Impeachment watch: Nearly half of house democrats support inquiry
Nearly half the House Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — a milestone but still probably not enough to push Speaker Nancy Pelosi to launch proceedings. A tally by The Associated Press on Wednesday showed 114 Democrats in the House, and one Republican-turned independent, are now publicly backing an inquiry, a notable spike in the days since special counsel Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill. Some two dozen House Democrats, and two top senators, added their names after Mueller’s public appearance last week. The numbers also show the limits. Even with half the Democrats favoring impeachment efforts, it’s not seen by leadership as a working majority for quick action. Pelosi, who needs at least a 218-vote majority to pass most legislation in the House, has been unwilling to move toward impeachment without a groundswell of support — both on and off Capitol Hill. “The dynamics have shifted,” said Kevin Mack, the lead strategist at Need to Impeach, a group funded by Tom Steyer, who’s now a Democratic presidential contender and stepped down from the organization. “It’s time to get it started. It’s not enough to keep kicking the can down the road, running out the clock.” For Democrats who won control of the House, partly on the promise of providing a checks-and-balance on the Trump administration, the weeks ahead will be pivotal as lawmakers hear from voters during the August recess and attention turns toward the 2020 election.Outside groups have struggled to make inroads with the House, despite tens of thousands of phone calls and office visits pushing lawmakers to act more urgently. Steyer’s group and another founded by activist Sean Eldridge have been key advocates for impeachment. But it’s taken longer than expected to reach this benchmark, some say. Their work may become more daunting ahead of the primary elections if Democrats are reluctant to take greater strides toward impeachment. Still, what’s striking about the growing list of House Democrats who support some sort of impeachment inquiry is as much the names as the numbers. This week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, became the ninth to call for impeachment inquiry — almost half of the House’s committee chairmen now on record in favor. Engel said the president’s “repeated abuses have brought American democracy to a perilous crossroads.” His committee is among those investigating Trump’s business dealings and ties to Russia – and running into obstruction by the administration that some say are grounds for impeachment. Also joining the list in the immediate aftermath of Mueller’s testimony was a top party leader, Rep. Katherine Clark, Democrat-Massachusetts, the vice chair of the Democratic caucus, who said the House has been met with “unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction” by the Trump administration. “That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts,” she said. Two top Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the third and fourth-ranking members of leadership, also announced their support for a House impeachment inquiry. Republican-turned independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan announced his support for impeachment shortly after he said he read Mueller’s findings about Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s response. Mueller’s testimony was supposed to be a game changer, his appearance months in the making since the April release of his 448-page report. But the 74-year-old Mueller’s halting testimony and one-word answers left a mixed result. Pelosi swiftly assembled lawmakers behind closed doors the evening after Mueller testified. The speaker has held Democrats in line on her strategy, with many deferring to her leadership. Pelosi’s only counsel was that if they needed to speak in favor of impeachment, they should not to turn it into a moral ultimatum. It was a signal that Democrats should not badmouth lawmakers who were still reluctant to call for an inquiry, according a person familiar with the private session and granted anonymity to discuss it. While the speaker called Mueller’s appearance “a crossing of a threshold,” she also quickly pivoted to the House’s legal action against the White House, saying Democrats are building the case that Trump is obstructing their ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch. “We still have some outstanding matters in the courts,” Pelosi said. She reminded that the Watergate case burst open after the House sued for access to audio tapes Richard Nixon made in the White House. “We want to have the strongest possible case to make a decision as to what path we will go down and that is not endless, in terms of time, or endless in terms of the information that we want,” she said. Yet the House Judiciary Committee has yet to file a lawsuit on one of their next priorities — enforcing a subpoena against Donald McGahn. That filing could come as soon as this week, but the process could take several months, pushing the impeachment timeline closer to the end of the year and the presidential primaries. The former White House counsel is among long list of administration officials who have refused to testify or provide documents to the panel under orders from Trump. The suit would challenge White House claims that such officials have “absolute immunity” from such testimony. In a separate case, the committee is in court trying to obtain secret grand jury information underlying Mueller’s report. In a court filing Wednesday, the committee and the Justice Department agreed to next steps in that matter by the end of September, pushing any resolution until October. Pelosi is of the mindset that impeachment should not be done for political reasons, or not done for political reasons, as she pursues a step-by-step case. In many ways, she is protecting those lawmakers who joined the House from districts Trump creating the House majority, from having to make tough choices on impeachment. But critics say Pelosi is depriving Democrats of a clear vote on
National democrat party officials reject Alabama state party bylaws
National party officials are expressing concern that the Alabama Democratic Party isn’t doing enough to attract more non-black minorities. The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee on Tuesday rejected the state party’s proposed bylaws. The national party in February ordered the Alabama party to hold new elections for party leaders and to revise bylaws and encourage participation by more minorities. The directive came amid challenges over the re-election of Nancy Worley as chair of the state party. Committee member Harold Ickes says the party’s proposal did not comply with the DNC directive. Ickes also says the party’s internal elections last year made the “Keystone Cops look organized.” Worley told the panel that people unhappy with her election are “refighting the civil war” with the challenges. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Clarifying points of Becky Gerittson’s response to prior AL Today editorial
First and foremost, I want to reiterate (as I said to Becky Gerritson personally during a phone call, and as I said in my first piece) I am not defending Baron Coleman’s statements about her or his assumptions about the funding of her group. His language was undeniably offensive. In my first piece, I defended his First Amendment right to say things that are offensive and to use hyperbole. In this piece, I just seek to clarify points raised in Gerritson’s reactions piece. Some of which was repeated in Mike Cason’s AL.Com story. Second, I want to say that I made a mistake in not realizing that there are now two different Eagle Forum entities and I referenced the donors of the wrong one. That was my mistake, and I apologize to my readers for the confusion. I have updated my first piece to reflect the correction. That said, the entities are independent, but both have the same founders and use Eagle Forum in their title. I made a good faith effort in my research, but alas, failed to dive into the year’s long court records about the use of the name. The article I linked to was for an event hosted by the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund. All of that said, this is not my fight. I felt strongly this is a case of First Amendment rights vs an attempt to silence someone. I still do. What Gerritson provided yesterday, was additionally offensive material that is still covered under the First Amendment. If you’re a constitutional conservative your opinion of freedoms doesn’t change with the level of offense taken, or with who the subject of conversation is. Ultimately the people with a stake this fight in this are Coleman’s listeners (and so far as I can tell based on the hundred comments of support, they don’t mind his language), the sponsors (not one has dropped to date), the bar association (the outcome there will be determined in time). I’m not trying to make it my fight, but I did break this story and feel like I have a responsibility to clarify on points I have previously made. I received Gerritson’s piece with a request to run it “in its entirety.” After careful review, I decided to withhold publication as I tried to work with Gerritson to correct what I saw as factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations in her piece. I’ll let you be the judge of them. Since she went ahead and went public with it while we were corresponding for clarification here are the parts that are at best questionable if not entirely untrue: The next day, May 30th Coleman continued his rant and “promised” his listeners that Eagle Forum was taking money from big pharma for my testimony. This is not what Coleman said. Even according to the transcripts provided by Eagle Forum to the station manager. Coleman said that he promised at some point in the history of the organization, note not specific for her testimony, that they had taken pharmaceutical money. So when a radio host broadcasts on the air that we have said things we haven’t and then falsely states that we were paid by big pharma (or any other interest group) for the position we took on an issue; it is my right and my duty to stand up for truth and call out the lies. So, that’s what I did. See above. Attorneys in Alabama have ethics rules they are required to abide by. His words and actions violated Alabama’s Bar Misconduct rule 8.4. Let’s be clear, filing an ethics complaint is NOT the same as trying to take away someone’s law license. Here is the brochure to file a complaint against an attorney. Here are the listed potential disciplinary actions that could come as a result of a complaint. Note this isn’t a menu the complainant can choose from these are the potential outcomes for any bar complaint: Probation Private reprimand Public reprimand Suspension Disbarment The AL Today article claimed that I was trying to “silence” Coleman. I did alert the radio station owner and Coleman’s sponsors to his comments with a copy of his own words. Because Eagle Forum is an advocate for free speech, we intentionally did not call for a boycott nor make public comments. I just wanted them to know that he was spreading false information about Eagle Forum under their name. boy·cott /ˈboiˌkät/ verb withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. Image directly taken from letter Gerritson wrote includes a request that can be understood no other way than to request sponsors boycott his show and move their sponsorships elsewhere: When Coleman found out that I had filled the bar complaint he then went on the air and publicly threatened me. The following venomous rant was due to our privately calling out his false statements. The audio is worth listening to because the tone reveals so much. An hour later he made more threats. Please note that Mr. Coleman said that he himself could be paid to go away!! Again the next day, he continued threatening to destroy me and Eagle Forum. Gerritson started her rebuttal by stating that she was not against Coleman’s First Amendment rights, but includes his language as an example of why she was right to file a complaint. Again, for the fifth time, this is not about Coleman’s words it’s about his right to use them. Here is some additional reading on political hyperbole that those following this situation might be interested in… in this post by David L. Hudson, Jr. I am publishing it whole and encourage you to go to the website for additional information. According to the Freedom Forum Institute Hudson Jr. is a Visiting Associate Professor of Legal Practice at Belmont University College of Law, is a First Amendment attorney and author who has written, co-written, or co-edited more than 40 books, including First Amendment: Freedom of Speech(Thomson
