Focused Read in 4 minutes
"Did Trump campaign and
John Bolton PAC get help from overseas?
(By Fred Wertheimer and
Norman Eisen)
Recent revelations about
Cambridge Analytica raise serious questions about whether President
Donald Trump's campaign received illegal support from a foreign
national.
These same questions also exist regarding John Bolton and
his super PAC.
These matters need to be investigated by the
Department of Justice, including special counsel Robert Mueller, as
well as by the Federal Election Commission.
Both the Trump campaign
and the Bolton Super PAC retained the services of Cambridge
Analytica, a data research firm headed by CEO Alexander Nix, a
British citizen...
According to a New York
Times report, in July of that year, an election lawyer for
Bracewell & Giuliani advising Cambridge Analytica warned that Nix
had to recuse himself and could not be involved in any "substantive
management" of any of their clients participating in American
elections. The memo from the lawyer also warned about the
involvement of other foreign nationals in significant campaign
activities.
The warning was sent to Nix, then Cambridge
Analytica vice president, board member Steve Bannon and board member
Rebekah Mercer. (Bannon stepped down from the company in 2016 when he
left to work on the Trump campaign.)
Federal law prohibits a
foreign national from participating in American elections...
A report by
Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom revealed Nix boasting that he
was an integral part of Trump's victory.
The report quoted Nix
saying, "We did all the research, all the data, all the
analytics, all the targeting, we ran all the digital campaign, the
television campaign, and our data informed all the strategy."
Cambridge
Analytica denies Nix was ever in charge of US
campaign-related activities and Nix has since been suspended from his
job. And former Trump campaign officials said they never
relied on Cambridge for voter targeting or persuasion, and that
Nix's comments were "an overblown sales pitch."
(Emphasis, by underling, is mine.)
But if Nix is telling the
truth, his work for Trump and his campaign failed to comply with
federal law...
(Emphasis is mine.)
Thus, it appears the Trump
campaign may have received substantial support from a foreign
national. Furthermore, the Trump campaign either knew or should have
known that receiving such support could be illegal.
(Emphasis is mine.)
The Trump campaign is not
the only entity put on the spot by Nix's revelations. John Bolton and
the John Bolton Super PAC also may have received similar illegal
foreign support from Nix.
(Emphasis is mine.)
According to another New
York Times report, Bolton's super PAC was one of the earliest
clients of Cambridge Analytica, "which it hired specifically to
develop psychological profiles of voters with data harvested from
tens of millions of Facebook profiles, according to former Cambridge
employees and company documents."
According to the report, the
relationship between Cambridge and the Bolton PAC grew so close "that
the firm was writing up talking points for Mr.
Bolton."
A Justice Department
investigation must determine whether the John Bolton Super PAC
received similar kinds of assistance as it appears the Trump campaign
may have -- and if so, whether Bolton knew or should have known that
federal law was being violated.
Bolton, through a
spokesperson, denies wrongdoing or knowledge of it and a
spokesman for the Bolton Super PAC said it "was completely
unaware of anything Cambridge Analytica did until recent press
reports."
And Cambridge Analytica has said the company
"adheres to FEC regulations" and that "all CA
personnel in strategic roles were US nationals or green card holders
and these strategic roles provided all direction to non-strategic
personnel."
But general denials won't
cut it here.
Bolton needs to answer
specific questions, including about his personal knowledge.
Did he
ever meet with Nix? If so, did Nix ever make any statements to him of
the kind revealed on camera last week?
Did others at Cambridge
Analytica make statements that suggested any foreign guidance of
Cambridge's work for the Bolton Super PAC? Was that suggested by the
source or content of the materials Bolton received from Cambridge?
Did anyone else involved with Cambridge, such as Bannon or the Mercer
family, make problematic disclosures to Bolton?
(The Mercer family
was heavily involved with the Bolton Super PAC in addition to their
role in Cambridge Analytica. According to Federal Election Commission
filings, Robert Mercer donated $5 million to the super PAC
between April 2014 and September 2016.)
Former Cambridge Analytica
employees told the Washington Post that, in 2014, it
"assigned dozens of non-U.S. citizens to provide campaign
strategy and messaging advice to Republican candidates."
We also
know that Cambridge Analytica did extensive work for the Bolton Super
PAC during that same period, separate from those Republican
candidates.
This raises the question of whether similar staffing was
provided to the Bolton Super PAC and to Bolton -- and whether Bolton
or anyone else at his super PAC saw any indications of this.
During the 2013-2014
election cycle, the Bolton Super PAC reported paying $341,025 to
Cambridge. The super PAC also reported $3 million in
independent expenditures to support Republican Senate and House
candidates.
If Bolton knew or should
have known that his super PAC received illegal foreign support, that
is highly relevant to the new position he will assume next month as
national security adviser.
One of us (Eisen) has helped vet
candidates for this precise position and hundreds of other national
security positions...
(Emphasis is mine.)
If an appointee has
benefited from illegal foreign support, this creates the risk of more
revelations that could worsen that person's exposure. All of that is,
of course, not just relevant to personnel vetting, but to obtaining a
security clearance -- even an interim one of the kind this
administration is known for.
Moreover, whatever answers
Bolton gives, DOJ and special counsel Mueller in particular, should
also consider examining the issues regarding the Bolton Super PAC and
Cambridge Analytica...
Outside that body, the FEC
has its own separate, independent jurisdiction and should also
conduct a review. Because of the notorious dysfunction of
that agency, however, we cannot accept the possibility of an FEC
investigation alone as a substitute for DOJ's work.
Having both agencies
investigate these serious issues is essential to ensuring that
foreign interests are not allowed to intrude upon American elections."
You can read more here
Focused Thought in 30 seconds
( Meme, courtesy of Occupy Democrats )
Focused Action in 30 seconds
You
can share my RT of Leader Pelosi's Tweet here
Focused Point of Interest
in 4-5 minutes
"Nancy Pelosi Is An Asset,
Not A Liability, For Democrats In Midterms
(By Robert Creamer)
“Conor Lamb’s success
could provide a blueprint for other Democrats in tough races.”
“There’s little doubt
it puts the leader in an awkward spot.”
“She is part of why
[Democrats] have this incredible brand obstacle to overcome in state
after state.”
⬆ This was the chorus among
the pundit class in the wake of Lamb’s upset victory in the special
election earlier this month to represent Pennsylvania’s 18th
Congressional District.
According to them, the
fact that Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the face of House Democrats diminishes
Democratic chances of winning many swing districts and regaining
control of the House this fall.
Or so many Democrats would have to
publicly disavow Pelosi over the course of the campaign that she’d
have to step aside after the midterm elections.
Some fret that the House
minority leader does not present the right “face” for the
Democratic Party, or that she’s too old, or that the GOP has made
her toxic to many white working-class voters.
A small group of
Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have their own ambitions for House
leadership, agree.
But these critics seem
completely unaware of the actual dynamics of midterm congressional
elections.
And Lamb’s win in
Pennsylvania helps demonstrate why they’re wrong.
The bottom line is simple:
The fact that Nancy Pelosi is their House leader is a huge net
positive for Democratic candidates this fall.
(Emphasis is mine.)
Unpopular House Leaders
Don’t Matter
Of course, all
congressional leaders have positives and negatives. Even though she
was brought up in an ethnic Italian family from Baltimore, Republican
attacks have managed to convince some white working-class voters that
Pelosi is a “San Francisco liberal” who doesn’t share their
culture or values.
Nationally, voters with
negative opinions of Pelosi outstrip the number with positive
opinions ― as in true for all the other current congressional
leaders. But this isn’t surprising. Fewer than 20 percent of
voters have a positive opinion of Congress as an institution.
And
Republican Speaker Paul Ryan has virtually the same net negative
rating nationally as Pelosi.
More importantly, when CNN
looked at the relationship between the popularity of congressional
leaders and the outcomes of midterm elections, it found no
correlation whatsoever.
In 1994, Rep. Newt
Gingrich had net negatives of 8 percent...He was considerably less
popular at the time than Democratic Speaker Tom Foley. But the GOP
picked up 54 seats that fall and won control of the House for the
first time in 40 years, and Gingrich became the speaker.
By 1998, Gingrich’s
popularity had plummeted further, but the GOP retained control of the
House.
While it did lose some seats that November, the biggest factor
was not Gingrich’s lack of popularity. It was President Bill
Clinton’s soaring approval ratings based on the strength of his
economic successes.
In 2006, led by the
relatively popular Nancy Pelosi, Democrats won back control of the
House – this time because President George W. Bush’s approval
ratings had cratered as a result of the Iraq War and his unsuccessful
attempt to privatize Social Security.
In 2010, Republicans
roared back into control, winning 63 new seats. But their leader,
Rep. John Boehner, had a pre-election approval rating of -7 percent.
Pelosi’s net negatives were also high. The GOP wave had nothing to
do with the leaders’ relative popularity. It was driven by the
unpopularity of President Barack Obama and the newly passed
Affordable Care Act.
In 2014, both Boehner and
Pelosi again had net negative ratings in the polls. But Obama’s
continued unpopularity was the overriding factor and Democrats lost a
dozen seats.
In short, while midterm
outcomes have no correlation with congressional leaders’ approval
ratings, they do correlate with the president’s popularity. In
2018, President Donald Trump’s numbers are the worst in a
generation.
How Democrats Win In 2018
Two groups of voters
affect the outcomes of elections.
First, there are the
persuadable voters. These are people who generally vote, but
sometimes they pick Republicans and sometimes they choose Democrats.
Second, there are a
party’s mobilizable voters. These are people who would tend to vote
for a particular party, but are unlikely to make the effort unless
they are especially energized by the campaign or overall political
situation.
For Democrats this year, they include the many voters who
were “woke” by Trump’s victory in 2016. Remember, if
everyone in America always voted, Democrats would almost always win,
since Americans broadly support the progressive Democratic agenda.
... The conclusion is clear:
Democrats win by projecting a strong, populist economic message,
including a heavy emphasis on health care. And they win by refusing
to hedge on immigration, women’s rights, civil rights, etc. ― and
by framing the debate in terms of values.
That is exactly the
strategy that Nancy Pelosi has charted for the Democrats in the
House.
She is also a powerful
inspiration for persuading and mobilizing voters.
Pelosi is
especially energizing to women – probably the most critical element
in the massive resistance to Trump.
Her commitment to a progressive
message is also key to holding onto the progressive core of the party
and attracting young people.
Pelosi Is The Organizer
Democrats Need
... It turns out that the
chief role of congressional leaders is not to be the “face” of
their respective party.
It is to be a strategist, organizer,
fundraiser and, above all, unifier of their forces, leading them into
battle.
On that front, Pelosi has
excelled.
The Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has now recruited solid
candidates to run in 100 of the 101 districts that it targets as in
play this year.
All but a handful of Republican incumbents ― even
in very red districts ― have Democratic challengers.
And Democratic
fundraising during this electoral cycle is setting all manner of
records, with no signs of letting up.
Pelosi herself is a
prodigious fundraiser, bringing in $50 million personally for
Democrats in 2017 alone.
Since entering the Democratic leadership in
2002, according to DCCC records, she has personally raised an
unprecedented $643.5 million for Democrats.
Pelosi meets regularly
with scores of progressive organizations to seek their advice and
unite the progressive movement.
(Emphasis is mine.)
And she does the hard work
necessary to create a populist-progressive message for the fall.
Recently she has undertaken a tour of a dozen cities to partner with
progressive allies and raise awareness of the actual impact of the
GOP tax law ― that over 83 percent of its benefits go to the
top 1 percent and are paid for by stealing from Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security and a tax increase on many middle-class families.
She has also helped
sharpen that narrative with her brilliance as a legislative leader.
She is better than any other congressional leader in modern history
at holding together her caucus, because she understands the interests
of every member ― and knows how to aggregate those interests into a
common progressive agenda.
The now very popular
Affordable Care Act was largely passed as a result of that
legislative skill, and she held 100 percent of the caucus to defend
it last year.
As speaker, she passed legislation to rein in Wall
Street after the financial collapse of 2008 and pushed through the
$787 billion Recovery Act of 2009 that saved or created millions of
jobs ― not to mention dozens of other major initiatives. In
2005, she led the then-minority party’s successful fight to stop
President Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security.
Pelosi again made
headlines in February 2018 after smashing a 109-year-old record for
her eight-hour speech on the House floor in support of Dreamers.
In the Pennsylvania
special election, Republicans tried desperately to tar Lamb with the
“liberal” Pelosi. They sought to use her to advance their broader
negative narrative about the Democratic Party, and they promoted the
GOP tax law. Their strategy failed on all points.
At the same time, the DCCC
invested dollars. Progressive organizations and especially the labor
movement mobilized on the ground. Lamb delivered a
populist-progressive economic message. He talked about values. He
projected the qualities of leadership that are decisive for swing
voters.
Lamb won the district,
even though Trump had taken it in 2016 by 20 percentage points.
The attacks on Pelosi
didn’t move persuadable voters. Neither did they stoke the
Republican base to generate more turnout. Republican candidate Rick
Saccone’s vote was only 52 percent of Trump’s total. Lamb got 79
percent of Clinton’s vote.
This fall there are 114
GOP-held seats that are more competitive for Democrats than
Pennsylvania’s 18th District.
If Democrats are
successful in catching the anti-Trump wave and channeling it into
victory on Nov. 6, it will not be in spite of Nancy Pelosi. It
will be because Democrats in the House chose one of the most
effective message strategists, organizers, fundraisers and political
generals in modern American history to be their leader."
(Robert Creamer is a
longtime political organizer and strategist, and author of the book
Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win. He is a partner in
Democracy Partners. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.)
You can read more here
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
Also
C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))
→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists
in alphabetical order...
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
( 📎 Interesting to note: Wallace, a former Republican (or an inactive Republican I believe she calls herself) is new to the job but for right now she has clearly put country over party and her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO... )
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
📎 Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area. And, unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees winning in general elections.
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
Vote411 here
Thank you for focusing!
g., aka Focused Democrat
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment