Mediaboss Marketing

It's Monday, May 13, 2019. Let's start here.

1. Inherent contempt

How far are congressional Democrats willing to go to get what they want from the White House?

As President Donald Trump continues to block their demands for documents and information related to oversight of his administration, some House Democrats are pushing leadership to look at the rarely-used "inherent contempt" power Congress has to enforce congressional subpoenas through fines or arrests.

"Although these powers are not directly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they are implicit as an essential legislative power held by Congress," according to the National Constitution Center.

Its unlikely that any members of the Trump administration would face jail time under this doctrine, but its shown just how divisive Washington has become and the extreme measures that they are now talking about at this point, ABC News Kyra Phillips says today on Start Here.

2. Waiting for China

"We are right where we want to be with China," the president declared on Twitter on Sunday, days after more than doubling tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods from 10% to 25%.

Investors have been wary of the escalating trade war as China has vowed to retaliate against the tariff hikes, but as of Sunday night no countermeasures have been announced.

China "could make life very difficult for American companies," according to Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, who speculates that tensions will build between now and the end of the month when goods impacted by tariffs arrive at U.S. ports.

"If these tariffs stay in place, if it's 25 percent going forward, these businesses are going to have to figure out something very different," he said. "It's going to be very disruptive."

3. Giulianis canceled plans

The president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani came under fire last weekend over his now canceled plans to travel to Ukraine and push for investigations that could help the presidents re-election campaign, including digging up information on actions former Vice President Joe Biden may have taken in office while his son was involved in a Ukrainian energy company.

Democrats blasted Giuliani, accusing him of asking a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election, but Giuliani brushed away the criticism to the New York Times, "Were not meddling in an election, were meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do."

Giuliani has raised concerns that former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who Biden as vice president pushed to oust over corruption allegations, was investigating Burisma Holdings, the firm that was paying Hunter Bidens consulting partnership and on whose board he served.

A spokesperson for the former vice president told the New York Times and later ABC News that Bidens push to oust the former prosecutor general in 2016 was undertaken "without any regard for how it would or would not impact any business interests of his son, a private citizen. Hunter Biden told the newspaper in a statement, At no time have I discussed with my father the companys business, or my board service, including my initial decision to join the board."

4. American hostage mystery

Mystery surrounds a hostage rescue in West Africa involving an American who was held for weeks without U.S. officials knowing.

French soldiers were leading a deadly raid in Burkina Faso on Friday to rescue two French hostages when they discovered the American, described by a U.S. official as a woman in her 60s, and a South Korean were also being held captive.

The woman has asked authorities not to reveal information about herself, according to U.S. sources who say she is simply a private citizen trying to recover from the ordeal. Sources close to the hostage recovery operation told ABC News there are ongoing efforts to try and "debrief" her for more information about the abduction.

"The details surrounding this particular operation are still pretty murky, but experts do tell us that jihadi groups are proliferating in this particular part of Africa and they trade in hostages," ABC News' Erielle Resheff explains on "Start Here."

"Start Here," ABC News' flagship podcast, offers a straightforward look at the day's top stories in 20 minutes. Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn or the ABC News app. Follow @StartHereABC on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for exclusive content and show updates.

Elsewhere:

-Robert Mueller is 'going to testify,' Democratic House leader Adam Schiff told ABC News' "This Week."

-Close call: A man narrowly escaped injury after his Mustang got dragged under a semi-truck.

-'Really difficult': Desperate search for woman who disappeared during hike on Maui days ago

-Honored: Woman killed after getting into wrong car honored with posthumous degree.

From our friends at FiveThirtyEight:

Batters in the Major Leagues are getting hit by pitches at historic rates: ...more than 450 times as of last week, in fact. The painful era in MLB history is the worst in more than a century. .

Doff your cap:

Today we doff our caps to Ben Hofer, an eighth-grader from St. Andrews Episcopal School in Texas, who raised $8,000 to help eliminate school lunch debt in the Austin Independent School District.

"I was never expecting to raise this much money, really honestly," Ben told "Good Morning America" of his crowdfunding success. "It's pretty crazy but the more the better, I guess, because it's more kids we could pay off."

The district said that children are never denied a full lunch but praised Ben's initiative.

"I think Ben is an amazing leader and is so compassionate," said said Anneliese Tanner, executive director of Austin ISD Food Services and Warehouse Operations. "Especially at his age, to recognize that there are students his age and younger who are struggling with food insecurities and facing hunger. He's taking steps to try and do something about it -- how admirable."

Go here to see the original:
'Start Here': Democrats push for 'inherent contempt' power ...

The Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday agreed with President Donald Trump on the outline of a massive investment in America's infrastructure, but what was left undecided likely dooms the ambitious piece of bipartisanship.

In a press conference outside the White House following the meeting with Trump, Schumer told reporters that the two sides had agreed in principle on a $2 trillion infrastructure package to repair roads and bridges, expand broadband-internet access to rural Americans, and more.

"We agreed on a number, which was very, very, good, $2 trillion for infrastructure," Schumer said. "Originally, we had started a little lower and even the president was eager to push it up to $2 trillion."

But the rare moment of bipartisan consensus also comes with a major catch: The two sides did not agree on how to pay for the plan and instead decided to meet again in three weeks to address the critical issue.

This leaves the biggest issue and a massive potential roadblock to a deal undecided.

Trump. Susan Walsh/AP Images

If the infrastructure issue and Trump's desire for a massive investment sound familiar, that's because they are. Trump has pitched an expansive infrastructure bill since his candidacy in 2016 and rolled out a massive proposal in January 2018 to fund improvements.

But despite agreement from Democrats that such an investment would be beneficial to the country, none of the ideas have ever gotten off the ground. The major sticking point that has doomed any effort on the infrastructure front has always been how to pay for the improvements.

Democrats staunchly believe that investment should be funded primarily through public expenditures, meaning the government should put up the money to pay for the fixes.

By contrast, Republicans and Trump's previous plans have all called for a small amount of seed capital from the government that would incentivize private companies to make the rest of the investment.

For instance, Trump's $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan released in 2018 called for just $200 billion in government funds to be put toward improvements and another $1.3 trillion in money, mainly through partnerships with private firms. In turn, the plan wanted all projects to generate revenue and generally be managed by private firms.

Read more: Trump's best selling point for reelection in 2020 is looking stronger than ever

Democrats, including Schumer, contend that infrastructure investment should be done primarily with public funds and have suggested that the plan could offset some of its costs through a rollback of parts of the GOP tax law, which was a major legislative victory for Trump and probably untouchable for the president.

There are, of course, a slew of other reasons that Democrats and Trump won't be able to get an ambitious infrastructure plan to the finish line. But a hang-up over funding could be the biggest divide for the GOP and Democrats to cross.

However, there may be a way forward.

According to Axios, Trump despised the 2018 infrastructure plan and has told advisers that private-public partnerships don't work. The president actually wants to sink public funds into the infrastructure idea.

That would draw the ire of members of Trump's own party, especially those who say they are concerned about the increasing federal deficit. So even if Democrats can get Trump on their side, the GOP-controlled Senate would become an issue.

See the rest here:
Democrats, Trump $2 trillion infrastructure plan cost ...

After the release of the Mueller report, 7 in 10 Democrats say the findings should lead to impeachment hearings in Congress against President Trump. In contrast, 91% of Republicans think it should not lead to such hearings. Pete Marovich/Getty Images hide caption

After the release of the Mueller report, 7 in 10 Democrats say the findings should lead to impeachment hearings in Congress against President Trump. In contrast, 91% of Republicans think it should not lead to such hearings.

Most Democrats want impeachment hearings to begin now that special counsel Robert Mueller's redacted findings are public, but that idea is still unpopular overall, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

The results come as national Democratic Party leaders and 2020 presidential candidates are grappling with how to approach an issue that could ignite base voters but alienate a section of more moderate America.