Becky Gerritson: It’s not about ‘Free Speech’ it’s about defending the truth
Editors Note: I received this piece yesterday with a request to run it “in its entirety.” After careful review, I decided to withhold publication as I tried to work with the author to correct what we perceive as factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Since the author went ahead and went public with it while we were corresponding I am taking this annotated version live with a link to an editorial piece that gives additional information on the statements in red. Please see this post for more information. Alabama Today posted an article yesterday entitled,“Tea Party Activist Becky Gerritson vs Baron Coleman: An absurd fight against his First Amendment Rights”. The Gerritson vs Coleman issue has nothing to do with “freedom of speech” or the U. S. Constitution. It doesn’t even primarily have to do with Baron Coleman’s offensive language towards women. What it does have to do with is holding people accountable when they go on the public airways and make false statements in order to hurt an organization. After reading the Alabama Today article it is clear that neither the author nor Mr. Coleman himself recognizes why an Alabama bar ethics complaint was filed against him and why he should be held accountable for false statements. I am Becky Gerritson, the Executive Director of Eagle Forum of Alabama. Eagle Forum is a Christian, pro-family organization that upholds conservative principles like limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and we promote public policy that protects and strengthens the nuclear family. How the fight began On May 28th I testified before the AL House Health Committee against SB236, the bill to legalize medical marijuana. I testified at the public hearing because there were several problems with the bill which I identified in my testimony and then offered ways to make the bill better. Later that night WSFA, Montgomery’s NBC affiliate, showed a clip of me testifying for a few seconds, although you could not hear my testimony. The next day, May 29th, Baron Coleman, the host of News and Views radio show, went on the air and lied about what I said in my testimony. He said that I said, “There were no known benefits to medical marijuana and it leads to like black tar heroin”. I said nothing of the sort and actually praised the current cannabis oil trial at UAB and recommended extending it. Not only did Coleman lie about my testimony, but he also proceeded to call me “a big pharma whore” multiple times. The next day, May 30th Coleman continued his rant and “promised” his listeners that Eagle Forum was taking money from big pharma for my testimony. Again, completely baseless and false. It’s one thing for comments to be “offensive” like calling a woman a whore. I can handle that. But the more significant issue is having to endure completely baseless and false statements that disparage our organization. Mr. Coleman’s false statements matter. Eagle Forum is a non-profit organization. We rely solely on donations from our supporters to fund the work we do to protect and strengthen families and promote our conservative values. We work diligently to research issues and create policy based on facts. So when a radio host broadcasts on the air that we have said things we haven’t and then falsely states that we were paid by big pharma (or any other interest group) for the position we took on an issue; it is my right and my duty to stand up for truth and call out the lies. So, that’s what I did. Why file an ethics complaint and reach out to advertisers? Attorneys in Alabama have ethics rules they are required to abide by. His words and actions violated Alabama’s Bar Misconduct rule 8.4. Let’s be clear, filing an ethics complaint is NOT the same as trying to take away someone’s law license. I’m not known as vengeful nor am I the kind of person who tries to destroy someone with whom I disagree. But I am compelled to stand up to injustice. The bar complaint was a private matter and was never intended to remove Coleman from practicing law but rather a way to hold him accountable. These are the very standards that Mr. Coleman agreed to follow when he became an attorney. The AL Today article claimed that I was trying to “silence” Coleman. I did alert the radio station owner and Coleman’s sponsors to his comments with a copy of his own words. Because Eagle Forum is an advocate for free speech, we intentionally did not call for a boycott nor make public comments. I just wanted them to know that he was spreading false information about Eagle Forum under their name. It was clearly their decision on whether to continue to support his show. Coleman reacts on air to the ethics complaint (Alabama Today’s Editors note: We have edited out a partial transcript of Coleman’s comments provided by the author which did not provide the full context of his statements. The author of this post has linked to portions of the audio. We encourage you to listen to them in full though be aware there is the use of foul language.) When Coleman found out that I had filled the bar complaint he then went on the air and publicly threatened me. The following venomous rant was due to our privately calling out his false statements. The audio is worth listening to because the tone reveals so much. An hour later he made more threats. Please note that Mr. Coleman said that he himself could be paid to go away!! Again the next day, he continued threatening to destroy me and Eagle Forum. Baron’s hateful, arrogant response confirmed to me that the original ethics complaint I filed was just. Editorial got it wrong – Eagle Forum didn’t take money Eagle Forum stands for truth and the principles of Eagle Forum are not for sale. In the AL Today article author Apryl Marie Fogel says if you google Big Pharma and
Second round debate takeaways: Should 2020 democrats go big or get real?
