Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
July 27, 2019
Posted on Sat, Jul 27th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Malcolm Nance Warns Mitch McConnell Is Trying To End Free And Fair Elections In America
When counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance speaks, the country should listen.
That was particularly true on Saturday as Nance sounded the alarm about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s latest effort to block a package of election security bills.
During a discussion with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Nance said that if Russia successfully attacks the 2020 election – which McConnell is already helping make possible – then “it may be the last free and fair election” in the United States.
“You can actually see the political machinations, where one person is deciding whether American elections from now on and before will be free and fair,” Nance said.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1155138714605166594
Nance said:
Mitch McConnell is the enemy of free and fair elections
We’ve known for some time that it was Mitch McConnell, not Barack Obama, who refused to take a unified approach to fight Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
snip//
All of this is happening in plain view, and the consequences for American democracy have been and will continue to be disastrous.
Malcolm Nance Warns Mitch McConnell Is Trying To End Free And Fair Elections In America
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/27/nance-warns-mitch-mcconnell-free-fair-elections.htmlPosted on Sat, Jul 27th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Malcolm Nance Warns Mitch McConnell Is Trying To End Free And Fair Elections In America
When counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance speaks, the country should listen.
That was particularly true on Saturday as Nance sounded the alarm about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s latest effort to block a package of election security bills.
During a discussion with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Nance said that if Russia successfully attacks the 2020 election – which McConnell is already helping make possible – then “it may be the last free and fair election” in the United States.
“You can actually see the political machinations, where one person is deciding whether American elections from now on and before will be free and fair,” Nance said.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1155138714605166594
Nance said:
You can actually see the political machinations, where one person and a cabal of others are deciding whether American elections from now on or even before will be free and fair. This is not just voter suppression. We may have a circumstance where the electoral process is directly attacked, where foreign actors, whether it is North Korean intelligence, which has very robust cyber warfare capability and it’s in their interest to keep Donald Trump in office, the Chinese or again, Vladimir Putin and his entire Russian organ. The Republican Party defends them. They do not stand for the Constitution of the United States. If they attack this election, it may be the last free and fair election that we go into, which may come out with a corrupt result, which could fracture this nation.
Mitch McConnell is the enemy of free and fair elections
We’ve known for some time that it was Mitch McConnell, not Barack Obama, who refused to take a unified approach to fight Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
snip//
All of this is happening in plain view, and the consequences for American democracy have been and will continue to be disastrous.
July 27, 2019
CNN Anchor Victor Blackwell Breaks Down On Camera After Trump Attack On His Home District
CNN Anchor Victor Blackwell Breaks Down On Camera After Trump Attack On His Home District
July 27, 2019 8:49am
Video @ link~
CNN anchor Victor Blackwell grew emotional on camera today as he defended his hometown district from President Trump’s characterization of it as “a disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess.”
Blackwell took issue with the use of the word “infested,” saying the people in the district got up and went to work every morning, loved their children, and saluted the flag. He said Trump’s use of the word “infested” to describe the district was a tactic he seems to use only when talking about black and brown people.
Blackwell said he lived in the district from the time he was brought home from the hospital until he left for college. “There are challenges, no doubt. But people are proud of their community.”
more...
https://deadline.com/2019/07/cnn-victor-blackwell-emotional-elijah-cummings-trump-attack-1202655456/?fbclid=IwAR2-n4qgqOVRCvsBBhGJeICcN22Qn28eaXOk8zL4UpEpT1cz1zu3XxHGGHM
July 27, 2019
Why We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
Jul 26, 2019
Mary Gay Scanlon
Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
David Cicilline
U.S. representative from Rhode Island
Pramila Jayapal
U.S. representative from Washington
Veronica Escobar
U.S. representative from Texas
Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/why-were-moving-forward-impeachment/594931/?fbclid=IwAR2LNv7LcJwsF0hNhRXD1lMGkk9f-nuePoASB_i62oiSbmkAdLnhVkQZLrUWhy We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
Jul 26, 2019
Mary Gay Scanlon
Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
David Cicilline
U.S. representative from Rhode Island
Pramila Jayapal
U.S. representative from Washington
Veronica Escobar
U.S. representative from Texas
Three months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. When the redacted report finally became available to Congress and the American people, it painted a damning picture of a corrupt president who welcomed and encouraged an attack on our country, capitalized on it, and then tried to cover up what he had done.