"There's a political risk in talking about moving ahead with impeachment proceedings," says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll. "There's not a huge appetite for that going forward."

The poll shows how Americans are split down partisan lines on a number of issues related to the investigation into Russian election interference, a divide that is sure to be on display Wednesday, when Attorney General William Barr answers questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Overall, a majority of Americans think Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference was fair, but about half also say it will not be an important factor in how they vote in the next presidential race.

How to proceed after Mueller

Seven in 10 Democrats want Congress to begin impeachment hearings based on the findings in Mueller's report, but just 39% of Americans overall think impeachment hearings are the correct next step.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

That has put Democratic leadership, especially in the House of Representatives, on a "tight rope" says Miringoff.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has steered away from calling for impeachment, instead calling for further investigation, an idea that has broader support.

Overall, 48% of Americans think Democrats in Congress should continue investigating Russian election interference, compared with 46% who think the investigations should end.

Americans by and large have also been unimpressed by Congress' efforts to combat Russian interference efforts since the 2016 election. Only 19% of Americans think Congress has done a "great deal" or a "good amount" to ensure there isn't interference in the 2020 election.

Mueller (still) seen as fair

Despite attacks on Robert Mueller's credibility from the White House for well over a year, a majority of Americans still feel that his investigation was fair.

That was fueled by Democrats in part, explains Miringoff, but was actually anchored by voters who identified as independents. More than two-thirds of independents, 70%, said Mueller's investigation was fair.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

Republicans were split on the fairness question, with 47% calling it unfair and 42% calling it fair. That is surprising, Miringoff said, considering President Trump's efforts to paint the investigation as a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."

"Republicans were not jumping on board the Trump bandwagon on that," said Miringoff.

Overall, the public perception of Mueller's investigation has grown more positive over the past year. In July 2018, just 46% of Americans said they thought the investigation was fair, compared with the 57% who said the same in Wednesday's poll. In March, shortly after Barr released what he described as the "principal conclusions" of Mueller's findings, 56% likewise said the investigation was fair.

Trump "not in good standing" based on approval

Miringoff said there are a number of aspects of the poll results that Trump may find troubling in looking ahead to 2020, beyond his 41% approval rating.

"Riding his strong base alone won't get him a second term," Miringoff said. "He needs a far greater number of independents than he is currently getting."

Almost two-thirds of those independents feel as though "questions still exist" related to Trump's actions in connection to Russia's interference leading up to 2016.

Overall nearly 6 in 10 Americans think the same, compared with 33% of Americans who feel as though the special counsel report cleared the president.

Mueller's investigation did not establish conspiracy between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia to interfere in the election. While the report does not conclude that Trump obstructed justice, it also "does not exonerate" him.

While most Americans believe there are outstanding questions, it is unclear how much that will matter in November 2020.

In fact, 53% of registered voters said the findings in Mueller's report will not be an important factor in deciding who they will vote for in the next presidential race.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

The NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll was conducted April 24-29, surveyed 1,017 adults and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. There were 840 registered voters surveyed. Where they are referenced, there is a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.

See more here:
Poll: Most Democrats Back Impeachment Hearings After ...

Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party after nearly winning the Georgia governors race last year, passed on a Senate run Tuesday despite a sustained and public recruitment. | John Amis/AP File Photo

Campaigns

The party is still looking for credible candidates in a handful of races needed to win back control of the chamber next year.

By JAMES ARKIN and BURGESS EVERETT

04/30/2019 07:14 PM EDT

Senate Democrats' bid to take back the majority is running into a big roadblock: Some of their most coveted recruiting targets are refusing to run.

After straining to defend seats in bright-red states in 2018, Democrats are focused on picking off Republicans to claim the Senate majority in 2020. But, so far, a number of the partys high-profile recruits have said no to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the partys campaign arm.

Story Continued Below

Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party after nearly winning the Georgia governors race last year, passed on a Senate run Tuesday despite a sustained and public recruitment that included multiple meetings with Schumer. Hours later, Rep. Cindy Axne, who flipped a swing district last year, confirmed she was running for the House again and not challenging Iowa's first-term Republican senator, Joni Ernst.

Democrats havent struck out everywhere: Former astronaut Mark Kelly in Arizona was a huge get in a critical battleground state. But three Democrats in other key states have passed on Senate bids to run for president despite the crowded field, and the party has missed out on its top recruits in Georgia and North Carolina.

The Senate is not an appealing place for smart, talented candidates because its a broken institution. And Democrats have not yet offered a vision for how to fix it, aside from wringing their hands and wishing things were different, said Adam Jentleson, a longtime aide to former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Whats the pitch? 'Come here, do nothing and let Mitch McConnell eat your lunch every day?'

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, denied she and Schumer had blown it. Democrats need to flip only a handful of seats, and they'll be in a position to get them, she said.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

We dont need all of these states to take back the majority. We just need three or four. And were going to do really well, Cortez Masto said. Just because we dont get somebody that youre aware of doesnt mean were not going to have somebody that can beat those Republican incumbents.

Schumer declined to say whether Abrams decision was a personal rejection of him but said the party will find a strong candidate to take on freshman Sen. David Perdue.

Were going to win in Georgia. And we have lots of good candidates in many different states, including Georgia, Schumer said.

Interviews with nearly a dozen Democratic senators and strategists revealed little overt concern about the status of the Senate map. It's early in the cycle, they said, and the party has promising prospects in battleground races who havent announced yet. Sens. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the two Democrats who flipped seats last cycle, announced in July and September of the year before the election, respectively.

But privately, some Democrats are alarmed by the lack of candidates.

We really need to get some good recruits as quickly as possible, one Democratic strategist who is a veteran of Senate races said, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to be candid. The strategist expressed optimism about the national political environment, adding: We just need enough candidates to ride the wave if it comes.

The party's path to the majority is narrow. Democrats have to win a net three seats to flip the Senate if they win the presidency and four if they dont. Only two incumbent Republicans are running in states Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, and Democrats are defending two seats in states President Donald Trump won, including in solidly Republican Alabama. That means Democrats will have to win multiple races in red states to win the chamber.

Some Democrats are concerned that the party's focus on its upcoming presidential nominating process is distracting from the groundwork needed for its Senate efforts.

I worry a little bit that the activists and donors and regular Democrats across the country haven't quite internalized the importance of taking back the Senate, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said. But theres a fair amount of time to make that argument.

Republicans have jumped at criticizing Democrats for the missed recruits and are optimistic about keeping their majority.

Look at the map. Look at the states that Democrats were hoping to contest, including the states that have sort of been Republican-leaning. They havent gotten their top tier candidates, Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said. And it all starts with good candidates if they have any hope of winning in some of these places.

Democrats counter that Republicans havent had recruiting success either: They have yet to lock down candidates in Michigan and New Hampshire to challenge Democratic incumbents and could face competitive primaries in Kansas and Alabama that could complicate races in red states. But those factors alone are unlikely to cost the GOP its majority.

Democratic senators also said they would soon have recruits to announce that would rebut the GOPs narrative. And they said some of the Democrats who have passed on Senate races to run for other offices, including the presidency, could change their minds and transform the landscape. That list includes former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. Hickenlooper and O'Rourke spurned calls to run for Senate to seek the presidency, and Bullock appears likely to enter the presidential race soon instead of challenging GOP Sen. Steve Daines.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a former DSCC chair, said "it's early enough" in the cycle that if their presidential bids flame out, "then some of them may opt in to an opportunity for the Senate.

