Mediaboss Marketing

The Florida Democrat who criticized President Donald Trump this week for being "insensitive" toward the widow of a U.S. soldier slain in Africa might be facing similar criticism herself.

It turns out that U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson has frequently voted against measures intended to help veterans and their families, according to VoteSmart.org, a vote-tracking site whose founding board members included former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

The measures that Wilson opposed included a bill that could have ensured that families of four soldiers slain in Afghanistan in 2013 received death and burial benefits.

In fact, Wilsons voting record on veterans issues may call into question the sincerity of her recent defense of U.S. service members and their families.

Despite Wilson's claim to be committed to honoring our service members, not only with words but with deeds, she has voted against most bills ensuring continued funding for veteran benefits, including payments to widows of fallen soldiers, the vote-tracking site shows.

She has also opposed measures designed to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In March 2013, Wilson opposed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which prevented a government shutdown and provided funds for the U.S. military and the VA.

The bill, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by the Obama administration, provided funding to the military and the VA until the next government shutdown showdown.

U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., stands by her statement that President Donald Trump was "insensitive" toward the widow of a U.S. service member who was slain in Africa. Wilson is seen in Miami Gardens, Fla., Oct. 18, 2017.(Associated Press)

Later in the year, Wilson again voted against a resolution aimed at ensuring benefits paid to the veterans and their families would not be affected by the government shutdown in October that year.

The motion was particularly important in the wake of reports that the families of four soldiers slain in Afghanistan in 2013 had been deprived of benefits due to the shutdown in Washington.

The families of slain soldiers were denied burial benefits and up to $100,000 to each family, among other benefits, the New York Times reported.Wilson voted against the resolution ensuring that the benefits reached the families.

Defense Department spokesman Carl Woog said the department did not have the authority to pay death gratuities and other key benefits for the survivors of service members killed in action due to the government shutdown.

The congresswoman also opposed numerous bills aimed at improving VA services provided the veterans and their families.

Wilson's office has not responded to a Fox News request for a comment.

The former elementary school principal, who first came to Congress in 2011, has been portrayed this week as a staunch defender of the military and military families after accusing the president of being insensitive toward Myeshia Johnson, widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, one of four service members who were killed last week in the African nation of Niger.

According to Wilson, Trump told the grieving widow that her husband knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway. But Trump, in a response on Twitter, said Wilson had totally fabricated what I said.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that Wilsons attack on the president using the soldiers widow was appalling and disgusting.

The congresswoman has stood by her account of the call.

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter@LukasMikelionis.

Continue reading here:
Florida Democrat Wilson no friend of veterans, vote record ...

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach President Trump, but Democratic leaders joined the vote to table the motion. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach President Trump, but Democratic leaders joined the vote to table the motion.

Updated 2:51 p.m. ET

Texas Democrat Al Green forced a House vote on the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday, but a broad bipartisan majority voted down the effort.

Green introduced two articles of impeachment against Trump. The articles did not include any charges related to Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which has led to criminal charges against four Trump aides.

Instead, Green's impeachment articles focused on divisive statements and actions by Trump, including his defense of racist protests and violence in Charlottesville, Va.; derisive comments about National Football League national anthem protests; and recent retweets of videos posted by a far-right nationalist British group, among other things.

Trump, Green said on the House floor on Wednesday afternoon, has "undermined the integrity of his office and has sown discord among the people of the United States."

Whether or not Trump has committed any crimes, Green argued, is irrelevant to the discussion. "The question isn't whether we have a bigot as President, the question is: What are we going to do about it?" Green wrote in a letter to fellow lawmakers ahead of the vote. "The answer is: impeachment for his high misdemeanors, which need not be a crime."

The effort failed on a 364-58 vote, with four Democrats voting present. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer sided with Republicans in tabling Green's articles.

Among the higher-ranking Democrats voting in favor of impeachment: Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who serves as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

In a joint statement issued shortly after Green introduced his impeachment articles on the House floor, Pelosi and Hoyer rejected Green's argument.

"Legitimate questions have been raised about [Trump's] fitness to lead this nation," they wrote, but added that "right now, Congressional committees continue to be deeply engaged in investigations into the President's actions both before and after his inauguration. The special counsel's investigation is moving forward as well, and those inquiries should be allowed to continue. Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment."

Green argued that regardless of the various investigations' findings, Trump's actions and statements have met the political bar for removal from office. "Impeachment is a political remedy, not a judicial remedy, thus it may be a high misdemeanor, which may or may not be a crime," he wrote.

Green cites the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, which has been viewed historically as an overtly partisan act.

Green's step widens a growing rift within the Democratic Party and its progressive base: whether to publicly call for the impeachment of an unpopular president at the center of an ongoing criminal investigation. And, if so, at what volume and urgency to call for that impeachment.

Most House Democrats want nothing to do with impeachment efforts right now and worry that publicly backing them as Mueller's investigation continues would make any eventual impeachment push look partisan.

"Electing a president of the United States is the most important act American citizens take in setting the policies of their country. That should not be overturned except for the most egregious and demonstrable facts," Hoyer recently told reporters. "Do we disagree with [Trump's] policies? We do. But disagreeing with the policies is not enough to overturn an election a free and fair election of the American people."

It's not just entrenched leaders like Hoyer and Pelosi who feel that way. "Here's what I say to my colleagues: If a Republican were to say that they were never going to vote to impeach Trump no matter what Bob Mueller found, we would say that's totally unreasonable," said California Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive freshman representing Silicon Valley. "You have to look at the evidence. Similarly, there's no way we should be saying that we could vote for impeachment without the end of Mueller's findings. Let's wait to see what he's going to do. Let him finish his job."

Still, a growing number of Democratic voters and activists appear ready to not only call for impeachment now, but also to make that call a central part of the 2018 midterm election. California Democratic megadonor and activist Tom Steyer has sunk at least $10 million into an online petition effort urging Trump's impeachment. He has already gathered more than 3.3 million signatures.

"Impeachment is really about a president breaking his trust with the Constitution, with the American people," Steyer told NPR.

Steyer is running glossy national television ads on cable to promote the effort, raising questions about whether he is using the impeachment push to raise his profile ahead of a run for office.

"The criteria has already been met" for impeachment, Steyer contended, citing Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey and Comey's testimony that Trump had asked the director to "go easy" on Flynn.

He added, "The other thing that's going on though is not just whether he has met the criteria to be impeached, but also the huge threat that he presents to the American people, which means why there's the urgency for us to act. And that's what we're really trying to do. We're trying to give Americans a voice where they say, 'This president is a threat to us.' "

See below for a summary from Green's office of the articles he introduced:

Summary of Articles of Impeachment

Article I Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred

Donald J. Trump issued a public statement characterizing anti-Semites, bigots, racists, white nationalists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., as "very fine people."

Donald J. Trump did not issue a public statement when these hate groups returned to Charlottesville, Va., chanting "You will not replace us!" He did, however, issue several statements related to players in the National Football League exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest.

Donald J. Trump shared three videos from a British right-wing extremist that purported to show various violent acts committed by Muslims. The videos were found to be inaccurately titled and characterized.

Article II Inciting Hatred and Hostility

Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13769, which caused a partial shutdown of immigration from Muslim countries.

Donald J. Trump issued a public statement that transgender individuals are banned from serving in the United States military.

Donald J. Trump made a public statement referring to professional football players as "sons of bitches," therefore denigrating them and their mothers, for exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest.

Donald J. Trump made a public statement that after being devastated by a Category 4 and Category 5 hurricane, Puerto Ricans "... want everything done for them when it should be a community effort," inciting racial tensions around the stereotype that people of color need or want handouts.

Donald J. Trump made a public statement that after being devastated by a Category 4 and Category 5 hurricane in one week, Puerto Ricans had "... thrown our budget a little out of whack." Similar statements were not made by Mr. Trump about Texas or Florida, which were also devastated by hurricanes.

Donald J. Trump issued a public statement referring to Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24), a female, African-American Member of Congress as "wacky" and called her a liar.

Donald J. Trump issued a public statement referring to Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24), a female, African-American Member of Congress as "wacky" a second time.

Donald J. Trump issued a public statement referring to Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24), a female, African-American Member of Congress as "wacky" a third time.

See the original post here:
Trump Impeachment? Texas Democrat Forces Vote Against Party's ...

This year, the Senate has demonstrated the importance of a single vote. Betsy DeVoss controversial confirmation as education secretary happened only with the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Pence. In late March, Pence again broke a tie on legislation limiting federal funds to abortion providers.

And last month, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defeated the GOPs effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act with a single flick of his thumb.

Theres more on the way. Later this fall, President Trumps agenda could be impeded by a one-man blockade, Sen. Robert Menendez, who by then could be a felon.

The trial of the New Jersey Democrat, indicted two years ago on corruption charges, is set to begin Sept. 6 in a federal courthouse in Newark. A 12-person jury was seated this week. The trial is expected to last well into October; by Halloween, Menendez could be the first sitting senator in nine years to become a felon.

While Menendez would almost certainly appeal such a verdict, the calls for his immediate resignation would be swift and voluminous. And much has been written about the calamity that his departure would bring on the Democratic Party in this Year of the Deciding Vote.

But no one should expect Menendez to heed those calls, at least not until Gov. Chris Christie (R) leaves office on Jan. 16.

The current front-runner to replace Christie, Democrat Phil Murphy, could be sworn in then as the new governor. This scenario would allow Murphy to appoint a Democratic interim senator and set a special election for later in 2018, in which Democrats would be heavily favored to retain the seat in increasingly blue New Jersey.

It might seem a bit outlandish for a felon to remain in the Senate for two to three months, just to deny the Republicans from getting an extra vote. But these are anything but normal political times in Washington.

Whats more, the Senates bipartisan precedents on corruption convictions are more lenient than the Houses regarding the time typically granted before colleagues move to evict someone from office.

The Senate has always taken more time (as with everything else), especially if the convicted senator has filed an appeal in the courts, Don Ritchie, the former Senate historian, said this week. The Ethics Committee will have to hold hearings and vote on a recommendation, and then the Senate deliberates and votes. Senators cant be forced to resign, and it takes a two-thirds vote to expel them, which prevents it from becoming a strictly partisan matter.

To this point, the Ethics Committee has done little to no work on the Menendez matter, instead deferring to the Justice Department. That probe began in 2013 after The Washington Post and the New York Times published extensive stories detailing the senators connections to a Florida eye doctor.

The two most recent examples of convicted senators should reassure partisan Democrats who fear that Christie would name a Republican to replace Menendez, which could revive the effort to gut the 2010 health-care law and move on other partisan legislative efforts.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the late Ted Stevens was found guilty on seven felony corruption charges. The Alaska Republican refused to resign, despite a bipartisan chorus calling for him to step down including the minority leader at the time, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Eight days later, Stevens lost his Senate reelection race, and the issue became moot. He served out the remaining two months of his historic run, retiring as the longest-serving Republican in the history of the Senate. He continued to vote and attend caucus meetings, like any other senator, those last few weeks.

And as Jonathan Salant noted this week in the Newark Star-Ledger, the last Senate Democrat to be convicted of felony corruption charges was also from New Jersey, the late Harrison Pete Williams.

Williams was convicted in May 1981 amid the notorious ABSCAM investigation. An undercover FBI agent acting as an Arab sheikh caught Williams on camera agreeing to help the sheikh in exchange for a multimillion-dollar loan.

The ethics committee took almost four months, including open hearings, to recommend expelling the senator.

The full Senate then took up his expulsion in a trial-like setting but not until March 1982, after Williams had filed a series of legal motions in federal courts that all ended in rejection. Finally, when Williams realized there was easily a two-thirds majority to expel him, he resigned.

That was more than 10 months after his conviction.

The delay actually benefited Republicans. Had he resigned in 1981, the Democratic governor would have appointed Williamss successor. By 1982, Republican Thomas Kean Sr. was governor; he appointed a Republican to be interim senator.

Menendez would be doing the opposite, holding out long enough to ensure that a fellow Democrat takes his seat.

The late Williams played an intriguing role in the Menendez investigation which began with an anonymous source, under the pseudonym Pete Williams, spreading allegations that Menendez had taken many personal trips to the Dominican Republic.

That information was probably false, but it prompted a deeper look at Menendezs connections to Salomon Melgen, the eye doctor who back in 2012 was in a billing dispute with Medicare.

Menendez helped arrange a meeting in the Capitol that included Harry M. Reid (D), who was Senate majority leader, and Kathleen Sebelius, who was secretary of health and human services, at the same time Menendez was running for reelection.

Melgen donated $700,000 to a super PAC that helped Menendez, who also regularly flew on Melgens private jet to the doctors Dominican resort.

Joe Hayden, a prominent New Jersey criminal defense attorney, believes that federal prosecutors will have to prove that Menendez knew he was acting illegally and not just doing senatorial duties by trying to help settle a Medicaid dispute.

Whether there was a criminal or corrupt attempt, Hayden said, intent will be the biggest issue.

If Menendez is convicted, McConnell, now majority leader, could try to force an immediate expulsion vote and get an interim Republican senator but it would breach recent bipartisan precedent. McConnell would need all 52 Republicans and 15 Democrats to vote to expel a high hurdle given that Democrats know the value of a single vote, particularly this year.

After a while, however, public pressure may build up to the point where senators feel forced to act, Ritchie, the historian, said.

By then, Democrats hope that Murphy will be in Drumthwacket, the New Jersey governors mansion, preserving the Senate seat in their hands.

Read more from Paul Kanes archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Link:
In the Year of the Deciding Vote, one Democrat's corruption trial could change the Senate or not - Washington Post

An undeniable change is afoot. No country is spared from the forces of digital disruption. Experts are sounding dire warnings of a near-future that will be profoundly disrupted by digitization, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), industrial automation, the internet of things (IoT) and rampant cyber threats, which have already undermined the cornerstones of democracy and trust in institutions. In response to these relentless changes the world needs a new breed of civic engagement that goes beyond Facebook activism, true political compromise, and, perhaps most importantly, the emergence of a new breed of elected leader who can champion peoples rights in a time when all lines are blurred. These leaders are veritable Digital Democrats and their numbers are scarce in the U.S. and around the world.

A Digital Democrat is a progressive leader prepared for the technical and technological challenges of the 21st century. These include the prospects of wide scale job loss due to industrial automation, combating hidden biases built into AI, while fostering a policy and security environment that cares for the people behind the binary code. Few if any leaders in office are adequately harnessing the risks and rewards of our time or our form of government. Any talk of government accountability, efficiency, or greater stewardship of scarce taxpayer resources that does not contemplate digital transformation, is simply not serious and will produce the very waste that is emblematic of a dysfunctional Washington.

Just as the workforce needs to reinvent itself to adapt to an increasingly digital world, our political class needs to confront the reality that so few of them are well-equipped to make sense of the 21st century. As with all organizations, the best decisions are made in an environment that prizes diversity. For this the U.S. Congress and Senate not only lack adequate representation of women, minorities, and other groups, they are decidedly light in their technological bench, with most elected officials coming from a legal pedigree. Looking at the current roster of elected officials, few have the technical background to properly lead a cyber risk inquiry, let alone formulate a balanced regulatory approach to digital innovation. For us to retain this economic miracle, while managing its blowback, our elected officials need to not only reflect our times in the knowledge they bring to the job, they need to understand technology and how to at once harness and guard against it at granular level.

Consider the seeds of doubt that were watered in the 2016 presidential election by cyber misinformation warfare and fertilized by myopic political goals of victory at any cost. Indeed, if Teslas Elon Musk and Googles Eric Schmidt are correct that the very future of humanity is at risk and that the world will go to war over data, we are woefully unprepared and the majority of our political leaders are not conversant in these emerging trends. As the birthplace of the Internet age and the midwife of digital transformation, the U.S. bears a special obligation to lead the world in responsibly harnessing technology as a force for good.

Looking then at the field of candidates vying for elected office, few have the skill set to be a future-proof leader for the 21st century. Brian Forde, the congressional candidate in Californias 45th District not only has the right balance of political experience at the highest levels of government, he brings the right technical virtuosity when it comes to confronting the many challenges and opportunities of the digital age. Forde may very well emerge as the countrys first Digital Democrat, and his candidacy in a largely Republican district, hearkens to the type of partisanship and consensus that is desperately needed in Washington. Indeed, his campaign is breaking new ground by accepting a digital currency, acknowledging Bitcoins legitimate role as a part of our economic thrift.

Digital citizenship and the emergence of Digital Democrats are not necessarily zero-sum propositions where one party or person wins at the expense of another. The emergence of this new class of political leadership augurs well for a future in which party lines matter much less than outcomes. Indeed, looking around the world at the scorecard for how eGovernance has taken shape, few bright lights emerge, with Estonia being among the brightest. Estonia, a country that might have been forgotten 10 years ago, has quickly vaulted to the top of the list of countries embracing technology and digital transformation for greater stewardship of public trust and greater efficiency in citizen services.

The only reason it is hard for the U.S. to conceive of a similar transformation, despite our large population and advanced economy, is because of the lack of political leadership that can comprehend the opportunities and rewards of embracing digital transformation. If we are to face the type of job loss in the millions that experts are forecasting, does it not make sense to have elected officials who can properly regulate and manage this change reducing the impact on people's lives, while at the same time future-proofing the country? A Digital Democrat can at once understand the national security implications of a hyper-connected world, one in which a cyber threat can spread to 150 countries over a weekend, where trust can evaporate in an instant and the White House can be taken with a tweet. In this new era, the only way to restore public trust is a democracy that can thrive in sunlight.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read the original here:
Digital Democrat - HuffPost

In case you havent heard, the leader in every poll for the Treasurers race this fall is a Democrat despite the fact the three major candidates in the race are Republicans. Derrick Edwards, a lawyer from New Orleans whose interesting physical condition hes a quadriplegic is a frequent candidate for office who ran last year for the Senate, polling three percent of the vote in the primary and finishing in eighth place. Now hes in first place and a fairly likely participant in the runoff; what we dont know at this point is whether it will be Rep. John Schroder, Sen. Neil Riser or former Jindal administration Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis wholl be in the final round with him.

Almost everybody who knows something about that race will tell you once Edwards gets into the runoff with whichever Republican joins him, hes got zero chance to win. But in that respect hes no different than Foster Campbell in the 2016 Senate race, or Kip Holden in the 2015 Lt. Governors race, or even Edwin Edwards in the 2014 6th District congressional race. They all got slaughtered in the runoff and the Democrats knew it, and backed them anyway.

But the Democrats arent backing Edwards in this race even though hes leading every poll with at least 25 percent of the vote.

Why?

(T)he Democratic Partys executive committee worries about how Edwards would get from 30 percent of the vote to the 50 percent plus one needed to win a runoff from an electorate who overwhelming backs Republicans in most statewide elections.

Though Edwards was the first announced candidate in the race, he hasnt been campaigning much. He reported $138.20 available in a campaign finance report filed Aug. 8. Plus, because he was late filing, Edwards could face $2,000 in fines from the Louisiana Board of Ethics.

We were uncomfortable with the fact that he was a little late, at that time, filing his financial disclosure and campaign finance forms, said Kyle Green Jr., a state party executive committee member from Marrero. We urged him to get his house in order and once he did that, we would be happy to revisit that decision.

The 25-member party executive committee decided to hold off until Edwards could name a campaign team, detail fundraising plans, and identify major supporters.

The executive committee felt rather strongly that Mr. Edwards needs to do some basic things before recommending him for a party endorsement, said Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party.

One wonders if this is a racial thing, which youd think shouldnt be a problem for a party who would have virtually zero political presence in Louisiana but for black voters and black elected officials. Still, the Democrats have a history of failing to give much help to black candidates for statewide office they let Cleo Fields and Bill Jefferson die on the vine in the 1995 and 1999 runoffs, and they did exactly nothing to help Holden last year.

With a black state senator in Karen Carter Peterson, who as it happens is also from New Orleans, as the Democrat party chair, youd think this lack of support wouldnt continue.

But it does. Theyre going to let the only Democrat candidate they have in the only statewide race going on this year go without any money or an endorsement? And hes not only a candidate of color but a disabled candidate as well?

How can this be? How can a party which breaks its arm patting itself on the back for how much it supposedly cares about minorities and people with disabilities simply let Derrick Edwards die on the political vine?

Sure, Edwards has no shot to win. Foster Campbell had no shot to win. That didnt stop them from pitching in and raising every dime they could for him. And if he has no shot to win and cant do all the basic things a candidate needs to do to have a shot to win, then why in the hell couldnt the Louisiana Democrat Party recruit somebody more legitimate to run in an open seat?

None of their grandees, like for example Rep. Walt Leger or Sen. Eric Lafleur, bothered to qualify. This guy did, and he put a D next to his name. And theyre snubbing him anyway. No union money, no party money, not even a little check from one of their trial lawyer donors to get him started.

Its embarrassing. This is not a party that deserves to win a major election in this state, ever again.

Read more here:
What The Democrat Party Is Doing To Derrick Edwards Is Shameful - The Hayride