Matt Ford at The New Republic writes—America Needs to Hear From Robert Mueller:
Getting Mueller’s testimony was already important, but now it’s imperative. The whole point of his investigation was to determine what happened during the 2016 election and whether any crimes were committed. The special counsel’s report left open some gray areas, especially on the extent of Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation and whether he broke the law. Mueller’s letter makes clear that he intended for the public to understand what he found differently that Barr did. Until the special counsel gives Congress his side of the story, the Russia investigation can’t be put to rest.
The attorney general’s version of events alone simply can’t be trusted. When he appeared before Congress last month, Barr gave misleading answers to questions about Mueller’s thoughts on how the investigation wrapped up. “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen asked him at one point. “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion,” Barr replied. He gave a similarly evasive answer when Florida Representative Charlie Crist asked if he knew what members of Mueller’s team reportedly meant when they complained about his summary letter. “No, I don’t,” Barr replied. “I suspect that they probably wanted more put out.” [...]
If Mueller intended for the Justice Department to file obstruction charges against Trump after the president leaves office, then he should say that to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. If he meant for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings with the evidence he’s already gathered, he should say that. And if he is ultimately satisfied with how the investigation wrapped up, he should say that. Any answer would be fine so long as it’s Mueller, and not a dissembling and deceptive attorney general, who provides it.
At The New York Times, Neal A. Katyal, who drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed, writes—Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report:
Many who watched Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which followed the revelation that the special counsel Robert Mueller had expressed misgivings about Mr. Barr’s characterization of his report, are despairing about the rule of law. I am not among them. I think the system is working, and inching, however slowly, toward justice.
When it comes to investigating a president, the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. That is where this process is going, and has to go. We are in the fifth inning, and we should celebrate a system in which our own government can uncover so much evidence against a sitting president. [...]
Mr. Barr’s deeply evasive testimony on Wednesday necessitates and tees up a full investigation in Congress. Those who say Congress shouldn’t do so because surveys show that the American public is not in favor of an impeachment inquiry must take into account the fact that the American people have been misled by Attorney General Barr’s characterizations of the report and its conclusions. These surveys are therefore not surprising. But there is no more sacred duty for Congress than getting to the bottom of whether our president has taken care that the laws of this country have been faithfully executed.
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times writes—Reimagining America Admitting the truth is the first step toward our country’s restoration:
Who can forget Lindsey Graham in 2016 saying:
“I’m not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump because I don’t think there’s a whole lot of space there. I think he’s a kook. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.”
Trump seems to have found it. Attorney General William Barr, the Roy Cohn he has so sorely missed and desired. [...]
America is coming to see the damage that can be done when a demagogue seizes the reins of power in a country too dependent on custom. [...]
The members of the Democratic leadership, petrified that they might somehow damage the party’s prospects in 2020, are dragging their feet on impeachment like they’re wearing cement shoes.
Greg Sargent at The Washington Post writes—Kamala Harris zeroes in on the big problem with William Barr:
Sen. Kamala D. Harris is already getting a lot of plaudits for roasting Attorney General William P. Barr at the Judiciary Committee hearing. Under questioning from Harris, Barr pulled a big homina homina homina when asked whether the White House had ever asked or suggested that he open an investigation into anyone. [...]
“This attorney general lacks all credibility and has, I think, compromised the American public’s ability to believe that he is a purveyor of justice," Harris said.
When you step back and consider the totality of what we just witnessed, what’s really striking is Barr’s utter disinterest in conveying any sense that Harris is, well, wrong in that assessment. He made little serious effort to disguise the degree to which he is operating above all as an advocate for the president.
Throughout, there was a kind of casual disdain and contempt not just for the congressional proceedings but also for the very notion that any of his conduct thus far raises any legitimate concerns — let alone that he should have to waste his time addressing them — that was deeply disconcerting.
Bill Boyarsky at TruthDig writes—This Isn’t the Election for Democrats to Play It Safe:
Some Democrats—including those who haven’t recovered from Trump’s victory—fear all of this will roll off of him and, protected by poll projections of around 35 to 40 percent support of his base, he will be re-elected. But even the most traumatized Democrats may still concede the Democratic nominee has at least a chance to beat him. That’s one reason why so many candidates are running for the party’s 2020 nomination.
It’s odd that the women among them aren’t being mentioned in the same breath as the men. That’s in part because Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016, and her defeat has made the idea of a female nominee seem too improbable, to some, to merit discussion. This notion has become ingrained in the conventional wisdom consulted by the pundit- and Democratic Twitter-verses.
But improbable is a word to be avoided these days. Cornell University philosopher Kate Manne, author of “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny,” made this point in an April 23 interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein. Manne said, “It’s depressing watching the four B’s—Biden, Bernie, Beto and Buttigieg—rise in the polls and generate enthusiasm beyond the substance that may be there while women trail behind them with no plausible explanation for why we see that striking pattern. It is always possible it’s just due to the female candidates being less exciting, but I have a hard time believing it in this race.”
She continued, “If we knew for sure … [if] a candidate couldn’t beat Trump, that would be reason not to support them … [But] part of what makes someone unelectable is people give up on them in a way that would be premature rather than going to the mat for them.”
Emily Atkin at The New Republic writes—Beto O’Rourke Won’t Demonize the Fossil Fuel Industry:
Beto O’Rourke released the first significant policy proposal of his presidential campaign on Monday. “Climate change is the greatest threat we face—one which will test our country, our democracy, and every single one of us,” begins his ambitious plan to fight climate change. “The stakes are clear: We are living in a transformed reality, where our longstanding inaction has not only impacted our climate but led to a growing emergency that has already started to sap our economic prosperity and public health—worsening inequality and threatening our safety and security.”
O’Rourke’s plan isn’t quite as ambitious as the Green New Deal, but O’Rourke is the first prominent 2020 candidate to create his own proposal to address the crisis as opposed to merely backing the GND, as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigeig have done. Let the intra-party climate debate begin!
Seriously, everyone should be excited about this.
The two plans have a lot in common, but there’s a fundamental difference. Proponents of the Green New Deal approach climate change as an issue caused inherently by unchecked capitalism and the fossil fuel industry, and thus seek to vanquish—or at least, aggressively subdue—those enemies. O’Rourke does not expressly demonize either. In his plan, climate change itself is the enemy.
Alex Shephard at The New Republic writes—For 2020 Democrats, It Should Still Be the Economy. The grotesqueries of Trump are a tempting target, but the economic anxiety evident in the 2016 campaign has been exacerbated by his policies.:
“The economy really is the strong point for Donald Trump,” said former Representative Jason Chaffetz. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Utah Republican echoed Trump, telling Chris Wallace, “You can do the tweets and all this other noise that are out there, but when people feel good at home, they’re going to stick with the person who has the White House.”
This has been conventional wisdom for decades; the president’s tweet is roughly quoting Clinton campaign guru James Carville, after all. But the narrative might not be as sound as Trump and his surrogates think it is. A Washington Post-ABC poll released on Monday found that “60 percent of all voters say the country’s economic system mainly benefits those in power,” including “8 in 10 Democrats and more than 6 in 10 independents” and “nearly a third of Republicans.” This is good news for Democratic presidential candidates—if, that is, they’re prepared to craft a populist economic message.
Trump should recognize that he’s more vulnerable on the economy than the big-picture economic data suggests. In 2016, after all, the economy was pretty good—which, many argued at the time, benefited the incumbent party, the Democrats. Hillary Clinton based her campaign on continuing the economic recovery that had begun under President Obama. But Trump (and, for that matter, Bernie Sanders) made a different argument, that the recovery was only benefiting a small percentage of people, while millions were falling further behind. That latter take resonated.
William Astore at Tom Dispatch writes—How the Pentagon Took Ownership of Donald Trump
Six Ways to Curb America’s Military Machine:
People condemn President Trump for his incessant lying and his con games—and rightly so. But few Americans condemn the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state, even though we’ve been the victims of their long con for decades now. As it happens, from the beginning of the Cold War to late last night, they’ve remained remarkably skilled at exaggerating the threats the U.S. faces and, believe me, that represents the longest con of all. It’s kept the military-industrial complex humming along, thanks to countless trillions of taxpayer dollars, while attempts to focus a spotlight on that scam have been largely discredited or ignored.
One thing should have, but hasn’t, cut through all the lies: the grimly downbeat results of America’s actual wars. War by its nature tells harsh truths—in this case, that the U.S. military is anything but “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” Why? Because of its almost unblemished record of losing, or at least never winning, the wars it engages in. Consider the disasters that make up its record from Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s to, in the twenty-first century, the Iraq War that began with the invasion of 2003 and the nearly 18-year debacle in Afghanistan—and that’s just to start down a list. You could easily add Korea (a 70-year stalemate/truce that remains troublesome to this day), a disastrous eight-year-old intervention in Libya, a quarter century in (and out and in) Somalia, and the devastating U.S.-backed Saudi war in Yemen, among so many other failed interventions.
In short, the U.S. spends staggering sums annually, essentially stolen from a domestic economy and infrastructure that’s fraying at the seams, on what still passes for “defense.” The result: botched wars in distant lands that have little, if anything, to do with true defense, but which the Pentagon uses to justify yet more funding, often in the name of “rebuilding” a “depleted” military. Instead of a three-pointed pyramid scheme, you might think of this as a five-pointed Pentagon scheme, where losing only wins you ever more, abetted by lies that just grow and grow. When it comes to raising money based on false claims, this president has nothing on the Pentagon. And worse yet, like America’s wars, the Pentagon’s long con shows no sign of ending. Eat your heart out, Donald Trump!
Emilie Prattico at The Nation writes—Billionaires Can Rebuild the Past, but Their Wealth Can’t Fix the Future:
It’s true that many companies are taking measures to mitigate their impact on climate and to reduce their carbon footprints, some with unprecedented ambition. Norway’s $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund is to invest billions of dollars into wind- and solar-power projects; Daimler’s incoming CEO Ola Källenius has committed to make the luxury German automaker carbon-neutral by 2040; UK power utility National Grid says it will be capable of operating a zero-carbon grid by 2025. Business leaders themselves have voiced support for the climate activists and the head of one of Europe’s biggest ethical-investment funds, Nordea, said the protests are “just the beginning.”
Those are all important signals of change. But the kind of transformation we need to tackle climate change will require the overhaul of the entire economic system, not the incremental adjustments made by individual companies or countries. Shifting toward a net-zero carbon economy requires innovation in products and processes, the development of new business models, and new forms of cooperation across industries. It will unleash large amounts of investments into new, low-carbon plants and infrastructures. It will call for radically new legal, fiscal, and policy frameworks. It is highly unlikely to sustain the kinds of inequalities we witness today, nor support the existence of philanthropic billionaires. [...]
The climate is the rare problem billionaires can’t throw their money at. We don’t need donations. We need a fundamentally different kind of economy, and radical action to profoundly transform the capitalist system that allows for billionaires to exist in the first place.
Ellen Bravo and Karen Nussbaum at The American Prospect write—Remaking 9 to 5? What Today’s Working Women Want to See:
The press has reported rumors that Hollywood may be planning a sequel to 9 to 5—the 1980 hit film comedy that starred Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton, and Lily Tomlin as office workers taking abuse from, and then getting revenge against, their sexist boss.
Which raises a question: How much of the story needs to change to make it relevant today? How much of the song? [...]
The song “9 to 5” may be running on a loop in your head these days. You might have heard it when Elizabeth Warren came on stage to announce that she is running for president. Or when Dolly Parton led the audience in a rendition at the Grammys tribute to her. Or when the Democratic Socialists of America ended a recent retreat singing “9 to 5” instead of “The Internationale.” [...]
After distributing DVDs of the film to a multiracial, multi-age cross section of women office workers, we talked with more than 50 such women in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., to find out.
Here’s what they said.
Nine to five? “We’re working more like 24/7,” Brenda said, “but I had to stand up and shout 10 minutes into this film—I couldn’t believe how many of the problems are still with us!” Sexual harassment and sex discrimination, pay inequity and undervaluation of work, lack of child care and lying sexist bigots—all these issues hit home with the women we talked with. The film’s “boss-speak could be copied straight from today,” Paula said. [...]
Michael Arria at In These Times writes—Will the Teacher Strike Wave Hit Mississippi?
The Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE), the state affiliate of the National Education Association, has polled educators across the state to gauge interest for potential protests or walkouts. The move comes on the heels of the Mississippi legislature approving a paltry $1,500 pay increase for the state’s teachers, a move perceived by many workers as a slap in the face. Mississippi teachers make the second-lowest salary in the country behind South Dakota, at an average of $42,925 annually. The fact educators are even mulling the possibility of a strike is a huge development in a state that hasn’t seen a teacher work stoppage in over 30 years.
MAE is the state affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). On April 4, the group posted a survey on its Facebook page. “Mississippi’s educators and citizens have been extremely engaged this legislative session and from across the state we have made our voices heard!” reads the post. “Despite that engagement, the legislature chose to ignore the needs of our educators and our students.” The survey asked whether or not educators would be interested in participating in a variety of work actions, from sickouts to strikes.
According to the survey, over 60% of teachers would support a protest or a one-day “sickout,” in which everyone would call in sick on the same day, while only about 30% would currently be receptive to a strike. However, MAE points out that the last teacher strike in Mississippi took place in 1985 and although it effectively secured a pay raise, lawmakers immediately made any future strikes illegal. Teachers can lose their licenses and be fined if they participate in any kind of strike. A group like MAE could face punitive measures for organizing a strike, putting its existence in jeopardy.
Heather Boushey at The Guardian writes—The economy isn't getting better for most Americans. But there is a fix:
The economy is getting bigger, but not better. Not for most Americans, anyway. In the United States, additional income from productivity and growth has been going mostly to those at the topof the income and wealth ladder. Between 1979 and 2016, the US national income grew by nearly 60%, but after accounting for taxes and transfers, the bottom half of the income distribution experienced incomes rising by 22%, while those in the top 10% had income gains that were almost five times as much – 100%.
As income inequality widens, it’s calcified into some at the top accumulating larger and larger stocks of assets – money, but also property, stocks, bonds and other kinds of capital. In the United States, the distribution of wealth is even more severely unequal than income. Since 1979, wealth gains at the top have grown even faster than income; those in the top 1% now control about 40% of all wealth in the US economy, and the top 0.1% control more than 20% – three times as much as the late 1970s.
To put this into raw numbers, there are 160,000 families in the United States who hold more than $20m in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, and their average wealth was $72m. This group’s share of wealth was almost equal to that of the bottom 90% of Americans.
Aimee Ellison at The Guardian writes—Bernie Sanders needs black women's support. So what's his plan to win us over?
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: despite years of careful planning, investments and hiring key high-level diverse advisers, Bernie Sanders is struggling to connect with voters of color, and specifically black voters. This became especially clear at a forum I organized with She the People last week with eight presidential candidates, including Sanders.
Upon coming on stage, Sanders received a standing ovation from nearly 1,800 women of color from across 28 states, yet the positive vibes didn’t last long. When Sayu Bhojwani, the executive director of New American Leaders, stood on stage to ask him a question about the rise of white nationalist violence, what the federal government’s role in the fight against the rise of white nationalism and white terrorist acts, and how he plans to fight that as president, he gave a disappointing answer.
Instead of addressing the current crisis, he reminded the room of Donald Trump’s demagoguery, and then pivoted to his time marching with Martin Luther King. It simply did not answer the question in a satisfying way. We did not hear that he shared our fear. We did not hear how he viewed the federal government’s role in protecting us against white nationalist violence. We did not hear his strategy or plans, of how and what he would implement in his first year as president. The response from the audience was widespread groans and boos.
Much has been made of this booing. Many Sanders supporters called it shameful to boo the March on Washington. And to be fair, no candidate – including Joe Biden, who referenced the tragedy in Charlottesville in his campaign announcement video – has offered a bold plan to prevent violence and protect communities targeted by white nationalists and white supremacists – black people, Muslims, immigrants, Jews.
Women of color and black voters need specific proposals about meeting this scourge. No candidate will win over black voters or women of color in 2020 unless they can respond with authentic understanding and address the rise of white supremacist violence that many of us cannot escape. Sanders’ failure to meet the moment at the She the People forum is a mistake that Democrats running for president have made for too long.