2020: The Two Year Long Election

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good piece by Jennifer Rubin: "What makes Pete Buttigieg so effective"

Spoiler

During an interview in Washington on Thursday, The Post’s Robert Costa tried his best to get Democratic presidential candidate and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg to say something negative about fellow candidate Joe Biden. Part of the old guard? Defended credit card companies? Responsible for mass incarceration as a result of the 1994 crime bill?

But each time, Buttigieg calmly sidestepped the invitation to go after the former vice president, while using the opportunity to lay out policy differences (“I have a difference of opinion with anybody who favors credit card companies over consumers”), and demonstrating his wonkish knowledge. “And when you look at the circumstances that lead to violence and other harms, you look at the kind of adverse childhood experiences that can set somebody back in life: exposure to violence is one, exposure to drug use is one, incarceration of a parent is one,” he said in discussing the 1994 crime bill. “So, the mass incarceration that may have felt in a knee-jerk way as a way to be tough on crime in the ’90s is now one generation later being visited upon communities today through the absence of parents.”

Buttigieg’s bluntness, succinctness and even-keeled delivery help him score TV-memorable points. During the same interview, he went after President Trump’s “bone spurs” excuse to get out of fighting in the Vietnam War: “If you’re a conscientious objector, I’d admire that. But this is somebody who, I think it’s fairly obvious to most of us, took advantage of the fact that he was the child of a multimillionaire to pretend to be disabled so that somebody could go to war in his place.”

Is the president a racist? “If you do racist things and say racist things, the question of whether that makes you a racist is almost academic,” Buttigieg said. “The problem with the president is that he does and says racist things and gives cover to other racists.”

Buttigieg also has begun to use his military service to his advantage. As someone who served in Afghanistan, his response to Trump’s promise to pardon war criminals was a particularly effective. He explained, “If you are convicted by a jury of your military peers of having committed a war crime, the idea that the president is going to overrule that is an affront to the basic idea of good order and discipline, and to the idea of law, the very thing we believe we’re putting our lives on the line to defend.”

In addition, Buttigieg seems comfortable (unlike some of his opponents) in discussing foreign policy. “Tariffs are taxes on Americans — and we talk as if that’s not the case; we forget that Americans are paying them,” he said, sounding like Republicans used to sound before they sold their souls to the devil. In place of tariffs, Buttigieg said we need to deal with China by, among other things, investing in our competitiveness, having a “more orderly disentanglement” of 5G technology and creating "a global framework” where China operates on our terms. (That’s not much detail, but as we know from polling, most voters don’t focus on the topic; they know China is misbehaving, they want someone to solve it in tandem with allies and they like to keep focusing on domestic initiatives that make us stronger.)

When asked what he’d do if Russia again interfered in our elections, Buttigieg said that Russian President Vladimir Putin should expect a “very serious response.” He then explained that “economic, diplomatic and cyber” responses, “both overt and covert,” would be needed.

Without getting into the weeds — which he will not likely be forced to do in a Democratic primary geared toward domestic issues — Buttigieg comes across as calm, informed and disinclined to saber-rattling (which he specifically criticized with regard to Iran).

In sum, Buttigieg stands out because he is remarkably disciplined, can effortlessly show expertise and projects authority on foreign affairs. Most of all, he displays the cool demeanor and wry humor that Democrats admired in President Barack Obama. After Trump’s irrational, loud, insult-driven rhetoric, it’s rather calming listening to Buttigieg.

Buttigieg has a long way to go in fleshing out policy proposals, and in broadening his appeal to minority voters, but politicians who have spent decades in politics rarely show the sort of poise Buttigieg naturally exhibits. That’s not nothing.

 

[neurogirl]

@fraurosena The way I understood the Supreme Court ruling, they refused to hear the case, and said that the states do NOT have to draw new maps that prevent gerrymandering. I was listening to a 538 podcast about this, and one of the main problems the justices have stated is that the Court's job is to interpret the laws, not make them, and redrawing district maps is too much like making the laws. In addition, there needs to be a qualitative standard to prove that districts are egregiously gerrymandered, and so far there has not been a standard presented that is acceptable. 

I think gerrymandering is a huge problem, but I am very pessimistic about anything being done about it. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-ohio-and-michigan-do-not-have-to-come-up-with-new-maps-immediately/2019/05/24/47a653f0-7bee-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.dd3d7b0c0b91

[fraurosena]

Good point.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Even though it's unlikely to happen, I think it would be perfect if Lindsey was unseated by a Dem: "Lindsey Graham draws a Democratic challenger who mocks his ties to Trump"

Spoiler

Jaime Harrison, the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, formally kicked off his campaign Wednesday to topple Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) with a video that highlights his humble roots and Graham’s evolving views on President Trump.

Harrison, who was the state party’s first black chairman and is a former aide to Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), has been encouraged to run by national party leaders in a state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1998.

In his announcement video, Harrison highlighted his birth to a 16-year-old mother, his upbringing by his grandparents, his education at Yale University and Georgetown Law School and his return to South Carolina.

The video also included clips of derogatory comments that Graham made about Trump as they both were pursuing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, including Graham labeling Trump “a kook,” “crazy” and “not fit to be president of the United States.”

“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot,” Graham said in one highlighted clip.

In subsequent clips, Graham is shown saying, “No, I don’t think he’s a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot,” and that Trump “deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and then some.”

“Here’s a guy who will say anything to stay in office,” Harrison said in the video. “Lindsey Graham can’t lead us any direction because he traded his moral compass for petty political gain.”

Graham, who is serving his third term, defeated his Democratic challenger in 2014 by more than 16 percentage points. Trump carried the state over Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 14 percentage points.

In an interview with The Washington Post in March, as he was considering a Senate bid, Harrison said that Graham’s reelection “is not a slam dunk for him” given his emergence as a strong Trump ally.

“The refrain these days is: What’s happened to Lindsey?” Harrison said. “He’s won in the past with a coalition of country club Republicans, independents and some moderate or conservative Democrats. But he’s lost some of those middle-of-the-road voters.”

Graham kicked off his reelection campaign in March with a visit from Vice President Pence, who emphasized Graham’s loyalty to Trump.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wish Udvay would ride off into the sunset as well. "As Roy Moore publicly mulls Senate bid, Donald Trump Jr. tells him to ‘ride off into the sunset’"

Spoiler

Roy Moore wants a rematch against Sen. Doug Jones. And Donald Trump Jr. isn’t having it.

Moore, the Republican who fell short in his 2017 race against Jones (D-Ala.) amid allegations of sexual misconduct in the 1970s, sent a pair of tweets on Tuesday that are the strongest signal yet that he is planning another Senate bid.

After fellow Republican Rep. Bradley Byrne (Ala.) predicted that Moore would lose the party’s primary if he joined the race, Moore responded by asking, “What is Bradley so worried about?”

“He knows that if I run I will beat Doug Jones,” Moore added, prompting Trump Jr. to weigh in. “You mean like last time?” the president’s son said in a tweet.

He called Moore “literally the only candidate who could lose a GOP seat in pro-Trump, pro-USA ALABAMA.”

“Running for office should never become a business model,” Trump Jr. said. “If you actually care about #MAGA more than your own ego, it’s time to ride off into the sunset, Judge.”

Byrne, who has announced a bid for the seat, told the Hill newspaper that sources close to Moore have told him the former Alabama Supreme Court justice will announce his candidacy in June.

Moore has inched closer to a 2020 Senate run in recent months. A Facebook page, “Stand with Judge Roy Moore,” posts frequent updates related to Moore. The page recently shared a post by Moore’s wife, Kayla, about a University of Virginia analysis showing that it is “far from guaranteed” that Jones would prevail in a rematch against Moore.

Earlier this month, Kayla Moore also signed a fundraising message citing the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh as a reason Moore might run again.

The message pointed to Kavanaugh’s ability last year to “survive” accusations of sexual misconduct in the 1980s and says Moore is still “seriously considering another run for the United States Senate!”

Moore did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday night.

A month before the 2017 special election, The Washington Post reported that four women accused Moore of pursuing them when he was in his 30s and they were teenagers. Moore is facing a defamation lawsuit from one of the women, Leigh Corfman, who alleges that Moore sexually abused her when she was 14. Moore has denied all of the allegations and has filed a counterclaim against Corfman.

In addition to Byrne, other Republicans who have announced they are running for the seat include former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville, state Rep. Arnold Mooney and former televangelist Stanley Adair.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"September debate rules could winnow 2020 Democratic field"

Spoiler

The Democratic National Committee announced Wednesday new criteria for the party’s September presidential debate that could dramatically winnow the sprawling field of 23 candidates, raising the stakes on the summer campaign season.

To appear in the party’s third debate, which will be broadcast by ABC News and Univision, candidates will have to earn 2 percent support in four party-sanctioned polls between late June and August. In addition, they will have to show they’ve attracted at least 130,000 donors since the start of the campaign, including at least 400 from 20 different states.

That third debate will be held on Sept. 12, with the possibility of a second session on Sept. 13 if there are enough qualifying candidates to require two stages.

As the race now stands, only eight candidates in the field would meet the 2 percent threshold in recent party-sanctioned polls, according to an assessment by FiveThirtyEight, a data analysis website. Many are also struggling to reach the donor requirements.

By requiring a combination of grass-roots donations and polling, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is preparing to effectively close off debate access for candidates who cannot grow their popular support or attract a significant base of small contributors.

The party’s leadership believes that only candidates with a broad donor network will be equipped to challenge President Trump in the general election.

“Candidates who will be prepared to take on Trump in the general should already be working to build programs that can bring in 130,000 donors by the second round of debates,” Erin Hill, the executive director of the liberal fundraising platform ActBlue, said in a statement.

There is no modern precedent for a presidential candidate losing access to party-sanctioned debates and going on to win the nomination.

Perez, who has announced monthly debates this year beginning in June with a break in August, has reserved the right to continue raising debate thresholds over the coming months.

Democratic Party leaders sought to avoid any accusation that they have rigged the system in favor of more established candidates, an allegation that dogged the Democrats in 2016. They crafted a relatively low bar for entry to the first two debates in June and July — a 1 percent showing in at least three polls, or 65,000 individual donors. Many candidates are likely to hit those targets.

But the tougher standards for the September event, which were broadly expected in some form, signal the party’s impatience with an extended campaign season that has generated a large field of contenders. Many voters complain that the sprawling field is making it harder to distinguish among candidates and choose one to support.

Some campaigns have expressed concern privately about the current debate structure, which does not guarantee that those with the highest polling numbers, like former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will face off the same night.

Polls to qualify for the third debate must be publicly released between June 28 — just after the first Democratic debate in Miami — and Aug. 28.

As a result, the first two debates will offer a critical opportunity for candidates with low polling numbers to get noticed in the crowded field. As it stands, 19 candidates have qualified for the June debates through polling, and Marianne Williamson, a spiritual adviser and activist, claims to have qualified by donors alone.

More-established, moderate candidates have generally had a harder time building grass-roots donation networks than relative newcomers with more provocative platforms such as Williamson and Andrew Yang, a businessman running on a plan for a guaranteed income for all Americans. Such candidates can generate a small but fervent following.

Several candidates who announced their campaigns later in the spring, including Colorado Sen. Michael F. Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, may not qualify for the first debates, despite their relatively high political offices.

The party announced last week that the debate stages for the June and July debates will be split according to a complex formula intended to allocate polling leaders and underdogs in similar proportions on each stage.

Debates of candidates polling at 2 percent or more will be randomly split over the two nights, followed by a separate drawing for those with lower polling numbers. The number of candidates on any one night is capped at 10.

The party has not yet said how the stages will be divided in September if enough candidates qualify to merit two nights.

Democratic Party rules bar candidates from debate participation if they appear in unsanctioned debates. Last year, Perez said he would design an inclusive debate system with several goals, including a desire to increase the voice of the grass roots, maximize voter viewership and allow for a robust discussion of issues.

“As chair of the DNC, I am committed to running an open and transparent primary process,” he said at the time.

 

[fraurosena]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

which does not guarantee that those with the highest polling numbers, like former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will face off the same night.

Why is Bernie Sanders, an Independent, considered to have any role in the Democratic debates? Aren't these debates held to ultimately help determine who will win the candidacy of the Democratic Party? If so, Sanders should not be a part of them. He isn't running as a Democrat.

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Why is Bernie Sanders, an Independent, considered to have any role in the Democratic debates? Aren't these debates held to ultimately help determine who will win the candidacy of the Democratic Party? If so, Sanders should not be a part of them. He isn't running as a Democrat.

That is one of the many problems I have with Bernie. He considers himself a Dem when it's convenient for him, but refuses to officially join the party. He has filed to run as a Dem for president in 2020 and as an independent for senate in 2024. The Democratic party is being a bit wishy-washy. They are requiring candidates to declare they are Dems, but they aren't seeming to take it seriously. From the linked article:

Quote

...

Sanders also filed as a Democrat in 2016 to be able to run in the Democratic presidential primary — and had already filed for his 2018 Senate campaign as an independent, a status he's held in Congress for many years. Sanders' ambiguous party loyalty was one reason the Democratic National Committee adopted rules for 2020 candidates to affirm that they are, in fact, a Democrat, and will run and serve as one.

Sanders has influenced many changes to rules within the party. The DNC, for example, has scaled back the role of superdelegates. But it wants a degree of loyalty in return.

The party is requiring "affirmation" forms returned in writing to the party chairman declaring that fact. The DNC gave the form to all the declared campaigns last week during a briefing at party headquarters. Sanders and the others have until the middle of this week to return it. The Sanders' campaign says he intends to sign it.

But filing as an independent for a future campaign could disturb already ruffled feathers among some Democrats.

The new DNC rules state that a candidate must "be a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings, and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare, and success of the Democratic Party of the United States who subscribes to the substance, intent, and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith."

And candidates must affirm in writing to the DNC chairman that they "are a Democrat... are a member of the Democratic Party; will accept the Democratic nomination; and will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party."

The interpretation and enforcement of those rules could be tricky, however, especially with a candidate as high-profile as Sanders, someone who has a deep base of fervent supporters.

Some within the party view the rules as strictly applying to the presidential campaign. The party is not requiring Sanders, for example, to change his party affiliation in the Senate.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't watch "The View", but this is a great clip by Elizabeth Warren:

 

[front hugs > duggs]

Does anyone here watch The View? I'm super curious what Meghan McCain just HAD to say. I tried searching for a longer clip, but was unsuccessful.

[Flossie]

16 hours ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Does anyone here watch The View? I'm super curious what Meghan McCain just HAD to say. I tried searching for a longer clip, but was unsuccessful.

I watch The View sometimes.  Meghan is a shrew, glaring at any push back on her childish antics.  She brings her father into any discussion she can, insists that she's been in politics her entire life, and is constantly giving stupid advice to the poor deluded Democrats on how they should win the election if they really want to.  She claims to hate Trump, but takes any criticism of him to mean that anyone who is a Republican is being painted by the same brush, and it's all "so unnfffaaaiiiiirrrrr!"  

She has said that her role on The View is to explain politics to her co hosts and the audience, and when she starts saying the same stuff she always says she gets upset if she sees someone rolling their eyes or if the audience doesn't clap for her.  But she sighs, rolls her eyes, and gets huffy if the conversation veers to something she doesn't feel she has much to say about.  Case in point, she claims that the hosts talk too much about parenthood, and no one likes her because she herself is childless.  She doesn't like talk of the British Royal family because they're not  Americans and unless the discussion is about how they relate to America they shouldn't be discussed.

Many of the times she makes the news it's because of her hateful and childish behavior, and that's not allowed to be discussed on The View, presumably so it won't upset her.  It's apparent that the producers love her, and while she may think it's because she's a wonderful person with so much to share, it's most likely because her antics coincide with an increase in ratings.  There are a lot of people who admit they watch to see Meghan make a fool out of herself yet again, and when she loses control and shouts and pouts, it feeds the hate watchers.  I firmly believe that the producers are dragging this out as long as they can, and when she finally loses it, they're hoping it will be on camera.

YouTube is full of videos of her showing her ass on The View and other shows.

[milkteeth]

Megan McCain is a shining example of why we need marginal income tax of 70% for wealth over 10 million dollars. Her whole life the only thing she has learned how to do is say "Don't you know who my Father is?!" and then shriek that she wants to speak to the manager. 

[Cartmann99]

Meghan McCain suffers from the delusion that she got where she is because of talent and hard work. 

[front hugs > duggs]

On 6/1/2019 at 3:23 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Meghan McCain suffers from the delusion that she got where she is because of talent and hard work. 

I guess her and Trump are similar in that regard then.

[GreyhoundFan]

I love this comparison of the Dem 202 field to The Beatles:

Spoiler

 

 

[fraurosena]

Good thread. 

DitchMitch indeed!

[fraurosena]

I hope the money is put to good use, that actually does something about those hackable election machines, for example, and doesn't go towards voter suppression or disappears into someone's back pocket (R-states, I'm talking to you).

 

[GreyhoundFan]

On 6/1/2019 at 3:23 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Meghan McCain suffers from the delusion that she got where she is because of talent and hard work. 

The Onion weighs in on Meghan:

 

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"A tale of 2 invoices: Beto O'Rourke pays El Paso, while Donald Trump's campaign still owes $470,000"

Spoiler

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Actually, which one it was depends on what street you stood on during a chilly winter evening in El Paso, Texas.

On one side of town, raucous crowds gathered at the El Paso County Coliseum. With American flags and banners reading "Finish the Wall" displayed above him, President Donald Trump hailed his "big, beautiful" border wall as the reason for El Paso's low crime rate.

Outside the coliseum, thousands of protesters gathered. Marching along the Rio Grande, they joined former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke at the Chalio Acosta Sports Center for a counter rally to celebrate El Paso's immigrant culture. It marked a clarion moment for a prospective candidate testing 2020 waters, and heralded what many expected to come -- O'Rourke's official campaign kickoff.

Just a few weeks later, he held his first official campaign rally in his hometown.

The bills came due for both. Beto For America owed the city $28,630.50 for his March campaign launch; he had already paid $7,609.14 of that as a deposit. The remainder was due May 24. They paid on time -- just under the wire -- with a check dated the day prior to the deadline.

El Paso also billed Donald J. Trump for President Inc. for his "Make America Great Again" rally -- for nearly half a million dollars. The invoice was sent to the campaign's Fifth Avenue offices in New York on March 27. It was due April 26, and El Paso has yet to see a dime.

The exact number is $470,417.05, broken down by reimbursements owed to six departments:

• Department of Aviation: $6,286.57
• Fire Department: $60,630.84
• Health Department: $528
• Streets & Maintenance: $6,452
• Sun Metro: $15,577.52
• Police Department: $380,942.12

A month overdue and no check in sight, El Paso sent a warning to the Trump campaign of its looming penalty -- a letter, coincidentally, sent the same day Beto's check was cut.

"Failure to pay your past due balance or to make acceptable payment arrangement within 30 days from the date of this notice (May 23) may result in your account being charged a one-time collection fee of 21 percent on your gross account receivable balance," the letter from El Paso's Office of the Comptroller states.

That 21% would add almost $100,000 to the Trump campaign's tab, bringing the sum total to almost $570,000.

"As with any invoices we issue out, our expectation is to be paid for the services rendered," Robert Cortinas, El Paso's chief financial officer, told ABC News in a statement. "The City is fiscally responsible."

If El Paso doesn't receive payment from the Trump campaign, that money would come out of municipal revenue and the city's contingency budget -- funds used for unexpected and emergency situations, like natural disasters. Just last June, historic and deadly flooding ravaged southern Texas. Now, as tornado alley wakes up and hurricane season looms, the fund is a financial life vest that no city wants to do without.

Donald J. Trump for President Inc.'s outstanding $470,417.05 is about 63% of the city's contingency budget for the year.

The Trump campaign has said it doubts El Paso's accounting and has implied it's been overcharged.

"Since 2015, the Trump Campaign has held nearly 550 rallies all over the country, and this invoice is roughly 10 times the amount that a locality generally asks to be reimbursed," Michael Glassner, chief operating officer with the Trump Campaign, told ABC News. "We are reviewing it."

Campaigns failing to pay cities for their visits is not uncommon. During the 2016 election, the presidential campaigns of both Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders were behind in several rally payments.

Trump himself has a storied history of not paying his bills. Often boasting of his business success and touting his record as the "Dealmaker in Chief," Trump has a trail of receipts and lawsuits that reflects a long line of personal debts shifted to businesses -- with the burden of multiple Chapter 11 filings falling on investors who bet on his business acumen. Thousands of contractor lawsuits claim that Trump and his businesses have refused to pay them.

This time, one of the nation's most important border cities would have to recoup the damage.

City of El Paso officials tell ABC News that they will continue to reach out to see the bill is paid, even after the books close on this fiscal year -- but if it's in vain, they'll have to absorb the difference.

Ironically, that cost would have to be eaten by the very people championed at Trump's campaign rally: El Paso police officers who are on the front lines of the president's border battle.

El Paso police, who partner with state and federal law enforcement including the FBI, told ABC News that they'll keep serving the public no matter what.

"We're doing our duties, whether it's a late call, or overtime -- we're going to respond no matter what," El Paso Sgt. Enrique Carrillo told ABC News. "Budget isn't going to dictate how we handle an emergency."

More tangerine toddler associates not paying their bills.

[GreyhoundFan]

I considered posting this under the Branch Trumpvidian thread, but think it is more applicable here. "Meet the GOP operatives who aim to smear the 2020 Democrats — but keep bungling it"

Spoiler

Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl — a pair of boundlessly eager, profoundly unrepentant aspirants to the dankest depths of political chicanery — were watching television together the other day when something caught Burkman’s eye.

There on the screen was Don McGahn, President Trump’s former White House counsel.

It was at that very moment when Burkman remembered that McGahn had connected the unlikely duo — Burkman, the 53-year-old Washington lobbyist, and Wohl, a 21-year-old Californian trailed by investment scandals.

Yes, it was McGahn, they agreed, who had put them together a year ago by sharing Wohl’s cellphone number with Burkman. That was before their spree of bungled smears — including a disappearing sexual assault accuser against special counsel Robert Mueller (announced at a news conference that Burkman conducted with his pants zipper down) and a botched attempt last month to paint Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg as a sexual predator.

Alas, Burkman’s juicy origin story about the formation of their partnership didn’t check out. That tends to happen a lot in their world.

McGahn said through his attorney that he doesn’t know Wohl or Burkman.

As it turns out, the truth or falsity of a Burkman-Wohl-concocted story is merely an inconvenience. Let the media’s “puritanical” fact-checkers puzzle it out: That’s the view of this twosome who fancy themselves as sub rosa players in the 2020 presidential contest and busy themselves trafficking in Internet rumors they hope will damage Democratic candidates.

Like notorious dirty tricksters before them, they operate in a realm where it matters little whether their claims are proved — they hardly ever are — but only whether they somehow slip into a corpuscle or two of the national bloodstream. But today it’s a more dangerous game: They operate in an era when notions about truth and fiction have been upended and in which many Americans get their information from self-affirming, partisan silos, making their brand of political cyberwarfare hyper-relevant.

Though he wasn’t involved, Wohl speaks admiringly of the fringe effort to undermine Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign with loopy claims that the Texas Republican’s father was involved in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

“That was good stuff,” Wohl says. “That was brilliant.”

McGahn’s reaction to Wohl and Burkman claiming an association with him was similar to that of former House speaker Paul Ryan, whom Burkman had described over a recent lunch as his “best friend in Congress.” Ryan’s spokesman said simply, “That is not true.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, whom Burkman had called his “only Democratic friend” in Congress, said through a spokeswoman that he doesn’t know Burkman, either.

Burkman had also claimed to keep in touch with Kellyanne Conway, one of Trump’s most visible White House counselors. Via text, Conway said: “I’ve not seen or talked to him in years. Maybe 10-15-20 years??? We were in TV green rooms during Clinton impeachment. Be careful with that one!”

And then there is Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son. Wohl claimed to be in contact with him.

“Don wouldn’t be able to pick this guy out of a lineup if his life depended on it,” Trump Jr.’s spokesman said.

Burkman’s role in the tag team is a bit convoluted — while claiming he seeks to hurt Trump’s Democratic opponents, he has also hinted that he might mount a primary challenge against Trump over his dissatisfaction with the president’s progress on building a border wall. During the 2016 campaign, Burkman took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Daily News condemning Trump, then later scheduled a fundraiser for the likely GOP nominee, even though campaign staffers said they didn’t know him.

Burkman eventually canceled the event after receiving a stern letter of disapproval from none other than McGahn.

Wohl, on the other hand, has appointed himself as an unaffiliated booster of Trump’s reelection effort. He talks of “amplifying” a speck of information here and there that would be helpful to the president’s campaign.

“That detail could be true,” he says. “Or false.”

'2020 Election Central'

In his short, busy life so far, Wohl has been declared a teenage hedge-fund wunderkind, “the Wohl of Wall Street,” in media reports, and been barred from membership in a national futures trading association that looked disapprovingly at his alleged refusal to be interviewed about fraud allegations. One of his firms has been investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in a case in which the agency decided not to bring charges, while adding that the decision “should not be considered an exoneration,” according to an SEC document.

Wohl’s firm also agreed to a cease-and-desist order and paid a $5,000 fine and $32,000 in restitution after an Arizona regulatory commission concluded he had committed securities fraud via two hedge funds and a house-flipping venture. Wohl says he’s never faced a criminal charge or a lawsuit.

“I think those are good indications that I’ve never done anything wrong with respect to any of my business ventures,” he says.

Wohl also has boasted of launching several businesses, though their provenances are vague and their client lists even vaguer, and he has been banned from Twitter for allegedly creating fake accounts. (Before he was banned, Wohl says, his most cherished follower was Ivanka Trump — an assertion that actually appears to be true.)

On Instagram, Wohl is prone to posting images of himself shirtless, staring into the camera with a come-hither look. He says he wants “what any other young man wants — fame and fortune.”

In his public appearances, he favors tightfitting suits and cultivates a serious demeanor. He swears by Garnier Fructis styling gel to shape his dark brown hair into a follicular architectural form with a gravity-defying ledge in the front.

On his wrist, he wears a pricey Richard Mille watch that he says he bought for a cut-rate price from an NBA player (whom he won’t name) in dire financial straits.

“I flip watches,” Wohl says. “I never lose money on watches.”

Wohl — whose father, David Wohl, was a Trump 2016 campaign surrogate — says he lives in Irvine, Calif., but he has become a regular presence and active selfie-taker in the lobby of the Trump hotel in Washington.

He is also a frequent guest at Burkman’s spacious Arlington townhouse, which they call “2020 Election Central” and say they plan to use as headquarters for a campaign to vet Democratic presidential candidates. The home is decorated with glass chandeliers, busts of Roman emperors and a lavender-accented four-poster canopy bed with sequined throw pillows. The aesthetic is a mishmash of ideas from the succession of women who Burkman says have come in and out of his life, staying for ill-defined lengths of time: “As long as anyone could like me.”

The only room Burkman decorated himself is a nook with forest-scene wallpaper, a couch, stuffed animals and children’s books. That’s the domain of his irascible dachshund and almost constant companion, Jack Jr.

Burkman says he is engaged to Margaret Howell, who has been an on-air reporter for the Kremlin-backed RT television network, the conspiracy site Infowars and Right Side Broadcasting, a Trump-loving live-streaming outfit.

Burkman, who has faced at least one attempt on his life, is ever-shadowed by a security man named Luis armed with a Glock pistol. “Margaret is afraid somebody is going to come with a machine gun and take us out,” he says.

Howell did not respond to an interview request.

On his podcast, “Behind the Curtain With Jack Burkman,” Burkman opined not long ago about the “terrible rise of feminism” as one of the great dangers facing America.

“If you ask a young girl in a big city like Washington or New York or Boston what’s on her mind, she doesn’t say, ‘Sexual harassment.’ She doesn’t say, ‘Workplace opportunity.’ You know what she says? ‘I can’t find me a man. Find me a rich man.’ ”

Burkman has been equally explicit about the rules of engagement at his home.

“I’ve made clear to Margaret,” he says, “that she must produce a boy.”

'American Decency'

Burkman grew up in Swissvale, Pa., a small town outside Pittsburgh. He says his father was active in local Democratic politics and his mother, whose family hailed from Sicily, was an arch conservative.

“She had a picture of Mussolini in the house,” Burkman says.

His brother, Jim Burkman, says that’s not so.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Jack Burkman, who had graduated from Georgetown Law, looked a lot like an establishment Republican. He was a Capitol Hill staffer for GOP congressman Rick Lazio of New York. He worked at Holland & Knight, a major law firm, lobbying on behalf of big corporate clients. He also worked briefly as a Fox News contributor and appeared as a pundit on CNN and MSNBC, leveraging a TV-ready look with a square jaw and a baritone voice.

Once he formed his own firm, he built what became a thriving lobbying practice. In 2013, he signed more clients than any registered lobbyist, according to tracking by the media outlet the Hill. His firm’s revenue peaked that year at $3.52 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“It’s always a curiosity to me — how does he get so many clients?” says his friend and law school classmate Raga Elim, who is now a lobbyist.

Burkman was still far from a household name in 2014 when he hit on a topic that put him in the headlines and on news programs across the country. He proposed banning gay players in the National Football League around the time an openly gay football player, Michael Sam, was coming to prominence.

Burkman formed an organization called American Decency and claimed to have signed up more than 3 million members. (Looking back, Burkman says that “it could be the case” that his claim about having that many members “wasn’t true.”)

The next few weeks would play out like a preview of the next few years of Burkman’s life.

Confusion ensued. A conservative group with an almost identical name issued a news release insisting it was not involved, but it took the opportunity to say it did “not condone the lifestyle of Michael Sam.”

Burkman’s brother Jim, who is gay, took to Twitter to say Burkman was “being an ass.”

The proposal went nowhere.

For Jim, it was telling to watch his brother reveling in the attention.

“That,” Jim says, “was when I realized he loved it.”

Lobbying gets old

“I’m a lobbyist, and I couldn’t tell you a single congressman from Nebraska,” Jack Burkman says one afternoon. “And that’s the point.”

Lobbying, after all these years, he says, has become a bore. He’s much more enthusiastic about conspiracy theories, especially about the murder of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer killed during the 2016 campaign. D.C. police and Rich’s parents say he was the victim of a robbery gone bad, but many right-wing sites remain fixated on the entirely unproven notion that Rich was the source of leaked DNC emails that roiled the 2016 campaign and that he was killed as a result.

Burkman has a standing $155,000 reward for information about the killing. It was an endeavor that has been followed by all sorts of weirdness, including a break with Rich’s family members, who initially appeared at a news conference with Burkman before becoming suspicious and disenchanted and later disavowing his efforts.

Glenn Selig, Burkman’s public-relations representative for the Rich project, was one of 22 people killed in January 2018 in a terrorist siege of a hotel in Afghanistan.

“I don’t know who killed Glenn,” Burkman says. “It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. government was involved.”

Later, Burkman asks a favor: “I don’t want you to call me a conspiracy theorist.”

Then he pauses a beat.

“Oh, go ahead,” he says.

Two months after Selig’s death, Burkman nearly lost his own life. A onetime Marine whom Burkman had enlisted to investigate the Rich slaying lured him to a parking garage with promises of newly found clues, then shot him twice in the buttocks and rammed him with his vehicle before Burkman escaped with his dog Jack Jr. in his arms.

Burkman has said that he and the attacker, Kevin Doherty, had a falling-out over their operation to crack the Rich case. Doherty was sentenced to nine years in prison.

Burkman’s firm has gotten less business as he has shifted his focus to being a media personality, including hosting a show for a time on the conservative network Newsmax. In 2018, it logged $884,000 in fees, its smallest total in seven years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Now, he says, he makes most of his income as a silent partner in West Coast gyms that he refuses to identify.)

Denver Darling, president of California-based Darco Construction — which has paid Burkman’s firm $218,000 since 2018 for “a variety of bills and issues” that he declined to detail — said he’s “really not interested in any of that stuff” Burkman does in politics.

Burkman has worked with companies seeking government contracts, but usually, he says, it’s more along the lines of “some rich guy in Idaho wants to come in [to a congressional office] and talk about the ‘deep state.’ ”

'Whomever they have to hurt'

The spectacle that is the Burkman-Wohl partnership launched late last year. The duo hyped a news conference promising to introduce a woman who allegedly claimed to have been raped by Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The woman was a no-show.

Mueller asked the FBI to investigate allegations that women were offered money to make sexual assault claims against him. Burkman and Wohl no longer want to say much about their Mueller probe but have denied offering money for testimony.

A few months later, on April 29, a shocking post went up on Medium, the self-publishing website. It was purportedly written by a 21-year-old gay college student named Hunter Kelly who claimed Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had sexually assaulted him.

Just hours later, the story started to unravel.

“I WAS NOT SEXUALLY ASSAULTED,” Kelly posted on Facebook.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Kelly said he met Wohl via Instagram and got a message from him asking, “Do you want to be part of a political operation?”

Wohl’s pitch, according to Kelly, was to work on a Trump-backed project scrutinizing Buttigieg’s record on race relations. Burkman booked a plane ticket for Kelly, a student at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich.

After they got to Burkman’s home, Kelly said, under pressure from Wohl and Burkman he reluctantly signed a statement alleging that Buttigieg had assaulted him in a room at the Washington’s Mayflower Hotel in February. Kelly claimed that he had not seen the Medium post before it went online and had not approved its publication. The whole story, he said, was entirely made up.

“Those two are willing to do whatever it takes and to hurt whomever they have to hurt so they can keep the spotlight on them and get what they want,” Kelly told The Post.

Kelly said he grew uncomfortable and called a relative to pick him up so he could slip out of Burkman’s house. Burkman and Wohl have mocked that suggestion, saying they took Kelly to get his haircut at an expensive salon and bought him a caramel Frappuccino at Starbucks.

Wohl and Burkman went ahead with a news conference even after Kelly recanted. Later Burkman expressed great delight that video of the event being interrupted by a loud garbage truck was widely shared on the Internet.

Burkman and Wohl dispute Kelly’s claim that they told him they were working at the behest of the administration or the Trump campaign, and they say he recanted only under pressure from family members. A Trump campaign spokeswoman said “this had nothing to do with the campaign.”

But last month, Burkman tweeted: “Yes, President Trump is well aware of our efforts to investigate the 2020 field of Dem Presidential candidates.”

A document published by the Daily Beast has laid out a plan of Wohl’s to raise $1 million for a business that would disseminate false information about Democratic presidential candidates to swing political betting markets. Wohl told the Daily Beast he had nothing to do with the document outlining the business plan for the “Arlington Center for Political Intelligence.”

But, in an interview with The Post, Wohl acknowledged that the document was in fact a draft of his plan and that he had purposely misled the online publication because he believed it would not write about the document if he told it the truth.

In this fact-challenged epoch, Wohl and Burkman feel they accomplished their goal of damaging Buttigieg, pointing to a dip in his valuation in European betting markets.

Wohl says he tipped some “miscellaneous rich people in Newport Beach” — whom he refused to name — and they “profited handsomely” by shorting Buttigieg in advance of their allegations against the South Bend, Ind., mayor. Asked whether that was akin to insider-trading scams in equities markets, Wohl says, “If this were stocks, you couldn’t do that.”

Experts on political betting are skeptical, and they also note that it is illegal for Americans to trade on European prediction markets.

“There is just no indication that anything they were doing influenced the price,” said David Rothschild, an economist who specializes in prediction markets.

Burkman’s prediction about his own future seems the unlikeliest of all. He claims he could self-fund a presidential campaign until Super Tuesday.

Pressed about the long odds of his mounting a viable campaign, given his entanglements in scandal and his total lack of party support, Burkman thinks about it for a moment. Then he says, “You start with the fundamental truth that they think I’m nuts.”

Yet, he says, he recently traveled to Iowa and attempted to meet with some Republican muckety-mucks.

“I reached out,” he says. “Nobody returned my call.”

If they weren't so dangerous, they'd be funny.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent op-ed. I agree, I want to live in Liz's America. "I Want to Live in Elizabeth Warren’s America"

Spoiler

It’s early, but this much is true: Elizabeth Warren is running the most impressive presidential campaign in ages, certainly the most impressive campaign within my lifetime.

I don’t mean that the Massachusetts senator is a better speaker than anyone who has ever run, nor a more strident revolutionary, nor as charismatic a shaper of her public image. It’s not even that she has better ideas than her opponents, though on a range of issues she certainly does.

I’m impressed instead by something more simple and elemental: Warren actually has ideas. She has grand, detailed and daring ideas, and through these ideas she is single-handedly elevating the already endless slog of the 2020 presidential campaign into something weightier and more interesting than what it might otherwise have been: a frivolous contest about who hates Donald Trump most.

Warren’s approach is ambitious and unconventional. She is betting on depth in a shallow, tweet-driven world. By offering so much honest detail so early, she risks turning off key constituencies, alienating donors and muddying the gauzy visionary branding that is the fuel for so much early horse-race coverage. It’s worth noting that it took Warren months of campaigning and reams of policy proposals to earn her a spot on the cover of Time Magazine. Meanwhile, because they match the culture’s Aaron Sorkinian picture of what a smart progressive looks like, Beto and Buttigieg — whose policy depth can be measured in tossed-off paragraphs — are awarded fawning coverage just for showing up male.

Yet, deliciously, Warren’s substantive approach is yielding results. Her plans are so voluminous that they’ve become their own meme. She’s been rising like a rocket in the polls, and is finally earning the kind of media coverage that was initially bestowed on many less-deserving men in the race. Warren’s policy ideas are now even beginning to create their own political weather. Following her early, bold call to break up big technology companies, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are dividing up responsibilities on policing tech giants, and lawmakers in the House are planning a sweeping inquiry into tech dominance. Warren’s Democratic opponents are now rushing to respond with their own deep policy ideas; Joe Biden’s staff seems to be pulling all-nighters, cutting and pasting from whatever looks good, to match Warren’s policy shop.

You might think I’m getting too giddy here. You might argue that policy ideas, especially at this stage of the game, don’t really matter — either because the public doesn’t care about substance, or because it’s unlikely that any president can get what she wants through a partisan, rigid Congress, so all these plans are a mere academic exercise. Or you may simply not like what you’ve heard of Warren’s ideas.

Still, do me a favor. Whatever your politics, pull out your phone, pour yourself a cup of tea, and set aside an hour to at least read Warren’s plans. You’ll see that on just about every grave threat facing Americans today, she offers a plausible theory of the problem and a creative and comprehensive vision for how to address it.

This week, she unveiled a $2 trillion plan that combines industrial policy, foreign policy and federal procurement to tackle the existential threat of climate change. She also has a plan for housing affordability, for child care affordability, and for student debt and the crushing costs of college. She knows what she wants to do to stem opioid deaths and to address maternal mortality. She has an entire wing of policy devoted to corporate malfeasance — she wants to jail lawbreaking executives, to undo the corporate influence that shapes military procurement, and to end the scandal of highly profitable corporations paying no federal taxes. And she has a plan to pay for much on this list, which might otherwise seem like a grab-bag of expensive lefty dreams: She’ll tax ultra-millionaires and billionaires — the wealthiest 75,000 American households — yielding $2.75 trillion over 10 years, enough to finance a wholesale reformation of the American dream.

There’s a good chance you’ll disagree with some or all of these ideas. Three months ago, when Warren outlined her plan for cleaving the economic dominance of large technology companies, I spent a few days quizzing her staff on what I considered to be flaws in her approach. I planned to write about them, but I was beaten by a wave of other tech pundits with similar reservations.

But then, in the discussion that followed, I realized what a service Warren had done, even if I disagreed with her precise approach. For months, commentators had been debating the generalities of policing tech. Now a politician had put forward a detailed plan for how to do so, sparking an intense policy discussion that was breaking new analytical ground. For a moment, it almost felt like I was living in a country where adults discuss important issues seriously. Wouldn’t that be a nice country to live in?

This race could have been about so much less. These days, all politics seem to narrow upon the orange pate of a single narcissistic man, and some Democrats have been keen to keep pounding that drum. To paraphrase a famous quip, there are only three things Joe Biden mentions in a sentence: A noun, a verb, and Donald Trump.

The only way to liberate ourselves from Trumpism is through politics that rise above Trumpian silliness. For that, for now, we have Elizabeth Warren to thank.

 

[milkteeth]

 

It's good to know how Joe Biden will work with his good buddies the Republicans if he goes to the White House. I guess he hasn't evolved that far away from his 1977 quote " I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love that Elizabeth is allowing her campaign workers to unionize.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good piece from Jennifer Rubin: "You want to know who is electable?"

Spoiler

Four Senate women running for the Democratic nomination for president have confronted some of the same biases that Hillary Clinton faced — plus the “electability” canard that posits a female nominee would be riskier than a man. Hillary lost; she’s a woman. So this syllogism makes no sense, but still it persists.

They’ve also gotten their share of blatantly sexist coverage. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) isn’t likable, the media tut-tutted. Well, she’s in third in most polls and closing in on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), so maybe the story should have been that Sanders is too grouchy, and all these white men, current and former congressmen, aren’t credentialed enough.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), we were told over and over again, was a tough and even mean boss. Beto O’Rourke, who had to apologize to his staff at the end of his campaign for being an ass****, hasn’t been asked, to my knowledge, a single question on air about his cruddy management skills. (Time management? Driving yourself gets an F. )

As the excuses for not nominating a woman pile up, it’s not hard to see that the four female senators are running circles around most of their male competitors when it comes to serious and detailed policy proposals. Warren (I’ve got a plan for that), Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) (e.g., plans for teacher pay, tax credits, housing allowances, abortion rights), Klobuchar (e.g., plans for infrastructure, mental health, social media transparency — honest ads) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) (e.g., plans for abortion rights, a Family Bill of Rights, marijuana legalization) arguably are running the most substantive races we’ve seen in years.

To boot, unlike a number of the male candidates, all four of the Senate women have years and years in public life (Harris and Klobuchar have both executive and legislative branch experience). No woman entered the race with the attitude she was “born to do it.”

Think of it this way: If one of them is the nominee and beats President Trump, she would certainly want to consider the other three for top posts. You could easily imagine, for example, a President Klobuchar would have Harris as attorney general, Gillibrand at HHS and Warren at SEC (or chief of staff or education or . . . ). You might not like their policies, but you would be quite confident in their ethical standards, competency and management skills. As a group, their credentials and experience are head and shoulders above almost all of their male opponents.

I say all of this not to make the case that Democrats should choose their nominee among these four (although they’d do far better choosing one of their four names out of a hat than doing the same for male candidates ranging from socialist Sanders to a man despised by the city he runs, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio). Rather, I raise this to suggest that someone or some group take on the “electability” issue head on. With this group of uber-prepared and capable women, now is the time to take the weight off all their backs: the assumption about electability that may prevent any woman from winning this cycle or in the near future.

In fact, women aren’t just electable, they were elected in droves in 2018 — in state legislative, House, Senate and governor races. Now that message needs to be spread, either through an existing organization or a new one. Someone must collect the data, make the case to donors and insiders, run ads and inform Democrats the “safe” choice in winning in urban and suburban areas is very often the female candidate. It is time to bat down the surreptitious and insidious “not electable” meme once and for all.