SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy 21
Reverends to Democrats: 'Invest in a Strong Economic Message'
Midterm results across the country reveals that the heart of the Democrat's strength--and their greatest potential to grow a governing majority--lies in uniting people around an economy that works for all of us.
Nov 18, 2022
When pollsters said voters were energized to elect Republicans in the midterm elections, they were not wrong. Turnout for Republican candidates surpassed 2018 numbers in states across the country. But in more places than almost anyone predicted, Americans were even more motivated to elect Democrats, who held onto dozens of House seats that were considered vulnerable and flipped an open US Senate seat in Pennsylvania.
Democrats won by a landslide among those who've felt the impact of inflation most acutely.
The coalition that elected Biden and Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2020 remained resilient, united by more than a disdain for the twice-impeached Trump. But a closer look at midterm results across the country reveals that the heart of the Democrat's strength--and their greatest potential to grow a governing majority--lies in uniting people around an economy that works for all of us.
Without doubt, defending democracy and a Constitutional right to privacy and choice for women were strong motivating factors for Democratic voters. Many Democrats who held onto House seats could not have won without an increase in turn-out among voters under 30, who favored Democrats by 28 points, and reported abortion rights as a strong motivating factor. But another low-propensity voter demographic--people who earn less than $30,000 a year--also favored Democrats by 12 points. In an election cycle where Republicans tried to blame inflation on the Democratic President and run on "the economy," Democrats won by a landslide among those who've felt the impact of inflation most acutely.
According to research conducted by the Poor People's Campaign after the 2020 election, these poor and low-income voters are the sleeping giant in American politics. Their participation in elections has consistently been 20 percentage points lower than their wealthier neighbors, leaving lots of room to grow the base for Democrats among a demographic they already win. When asked, the number one reason poor and low-income people who have not voted give for sitting out elections is that no politicians are speaking directly to their issues.
But some issues that directly impact poor and low-income people were on the ballot this year. In South Dakota, where Democrats haven't invested much in base-building for decades--a ballot measure to expand Medicaid to uninsured low-income people passed. And 58% of Nebraskans voted to raise the minimum wage in a state where all three Congressional seats were won by Republicans.
If living wages and access to healthcare are winning issues in South Dakota and Nebraska, they can become winning issues anywhere, encouraging poor and low-income people to turnout alongside allies who understand that all of us do better when all of us do better. In our home state of North Carolina, The Poor People's Campaign, used targeted data to reach out to 700,000 low propensity voters in key Congressional districts. This was not partisan outreach, but it helped Democrats pick up two Congressional seats in a Southern state. If you pay attention to places where Democratic candidates outperformed Biden's results from 2020--places like Pennsylvania and Ohio--Senate candidates John Fetterman and Tim Ryan were at the top of the ticket, emphasizing the economic message and taking it to the people in every part of their state--from the hood to the holler, as some organizers in Appalachia like to say.
Democrats have plenty of reasons to feel good about this week's election results, even if they lose control of the House. But achieving the kind of systemic change that's needed to build an economy that works for everyone will require a governing majority. That is only possible if Democrats build on the lessons learned in this cycle and invest in a strong economic message that can unite a cross section of Americans and inspire poor and low-income people to vote for candidates who see them. Such a commitment would not lead to greater partisanship, but would likely persuade some Republicans in places like South Dakota and Nebraska to support bi-partisan legislation that reflects the will of the voters who sent them to Washington. The choice isn't democracy and Constitutional rights or the economy, but rather a fight for democracy and basic rights that centers an economy where all of us can thrive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Memo Details Legal Case to Indict Trump Over Mar-a-Lago Documents
"Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump under several... federal criminal statutes," a group of legal experts argues.
Nov 17, 2022
A model prosecution memorandum published Thursday by a team of U.S. legal experts lays out potential charges against Donald Trump related to the former Republican president and 2024 presidential candidate's handling of classified government documents since he left office last year.
"Trump's conduct is indeed much worse than most of those prior cases and involves a host of aggravating factors."
The memo, which is based on publicly available information, was authored by a group of former federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other legal experts and published at Just Security.
Before issuing an indictment, prosecutors compile a pros memo listing admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues pertaining to the case. According to the experts, that document subsequently "provides a basis for prosecutors and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Federal Principles of Prosecution, which permit prosecution only when there is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a prosecution."
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel, current New York University law professor, and co-author of the new memo, said the team's "exhaustive analysis of all prior prosecutions brought under the same criminal statute that most directly applies to Trump shows how difficult it will be for the Justice Department to decline to issue an indictment here."
"Trump's conduct is indeed much worse than most of those prior cases and involves a host of aggravating factors that one seldom sees in cases brought under the Espionage Act's retention clause," Goodman added.
\u201cWith team of astounding colleagues, we published the culmination of massive undertaking:\n\nUnited States v. Donald J. Trump\nA Model DOJ Prosecution Memo in Mar-a-Lago Investigation\n\n169-page document\nCatalogues and compares all prior case DOJ prosecuted...\nhttps://t.co/kpzrpRykSW\u201d— Ryan Goodman (@Ryan Goodman) 1668695939
The controversial Espionage Act is a World War I-era law used to prosecute dissidents and whistleblowers from Eugene V. Debbs, Emma Goldman, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Reality Winner.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently probing possible Espionage Act violations committed by Trump, who was found in possession of classified documents allegedly including materials related to a foreign country's nuclear weapons.
Democracy 21 president and memo co-author Fred Wertheimer said that "Trump's status as a former president and as a current presidential candidate is and must be treated as irrelevant by Attorney General Merrick Garland in deciding whether to indict Trump."
"Garland's decision must be based on the facts, the law, and the standard of applying the law equally for all citizens, as detailed in our report," he added. "The process also is far too advanced to now start over with a special counsel to lead the investigation."
\u201cThe "Model DOJ Prosecution Memo" compares Trump\u2019s conduct in retaining classified info to the entire universe of cases that DOJ has prosecuted under the same laws.\n\nListen to @AWeissmann_, @JoyceWhiteVance, and @rgoodlaw discuss the memo.\ud83d\udc47\n\nwith @pshah518\nhttps://t.co/X9zO3I4MPr\u201d— Just Security (@Just Security) 1668699130
The memo analyzes six federal crimes:
- Retention of national defense information (18 USC SS 793(e));
- Concealing government records (18 USC SS 2071);
- Conversion of government property (18 USC SS 641);
- Obstruction of justice (18 USC SS 1519);
- Criminal contempt (18 USC SS 402); and
- False statements to federal investigators (18 USC SS 1001)
"Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump under several of these federal criminal statutes," the memo argues.
The document's authors explain that they "begin with the standard articulated" by Garland: "'Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor.' In other words, this case must be evaluated for prosecution like any other case with similar evidence would be, without regard to the fact that the case is focused on the conduct of a former president of the United States."
Memo co-author and Brookings Institution senior fellow Norman L. Eisen asserted that "if anyone else had handled even a single highly classified document in this way, they would be subject to investigation and likely prosecution."
\u201cTrump making his announcement after stealing 300+ classified docs\n\nReality Winner jailed for 1 doc shared trying to protect our elections\u201d— Sarah Reese Jones (@Sarah Reese Jones) 1668557757
"Donald Trump mishandled a huge volume of them," Eisen added. "No wonder that prosecutors seem to be closing in."
The memo's authors also walk through "every defense we could imagine" Trump might invoke.
"Our conclusion," wrote Goodman, is that "none of these potential defenses would provide a complete or effective defense."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Demanding Prosecution, Legal Experts Say This Is the 'Smoking Gun' to Nail Trump
"Trump has so far enjoyed near-impunity. He has gotten away with abuse after abuse... A case centered on the Georgia phone call, however, provides an antidote to that astonishing record."
Jun 21, 2022
As a key witness prepared to testify Tuesday before the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, a growing number of U.S. legal experts argued that one of Donald Trump's recorded phone calls offers ample grounds for the former president's prosecution.
"The tape should provide a simple case for criminal prosecutors to bring against Trump after the hearings."
Writing for MSNBC, Democracy 21 founder and president Fred Wertheimer and Brookings Institute senior fellow Norman Eisen assert that "conclusive proof" of Trump's "illegal effort to steal the presidential election is hiding in plain sight."
"It is the tape of Trump's Jan. 2, 2021, call urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to just 'find 11,780 votes,'" the pair argue. Raffensperger is set to testify before the bipartisan House panel Tuesday afternoon.
"Trump has so far enjoyed near-impunity. He has gotten away with abuse after abuse," Wertheimer and Eisen continue. "A case centered on the Georgia phone call, however, provides an antidote to that astonishing record."
"The tape should provide a simple case for criminal prosecutors to bring against Trump after the hearings," they contend. "U.S. District Judge David Carter already has found that Trump and his co-conspirators likely committed federal crimes... Carter concluded that Trump and John Eastman, a key adviser, 'launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,' adding, 'The illegality of the plan was obvious.'"
\u201c"If the facts establish that Trump\u2019s smoking-gun phone call to Raffensperger violated both state and federal criminal statutes \u2013 as we believe it did \u2013 private citizen Trump should be treated like any other lawbreaker: indicted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law."\u201d— Democracy 21 (@Democracy 21) 1655827850
They write:
Even as the case continues to build in all these dimensions that Trump engaged in leading a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election, the hourlong tape-recorded January 2 phone call Trump made to Raffensperger stands out as a smoking gun. Trump has no legal defense for this action...
When Trump asked Raffensperger to 'find' a specified number of new votes, he was asking him to rig the result. He did this with no concern about the truth and in the face of an initial vote count and two recounts that had already taken place--with all three showing Biden the winner.
"Trump pressed Raffensperger to change the count to a number that would give him Georgia's 16 electoral votes," Wertheimer and Eisen add, "and did so with no legal basis and no facts to justify his claims."
"Attorney General Merrick Garland has said the Justice Department will 'follow the facts wherever they lead' in investigating the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election," the pair note. "If the facts establish that Trump's smoking-gun phone call to Raffensperger violated both state and federal criminal statutes--as we believe it did--private citizen Trump should be treated like any other lawbreaker: indicted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law by both the Justice Department and the Fulton County district attorney."
Citing last week's testimony by former federal judge Michael Luttig--who called Trump and his allies a "clear and present danger" to U.S. democracy, Laurence H. Tribe, Phillip Allen Lacovara, and Dennis Aftergut argue in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece that "this historic phrase generates an extraordinary constitutional power of government to act--and a duty to do so."
\u201cHolding Trump accountable \u2014 and disqualifying him from future office \u2014 would not be a partisan act, but one needed to preserve the republic, write Laurence H. Tribe, Phillip Allen Lacovara and Dennis Aftergut. (via @latimesopinion)\n\nhttps://t.co/kk7UOSSUqE\u201d— Los Angeles Times (@Los Angeles Times) 1655753400
"Luttig's verdict should be understood as a plea for Attorney General Merrick Garland to proceed toward charging Trump with federal crimes that the public record now amply establishes," the trio writes. "Only then will this nation be able to move forward from the ongoing insurrection."
"Beyond the avalanche of documents and testimony pointing to Trump's guilt and the principle that no one is above the law, there is an additional reason to indict Trump for his multi-faceted conspiracy in 2020 to override the vote," the experts state. "Upon a conviction for inciting insurrection, or being an accessory to insurrection, Trump would be subject to disqualification from acquiring federal office."
The jurists continue:
There is ample evidence that Trump's objective was the insurrection's success. Among that evidence was his three-hour delay in calling on the attackers to go home and his vengeful tweet demeaning Vice President Mike Pence after Trump knew that the savage invasion of the U.S. Capitol had begun. That was "pouring gasoline on the fire," testified former deputy White House press secretary Sarah Matthews.
Even without a direct charge of insurrection, allegations of such insurrectionist activities in an indictment for conspiring to defraud the United States or to obstruct an official proceeding or for seditious conspiracy might suffice for 14th Amendment disqualification if Trump were convicted.
"Holding Trump accountable--and disqualifying him from future office--would not be a partisan act, but one needed to preserve the republic," Tribe, Lacovara, and Aftergut stress.
"Holding Trump accountable--and disqualifying him from future office--would not be a partisan act, but one needed to preserve the republic."
Warning that Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning all January 6th insurrectionists if he is reelected president, the authors argue that "deterrence of future violence depends on judicially imposed sanctions."
"Trump would remove them, signaling that violent extremism in defense of Trump is no vice," they write. "If he returns to the White House, he will install his people in the Justice Department and turn the machinery of prosecution against his enemies and toward protecting his friends and his schemes."
The scholars part with an ominous warning: "And should Trump get an encore, look to pre-World War II Germany for a mirror. A failed coup in 1923 taught Hitler a better route to dictatorship nine years later. Those who repeat history are doomed to learn it. The hard way."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular