US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6584

Regardless of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's titles—and to the comical dismay of corporate, establishment Democrats—Bernie Sanders has become the defacto leader of the Democratic Party.

Sunday in Warren, Michigan put an exclamation point on the sentence, as Sanders, alongside Schumer, brought out 8,000 people on a bitterly cold winter day to fight against Obamacare repeal.

Even the establishment media is waking up—granted a year too late.

"That's the future of the Democratic Party," Joe Scarborough, echoing Mika Brzezinski's sentiment, said on Morning Joe Monday. "He sounds just as relevant today as he did a year ago."

So, as the mainstream media opportunistically tries to Feel The Bern after ignoring Sanders when it mattered (both CNN and MSNBC recently held primetime town halls with him), you know who's become less relevant?

Senator Elizabeth Warren .

The one-time progressive rock star—who activists tried to summon to run in 2016 with hopes of bringing down Hillary Clinton—has already made moves that many inside the Beltway believe are a precursor to a run in 2020.

But, much to the shock of genius corporate journalists who continue to live in their alternate, elitist bubble and obsess over Donald Trump's tweets rather than the endless struggles of working people, the progressive movement has soured on one if its past heroes.

A majority of progressive voters and activists I spoke to during my campaign reporting were disgusted with Warren's cowardice during the Democratic Primary, where she dodged on endorsing the most progressive candidate to run since FDR.

The firebrand, anti-Wall Street Senator was wildly popular in her home-state of Massachusetts, but she decided not to endorse Sanders before the Super Tuesday primary. Sanders lost Massachusetts by less than two points, causing progressives to believe the state—and momentum—would have gone to Sanders had Warren endorsed and campaigned with him across the state.

Larger than her Massachusetts mistake, Warren's choice to passionately campaign for Clinton—the antithesis of all she proclaimed to stand against during her meteoric rise isn't a fact progressive Sanders aficionados will simply forgive and forget.

Furthermore, Warren—along with the corporate media—was inexplicably MIA during the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline, saying nothing as thousands of unarmed, peaceful Native Americans and environmental activists were illegally arrested and shot at with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, freezing water, and grenades by de facto oil police in North Dakota.

Like her decision to conveniently endorse Clinton when Sanders was mathematically eliminated, Warren finally chose to speak out against DAPL on the same day the Army Corps of Engineers denied a crucial permit for the pipeline's completion.

This kind of calculated, Johnny-Come-Lately progressivism doesn't cut it for the millions of progressives looking to rally behind a leader as the road to 2020 narrows.

So, the time for choosing is upon Warren. She must decide: what do I truly stand for? Right now, there's a large swath of the progressive movement that's no longer sure.

She must choose between being a strong progressive who largely ignores political calculations in favor of fighting for workers and minorities, or continue serving as a one-trick pony that steals the show by yelling at bankers during congressional hearings, but isn't trusted by the movement to do much more.

Warren must decide if she is going to stand out as a progressive leader on issues that go beyond Wall Street and the rigged economy—such as ensuring clean water and safety for the people instead of unfettered profits for the oil companies.

If Warren chooses the progressive path, she'll still need to explain her dubious choices during the 2016 election and beyond.

But if Sanders decides against running in four years, Warren—in a political climate with a jarring scarcity of true progressive leaders—could have a chance to climb back up the progressive ranks and possibly serve as the movement's best chance to finally take the White House.

The clock is ticking.

This is the full transcript of Donald Trump’s interview with Michael Gove and Kai Diekmann, former chief editor of the German newspaper Bild.

Mr President-elect, your grandfather is from Germany, your mother is from Scotland. As you know, Michael is Scottish, I am German. How will you manage relations with our countries?

Trump: Well, it’s similar. We have great love for both countries. These are great countries, great places. It’s very interesting how the UK broke away. I sort of, as you know, predicted it. I was in Turnberry and was doing a ribbon cutting because I bought Turnberry, which is doing unbelievably, and I’ll tell you, the fact that your pound sterling has gone down? Great. Because business is unbelievable in a lot of parts in the UK, as you know. I think Brexit is going to end up being a great thing.

So do you think we will be able to get a trade deal between the US and the UK quite quickly?

Absolutely, very quickly. I’m a big fan of the UK, uh, we’re gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly — good for both sides. I will be meeting with [Theresa May] — in fact if you want you can see the letter, wherever the letter is, she just sent it.

She’s requesting a meeting and we’ll have a meeting right after I get into the White House and it’ll be, I think we’re gonna get something done very quickly.

Why do you think Brexit happened?

People don’t want to have other people coming in and destroying their country and you know in this country we’re gonna go very strong borders from the day I get in. One of the first orders I’m gonna sign – day one – which I will consider to be Monday as opposed to Friday or Saturday. Right? I mean my day one is gonna be Monday because I don’t want to be signing and get it mixed up with lots of celebration, but one of the first orders we’re gonna be signing is gonna be strong borders.

We don’t want people coming in from Syria who we don’t know who they are. You know there’s no way of vetting these people. I don’t want to do what Germany did.

And I’ve great respect for Merkel, by the way, I have to say. I have great respect for her. But, I, I think it was, I think it was very unfortunate what happened.

And you know I have a love for Germany because my father came from Germany and, I don’t want to be in that position. You know the way I look at it, we have enough problems.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nine Democratic senators asked President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be U.S. attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, on Tuesday to recuse himself from any FBI or Justice Department investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

The request was signed by every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel responsible for confirming Sessions' appointment. It comes amid growing concern in the U.S. Congress about what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was hacking and other actions by Russia during the election campaign aimed at tilting the November vote in Trump's favor, and about potential personal or financial connections between Trump associates and Moscow.

The letter also asked Sessions, who as attorney general would be the country's top law enforcement official and head of the Justice Department, to commit to not shutting down any investigation into Russia's activities. FBI Director James Comey last week declined to comment on whether or not the FBI might be investigating links between Russia and associates of Trump. The president-elect frequently called during the campaign for improved relations between Washington and Moscow.

A spokesman for Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed in the job by the Republican-controlled Congress, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter.

On Friday the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said their panel would investigate allegations Russia used cyber attacks to influence the U.S. presidential election, including any links between Russia and the political campaigns.

Classified documents that the heads of four U.S. intelligence agencies presented earlier this month to Trump included unsubstantiated information compiled by a private security firm suggesting Moscow had compromising personal and financial details about Trump.

Trump has called the dossier that contains salacious claims about him in Russia "fake news" and "phony stuff."

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing last Tuesday for Sessions, a Republican and early backer of Trump's candidacy. He declined to comment on news reports that emerged late in the hearing about the dossier, saying he had no information about the matter at that time.

"We understand that you may have been unaware of this news report at the time, which is why we would like to give you another opportunity to respond," the senators wrote.

During his testimony, Sessions said he would recuse himself from investigations involving Trump's rival for the White House, Democrat Hillary Clinton, saying comments he made during the campaign about her email practices and charitable foundation would cloud the perception of impartiality at the Justice Department. He said he would instead favor a special prosecutor to carry out any future Clinton probes.