Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Subpoena Deutsche Bank regarding Russia, Democrats tell GOP committee chief – Washington Post

A group of Democrats implored the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee to reverse course and authorize an investigation into whether any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from Deutsche Bank to President Trump were connected to Russia.

The Democrats have previously said they want to know more about a $285 million loan in October 2016 to Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law and senior adviser.

In a letter sent to the committee chairman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), the Democrats said they have been asking him since March to authorize an investigation. They asked him Friday to subpoena records from Deutsche Bank and authorize a bipartisan investigation into the Banks Russian money laundering activity and its review of its unusual loans to the President, his family, and his associates.

Hensarling spokesman Sarah Rozier said in a statement to The Washington Post that the congressman would refuse the request, which she called blatantly partisan.

She noted that several other committees and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III are all conducting investigations into the very serious matter of Russia interference in the last election.

The Democrats, however, say the Financial Services Committee should use its jurisdiction to look into Deutsche Bank and its loan to Trump and his family, which they believe might be crucial to the Russia investigation.

The Democrats said they are particularly interested in obtaining an internal Deutsche Bank review that they said reportedly examined whether Trumps loans were connected to Russia. In addition, the Democrats requested documents about a $10 billion money-laundering scheme that originated in Deutsche Banks Moscow office. The bank paid a $425million fine to settle a New York state investigation in that case. The U.S. Justice Department has declined to say whether it is also reviewing the matter.

Under the committees rules, only the chairman can authorize a subpoena. He has refused a series of requests since March from Democrats seeking more information about Deutsche Bank and Trump. In July, the committee voted along party lines to deny a Democratic request for a resolution of inquiry that would have allowed them to obtain the records.

More than four months after we initially called on you to investigate Deutsche Banks Russian money laundering scheme, we still do not know who participated or benefited, the Democrats wrote to Hensarling, saying there is public interest in knowing whether loans to Trump were in any way connected to Russia.

The letter was sent by Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, and four other Democratic committee members.

A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to specifically address the letter from Democrats, but said in a statement that the bank takes its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations into this matter.

The banks reference to authorized investigations is at the heart of the complaint from Democrats. After Hensarling blocked their effort to launch an investigation, Democrats requested records directly from the bank. The bank responded that it was not obligated to deliver them because the request was not part of a duly authorized investigation. Democrats interpreted that to mean such a request had to come from the Republican majority.

Kushners company received a $285 million refinancing loan from Deutsche Bank one month before Election Day, according to Securities and Exchange Commission documents. He and his mother also have a line of credit from the bank worth up to $25million, according to his financial disclosure report.

Deutsche Bank has long been Trumps primary lender, and his company owes the Germany-based institution more than $500 million, according to financial records.

Muellers office has declined to say whether it is examining the Deutsche Bank loans. A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A Kushner spokesman declined to comment. Kushner said in a statement to Congress last month that I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.

Go here to read the rest:
Subpoena Deutsche Bank regarding Russia, Democrats tell GOP committee chief - Washington Post

Democrats Focus on State Elections at Netroots Convention – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Democrats Focus on State Elections at Netroots Convention
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
ATLANTADemocrats attending the annual Netroots Nation convention here are trying to convert the energy and activism driven by opposition to President Donald Trump into victories down the ballot by reclaiming political power at the state level.
Georgia Democrats seize the moment at NetrootsMyAJC

all 2 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Democrats Focus on State Elections at Netroots Convention - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Democrats are fighting scared – Washington Post

Global Opinions editor Karen Attiah deconstructs the Democratic Party's "Better Deal" platform, which she says will get it knocked out of future elections by ignoring minorities and marginalized groups. (Gillian Brockell,Kate Woodsome,Karen Attiah/The Washington Post)

Its August in Washington, which means the nations lawmakers are taking their summer break from getting, it seems, not a lot done.

Democrats, who are still reeling from last falls election loss, may do well to do a bit of summer homework before coming back to work in the fall. Specifically, they could learn a thing or two from the martial art of Muay Thai, the official kickboxing sport of Thailand. My Muay Thai coach once advised me, if your opponent punches you and you decide to return with a quick counter, you better make darn sure that you strike back with equal or greater force. No baby punches! My coach likes to scream at our Muay Thai class.

In case you missed it, the Democrats releasedtheir new economic platform this summer, A Better Deal. The deal tackles issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, wants to penalize companies that outsource jobs to other countries, and aims to take on China as a currency manipulator. (Some of that sounds familiar, doesnt it?)

A Better Deal is the Democrats attempt to counter Donald Trumps knockout blow to Hillary Clinton and scramble after white, working-class voters, who tipped the fight in Republicans favor in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. While the platform echoes many of the progressive economic messages that captivated Sen. Bernie Sanderss supporters, it leaves out issues such as climate change, LGBT rights, criminal-justice reform or specific actions to tackle voting rights. A Better Deal comes up short for people of color and marginalized groups in the United States.

The Democrats might think they can win by ducking so-called identity politics and paying less attention to issues affecting women, the environment and marginalized groups in the United States. But unfortunately, A Better Deal sounds like the strategy of a party thats fighting scared of Trump, not fighting back. Simply put, the Democrats are throwing baby punches.

Watch the TL;DR video above for more about the Democrats plan, as well as what the Democrats should do to avoid being out for the count in 2018 and beyond.

See more here:
The Democrats are fighting scared - Washington Post

This health care study might be a silver bullet for Democrats in 2018 – CNN

Of the 20 states -- and DC -- where preliminary 2018 premiums and insurer participation are available, premiums will rise in every location but one, according to the Kaiser analysis. The lone exception is in Rhode Island where premiums in Providence are expected to dip by 5% as compared to 2017. The premium increases range from 3% in Detroit, Michigan to 49% in Wilmington, Delaware. Fifteen of the locations are projected to see a premium increase of double digit percentages.

Those rate increases are, according to the Kaiser study, the direct result of the uncertainty around the law and its future. Here's the key bit from Kaiser on that:

"In the 20 states and DC with detailed rate filings included in the previous sections of this analysis, the vast majority of insurers cite policy uncertainty in their rate filings. Some insurers make an explicit assumption about the individual mandate not being enforced or cost-sharing subsidies not being paid and specify how much each assumption contributes to the overall rate increase. Other insurers state that if they do not get clarity by the time rates must be finalized -- which is August 16 for the federal marketplace -- they may either increase their premiums further or withdraw from the market."

It doesn't -- or shouldn't -- take a political genius to see how those numbers could translate into a political context. Close your eyes and imagine seeing this ad:

[images of sick, sad looking patients on screen]

Narrator: "Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are gutting our health care. Premiums are spiking. And Trump? 'Let Obamacare fail...I'm not going to own it."

Add in a little localized factoid -- "in Pennsylvania, premiums are surging by 25%" -- and you have the makings of a devastatingly effective ad.

And, unlike, say the Russia investigation, which remains difficult to weaponize in a political context because of its abstractness and complexity, health care is a tremendously potent issue in a campaign.

It touches everyone on a daily, weekly or, at a minimum, monthly basis. It is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It is a real-life struggle and challenge. It impacts lives. Those are the sorts of issues that really matter in politics -- ones that speak to the heart more than the head.

We've seen proof of health care's power as an issue in both the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections. In 2010, conservative outrage at what they viewed as major overreach by the federal government into their health care fueled the Republican takeover of the House. In 2014, the broken promise of "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan" led to the Republican takeover of the Senate.

This Kaiser study is the sort of thing that you will see in lots and lots of Democratic ads over the next 15 months. And it's a line of attack Republicans -- at least to this point -- have no obvious answer to.

See the original post here:
This health care study might be a silver bullet for Democrats in 2018 - CNN

Trump’s judge picks snub Democrats – Politico

President Donald Trumps judicial nominees are ignoring key Senate Democrats as they vie for lifetime appointments to the bench, according to documents and senators a break from longstanding practice that diminishes the minoritys power to provide a check against ideologically extreme judges.

The brewing tension between the White House and the Senate over filling an unusually high number of judicial vacancies is impeding the pace at which Trump installs lifetime appointees to the federal bench so far one of the presidents few major victories, with his legislative agenda largely stymied in Congress.

Story Continued Below

University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephanos Bibas met privately with his state's GOP senator, Pat Toomey, before Trump chose him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June but not with Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, according to a questionnaire submitted by Bibas to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his nomination. Same goes for 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who interviewed with Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) about the appellate vacancy before she was formally nominated but not fellow Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, according to her questionnaire.

And in Minnesota, 8th Circuit nominee David Stras met personally with two House Republicans who had recommended him to the White House but with neither of the two senators Democrats Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar who actually wield influence over whether Stras nomination can advance.

Lets be clear: The Trump administration did not meaningfully consult with Sen. Franken prior to Justice Stras nomination, Franken spokesman Michael Dale-Stein said. Rather than discuss how senators traditionally approached circuit court vacancies or talk about a range of potential candidates, the White House made clear its intention to nominate Justice Stras from the outset.

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.

Though the nominee questionnaires dont disclose all communications between the White House and senators about a judicial candidate, Democratic senators and aides argue that consultation over court nominees generally a bipartisan custom has been minimal under Trump, at best. That contention is disputed by allies of the Trump administration and other sources familiar with the process.

The fights are largely over process, not a nominees merits. But they come at a time when conservatives are pushing Senate Republicans to break with courtesy that gives deference to home-state senators on judicial nominees a move that would upend yet another longstanding tradition in the chamber.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has signaled hes prepared to push through circuit court nominees even if their home-state senators dont return the so-called blue slip a piece of paper that allows a lawmaker to essentially block a nominee from his or her own state. Ignoring blue slips would give Trump even more power to install conservative nominees to the appeals courts.

The blue slip rule is a century-old tradition, though it has been ignored under previous administrations. So far this year, Grassley has waited for senators to submit the slips before scheduling a hearing.

The Trump administration is well on its way to leaving a lasting conservative imprint on the federal courts. That's due not only to the vacancies but because Democrats alone can't block someone from a confirmation vote after the Senate did away with the filibuster for nominations. So far, the White House has 22 pending candidates for the district courts and seven others for the more influential circuit courts.

Because home-state senators still have virtual veto power over judges through the blue slip, that means the bulk of the nominees have so far hailed from states where both senators are Republicans. Nevertheless, people aligned with the administration say there has been more than adequate consultation with Democrats over judges.

There are some people who are not even returning phone calls from the White House, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network that works closely with the White House. You can only do so much to confer with people who are being intransigent.

Some nominees have met with their Democratic senators after being officially tapped for the vacancy. For instance, Barrett met with Donnelly's Senate counsel for two hours and then an hour-long meeting with Donnelly himself, one source knowledgeable with the administration's efforts said. The senator's spokeswoman said the meeting between Donnelly and Barrett occurred in mid-July.

The Senate has long treasured its role in negotiating judges with the White House, particularly when the senators are of the opposing party from the administration, to produce consensus candidates.

Christopher Kang, a deputy counsel for former President Barack Obama, said it appeared very unusual that judicial nominees would so often skip over Democratic home state senators. He cautioned, however, that the questionnaires wouldnt document all outreach between the White House and senators themselves.

Still, appellate picks from the Obama administration from Pennsylvania to Utah to Georgia frequently interviewed with their GOP senators well before being formally nominated, documents show.

The Obama White House even held off nominating a Texas judge, Gregg Costa, to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year until both of his home-state senators had met with him, Kang said. Costa was confirmed in 2014.

What we tried to do, to the greatest extent possible, was to consult with the Republican home-state senators, Kang said. Thats something that we really wanted to do to make sure that we could get their support.

The current White House disputed the assertion that there had been insufficient consultation with Democrats.

The Trump administration is committed to filling all the U.S. attorney and judicial vacancies as quickly as possible, White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said in an email. We are working with and extensively consulting all senators nationwide in order to complete the nomination process.

But some Senate Democrats argue otherwise.

Franken had just two conversations with the White House about Stras before the current Minnesota Supreme Court justice was nominated in May, the senators spokesman said. Klobuchar said in an interview that she talked with the White House a number of times about Stras but only recently met with the nominee. Neither has returned a blue slip, according to a Judiciary Committee spokesman.

When the White House nominated Joan Larsen to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May, her two home-state senators Michigan Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters were given a brief advance notice but not much beyond that, the senators said. Larsens own nominee questionnaire says she spoke with White House and Justice Department officials about getting picked for the bench, but lists no communication with her home-state senators.

They mentioned that they had a nominee, but that was about the extent of it, Peters said in a recent interview of his interactions with the White House regarding Larsens nomination. There shouldve been more consultation. Theres no question about that.

Stabenow said while she did speak with the White House about Larsen, we certainly werent asked about offering names. Peters and Stabenow each returned blue slips to the committee just last Friday after Larsen was nominated in early May. The lag had prompted Severinos group to shell out $140,000 in early July for ads in Michigan to pressure the two Senate Democrats to back the nominee.

Its gonna be important that they [the White House] work with us, Stabenow said. The Senate has advice and consent. So hopefully they will do that.

In Colorado, 10th Circuit nominee Allison Eid spoke with her former law student, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, about the Denver-based vacancy, but not with fellow Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, according to her nominee questionnaire. The White House informed Bennet that her nomination was coming, but that was the extent of any discussions, according to the Democrats office.

Larsen, Eid and Stras are particularly notable because all three were on Trumps short list for Supreme Court nominees during his campaign and would be considered candidates for future vacancies. That list produced high court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Amul Thapar, Trumps first confirmed judge to the lower courts.

Trump's appellate picks are also highly recommended by the legal community, with Barrett, Larsen, Stras, Eid and Bibas all earning well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. They've also received support from lawyers and other legal professionals in their home states.

Most of these people are not unknown, Severino said. It shouldnt be that challenging to assess them.

One Trump appellate court pick who did reach out to a Democrat was 8th Circuit nominee Ralph Erickson in North Dakota. He spoke with Sen. Heidi Heitkamps staff about the vacancy. Heitkamp has returned the blue slip for Erickson, as has Donnelly for Barrett, according to the committee.

The White House has been consulting home-state senators throughout the judicial selection process, said another source familiar with the administration's efforts. It has been consulting them throughout the vetting process, it has been checking in with them before the nomination and it has been jumping to attention whenever a senator calls seeking an update.

The person added: Short of hiring them to come work in the administration, it is difficult to imagine what more the White House can do to include home-state senators in the process.

But in other cases, Democrats are accusing the Trump administration of blowing past longstanding procedures designed to produce consensus judicial candidates.

The White House announced last week that it was nominating Michael Brennan, a Milwaukee lawyer who once led Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walkers judiciary advisory committee, to a seat on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that has been vacant since 2010.

Brennan didnt get the requisite support from a state-based nominating commission for judges, Baldwins office said. Getting the commission's full support requires five votes from the six-member group, and a spokesman for Wisconsin's other senator, Republican Ron Johnson, said Brennan received four votes.

President Trump has decided to go it alone and turn his back on a Wisconsin tradition of having a bipartisan process for nominating judges, Baldwin said. I am extremely troubled that the president has taken a partisan approach that disrespects our Wisconsin process.

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

Go here to read the rest:
Trump's judge picks snub Democrats - Politico