Government Executive - Authors - Clare Foran

Democrats Warn Against White House Interference in Russia Inquiry

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:10:28 -0500

Top Democrats reacted to the news on Friday that former National-Security Adviser Michael Flynn had pled guilty to lying to the FBI by warning that President Trump or his allies may try to curtail ongoing investigations into Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election, and insisting that those investigations continue without interference.

Flynn, a close Trump ally who campaigned with the president and briefly followed him into the administration, made false statements to investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador about sanctions implemented by the previous administration. Those sanctions were put in place to punish Russia for what U.S. intelligence agencies said was an effort to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf. Flynn also said on Friday that he is cooperating with the special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called on Congress to shield the special counsel probe from White House interference and reiterated her call for an outside independent investigation. Pelosi has praised Mueller, a former FBI director, as “a respected public servant,” in the past but has also expressed concern that the White House could attempt to interfere with his investigation, which is operating under the supervision of the Department of Justice.

“The U.S. Congress has a duty to uphold justice, and to take measures to ensure that Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation proceed without interference from the White House,” Pelosi said in a statement on Friday, calling for “an outside, fully independent investigation.” Pelosi has called for an outside investigation for months that could operate in the mold of the 9/11 commission, a bipartisan commission set up by Congress that produced a wide-ranging report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, warned in a statement that “the plea secured by Mueller may prompt the White House and its allies to seek to curtail congressional investigations, as President Trump has attempted to do already, or end the special counsel’s work prematurely. Congress must make it clear that this would not be acceptable.” The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are both probing Russian election interference and potential Trump-Russia ties.

Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, similarly said that “investigations must be allowed to continue without interference,” though she did not call for an independent outside investigation.

High-ranking Democrats focused attention on Trump on Friday.

Pelosi called Flynn’s guilty plea “a dark moment in our nation’s history” in her statement, adding that “the American people deserve to know what the President knows about Russian meddling in our election and why he refuses to take action against Russia.”

Schiff added that the Flynn revelations are significant because they include “new details, including that Flynn was directed by a senior transition official to contact Russian officials in an effort” and also because “Flynn’s lies to the FBI … were made at a time when he was serving as President Trump’s National Security Advisor, a position of incredible influence and responsibility.”

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said “this time, the president can’t get away with claiming these charges aren’t about his inner circle’s contacts with Russia, and he can’t dismiss Michael Flynn as some low-level aide.”

Flynn’s guilty plea marks a new stage in the special counsel investigation.

Last month, Mueller brought charges against three former Trump associates: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, a deputy to Manafort on the campaign, and George Papadopoulos, a former campaign foreign-policy adviser. Trump has called the Russia investigation a “witch hunt.” On Friday, a White House lawyer said that “nothing about the guilty plea [entered by Flynn] or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.”

]]>

Comey: 'I Was Fired Because of the Russia Investigation'

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:42:07 -0400

Why exactly did President Trump fire James Comey as FBI Director? Comey believes it had something to do with the federal investigation into potential links between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government as part of an ongoing probe of Russian involvement in the presidential election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, Democratic Senator Jack Reed asked Comey why he was fired. “I don’t know for sure,” Comey said. “I know I was fired because of something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that. I can’t go farther than that.”

Later, Comey added: “There’s no doubt that it’s a fair judgment in my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.”

Trump himself has publicly acknowledged that Russia was on his mind when he made the decision to fire Comey.

When the president released a letter firing Comey, he pointed to criticism of the former FBI director’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe as justification for the decision. Shortly after, however, the president told NBC News’ Lester Holt that he planned to fire Comey “regardless of recommendation.” And he openly said that he was thinking of the Russia inquiry when he made the call. “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won,” he said.

]]>

Intel Chiefs Dodge Questions on Alleged Trump Interference in Russia Investigation

Clare Foran and Matt Ford, The Atlantic — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:06:09 -0400

In a series of at times tense exchanges on Wednesday, top U.S. intelligence officials repeatedly declined or evaded questions from lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee about their interactions with President Trump and whether the administration ever directed them to intervene in the ongoing federal Russia investigations.

Instead, senior administration officials offered up a blanket, albeit vague, defense of the administration. National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers insisted that he has “never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate,” and does not remember feeling “pressured to do so.” Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told the panel that he has “never been pressured—I've never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” referring to his interactions with the president or other administration officials.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe also testified during the hearing. Democratic lawmakers, as well as some Republicans, made it clear from the outset that Trump and the Russia probes would dominate much of their questioning—not the session’s original focus, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes the government to spy on U.S. citizens in select circumstances.

Many of those queries centered on recent media reports. On Tuesday night, The Washington Post reported that Trump asked Coats in March if the director could compel Comey to ease up on the FBI’s inquiry into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Coats reportedly decided it “would be inappropriate” for him to do so, according to unnamed officials. That story followed another from the Post, published in May, asserting that Trump had previously asked both Coats and Rogers to publicly refute the possibility of collusion with Russia during the presidential election.

While the witnesses felt comfortable saying they hadn’t felt pressured to intervene in an investigation, they declined to answer direct questions about whether the alleged questions or requests had ever come up. At one point, Florida Senator Marco Rubio asked if Coats was “prepared to say that you have never felt—never been asked by the president or the White House to influence an ongoing investigation?”

“I am willing to come before the committee and tell you what I know and what I don’t know,” Coats replied. “What I’m not willing to do is to share what I think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing, and so I’m not prepared to answer your question today.”

“Director Coats, with the incredible respect I have for you, I am not asking for classified information,” Rubio said. “I am asking whether or not you have ever been asked by anyone to influence an ongoing investigation.”

“I understand, but I'm not going to go down that road in a public forum,” Coats replied. “And I also was asked the question if the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that.”

During an exchange with Republican Senator John McCain, Coats again emphasized his unwillingness to discuss specifics, but suggested he could speak more freely in a closed, or private, session with the panel.

“I would hope we’d have the opportunity to do that,” he said. Coats “did not want to publicly share what I thought were private conversations with the president of the United States—most, if not all of them, intelligence-related and classified,” he explained. “I didn’t think it was appropriate for the Post to report what it reported or to do that in an open session.”

The officials’ efforts to avoid answering questions grated on some of the Democratic lawmakers, as well as on Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who excoriated Coats and Rogers for not being more forthcoming. When King tried to extract an answer from the NSA director, Rogers replied: “It's not appropriate in an open forum to discuss those classified conversations.”

“What is classified about a conversation involving whether or not you should intervene in the FBI investigation?” King countered. “I stand by my previous comments,” Rogers replied.

His questions to Coats fared little better. Part of the dispute revolved around whether officials were refusing to answer because of executive privilege, which the White House has ruled out invoking for Thursday’s hearing with former FBI Director James Comey. Since the Kennedy administration, presidents have typically asserted their power at their own personal discretion, making it unclear whether it could or did apply during Wednesday’s hearing. The officials themselves offered little clarity.

“You swore that oath to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and today you are refusing to do so,” King told Coats. “What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?”

Coats paused for a moment before answering. “I’m not sure I have a legal basis, but I’m more than willing to sit before this committee during its investigative process in a closed session and answer your question,” he replied.

The hearing began exactly 24 hours before Comey’s highly anticipated testimony; the ex-FBI chief, who the president abruptly fired in May, will appear before the same Senate committee.

]]>

Trump Reportedly Tried to Enlist Intel Chiefs to Defend Against Russia Inquiry

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Tue, 23 May 2017 09:27:31 -0400

President Donald Trump reportedly tried, unsuccessfully, to enlist Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, and Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, to publicly refute the possibility of collusion after former FBI Director James Comey announced in March that the bureau is investigating potential links between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government, according to The Washington Post on Monday.

Citing unnamed government officials, the Post’s Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima report that Trump asked Coats and Rogers “to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.” But, according to the report, the intelligence officials turned down the ask, “which they both deemed to be inappropriate.” The White House told the Post that it would not confirm or deny the allegations.

The news follows a series of potentially damaging reports centered on Trump and the former FBI director. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that Trump asked Comey to halt a federal investigation into his former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who was ousted from the administration after making false claims about his contact with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and that Trump had unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Comey to pledge loyalty prior to abruptly firing him on May 9th. The White House disputes both reports.

Former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department to serve as a special counsel in the Russia investigation earlier this month. CNN reported on Monday that Mueller has already been briefed on memos drafted by Comey detailing his interactions with Trump. Monday’s Post report suggests there may be an even more extensive paper trail that could come under scrutiny as part of the investigation.

According to the Post:

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.

Congressional Democrats have accused Trump of obstructing justice following reports that he attempted to intervene in the Flynn investigation and another Times report that Trump told Russian officials that he felt relieved of pressure caused by the Russia inquiry after firing Comey.

The Post’s report on Monday also contends that White House officials “sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn.”

When Trump fired Comey, he originally cited a memo criticizing the FBI chief’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. He later openly acknowledged in an interview with NBC News that “this Russia thing” was on his mind when he made the decision to fire Comey, who at the time had been serving as the head of the bureau probing ties between Trump associates and the Russian government.

The White House has insisted that there is no evidence of collusion. And Trump flatly denied the possibility at a press conference last week, saying “there was no collusion” with Russia. In the letter the president sent to Comey telling him he had been fired, Trump wrote that he had “greatly appreciate[d]” the FBI director “informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

Despite Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, Democrats have continued to urge the formation of an independent commission to further probe the extent of Russian involvement in the election. Those calls, and the pressure on Congress to support such a move, may grow louder now.

]]>

House Oversight Chairman to Step Down at End of June

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 18 May 2017 19:47:52 -0400

Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, announced on Thursday his plans to resign from Congress at the end of June.

In a letter to his constituents, the Utah congressman wrote that he had never planned to stay in Congress for “a lifetime career,” and “knew from day one that my service there would not last forever.” And in a letter to the state’s governor, Gary Herbert, Chaffetz said “it has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve the people of Utah as a Member of Congress.” Chaffetz announced last month that he did not plan to seek re-election to Congress. He’ll resign on June 30.

Ever since President Trump took office, Chaffetz has faced scrutiny and criticism for his role as chair of a powerful congressional oversight committee. Detractors believed that Chaffetz shied away from exercising his oversight authority to its fullest capacity faced with a Republican president, despite the fact that Trump’s business empire has created a vast potential for conflicts of interest. In February, Chaffetz faced an angry town hall crowd in Utah who chanted “do your job!” at the congressman.

The impending departure raises questions over the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the president’s recent, and abrupt, decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Last week, the president stunned Washington by firing Comey, who had been charged with overseeing the bureau’s investigation into potential ties between Trump associates and the Russian government. That was followed in quick succession by a report in The Washington Post that Trump had shared highly classified information with Russian officials, and a report in The New York Timesthat Trump had asked Comey to halt an investigation into his former national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, citing a memo written by Comey as its source.

Shortly after the Times report surfaced, Chaffetz rushed off a letter to the FBI requesting “all memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring or relating to any communications between Comey and the President.”

In his letter, the oversight chair wrote that the committee needed to consider “whether the President attempted to influence or impede the FBI’s investigation as it relates to Lt. Gen. Flynn.” On Wednesday, Chaffetz tweeted that he had “officially noticed a hearing for next Wed at 9:30 am ET with former FBI Dir. Comey,” though he added that he still needed to “speak with him.”

It’s unclear exactly what will happen to the panel’s probe once Chaffetz departs. Politico reported on Thursday that GOP Representative Trey Gowdy, who is most well known for once heading up a congressional investigation into the Benghazi attacks, is likely to replace Chaffetz as the chair of the House Oversight Committee.

Washingtonian reported last week that Chaffetz has told House Republicans that his next stop will be in a role at conservative news outlet Fox News.

]]>

The House Demands to See the Comey Memos

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 17 May 2017 10:06:21 -0400

On Tuesday evening, congressional lawmakers were forced to respond to the second immediately controversial story involving the president to surface in roughly 24 hours. The New York Times reported that President Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey to halt a federal investigation into ousted National-Security Adviser Michael Flynn, citing a memo written by Comey as its source.

Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, fired off a letter to acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, demanding that the bureau produce all “memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings” of James Comey’s meetings with Trump no later than May 24. The reports in the press, he wrote, “raise questions as to whether the President attempted to influence or impede the FBI’s investigation as it relates to Lt. Gen. Flynn.”

He delivered a similar message to his Twitter followers:

.@GOPoversight is going to get the Comey memo, if it exists. I need to see it sooner rather than later. I have my subpoena pen ready.
— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 16, 2017

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, indicated in a statement that the GOP leader supported the committee’s efforts. “We need to have all the facts, and it is appropriate for the House Oversight Committee to request this memo,” she wrote in an e-mail.

Not all Republican lawmakers appeared quite so eager to employ congressional oversight tools to seek the memo, however.

In response to a question about whether he would try to obtain it, Senator Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election, reportedly told journalists that “the burden is on The New York Times, if they’re reporting it, and they’ve got somebody who’s got the document.” According to Politico’s Elana Schor, Burr said: “They need to get the document and get it released.”

Burr’s committee, though, has the power to issue subpoenas, just as other House and Senate panels do. The Senate Intelligence Committee website states that “subpoenas authorized by the committee for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other material may be issued by the chairman, the vice chairman, or any member of the committee designated by the chairman.”

In response to an e-mailed question about whether Burr’s committee would attempt to subpoena the Comey memo, a representative for Burr replied: “The committee will continue to follow the facts where they lead.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters on Tuesday that he has asked Comey to testify “before the Judiciary Committee to tell his side of the story,” according to a Politico report that published just after the Times story broke. Comey had previously declined to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. A number of House Republicans echoed calls for Comey to appear in front of Congress, and reportedly so did Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own investigation into Russian interference in the election.

The FBI is also conducting an examination of Russia’s involvement, information that Comey made public during a March congressional hearing.

The White House denied the Times report, telling the paper in a statement that “the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn. … The president has the utmost respect for our law-enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that if the reports are true, at best “Trump has committed a grave abuse of power,” or “at worst, he has obstructed justice.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, warned that “the country is being tested in unprecedented ways.”

Some Democrats raised the specter of impeachment in reaction to the news. On Twitter, Democratic Representative Ted Deutch of Florida wrote: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Independent Senator Angus King if “we are getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process.” To which the Maine senator replied: “Reluctantly … I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense.”

The report arrives one week after Trump fired Comey as FBI director. At the time, the president cited a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which criticized Comey’s handling of his agency’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

Later, however, Trump indicated that he had planned to fire Comey “regardless of recommendation.” Trump added that “when I decided to do it, I said to myself—I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

On Tuesday, some Republican lawmakers reacted with a general sense of dismay in the wake of the recent news reports on the president. “If recent allegations are true, they mark the beginning of a new and very sad chapter of scandal and controversy in our country,” GOP Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida wrote on Twitter.

On Monday, lawmakers were asked to respond to a Washington Post report alleging that the president had shared highly sensitive classified information with Russian officials in the White House related to terrorism. Administration officials have pushed back against the report. The next day, however, Trump posted two tweets that appeared to confirm the disclosure, saying that he had an “absolute right” to “share with Russia” information related to terrorism.

]]>

GOP Lawmakers Call for Inside Information on Trump Disclosure

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Tue, 16 May 2017 16:12:22 -0400

Some congressional Republicans are calling for greater transparency from the Trump administration, including classified briefings, to explain exactly what happened during a recent meeting between the president and Russian officials.

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that “Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.”

Republican lawmakers had mixed initial reactions to the report. Some defended the president, or argued that the allegations are overblown. Others voiced alarm. A relatively small number are now asking the administration to provide more information about the meeting.

In a statement on Tuesday, Republican Representative Barbara Comstock of Virginia called for “immediate classified briefings on what occurred at this meeting so that Congress can at least know as much as Russian leaders.”

Several other congressional Republicans have made similar appeals. “The administration should promptly share with Congress, in a classified setting, the precise details of the president’s meeting,” Republican Representative Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted on Tuesday morning.

GOP Senator Susan Collins said in a statement that the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently conducting an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election, “should be briefed on this important issue immediately.” Expressing dismay over the report, the Maine senator added that “the disclosure of highly classified information has the potential to jeopardize sources and to discourage our allies from sharing future information vital to our security.”

In a Tuesday tweet, Republican Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin asked for a rundown of the discussion: “For the purpose of transparency, the White House should share a transcript of the meeting with the House and Senate intelligence committees.”

Republican leadership has not gone so far as to call for classified briefings to Congress. On Monday, House Speaker Paul Ryan asked for a “full explanation of the facts” in a statement delivered via his representative, but he did not go into further detail. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell downplayed the controversy in an interview on Tuesday. “I think we could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things, so that we can focus on our agenda, which is deregulations, tax reform, and repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

Administration officials haven’t shown signs that a congressional briefing is imminent, and instead have pushed back strenuously against the report. “The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false,” National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said on Monday evening, a message he echoed in a Tuesday press conference. The Post’s report, however, has since been confirmed by other media outlets, including The New York Times and BuzzFeed.

Trump wrote in a series of tweets on Tuesday that he “wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining … to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.”

Immediately after the Post story surfaced, some Republican lawmakers argued, as Republican Senator Jim Risch reportedly did, that the president “has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process.” But that justification hasn’t stopped some of their colleagues from going public about their concerns.

This is the second time in a week that congressional Republicans have apparently been blindsided by a breaking and immediately controversial White House report; the first was the news that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. In her statement, Comstock noted the timing: “Once again we are faced with inexplicable stories coming from the White House that are highly troubling.”

]]>

Democrats Call for an Independent Investigation Into the Election After Trump Fires FBI Director

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 10 May 2017 09:47:45 -0400

Democrats are calling for an independent investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election following the news that President Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey. The White House announced Comey’s dismissal on Tuesday evening.

So far, reaction in Congress to Comey’s removal has split along partisan lines. Some high-ranking Republican lawmakers appeared supportive of the president’s decision to dismiss the head of the nation’s top law enforcement agency, which has been investigating potential connections between the Trump campaign and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. A number of Democrats, on the other hand, expressed shock and outrage over the dismissal, renewing calls for an independent investigation into the matter.

Comey’s exit raises questions about the future of the FBI’s politically charged investigation into the 2016 election, since Trump has the power to nominate the director’s replacement, and thus the official charged with overseeing that inquiry.

In a letter sent to Comey on Tuesday, Trump stated that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General recommended his dismissal, and that he concurred with the “judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.” A separate letter from the deputy Attorney General suggested that the FBI director had improperly handled the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. Two additional inquiries from the House and Senate into Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign have both, to varying degrees, been hampered by partisan disagreement.

“The only way the American people can have faith in this investigation is for it to be led by a fearless, independent special prosecutor,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement, adding that if that does not happen, “every American will rightly suspect that the decision to fire Director Comey was part of a cover-up.”

Democrat Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, urged the appointment of an “independent prosecutor,” saying that the chain of events “raises profound questions about whether the White House is brazenly interfering in a criminal manner.”

“We need an independent investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia,” Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is part of Senate Democratic leadership, said in a statement.

“The president of the United States just fired the person who was investigating his campaign, which should set off alarm bells across the country,” Senator Cory Booker said, urging the appointment of “an independent special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election.”

On Twitter, Democratic Senator Brian Schatz wrote bluntly: “We are in a full-fledged constitutional crisis.”

Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called it “deeply troubling that the president has fired the FBI director during an active counterintelligence investigation into improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“The need for a special prosecutor is now crystal clear. President Trump has catastrophically compromised the FBI’s ongoing investigation of his own White House’s ties to Russia,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said in a statement.

In January, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report, which concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign” intended to meddle in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of undermining “public faith in the U.S. democratic process,” and harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency.

Political analysts have argued that Comey’s July press conference on the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had improperly handled classified information, and his late October 2016 announcement that the FBI would review additional emails in connection with the probe, fatally harmed Clinton’s presidential chances.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein cited both incidents in a letter concluding that “the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.” At the time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a Republican Senator from Alabama, praised Comey’s decision. Sessions said that Comey had an “absolute duty, in my opinion, 11 days or not, to come forward with the new information that he has and let the American people know that, too.”

In March, FBI Director Comey publicly confirmed that the bureau is in the process of investigating Russian efforts to intervene in the election, a probe that Comey said at the time “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Some prominent Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic or supportive of the president’s decision to dismiss Comey.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley criticized Comey’s handling of “the Clinton email investigation,” pointing to it as “a clear example of how Comey’s decisions have called into question the trust and political independence of the FBI.” Grassley stated that “under Comey’s leadership,” the FBI had “been slow or failed to provide information that Comey himself pledged to provide,” adding that “the effectiveness of the FBI depends upon the public trust and confidence,” which Grassley added, “has clearly been lost.”

Senator Lindsey Graham put out a statement saying that “given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start with serve the FBI and the nation well.”

Senator Susan Collins said in a statement that “any suggestion that today’s announcement is somehow an effort to stop the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s attempt to influence the election last fall is misplaced,” adding that she has “every confidence that the FBI will continue to pursue its investigation.”

Not every Republican senator expressed confidence in the decision, however.

Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was “troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination,” adding that “his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation by the Committee.”

Senator John McCain said he was “disappointed in the president’s decision to remove James Comey from office,” calling Comey “a man of honor and integrity.” McCain added that he has previously called “for a special congressional committee to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” and added that the firing of the FBI director “only confirms the need and urgency of such a committee.”

]]>

Can Trump Fix Government by Running It Like a Business?

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:49:37 -0400

Donald Trump is taking steps to make the government more like the private sector. Past administrations have tried similar exercises in reform with mixed results, however, and it might be harder for a White House with relatively little governing experience to make improvements to the sprawling federal bureaucracy.

On the campaign trail, Trump pointed to his business record in promising to fix government. On Monday, the White House unveiled an Office of American Innovation, which will make recommendations to improve government based on private sector consultation.

An early start may signal the administration plans to prioritize the effort, though it’s hard to tell what kind of follow-through it will devote to the project, what recommendations the office will devise, and whether any will actually be implemented. The office will be led by Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, who does not have prior experience in government, and whose portfolio now includes everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the opioid crisis.

“It takes a long time to really improve government, there aren’t quick fixes, so you have to start right away,” said Max Stier, the president of the Partnership for Public Service, a good government non-profit. “It’s also important that you have buy-in from the highest levels of government.”

There’s a long history of presidential administrations looking to the private sector for advice on how to fix government—as well as examples of those efforts amounting to little more than unrealized recommendations. In 1982, Ronald Reagan established the Grace Commission, led by businessman J. Peter Grace, which resulted in a set of recommendations to rid government of waste and inefficiency. “Some recommendations were adopted,” according to a report from the IBM Center for the Business of Government and the Partnership for Public Service. But “the most significant recommendations required congressional action and were not implemented.”

Other administrations have attempted to improve government by modernizing it, a goal the Trump administration is also promising to achieve. According to a Elaine Kamarck, an aide to President Bill Clinton who helped implement a reform project known as the National Performance Review, and later re-named the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the NPR helped bring the federal government into “the Internet Age.” It launched “the federal government’s first, comprehensive web portal,” Kamarck told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2013, which was designed to “offer citizens one stop access to government information.”

The Obama administration also focused on modernization as part of its own government reform agenda, including an effort to update information technology.

Shrinking the size of government, and cutting costs, has been another target of past administrations echoed by the Trump White House, which released an executive order aimed at eliminating redundancy in the federal government. During his first year in office, George W. Bush outlined a call for reform rooted in a “market-based” approach, and announced a “Management Agenda,” which the administration billed as “an aggressive strategy for improving management of the federal government.” As part of that, the Bush administration saved taxpayers roughly $7 billion by encouraging public-private sector competition, according to a 2008 assessment published in the Public Administration Review.

The Clinton administration's reforms also resulted in a cost-savings in the billions of dollars, according to the IBM Center for the Business of Government and Partnership for Public Service report, and included scaling back the size of the federal workforce.

It can be hard to predict how a massive federal bureaucracy will respond to efforts to change it, however. And it may be difficult to avoid unforeseen repercussions. Job cuts under the Clinton administration created “unintended consequences, such as weakening the acquisition workforce and diminishing the expertise and capacity of professionals in federal human resources and other management rules,” according to the IBM Center for the Business of Government and the Partnership for Public Service.

The Trump administration might face a unique set of challenges if the people tasked with recommending and carrying out reforms lack expertise in actually running government. A press release describing the so-called innovation office says that recommendations will be developed “with career staff along with private-sector and other external thought leaders.”

“The concern would be that relying on business people to make recommendations and fixes might not work as well as relying on public administration experts,” said Rob Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “The federal bureaucracy is complicated, and you need to address these issues with people who actually understand public administration. Otherwise it would be kind of like taking a governor and asking him to go in and advise General Motors on how to run their business.”

Kamarck made a similar argument, writing earlier this week that “a real government-reform effort must be led by people with in-depth knowledge of the government itself. Otherwise, it will simply be another initiative that is forgotten almost as soon as it is announced.”

Part of the challenge of government reform is when it works well, it often fails to generate much attention or praise, potentially diminishing the incentive for government officials to prioritize reform in the first place. A breakdown in government operations, however, does have the potential to generate significant negative publicity, a lesson President Obama’s administration learned during the botched rollout of the healthcare.gov website in 2013. “Most presidents focus attention on policy and often fail to understand that won’t mean much if you can’t make it operational,” Stier said.

It’s too early to judge how this latest effort might turn out. But unless the administration makes a substantial effort to tap existing governmental expertise, it’s hard to see how this latest attempt at reform could succeed.

]]>

The White House Dismisses Reports of Possible Russian Collusion

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:44:08 -0400

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Thursday dismissed a recent CNN report claiming the FBI has information to suggest Trump associates may have worked with Russian operatives in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Spicer argued that the report was flimsy and, by its own admission, offered no definitive proof of coordination. “Let’s actually look at what CNN reported: They reported that anonymous U.S. officials have told them that information indicates that [associates] of the campaign and suspected operatives coordinated, which they admit is not conclusive of anything bordering on collusion.” He added: “There is probably more evidence that CNN colluded with the Clinton campaign to give her debate questions than the Trump campaign gave any kind of collusion.”

There is no publicly available, conclusive evidence that people in Trump’s orbit colluded with Russian operatives in an attempt to damage Clinton’s bid. Spicer himself emphasized that on Monday, after FBI Director James Comey publicly revealed for the first time that the agency is investigating Russia’s involvement in the election and whether there was any coordination.

But two recent developments have raised the specter of collusion. CNN’s story, published on Wednesday, alleged that “the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” And earlier on Wednesday, Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating Russia’s role in the election, stated that “there is more than circumstantial evidence now” of collusion, though he did not provide specifics of what that might be.

When asked by CNN’s Sara Murray Thursday afternoon if he could “say unequivocally that associates of President Trump did not collude with suspected Russian operatives,” Spicer took issue with the ambiguity of the term “associates.” “No, I can’t unequivocally say that nobody ever, in his past, who may or may not have come in contact with him, who sat next to him in a plane,” he said. “The point that I’m making is when you use a term like ‘associate’ ... there’s a reason why you’re doing it, because you don’t have anything concrete,” he added. “What I have a problem with is, specific with the reporting your network did yesterday, is it was one subjective term after another … with no concrete proof that anything happened.”

Spicer also defended the credibility of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, who is leading his panel’s examination of the election, but whose public remarks about intelligence have recently caused controversy. On Wednesday, Nunes sent shockwaves through Washington when he claimed that “the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.” The news did not appear to vindicate Trump’s claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped him, and Nunes himself has repeatedly said that there’s no evidence of a physical wiretap. The FBI and the Justice Department have indicated that they have no information to support tweets Trump sent earlier this month detailing his Obama allegations.

Spicer waved off a question from a reporter about whether the White House or an administration official might have given Nunes the information he announced on Wednesday, and which the chairman shared with the president

“I don’t know what he actually briefed the president on, but I don’t know why he would come up to brief the president on something that we gave him,” Spicer said. “I don’t know that that makes sense. … I’m not aware of it, but it doesn’t really pass the smell test.” On Wednesday, Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, harshly criticized Nunes for the release of the information, which he said “committee members only learned about” when Nunes went public.

Schiff said that Nunes would have to decide if “he’s leading an investigation” or “going to act as a surrogate of the White House.” Spicer, for his part, said the president “absolutely” remains confident in Nunes’s ability to spearhead his committee’s inquiry.

]]>

The White House Is Still Standing by Trump’s Wiretap Accusation

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:30:02 -0400

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated on Monday that President Trump is sticking with his allegations that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, even after FBI Director James Comey insisted earlier in the day that he himself has “no information” to support that claim.

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Ranking Member Adam Schiff asked Comey if Trump’s accusations were true. He referred to a March 4 tweet in which the president said, without providing evidence, that he “just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Comey replied that he has “no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI.” A spokesman for Obama has called the claims false.

Later in the afternoon, Spicer was asked by a reporter if Trump was “prepared to withdraw that accusation and apologize” to Obama, given Comey’s testimony. Spicer said “No,” and suggested that more information could still come to light. “We started a hearing. It’s still ongoing,” Spicer said. “I think there’s a lot of areas that still need to be covered. There’s a lot of information that still needs to be discussed.”

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said during the hearing that there was no “physical wiretap of Trump Tower,” though he added that “it’s still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.”

In his testimony, Comey publicly confirmed for the first time that the agency is investigating Russia’s involvement in last year’s election. “The FBI,” Comey said, “is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

]]>

What Is the Logan Act and What Does It Have to Do With Flynn?

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:32:07 -0500

The controversy over former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States has revived interest in an obscure 18th century federal law known as the Logan Act.

On Monday evening, Flynn resigned after reports that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with the Russian official before Trump took office. At the end of December, the Obama administration imposed sanctions following the determination of U.S. intelligence officials that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election to undermine then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that after Obama advisers learned of Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador they “grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.”

The Logan Act is a 1799 law that calls for the fine or imprisonment of private citizens who attempt to intervene without authorization in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to successfully prosecute any American citizen.

To better understand the history of the law, and what’s at stake, I spoke with Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law. A transcript of our conversation lightly edited for length and clarity appears below.

Clare Foran: Why do we have this law in the first place?

Steve Vladeck: The law dates back to 1799, and it was enacted at a very different moment in American history. We were much more into punishing partisan political differences as crimes at that moment. This was the same Congress that passed the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. The Logan Act was basically a response to an effort by a Philadelphia Quaker named George Logan to try to negotiate directly with the French government. This was a big scandal at the time in foreign affairs because Logan—a Democratic-Republican—was trying to thwart the policy of the Federalists, who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. It was a controversy back at home, and Congress took none too kindly to this effort to circumvent them or President Adams on a question of diplomatic relations.

Foran: So even at the time it was passed it wasn’t applied successfully?

Vladeck: It’s unconstitutional to impose punishment retroactively. So Congress could not punish Doctor Logan for something that he did before they passed the statute that now bears his name. It wasn’t intended to apply to him; it was inspired by him. The idea was that we didn’t want more George Logans in the future.

Foran: Can you explain what you mean when you say that at the time the U.S. was much more interested in punishing partisan political differences?

Vladeck: Well, I think the most important thing to understand about the Logan Act is that it wasn’t until the 20th century that the Supreme Court really breathed life into the First and Fifth Amendments when it comes to prosecuting individuals for their speech or their conduct. At the Founding, there was much more tolerance for the idea that someone could be sent to jail for nasty speech, for libelous speech, for partisan political opposition. The partisan politics of that day were often unbound by what we today think of as obvious constitutional constraints, just because the Supreme Court had not recognized them yet. At that time, Congress thought more capaciously about its power to punish speech, in ways that we would never think a contemporary Congress would act because of the intervening development of our modern First and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence.

Foran: So why has it never been used to prosecute anyone successfully?

Vladeck: I think part of why it has lain dormant for all this time is a combination of disuse and subsequent intervening developments. There weren’t that many examples into the 19th century of other George Logans doing similar things, and by the time private foreign policy became an issue once more in the 20th century, we had a far-more-powerful First Amendment that was very skeptical of content-based restrictions on speech. We had a modern vagueness doctrine that disfavors criminal statutes where it’s not necessarily what clear what exactly they prohibit. The Supreme Court has basically relegated content-based restrictions, or restrictions on what a person can say, to the dustbin of permissible legislation because it equates them with censorship.

Foran: In the intervening time from when it was passed until now, how frequently has the act been dredged up, and has it often been for partisan political purposes?

Vladeck: I think it is not a coincidence that it is usually critics of a particular political party who trot out the Logan Act to criticize activities implicating our foreign policy, whether by members of Congress or transition team officials or individuals who aren’t in the executive branch but have close ties to it. I think the theory is that the Logan Act is an easy principle to grasp. And I think we have a tendency these days to not think a policy objection is sufficiently strong unless we can also explain some way in which it’s also grounded in the law. But I also think it gets brought up because people want to make headlines, and the easy headline is that Mike Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, even though to me there are probably lots of other headlines about the Flynn situation that are probably far more important.

Foran: Such as?

Vladeck: Well, there are a lot of questions that I think are more important. Did Flynn make false statements to the FBI, which would be a crime and one that is enforced on a far more regular basis than the Logan Act, for example. Even if he didn’t, should we have concerns about the fact that he misled senior government officials and they didn’t do anything about it until The Washington Post reported it?

I think that to the extent that the Logan Act is misunderstood, that allows it to consume oxygen that that might better be served on other questions. That includes scrutiny of the policy behind the Logan Act. Whether or not it’s viable today, there are reasons why Congress passed the Logan Act. And even if the law itself is unenforceable today, that doesn’t mean the question of whether and why we should be wary of individuals attempting to intervene in negotiations with foreign governments isn’t worth discussing.

Foran: Do you think there should be a law that is more easily enforceable that could sanction people for attempting to negotiate with foreign governments without authorization?

Vladeck: I think it depends on who the person is, and why they’re doing it. I’m not bothered by the transition team speaking with foreign governments because they’re about to be in charge. I’m not bothered by members of Congress who, in their official capacity, communicate with foreign governments as part of their legislative function.

So part of the issue here is yes, I do think that the actual facts of the Logan case where you have a true private citizen directly interfering with U.S. foreign policy is worth talking about, and might be worth prohibiting.

But the way the law is written it could be so much more broadly sweeping than that, and I think that’s a big part of why it is so problematic. The way it’s written now it’s not clear that it would only apply to the George Logans of the world. It might apply to circumstances like what happened with Mike Flynn, and that gives me pause, because there’s a reason why the modern Supreme Court requires Congress to write criminal statutes much more specifically than the way the Logan Act is written. I think if Congress really cares about the principle behind the Logan Act, and not just scoring political points out of it, then they ought to rewrite the statute.

Foran: So what happens now in terms of Flynn’s resignation and the Logan Act?

Vladeck: The FBI’s job is to consider all the laws on the books, but it’s not the FBI that has prosecutorial discretion, that’s the responsibility of the Justice Department. The FBI’s job is to see if people broke the law, and then it’s the Justice Department’s job to decide if they should be prosecuted for it. But if anything that brings us to the last problem with the Logan Act, which in this case is, who is going to enforce it? Somehow I don’t think that [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is going to going to be in a big hurry to prosecute Mike Flynn. I don’t think any prosecutor would bring this case for legal reasons, but I think there are also political reasons why it certainly won’t be Jeff Sessions.

]]>

Trump's Digital Presidential Takeover

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:05:59 -0500

Donald Trump is officially America’s new president—and the digital transfer of power has proceeded quickly.

The official White House website now displays a photo of Trump and a quote from the 45th president himself that reads: “The Movement Continues—The Work Begins!” Bios for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence as well as First Lady Melania Trump and Second Lady Karen Pence are loaded onto the site. A list details the administration’s “top issues,” which sketch out an agenda that includes “bringing back jobs and growth,” “making our military strong again,” and “standing up for our law enforcement community.”

Here's an excerpt from the White House issue page for "standing up for our law enforcement community." pic.twitter.com/0j4107Vp7M
— Clare Foran (@ckmarie) January 20, 2017

Those aren’t the only digital changes: The @POTUS twitter account now displays the name President Trump, though the newly-inaugurated president has yet to tweet from the account. The @FLOTUS twitter account has a picture of Melania and a note in the bio informing the reader that the account is “run by the Office of First Lady Melania Trump.” So far, neither the First Lady nor her office has yet to tweet.

]]>

Will Rick Perry Promote Science at the Department of Energy?

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:06:51 -0500

It became known as Rick Perry’s “oops” moment: Standing on stage at a Republican presidential debate in 2011, the then-Texas governor couldn’t recallthe third government agency he wanted to eliminate. Perry named the Departments of Commerce and Education, but forgot the Department of Energy, which he clarified later in the debate. Now, he may lead the agency he once wanted to scrap.

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump formally announced his intention to nominate Perry to serve as secretary of energy. “My administration is going to make sure we take advantage of our huge natural resource deposits to make America energy independent and create vast new wealth for our nation, and Rick Perry is going to do an amazing job as the leader of that process,” Trump said in a statement. Perry called the news “a tremendous honor,” and added that he looks forward to “promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first.”

Perry won’t necessarily be pursuing his own energy agenda if confirmed by the Senate. He will be tasked with carrying out the president-elect’s policy aims. Trump aide Sean Spicer emphasized that point during a call with reporters on Tuesday when asked whether Trump feels comfortable with Perry’s earlier call to eliminate the agency. Trump is looking for people “to implement his agenda,” Spicer insisted, “It’s his agenda that’s being implemented, not somebody else’s.”

That won't be enough, however, to re-assure critics of the nomination, and there are already indications that Democrats in the Senate will pushback. Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which will consider the nomination, called Perry “utterly unqualified to lead this critical agency,” in a statement on Tuesday. “President-elect Trump has signaled his blatant hostility to the Department,” he added, “by nominating someone who has proposed eliminating this entire agency.”

The Energy Department oversees a wide array of priorities. It maintains the nation’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, and runs national laboratories that conduct scientific and energy technology research, including research and development focused on renewable energy. The national laboratories play a critical role in driving U.S. scientific innovation. The department is also responsible for environmental cleanup efforts, sets energy efficiency standards, and grants authorizations for natural gas exports.

The approach presidential administrations have taken in the past to managing the agency, as well as the apparent priorities of the Trump transition team, offer insight into what might change at the department. As Brad Plumer points out at Vox:

The nuclear weapons and environmental cleanup programs tend to remain fixed from administration to administration. But the energy programs have changed significantly with each new president. … [Under Obama] the Department of Energy has greatly expanded a variety of clean energy programs — the stimulus bill of 2009 created massive loan guarantee programs for solar, battery, and electric car companies.

[…]Donald Trump’s transition team, for its part, has generally signaled that it wants to tilt the Energy Department’s focus away from renewables and back toward programs that support oil and gas drilling (and possibly nuclear power).

It’s possible that Trump’s hostility toward President Obama’s climate agenda may also impact the agency. Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and campaigned on promises to dismantle Obama’s climate initiatives. The transition team recently asked the Energy Department to provide names of employees who have attended United Nations climate talks and identify programs “essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.” The department rejected the request to identify individuals by name, but that won’t quell fears among environmentalists, Democrats, science advocates, and agency employees. An anonymously-quoted former department staffer told Politico the request seemed like a “witch hunt.”

If Perry becomes energy secretary, his background in conservative politics will mark a dramatic break with the scientific expertise of the current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist. Perry has a track record of questioning climate science. “The science is not settled on this,” he said during a presidential debate in 2011, an assertion that misrepresents the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity is driving global warming.

This has alarmed some science advocates. “The Energy Department is a massive science agency that plays a major role in scientific enterprise at the federal level. It’s not always the case that it’s been led by a scientist, but to have somebody dismissing climate science as the head of the department, that’s worrying,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy organization.

There are other notable differences between the outgoing and potentially incoming cabinet secretaries as well. Moniz played a major role in the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, an international agreement that Perry has claimed“jeopardizes the safety and security of the free world.” Perry has also been sharply critical of the Obama administration’s energy policy overall, accusing the president of “waging a war on coal,” and “creating obstacles to onshore and offshore oil and gas production.”

As Texas governor, Perry presided over an uptick of natural gas drilling and defended oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. A New York Times report on his record as governor from 2011 noted that “Under Mr. Perry, Texas has moved eagerly to build coal-fired power plants, even as other states have stopped issuing permits for the plants because of pollution concerns.” But Perry has supported the wind industry in Texas as well, signing legislation that mandated an expansion of renewable energy capacity.

Perry tried and failed to win the Republican nomination for president in 2012, and launched another unsuccessful presidential bid in 2016. Earlier this year, he became a contestant on the television show Dancing with the Stars only to be eliminated not long after it began. Perry is also a member of the board of directors for Energy Transfer Partners, a company that owns Dakota Access LLC, which is attempting to build the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Perry is the latest in a series of Trump cabinet picks who have been critical of the agency they may lead or advocate an agenda at odds with the agency’s mission under President Obama. Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who Trump has chosen to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has been a high-profile legal opponent of the agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Andrew Puzder, Trump’s choice for labor secretary, has criticized worker protections undertaken by the Labor Department under the Obama administration.

Perry has not always agreed with Trump, or even supported him. Last year, he denounced him as a “cancer on conservatism,” calling Trumpism “a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued.” But that anti-Trump conviction appears to have been short-lived. Earlier this year, Perry endorsed Trump, saying that while “he is not a perfect man” he believes that Trump “loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people.” Now, one of those people Trump surrounds himself may be Perry himself.

Given Trump’s track record of punishing what he perceives to be disloyalty it might seem surprising that he would want Perry to serve as his energy secretary. Perry’s about-face, however, seems to have satisfied the president-elect. “We’re big fans of Governor Perry, someone who did a fantastic job with the state of Texas,” Trump aide Jason Miller told reporters on Tuesday.

]]>

The Trump Administration Starts to Take Shape

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:02:05 -0500

President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is starting to take shape. In a statement on Sunday, Trump announced that Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican National Committee, will serve as White House chief of staff. Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, a conservative website that has promoted white ethno-nationalism, will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.

Priebus literally presides over the GOP establishment; Bannon has numbered among its fiercest critics. But although in most administrations, the chief of staff runs the White House, the announcement went to some pains to present them as peers:

Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign, working as equal partners to transform the federal government.

Bannon has been a lightning-rod for criticism on both the right and the left. Ben Shapiro, who resigned from Breitbart in protest in March, wrote that he has “no evidence that Bannon’s a racist or that he’s an anti-Semite,” but charged that Bannon has, perhaps opportunistically, “openly embraced the racist and anti-Semitic alt-right.” “The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office. Be very vigilant America,” John Weaver, a strategist to former GOP presidential candidate John Kasich, tweeted on Sunday. “President-elect Trump’s choice of Steve Bannon as his top aide signals that White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump’s White House,” a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said. The Anti-Defamation League responded by saying: “It is a sad day when when a man who presided over the premier website of the ‘alt-right’—a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists—is slated to be a senior member in the ‘people’s house.’”

Priebus, for his part, praised his new colleague as “very, very smart, very temperate.” He told Fox & Friends that Bannon “was a force for good on the campaign,” adding that he hadn’t “seen any of these things that people are crying out about.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s transition team is filling up both with the staff and advisers who powered his insurgent campaign built around anti-Washington populism, and party loyalists, political insiders, and monied elites.

On Friday, Trump announced that Vice President-elect Mike Pence would serve as the chairman of the transition team, a role formerly held by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who will now serve as a vice chairman. Pence’s close ties to conservatives on Capitol Hill may be one reason he was tapped for the role. The re-organization may also reflect the fact that Christie’s political star is in rapid decline amid continuing fallout from the Bridgegate scandal.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, former House Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired U.S. Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn, and Senator Jeff Sessions will also serveas vice chairs on the team’s executive committee.

The Republican mega-donor Rebekah Mercer and the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, both key supporters of Trump’s campaign, have also been named to the transition team, along with Republican members of Congress Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Chris Collins of New York, Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, and Devin Nunes of California. Steve Mnuchin has also been named as a member of the Trump transition team’s executive committee. Mnuchin, an alum of Goldman Sachs, is reportedly under consideration to serve as treasury secretary.

Some names in circulation are less conventional. The Hill reported on Saturday that conservative radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham is under consideration to serve as press secretary.

The makeup of the transition team has also raised questions over potential conflicts of interest. Donald Trump Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump have been appointed to the transition team, despite the fact that Trump’s children are reportedly set to take over management of the Trump Organization. Citing government ethics experts, Reuters reported on Friday that “giving over control to Trump’s children would do virtually nothing to prevent potential conflicts of interest, since there’s usually no daylight between one’s personal interest and the interest of one’s immediate family members.”

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has also been named to the transition team’s executive committee, despite controversy surrounding her political ties to Trump. In September, The Washington Post reported:

Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty … after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general. The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.

Trump’s reliance on political insiders and elites to run his transition team might look as though Trump is reversing his campaign-trail promises to “drain the swamp” in Washington D.C. But at the same time, it might also be consistent with Trump’s longstanding claim that people like himself who know the system intimately from the inside are in the best position to fix it.

There is no question, though, that Trump will be shaking up Washington. The Trump transition team already signals a dramatic break with President Obama’s administration. That’s true whether you look to climate-change skeptic Myron Ebell, who is reportedly leading the transition plans for the Environmental Protection Agency, or to Bannon, whose appointment signals that the alt-right will now have a foothold inside the White House.

]]>

John Kerry Calls Bombing of Aleppo ‘Beyond the Pale’

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:07:18 -0400

The conflict in Syria has grown increasingly dire as diplomatic efforts to stem the tide of violence come up short. On Thursday, the Russian government rejected U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s demand for an end to bombing of the Syrian city of Aleppo, a key battleground in the fight between the Syrian government and rebel forces.

Kerry denounced the bombing of Aleppo as “inexcusable,” and “beyond the pale,” on Thursday at the Washington Ideas Forum, presented by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute. The secretary of state defended the administration’s attempts to seek a political settlement to the conflict, but did not present an optimistic view that diplomacy will prevail anytime soon. “Under those kinds of circumstances, it is not possible to cooperate,” he told Steve Clemons, referring to the bombing of Aleppo. Kerry added: “We’re on the verge of suspending the discussion. It’s irrational in the context of the kind of bombing taking place to be sitting there and trying to take things seriously.”

The United States and Russia announced a cease-fireagreement earlier this month, but the deal has since crumbled. An intense campaign of Syrian and Russian airstrikes in Aleppo began at the end of last week. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Thursday proposed a 48-hour pause in fighting, which,The New York Times reports, the U.S. is “likely to reject.”

The unfolding humanitarian crisis is devastating. The Washington Post reported that “entire families sleep in one room” in Aleppo “because they prefer to die together than to create orphans, widows or bereaved parents.” Amid pauses in the bombings, the Post reported, “rescue workers venture out, navigating the rubble and craters left by earlier bombings, to dig out victims without headlights or lamps. They haul them to hospitals swamped with patients being treated on the floor by doctors who barely sleep and must choose which lives to save and which to let go.”

Kerry described the situation in dire terms on Thursday. “I’m very, very dissatisfied with where we are in Syria,” he said, adding that he feels “extremely concerned about where it is going and what will happen to the people of Syria … if a more rational and moral-based common-sense approach is not found to deal with the situation.” At the start of the conversation, Kerry remarked: “I’ve taken on a lot of challenges, but Syria is as complicated as anything I’ve ever seen in public life.”

Republicans in Congress have mocked the administration’s efforts as ineffective. “Finally, a real power move in American diplomacy,” Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham said sarcastically in a statement Wednesday. “Secretary of State John ‘Not Delusional’ Kerry has made the one threat the Russians feared most—the suspension of U.S.-Russia bilateral talks about Syria.”

For his part, Kerry defended U.S. efforts. “I make no apology, nor does President Obama, none whatsoever, for trying to reach out and find out if there’s a way to achieve a political settlement,” Kerry said. He conceded, however, that diplomatic efforts in Syria have been “marred by these breaches of the ceasefire and the destruction and Russia’s persistent support of [Syrian President] Assad in a way that is beyond the seeking of a political settlement.”

]]>

CIA Director Calls 9/11 Legislation 'Badly Misguided'

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:43:35 -0400

CIA Director John Brennan warned against the national security risks of legislation that would allow families of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia on Wednesday.

“I think the legislation is badly misguided and doesn’t take into account the negative impact on U.S. national security,” Brennan told Jeffrey Goldberg at the Washington Ideas Forum presented by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute. Brennan added: “We all recognize that the emotions associated with 9/11 are still quite palpable [and] …. the victims’ families are still seeking justices, but the 9/11 commission report said that there was no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials, individually, were responsible for the 9/11 attack.”

Congress voted to override the president’s veto on Wednesday, paving the way for the bill to become law and marking the first successful veto override of the Obama presidency.

The CIA director cautioned that the implications of the legislation extend far beyond potentially damaging the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. “I think there’s a very, very dangerous slippery slope that we’re going to get on,” Brennan said, adding that “foreign governments are going to start to pass similar type of legislation that is going to haul the United States into court overseas, even for the most frivolous charges and allegations for what the U.S. has done overseas.”

During the course of a wide-ranging conversation on U.S. national security and foreign policy, Brennan declined to say outright that Russia has intervened in the U.S. presidential election. But he warned that “Russia has tremendous capabilities in the cyber realm” and that “the Russians have been very active globally in trying to influence political developments in a variety of countries, including engaging in election politics and manipulation in countries overseas.”

Yet the CIA director did not refute the possibility that, as Goldberg put it, Russia “is trying to, in essence, hack our election.” “The U.S. government right now is very much aware and working on the issue of who might be trying to get into and intrude in the electoral systems … What we do at CIA is to look at a country’s capabilities, look at their intent, look at things that they have done in the past, and determine whether something that certainly looks like a duck, smells like a duck and flies like a duck, whether it’s a duck or not.”

There is a widespread belief among cyber security experts that state-sponsored Russian hackers were responsible for the hack that led to leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee released on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. Last week, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein and congressman Adam Schiff formally released a statement saying that “based on briefings,” they had “concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election.” The statement added that “this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election—we can see no other rationale for the behavior of the Russians.”

Trump has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin during his campaign,provoking criticism and anxiety among high-profile Republicans. Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook said in August that there are “real questions” as to whether Trump is “just a puppet for the Kremlin in this race.”

Brennan also warned about the negative national security implications of divisive political rhetoric. “Making comments that are incendiary and that are viewed as attacking a religion or a people or a community only further drive those individuals to grasp onto those extremist views,” Brennan said after Goldberg asked whether the way Trump has talked about Muslims during the election, which includes a call to ban Muslims from entering the country, hurts national security interests. “They interpret a lot of the comments that are made as the West and the United States are against them ... It's the extremist comments on both sides of this have just fed those sources of extremism.”

]]>

Federal Agency to God: Prove You're Real

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 15:39:09 -0400

The Federal Election Commission has a few questions for God, Satan, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan, all of whom have filed paperwork to run for office this election cycle.

This implausible scenario is part of a policy aimed at dealing with an influx of suspicious-sounding presidential candidate names. It’s relatively easy to register as a presidential candidate, and during the 2016 election plenty of people seem to be taking advantage of that. As a result, the federal agency is now asking whoever filed paperwork to run for president under the names “God,” “Satan,” and “Ronald Reagan’s Ghost” to prove they actually exist.

“It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include an accurate candidate name,” a letter sent by the commission to “H. Majesty Satan Lord of Underworld Prince of Darkness!” in College Station, Texas dated August 31, 2016 reads. “The Commission requires the filing to be true, correct and complete,” the letter warns, adding that “knowingly and willfully making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a federal government agency, including the Federal Election Commission, is punishable.”

A wide array of individuals listed as presidential candidates in the agency directory don’t seem like they could possibly be real. To name a few: Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker, Jean-Luc Picard, Captain Crunch, Queen Elsa, and Francis Underwood. Several of these supposed candidates have received letters asking for proof of existence. It’s one thing for a federal agency to demand proof of existence from a fictional character. Asking God and Satan to prove that they are real seems far more metaphysical.

"This election cycle has seen a huge increase in the number of fake presidential candidates filing paperwork with the FEC," said Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance lawyer and partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Akerman LLP. "In previous election cycles the FEC would get a few dozen such filings. This cycle they have received hundreds."

It’s hard to say how much time and effort the agency wastes sifting through paperwork intended as a prank. Broadly speaking, the FEC is tasked with regulating money in politics, a responsibility that includes looking into and, in theory, taking action when campaign finance violations occur. But the agency is often criticized as relatively toothless. Agency commissioner Ann Ravel has even gone so far as to say that the agency is “worse than dysfunctional.”

God, Satan and Ronald Reagan’s Ghost have 30 days to respond with proof of their existence, or their candidacy will be removed from the agency website. “If the information you submitted … is, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete, please file a response to confirm this,” the letter to Satan Lord of Underworld Prince of Darkness reads. “Failure to respond within 30 calendar days of the date of this correspondence will result in the Commission removing your FEC Form 2 and related committee filings.”

What else do we know about these elusive candidates? “God” originally registered as a Republican. Satan also opted to register as a Republican. Ronald Reagan’s Ghost meanwhile is registered as an Independent. Donald Trump often talks up the fact that he’s a political outsider, but it’s hard to imagine what could be more of an outsider than being undead, a deity, or a devil.

]]>

Why Is Hillary Clinton Courting Republican Foreign-Policy Heavyweights?

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 11:04:47 -0400

Of all the arguments Hillary Clinton has made against Donald Trump, the charge that he cannot be trusted with America’s nuclear codes may prove most memorable. Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare frames the race in the starkest possible terms. But as the Clinton campaign courts Republicans as it makes its national-security case, will it alienate progressive Democrats along the way?

On Monday, Politico noted that Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, James Baker, and George Shultz—former secretaries of state who served under Republican administrations—have not yet “come out for or against Trump.” According to the report, “a person close to Clinton said her team has sent out feelers to the GOP elders,” though “Clinton campaign aides did not respond when asked if they had solicited endorsements or tried to persuade the elders to speak out against Trump.”

Meanwhile, prominent members of the Republican foreign policy establishment are speaking out against Trump in droves. The New York Times published a letter on Monday signed by a long list of senior Republican national-security officials, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden. The letter warns that Trump “would be a dangerous President,” and would “risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

The more high-profile Republicans repudiate Trump, the weaker he looks as a general-election candidate. But in the race to win over independent and Republican voters, an endorsement from someone with as much name recognition as Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, would be even more powerful.

"The messenger matters," said Elizabeth Saunders, a political science professor at George Washington University. "In general it's surprising to see high-profile Republicans cross the aisle to endorse a Democrat, and the more prominent the person making an endorsement, the more powerful the effect." If Kissinger, Rice, Baker or Shultz endorsed Clinton, that would be "a big deal," Saunders noted, since it would be "a Republican at the very highest and most recognized level, a former Secretary of State, crossing the aisle to endorse."