During his press conference announcing the end of his investigation, Mueller pointed out that the Department of Justice believes “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” He was referring, without using the word, to impeachment—a process by which the U.S. House indicts, and the Senate convicts, a sitting president.
Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.
Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.
While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.
As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process. Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
During his press conference announcing the end of his investigation, Mueller pointed out that the Department of Justice believes “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” He was referring, without using the word, to impeachment—a process by which the U.S. House indicts, and the Senate convicts, a sitting president.
Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.
Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.
While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.
As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process. Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
July 27, 2019
Nadler challenger targets him on Trump impeachment
And whoosh! Down the drain goes Boylan's hopes and dreams. 
Nadler challenger targets him on Trump impeachment
By ERIN DURKIN
07/23/2019 05:00 AM EDT
NEW YORK — Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has done everything short of publicly calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment since Democrats unleashed their oversight arsenal on the president earlier this year.
But Lindsey Boylan, a former New York state official who’s giving the liberal stalwart from Manhattan’s West Side one of his toughest primary fights in decades, says that’s not enough.
While Nadler has pushed his party leadership behind the scenes to move on impeachment, Boylan is aiming squarely at Nadler’s reluctance to publicly support an official House inquiry against Trump — and she’s using the issue to great effect. The 35-year-old candidate took in $264,657 in donations in the second quarter of this year, the most among the growing crop of primary challengers looking to unseat members of Congress around New York City.
The challenge to Nadler comes as many long-time members of Congress fend off attacks from their left — a trend that began when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez toppled Joe Crowley in his Queens-Bronx district last year, upending the dynamics of New York politics.
more...
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/07/23/nadler-challenger-looks-to-make-him-face-of-inaction-on-impeaching-trump-1114295
July 26, 2019
Top CBP Officer Testifies He’s Unsure if 3-Year-Old Is “a Criminal or a National Security Threat”
It was one of a number of disturbing revelations.
By Jeremy Stahl
July 26, 2019
2:30 PM
One of the country’s top border officers cannot say whether a 3-year-old child might pose a “criminal or national security threat.” This was one of a number of astonishing takeaways from Thursday’s latest hearing into family separation.
The 3-year-old in question was Sofi, a little girl who was separated from her grandmother after they arrived at a port of entry in El Paso, Texas, last June seeking asylum. She was separated from her family for 47 days, until the Trump administration was forced to reunite them by court order. Chief of Law Enforcement Operations for Customs and Border Protection Brian S. Hastings still isn’t sure if she posed a threat, he told Rep. Ted Lieu during the Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.
more...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/cbp-chief-brian-hastings-family-separation-judiciary-hearing-not-mueller.html
Top CBP Officer Testifies He's Unsure if 3-Year-Old Is "a Criminal or a National Security Threat"
Top CBP Officer Testifies He’s Unsure if 3-Year-Old Is “a Criminal or a National Security Threat”
It was one of a number of disturbing revelations.
By Jeremy Stahl
July 26, 2019
2:30 PM
One of the country’s top border officers cannot say whether a 3-year-old child might pose a “criminal or national security threat.” This was one of a number of astonishing takeaways from Thursday’s latest hearing into family separation.
The 3-year-old in question was Sofi, a little girl who was separated from her grandmother after they arrived at a port of entry in El Paso, Texas, last June seeking asylum. She was separated from her family for 47 days, until the Trump administration was forced to reunite them by court order. Chief of Law Enforcement Operations for Customs and Border Protection Brian S. Hastings still isn’t sure if she posed a threat, he told Rep. Ted Lieu during the Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.
Ted Lieu: Sofi is not a criminal or a national security threat to the United States as a 3-year-old, correct?
Hastings: I don’t know the background in this case, sir.
Ted Lieu: Do you know any 3-year-olds that are criminal or national security threats to the United States?
Hastings: No, I don’t.
Ted Lieu: Sophie’s grandmother was not a national security or criminal threat to the United States, correct?
Hastings: I don’t know—again, I don’t know the background of what her grandmother or relatives were.
Hastings: I don’t know the background in this case, sir.
Ted Lieu: Do you know any 3-year-olds that are criminal or national security threats to the United States?
Hastings: No, I don’t.
Ted Lieu: Sophie’s grandmother was not a national security or criminal threat to the United States, correct?
Hastings: I don’t know—again, I don’t know the background of what her grandmother or relatives were.
more...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/cbp-chief-brian-hastings-family-separation-judiciary-hearing-not-mueller.html
July 26, 2019
Fueled by their donations, Mitch McConnell pushes special tax break for bourbon industry
The Senate Republican majority leader and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) announced the bill on Wednesday.
Josh Israel
Jul 25, 2019, 1:41 pm
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and fellow Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul announced a bill on Wednesday to provide special corporate tax advantages for liquor distillers.
A look at McConnell’s campaign finance history may offer a big clue as to why: hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the alcoholic beverages sector.
The Advancing Growth in the Economy through Distilled Spirits Act would renew an expiring provision from President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut bill that allows for the deduction of interest expenses related to bourbon inventory when the expenses are paid, rather then when the bourbon is bottled and sold. In a joint press release, Paul said the bill would “preserve Kentucky’s signature Bourbon industry by boosting job creation and maintaining a level playing field between Bourbon and whiskey producers at home and their competitors abroad.”
But back in 2010, an examination by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity calculated the largest individual donors to McConnell over his decades-long tenure in Congress. Of the top five largest career donors, three had ties to the Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corporation. Brown-Forman’s products include Jack Daniel’s whiskey and Old Forester bourbon.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/fueled-by-their-donations-mitch-mcconnell-pushes-special-tax-break-for-bourbon-industry-c8e29a2717b7/
Fueled by their donations, Mitch McConnell pushes special tax break for bourbon industry
Fueled by their donations, Mitch McConnell pushes special tax break for bourbon industry
The Senate Republican majority leader and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) announced the bill on Wednesday.
Josh Israel
Jul 25, 2019, 1:41 pm
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and fellow Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul announced a bill on Wednesday to provide special corporate tax advantages for liquor distillers.
A look at McConnell’s campaign finance history may offer a big clue as to why: hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the alcoholic beverages sector.
The Advancing Growth in the Economy through Distilled Spirits Act would renew an expiring provision from President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut bill that allows for the deduction of interest expenses related to bourbon inventory when the expenses are paid, rather then when the bourbon is bottled and sold. In a joint press release, Paul said the bill would “preserve Kentucky’s signature Bourbon industry by boosting job creation and maintaining a level playing field between Bourbon and whiskey producers at home and their competitors abroad.”
But back in 2010, an examination by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity calculated the largest individual donors to McConnell over his decades-long tenure in Congress. Of the top five largest career donors, three had ties to the Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corporation. Brown-Forman’s products include Jack Daniel’s whiskey and Old Forester bourbon.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/fueled-by-their-donations-mitch-mcconnell-pushes-special-tax-break-for-bourbon-industry-c8e29a2717b7/
July 26, 2019
Robert Mueller and the Tyranny of ‘Optics’
The commentariat’s focus on performance over substance is the kryptonite of the modern media age.
Todd S. Purdum
Jul 25, 2019
snip//
Optics—the kryptonite of the modern media age, the glimmering, crystalline material that can subsume substance at every treacherous turn. Or as the former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett rejoined to Todd on Twitter: “When you say ‘on optics, this was a disaster’ it is you saying so that helps make it true. The disaster of the optics is the elevation of optics and the claim by pundits that it was a disaster.”
In an age in which performance art is what passes for politics, pundits and politicos assumed the role of drama critic as they rushed to review the Mueller show—and in the week’s most overworked metaphor, routinely referred to his testimony as the “movie” version of his 448-page book. But whose optics, exactly, were these critics reflecting? Whose eyes were they looking through?
snip//
If Mueller’s testimony frustrated Democrats—and delighted the Trump White House—it’s because he repeatedly refused to be drawn into either partisan talking points or legal and constitutional hypotheticals. His staff had warned the committees that he would not so much as read aloud from his own report if asked, and at one moment, he pointedly declined even to utter the word impeachment as a remedy for presidential misconduct. Again and again, Mueller passed up the chance to utter anything that might approach a riveting sound bite, much less a bold headline.
None of this is to say that Mueller’s testimony lacked moral authority or intellectual force. On the contrary, if his answers had only been read on paper—and not seen and heard on live television in an age of instant gratification and minuscule attention spans—the most important replies were crisp and clear enough: Yes, a president can be charged with obstruction after leaving office. No, his investigation was not a witch hunt. No, Russian interference wasn’t a hoax. Over and over, Mueller affirmed findings that many Americans would find deeply troubling.
Yet all along, the substantive punch of Mueller’s report has been muted by public and media focus on performance and optics—on how Mueller’s work is perceived, not on what it actually says: first, when Attorney General William Barr preempted the report’s official release with his own skewed and selective summary of its findings; again when Mueller felt moved to read his own statement to the public summarizing it; and finally during his testimony this week.
more...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/mueller-testimony-congress-optics/594676/
Robert Mueller and the Tyranny of 'Optics'
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/mueller-testimony-congress-optics/594676/Robert Mueller and the Tyranny of ‘Optics’
The commentariat’s focus on performance over substance is the kryptonite of the modern media age.
Todd S. Purdum
Jul 25, 2019
snip//
Optics—the kryptonite of the modern media age, the glimmering, crystalline material that can subsume substance at every treacherous turn. Or as the former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett rejoined to Todd on Twitter: “When you say ‘on optics, this was a disaster’ it is you saying so that helps make it true. The disaster of the optics is the elevation of optics and the claim by pundits that it was a disaster.”
In an age in which performance art is what passes for politics, pundits and politicos assumed the role of drama critic as they rushed to review the Mueller show—and in the week’s most overworked metaphor, routinely referred to his testimony as the “movie” version of his 448-page book. But whose optics, exactly, were these critics reflecting? Whose eyes were they looking through?
snip//
If Mueller’s testimony frustrated Democrats—and delighted the Trump White House—it’s because he repeatedly refused to be drawn into either partisan talking points or legal and constitutional hypotheticals. His staff had warned the committees that he would not so much as read aloud from his own report if asked, and at one moment, he pointedly declined even to utter the word impeachment as a remedy for presidential misconduct. Again and again, Mueller passed up the chance to utter anything that might approach a riveting sound bite, much less a bold headline.
None of this is to say that Mueller’s testimony lacked moral authority or intellectual force. On the contrary, if his answers had only been read on paper—and not seen and heard on live television in an age of instant gratification and minuscule attention spans—the most important replies were crisp and clear enough: Yes, a president can be charged with obstruction after leaving office. No, his investigation was not a witch hunt. No, Russian interference wasn’t a hoax. Over and over, Mueller affirmed findings that many Americans would find deeply troubling.
“It was hard not to be shocked again by the damning and sordid findings from his dense, two-volume report,” the Los Angeles Times editorialized this morning. “Anyone tuning in should have been appalled anew by the dramatic lengths the president went to stop the probe into possible obstruction of justice, as well as the efforts that his campaign staff took to capitalize on Russian meddling.”
Yet all along, the substantive punch of Mueller’s report has been muted by public and media focus on performance and optics—on how Mueller’s work is perceived, not on what it actually says: first, when Attorney General William Barr preempted the report’s official release with his own skewed and selective summary of its findings; again when Mueller felt moved to read his own statement to the public summarizing it; and finally during his testimony this week.
more...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/mueller-testimony-congress-optics/594676/
July 26, 2019
‘Moscow Mitch’
July 26, 2019 at 8:27 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
'Moscow Mitch'
https://politicalwire.com/2019/07/26/moscow-mitch/‘Moscow Mitch’
July 26, 2019 at 8:27 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
In a nearly seven-minute harangue, Joe Scarborough dismissed the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as “Moscow Mitch” for what he deemed as “un-American” lack of action on election security, Mediaite reports.
The Morning Joe host then suggested that McConnell may be benefiting from a Russian oligarch’s investment in his home state: “I understand that there’s an oligarch that I have read is going to be setting up a big aluminum plant in Moscow Mitch’s home state.”
He added: “I don’t know if that’s it. But how can Moscow Mitch so willingly turn a blind eye not only this year to what his Republican chairman of the Intel committee is saying, to what Robert Mueller is saying what the FBI director is saying what the DNI is saying, to what the CIA is saying, to what the United States military Intel community is saying. How can Moscow Mitch keep denying that Vladimir Putin continues to try to subvert American democracy?”
The Morning Joe host then suggested that McConnell may be benefiting from a Russian oligarch’s investment in his home state: “I understand that there’s an oligarch that I have read is going to be setting up a big aluminum plant in Moscow Mitch’s home state.”
He added: “I don’t know if that’s it. But how can Moscow Mitch so willingly turn a blind eye not only this year to what his Republican chairman of the Intel committee is saying, to what Robert Mueller is saying what the FBI director is saying what the DNI is saying, to what the CIA is saying, to what the United States military Intel community is saying. How can Moscow Mitch keep denying that Vladimir Putin continues to try to subvert American democracy?”
July 26, 2019
Buttigieg hits big tech over worker rights in new economic proposal
By Marina Pitofsky - 07/26/19 07:57 AM EDT
White House hopeful and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) unveiled a new economic policy, prioritizing worker rights and calling out tech giants over worker pay and benefits.
Buttigieg’s plan, called “The New Rising Tide: Empowering Workers in a Changing Economy,” argues that, although the American GDP is up and overall productivity has increased, “our paychecks didn’t show it,” according to the proposal.
Buttigieg’s plan calls for tech companies like Google, Lyft and Uber to “recognize the consequences” of “an economic reality where workers are eviscerated.” He slams companies for labeling workers “independent contractors,” which can limit benefits, and for outsourcing workers.
The plan calls for a guarantee for all workers to join a union, including “independent contractors,” like Lyft and Uber drivers. His plan also proposes collective bargaining between the companies that control hours and working conditions and workers in addition to codifying the “ABC test,” a more strict definition of independent contractor that would label more workers employees.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/454849-buttigieg-hits-big-tech-over-worker-rights-in-new-economic-proposal
Buttigieg hits big tech over worker rights in new economic proposal
Buttigieg hits big tech over worker rights in new economic proposal
By Marina Pitofsky - 07/26/19 07:57 AM EDT
White House hopeful and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) unveiled a new economic policy, prioritizing worker rights and calling out tech giants over worker pay and benefits.
Buttigieg’s plan, called “The New Rising Tide: Empowering Workers in a Changing Economy,” argues that, although the American GDP is up and overall productivity has increased, “our paychecks didn’t show it,” according to the proposal.
“Our economy is changing, and too many Americans are working full time, some working two or even three jobs, and still finding it impossible to make ends meet,” Buttigieg said in a statement to The Hill. “Things continue to get more expensive, but paychecks aren’t getting any bigger.
Buttigieg’s plan calls for tech companies like Google, Lyft and Uber to “recognize the consequences” of “an economic reality where workers are eviscerated.” He slams companies for labeling workers “independent contractors,” which can limit benefits, and for outsourcing workers.
"More than half of workers in Google’s offices do not share in Google’s success because they are domestically outsourced temps and contractors, while millions of Uber and Lyft drivers lack basic protections because they’re misclassified as independent contractors. Meanwhile, so-called “right-to-work laws” in many states have further undermined unions and workers. All of these changes have shifted bargaining power, bit by bit, from workers to their employers," the plan says.
The plan calls for a guarantee for all workers to join a union, including “independent contractors,” like Lyft and Uber drivers. His plan also proposes collective bargaining between the companies that control hours and working conditions and workers in addition to codifying the “ABC test,” a more strict definition of independent contractor that would label more workers employees.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/454849-buttigieg-hits-big-tech-over-worker-rights-in-new-economic-proposal
July 26, 2019
Posted on Thu, Jul 25th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Rachel Maddow Says The Media Narrative Following Mueller’s Testimony Was All Wrong
On her program Thursday, Rachel Maddow shredded the media narrative following Robert Mueller’s testimony, saying that the initial headlines about the hearing got it all wrong.
Despite the pundits claiming that Mueller’s hearing will doom any impeachment efforts, the MSNBC host pointed out that just the opposite seems to be true a day later.
“As of this afternoon, oh, look, there is five new members of the House who have just come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, including Katherine Clark who is in the Democratic House leadership,” Maddow pointed out.
She added, “The facts on the ground do seem to be shifting much faster than that kind of tut-tutting analysis has been able to keep up with even just over the course of today.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1154567255306493952
Maddow said:
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/25/maddow-narrative-mueller-testimony-wrong-media.html
Rachel Maddow Says The Media Narrative Following Mueller's Testimony Was All Wrong
Posted on Thu, Jul 25th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Rachel Maddow Says The Media Narrative Following Mueller’s Testimony Was All Wrong
On her program Thursday, Rachel Maddow shredded the media narrative following Robert Mueller’s testimony, saying that the initial headlines about the hearing got it all wrong.
Despite the pundits claiming that Mueller’s hearing will doom any impeachment efforts, the MSNBC host pointed out that just the opposite seems to be true a day later.
“As of this afternoon, oh, look, there is five new members of the House who have just come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, including Katherine Clark who is in the Democratic House leadership,” Maddow pointed out.
She added, “The facts on the ground do seem to be shifting much faster than that kind of tut-tutting analysis has been able to keep up with even just over the course of today.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1154567255306493952
Maddow said:
As of this morning, you might have seen the national headlines, these super sober, super sure headlines about how if we know anything about the impact of the Robert Mueller testimony yesterday, it’s that it definitely didn’t move the needle one bit on the question of impeachment. If it did anything, it convinced Democrats once and for all that they definitely aren’t going to pursue impeachment. It killed that off forever. Those are the headlines all over the papers today, as of this morning. As of this afternoon, oh, look, there is five new members of the House who have just come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, including Katherine Clark who is in the Democratic House leadership. … In fact, further detailed reporting about that same meeting later today suggests that what the Democrats were really doing at that meeting was for the first time talking about the nuts and bolts, step-by-step chronological logistics of how exactly they would do it if they were going to do it. Including basic questions like how exactly their impeachment articles would be conveyed to the U.S. Senate if the House did, in fact, pass articles of impeachment and it was time to move on to the next step. That’s the kind of stuff they were talking about, which is not at all the same old page they were stuck on before. So all of this instant sage punditry and instant news analysis in the world that’s trying to be very reassuring now … I understand the impulse to be soothing. I understand the impulse to broadcast that sort of thing. I think it sort of feels good, particularly in the beltway press, but the facts on the ground do seem to be shifting much faster than that kind of tut-tutting analysis has been able to keep up with even just over the course of today.
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/25/maddow-narrative-mueller-testimony-wrong-media.html
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,081