In Georgia, Democrats turned to other options after Abrams passed. Teresa Tomlinson, the former mayor of Columbus, plans to run, and Sarah Riggs Amico, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2018 alongside Abrams, is considering a campaign. She said in a statement Tuesday that dysfunction paralyzing Washington is actively harming Georgia workers and families, and we cant allow it to go unchallenged.

Perdue said he's still preparing for a competitive election, even without Abrams' star power in the race.

"We're going to run against somebody from the Democratic side that's going to be well-funded, and they're going to espouse these radical, social agenda that they're trying to perpetrate right now," he said. "So Im geared up."

Axnes decision to pass on the Iowa Senate race was viewed by Democrats as much less significant. Axne didnt publicly express interest in the Senate despite meeting with party leaders to discuss it and few Democrats in Iowa or Washington expected her to run. Others are considering runs, including Theresa Greenfield, a businesswoman who grew up on a farm in the state, and J.D. Scholten, a former professional baseball player who narrowly lost to Rep. Steve King last year. Some Democrats view both as better recruits.

And Democrats have had other successes. In Texas, MJ Hegar, an Air Force veteran who narrowly lost a House race in 2018, is running against Sen. John Cornyn, though she could face a primary against Rep. Joaqun Castro, who is expected to decide this week whether to run.

In North Carolina, state Attorney General Josh Stein was seen as a top-tier recruit, but passed early on challenging GOP Sen. Thom Tillis. Democrats are still searching for a candidate, but several state legislators and former elected officials are seen as potential recruits.

Democrats acknowledge Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) will be difficult to beat but argue she is more vulnerable than ever. Theyve yet to land a candidate in the race, but state House Speaker Sara Gideon and former state House Speaker Hannah Pingree are considered strong options. And there is a pot of nearly $4 million raised by activists after Collins voted last year to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court waiting for the Democratic nominee.

In the past four years, Democrats have struck out with boldface names in high-profile races: Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Phil Bredesen in Tennessee and Ted Strickland in Ohio. Some Democrats argue that the over-reliance on those types of candidates should come to an end.

We sometimes are way too obsessive about getting big-big-name recruits," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said. "Our big-name recruits in previous cycles havent done so hot.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read more:
Democrats' hopes of Senate takeover damaged by recruiting ...

The original plan was also one that everyone rejected from the beginning Mr. Trump even criticized public-private partnerships, which were key to the plans financing and no new plan has been put forward since.

But Democrats went to the White House for a meeting, intent to play along as if there was a chance.

Ms. Pelosi requested the meeting with Mr. Trump, in part to change the conversation from impeachment to infrastructure and to demonstrate that Democrats want to proceed with a policy agenda, and not merely with investigations of the president.

For Mr. Trump, an infrastructure deal would provide him with a bipartisan achievement he could point to while campaigning.

Democrats arrived on Tuesday with a dozen-member delegation of lawmakers. Mr. Trump was accompanied by Elaine Chao, the transportation secretary, as well as seven White House aides, including his daughter Ivanka Trump, who is also a presidential adviser; Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council; and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel.

I would like to do something, Mr. Trump told the group, according to a Democratic aide. It may not be typically Republican. The president made it clear that he had never supported the public-private partnership model to fund a bill that his aides, like Gary D. Cohn, his former top economic adviser, had pitched. That was a Gary bill, he said of his earlier attempt at an infrastructure bill. That bill was so stupid.

Meetings between the president and the two Democratic leaders have often taken a surprising turn.

Mr. Trump has conducted supposedly closed-door sessions on live television, or shuttled his guests to the Situation Room for maximum privacy. They, in turn, have surprised him by getting out their versions of what happened as soon as they got to the driveway in front of the White House, where reporters are usually waiting.

In September 2017, for instance, after Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi joined the president for in-house Chinese food, they announced that Mr. Trump had agreed to work on an immigration deal, including protections for thousands of young immigrants from deportation. Mr. Trump was later forced to backtrack from that position.

Go here to see the original:
Trump and Democrats Agree to Pursue $2 Trillion ...