( Speaker Pelosi image, courtesy of "Talking Points Memo" )
Focused Agenda Block
Focused excerpted Read in 3 minutes
"Nancy Pelosi’s Predictions for Impeachment
The House speaker is concerned about voters’ appetite for a lengthy process: “How much drama can the American people handle?”
(& more...)
"Nancy Pelosi wants you to know that the House Democratic leadership has not committed to impeaching President Donald Trump—notwithstanding the muscle she’s thrown behind the inquiry, or tomorrow’s vote on how its next stage will proceed.
(This article was published on October 30th and the vote took place the next day on October 31st and the Resolution passed.)
“We have not made any decision to impeach,” the House speaker insisted during a meeting with a small group of columnists earlier this week.
But Pelosi nevertheless left little doubt that’s where the process is headed.
She said flatly that she believes the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation has already accumulated enough evidence about Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to justify such a decision.
“I do think we have enough,” she said. “We’ve had enough for a very long time … but as long as there is corroboration, we might as well get some more. And then we’ll see.”
She was equally unequivocal that the core charges against Trump—
that he withheld congressionally appropriated military aid to try to force Ukraine to investigate a political opponent—
reach the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” required for impeachment.
“If this president were to get away with this, forget about it all...You don’t need this branch of government if he’s going to overturn the power of the purse, if he is going to overturn all of the other checks and balances...”
Pelosi has never been quick to cry “Impeach!”
... But now that she’s begun an impeachment inquiry, she betrays no doubt about seeing it through.
Impeachment promises to be an ordeal, especially against a president so volatile, combative, and willing to twist the truth. Approaching that heaving sea, Pelosi projected resolve.
“When we decide if we are going to go forward, we will be ready, and we will be ironclad,” she said, referring to potential votes on articles of impeachment.
It sounded less like a boast than a statement of fact.
Without detailing specific plans, Pelosi left the clear impression that the impeachment process will conclude sooner rather than later, and its focus will be more narrow than broad.
She refused to answer when asked directly whether any eventual articles of impeachment will cover issues beyond Trump’s interactions with Ukraine and the administration’s defiance of subpoenas from the committees investigating them.
... (She was careful to say, too, that if Trump’s team has “exculpatory testimony they want to present” on Ukraine, House Democrats are open to it:
“We pray that that will be the case—something we don’t understand about how he interprets the Constitution.”)
Though Pelosi is vague on just how much longer the inquiry will go on, she expressed concern about Americans’ appetite for a lengthy process.
“How much drama can the American people handle?” she asked.
“Where does the law of diminishing returns set in?
Where is the value added not worth the time?”
As those comments demonstrate, Pelosi seems focused on trying to win over public opinion on the impeachment process—and the Democrats’ broader governing agenda.
Even as she dismissed the complaints from House Republicans about the investigation, she repeatedly returned to the theme of finding ways to reach voters now skeptical of Democrats.
In the internal Democratic debate over whether the party’s future depends more on mobilizing its own core supporters or recapturing swing voters who took a flier on Trump in 2016, she clearly leans more toward the latter.
This preference seems to inform not only how she’s approaching the House inquiry, but also how she’s assessing the party’s policies.
She is openly dubious of the left’s top priority in 2020: the push to establish a single-payer health-care system that will replace private health insurance.
It would be better for Democrats to “begin with where we have agreement,” she said. “Let’s not start with: ‘You have private insurance—forget about it.’”
She wants to begin by bolstering the Affordable Care Act, adding a public competitor to private insurance, and restoring provisions in the law that Trump has weakened.
“Maybe Medicare for All is a destination,” Pelosi said. “But it’s certainly not a starting point.”
Pelosi was reared in a Baltimore political family...in an era when Democrats proudly considered themselves the party of the working class.
That history was evident when she talked about the two parties’ coalitions, recoiling at the notion that education levels have become one of the central dividing lines.
It worries her, she explained, when she hears that Democrats now rely on voters with more education, while Trump voters are deemed “uneducated.”
“They’re not uneducated,” she said with sudden passion.
“They’re educated and alive—fighting our wars, raising our families, building our country.
Just because they don’t have a college degree doesn’t mean they are not educated.”
Even as Pelosi said she wants to generate the greatest possible public support for any action the House takes, she seemed sanguine about what that means in a country so persistently divided.
In recent months, Pelosi hesitated on impeachment, partly out of fear it might threaten the 31 House Democrats, many of them first-termers, in districts that voted for Trump in 2016.
But in the interview, she clearly signaled that she would be comfortable moving forward toward a vote without much more, if any more, public support than the investigation has already generated.
“Over 50 percent [support] is very good,” she said, referring to recent polling. “And perhaps we will get [higher].”
Yet her expressed desire to create a process that minimizes division seems to reach its limit at her concern about Trump’s connections to Russia.
In the interview, she repeated what she told Trump at his last meeting with congressional Democratic leaders in the White House, causing him to erupt in fury. It’s a line of argument that similarly enrages his supporters.
“In saying that he wasn’t going to send the military assistance to Ukraine, who benefits from that?
The Russians.
Then … he did what he did in Syria—who benefits from that? Putin.
What he said earlier about NATO—who benefits from that? Putin,” she said.
“That’s what I was saying the other day [in the meeting]: ‘All roads lead to Putin.’” She added, ominously if vaguely:
“There is something wrong here about this Putin thing—there’s something wrong.”
(Emphasis is mine.)
I cut in, asking Pelosi exactly what she was implying about Trump. The exchange was striking enough to recount in detail.
Brownstein: “He’s called you a traitor. He’s said that you and [Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff are guilty of treason. Is he guilty of treason? Is he undermining American national-security interests in the interest of serving a foreign leader?”
Pelosi: “Well, we’ll see. But what I’ll say is this: I don’t know if he’s guilty of treason. But I do know that he projects. Everything that he says—‘She’s in meltdown’ means that he’s in meltdown. Everything that he says, understand that he’s projecting his own recognizable [weakness].”
Brownstein: “But when you say, ‘All roads lead to Putin,’ what does that mean? Does that mean that you believe he is acting at the behest of Putin? Do you think he is trying to advance Putin’s interest?”
Pelosi: “I don’t know.
All I know is the three things I mentioned in the room [with Trump], plus [a] fourth, the obstruction of our election …
He is absolving Putin of any responsibility there …
It’s just curious …
I said early on: ‘What is it that the Russians have on the president—politically, personally, or financially?’”
Brownstein: “But just to be clear, do you think there is reason to question his loyalty to the United States?”
Pelosi: “I’m not going to that place.”
Pelosi’s words were careful, but it’s easy to forget how unimaginable they might have been at any previous point in American history.
She did not directly accuse the president of acting at Russia’s behest, but she didn’t exactly absolve him of the accusation either.
It was one of many moments during the interview that reflected Pelosi’s sense that Trump had carried Washington to a moment that historians will view as a hinge point not only for the American presidency, but for the nation.
As she’s done before, Pelosi paraphrased a stirring line Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense during the American Revolution: “The time hath found us.”
“We think the times have found us now,” she said. “Not any one of us, but all of us, all of you.
The times have found us to protect this Constitution of the United States with three co-equal branches of government as a check and balance on each other.”
With open House hearings, a floor vote to impeach, and a Senate impeachment trial now all on the horizon, the next few months will measure how many Americans see this confrontation the same way.
Focused Thought in 30 seconds
Focused Action in 30 seconds
Part 1.
Part 2.
You can Retweet Diane's entire Tweet here
Focused Point of Interest in 4 minutes
"How Roger Stone’s Trial Could Be a Nightmare for Donald Trump
Will the proceedings reveal the president lied to Robert Mueller?
Impeachment is in the air,
as House Democrats focus on the still-growing Ukraine scandal as the reason to move forward with the ultimate political punishment.
But the Trump-Russia scandal is about to make its own comeback.
On November 5, Donald Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone—the dirty trickster who had for years encouraged Trump to run for president—
will go on trial in a federal court in Washington, DC, facing charges that
he lied to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, as the organization was publicly disseminating Democratic material stolen by Russian hackers.
Stone also was indicted for allegedly obstructing justice and witness-tampering.
Though the trial will determine whether Stone tried to bamboozle a congressional investigation, it could answer two bigger questions about the president:
Did Trump use (or try to use) Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks, and did Trump lie to special counsel Robert Mueller?
The former might not be illegal; the latter could be a crime.
In the publicly released version of Mueller’s final report, Stone, the flamboyant provocateur and conspiracy theorist, is conspicuously absent.
The Justice Department redacted most of the portions of the report that referenced Stone because his trial was pending.
So it’s unclear what Mueller had on Stone.
