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
u.s. house of representatives
House Dems Push Trump AG for Answers on 'Illegal Quid Pro Quo' With Eric Adams
"The DOJ has strayed far from its principles of equal justice under the law by dismissing a serious criminal public corruption matter in exchange for assistance with the White House's immigration priorities."
Mar 03, 2025
Senior House Democrats on Monday demanded that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi hand over information about the Trump administration's "lawless order that federal prosecutors move to dismiss the public corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a corrupt bargain to buy the mayor's obedience in immigration enforcement."
Calling on Bondi to "immediately end the cover-ups and retaliations within the Department of Justice (DOJ)," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) wrote in a letter to the attorney general:
Last month, troubling reports emerged about the Trump administration's demand that federal prosecutors move to dismiss the serious public corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a blatant and illegal quid pro quo to secure the mayor's loyal assistance in executing the Trump administration's mass arrest and deportation policies. Not only did the Department of Justice attempt to pressure career prosecutors into carrying out this illegal quid pro quo, it appears that acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove was personally engaged in a cover-up by destroying evidence and retaliating against career prosecutors who refused to follow his illegal and unethical orders.
Adams had faced five federal felony charges including alleged wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. According to a September 2024 indictment, the Democrat "sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him" as it became clear in 2021 that he would be elected.
On February 14, Trump's DOJ formally moved to drop the charges against Adams without prejudice, meaning they could be brought again. This prompted the resignation of seven federal prosecutors, and, on February 17, four of Adams' eight deputy mayors.
Raskin's office said Monday that federal prosecutors' resignation letters, "including those by Danielle Sassoon, a staunch conservative, former law clerk to [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Antonin Scalia, and Trump's interim United States attorney for [the Southern District of New York], and Hagan Scotten, a former law clerk to both [Supreme Court] Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, revealed a stunning account of a corrupt bargain the DOJ struck with Mayor Adams, as well as an attempted cover-up."
Sassoon described a January 31 meeting she and colleagues attended with Bove at which "Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the [DOJ's] enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed," and added that Bove "admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."
Subsequently, Adams reportedly told New York City officials to refrain from criticizing Trump. After meeting with Trump "border czar" Tom Homan, Adams on February 13 announced an executive order to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to operate at Rikers Island, New York City's largest jail, for the first time in decades.
The following day Adams and Homan appeared together on Fox News. Although the two men were seen laughing it up, Homan said that if the mayor didn't "come through" for the Trump administration, "we won't be sitting on this couch, I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?"
Thinly veiled Homan warning to Adams: “If he doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, Where the hell is the agreement we came to” pic.twitter.com/Pq0msJXZGb
— Emily Ngo (@emilyngo) February 14, 2025
Raskin and Crockett are seeking all notes related to the January 31 meeting, all communications between the White House and DOJ regarding the Adams case, and other information.
"For our justice system to function, 'legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence,'" the lawmakers asserted. "As Ms. Sassoon said in her letter, our system depends on prosecutors pursuing justice 'without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office.' Here, the DOJ has strayed far from its principles of equal justice under the law by dismissing a serious criminal public corruption matter in exchange for assistance with the White House's immigration priorities."
"Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the Trump DOJ allowing criminals to go free—whether they assaulted police officers, sold drugs to the community, or are corrupt politicians—as long as the criminals pledge loyalty to President Trump," the pair added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fix Our Forests Act Is a Logging Bill Disguised as a Firefighting Bill
If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Feb 10, 2025
It comes in a box with a picture of a fire extinguisher on the front. Below it the words: Guaranteed to stop wildfires. But when you open it up there’s a chainsaw inside. Tucked beside it is a piece a piece of paper saying, “Now without citizen overview!”
That’s the Fix Our Forests Act, a logging bill disguised as a firefighting bill. The tell is in the numerous and creative ways it would obstruct citizen input, from delaying citizen review until after the trees are cut to reducing the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits from six months to 120 days, seriously straining the ability of small citizen groups to apply legal restraint. It waives National Environmental Policy Act protections on fire-sheds as large as 250,000 square acres and allows loggings to proceed even if courts find the logging plan violates the law. There are no limits on the size and age of trees that can be cut, and the language is so vague that even clear cuts could qualify as “fuels treatment.” If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), and having passed in the House, it’s now being rushed through the Senate in an attempt to capitalize on the heightened fire concern surrounding the tragic LA fires. A vote is expected any day now.
If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
The bill claims to “protect communities by expediting environmental analyses, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects.” But if protecting communities were really the goal, this bill would pour resources into the only methods proven to do that: hardening homes and defending immediate space.
Most homes don’t catch fire directly from flames themselves, but from embers blown ahead of a fire. Simple measures like screening vents, covering gutters, and pruning vegetation directly around buildings dramatically improve their fire resilience. Thinning vegetation in the immediate surroundings, within 100 feet or so of the dwelling, can also help. These were among the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. But rather than heed those recommendations by investing in boots on the ground to harden homes and educate communities, the bill diverts resources to backcountry logging.
The U.S. Forest Service has spent years making the argument that “mechanical treatment” of forests reduces wildfire. Independent research, however, comes to different conclusions, that thinning harms the forest and actually increases the very conditions that favor fire—heat, dryness, and wind. The reasons are fairly obvious. For instance, removing trees makes it harder for forests to slow wind, increasing the wind speeds of potential fires and thus the speed of spread. It also allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, heating up the ground. Even more importantly, trees don’t just stand around soaking up sunlight, they also cool and hydrate their surroundings. It’s called transpiration, and can be understood as a kind of sweating, just like we do to keep cool in the sun. A single tree can have the cooling power of up to 10 air conditioners.
But that really is just the beginning. Those trees also help make rain. By sweating water vapor they not only cool the air, they deliver water vapor to the sky, feeding the formation of clouds. Even more remarkable, they seed that vapor with biochemicals such as terpenes (the forest scent) and other bits of biota that provide the grains for eventual rain drops to condense around. Forests make clouds. Those clouds then rain down, watering other forests, hydrating soil and vegetation, and increasing resilience to wildfire.
In other words, what the Fix our Forests Act calls dangerous fuels are also air conditioners and humidifiers, rain makers and rain catchers, as their needles gather and slow the falling of rain, allowing it to seep into the ground and make its way to aquifers, which will prove critical during the dry season. Of course, older, deeply rooted trees are best able to tap this water, but there are no protections for them in the Fix Our Forests Act.
Given that the concern is fire, it’s remarkable how little this legislation ever mentions water, its antidote. Though I did find, in section 119, under “Watershed Condition Framework Technical Corrections,” calls to strike the word “protection” from watershed provisions in a previous, similar bill, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, under George W. Bush. (To see a short, simple demonstration of how plant moisture effects flammability, watch this.)
Perhaps the problems with this bill are explained by the first word of the bill’s title: “Fix.” You can fix a car. You can fix a broken plate. But can you “fix” a forest? Can you “fix” a living ecosystem of infinite complexity? Such language represents an outdated way of thinking about the living world around us, and marks the very kind of thinking that’s gotten into this mess in the first place. And one needs to ask: If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
Yes, there are instances where careful thinning of small trees and undergrowth is indicated, such as right around built communities or in industrial plantations planted too densely. But such measured action doesn’t need this bill, and this bill isn’t about such measured action. Rather, as put by Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations with Defenders of Wildlife, the bill “will do little of anything to combat fires and instead plays favorites with the timber industry which is hungry to consume more of our forests—removing large fire-resilient trees and devastating the lands and species which call them home.”
As mentioned, the bill is moving quickly. Last minute citizen outcry is the only thing standing in its way.
The following Senators have been identified as key votes: John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Angus King ((-Maine), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Will See a Woman President in Our Lifetimes
Despite VP Harris’ loss, the results of this election cycle proved that investing in women is not only central to creating a more representative government; it’s also a strong electoral strategy.
Jan 19, 2025
It’s crushing to witness the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, a man who built his campaign, and his entire political career at large, on hatred, division, and lies.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss was a deeply devastating one for so many of us—and certainly one of the hardest I’ve had to swallow throughout my career in Democratic politics—but skepticism about the viability of a woman becoming president in our lifetimes has added even further insult to injury.
As the president of EMILYs List, one thing I know with certainty is this: Underestimating the strength of women candidates based on the outcome of the presidential race is a grave mistake. The results of this election cycle proved that investing in women is not only central to creating a more representative government; it’s also a strong electoral strategy.
Men lose campaigns all the time, particularly in the last 40 years as EMILYs List has grown, yet we never question whether another man can win in the future.
Across the ballot this year, women candidates were key to winning races under even the most difficult of circumstances and up against tremendous headwinds. Democratic women held onto highly competitive Senate seats in three battleground states that were won by Trump and won in four House districts that Trump carried. They flipped key Republican-held House seats from coast to coast—in Oregon’s 5th and New York’s 4th congressional districts. They broke Republican supermajorities in states across the country, and they protected and flipped vital state Supreme Court seats that are going to be essential to protecting our freedoms in years to come.
It’s clear: Women have what it takes to win. And Americans are ready and fired up to elect them.
That’s because voters know who crafts our policy matters. Women candidates bring personal perspectives and professional experiences that make a difference on the campaign trail and in our government. Whether it’s Lisa Blunt Rochester’s personal connection to IVF, Lucy McBath losing her son to gun violence, or Lauren Underwood’s experience as a public health expert—their deep understanding of these issues and their deep-rooted commitment to enacting change shapes policy in ways that better the lives of their constituents. When these women shared their stories on the campaign trail this year, voters responded by turning out in their favor.
Pundits will try to diminish the practicality of running Democratic women candidates for president in the future, and voters may feel disillusioned as they watch Donald Trump be sworn in. So we must be clear about the truth surrounding the presidential race: Kamala Harris is the reason that the election was as close as it was. At a time when Democrats were poised to lose big, her leadership galvanized millions of previously apathetic voters and evened the playing field for our party amid an immensely challenging environment.
Immediately after announcing her candidacy, Harris shattered fundraising records, hauling in $81 million in her first 24 hours as the nominee. She erased the enthusiasm gap among critical voters—creating a 56-point jump in young women’s motivation to vote and a 68% increase in motivation to vote among women in battleground states. She drove massive spikes across voter registration and volunteer sign-ups. And while it wasn’t enough to overcome the challenges she inherited, her ability to quickly narrow Democrats’ deficits against Donald Trump is a testament to the strength of women candidates and the continued need to invest in their leadership.
Men lose campaigns all the time, particularly in the last 40 years as EMILYs List has grown, yet we never question whether another man can win in the future. We don’t debate their electability or the shortcomings of their gender—and we don’t let those limitations stand between them and the highest levels of our government.
To let gendered biases overshadow women’s extensive qualifications, their ability to best represent our communities, and their demonstrable strength as candidates, is a disservice to the American people and to our future. Misconceptions about women’s electability become a self-fulfilling prophecy only if we let them.
Kamala Harris herself said it best: It hurts to break glass ceilings. But just because we haven’t broken our nation’s highest and hardest glass ceiling yet doesn’t mean we won’t.
The women who won in 2024 reinforced a vital lesson: investing in women candidates is a winning strategy for the Democratic Party. So now is not the time to doubt, question, or give up on them. It’s time to double down on them—because women are our best pathway to taking back power. And with their leadership, we will undoubtedly shatter our nation’s last glass ceiling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular