Mediaboss Marketing

Rep Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids.(Photo: Dale G. Young / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

Lansing Theyre fed up with the establishment, they believe a key election was rigged and theyre plotting to reshape their party from the grassroots up.

No, theyre not tea party Republicans. Theyre liberal Democrats, and theyre planning a show of force Saturday at the Michigan Democratic Partys state convention in Detroit, where activists and elites alike will try to chart a new course for a party reeling from electoral losses.

Two separate groups inspired by Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 2016 presidential candidate and self-described democratic socialist, have spent months organizing ahead of the convention, where Democrats will elect officials to congressional district and statewide party posts.

One youth-powered group, Michigan for Revolution, is working to bus in Democrats from around the state in hopes of electing a slate of candidates to caucus positions and the central committee, the partys main leadership and decision-making board.

The Democratic Party doesnt really listen to anyone but the establishment, and I think thats the biggest problem, said organizer Kelly Collison, 28, of Bath. They dont pay attention to the rural areas. They think theyve already won over people of color because theyre Democrats.

Sanders, who focused on closing income and wealth gaps in his bid for the White House, scored a surprise win in Michigans primary but ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Collison and other Sanders supporters argue hacked emails released by WikiLeaks prove the Democratic National Committee inappropriately aided Clinton.

President Donald Trump went on to defeat Clinton in the general election, becoming the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988. Progressive Democrats, as they prefer to be called, blame that loss and others on out-of-touch establishment leadership.

Right now its a party thats dominated by elite stakeholders and donors, and thats not the way it should be, said Michigan for Revolution organizer Sam Pernick, 24, of Huntington Woods.

Pernick and other young activists stormed a closed-door party meeting late last year in Westland, and he ended up pressing charges against a longtime Democrat and labor leader for alleged assault. He moved to drop those charges last week and said his group is not planning any similar demonstrations this weekend.

What we have asked is that elections be conducted in a fair and democratic way thats inclusive of all groups that want to participate, Pernick said.

A second group, Michigan to Believe In, is forming alliances with traditional party leaders. It has helped register Democrats in time to vote at the convention and is preparing its own list of recommended convention candidates, including Flint water activist Melissa Mays, who is aiming for a seat on the partys environmental caucus.

I think its pretty clear the Democratic Party on all levels needs to take a hard look at what its doing and rethink its strategy and platform, said Michelle Deatrick of Superior Township, a former Sanders campaign organizer recently elected as a Washtenaw County commissioner.

We need to be connecting and reaching out to people and listening to voters year-round, not just a month before elections, she said.

Dillon a lock for re-election

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Brandon Dillon is unlikely to face a serious challenge for re-election. This is happening even though Republicans retained their majority in the state House, shocking observers who predicted Democratic gains, and unexpectedly won a handful of education posts long coveted by party leaders.

At this point we dont have anyone to run against him, Collison said. Its not the most glamorous job, and I know Brandon has had a tough time as it is. He took over a failing party when he came in.

As of Tuesday, Dillon remained the only announced candidate in the race. While party rules would still allow a challenger to declare ahead of Saturdays convention at Cobo Center, he or she would be at a huge organizational disadvantage.

Ive been campaigning as if I have an opponent and been really talking about what I think is the way to move the party forward, Dillon said.

The Grand Rapids Democrat took over the post in July 2015 after his predecessor, Lon Johnson, stepped down to run for an open U.S. House in Michigans 1st Congressional District, a race Johnson lost to political novice and now-U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet.

Trumps unexpected win in Michigan proved a boon for other Republicans. The party maintained its 9-5 advantage in the U.S. House and even flipped traditionally Democratic local offices in Macomb County.

Shortly after the election we started putting a plan together to reform what we do within the party, to rebuild power from the grassroots up and increasingly to activate people to resist the really incredible things that are going on with the Trump administration, Dillon said.

Pernick has been rumored as a possible challenger to Dillon, but he denied any interest in running.

I think he walked into a tough situation, Pernick said, noting Dillon has served only a partial term as chair.

Dillon has attempted to embrace the grassroots insurgency, which recalls the Republican tea party movement that began eight years ago in opposition to Democratic President Barack Obama.

The tea party was certainly successful in some of their efforts, but the comparisons stop I think at the level of energy and activism, he said. The (progressive) policy positions are in the mainstream of where Democrats have been for a long time. I think theyre just focused more on being bolder, stronger and giving people a reason to believe the Democratic Party can actually fight back and win.

Other establishment Democrats have also extended olive branches to former Sanders supporters. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell of Dearborn, for instance, declined to seek re-election to the Democratic National Committee in December.

I dont think she stepped down specifically for me, but she stepped down specifically so a progressive could get a spot, said Deatrick, who was elected to the DNC post.

Michigan AFL-CIO leader Ron Bieber said the new wave of liberal activists have a lot in common with the labor movement, which has long advocated for fair pay and workers rights.

Im a progressive, Bieber said. Im with them on their issues. It was a matter of difference in candidates, and we can get past that.

Looking to 2018

Despite Trumps win, Democrats argue Michigan cannot yet be considered a red state. They remain optimistic they can regain at least some power in the 2018 elections.

Trumps pledge to fight for blue-collar workers was nonsense, said David Hecker, Michigan president of the American Federation of Teachers, arguing Democrats must continue to focus on fighting for economic equality.

Its the Democrats who have always stood for that, he said. Trump talked about it because he knew it was a way to get votes.

Deatrick, who has endorsed Dillon for re-election, questioned the Clinton campaigns tactics and said she thinks poor performance at the top of the ticket dragged down other Democratic candidates in Michigan.

They made a lot of big mistakes, and there was a lot of frustration here in Michigan from state party leadership on down about how the campaign was run, she said.

Motivated by Trump

Party leaders say Trumps election and early presidential actions have energized the grassroots in ways they havent seen in years. They point to massive womens marches across the country and protests over the presidents executive order limiting immigration and refugee immigration.

The Trump administration is doing everything it can to unite Democrats Dillon said.

Ive never seen this type of energy and enthusiasm in an off-year, Bieber said, and that represents a huge opportunity, but also new organizing challenges. How do we bring all these new folks into the fold?

Every seat in Michigans state House and Senate will be up for grabs next year, in addition to the governors office and the states 14 congressional seats. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, will also defend her post.

I think 2018 is likely to be not only a referendum on the Trump administration, but on eight years of total Republican dominance in state government, Dillon said.

joosting@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ka5xlJ

Originally posted here:
Democrats face liberal revolt at Michigan convention - The Detroit News

Feb. 10, 2017 at 2:48 PM

Rep. Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, during a mock swearing-in ceremony in Washington on Jan. 3.

Last week, FiveThirtyEight launched a new interactive graphic that tracks how often members of Congress vote in line with President Trumps stated positions. Today, were starting a series of Q&As to talk to members about their votes and their Trump Scores. First up is Henry Cuellar, who represents Texass 28th Congressional District. At the moment, Cuellar is the House Democrat with the highest Trump agreement score. The transcript below has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Malone: On our Trump tracker, we have that youve voted with Trump 75 percent of the time. We predicted [based on how well Trump did in your district and how other members of Congress have voted] that you would vote with him only around 10 percent of the time. Youve also voted against the Democratic Party line on four bills. I wanted to give you the space here to walk me through your reasoning on these votes.

More Politics

Cuellar: First of all, President Trump does not share my values, and I certainly have a lot of serious concerns with some of his statements and actions. I want to start off with that. Second of all, if youre using items that came up before Trump, again with all due respect to your Trump Scores, theyre not very accurate because a lot of those issues and rules came up before even Trump got into office. Those are things that I had concerns about even before Trump came in. The other thing is, if you look at my record here since I started here back in 2005, Ive always been a centrist. If you want to use voting with the Democratic Party as a measure, you and I are going to be off completely because I was not sent to Washington to vote with the Democratic Party. I am a Democrat, but I dont see my job as to vote with the Democratic Party. And I think any Democrat or Republican that votes their party, then I think theyre doing a disservice to their constituents.

My district is about +7 Democratic [paywalled], but its still a diverse district in many ways. I do better than most Democrats here even though Im a moderate conservative Blue Dog and I still do very well here. My hometown of Laredo, the border area, Ill get 90, 95, 98 percent of the vote, so I must be doing something right here. I think people know that I will vote my district, and they know Im bipartisan and they know that Im not here to represent the Democratic Party. I think the best way to describe my position is what President Lyndon Johnson said many years ago where he said, Im an American, Im a U.S. Senator, and Im a Democrat, all in that order. And I agree with him in the sense that weve got to come up here and vote the district.

Malone: You talked about voting the district where are the places you think you and President Trump can work together, where are the places where voting your district means compromise, because its obviously a very entrenched partisan political environment.

Cuellar: No one really knows what Trump is going to come up with, what executive order is going to come out. I can tell you on NAFTA, I disagree with him, I think we need to modernize it. The 20 percent tariff, I think thats wrong. I disagree with him on withdrawing from TPP. Again, I dont know what Im going to agree with him on until we see what hes going to come up with. In my district I think I know my district better than other people do, than the national folks do in my area, for example, trade is very important. Most Democrats dont support trade, but Laredo is the largest inland port. Every day we have 14,000 trailers. In my area, Ive got most of Eagle Ford [shale], and if youre familiar with that energy sector, its one of the largest mines in Texas, so Im a pro-energy folk. So youve got to understand that I represent a district and I travel my district. I know my district, and I think I know it better than the nationals do.

Malone: A lot of Democrats have said, Well, infrastructure might be one place where were with the Republicans. Are there any other sorts of inklings of places where you say, Hey, thats a good idea, thats something we could get done.

Cuellar: Certainly infrastructure is one thing that we supported. Its not a Trump idea its been around a long time. The question is, How do we pay for it? The issue, Im just looking at this news alert President Trump might be open to comprehensive immigration legislation, the Gang of Eight, maybe not. You just dont know what this president is going to say. So weve just got to wait. I was in Mexico City a couple of weeks ago, and I was talking to Carlos Slim, and I was talking to some of the senators, and I kept telling them, Hey, youve got to wait until Trump has some of his Cabinet members because I think his Cabinet members will tone [down] his positions in many ways.

Malone: Im glad you brought up Mexico your district is on the border. How nervous are you about the U.S.s relationship with Mexico deteriorating?

Cuellar: Thats one of the reasons I was there in Mexico City, talking to Mexican business people, talking to some of the senators there, because were all concerned. Ive talked to some of the business people not only there but here on both sides of the border. In fact tomorrow, I think we have six to seven Mexican congress folks who also represent places along the border that are coming over to Laredo to meet with me to talk about issues. In many ways, I feel a lot better in talking with Republicans in the sense that a lot of them dont agree with him that we need to get rid of NAFTA, we all need to modernize it, and TPP actually did that already. On the fencing part of it, the wall, even some of the Republicans Ive talked to just look at some of the quotes that have come from Texas theyre saying, Well, maybe some strategic fencing, we need to have technology and personnel, the right mixture. The good thing is that Trump just cant do an order and get it done. He still has to come though Appropriations, he still has to come through Congress. I think Congress and his Cabinet are going to tamp down a lot of the things hes been saying.

Malone: When youre talking to politicians from Mexico, what are their biggest worries? Is it worry about trade deals eroding between the two countries, or is it about Trumps rhetoric toward the country itself? What comes up most?

Cuellar: All of the above. They think a wall is insulting to them. They feel that the U.S. should secure the border and all that. They feel that Trump doesnt understand how much cooperation there is between DEA, FBI and other folks that are in Mexico they share intelligence. They worry about NAFTA because they know trade, and you know the numbers between the U.S. and Mexico, every day theres about $1.5 billion in trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Just generally, they feel insulted by the way that President Trump has talked to not only the Mexican president but to them.

Malone: Can you talk a little bit about the larger strategy of what a Democratic legislative minority should be doing in a mostly Republican government? Do you buy the argument from people in the Democratic base who are saying that too much compromise with a Trump administration is giving a moral stamp of approval to the Republicans and to this administration?

Cuellar: I can understand that anger out there, that fear. Trumps order on the religious discrimination, on the immigration ban, thats something that we all dont agree with. If the strategy is zero-sum, where everything is resistance against everything, then thats difficult for somebody like me, because remember what I said at the very beginning: If Im here just for the Democratic Party, I dont think thats the right approach. I dont think its just a party vote here. Ive always taken the position, way before Trump got in, that the problem with health care was Democrats on one side didnt want to change one word an extreme position. The other position, the Republicans, was another extreme position repeal the whole thing. I always thought that was wrong. I always thought the legislative process, the way it works in a normal process was you look at what works, you keep it, you look at the things that need to be modified, repealed, you do that and you make it better. On health care, I dont know what theyre going to do. If theyre going to repeal and not put anything in place, then I have to disagree with that. On health care, I think I voted against Republicans every single time because health care is very important to me because of my district 35 percent of my folks here dont have health insurance. Its a little lower now that weve had Obamacare. So, it depends, but to take a strategy of 100 percent disagreement-resistance, I dont agree with it.

Malone: You identified earlier as a Blue Dog, which is a thing you hear less and less in the Democratic Party. I know youre pro-life. Do you ever feel out of place in the Democratic Party?

Cuellar: No, no, no. Im a Democrat, will always stay a Democrat. I grew up as a Democrat here, as a young state legislator with the Bill Hobby philosophy, with the Pete Laney philosophy. And their philosophy was that the Democratic Party is a big-tent party you accept liberals, you accept moderate, conservative Democrats but were all Democrats. The problem with the Republicans and Democrats now is that they want to purify, they want to see you in the same image thats wrong. I think thats wrong for both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democratic Party will always be my home, and whether people like it or not, Im always going to stay a centrist. As Ive told the House Democratic leadership, find me all the liberal seats we need to win across the country to take back the House. Theres none! Ive always voted for Nancy [Pelosi] I disagree with her, but there are some Democrats who have not voted for her. Ive always voted for Pelosi, so when it comes to the votes that are important, Ill stick with that. The way we won the majority in 2006 was because of the Blue Dogs. The way we win the majority again is through the Blue Dogs again. I told the DCCC, I told the House leadership, and they gave me a nervous laugh. How did we lose veterans? How did we lose a lot of the labor folks to Trump? When people think that youve got to be a pure Democrat in our image, theyre wrong. When we lost Blue Dogs because a lot of us voted for health care and a whole bunch of other things, we lost the Democratic leadership.

Malone: Were you at all tempted to vote for Rep. Tim Ryan when he ran against Pelosi in the leadership, given that his vision was basically what youve been saying to me Democrats to get back to the big-tent philosophy, opening up the party to some people who are pro-gun, pro-life?

Cuellar: Look at Tim Ryan, Ruben Gallego, look at all the folks that are out there they were basically crying out that the messaging was wrong. And I say that in a good way. They were saying: Hey, guys, the messaging is wrong. How did we lose veterans? How did we lose women? How did we lose seniors? How did we lose labor guys to Trump? For six years, I was part of Pelosis leadership, I was part of the messaging, and you know, I had my message, but the caucus decides overall, and my voice was not the message that came out. I can tell you a lot of stories. Another is when we were there and they brought a pollster and the pollster kept saying, Weve got these Democrats and Republicans on the polling. And I asked for the independent voters, and he said, Oh, I dont count independent voters because theyre all Republicans. And Im saying, What? No wonder we keep losing. If we dont target the independent voters, theres something wrong with this strategy.

Malone: Do you feel perversely vindicated now?

Cuellar: I dont want to say that. But I would say that some of us we brought our messaging, but we got out-voted. Thats all Ive got to say. When you look at the Democratic caucus its a liberal-leaning caucus. All Im saying is, like I told Steve Israel and Nancy Pelosi and the ranking members when I was there, I said, Guys, give me all the liberal-leaning seats in the country that we need to take away from Republicans so we can win. Thats what our messaging is targeted at, and if thats it, then were going to be a minority for a long time. Thats all I got to say.

More:
A Q&A With The House Democrat Who's Voted With Trump 75 Percent Of The Time - FiveThirtyEight

Senate Democrats sent mixed signals the day after Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about President Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary - a sign that the judge's comments could attract some badly needed Democratic support.

"To whisper to a senator but to refuse to say anything public is not close to a good enough show on independence. So from my view, not a good start for Judge Gorsuch. Not a good start," said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on the Senate floor.

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, struck a more positive note about Gorsuch's remarks, which came in a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

"I for one appreciated them," Feinstein said. "I think he was being truthful as to how he felt about it. And that was very much appreciated." She said she wanted Gorsuch to have a "fair hearing process."

The comments highlighted the lingering uncertainty over a crucial question: What level of support will Gorsuch receive from the Democratic caucus?

Republicans hope that at least eight of them will break ranks to help his nomination clear procedural hurdles, if not support him outright. But that will be challenging, as Democrats have largely united against Trump in the first three weeks of his presidency and have signaled they intend to keep doing so.

In a private session with Blumenthal on Wednesday, Gorsuch called Trump's criticism of federal judges "disheartening" and "demoralizing" - raising some Republicans' hopes that he had separated himself from the president's controversial posture in a way that could warm some Democrats to him.

"I think [Gorsuch's] position is very, very positive" and his recent comments "show respect for what we all respect from the judiciary, in terms of independence. He's established that, answered that question from the Democrats who were grasping at straws in the first place since they know he's a mainstream judge," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Injecting further uncertainty into the process: Trump on Thursday disputed Blumenthal's account, even after it was confirmed by Gorsuch's team.

Republicans are hoping to confirm Gorsuch by early April, and they have moved swiftly toward meeting that self-imposed target. Grassley said Thursday that he is considering holding Gorsuch's confirmation hearings sooner than he had planned, in light of recent Democratic attempts to slow the confirmations of many of Trump's Cabinet nominees.

"The fact that we see all of these stalling shenanigans could impact the necessity of moving it forward," he said. "If we're going to have the same game played on Gorsuch, that'll be taken into consideration."

Grassley said early to mid-March is now under consideration as a time frame, whereas he had been looking at mid- to late March a few weeks ago.

Several Senate Democratic officials called the White House's aim of winning over a few Democrats for the Gorsuch nomination overly hopeful. They said that Gorsuch's criticism of Trump's comments was not going to suddenly change Democratic minds about whether to confirm him.

The officials said the party's strategy moving forward is to further raise the bar as Gorsuch asserts his judicial independence. That means pressing Gorsuch to speak out more forcefully about Trump's comments and to do so publicly rather than in private meetings. They expect Democratic senators to push Gorsuch on issues such as Trump's temporary ban on entry to the United States for citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries and all refugees.

"Because President Trump has made unwise and unbalanced comments that are perceived as undermining judicial independence, I expect in my conversation with Judge Gorsuch to raise the issue of judicial independence, to ask for a demonstration of his commitment to judicial independence," said Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del.

Gorsuch was back on Capitol Hill on Thursday, where he met with six senators - five Republicans and one Democrat. He ignored questions from reporters as he strode down a hall with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, for his first meeting of the day.

Afterward, Collins said she did not press Gorsuch on his comments criticizing Trump. But, Collins said, "I disagree" with Trump's attacks against judges, which included recent criticism of the judge who halted the refugee ban.

Collins said she has not decided whether she will vote to confirm Gorsuch.

Democrats have signaled that they will seek to impose a 60-vote threshold on Gorsuch's nomination, while Republicans have said that he should get a straight up-or-down vote without having to first clear that obstacle.

Trump has said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., ought to "go nuclear" and change the rules so that Gorsuch can be confirmed with a simple majority. Republicans hold a 52-to-48 advantage over the Democratic caucus.

"I thought he'd get more than 60 votes and still do," Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said.

Flake said he does not see Gorsuch's attention-grabbing comments as a "calculated statement" encouraged by the White House to get him confirmed.

"When you read his opinions, the statements and speeches he's given, he feels very strongly about the separation of powers," Flake said. "I have a hard time believing" that his statements were part of a political strategy.

Ahead of a Thursday lunch with a bipartisan group of senators at the White House, Trump said during a brief availability with reporters that he believed Gorsuch's comments were "misrepresented" by Blumenthal. Trump then took a shot at the Connecticut Democrat.

"What you should do is ask Senator Blumenthal about his Vietnam record that didn't exist after years of saying it did," he said. "So ask Senator Blumenthal about his Vietnam record. He misrepresented that just like he misrepresented Judge Gorsuch."

Blumenthal came under sharp criticism during his 2010 Senate campaign for repeated remarks over the years that he had "served" in Vietnam, even though he did his full Marine service in the United States.

Blumenthal obtained several deferments between 1965 and 1970 and then joined the Marine Corps Reserve but did not serve in Vietnam. He later said he misspoke and intended to say that he was in the Marine Reserve during the Vietnam conflict.

Trump received five deferments from the draft during the Vietnam War, four while he was a student and a fifth for bone spurs in his heels, records show.

Trump on Thursday also reiterated his support for Gorsuch, calling him an "exceptionally qualified nominee." But the president acknowledged that getting Democrats to agree with him may be hard.

"I think that because of politics, perhaps they're not going to vote for him. I think that's a shame because that's not being honest," Trump said.

Grassley said there was "absolutely not" a coordinated strategy between the Judiciary Committee and the White House to broadcast Gorsuch's comments widely.

"There couldn't have been any conspiracy between members of the Judiciary Committee or Republicans because how would we know that Blumenthal would do what he did?" Grassley asked. "These are usually private conversations."

As Gorsuch appeared to make at least some progress on the left, on Twitter and on talk radio, there were growing grumbles from the right about him.

"Doesn't that make you concerned that Judge Gorsuch might be the kind of justice then who would want to please the editorial boards of the New York Times and The Washington Post when a hot-button issue comes up? That crossed my mind last night, didn't make me happy to hear it at all," conservative commentator Laura Ingraham said Thursday on her radio program.

But Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a conservative member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Post in a phone interview that a revolt against Gorsuch from the right is very unlikely - and said he was "surprised" by Ingraham's criticism.

Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., a centrist who attended the White House meeting with Trump, was not impressed by Trump's attack against Blumenthal - yet another reminder that as Gorsuch courts Democratic votes, the actions of the president will also be closely watched.

"That's something I wouldn't have done," Manchin said, admitting that many in the room found the president's attack on a fellow senator awkward.

The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe and John Wagner contributed to this report.

Visit link:
Gorsuch's criticism of Trump may be winning him Democratic support - Chicago Tribune

BALTIMORE In an escalation of Democratic efforts to highlight questions about President Trumps potential conflicts of interest and alleged ties to Russia, a senior House Democrat is dusting off a little-used legislative tool to force a committee debate or floor vote on the issue.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) filed a resolution of inquiry Thursday, a relatively obscure parliamentary tactic used to force presidents and executive-branch agencies to share records with Congress. Under House practice, such a resolution must be debated and acted upon in committee or else it can be discharged to the House floor for consideration.

Nadlers resolution asks Attorney General Jeff Sessions to provide copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the Department of Justice that pertains to any criminal or counterintelligence investigation into Trump, his White House team or certain campaign associates; any investment made by a foreign power or agent thereof in Trumps businesses; Trumps plans to distance himself from his business empire; and any Trump-related examination of federal conflict of interest laws or the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

[What is the Emoluments Clause? Does it apply to President Trump?]

Nadler, the No. 2-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that his move came after Democrats sent two letters to Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and another letter to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) asking for investigations into Trumps financial entanglements.

All of this demands investigation, and of course theyve refused, Nadler said Thursday at the House Democrats annual policy retreat here. This resolution will force them to confront the issue.

President Trump, speaking at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May, said he wants the United States to have a "great relationship" with Russia, on Jan. 27 at the White House. (The Washington Post)

Besides Trump, the resolution asks for records from any investigation targeting national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, oil industry consultant and former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, political operative Roger Stone, or any employee of the Executive Office of the President. All four men have come under scrutiny over alleged ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump has stepped down from the management of his business empire, but he has not divested his assets as recommended by the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics. He has also denied doing any business in Russia: I have no deals, I have no loans, and I have no dealings, he said on Jan. 11.

Resolutions of inquiry have been introduced by Congress hundreds of times since 1947, according to the Congressional Research Service, usually by members of the party not occupying the White House at the time. Most such resolutions deal with politically sensitive issues, but few have targeted the president as personally as Nadlers does.

Under House rules, a resolution of inquiry is referred to a committee, which has 14 legislative days to debate and vote on whether how it should be reported to the floor. If the committee does not take action in that 14-day span, the measure can be called up on the House floor for a debate and vote.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte declined to comment Thursday on whether he plans to take up Nadlers resolution.

The last resolution of inquiry to see floor action was in 1995, when the House voted to order President Bill Clinton to release documents on the Mexican economy and International Monetary Fund activities.

Nadler said the maneuver will force Republicans to debate their role in holding Trump accountable for his potential business conflicts and possibly force every member of Congress to vote on the matter. Should the resolution come to the floor, Republicans would likely move to table it, Nadler said: That means every Republican will have to vote, in effect, on whether or not to abdicate their responsibility to have oversight.

He added that while his might be the first resolution of inquiry to be filed in the 115th Congress, it will probably not be the last: Democrats on other congressional committees, he said, are likely to file their own resolutions in the months and years to come.

The rest is here:
Democrat moves to force House debate on Trump's alleged business conflicts and Russia ties - Washington Post

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez told a group of Kansas lawmakers this week that last years Democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton but later claimed he misspoke and apologized.

Perez was in Topeka to make his case to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee when he made the stunning statement.

We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie (Sanders) supporters that the process was rigged, and it was. And youve got to be honest about it. Thats why we need a chair who is transparent, he said Wednesday, NBC News reported.

Sanders supporters have alleged that the DNC scheduled primary debates at lousy times to prevent candidates other than Clinton from getting the widest exposure.

Perez later backpedaled, tweeting that he misspoke about the primary process being rigged.

Hillary became our nominee fair and square, and she won more votes in the primary and general than her opponents, he wrote.

Perez who was said to be on Clintons short list for vice president is running for the DNC chairmanship against Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a staunch ally of Sanders.

During the primaries, Sanders and his allies complained that then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had stacked the deck against him. Schultz was assailed for refusing to alter the debate schedule.

Perez said Wednesday that debates should be scheduled well ahead of the primaries so theres no question whatsoever.

Weve lost touch with a lot of voters, Perez said, the Daily Caller reported. We ignored people. And its not just that people felt ignored, its that people felt affirmatively disrespected and looked down on.

Read more here:
Top Democrat backpedals after saying primaries were 'rigged' - New York Post