But the report contains clues suggesting that the full story of Stone’s involvement in the Trump-Russia scandal goes beyond what’s publicly known—
and that it implicates Trump.
As has been already documented, Stone, during the Russian attack on the 2016 election, repeatedly declared he was in contact with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
Throughout that stretch, he sent out tweets predicting WikiLeaks would release material that would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s campaign—tweets that reinforced the impression he was in communication with WikiLeaks while it was part of the Russian operation.
Stone—who remained in contact with Trump and his campaign after he was ousted from his official role in the Trump 2016 effort—also privately communicated with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona created by the Russian hackers.
And Stone repeatedly claimed in public that Moscow had nothing to do with the hack of the Democratic National Committee servers, echoing Moscow’s propaganda.
After the Russia scandal exploded, Stone changed his story and insisted that he had not been in direct touch with WikiLeaks and Assange.
That is, he has essentially said he was lying and exaggerating during the 2016 campaign. He maintained it had all been “posture, bluff, hype.”
Yet Mueller’s report tantalizingly suggests that, in 2016, Stone directly interacted with Trump about WikiLeaks and its plans to release the documents pilfered by the Russian cyberthieves.
The report includes this highly redacted section:
(Image captured from the article.)
This shows that Trump sought inside information on what material WikiLeaks had and what it intended to do with the stuff.
And it’s clear that in this tight campaign circle of Paul Manafort, the campaign manager, Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager, and Trump, there was at least one other player—whose name was redacted—whom the campaign was relying on to find out what Assange was up to.
At one point, according to the report, Trump apparently spoke to this person or someone else about what WikiLeaks had coming.
Beyond the Mueller report, the New York Times reported that Stone in 2016 traded emails with Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign CEO after Manafort departed.
In those emails, Stone purported to have inside information on Assange’s plans for releasing the hacked Democratic emails. WikiLeaks would release “a load every week going forward,” Stone told Bannon on October 4, 2016.
Both Bannon and Gates are expected to testify as prosecution witnesses in Stone’s trial—an indication the proceeding will confirm that Stone was in contact with Trump campaign higher-ups about WikiLeaks during the election.
Part of the federal case against Stone is that he lied to lawmakers when he said he had not communicated with the Trump campaign about what he knew (or claimed to know) about WikiLeaks’ plans.
Stone’s and Gates’ testimony could address that and show whether the Trump campaign—and Trump himself—saw Stone as a go-between with WikiLeaks or a source of inside skinny on the Russia-WikiLeaks operation against Hillary Clinton.
A person familiar with Bannon’s role in the trial says Bannon expects to testify that he communicated with Stone and that Stone “was portraying himself to Bannon as someone who was in touch with Assange.”
Back to the mystery man in the redacted paragraph from the Mueller report.
It’s tough to think of anyone else in the Trump-Russia saga who would fit this bill other than Stone.
The reason provided for the redactions in this section—the information could harm an “ongoing matter”—is a strong hint that Stone’s name appears under those blacked-out stretches.
If so, that would mean Stone had been passing information to Trump and the campaign about WikiLeaks.
In that case, one question would be if that information came from WikiLeaks itself—or if Stone had received it from another source or was just pretending to know more than he did.
Why does this matter? There are several reasons.
First, if Trump or his senior campaign aides thought Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks—whether or not he actually was—and they were receiving information from him related to WikiLeaks, that would mean they believed then that the Trump campaign had a back-channel contact to WikiLeaks as it participated in the Russian operation.
Trump has long shouted there was “no collusion.” But perhaps Trump thought at the time that he and his campaign were colluding.
After all, a significant Trump adviser consorting with WikiLeaks at this point could be construed as some sort of collusion.
Stone’s trial could yield evidence (beyond his emails with Bannon) indicating whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange.
If Trump and the campaign in any way had tried to reach out to WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was facilitating a Russian assault on an American election, that would be a big deal.
After all, a significant Trump adviser consorting with WikiLeaks at this point could be construed as some sort of collusion.
Stone’s trial could yield evidence (beyond his emails with Bannon) indicating whether Stone was talking to Trump or anyone else in the campaign about WikiLeaks—and whether he was viewed within Trump’s inner circle as a conduit to Assange.
If Trump and the campaign in any way had tried to reach out to WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was facilitating a Russian assault on an American election, that would be a big deal.
The Stone trial could also produce material that challenges what Trump told the special counsel.
The president refused to be interviewed by Mueller, but Trump agreed to answer a set of written questions—as long as the queries only covered what happened during the campaign...
In the questions Mueller submitted to Trump, he asked several times about Stone, including these three:
The president refused to be interviewed by Mueller, but Trump agreed to answer a set of written questions—as long as the queries only covered what happened during the campaign...
In the questions Mueller submitted to Trump, he asked several times about Stone, including these three:
Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks…regarding the content or timing of released of hacked emails?
Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you, or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign?
Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming release of information?
In his written responses, Trump made these two statements:
I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.
I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.
Trump acknowledged that he had spoken with Stone “from time to time during the campaign,” but the man who has often boasted he has a great memory added that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations he with Stone between June 1, 2016, and Election Day.”
Go back and read the paragraph from the Mueller report above. Who did Trump speak to on the phone during the ride to the airport?
And when Manafort was under pressure to get information on WikiLeaks, who did he turn to?
Who was pressing Manafort to find out WikiLeaks’ plans?
Could it be someone other than Trump?
Unless there’s a character in the story who has yet to be revealed, it seems probable that Stone was the guy trying to gather information from WikiLeaks for the Trump campaign—and that Trump knew about this.
And when Manafort was under pressure to get information on WikiLeaks, who did he turn to?
Who was pressing Manafort to find out WikiLeaks’ plans?
Could it be someone other than Trump?
Unless there’s a character in the story who has yet to be revealed, it seems probable that Stone was the guy trying to gather information from WikiLeaks for the Trump campaign—and that Trump knew about this.
Will the Stone trial provide answers?
A lawyer for Stone did not respond to questions from Mother Jones.
But any material presented in the courtroom that fills in the redactions would go far toward resolving all this.
The evidence could also reveal whether Trump lied to the special counsel—which would be obstruction of justice and a crime.
(Mueller’s final report, however, noted that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.)
Throughout the Russia scandal, Trump has been caught in assorted lies, as he has continuously denied or dismissed the Russian attack that helped him become president.
That scandal may be taking a back seat to the Ukraine controversy fueling the ongoing impeachment inquiry (though, in a way, the Russia affair led to the Ukraine scandal, with Trump pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate—and prove—a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Moscow did not hack the 2016 election).
This trial of a conniving Trump confidante who specializes in the political dark arts will be a reminder of the original scandal of the Trump administration that has tainted and undermined his presidency, and it could add another big lie—and a possible crime—to Trump’s long record of wrongdoing.
A lawyer for Stone did not respond to questions from Mother Jones.
But any material presented in the courtroom that fills in the redactions would go far toward resolving all this.
The evidence could also reveal whether Trump lied to the special counsel—which would be obstruction of justice and a crime.
(Mueller’s final report, however, noted that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.)
Throughout the Russia scandal, Trump has been caught in assorted lies, as he has continuously denied or dismissed the Russian attack that helped him become president.
That scandal may be taking a back seat to the Ukraine controversy fueling the ongoing impeachment inquiry (though, in a way, the Russia affair led to the Ukraine scandal, with Trump pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate—and prove—a nutty conspiracy theory that claimed Moscow did not hack the 2016 election).
This trial of a conniving Trump confidante who specializes in the political dark arts will be a reminder of the original scandal of the Trump administration that has tainted and undermined his presidency, and it could add another big lie—and a possible crime—to Trump’s long record of wrongdoing.
You can read more here
Courtesy of "Mother Jones"
Focused Monthly Inspiration
( #itsNovember2020Now )
.
.
.
THE next Democratic Party 2020 Presidential Nomination Debate will be held Wednesday, November 20, 2019. You can find more information on all of the debates here
And the best candidate for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination is Kamala Harris, IMO...
* Kamala is the only candidate for the Democratic Party Presidential 2020 Nomination who grasps that 100's of 1000' of the American People are drowning and need economic relief -- NOW. That is what her 3 A.M. Agenda addresses, an urgent response to People in distress you can read the Agenda here
And you can find more information on her website here
You can follow her on facebook here
You can follow her on Twitter here
You can follow her on Instagram here
** In its effort to provide more accessibility to grassroots Democrats in determining who the Democratic Party Nominee will be, key Democratic Party criteria for being present on the Primary Debate Stage is based on the candidate's commitment to being a Democrat and to meeting increasing levels of small donors and poll numbers provided by a select number of reputable pollsters, both being reflective of increasing grassroots support for going forward.
