks as it's moves inexorably toward a Senate trial is to what extent will the Senate Republicans try dictate which witnesses can be called. And how much time. Each side has an accent chief justice roberts who will be presiding over that trial will be promulgating hitting those rules and I don't think we know that yet but I think in this phase Ari I mean in some ways I think most observers I think all of us know fundamentally what the outcome is going to be. We have a couple of articles of impeachment on the floor and Donald Trump in all likelihood is going to be the third president in US history to be impeached. And we just don't know whether it's going to happen happened before we put on the two thousand twenty glasses or after gene. Yeah I agree. And Jeremy mentioned something that I'm kind of focused focussed on but of course we can't answer. What role is chief justice? Roberts going to play in this impeachment trial will he. He'd take an active role. More like a judge judge in a courtroom It it's the it's the Senate proceedings so In that sense it'll be organized by Mitch McConnell but the but the constitution does say that Roberts the chief justice presides and he could. He could take more active role in deciding who testifies and deciding what areas they get into in keeping perhaps the president's allies from filibustering in the way that they might want to and end deviating off into crowd strike and Ukraine and all sorts of of matters that. Don't bear on the facts of this case. And Jeremy Briefly really will the report from the Intel based on your past experience. Be What we've already seen in essence as a summary of those high points in the hearings or will there be new and different information. Mation it I think is what we've seen. I think it's the evidentiary testimony the text messages some of the email traffic and presented in a very straightforward manner. And that's what the staff has working on throughout the holiday weekend. That's what I think. We'll see pretty shortly germany-bashing Gene Robinson thank you very much Things arming in our coverage. On this week I want to bring an acting think for acting solicitor. General Neal Cacho who argued dozens of cases before the supreme core for our opening argument series. I should mention. His new book is impeach that Case Against Donald Trump. A good evening sir. Good evening I'll let you. I weigh in on that conversation. We've had. I'm curious your view of the White House really folding in here a- and not engaging on the house side at all yeah I mean I find it really destructive With the White House has done is basically say unilaterally we decide this process is unfair. So we're just not going to participate in the impeachment process it all which is of course part of our Constitution and I didn't know this was a thing that you could just kind of blow off impeachment and not participate and not send your lawyers and the like and demonstrates I think this president's contempt for institutions number one and also is gene Robinson was saying the fact is that they don't have a substantive defense. There's very little attempt to even bother are defending donald trump's actions so they're just attacking the process and that's what they have left and the problem with that is the process is a lot fairer than their saying. Indeed it's the the same basic process in past presidential impeachments if they're bowing out. Do you think that gives Democrats even more reason to do a broader impeachment humane or have more articles. I Dunno that th- that necessarily Barisan on that you know up until about a half hour ago. I've thought that basically there should it'd be three articles or laid out in my book and Article One is abuse of power for Ukraine. Article two is bribery. and which is part of our Constitution as you've written about In in terms of an impeachable offense in article three is obstruction of justice. Now a half hour ago Judge Judge Jackson and a very respected judge just issued a ruling saying that Don mcgann has to testify with respect to muller grand jury materials You know and then that she's not even going to stay the decision so right now the force and the velocity is mcgann's gotta come in and testify and it's very very harsh language or the Justice Justice Department. She calls it disingenuous. And the like I think that could scramble things. Zip It because it's not just about whether mcgann will testify about Muller it's about out whether or not Pompeii Oh and Bolton and others will have to testify because of this impeachment inquiry that is standard black letter law but have the judge say it in such profound language just a half hour ago I think makes the Democrats calculation here bid more difficult up until now it seemed like they were just all full steam ahead not going to detour with any subpoenas by Bolton where this or that they're just going to go straight to it now. There's a pretty good argument. Maybe they want to actually take a little more time I'm try and force these subpoenas to come out in court. It does seem like the administration's been acting like they have something really to hide. What do you think is key substantively sniffily? That should come out of Wednesday's judiciary here. Well I think Wednesdays Judiciary hearing is going to be four constitutional experts. Three of whom are Above Bob Democratic appointee democratic selections where presumably say. This is impeachable conduct in one. A Republican. Who Won't I'm not sure that itself will tell tallest too much? I do think though. This'll be the first House Judiciary Committee hearing so we'll get to hear a little bit from the members themselves. I mean will. They follow the path of the Intel Committee Committee which is basically not to really substantively defend trump and just throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors about crowd gigging. Whatever you know just what happened crowdsourcing? Two Thousand Sixteen or whatever I don't know but so far we haven't seen actually a decent substantive defensive what Donald Trump is done from anyone. Anyone who's a Republican. Because I have you also want to ask you what the big case Before the Supreme Court today one of the foremost experts in the country on this they rarely hear major gun control cases that would have the ability to change precedent spent about a decade. Several folks have said maybe this isn't isn't gonNA ultimately change much but they are hearing it New York Times reporting. It's the first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not change anything judging from the questioning the arguments on Monday focusing on whether this New York City Law has has made it moot Your view of how likely they are to punt and if they don't what it would mean well. I think that it's hard to read tea. Leaves from an argument but I suspect that they will punt and not answer the question so the case concerns. New York's law which requires licensed firearms. Basically stay in New York. You can't transport them out of New York City and things like that and New York changed its law wants one. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and has basically eliminated the substance of the plaintiff's complaint. Now the lawyer for the challengers said you know strived uh-huh fabulous lawyer. Strive mightily to try and explain why. There's some live case controversy here but really I think was swimming up tied. Yes I think there were a couple of justices justices Alito in Gorsuch in particular who. I think were upset. That New York changed its law but it is of course a democratic prerogative the state to do so and there and I think the majority of the court it sounded like basically felt like. There's nothing at stake anymore. Now Than New York's change its law. I do you suspect gun. Cases are GONNA come to the Supreme Court and the next couple of years but I think this is probably not the one and it's interesting because it has been ten years the court compositions change range and wall. The mass shootings continue and we sadly cover them so frequently. The the A lot of the underlying state laws have started to change changes. Well so if if the court gets involved or not would matter to a lot of people Neil Koch all thank you as always for joining us i WanNa mention everyone you could always go to. MSNBC DOT com slash opening arguments to see this segment tonight and others and again. The new book is impeach the case against Donald Trump newly out. I want to tell you what we have coming.
"house democrats" Discussed on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart
"I I am Jonathan Kaye part and welcome to cape up two years ago. I sat down and with congresswoman. maxine waters talk about her lonely. Call for impeachment of President Trump will now it's happening as chair of the House. Financial Services Committee waters waters is in the middle of it. We talked about the process going forward what's at stake and why white men are asking take pictures with her find out more about that. Dan Right now congresswoman maxine waters. Thank you for coming back to the PODCAST. I'm delighted to be here. Actually let correct myself chairwoman. Oh maxine laying the podcast. You're now the chair chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee correct correct so when last we spoke you were one of the first if not the first member of Congress to call for the impeachment of President President Trump and you were out there pretty much by yourself and when you were on the podcast for years ago you said and I quote why would we let that somebody like trump a con man come in here and turn it all upside down with his eyes in his disrespect and so I personally feel very strongly about this and I'm GonNa keep working until he's impeached while you're we are yes we're closer and closer to the real possibility of impeachment closer and closer to the real possibility of impeachment on a scale of one to ten ten being. He's definitely we're. GonNa be impeached about number seven number seven yes. What do what do you need to get through steps eight nine and ten well. I think first the all we have a number of things that we have to do fortunately we now have almost all of the members of the caucus on board. That's extremely extremely important and you know Nancy Pelosi the leader flipped and she's providing the leadership on moving toward this impeachment. We have six committees that have been involved in investigations. We will continue to do our work and we will be working together to try and determine the articles of impeachment meanwhile we think it is very important for us to get certain kinds of input about what people feel about the articles but what emerging is this latest shock this latest scandal candle about the president and his attempting to leverage the power of the office of the presidency to get dirt on Biden from the president of the Ukraine is at the top of the agenda. let me move for because. I do want to talk about Ukraine but you were just talking a moment ago about Speaker Pelosi yes what changed because she I just. I interviewed her earlier in in September and she. I didn't ask her about impeachment but it was. It's pretty clear that she was not going down that route and now here we are was there something in particular that change i. I don't know if it was one thing but I do know you know a growing number of members of her house we're coming onboard each day and I think that that had a lot to do with it and of course the president in his own way continued to make outrageous statements leading into this latest scandal and I think all of that had something to do with Nancy Pelosi saying we cannot avoid the word anymore that we have to really move forward to talk about impeachment will not let let's talk about Ukraine because I do think that unlike the the Russia Investigation S. Gatien which was complex and very hard for people to follow or even understand what we're talking about with Ukraine is so it's it's easy what what is it about the Ukraine story that made moving. MP moving on impeachment easier if not a no brainer for your colleagues one of the things that happened happen was the president himself said that he had had the conversation with the president of Ukraine and it's easy to understand stand when you look at this particular incident hearing him and Juliana talk about the back that they were interacting with the president and of Ukraine and others it seems to understand when you say he appeared to be leveraging the power of the presidency you and holding out on point pairs that was due to go to the Ukraine in exchange for a commitment from the president that he would work with him on that investigation and so people get that and don't forget he's done enough now for people to kind of understand understand who this character is even though they may not have come out for him impeachment the stories about him his lies his undermining people basically a man of flawed character who is capable of these kinds of things. It was absolutely believable. Now uh-huh you mentioned Mayor Giuliani former mayor of New York who is the president's personal lawyer. He's not he's not. A federal. Employee is not in employee of the of the executive branch. How unusual is it that someone who's not on the executive staff playing such a central role like this is that is that illegal or just under traditional it is not illegal. Go Not because it has not been legally put together by the Congress had the United States in terms of a public policy. The constitution ever envisioned anything like this. You know what I'm saying and you can't envision everything but who would have thought that a president president of the United States would use his personal lawyer disregard all of his cabinet all of his staff this regard all of his foreign adviser and cut deals sales and basically this is what he did using Giuliani as his spokesperson to interact with the president of Ukraine and the president of the acquaintance grains advisors and so yes this is highly unusual and again the constitution never envision anything like this as a matter of fact I see room for a whole new body of law that must be created to build the gaps and loopholes that this president has opened up using his the presidential power. Have you had a chance to read the whistleblowers complaint we did. How shocked were you well. I may not have been as shocked as others because I had identified this flawed character along time ago as being capable of doing almost anything and when I looked at his pass and the way that he cheated folks contractors who had worked for him the way that he denied African Americans access assessed to rentals that he and his father own the way they had up bake university where he took money from unsuspecting people that wanted to become developers all all of this. You know I understood exactly who he was. I wasn't shock as a matter of fact I may have been more saddened than anything else sadden because because sadden because we had come to a point in America where we had the president the leader leader of our country who was capable of doing what was now made known to all of us because of the facts that emerge urge about his attempts to get dirt on his opponent his political opponents and use his personal lawyer and and bombed the attorney general would already demonstrated you do anything and so I was sat in that. We're in a point in time where we have to deal with the statis- has really happened that this. This has really happened with the president. I'm talking about the president well. That's why I was asking if you were surprised because it's one thing to know his character and in all of these things I two in that regard was not surprised yes but when you view when you read the whistle blowers complaint with the eye of of knowing that lead us to character this is the president of the United States doing this IRA match. What's shocking to I remember saying Whoa. Wow I remember saying that I was reading it with them with Ricky here I remember Oh my goodness you know because it hits you right right in the face that the words were there that this is what had happened. This is where it's been done any can't even deny they can try and spin in it any way that they want but they cannot deny that he's already admitted that he had the conversation and that he had asked about Biden it ask risk about creating an investigation I mean so it's on the record not only from him but from all of the others who heard this or experienced experienced him in a number of actions that he's taken that they thought were dangerous and urgent so you're the chair of the Financial Services Committee which is one of the six committees that have been looking into one of the six impeachment committees as the speaker announced when she she said there's an impeachment inquiry talk about the work you've been doing on financial services with regard to well is it. I call it impeachment Gatien or investigations. We have been involved in investigations. They were not considered exactly exactly impeachment investigations. We've formalized that inquiry now so that that really is what it is because you've been looking at. You've been trying to get records from Deutsche Bank. Thank yes I my staff and I identified a relationship with deutchebanks early on. We knew a lot of things first of all. We knew that they were the only bank in the country that would lend him money out. We also knew that Deutsche Bank had a reputation as a money laundering bank. We also know that in addition to the president they had loan money to other members of the family we also knew that the president had sued Gotcha Watch your bank and in spite of the suit they stale loaned him money and when we took a look at the fact that again that he'd been loan money from Deutsche Bank and they were money laundering entre bank and there were these relationships we said let's take a look and we started to take a look and that's what we're doing and you know we've subpoenaed the records from Deutsche Bank. His lawyers are fighting US mightily and because they potus had took us a long time to get into court for the judge edge to determine whether or not they had to comply with a subpoena and we did get that ruling on that and then the next thing was preparation a hearing on the merits of the case and of course between the judges vacations and other things it was been delayed and so now we're waiting on a final decision from the judges about several things and and so when you say the records and several things is one of them about the president's president's tax returns us because we we do know that there are some tax return information indoor two banks of some of the members members of the trump family and so so you're you're trying to get the tax returns trying to get other financial information from the president when you were interviewed on. CNN recently as people are trying to figure out. How is this impeachment inquiry going to work and you said when you talk about Russia you have to bring in Ukraine? Can you talk that through because I think that was in the context of the fact that before the announcement of the impeachment inquiry your work work has all been about the president and Russia how does Ukraine factor well as you know. Manafort who who will metaphor the former chairman of the campaign chairman of the campaign worked for Ukraine. He had a contract with with the disgraced president ex president of the Ukraine and bed ex-president was tied to Putin and Russia and so we we saw that connection and we saw the connection between not only manafort and Putin but lynn and others popadopoulos and a lot of them we could see that and we put together what we call the Kremlin clan it's on my tweet page and we show their faces and we put their names and so it's hard not to talk about Ukraine because of this relationship of Russia you came. They invaded Crimea He. He wants to take all of that back. He wants to Ukraine. As a matter of fact I think he believes he can reunite the old Soviet Union Putin. That's right absolutely so as you know. President Obama place sanctions on Russia because of that violation of the treaty going into uh-huh and basically invading the chromium and so you try to cannot talk about Russia without talking about Ah Ukraine because of the relationships that they have so in financial services what are what will be the articles of impeachment richman..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"I mean, I guess like one thing that people can forget about this is that while we all have opinions about who's good on television, like who's smart who has ideas that we agree with, fundamentally like these decisions are made inside the caucus and the dynamics there are really different from like the takes that you see out in the universe. Like just like one really basic thing that I that I see people get wrong all the time. Is that like the way that like balance of political commentary is, is that you hear a lot of criticism of Nancy Pelosi from the left, but like when her leadership seemed to be in danger to the extent that it was it was in danger from the right? Yeah. That's the thing that drives me nuts all the time. I just saw on a recent article that was talking about, like all the progressives that are like upset about Nancy Pelosi and like, no, like within the caucus that's not true at all. Like the progressives seem pretty allied with her right. If. Listen to believe. Yeah, I'm forgetting the real place. Where like do you support, Nancy, Pelosi for speaker? Not as litmus test is yeah. In these redder. It just it's it's confusing. Good happens in like in the narrative, right? Like as a take, like Democrats should become more. Conservative has gone extinct. Right? Whereas it used to be a thing. Lots of people thought, right, particularly after Democrats would lose an election, but now like nobody says that, right? So it's just taken for granted in the discourse that like people who are mad at democratic leadership are like they love Bernie Sanders, or you know they're socialists or something like that. But like in the caucus like that is not at all what is happening like you can find a progressive member who has some kind of complaint about Nancy Pelosi, but like she is the progressive leadership handed it, and there has not been a left challenger to her or even a clear left successor option. Right? Like all the people that we named our Pelosi allies or maybe a little bit more conservative. Than she is. Yeah, absolutely. And again, like coming back to if Clyburn and where potentially, you know, looking to slide in there if she fails to get to to eighteen votes. I mean she has. She's been able to position herself very well by being like, I am very good at this job and very effective. I'm a woman and I'm, you know, arguably Blake more liberal than these two Waco one, one older white guy. And then obviously there's also a dynamic playing out for more representation for potentially a black speaker black majority leader at the top. So we'll we'll see about that. But yeah, a lot of different competing things going on within the caucus. All right. We should wrap up, get onto other things, but thanks guys for coming in and explaining that stuff. And you know, we're going to have to see in two weeks how relevant it all become all find out. I think I think more likely than not. This is like not really what we've been talking about on the campaign, but I think it's really going to sort of define the the winter coming sort of struggles. So thanks of course to our of our listeners. Check us out at the weeds Facebook group. If you want to ask any more questions than we can try to follow up on on some of these points. Thanks of course to our producer Griffin, Tanner, and the weeds will return on Friday..