Should Democrats be going big or getting real? That’s the question that dominated the Democratic presidential primary debate as progressive favorites Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders fended off attacks from lesser-known moderates. The display amounted to a sometimes testy public airing of the party’s anxieties about how far left is too left and how to beat President Donald Trump. Here are the key takeaways from the debate: EVOLUTION VS. REVOLUTION The battle lines were clear at Tuesday’s debate from the opening remarks. This was the pragmatists against the front-runners seeking transformational change. Over and over, moderate candidates like Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and former Rep. John Delaney argued Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plans — from “Medicare for All” to the Green New Deal — are unrealistic and would scare off voters. Bullock bemoaned the candidates’ “wish-list economics.” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar dismissed free college even for wealthy families as unworkable and touted her ideas “grounded in reality.” Hickenlooper called for “an evolution, not a revolution,” on health care. The attacks weren’t shocking in a debate that featured the progressive standouts Warren and Sanders onstage with a handful of lesser-known moderates looking to seize the spotlight. But the two senators’ unified front in fighting them off was notable. Though they are jockeying for some of the same voters, Warren and Sanders didn’t bother going after each other. They largely beat back the moderate critique of their call for sweeping, systemic change with similar arguments. Sanders argued his health plan is “not radical” and achievable. Warren said the country’s problems can’t be solved with “small ideas and spinelessness.” PLAYING INTO TRUMP’S HANDS? Donald Trump loomed large over the Democratic debate stage. Repeatedly, the candidates mixed their policy plans with political strategy, arguing over whether their party’s leftward push will only open them up to GOP criticism. On topics from Medicare for All to immigration, Warren and Sanders found themselves under attack as their more moderate competitors told them their policies only played into Trump’s hands. The notion of taking away private insurance from millions and a Green New Deal that “makes sure that every American’s guaranteed a government job that they want” is “a disaster at the ballot box,” Hickenlooper said. “You might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump,” Hickenlooper said. Delaney wondered, “Why do we have to be so extreme?” Even self-help author Marianne Williamson chimed in to say she does “have concern about what the Republicans would say.” South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg tried to end the unusually public display of anxiety, declaring that “it is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say.” “If it’s true that if we embrace a far left agenda they’re going to say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists,” Buttigieg said. “If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they’re going to do? They’re going to say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists. So let’s just stand up for the right policy, go out there, and defend it.” MEDICARE FOR ALL TAKES HEAT If the fight was between centrists and progressives, Medicare for All was the weapon. The early moments of the debate were dominated by a fight over whether Sanders’ plan to eliminate private insurance in favor of a universal government health plan is possible, practical or political suicide. At times, with Medicare for All supporters Sanders and Warren outnumbered, the centrists piled on, raising doubts about the quality of care it could offer, the costs and the disruption to the health care system. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan called it “bad policy and bad politics.” Bullock said he couldn’t support a plan that “rips away” insurance from Americans who have it. “It used to be Republicans who wanted to do repeal and replace,” Bullock said, referring to the Republican refrain on getting rid of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Sanders, who has spent much of his career on the issue, grew agitated as he defended the plan. The coverage would actually be better, he argued. “You don’t know that, Bernie,” Ryan interjected. “I do know,” Sanders fired back. “I wrote the damn bill!” UNITED AGAINST TRUMP ON RACE For all the divisions onstage Tuesday, the candidates were unified in rebuking Trump’s racist comments and using race as a campaign theme for 2020. Trump in recent weeks has told four congresswomen of color to “go back” to the countries they came from even though they’re all U.S. citizens and has criticized Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore-area district as a “rat and rodent infested mess.” “I have had it with the racist attacks,” Klobuchar said in her opening statement.Sanders said Trump exploited racism. Warren said, “The president is advancing environmental racism, economic racism, criminal justice racism, health care racism.” Warren won strong applause from the Detroit audience when she declared her administration would treat white supremacy as a form of domestic terrorism. Buttigieg also directed criticism at members of Congress he said are supportive of or silent on “naked racism” in the White House. “If you are a Republican member of Congress, consider the fact that when the sun sets on your career, and they are writing your story of all the good and bad things you did in your life, the thing you will be remembered for is whether in this moment, with this president, you found the courage to stand up to him or you continued to put party over country,” he said. It was one of the loudest applause lines of the night. The Alabama Today post on the first democratic debate can be found here. By Sara Burnett and Brian Slodysko Associated Press Associated Press writer Hunter Woodall contributed from Detroit. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