So:
1. You can donate to my official Kamala Harris link here
(The link is shared by my co-founder and me of The People For Kamala Harris on Facebook.)
2. You can respond to major polls in favor of Kamala!
( And, you can find more information on the 5th DNC Debate criteria here )
So:
(The link is shared by my co-founder and me of The People For Kamala Harris on Facebook.)
→ Some of my favorite Direct sources & resources for Democrats:
* ( My personal favored and most informative follows are also shared here, below, 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 -- even if it's me. 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. )
Democratic Party Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, representative of The People at home & abroad while the President of the United States is MIA...
There is no better way to get your information than to #Go2TheSource
You can find the Speaker's website here
You can find the Speaker's Twitter feed here
You can find the Speaker's Facebook Page here
The Democratic Party Website
Also, NOT exactly a Democratic Party specific source under a GOP majority but a good place to hear and to watch speeches & hearings directly, i.e. #Go2TheSource C-SPAN
+
→ Some of my favorite, most active organizations:
NEW! NEW! NEW!
Michelle Obama's initiative ...
"Who We Are
When We All Vote is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that is on a mission to increase participation in every election and close the race and age voting gap by changing the culture around voting, harnessing grassroots energy, and through strategic partnerships to reach every American.
Launched in 2018 by co-chairs Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monae, Chris Paul, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, When We All Vote is changing the culture around voting using a data-driven and multifaceted approach to increase participation in elections.
In the months directly before the 2018 midterm elections, When We All Vote organized 2,500 local voter registration events across the country, engaged 200 million Americans online about the significance of voting, and texted nearly four million voters the resources to register and get out to vote.
And we’re just getting started. We’re helping bring even more people into the voting process because when we all vote, we all do better. ... "
"Mission: National Security Action is dedicated to advancing American global leadership and opposing the reckless policies of the Trump administration that endanger our national security and undermine U.S. strength in the world. ... "
You can learn more here
(Full disclosure, I am a member!)
"Women are already the majority. Now Let's build a Supermajority.
Women are on the cusp of becoming the most powerful force in America. But to fundamentally transform this country, we need to work together. That’s where Supermajority comes in.
LET’S GET ORGANIZED
We’re building an inclusive, national membership of women who are connected, empowered, and taking action—from increasing their level of civic engagement and advocacy to voting in record numbers.
"Meet the people behind the politicians.
You can email your two Senators and your Representative in Congress in one email here
"Postcards to Voters are friendly, handwritten reminders from volunteers to targeted voters giving Democrats a winning edge in close, key races coast to coast.
What started on March 11, 2017 with sharing 5 addresses apiece to 5 volunteers on Facebook...
Now, we consist of over 20,000+ volunteers in every state (including Alaska and Hawaii) who have written close to 3 million postcards to voters in over 100+ key, close elections."
You can find Postcards to Voters here
Town Hall Project empowers constituents across the country to have face-to-face conversations with their elected representatives. We are campaign veterans and first time volunteers. We come from a diversity of backgrounds and live across the country. We share progressive values and believe strongly in civic engagement. We research every district and state for public events with members of Congress. Then we share our findings to promote participation in the democratic process.
This movement is diverse, open source, and powered by citizens. We are proud to be a part of it.
You can find Town Hall Project here
" Born from conversations between Governor Howard Dean and Secretary Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Onward Together was established to lend support to leaders — particularly young leaders — kicking off projects and founding new organizations to fight for our shared progressive values." here
Organizing for America and the Democratic National Redistricting Committee have merged in "All On The Line":
"Barack Obama Throws All His Weight Behind ‘Issue Of Singular Importance’
" Since #StandOnEveryCorner has grown, it’s become a stand by all of us to protect our democracy from corruption and treason...A stand not at your State Capitol, but in your own backyard. Not once every few months, but as often as you can here "
→ 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
⭐⭐⭐⭐ NBC News' chief foreign correspondent
⭐⭐ Foreign correspondent for @MSNBC and @NBCNews based in London
→ Some of my favorite, highly credible media -- at the moment:
→ Some of my favorite Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
→ Some of my favorite media panelists -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
✅✅✅✅✅ Wendy Sherman Director, Harvard Center for Public Leadership and Professor of Practice, Kennedy School Senior Counselor
Albright Stonebridge Group; Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
✅✅✅ Jonathan Lemire White House reporter for AP; Political analyst for MSNBC & @NBCNews
✅✅✅✅ Joan Walsh national affairs correspondent for The Nation; CNN political contributor
✅✅✅ Heidi Przybyla USA TODAY Senior Political Reporter
✅✅✅✅ Jennifer Rubin Conservative blogger at @ WashingtonPost's Right Turn,MSNBC contributor
Intel community. @ NBCNews/@ MSNBC contributor
✅✅✅✅ Betsy WoodruffSwan Daily Beast reporter, federal law enforcement.
→ Some of my favorite legal analysts in the context of Putin attacked America to install Trump investigations, primarily seen on MSNBC:
→ Some of my favorite Democrat Party Leaders to follow on Twitter, not in elected office but proving knowledge & experience are positives & not negatives are:
Former First Lady Michelle Obama
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former Labor Secretary/Today's DNC Chair Tom Perez
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 in general elections. I don't support bashing Democrats.
→ PARTY Informational
(Full disclosure, I am a life-long, registered Democrat!)
"To Whom It May Concern: By authority of the Democratic National Committee, the National Convention of the Democratic Party is hereby scheduled to convene on July 13-16, 2020 in TBD at an hour to be announced, to select nominees for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America, to adopt and promulgate a platform and to take such other actions with respect to such other matters as the Convention may deem advisable. ... "
"PREAMBLE We, the Democrats of the United States of America, united in common purpose, hereby rededicate ourselves to the principles which have historically sustained our Party. Recognizing that the vitality of the Nation's political institutions has been the foundation of its enduring strength, we acknowledge that a political party which wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead, a party which asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people and a party which hopes to call forth the best the Nation can achieve must embody the best of the Nation's heritage and traditions. What we seek for our Nation, we hope for all people: individual freedom in the framework of a just society, political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all citizens. Bound by the United States Constitution, aware that a party must be responsive to be worthy of responsibility, we pledge ourselves to open, honest endeavor and to the conduct of public affairs in a manner worthy of a society of free people. Under God, and for these ends and upon these principles, we do establish and adopt this Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States of America."
What is the CPD? The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a private, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is eligible under federal law so serve as a debate sponsor. The CPD's primary mission is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between and among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United State. The CPD is an independent organization. It is not controlled by any political party or outside organization and it does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates for parties. It receives no funding from the government or any political party, political actions committee or candidate. The CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988. Although its plans for 2020 are in the developmental stage, it looks forward to bringing high quality, educational debates to the electorate in 2020 ...
You can read more here
.
.
.
(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."
Owned, Created and Curated by Gail Mountain, this blog curates is often gently edits and/or excerpts select matrial for quick reading, with occasional personal commentary in the form of the written word and/or in the form of emphasis noted. 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!
( * As a privately owned blog, I reserve the right to edit or remove inappropriate comments such as hate, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, spam, advertising or personal/abusive attacks on other users.)
A long time Democratic Party activist, Gail Mountain is a former community organizer, journalist & personal planning coach with a focus on single moms working toward careers able to support them & their families, while working toward changing the systems that once served them through leadership training. She is a former Affordable Health Care for America Act advocate (2009!); a Hillary supporter who volunteered as a Grassroots Tweeter for Hillary, a Women's Outreach for Hillary member; an OFA Truth Team member; & a DNC Factivist member...currently a media influencer, digital activist/strategist, blogger and head of curation, editor and co-Founder of The People for Kamala Harris; an editor for Progress for Democrats on Facebook; a member of a closed group supporting Speaker Pelosi & her agenda, a member of Supermajority and a volunteer for Kamala Harris for the 2020 Democratic Party Nomination for President of the United States.
You can follow her Blog
at https://networkstrongertogether.blogspot.com & you can follow her on Twitter at GKMTNtwits
( find her on Twitter
*** Sometimes life gets in the way, and it has for me right now, delaying the release of my updated ebook but "How to Influence Media in Real Time!"is coming soon and in time to begin your conversation with media as we head into serious primary season.
What's in the book?:
( My updated ebook, "How to Influence Media in Real Time," will be ready soon. It will include updated examples of the conversations I have with some of my “media friends” and some updated indications that media can hear us! If you have left a donation toward my effort to help Democrats win in 2020, I will send you an updated copy as soon as it is ready. New donors who leaves a name and an email on my GoFundMe Page will get one as soon as it is ready to go! Thanking you in advance for your interest. I hope you will join me in helping media be the best they can be -- by being a media influencer, too, in your own way and at your own pace. )
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
*
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment