#corrupt congressional leadership

[icubud]

Stuck

The direction that this country is going (very quickly now) really has me concerned. What the supposed DOJ is doing to DJT is unethical and in some cases illegal. Meanwhile, yet again, those who should be indicted, found guilty and punished are getting away with it. I have suspected for a long time that elections for state positions were often fully compromised. I point at states and cities with…

[wilwheaton]

The congressional party is controlled and run by the hard right minority variously called the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus. But they are a bit too hot for national public consumption. They also rely on the idea that their far right policy agenda has broad public support but is held back by a corrupt/bureaucratic establishment. For both of these reasons a system was developed in which this far right group runs the caucus, but from the background, while it is nominally run by a mainstreamish Republican leader. Under John Boehner, Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy this basic dynamic remained more or less the same. It works for everybody because the Freedom Party calls the shots while the party maintains broad electoral viability via figureheadish leadership.

No Plans To Veer From The McCarthy Punishment Playbook

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Out bisexual Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt, who has helped filibuster transphobic legislation in her state, has switched her party affiliation from Democratic to independent.

Hunt has switched because of the media’s hyper-focus on party affiliation and “the lack of support” from national groups — like Emily’s List or the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee — for “liberal candidates in conservative-dominated states,” the Lincoln Journal Star reported.

“The parties are not the future,” Hunt told the publication. “The political dysfunction is extreme and at the national level, the parties are ideologically bankrupt.”

Hunt said her party switch isn’t a reflection of her state’s Democratic leadership and said that her politics would remain on the progressive left. Rather, she accused national groups of taking credit for the legislative accomplishments of progressive politicians in red states, like her, while not financially supporting those candidates.

She also pointed out that in Nebraska’s unique one-chamber legislature, party affiliation matters less than in other states. Leadership roles are determined by a chamber-wide vote, and committee assignments are “divided evenly among Nebraska’s three congressional districts rather than by which party is in the majority,” the aforementioned publication noted.

As such, when national media focus on Nebraskan politicians’ political affiliation, Hunt feels it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening in her legislature and also poisons her colleagues’ relationships with one another.

“That totally misrepresents who I am, what I believe, who my colleagues are, and how things work here, and I don’t want my name to be used to contribute to the problem, to continue a narrative that is lazy and inaccurate,” Hunt said.

In a statement to the Lincoln Journal Star, Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said, “I, like many liberals, are pushing our Democratic Party constantly from the inside working to build the infrastructure and message across the state. We respect the choices of politicians to decide if our party fits them or not.”

Commenting on Hunt’s party switch, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wrote on the new social media app BlueSky, “I think it’s brave — people often complain about the 2 party system, but it starts at the state level. She’s trying to educate people on [Nebraska’s system] and how their landscape allows for this. [In my opinion] most 3rd party [conversations] can be unserious [because] they don’t grapple [with] reality. So this is interesting to see.”

State Sen. Hunt has been one of several Nebraskan senators who have filibustered the so-called “Let Them Grow Act,” a law that would block minors from accessing gender-affirming care. Age-appropriate gender-affirming care is supported by major medical organizations like the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Hunt has been put under investigation by the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) for a possible conflict of interest because she has a transgender child.

State law requires that public officials and employees disclose potential conflicts of interest, but this refers to when a decision could have “a financial benefit or detriment to the public official or public employee, a member of his or her immediate family or business with which he or she is associated.”

Hunt disavowed the investigation.

“This, colleagues, is not serious,” she said. “This is harassment. This is using the legal system that we have in our state to stop corruption, to increase transparency, to hold government accountable, and using it to harass a member of the legislature, who you all know is trying to do the right thing, is trying to parent her child in a way that keeps that child alive, in a way that keeps that child successful in school and with friends and healthy.”

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Nebraska are standing up for Hunt. “My colleagues stood up offering support, but I don’t need their words. I need their vote,” she said.

[gusty-wind]

Comer: Mountain of Evidence Reveals Joe Biden Abused his Public Office for his Family’s Financial Gain - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Below are Chairman Comer’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

Since assuming our Republican majority in January, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee has uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain.

For years, President Biden has lied to the American people about his knowledge of and participation in his family’s corrupt business schemes.

At least ten times, Joe Biden lied to the American people that he never spoke to his family about their business dealings.

He lied by telling the American people that there was an “absolute wall” between his official government duties and his personal life.

Let’s be clear: there was no wall. The door was wide open to those who purchased what a business associate described as “The Biden Brand.”

Evidence reveals that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke, dined, and developed relationships with his family’s foreign business targets. These business targets include foreign oligarchs who sent millions of dollars to his family. It also includes a Chinese national who wired a quarter of a million dollars to his son.

Joe Biden also lied to the American people about his family making money in China. He has continued to lie about it even when the House Oversight Committee uncovered bank wires revealing how the Bidens received millions from Chinese companies with significant ties to the Chinese intelligence and the Chinese Communist Party.

Just this week, we uncovered two additional wires sent to Hunter Biden that originated in Beijing from Chinese nationals. This happened when Joe Biden was running for President of the United States. And Joe Biden’s home is listed as the beneficiary address.

To date, the House Oversight Committee has uncovered how the Bidens and their associates created over 20 shell companies -- most of which were created when Joe Biden was Vice President – and raked in over $24 million dollars between 2014-2019.

We’ve also identified nine members of the Biden family who have participated in or benefited from these business schemes.

What were the Bidens selling to make all this money?

Joe Biden himself.

Joe Biden is “The Brand.” And Joe Biden showed up at least two dozen times with business targets and associates sending signals of access, influence, and power to those prepared to pay for it.

The American people demand accountability for this culture of corruption.

They demand to know how these schemes have compromised President Biden and threaten our national security.

They demand safeguards to be put in place to prevent public officials from selling access to their public office for private gain.

Under the leadership of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Republicans have now opened an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

By opening an impeachment inquiry, our investigation is now focused on whether President Biden engaged in impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution.

It empowers Congress, elected by The People, to continue providing the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve.

In recent history, Democrats inflicted much damage on the credibility of congressional investigations by peddling the Russia Collusion Hoax.

But this Committee, under this majority, will not pursue such witch hunts based on manufactured allegations, innuendo, and no real evidence.

Today, the House Oversight Committee will examine over two dozen pieces of evidence revealing Joe Biden’s corruption and abuse of public office. This includes e-mails, text messages, bank records, and testimony of Biden business associates.

We will hear from legal and financial experts about this evidence and crimes that may have been committed as Joe Biden was sold around the world.

The House Oversight Committee, along with the Committees on the Judiciary and Ways and Means, will continue to follow the money and the evidence to provide accountability so that Americans know their public offices are not for sale.

I now yield to Jim Jordan, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for his opening statement.

[mariacallous]

As the new House Republican majority stumbles into power, with all the chaotic, embittered bumbling of a rich man’s son who can only seem to fail upwards, another, peculiar kind of political transition is taking place: Nancy Pelosi, 82, is leaving the House speakership, almost certainly for the last time.

Perhaps no individual has come to symbolize the Democrats more to the people who do not like the party. To Republicans, Pelosi has long taken on a kind of mythic malice. To the Fox-watching white male, Pelosi symbolizes liberal elitism, a vague but totalizing specter of corruption, and that particular kind of liberal decadence that can be evoked by the name of the city that makes up nearly all of her longtime congressional district: San Francisco. She’s a woman in power, and she’s long been supportive of gay rights, and she opposed the Iraq war. She’s been a reliable opponent of conservatives’ favorite culture war crusades: she supports gun control and opposes Confederate statues. In an association facilitated by misogyny, her very face is a shorthand for liberal extremism, a visual code that denotes secularism, taxation and frightening new pronouns.

Which was always a bit of a stretch, because the fact of the matter is that the American left tends to hate Pelosi, too. To them, her two terms as speaker – first from 2007 to 2011, and then again from 2019 until this coming January – were eras of strictly enforced centrism. Under Pelosi’s tenure, the congressional agenda was kept well to the right of the base’s preferences, and leftist stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were needlessly sidelined.

Pelosi has taken positions that frustrate and disappoint the Democratic rank and file. She allegedly knew about waterboarding during the war on terror, and she didn’t object to it; she has backed Israel even in its most flagrant violations of Palestinian rights. And for all the fear and hatred she provokes in Republicans, some Democrats found her insufficiently willing to attack them. Under her leadership, the House impeached Donald Trump twice. But the Rubicon of impeachment was crossed only belatedly, in the face of Pelosi’s long, obstinate resistance. Many Democrats felt that the impeachments – along with other congressional oversight efforts against the Trump administration – were too tepid, and came too late.

Neither of these understandings of Pelosi really capture the most striking aspect of her career – which has been characterized, above all, by an almost preternatural ability to discipline her caucus. Perhaps no speaker has been so successful at securing votes and cultivating the loyalties of her members; in interviews, Democratic House members speak of her with awe, like she’s something between a charismatic high school teacher and an emotionally withholding mom. This charisma is carefully cultivated: she famously tells no one her secrets, but has a long memory – both for past favors and past grievances. Some members seem to be eagerly seeking her approval. None seem willing to cross her. She has a natural’s instinct for politics, able to anticipate what will persuade someone to do what she wants them to do before they often know themselves.

Pelosi cultivated this talent from a young age. At the beginning of her political career, Pelosi painted herself as a mom and housewife, the devoted spouse to Paul, an obscenely wealthy financier, and the doting mother of five. But this pretended humility was always a rather flimsy facade. In reality, Pelosi is the scion of an influential Democratic political family from Maryland: her father was a congressman, and both her dad and brother served as mayors of Baltimore. Her job as speaker was one she had been training for since infancy, or at least since she attended her first presidential inauguration, at 12.

After she and her husband moved to San Francisco, Pelosi swiftly rose in the ranks of the California Democratic party, in part because Nancy, with her comfort among elites and the almost coercive power of her charm, was very good at raising money. She was elected to Congress in 1986, and never looked back; she quickly stood out as a charismatic voice in public and an aggressive negotiator in private. Pelosi became the leader of the House Democrats in 2003, and ascended to become the first – and so far, the only – woman to serve as speaker, in 2007.

Under Pelosi’s tenure, the House Democrats have achieved some herculean tasks of political maneuvering. Everything that the Democrats have accomplished legislatively since 2007, they have accomplished thanks to Pelosi’s control of her caucus. She forced through the Dodd-Frank campaign finance reform bill in the face of the kind of fearsome opposition that a politician of weaker will would have balked at. She managed to pass the massive Affordable Care Act, expanding healthcare coverage to millions, in a show of persuasion and strength that could terrify grown men, and did.

These are the kinds of bruising political battles that would end a different congressperson’s career, but Pelosi’s district is among the safest blue seats in the country. She has never faced a real challenger for her spot; during her election years, she doesn’t even engage in debates. Her re-election campaigns are little more than formalities: everyone, in San Francisco and elsewhere, knows that seat belongs to Nancy Pelosi for as long as she wants it. This safety is what allowed Pelosi to turn to her bigger, more national ambitions. Her real constituency has long been the whole country – or at least, the whole of the Democratic party.

But recent years have taken the shine off of Pelosi. She stood in the way when Democrats wanted to pass ethics reforms that would have forbidden members of Congress from trading individual stocks; this past summer, she made the dangerous choice to travel alone to Taiwan, in a show of defiance against Xi Jinping. And the constant attacks on her personally from the right have begun to take a grim toll. This fall, a crazed man, deluded by rightwing media, broke into her California home with a hammer, and attacked Pelosi’s elderly husband, fracturing his skull; the intruder was there looking for Pelosi.

Perhaps the quintessential moment of this part of Pelosi’s career came during the January 6 hearings, when footage of the speaker taken during the Capitol attack emerged. In the hidden location where the House members had been taken, she makes brisk phone calls, searching for a way to clear the Capitol. Her calm competence, contrasted with her extreme physical frailty, made for a portrait of integrity, endurance, courage. But even then, Pelosi seemed out of place. In the video, her institutionalism, and her faith in the legal process, shines through. You get the sense that she feels strongly that everything will be all right, if only she can make the right phone call. As the mob stormed the Capitol, and Trump orchestrated them on Twitter like a symphony conductor, Pelosi’s technocratic proceduralism could not have stood in starker contrast. She looked, perhaps for the first time, like a figure from a lost era.

[arewelemmings]

If you live in North Carolina, I wrote this for you. Why? Because I care. It's important, so please bear with me.

Here's a look at the North Carolina Senate Race, one week out: Twp candidates are vying for the Senate seat made available by the retiring Republican Senator Richard Burr.

Former Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina, Cheri Beasley, is running as a Democrat for this opening Congressional seat in the Senate, against Trump-endorsed Republican, Ted Budd. This hasn't been getting a lot of national attention, but it's an important race. Let's take a moment to familiarize ourselves with this contest.

Firstly, Ted Budd is somebody you certainly don't want in charge of anything you care about. As early voting began in North Carolina, stumping began in earnest. "People are furious right now about three, three main things," Budd said in an interview with National Public Radio. "It depends on how you divide it: It's inflation, it's crime, and it's education." It's interesting that he cites these three issues as worrisome to Republican voters, and voters who have yet to decide. Inflation is actually controlled by the heads of industry and the financial big wigs at the top of Wall Street, who line the pockets of Republican candidates, knowing these "lawmakers" will open doors of privilege for them at the expense of the working class. Donald Trump's rhetoric and actions have riled the most vile tendencies of the deplorables, encouraging them to be more vile, outrageous and criminal right out in the open. Any rise in crime is directly attributable to the cheating traitor who stole the 2016 presidential election. Our failing educational system is also a direct result of Republican policies, old and new. First, teachers have seen their paychecks decrease over time while the schools they teach in have gone terribly underfunded. Now they ban books and write laws forbidding the teaching of truth to American students in Republican run states, all because they believe it easier to control the ignorant, and therefore, work to keep them ignorant. So, as you can clearly see, all three of these issues are tied to Republican policies and/or social and cultural manipulation. Yet, Ted Budd speaks of them as if Democrats created these problems he alludes to. At best, he is disingenuous, but I would call him a liar, a man not to be trusted in a seat of power.

On the other hand, Cheri Beasley is a champion of Justice, dignity and human rights, honed for leadership in a capacity of lawmaking from her years of practicing law, and her time on the bench in the highest court in North Carolina. She has recently been quoted as saying, "People really are excited about this race. They understand the sense of urgency around it." And she's right; we also need to understand the urgency of this election. Women's rights are on the ballot this November 8th, along with easing the struggles of the working class, strengthening the rights of minorities and the disenfranchised, in fact, the survival of our democracy itself hinges upon the ballots cast during this election. A vote for Beasley is a vote to restore women's reproductive rights, which Republicans have been fighting to steal for decades. A vote for Beasley is a vote against racism, hatred, inequality, injustice, corruption, and all that has been going wrong in America these days. And it's important to note that Beasley and Budd are running nearly neck and neck, so we need to mobilize and get voters to the polls, and early ballots in the hands of voters. A win for Beasley is a win for us all, and another step toward saving democracy and American freedom from the destructive, conservative forces of the Republicans.

If I lived in North Carolina, I would be casting my vote for Cheri Beasley, and voting blue all the way down the ballot.

[longwindedbore]

To Curry Favor with Trump’s Base

The GOP failed to challenge Trump’s lies and corruption for over a year of campaigning. Nor for four long years of his Administration

To curry favor with his base.

Supported the demagogue still after he tried to have their leadership lynched in a riot.

To curry favor with his base.

Refused to vote for impeachment while he held power after January 6th as he desperately looked for any excuse to declare martial law.

Because impeaching him wouldn’t curry favor with his base.

Supported him for these last two years after he stole US nuclear secrets and kept them in an unsecured building frequented by *guests* from a dozen countries.

Because failing to be silent would not curry favor with his base.

Well, that base as elected a group of Trumpanzee wannabes who are sh*tting figuratively in Congress the way Trump’s base did in actuality two years ago.

Who’s fault is that?

Not to worry. At some point in a few weeks when the Corporations need Congress to act they will payoff seven or eight GOP Representatives to declare themselves ‘Independents’ and vote with the Dems to elect a Speaker.

The Indies won’t get re-elected; they’ll become lobbyists for the corporations and make the big bucks.

Similar to what happened in 2017 when the Koch family -publicly - told then Speaker Paul Ryan that he and his Congressional GOP majority weren’t getting another penny of *donations*the Rich got their $2trillion tax cut.

The Rich got their tax cut. Paul Ryan got $500K in his unaudited *Leadership Fund*. But retired before disbursing any funds and became a lobbyist.

In unrelated news the National Debt increased by $2 trillion.

USA! USA! USA! 🎶Land of the Scam and Home of the Fleeced 🎶

[bllsbailey]

House Committee Drops Transcripts They Say PROVE Pentagon Ignored Trump's J6 National Guard Request

We’ve seen a lot of dishonest statements and allegations from the left about the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol, with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the corrupt J6 Committee dropping the most disinformation. 

One of the longest-running allegations is that Donald Trump knew violence was coming but did nothing to stop it. He never requested the National Guard, the narrative goes. He didn’t care what happened.

Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) of the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight has a different view, however, and he has newly released transcripts to back it up. In a press release Friday, Loudermilk said the Pentagon brass simply ignored Trump’s requests:

“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these Senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance AND misled Congressional Leaders to believe they were doing their job, when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted, but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth."

Related: RAGING BULL: New J6 Footage Shows Pelosi Admitting They 'Totally Failed,' Then Setting Sights on Trump

Army J6 Whistleblower Testifies That Pentagon Delayed National Guard Reaching Capitol

We’ve known some of this before, but the transcripts themselves are pretty startling. They all but tell the sitting president of the United States to shove off:

Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley recalled that on January 3, 2021, three days before the protests, the commander-in-chief said he wanted a “safe event.”

Obviously, Milley did not fulfill his boss’ demands, and we all know how that turned out.

Then-Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s comments, though, are even more shocking; he too recalls the former president asking for troops but just assumed it was “presidential banter.” Are you kidding me?

[On January 6, 2021] everyone was like, “Did you listen to the President’s speech?”  I’m like “the guy speaks for 90 minutes like it’s Castro or something.’ I’ve got work to do."

Bias, much? Mocking the commander-in-chief while you’re serving under him? Disgusting. He flat-out admitted he was going to do what he was going to do regardless of what he was told:

“There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”

Meanwhile, then-Chief Steven Sund of the Capitol Police said the Pentagon cared more about “optics” than keeping people safe:

[When Sund was requesting help] ...the representative from the Secretary of the Army said, “I don’t like the optics of the National Guard standing in a line with the Capitol in the background.”

Unbelievable. As I mentioned, some of this has been known, but to read their actual words and see the hubris and defiance toward their commander is astonishing. We’ve seen so many lies told about what really went down, but these transcripts certainly seem to prove that Trump not only anticipated possible violence—but tried to prevent it.

[douxlen]

The Surprising Legacy of Watergate in Today’s Politics

New Post has been published on https://douxle.com/2024/08/10/the-surprising-legacy-of-watergate-in-todays-politics/

The Surprising Legacy of Watergate in Today’s Politics

Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon resigned and became the first and (so far) the only President of the U.S. driven from the nation’s highest office. Unlike in the highly partisan impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, who served out their terms after acquittal in the U.S. Senate, the American political establishment came together to force Nixon out of office because of his role in the Watergate scandals. After a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment, senior leaders of Nixon’s own Republican Party visited the White House to recommend his departure. The experience of Watergate, Nixon’s successor asserted, had vindicated American democracy. “Our Constitution works,” President Gerald Ford declared.

Nixon’s removal ignited bipartisan efforts to limit presidential power, clean up political corruption, and make government more transparent. In the early 1970s, it seemed like the nation’s leadership, Republicans and Democrats, had closed ranks to preserve widely held norms and restrain the imperial presidency. 

Today, half a century later, the lessons of Watergate look very different. Instead of constraining the executive branch, Nixon’s ouster marked the beginning of a long-term effort to strengthen the presidency that culminated with last month’s Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions. Today’s Americans live not in the immediate, reassuring afterglow of Watergate, but in its long, destabilizing shadow.

After Nixon’s resignation, the nation restored norms and restrained power. With bipartisan support, Congress reformed the campaign finance system (laundered campaign contributions had partly financed the Watergate break-in and other illegal Nixon administration operations) and passed a wide-ranging Ethics in Government Act that provided for routine disclosures by public officials and established a mechanism for independent counsel investigations of executive branch scandals. And, while the Supreme Court ordered the release of Nixon’s White House tapes and ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon that the president must comply with subpoenas, the Presidential Records Act of 1978 made clear that the papers of the President and Vice President belonged to the public, and not to the occupants of the White House.

In diplomacy and covert activities, Watergate also produced a broad, bipartisan consensus to rein in what 1970s Americans termed “the imperial presidency.” Convinced that Nixon and his predecessors had abused the power of undercover intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI, Congress established intelligence oversight committees with access to classified materials. Even before Nixon’s resignation, large majorities overrode his veto of the War Powers Resolution, which forced the president to get congressional approval for overseas military action within 60 days of deploying troops.

Read More: The True Story Behind Starz’s Watergate Series Gaslit

The scandal also produced unprecedented respect for the media that had played a large role in exposing Watergate and bringing down Nixon’s presidency (it didn’t hurt that Hollywood cast movie stars Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford to play reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward in the movie adaptation of the journalists’ book on the episode). In 1974, trust in the media hit an all-time high: 72%.

It also inspired a new generation of political reformers to run for office. In the 1974 midterm elections, Democrats dramatically enlarged their congressional majorities. The new “Watergate babies” undid the seniority system that had governed Congress, opened up the candidate nomination process, and brought into the open previously back-room decision making. They even brought TV cameras into the House of Representatives.

The first post-Watergate presidential contest pitted the modest incumbent (“I am a Ford, not a Lincoln”) against a non-ideological southern governor who campaigned on a fairly credible claim that he would not lie to the American people. “What the voters are looking for,” Jimmy Carter said in 1976, “is someone who can run the government competently, who understands their problems and will tell the truth. … We’re not dealing in ideologies this year.”

And yet, 50 years later the scandal’s impact looks very different.  What happened?  

Wiping out mainstream Republicans like Nixon and Ford, Watergate cleared the way for the takeover of the GOP by Sunbelt conservatives while simultaneously stoking the distrust in government that fueled the Reagan Revolution. Meanwhile, the Watergate babies — younger, more educated, more suburban — launched the Democrats’ transition from the voice of blue collar workers into today’s more affluent, educated coastal party. 

Institutional changes mainly backfired. The media became more adversarial, as well as more fractured and partisan. Many newspapers created special investigative units. A new zeal for exposé brought down many public officials and heightened animosity between journalists and politicians, many of whom had long been after work drinking buddies. Following in the footsteps of Woodward and Bernstein, many journalists searched for fame and became TV personalities on programs like Crossfire and The McLaughlin Group, where they became advocates rather than neutral reporters. They became less respected, too. By 2016, only 32% of Americans reported at least a fair amount of trust in the media.

Read More: What Watergate Experts Think About the Jan. 6 Hearings

Ethics rules also became tools for partisan combat — a way to force out rivals you couldn’t defeat at the ballot box. For example, in 1988 Newt Gingrich (R-GA), an aggressive, ambitious young Republican Congressman, filed ethics charges against Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-TX), ultimately ousting him from office the following year. And he was not alone. Before Watergate, federal indictments of public officials were almost unheard of. In the following two decades there were more than a thousand.

Congress became more open and transparent, but less effective. In the House, the Watergate Babies forced out five long-serving committee chairmen, diluting the leadership’s power over committee assignments and the legislative agenda. The Senate lowered the bar for ending filibusters, and empowered junior members with larger staffs and changes to the seniority system.  

Cameras came to the House floor and cable TV gave ordinary members of Congress easy access to media. On both sides of Capitol Hill, leadership lost power to discipline members and force through legislation. Today, rank-and-file legislators like Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have become celebrities and even pressure their party leaders to adopt extremist positions. A deadlocked Congress has become almost completely unproductive.

With members of Congress functioning more like independent agents, they no longer focused on checking executive power. And so, presidents regained it. With aid from conservative majorities on the Supreme Court, presidents reasserted broad claims of executive privilege, expanded war powers, and won immunity from prosecution. Ridiculed in the 1970s, Nixon’s claims of “inherent” presidential power — “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he famously told an interviewer — have now become law.

Today’s political landscape, with its more polarized parties, hollowed out Congress, ineffective ethics codes, and threat of a truly imperial presidency, may look little like the 1970s. But they  are long-term outgrowths of the Watergate era. Today, Ford’s claims no longer hold true: our constitutional system may no longer work.

Bruce J. Schulman is the William Huntington professor of history at Boston University and author of The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Politics, and Society.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

[sa7abnews]

The Surprising Legacy of Watergate in Today’s Politics

New Post has been published on https://sa7ab.info/2024/08/09/the-surprising-legacy-of-watergate-in-todays-politics/

The Surprising Legacy of Watergate in Today’s Politics

Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon resigned and became the first and (so far) the only President of the U.S. driven from the nation’s highest office. Unlike in the highly partisan impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, who served out their terms after acquittal in the U.S. Senate, the American political establishment came together to force Nixon out of office because of his role in the Watergate scandals. After a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment, senior leaders of Nixon’s own Republican Party visited the White House to recommend his departure. The experience of Watergate, Nixon’s successor asserted, had vindicated American democracy. “Our Constitution works,” President Gerald Ford declared.

Nixon’s removal ignited bipartisan efforts to limit presidential power, clean up political corruption, and make government more transparent. In the early 1970s, it seemed like the nation’s leadership, Republicans and Democrats, had closed ranks to preserve widely held norms and restrain the imperial presidency. 

Today, half a century later, the lessons of Watergate look very different. Instead of constraining the executive branch, Nixon’s ouster marked the beginning of a long-term effort to strengthen the presidency that culminated with last month’s Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions. Today’s Americans live not in the immediate, reassuring afterglow of Watergate, but in its long, destabilizing shadow.

After Nixon’s resignation, the nation restored norms and restrained power. With bipartisan support, Congress reformed the campaign finance system (laundered campaign contributions had partly financed the Watergate break-in and other illegal Nixon administration operations) and passed a wide-ranging Ethics in Government Act that provided for routine disclosures by public officials and established a mechanism for independent counsel investigations of executive branch scandals. And, while the Supreme Court ordered the release of Nixon’s White House tapes and ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon that the president must comply with subpoenas, the Presidential Records Act of 1978 made clear that the papers of the President and Vice President belonged to the public, and not to the occupants of the White House.

In diplomacy and covert activities, Watergate also produced a broad, bipartisan consensus to rein in what 1970s Americans termed “the imperial presidency.” Convinced that Nixon and his predecessors had abused the power of undercover intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI, Congress established intelligence oversight committees with access to classified materials. Even before Nixon’s resignation, large majorities overrode his veto of the War Powers Resolution, which forced the president to get congressional approval for overseas military action within 60 days of deploying troops.

Read More: The True Story Behind Starz’s Watergate Series Gaslit

The scandal also produced unprecedented respect for the media that had played a large role in exposing Watergate and bringing down Nixon’s presidency (it didn’t hurt that Hollywood cast movie stars Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford to play reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward in the movie adaptation of the journalists’ book on the episode). In 1974, trust in the media hit an all-time high: 72%.

It also inspired a new generation of political reformers to run for office. In the 1974 midterm elections, Democrats dramatically enlarged their congressional majorities. The new “Watergate babies” undid the seniority system that had governed Congress, opened up the candidate nomination process, and brought into the open previously back-room decision making. They even brought TV cameras into the House of Representatives.

The first post-Watergate presidential contest pitted the modest incumbent (“I am a Ford, not a Lincoln”) against a non-ideological southern governor who campaigned on a fairly credible claim that he would not lie to the American people. “What the voters are looking for,” Jimmy Carter said in 1976, “is someone who can run the government competently, who understands their problems and will tell the truth. … We’re not dealing in ideologies this year.”

And yet, 50 years later the scandal’s impact looks very different.  What happened?  

Wiping out mainstream Republicans like Nixon and Ford, Watergate cleared the way for the takeover of the GOP by Sunbelt conservatives while simultaneously stoking the distrust in government that fueled the Reagan Revolution. Meanwhile, the Watergate babies — younger, more educated, more suburban — launched the Democrats’ transition from the voice of blue collar workers into today’s more affluent, educated coastal party. 

Institutional changes mainly backfired. The media became more adversarial, as well as more fractured and partisan. Many newspapers created special investigative units. A new zeal for exposé brought down many public officials and heightened animosity between journalists and politicians, many of whom had long been after work drinking buddies. Following in the footsteps of Woodward and Bernstein, many journalists searched for fame and became TV personalities on programs like Crossfire and The McLaughlin Group, where they became advocates rather than neutral reporters. They became less respected, too. By 2016, only 32% of Americans reported at least a fair amount of trust in the media.

Read More: What Watergate Experts Think About the Jan. 6 Hearings

Ethics rules also became tools for partisan combat — a way to force out rivals you couldn’t defeat at the ballot box. For example, in 1988 Newt Gingrich (R-GA), an aggressive, ambitious young Republican Congressman, filed ethics charges against Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-TX), ultimately ousting him from office the following year. And he was not alone. Before Watergate, federal indictments of public officials were almost unheard of. In the following two decades there were more than a thousand.

Congress became more open and transparent, but less effective. In the House, the Watergate Babies forced out five long-serving committee chairmen, diluting the leadership’s power over committee assignments and the legislative agenda. The Senate lowered the bar for ending filibusters, and empowered junior members with larger staffs and changes to the seniority system.  

Cameras came to the House floor and cable TV gave ordinary members of Congress easy access to media. On both sides of Capitol Hill, leadership lost power to discipline members and force through legislation. Today, rank-and-file legislators like Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have become celebrities and even pressure their party leaders to adopt extremist positions. A deadlocked Congress has become almost completely unproductive.

With members of Congress functioning more like independent agents, they no longer focused on checking executive power. And so, presidents regained it. With aid from conservative majorities on the Supreme Court, presidents reasserted broad claims of executive privilege, expanded war powers, and won immunity from prosecution. Ridiculed in the 1970s, Nixon’s claims of “inherent” presidential power — “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he famously told an interviewer — have now become law.

Today’s political landscape, with its more polarized parties, hollowed out Congress, ineffective ethics codes, and threat of a truly imperial presidency, may look little like the 1970s. But they  are long-term outgrowths of the Watergate era. Today, Ford’s claims no longer hold true: our constitutional system may no longer work.

Bruce J. Schulman is the William Huntington professor of history at Boston University and author of The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Politics, and Society.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

[spacenutspod]

In its functional leadership role, the Acquisition and Integrity Program (AIP) supports policy-level interactions with other governmental agencies combating procurement fraud. This Program provides specialized guidance and advice to the Office of the Chief Counsel at NASA Field Centers regarding procurement fraud matters; advises on affirmative litigation in the recovery of monies resulting from fraudulent activity on behalf of the Agency; and develops and coordinates NASA legal policy in these areas. As a functional office to the NASA Administrator, the Acquisition Integrity Program provides legal advice regarding suspected fraud and other related irregularities in the acquisition process, suspected criminal standards of conduct violations, suspension and debarment decisions, and administrative agreements; represents NASA in interagency meetings or bodies such as the Department of Defense Procurement Fraud Working Group, and the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee; answers correspondence for the Administrator concerning acquisition integrity matters; and responds to Congressional inquiries and proposed Federal Acquisition Regulation rules concerning procurement fraud related issues. The Acquisition Integrity Program provides centralized services to organizations within NASA regarding the statutes, regulations, and policies governing fraud. The Program is responsible for ensuring that significant allegations of fraud on NASA contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, funding instruments, and other commitments of NASA, are identified, investigated, and prosecuted. Centralized services provided by the Program also include: case referrals for investigation; interface with investigative agencies, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and the Justice Department; coordination of criminal, civil, contractual, and administrative remedies; Suspension and Debarment recommendations and corresponding Administrative Agreements; education and training of the NASA workforce to prevent, detect, and deter procurement fraud; and educational outreach to the private sector on procurement fraud related issues. Contacts Director: Monica Aquino-Thieman Tel: 202-358-2262 Management and Program Analyst: Laura Donegan Attorney Staff: Robert Vogt, Western Region Coordinator Vacant, Central Region Coordinator Vacant, Eastern Region Coordinator Organization and Leadership Headquarters OGC OrganizationOGC Leadership Directory— Contact Information for the Headquarters Leadership and Center Chief Counsels Resources Fraud Awareness Flyer FAR Subpart 9.4, Suspension, Debarment and Ineligibility  NASA FAR Supplement 1809.4 2 C.F.R. 180, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension 2 C.F.R. 1880, NASA Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension NASA Policy Directive 2086.1, Coordination of Remedies Related to Fraud and Corruption OGC Disclaimer: The materials within this website do not constitute legal advice. For details read our disclaimer.

[dankusner]

Dallas County Elections Precinct 3039 Congressional: 30 Texas Senate: 23 Texas House: 110 State Board of Education: 13 Commissioners Court: 3 — District 3 - John Wiley Price (view bio) Justice of the Peace: 1

Real estate developer Derek Avery is challenging longtime county commissioner John Wiley Price in the Democratic primary

dallasobserver.com Derek Avery Wants John Wiley Price's County Commissioner Job Jacob Vaughn 8–10 minutes News

Defeating the seemingly bulletproof commissioner is sure to to be an uphill battle for local businessman Derek Avery.

The primary election for the District 3 seat will take place March 5, 2024.

Derek Avery, a local developer and community advocate, says it’s time for change in Dallas County’s District 3. That’s why he’s announced that he’ll be running to unseat District 3 County Commissioner John Wiley Price. If elected to the seat, Avery said he’d want to focus on housing, economic development and transportation in the district, which stretches from the west in Cedar Hill, east to Seagoville, up to Wylie, and through the southern sector of Dallas.

Price has almost too many accolades to count. He was the first African American elected to the Dallas County Commissioner’s Court in 1985 and has served on the court for more than 38 years. He is the longest-serving member of the commissioners court, with the next most senior commissioner having been elected in 2010. In that time, Price has served as chairman of the Dallas County Civil Service Commission, vice president of the Dallas County Juvenile Board, chairman of the Jail Population Committee and many other positions with the county.

To Price’s District 3 constituents, he’s simply known as “Our man downtown.” Over the years, he’s proven himself a political force to be reckoned with to say the least. Even in the face of a federal corruption trial over allegations of bribery and conspiracy, Price was able to cruise by his 2016 opponents for the District 3 seat. After being re-elected, Price was found not guilty of the charges against him. He also flew by his opponents in the 2020 race for the seat.

But Avery thinks he can beat him in an election.

Avery, a Houston native, has lived in the district for nearly a decade.

He was hesitant to throw any specific criticisms at Price, often saying only that the District 3 position isn’t Price's to keep.

However, he did cite homelessness, jail capacity issues and housing as a few things that need work, blaming county leadership.

“One thing I always want to mention is the seat is not his seat,” Avery said, referring to Price, even though it has been his seat for nearly four decades. “It does not belong to any particular person. The seat is for the people. I think that Commissioner Price has done some great things in his career. He’s really fought for some equity with Black and Brown people. I think there comes a time when the torch needs to be passed,” he said. He thinks that time is now. Price couldn’t be reached for comment.

Avery might not call Price out with any cutting criticism, but he does make some serious claims against the county officials as a whole, alleging that people are dying in his district because they are unhoused. “We are seeing people die daily from some of the decisions that are being made at the county, and I think that’s something we need to take very seriously.”

He also said people are languishing and even dying in the county jail because of poor conditions. According to NBCDFW, the county has reported nine inmate deaths to the state this year. “That falls upon county leadership,” Avery said.

Avery wasn’t sure about running at first. “Then I realized that if I’m asking and looking for other people to do things to bring in a new brand of leadership, it sometimes has to be you that steps out there and does it first,” he said.

“It’s not about anyone else that’s in a seat,” he said. “It’s not about anything like that. It’s more about stepping up and putting the power back into the hands of the people because every seat belongs to the people. It belongs to the community and I think sometimes we get away from that.”

In the middle of his career, he said it’s actually inconvenient for him to run at this point, but that's not the point. “I couldn’t not do it, no matter what’s going on, no matter how uncomfortable it may be and how crazy people may think I am.”

By announcing his candidacy now, he’s hoping to inspire other people who have sound leadership abilities to run for office and to let others know that there aren’t any safe seats in the county.

“Leadership is more than just following the same blueprint that everyone follows,” Avery said. “Leadership is about taking a risk and putting actual policies together to make sure that people in the community actually have the power and to show that whoever’s in the seat is accountable to the people. That’s why I’m running.”

He said one of his biggest obstacles to winning the seat will be name recognition. When facing a titan such as Price, that's a significant hurdle.

”People vote for who they’re familiar with," he said. "Some people are familiar with me, but the vast majority are not. So, the biggest obstacle is allowing people to get to know who Derek Avery is.”

If elected, he said he wants to focus on housing, economic development and transportation. He said these things are inextricably linked. “A lot of times what I’ve seen in local government is we work on one without working on the other, without collaborating,” he said. “With housing, you can’t have affordable housing without having economic development."

One of his overall goals is to increase home ownership in each zip code in the district to at least 50%. He also wants to focus on fighting homelessness. He said there are people who choose not to be housed, but he wants to make sure that those who want a home can have one.

As far as economic development goes, he said the county could do more in partnering with other cities to increase grants that go to small businesses. “If you have an entity that is really focused on investing in those small businesses, we can change the landscape of this particular county and we can hire people from the county,” Avery said.

On transportation, he wants people to be able to get across the county in less than an hour.

He said Sandbranch, a small unincorporated town that doesn’t have running water, sewer or trash collection, is a major issue and sticking point for him because it’s a freedman’s town that has been around for over 140 years. This shouldn’t be a problem in 2023, Avery said, and he thinks it’s the county’s responsibility to come up with a solution.

“The fix [for Sandbranch] is not very expensive in the grand scheme of fixes,” he said. “In a freedman’s town to have Black and Brown people who do not have water is ridiculous when we have access to the capital to be able to do it.”

He said one thing he’ll do in office or out of office is make sure that Sandbranch is protected. “Once it’s developed and water is provided and sewer is provided and trash collection is provided, we don’t want it to become a bastion for gentrification,” he said. “We want to make sure that we protect those legacy residents.” He said he wants to help create a fund that would pay for Sandbranch water bills for at least 10 years so residents won’t be burdened by costs they didn’t always have to account for.

“For me, justice and equity go hand in hand in this case because these people have been done wrong,” he said. “We need to rectify that but we also need to make it easier for them going down the road.”

Beating Price in an election isn't going to be easy, if it's possible at all. Avery may not want to take big shots at the commissioner, but he knows if he isn't bringing something new to the court, voters will see little point in supporting an unknown candidate.

”Right now, unfortunately there have been some leadership gaps that have happened from that particular seat and I think that now is the time to look to new leadership to take us further,” Avery said. “We always appreciate everything that someone has done before us, but right now we don’t have time for what has not worked. We have to move forward with what works. That’s where we are right now. That’s why this is great timing and why it’s so urgent that we have new leadership at the county commissioners court.”

[pscottm]

NYTimes: Tempers Flare as Guatemala’s Presidential Inauguration Is Delayed

Tempers Flare as Guatemala’s Presidential Inauguration Is Delayed https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/14/world/americas/guatemala-presidential-inauguration-arevalo.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Opponents of the anticorruption crusader Bernardo Arévalo delayed his inauguration as president of Guatemala on Sunday, ratcheting political tensions higher in Central America’s most populous country.

Confusion around the transition of power emerged shortly after Guatemala’s highest court on Sunday allowed conservative members of Congress opposed to Mr. Arévalo to maintain their leadership of the chamber.

After that ruling, arguments among lawmakers flared in the chamber around midday when Congress was expected to officially name Mr. Arévalo as president. Some congressional members went behind closed doors; as they remained deliberating, other lawmakers contended they were trying to derail the transfer of power, fueling bewilderment and frustration around the country.

“These are the latest strategies that corrupt elites are using to prevent a democratically elected government from coming to power,” said José Ochoa, 64, a small-business owner who was among the hundreds who streamed into the streets of Guatemala City’s old center to show support for Mr. Arévalo on Sunday.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Why is a billionaire-funded super PAC aligned with Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy playing a role in talks over who will become the next Speaker of the House?

Democratic lawmakers and campaign finance watchdogs raised that question Wednesday after the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and the Club for Growth—another right-wing organization bankrolled by billionaires—announced a deal under which CLF won't spend any money on "open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts," a key demand of McCarthy opponents who felt their preferred candidates have been snubbed by the deep-pocketed super PAC.

As Fortune reported Wednesday, "far-right lawmakers have complained that their preferred candidates for the House were being treated unfairly as the campaign fund put its resources elsewhere."

CLF spent nearly $260 million during the 2022 election cycle, including millions to help reelect Republicans who are trying to tank his speakership bid. The super PAC's top donors in the midterm cycle were banking scion Timothy Mellon, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, and Citadel CEO Kenneth Griffin—all billionaires.

The deal between CLF and Club for Growth came as McCarthy continued his frantic efforts to cobble together the necessary 218 votes, offering a number of concessions to Republicans who have rejected the California lawmaker in six consecutive votes—and possibly more on Thursday.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) was among those who raised concerns over CLF and Club for Growth's role in the ongoing Speakership debacle.

"It is creepy that dark money super PACs are explicitly part of the negotiation regarding who becomes Speaker of the United States House," the Senator wrote on Twitter.

Federal law prohibits candidates from coordinating with super PACs, though the independence mandate is often flouted in practice. In a press release, CLF and Club for Growth insisted that "no one in Congress or their staff has directed or suggested CLF take any action here."

"Interesting that an independent super PAC that isn't supposed to coordinate with members of Congress comes to an agreement to benefit a specific member of Congress," responded Adam Smith, action fund director of End Citizens United.

Club for Growth, which bills itself as a "leading free-enterprise advocacy group" that promotes tax cuts and deregulation, originally opposed McCarthy's run for Speaker, pushing him to agree to a number of concessions backed by far-right House Republicans.

But the organization, which has received funding from the Koch network and other right-wing forces, suggested Wednesday that it will support McCarthy if he upholds the concessions he has offered thus far.

"This agreement on super PACs fulfills a major concern we have pressed for," Club for Growth president David McIntosh said in a statement.

While the CLF-Club for Growth agreement was seen as a major victory for the anti-McCarthy faction, it's not clear whether it will be enough to end the impasse. The House is set to convene again Thursday at noon.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued in a tweet Wednesday that "these types of shady, backroom deals—which indebt our lawmakers to corporations and special interests—are corrupting our democracy."

"This is why I started the bipartisan Congressional No PAC caucus and have never taken PAC money, and refuse to start," Khanna added.

[reasoningdaily]

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) delivers remarks, after he and his wife Nadine Menendez were indicted on bribery offenses in connection with their corrupt relationship with three New Jersey businessmen, in Union City, New Jersey, U.S., September 25, 2023.

WASHINGTON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Charges that Senator Bob Menendez accepted bribes in exchange for wielding his influence to aid the Egyptian government prompted calls in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday for the Biden administration to rethink $235 million in military aid to Cairo.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Middle East subcommittee, said he hoped the committee would investigate the allegations and Egypt's involvement.

U.S. prosecutors announced an indictment on Friday accusing Menendez of accepting gold bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in exchange for wielding his influence to aid the Egyptian government.

"I would hope that our committee would consider using any ability it has to put a pause on those dollars, pending an inquiry into what Egypt was doing," Murphy told reporters.

"I have not talked to colleagues about this yet, but obviously this raises pretty serious questions about Egypt, Egypt's conduct," he said.

The indictment against Menendez also says he had close relationships with members of Egypt's intelligence services and held meetings to discuss U.S. military aid.

Menendez has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. He has stepped down temporarily from his role as chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senate Democratic rules require a member charged with a felony to give up any leadership position.

President Joe Biden's administration decided this month to allow much of U.S. foreign military aid to Egypt to go ahead, saying the country was vital to national security interests despite what critics have said about human rights abuses.

Murphy was among lawmakers who criticized the decision.

Representative Don Beyer, a Democratic House of Representative member and co-founder of the congressional Egypt Human Rights Caucus, said Egypt "is conducting an espionage operation within the U.S. Senate" and Washington should respond.

"I think that calls for a much stronger response from the Biden administration, and the straightforward one is to withhold (the military funds)," Beyer said on CNN.

[meret118]

I was wondering about the timing of this, but then I remembered this:

ETA:

McCarthy is 100% doing this to stave off a leadership challenge. It has absolutely nothing to do with Biden.