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Which is not like a formal leadership post, like you're the caucus vice chair, but I've just like a kind of like a Goto spokesperson for who speaks as a compelling person, but who speaks for the caucus rather than for an eighty logical faction. And like they're probably going to have to figure that figure that out pretty fast, which is hard again because of the dynamic in the Senate where you have a bunch of democratic senators who funding for themselves. So yeah, I think there'll be this sort of this vacancy for a somebody to speak for the unified Democratic Party. And I don't know. I don't mean to be unfair, but I could see why you might worry especially given the history of the last ten to twelve years that if Nancy Pelosi fills that role in to your point, she may be very a well aware of this that you know that that may play two. To some of the very easy attack lines in such that that Trump is going to use as he gears up for twenty thousand, who else is waiting in the wings there for Democrats, you mentioned chef Geoffrey is, yeah, one person that I'm kind of interested in Sherri boost from Illinois who she's in, not top leadership second tier. Yeah, exactly. But so she's from the midwest. She is very aggressively. You know, helping campaign especially in like more conservative red to blue areas. And I think I mean, she's she is very outgoing, very good speaker could be sort of that person that's that's on television and the other thing she represents downstate, Illinois rather than Chicago. Yes, exactly. Important represents like rural rural areas. And I do think, especially, you know. 'cause like the two other names that I brought up like Schiff and Jeffrey is the we've sort of had this like like ping pong ING of of leadership from like New York and California kind of. So it's like, you know, Crowley was was from New York, and I. Think that there is within the caucus. I think people are looking to, especially after twenty sixteen like people from the midwest and people from more rural areas to sort of like have have a voice and try to break away of the image of the Democratic Party. Just being the liberal elite coasts the has the Tim Ryan bubble officially bursts. He was in Ohio democrat from relatively rural area who right talked about challenging Pelosi till as the democratic leader. I think Tim Ryan has other aspirations other than house speaker, this. So I interested that we do not hear more about benway Luhan. Yeah. No, that's a good point. Heat chairs, the g triple. Yeah, and especially given the Democrats are favored to take the house and the his job is to get the Democrats to take the house. I'm been like genuinely surprised that I have not seen a single like spoon-fed benway Luhan profile anywhere, you know, like in depth look at like the secret data team that has been the genius behind the Democrats war strategy or something like it's weird, but he he is the appropriate age. There are no Latinos anywhere prominently in the Democratic Party except for him really at this point. And I don't know. It seems like an air raid tender. Yeah, you're right. And I have. I definitely have heard his name mentioned, I think. Yeah. And especially like if Democrats do really well in twenty eighteen. I think he will definitely be under consideration. Think he's he is. He's fairly close to Pelosi. You do kind of bring up a good point, which is I feel like the people that have been like working really hard over on the side of things like current members of the house. So like him and then Katherine Clark of Massachusetts who has been working a lot with red to blue candidates and everyone that I talked to like loves Katherine Clark and she is running for vice chair of the caucus. And it's sort of like it's like these people that are kind of like these workhorses kind of put their head down. Don't seek a lot of press very different for those who remember at the Rahm Emanuel to triple c ram is really into taking credit for things. Very aggressively and making his presence known and the current team is much more low key. Yeah, exactly. But I do think those conversations are certainly happening. I think that both of them seem to be well liked within the caucus. So we'll see. And that's the important thing..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Not to take a total right term, but the other thing I wonder about the Pelosi and the transition democratic leadership is how much pressure she's gonna feel because I think if nothing else, this is my own theory anyway, like Trump benefits from a good foil. And like I could see speaker Pelosi being a great foil for Donald Trump, potentially, especially with his own voters. Like we've seen Republicans try to use the idea like they're still using her as a as a boogeyman. And I think it's been maybe not that effective in the midterms because I think voters inherently, sort of understand like it's sort of ridiculous to to put the minority leader in the house front and center. But if she becomes speaker, the whole dynamic is going to change. And I guess I wonder especially heading into twenty twenty like how much agitation there's going to be among Democrats if Trump decides to turn Nancy Pelosi into his nude, crooked, Hillary like that. Just seems like it could sort of force her hand. Like, I think they have this idea that we can sort of. Do this on our own terms. And I guess I wonder if sort of outside political considerations are going to speed this up, like this came to mind because Matt, you mentioned like, could she move on in four years or eight or something? And I wonder if that timetable is gonna shrink, depending like a media piece to it. Right? Like him. Pelosi has not historically been like a Goto Sunday show person right or like do the standup on CNN kind of thing. But the way the American constitution works like in effect, Chuck Schumer has been the leader of the Democratic Party for the past two years because Senate can filibuster things. And because when you can convince Lisa Murkowski to defect, you can block things and nobody cares what the house minority thinks. But if you're speaker of the house, like you are now going to beat the most important democrat in Washington, and we'll certainly have the right to sort of demand that you get booked on shows just say, what Democrats think about the. Issue of the day, and I don't think that Nancy Pelosi thinks that Nancy Pelosi is the best person to be like, hey, I'm going to go on television and say what's up with this caravan, but like somebody needs to fill that role, right?.
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"What further complicates this is the democratic caucus in the house has been so hierarchical for so long that a lot of the, like I mean, right now, they're ranking members, but the chair people in waiting are definitely part of the old guard there. They've been. Around for a long time. A lot of them are older and whiter men. And so like in terms of somebody who would really galvanize, you know, especially the kinda young excited part of the party that in terms of people in the house, like you're really talking about picking out like a rank and file person. Otherwise you're talking about like your atoms shifts. You know, like Frank, Pallone of all people is the energy and commerce ranking member. So you know, Paul Ryan was unique in a sense that like, you know, he'd been the vice presidential candidate, but he still because of the way House Republicans had run their caucus. He was the House Ways and means chairman and like had been sort of set up as an obvious heir-apparent to everybody, maybe except for him when John bainer step down. And I feel like Democrats have not in the same way. Groomed like a young exciting fresh face who could step in when similar choosing from these sort of less than inspiring people who've been in leadership or leading committees for right along time. Yeah. And that's kind of the main tension is that there's there is this higher structure that has been fashion. Over the years where you know it's just like to be like successful in the house. You have to wait around for decades before you're even gonna get. You know, a really nice committee chairmanship there is frustration among the younger members of the house that you know, sort of like, what am I even doing here like I could. I could go run for governor. I could go run for Senate. Work work? Yeah, exactly. I mean, have your Sarah who was seen seen as a potential Pelosi successor? You know, left to go become the California. So there are a lot of people like Jared polis who a lot of people see is like a young promising congressman is running for governor in Colorado. Right. We'll leave it. And it was saying to somebody the other day they were asking me what what I thought of Cortez's like we'll future in Washington was going to be an I said, I don't have any inside information, but like I said, I think she'll run for mayor. Yeah, right. Like it seems cool to be a rising star House Democrat for like a little high stays fresh like actually, your star will not, in fact, rise anywhere unless you stick around for twenty five. Yeah. Here it seems great until you get into that small little office in the cannon house building. You're like, wait, what is the difference? So Republicans impose term limits on their committee chairs, and then they have the caucus elect the new chairs and seniority counts, but it's not decisive. And so somebody like Paul, Ryan, who is seen as a rising star, who the donor community liked who was good on television and was networked with. Policy people could get like put in charge of the budget committee, not because he had been on the budget committee longer than anyone else, but because we're publicans felt he would be a good spokesperson for the Republican budget vision. And the Democrats are not like that. Like you don't sit around and say like who should be the face of good government and we're going to make that person the government oversight chair. It just Elijah Cummings has been in congress for a long time, and he's been on that committee for a long time. And so he is Odin it and formally it is elections, but the members, I mean, the young members don't like it, but like the Caucasus very committed to a fairly strict seniority system that makes it just not that appealing to if you like have a lot of charisma and dynamism and people like you, it makes much more sense to go run for something else. Yeah. The other thing I wonder..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Like even though most House Democrats were from safe seats and are very left wing and like probably did not agree on the merits with that position like she was in charge and she imposed her, will it looked early in the summer like she might not actually be able to hold on speaker that time has passed. But it seems like part of that deal is that she is going to become speaker again, but also make it clear that she won't be around for very long as part of sort of selling that to members who aren't thrilled. But I feel like that's gonna make make for a week leadership. Yeah, yes. So she. Recently said in this LA times interview that she views herself as a quote transitional leader, which is something that other members of the like the other two top members of house leadership Steny Hoyer the whip in then Jim Clyburn who's assistant house leader. They've sort of been, you know, kind of in the background. Neither of them are going to openly challenge Pelosi, but they're sort of waiting to see if she can get to to eighteen. So they have sort of been been pitching themselves as transitional leaders as well. And now Pelosi kind of like, I think for the first time, at least that I saw in an interview, you know, used this language as well. And she was like very clear to like not like actually give herself in end-date jars, and she's sort of alluded to like, I would like to spend more time with my grandchildren and do other things like outside of Capitol Hill. But yeah, I mean, it's very true that for a long time, people have just been clamoring for for new blood in in leadership and. I think she kind of has to sort of walk kind of this tight rope between not making promises or at least of giving the appearance that you know, she does not see herself actually in that position forever and sort of looking to who might be the next generation of leadership while at the same time making clear that she's going to be a strong leader and not a lame duck leader, and I don't really know. I don't really know how she balances it. It's a tough situation. You'll we should talk about like Elkton Cosio Cortez has been very widely discussed for months now, but I think the concrete impact of her winning primary has not been discussed that much. But like the way this went was that the top ranks the democratic leadership Reid Pelosi Hoyer and Clyburn. We're all roughly the same age. Yeah, they're all in their late seventy. Right? And so an understanding had arisen, right? Like head Pelosi step down after twenty ten or twenty. Twelve probab-. Steny Hoyer would have been her successor, but understanding develop that like, no, that after Pelosi leadership was going to pass to a new younger generation and that meant Joe Crowley people thought it was going to be very specifically. And so the question would have been had had of of of Cortez not run against him. The question would have been, we'll Crowley challenge Pelosi, right? Or will they work something out so that there's a pack did transition as there was between Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer in which Pelosi becomes speaker. Again, gets to like claim vindication and her place in history, but she now sets up probably with the concrete end date, you know, maybe it's two years. Maybe it's four years, but then Joe Crowley is gonna take over. They are a leadership partnership, and so it remains a strong bond Crowley lost. And that left the whole leadership without a like agreed upon. This is the next person. There is no successor anymore, right? There was, no. It was like getting old thing. You know, kings job is queens, I guess, is to give birth to an air and a spare, and there was no spare right in this situation. So now you have clear in Clyburn both sort of like reviving speakership hopes that they had set aside in past and they like invented kind of this transitional concept that like maybe Pelosi won't have the votes and like nobody really wants to any Hoyer to be the future of the Democratic Party. But also nobody knows who they do want. So like maybe he could agree to be kinda in effect week preemptively, lame, duct speaker, right?.
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"It seems clear that like. There are narratives that work for Democrats everywhere. Right? Like this is healthcare pre existing conditions like Donald Trump takes bribes from foreign governments. I think I would probably put on that list whereas like persecuting Donald Trump's judicial nominees. I think we've seen in the way that Cavanaugh issue I think has worked very well for Republican Senate candidates. It seems like I would probably not want to make that like the central focus point. Yeah, right. Like as a strategist and a question that I have is like, does Nancy Pelosi or anybody else have the sort of authority to say, look, we have this vast menu of things we could do. We are going to pick, like I mean, the way they have basically on healthcare, right? It's like Democrats are are running nationally on a couple healthcare points that they think are really pop. In play everywhere, but are they going to have the capacity to maintain that sort of discipline? Right. And I think that that is that is something that we're going to have to wait and see. I mean, I'm sure that those conversations are going on an especially the that they sort of want to pick and choose where they might be most effective. But you know, you're right. I think right now Democrats aren't in the majority, so they're just sort of trying to blast out there like, look at all of these scandals like look at every single one look at all this corruption, but I think you're correct. They're going to have to be sort of more strategic when they are actually in power to sort of really kind of like rank those fifty two or six hundred. And and you know, start at the the biggest, what's interesting to me is there's all these like contradictory headwinds, almost because if Democrats win a majority, you're going to have a pretty big set of more sort of moderate centre-left Democrats who want and swing tossup Republican held districts. You're also going to have a bunch of new progressive Democrats who won primaries this year. People like a Yana press. Slee and Alexandria. Cacho coach has, obviously, I think we all agree that Nancy Pelosi would be the speaker of the house of Democrats win a majority, but she's also signaled that this is sort of a temporary. She's just a placeholder for the time being. And so how much you know, that's that's what I wanted to go with this. If Nancy Pelosi was the Nancy Pelosi of fifteen years ago, then I would say no doubt, right? Nancy. Pelosi is going to huddle with the top canny strategists, Democratic Party politics and is going to tell them as she did. I mean, there was a version of this in two thousand seven where like she told people and like it did not go over well, but she imposed her will on the left that like they were not going to threaten to refuse to fund the continuation of the war in Iraq right? That like democratic base was really geared up about the war in Iraq. Nancy, Pelosi opposed like her stated position was that we should withdraw troops from Iraq in two thousand. Eight Democrats like ran on withdrawing troops from Iraq. But like the objective was going to win the election in two thousand eight, not to have a like huge divisive fight about this and what she thought made sense like she won right..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"So one thing that has been troubling from a journalistic perspective, but also politically for Democrats is simply that when there's somebody who there's like one scandal about like perhaps they violated State Department Email protocol for misstated the extent of their native American ancestry. You can through repetition, make it be the case that everybody knows this one unflattering fact about that person and that it is covered consistently as like here is that if you are going to profile as with Warren, at this point, like you gonna mention this thing about native American ancestry. Whereas like Donald Trump to the sheer multiplicity of scandals, like lots of people probably never heard about the New York Times tax fraud story. I constantly surprised that nobody knows that he wants ran a publicly traded company. The value of the shares went to zero. He stole all his investors money and I ate himself millions of, right, right. So people don't know this Trump. So with six hundred investigations, I mean, it seems like you might be better off with like to. Yeah, it's sort of like on the one hand, if you're investigating everything, you just sort of create this this, like aura of like how, how corrupt everything must be in DC, but to your point it does that does kind of risk becoming white noise to voters. What would they focus on like the tax returns makes sense. I mean, I guess what I wonder is like, is anybody in charge on the democratic side, right? Or is there going to be like, eighty million different it? It's of course, Republicans might hold the house, but it's like if Democrats get the house like who's calling the shots in terms of like, this is what we want to be talking about this month, and I don't have an answer, but it's an interesting question because you contrast it with the Senate where like regardless of who has the majority, you're going to have a bunch of Democrats in the Senate who are running for president in two thousand twenty s so they're more likely to start freelance. I mean, clearly and thing. Nobody is in charge in the Senate, right? Yeah. Different presidential contenders, like drop sweeping, new bills to stand out and Chuck Schumer is in his first year as majority leader. And I think he's takes a lot of criticism. I know from liberals who I think don't always appreciate how objectively difficult it is to be a leader when like half of your caucus is running for president, but. In the house, at least theoretically, yes, he Pelosi rules with an iron fist. Yeah, definitely. So I think we're, you know, when it comes to just Trump investigation stuff, it's gonna be house oversight, and then also the House Judiciary committee. So oversight is congressman Cummings judiciary. The ranking member is Jerry Nadler from from New York, so he would theoretically likely become the chairman. But the other thing that I think is kind of interesting is that so few got back I was I was like a few months ago, and then I was like, no. Earlier this month after the cavenaugh hearing. So Naylor made some news when he said, you know that House Democrats, if they win will like sort of reopened investigation to Brabourne a- and the thing that he said, you know, he's like we wanna make sure that this is a very fair bipartisan investigation and Democrats are trying to, you know, put forth like this is going to be fair and bipartisan, and we're going to only investigate these credible allegations. So I think that they're trying to position themselves. Sort of differently from the house oversight judiciary under Republicans, which is just like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. But I think even the another point where like this raises the issue where it's like, look, if I was thinking, okay, I am Jerry Nadler. I am now the chair of the House Judiciary committee. I have this safe seat in Greenwich Village and the Upper West side. The House Democratic caucus is pretty liberal. I wanna do something that like my people are going to really enjoy like going after this break. Cavanaugh thing that seems like a note brain, it's squarely analysis jurisdiction. People mad as hell about this, like women are super mobilized in general. At the same time, if I'm looking at like the electoral map in a hard nose way, right?.
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"So like Sheldon Adelson has spent one hundred twenty five million dollars House Republicans and it's like, you don't necessarily a lot of corporate pack money. If like Sheldon Adelson is going to personally cut you whatever it is. Eleven figure. Yeah, couple enthusiastic billionaires. We'll take you a long way. The dream. Okay. So what else do they have lobbying packs? Yes. So lobbying returns? Yeah. So again, a few months ago, I got this list from the house oversight committee, the DEM so house oversight the ranking member. Elijah Cummings was also for Maryland. He would likely be the chairman, if if the Democrats take back the house, so they have a list of, I believe, it's fifty two like subpoena requests and other things that you know, they have basically as the ranking member, he has requested to the Republican chairman, we would, you know, we want to investigate this. Of course, the Republicans haven't done anything 'cause it's Trump and it's their party. But it's it's a range of things that they want to look into from. You know, stuff that you know like HHS has done on on health care, that the education department has done on certain civil rights. Things you know, Trump's own business ties, there's a platter of things that the Democrats want to investigate. And you know, again, Sarbanes like the democracy taskforce like recently released like a list of, I think it was like six hundred different times. You know, Trump flouted the law or this culture of corruption, that their point that they're they're hammering on. So they have, they have a wide array of things that they are preparing. Basically we should take a break, but then I, I want to ask a question about the the sheer length of this. If you're listening to the weeds, midterm special, you're probably interested in the upcoming midterms, and you might want to actually do something about it. So we wanna tell you about a new app. It's called vote with me. So what this does is it tells you which of your friends did not vote in two thousand sixteen, and then it identifies which of those friends live in districts that have competitive elections. Then that lets you remind them to go see it sounds a little dumb, but they've done experiments on this twenty times more effective than traditional get out the vote measurements. And that's because hearing from somebody who knows you is just a much much more powerful than hearing Fulmer random Jordan knocker foam banker..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Mandates that wanted to opt into the system. The federal government would provide a six to one match for every small donation to candidates who agree to forgo pack money. So these candidates are eating making a bold statement that they are not taking pack money, not, you know, being bought by corporations, which is, you know something that that is very popular with with voters. So you know, the idea is like if if a small donor gives one hundred dollars to a candidate that is, you know, meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get a six hundred dollar match. So it would kind of be equivalent maybe to what they would get from from packs, although Phil law. Yeah, I know. And, and he's sort of the point that he made to me is that this is sort of like being tried out in on municipal levels and sort of catching on state levels a little bit, but that's a very bold statement that this corporate pack as you were talking about because it's like one of the most interesting things to arise this cycle. Right? Is that like every once in a while, something. Catches fire as like a signifier that you have clean hands in politics and the like. I don't take money from corporate taxes become like a big thing for like non incumbent. Democrats trying to pitch themselves as like bold performers and particularly for like guy like better Aurora right. Has like catching on this, and it's a way of like being a true progressive without necessarily actually adopting like the Bernie Sanders. Democratic socialism? Yeah, Genda it's interesting because it means less in concrete terms than you might think. Right. I mean, like the way corporate pack works is like a business like we could have like the vox media pack, right? The bosses will if fishery encourage employees to like, check off a thing. So money goes into it and then the pack can make donations. So that's like a way businesses try to influence the political realm, but like rich business executives can also. Write big checks. I was also like a Rourke, not taking any Pac money or just corporate pack. I think no pack, legitimately all individual contributions. But I mean, just to say that like the wealthy bossy, MC fat cat like can. Right. Any individual chat, right. I would like that to be the name of my corporate tax. The corporate pack is a convenient way to organize companies, campaign contributions, and traditionally it was like the company wanted to make it clear to the member like we are helping you out. And so of members wanted disavow that I think in this first interaction when like most candidates do take corporate pack money, it probably really does signify something, but it's also the kind of thing that the world can easily adapt to. Of course, both the corporate donors and the candidates who love them are going to be able to get the money without the corporate packed to build like actual legislation on this like it. It'd be interesting to see where that actually gets you. Yeah, definitely. And I, when I was talking to our bands, I was like, wow, that's very bold. And he was like, well, you know, we gotta go bold. We. Well, and it's good, right? It's the kind of thing that like it sounds really good to people and they don't necessarily fully understand -plication. So it's like to have a Bill that's like, like, this is a bold Bill that will this would drastically cut down the influence of corporate packs like whether doing that would achieve like the policy goal of reducing businesses influence over congress. I'm skeptical, but it's like if you wanna talk about corporate pacts like this great good way to do it better than the altar. I mean for so long, it felt like Democrats were they were really reluctant to let go of of, you know, lobbying corporate PACS and mega rich donors for money because they thought we would. It would be an unfair playing field because they give so much money to Republican. So I think this still seems like progress even though too. Yeah, that's like the influence can still be found. What's interesting is that is like in the optimist story, right? It's like, well, you have this small donor revolution eating way, but the thing that is happening is like the inland corporate pacts is also being eaten away on the other side..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Bare majority is going to be a larger majority, but one thing that they can do no matter even if they win by a single seat, they can investigate the hell out of the Trump administration. And they certainly plan to do so many things about that are interesting to me. One is, I mean, it's just in general. There's no more comfortable position to be in. In American politics than like running an opposition to Washington. Right. So I think in part Democrats are are just picking up on that kind of tried and true playbook, and I was struck, I was interviewing the chair of the Ohio Democratic Party this week, and he was talking about how like e- especially with swing voters, just presenting yourself in contrast to Washington as it exists right now still remains kind of the most effective message. But the other thing that is interesting about this to me is like it does seem like Republicans have tried to pick up on this idea a little bit and and because at this point, all they sort of have abandoned crossover voters and they're just trying to motivate their base as much as possible. So I feel like they've also leaned into the idea of the specter of all the democratic investigations and how they're going to sort of persecute President Trump if they take back the house. So that makes Democrats wary at all. I mean, they've they have remains to see my an issue where you know, unlike on the existing conditions is plays a little bit differently in different places. Like I know. No one campaign I looked at a little was in Texas twenty one, which is like very much a lean Republican seat where you know like the democratic candidate will probably lose even the Democrats will probably win a majority and like he is really trying to emphasize like, we're going to work across the aisle. Running against Washington means that district is like running against the partisanship and like level of insanity and like his opponent ship. ROY likes to emphasize the idea that like no. Like if Democrats take the majority, it's gonna be like all subpoenas all the time. Whereas there's a number of twenty twenty two districts where Hillary Clinton one and where the Republican members have often tried to distance themselves on one policy or another. And there they like really want emphasize like, no, right? Like Carlos Cabello Barbara Comstock will heard like they are not doing anything, haven't they started calling her Barbara Trump stock in these. Campaign ads. I think that's so. That's last. Virginia ten is near and it's going to be one of the lamest places in America. Wow, harsh. I guess you're never going to run. It's fine time slot of government contractors, you know, good good times, but what is in the Democrats, Andy, corruption agenda? Right. I mean, obviously, like the point of it is like Donald Trump is bad and congress do something about it. And in reality, there's probably going to be a lot of committee hearings and subpoenas, but they have these laws they want. Yeah, they also have they have actual legislation that they've drafted. And I think it's it's it's kind of interesting. So when I sat down with Sarbanes one of them, you know, obviously there's cracking down on lobbying is a big part of that. That's also was a big part of a Senate Bill that Senator Elizabeth Warren pass that was very sweeping, anti-corruption Bill that you know has no chance of getting anywhere in the Senate. But one of the really interesting ideas in this house Bill is kind of dramatic campaign finance reform. So it would be voluntary, you know, you don't have to do it, but under John Sarbanes vision can..
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"But I talked to her shortly after the primary. Because I was interested in all these democratic candidates running on Medicare for all, and she even then sort of very shortly after she had become the official democratic nominee was clearly more interested in talking about how Republicans want to try to take away your healthcare and all the the downfalls of the GOP's healthcare plans, then sort of continuing to focus on Medicare for all not to mean that. I think she's, she doesn't support it anymore, but the emphasis is much different. I think when you're talking to a general election electorate versus the democratic primary voters and actually Medicare for all has become a big publican sort of message point. Yeah, Donald Trump had that. I think you guys talked about this recently that that crazy op Ed about how Democrats want to turn American Venezuela by giving everybody healthcare socialism, right. Was the council economic advisers put out this report, right? And they even they quoted our colleague, Sarah, cliff, as an example of someone who argues that a single payer system could reduce administrative costs, and they said that now use the same argument about farming. Wang, and it led to famine, mound known for his affinity for efficient healthcare. It did make me wonder what the Chinese healthcare system was like. I don't know the. Also don't know the answer to that is tragic. So that's what will be after the midterms, we're going to do a deep dive into Chinese healthcare in the fifties. So one thing that I remember from a little while ago is that NC Pelosi started talking about a culture of corruption in Washington, which it was a callback to sort of one of their big two thousand six talking points. And frankly, the culture of corruption seems a lot worse. Now, the two thousand six interational of corruption is almost quaint. So has this been playing or Democrats talk about this? Yeah, absolutely. It was kind of interesting because this is something that Pelosi has been on for awhile and certainly was a thing in in two thousand six as well. But a few months ago, I talked to congressman John Sarbanes of Maryland who has kind of been spearheading the House, Democrats, democracy task force. So he's kind of the guy that has really sort of been at least kind of putting some of this stuff into into policy and and bills that haven't really had a chance yet in in the Republic. Can lead congress. But yeah, I mean, Democrats are going in hard on an anti-corruption message because it's popular. I mean, that's kind of like if if we remember back to the twenty sixteen election, Donald Trump also ran on an anti-corruption message. His catchphrase was in continues to be drain. The swamp which Pelosi pointed out was like something that Democrats were saying back in two thousand six. So Democrats have a pretty detailed plan for what they're going to do if they do take back the house and one of the things that we'd like to point out, you know, there's all this speculation right now a couple of weeks out before the election. About how much you know if Democrats win, is it going to be a.
"house democrats" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"I'm at to glitziest here today with Ellen Nelson and Dylan, Scott, great to have you back on Dylan. It's been a while l. has been doing a lot of these great midterm special episodes and God to have her here as well wanted to talk about the Democratic Party because Donald Trump, I feel like fills the channel almost all the time in the media and a lot of people. If you're not like in a target district, maybe don't even know like butter Democrats saying like, so you know, as we're here like two weeks out from mid terms like what's the Democrats message on healthcare more than anything else? I mean, eight years after you know, Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act helped sweep Democrats out of power in the house in the two thousand ten midterms. I don't think there's any more unifying issue right now for Democrats on the campaign trail, then healthcare and particularly ObamaCare and its protections for. Preexisting conditions, you'll hear Democrats. I think it's telling that you hear Democrats talking about that issue in North Dakota in Missouri in West Virginia and Indiana, like if they need to win crossover voters, if they're positioning, even if they're position themselves as moderates and centrists in these states that voted for Trump in two thousand sixteen the top issue in their campaign ads in the statements that they're releasing and just where they're focuses has been on pre existing conditions and and talking about the Republican health care bills last year and the various policy changes that the Trump administration has taken that would have rolled back the protections that the healthcare law instituted that protect people and prevent them from facing higher premiums or are being denied coverage all together because of their pre existing conditions. So this is sort of like the long-awaited, right? I mean, Lionel on time buying Jake's junkies will remember that eight thousand years ago, Nancy Pelosi said we need to pass the Bill so that people can find out what's in it, right? Yeah. And this was like widely played as a like, Lal Democrats haven't even read the Bill. Kind of gaffe. But what she meant was that the Bill contained many provisions that she believed were extremely popular. Even though Obama Care quote unquote was unpopular. And the bet was that over the long run as these things came into existence and the the details became sailing into people. It would be politically beneficial to Democrats. I think her hope was that that was gonna come true by twenty twelve or so took a little longer. Yeah, there was an amazing little pulling result I saw today. So to your point, Matt, like for the longest time, ObamaCare was really divisive. Wasn't very popular, like approval was stuck in the mid forties. And I was actually looking through the cross tabs of a Fox News poll this week, and they had pulled the Affordable Care ACT's approval rating. And it was like fifty, five percent approval and forty percent disapproval. And the most amazing thing maybe is that we don't even talk about that anymore lake last year. It was a big story when ObamaCare finally hit fifty percent approval ratings. During in the midst of Republicans trying to repeal it. But now like we just sort of a sumo that like three fifths of American support this law. Now, even though that is completely contrary to what had been American politics for the last her for most of this decade. And that's like the the common theme for Democrats had like, that's like the topic that plays an matter what everyone exactly. And even though we had this very sort of divisive discussion earlier in a primary phase about healthcare on the democratic side, right? So I mean, do we have people in contested races talking about this Medicare for all things that we do. But I think what's interesting is even they in a general election context, have pivoted more to talking about pre existing conditions. Republicans wanna take away their healthcare Bill. I interviewed Kerry Eastman who is one kind of the classic example of this. She's a progressive democrat running an Omaha and a toss up district, and she ran on Medicare for all in the primary..