There are plenty of reasons Republican foreign-policy experts might prefer Clinton to Trump. As a former secretary of state, Clinton has far more foreign-policy experience. On top of that, Trump has broken with Republican consensus by threatening to upend U.S. participation in NATO and rip up international trade deals. His presidency could dramatically alter the way America engages with the rest of the world. That unconventional stand creates an opportunity for Clinton.

“Trump represents a strong break with foreign policy tradition, and I think Secretary Clinton is trying to capitalize on that,” said Nora Bensahel, a distinguished scholar in residence at American University’s School of International Service. “She’s trying to appeal to Independents and Republicans who are on the fence about Trump and have questions about what his judgment as commander-in-chief would look like.”

Clinton has already won outright endorsements from some prominent members of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. Brent Scowcroft, a national security adviser to Ford and George H.W. Bush, and Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, have publicly declared they plan to support Clinton over Trump. The Clinton campaign recently put out an ad that features conservatives questioning Trump’s ability to serve as commander-in-chief.

The focus on national-security risks alienating progressive voters wary of Clinton’s reputation as a foreign-policy hawk more likely to support military intervention abroad than President Obama and other Democrats. Chants of “No more war!” rung out inside the Wells Fargo Center when former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and retired General John Allen spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

“Henry Kissinger is an architect of war,” said Winnie Wong, a co-founder of The People for Bernie Sanders. “That Hillary Clinton is purportedly courting an endorsement from him speaks volumes about her future foreign-policy plans for the United States. Progressives want peace. This is not peace.”

Dan Froomkin of The Intercept summed up hostility toward Kissinger in February. “Kissinger is reviled by many left-leaning observers of foreign policy,” he wrote, “They consider him an amoral egotist who enabled dictators, extended the Vietnam War, laid the path to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, stage-managed a genocide in East Timor, overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government in Chile, and encouraged Nixon to wiretap his political adversaries.”

Clinton’s foreign-policy record has haunted her in the past. During the 2008 election, Obama attacked Clinton for her support of the Iraq War, andemphasized his own opposition to the war during his ultimately successful primary campaign. Now, however, Clinton seems to believe an emphasis on national security will resonate with undecided voters, even if it doesn’t sit well with progressives.

Democrats are attempting to frame the election as less a contest of partisan ideology and more a choice between someone who is unfit to serve as commander-in-chief and a person who can be trusted to handle power responsibly. In their telling, a vote for Trump would be reckless, and dangerous. That argument could prove extremely persuasive, in part because it is succinct. But to work, it can’t just be voiced by Democrats.

The more endorsements Clinton wins from Republicans, or individuals who have served faithfully in Republican administrations, the stronger the case becomes. Ironically, the partisan affiliations of her endorsers help Clinton argue that the election is not about partisan politics at all. “When a bunch of Republicans are forced to admit he’s unfit to be commander-in-chief, it’s very difficult for all but the most rabid partisan to ignore it,” said Matt Bennett, senior vice president for public affairs at the center-left think-tank Third Way.

Another way of understanding why the Clinton campaign might court endorsements from GOP foreign-policy heavyweights is that there are plenty of indications that the Democratic base will rally behind Clinton in November. A Pew Research survey found that 90 percent of consistent Sanders supporters plan to support Clinton in the general election. That number could climb even higher as the election draws nearer.

The idea that Trump poses a unique threat is not confined to Republicans defecting to Clinton. It is a belief shared by many progressives. That leaves the Clinton campaign with leeway to court moderates and centrists. There may have been loud anti-war protest chants at the Democratic convention, but they were more often than not drowned out by cheers of “USA, USA!” That’s not to say that the Clinton campaign is incapable of alienating a critical mass of progressive voters. It’s just that in a year when Trump could win the White House, it would take far more effort to do so.

]]>

Hillary Clinton's Feminist Triumph

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:48:15 -0400

PHILADELPHIA—Several hours before Hillary Clinton accepted the presidential nomination on stage at the Democratic National Convention, women leaders and political activists gathered to celebrate inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

Wendy Davis told a crowd at the women’s caucus: “We have never, ever had someone who has walked in our shoes, we have never had someone who understands what it means to be a woman in America, and we have never had the kind of champion that we are going to have in Hillary Clinton.” The television producer Shonda Rhimes praised Clinton as a trailblazer: “She had the audacity to refuse to quietly conform to traditional First Lady roles when she first came to Washington … [and for that] she suffered a lot of body blows in the war on women.”

The event was part pep rally, part get-out-the-vote effort, and part recognition of Clinton’s achievement as the first woman to win the presidential nomination for a major U.S. political party. Clinton can claim a feminist victory by virtue of winning the nomination. But that doesn’t mean women feel equally enthusiastic about or inspired by her success. With the presidential nomination in hand, Clinton must contend with a trust deficit and a skeptical public. Whether she can make history a second time by winning the presidency may hinge on the extent to which she can win over her critics.

The path to the general election for a woman nominee is uncharted territory. “Think about it this way: Only a hundred years ago, women couldn't even vote,” said the Rutgers University assistant political-science professor Shauna Shames. “The progress to this point in just a few decades is nothing short of stunning, and I think we forget that. But it also means there has been a tremendous backlash, some of which I think we see in the opposition to Hillary.”

For women who plan to vote for Clinton, her nomination victory stands as a groundbreaking moment. Many resist the idea that they support Clinton solely because they want a woman to win the White House. At the same time, they insist they should be able to celebrate the fact that Clinton is a woman succeeding in American politics in a way no woman has before.

“I hate those people who say, ‘Oh, you’re only voting for her because she’s a woman,’” said Brittany MacPherson, a 25-year-old Clinton convention delegate. “I’m like ‘Fuck yeah.’ I mean, it’s not the only reason I’m voting for her, but yes, that’s a good reason.”

Shana Stull, a 30-year-old Clinton delegate chimed in: “She happens to be the most qualified person who is a woman. When people shame me for that, I get really defensive. People have really come down on me, and I’m like, ‘I’m allowed to be excited about that.’”

Other women who admire Clinton stress the importance of equal representation in positions of political power. “We need more women in the House and the Senate, and in all levels of government,” said Amanda Soloway, a 23-year-old who attended the women’s caucus event. “We need to have the opportunity to have that whole part of society that’s really been pushed over to the side and into the shadows to be able to speak.”

To shatter that highest of glass ceilings, Clinton will have to overcome her vulnerabilities. As a candidate, she has an image problem. Clinton and Donald Trump are both historically unpopular. Among voters who don’t like Clinton, many believe she is untrustworthy, a Morning Consult poll found.

It’s common to hear women who admire Clinton say the criticism she faces is tinged with sexism. Yet for some of them, she is inspirational, not in spite of her reputation, but because of it. Where critics might see an irrevocably damaged reputation, admirers see perseverance in the face of adversity. “It’s been remarkable to see her career unfold,” said Dana Dabek, a 34-year-old at the women’s caucus event. “Watching her trajectory from First Lady until now, and seeing how even in the midst of misogyny, she has just kept going, kept advancing. That’s inspiring.”

At least some women say they have faced backlash for supporting Clinton. “We’ve been driven underground because people attack us,” MacPherson said. Now that Clinton has formally won the nomination that could change. “I still see Bernie holdouts,” Dabek said, “but I think people are starting to feel more comfortable making that declaration and telling people why they support her and why it’s important.”

Clinton has struggled to generate enthusiasm among younger voters. Young women in particular were resistant to voting for her during the primary season, often preferring Bernie Sanders instead.

“The generation gap has been fascinating,” Shames, the Rutgers professor, said. “Maybe feminism has succeeded so well in eliminating a lot of the early life discrimination that women might face that there’s not as much of a sense among young women that they are a minority group.” Shames added: “In a sense, that’s what the feminist movement hoped for, but in some way I think it’s removed some sense that these things do still matter.”

That dynamic has frustrated women who support the candidate. “I could remind you of what the younger feminists often forget. That in the 1990s, Hillary Rodham Clinton was a one-woman feminist revolution,” Rhimes told the crowd at the women’s caucus.

There is evidence that Democrats will coalesce around Clinton, but it remains to be seen how much excitement her campaign will be able to inspire during the general election. If the campaign can’t pull it off, it won’t be for lack of trying. Women who support Clinton are certainly trying to make the case that every woman in America should be invested in the outcome of the election.

“If we believe in the promise of America, we have to believe that it is time,” Democratic Congresswoman Marcia Fudge said at the women’s caucus. “Every other industrialized nation in the world has been led by a woman. And here we are believing that we are the best at everything, and we are still struggling. It is our time as women. It is our time.”

It goes without saying that Clinton does not represent every woman. That won’t take away the overwhelming enthusiasm her devoted supporters feel now that she has officially secured the nomination—and made history in doing so.

]]>

Obama Endorses Hillary as America’s Best Hope

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:15:14 -0400

Barack Obama needed to bring Democrats together tonight at the DNC. Tim Kaine had a far more difficult task: Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential pick needed to prove he can be trusted, has the capacity to inspire, and can effectively take on Donald Trump.

In the end, Obama and Kaine both won raucous cheers and applause. At one point during the president’s speech, someone in the crowd cried out: “Four more years!” Another screamed: “I love you!” And despite earlier threats of revolt from Bernie Sanders supporters, Kaine made it through his speech without major incident. He came across as dedicated to the cause, and ready to fight, hitting high notes along the way. In all, the evening showed a party that seemed far more willing to come together than it did when the convention began.

When Obama took the stage, he argued that the election is not really about ideology or partisan politics. “This is a more fundamental choice about who we are as a people,” he argued. He offered an uplifting message in contrast to Donald Trump’s dark vision of America. “I am more optimistic about America than ever before,” he said.

But he also acknowledged the suffering across the country. He was quick to note the “real anxieties” of many Americans. “There are pockets of America that never recovered from factory closures,” he said, “men who took pride in hard work and providing for their families who now feel forgotten.” The contrast highlighted a challenge for Democrats: The party is working to offer voters are more inspiring vision of America, but as it does, Democrats must be careful not to seem blind to voter concern.

Much of Obama’s speech boiled down to an idea the Clinton campaign has often pushed: America is better than this. He accused Trump of “selling the American people short,” declaring that “we are not a fragile or frightful people.” In one particularly memorable line, Obama said: “The American Dream is something no wall will ever contain.”

The president is uniquely situated to make the case that former rivals can embrace Clinton, and he did so convincingly. He recalled asking Clinton to serve in his administration after they faced off during the primary. “She knew that what was at stake was bigger than either of us,” he said, continuing the theme of transcending division. Later on, Obama gave a nod to Sanders supporters. “We all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been,” he said. But he also chided the far-left, saying that Clinton has been “caricatured by the right and by some folks on the left.” He warned the crowd: “You can’t afford to stay home just because she might not align with you on every issue,” insisting that “democracy isn’t a spectator sport.”

Obama is poised to be the most powerful advocate for Clinton on the campaign trail—he demonstrated that tonight. But there was also poignancy to the speech. As much as it was a chance for Obama to vouch for Clinton, it was also a kind of goodbye. The president’s description of what he has achieved in office is as much a reminder that he will soon depart the Oval Office to make way for a successor as anything else. It was a farewell tour delivered to an adoring audience. “I love you back,” the president told the crowd as he took the stage to wild applause.

Yet even if Obama is on his way out, the evening was also a reminder that if Clinton is elected, his legacy will live on. At the end of his speech, Clinton herself took the stage, the two stood side-by-side as they waved and surveyed the arena.

For Kaine, the night was a chance to introduce himself to Americans. It was a test he passed. Kaine did his best to show where he comes from. He talked about how his dad “ran a union ironworking shop” where he and his brothers “pitched in to work during summers and on weekends.” He spoke about his faith: “This journey that I’ve told you about has convinced me that God has created in this country a beautiful and rich tapestry, an incredible cultural diversity that succeeds when we embrace everybody in love, and battle back against the forces, the dark forces of division.”

There were a few tense moments. Many Bernie Sanders supporters view Kaine as a slap in the face to progressives who would have preferred to see someone like Elizabeth Warren serving as second-in-command. At one point, Kaine called Sanders a “great democratic leader,” a line that won cheers, but also created a disturbance in the crowd, which grew noisy and raucous, perhaps because Sanders supporters viewed the remark as pandering. Attempting to regain control, he quickly added: “We all should feel the Bern, and we all should not want to get Berned by the other guy!”

Still, Kaine didn’t appear overly concerned over a trust deficit on the left. He seemed to spend nearly as much time extending an olive branch to moderates and Republicans as progressives. Early on in his remarks, he said: “Any party that would nominate Donald Trump for president has moved too far away from [the] party of Lincoln … If any of you are looking for that party of Lincoln, we’ve got a home for you right here in the Democratic Party.”

In all, Kaine’s plainspoken style came across as humble and authentic, if not exactly awe-inspiring. “Can I be honest with you about something? I never expected to be here,” he said as he formally accepted the VP nomination. At the same time, his ability to speak Spanish, and rail against Donald Trump amped up the audience. He called Clinton “lista,” a word that he said means in Spanish “prepared, battle tested, it means rock-solid, up for anything, never backing down.”

There were signs of a divided party. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was interrupted during his speech by angry chants of “no more war!” The confrontation was emblematic of the fact that many Democrats fear Clinton is far too interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. As Kaine and Obama spoke, some delegates held up anti-TPP signs in opposition to the trade policy the president has pushed.

Beyond the headlining speeches, speakers prosecuted the case against Trump more aggressively than previous nights. Vice President Joe Biden made an impassioned case against the Republican Party’s nominee. “We cannot elect a man … who seeks to sow division in America for his own gain and disorder around the world. A man who confuses bluster for strength,” Biden said. “We’ve had candidates who attempt to get elected by appealing to our fears, but they never succeed. We never bow. We never bend. We never break. We endure. We overcome, and we always, always, always move forward.” Martin O’Malley put it another way: “I say to hell with Trump’s American nightmare. We believe in the American dream.” The crowd had no trouble agreeing on that.

]]>

How Can the U.S. Fix a Broken Government?

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:00:00 -0400

Americans believe that Washington, D.C., is not doing enough to solve the nation’s problems. The situation is so bad that this failure of government has become the most serious concern for the country, they say. But paradoxically, many Americans also believe the federal government is the best hope to fix its own inability to function. Government is the problem and the solution.

That’s one finding of the latest Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor poll, which shows that Americans think the most serious issue facing the country is that “the political system in Washington is not working well enough to produce solutions to the nation’s problems.” The poll also shows that more Americans believe the federal government is “most likely to provide solutions” to that challenge, outpacing state and local governments, big business or national corporations, local businesses, community or non-profit groups, and individuals.

The results of the poll highlight the stakes of the 2016 election. The unexpected rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, self-styled outsiders with promises to bring bold change to Washington, suggests that Americans across the political spectrum are angry with the political status quo. If Americans fear their government isn’t working, but still believe the best hope to reverse that trend hinges on the feds, then it might matter a great deal to voters who becomes their next president. Will Americans prefer Trump, who offers a break with political tradition, or will they elect Hillary Clinton, a politician who styles herself as a successor to President Obama, and in that sense could be seen as a continuation of the past?

Across partisan lines, voters are strongly convinced of D.C.’s failings. Ninety-six percent of Trump voters identified Washington as a problem, and 88 percent of Clinton voters said the same. Similarly, 95 percent of Republicans said that the political system in Washington is not working well enough, compared to 83 percent of Democrats. But roughly the same percentage of Trump and Clinton voters believe the federal government can help solve the problem. Forty percent of Trump voters and 43 percent of Clinton voters responded that the federal government was most likely to bring about a fix, a difference in results that fell within the margin of error.

The fact that so many voters are fed up with politics as usual might have been expected to give Trump an advantage. But, in fact, Clinton and Trump supporters alike largely appear to agree on the diagnosis of the problem as well as the mechanism for its solution.

So voters will have to decide which candidate they think can best steer the government that they hope can reform itself. Some Americans will inevitably think Trump is the best choice for a fresh start. Others might fear that he could irrevocably break an already damaged political system. Democratic voters may believe Clinton is a better candidate for reasons unrelated to how they feel about Washington, or they may think her track record and experience in government will have prepared her to deliver the change necessary to fix Washington, despite the criticism she has faced for being too much a part of the political status quo.

None of this means that Americans are optimistic that change will actually come to Washington, or think it is likely that the federal government will fix its own failings. Even if many Americans believe the federal government needs to reform itself, they may be relatively pessimistic that reform will happen given their dissatisfaction with the way Washington currently functions.

Some Americans do seem to think nothing can be done to make Washington work better. When asked which group or institution was most likely to provide a solution to the problem of a weakly functioning Washington, 5 percent said that “no one can fix it” or that none of the provided options could solve the problem. Another 5 percent were unsure of the most likely group or institution that might provide a solution.

Despite their concern with Washington, though, many still believe the federal government is better prepared than state and local governments, the private sector, nonprofits, and individuals to respond to a wide array of challenges facing the nation.

According to the survey, a majority or a plurality of Americans believe the federal government is most likely to provide solutions to, or otherwise deliver on, the threat of terrorism hitting American targets, excessive influence exerted by Wall Street and the big banks on the economy and political decision-making, the offshoring of jobs by American companies, the ability to pay for college without incurring excessive debt, and the concern that the average family income is lower today than in 2000.

All that suggests that even as Americans fret that the federal government is broken, they may still be looking to national politics for solutions to many of the challenges of contemporary life. Voters will have to weigh these considerations carefully when they head to the ballot box in November to elect the next commander-in-chief. Of course, if Americans look for solutions from the same institution they feel has failed them, they may ultimately be disappointed, no matter who wins the election.

The latest Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll is the 26th in a series examining how Americans are experiencing the changing economy. This poll examines the public’s attitudes toward fundamental trends reshaping American culture and the economy and their views about which institutions are best positioned to respond to them. It surveyed 1,000 adults by landline and cell phones from June 19 to June 24, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The survey was supervised by Ed Reilly and Megan McNally of FTI Consulting’s strategic communications practice.

]]>

The End of a Political Revolution

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:55:17 -0400

Bernie Sanders’s fight for the White House has reached its end. He appeared side-by-side with his long-time rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday and officially endorsed her as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The endorsement was proof that even Sanders can no longer ignore the reality that the Democratic race is over—and he lost.

“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that,” Sanders said during a joint appearance with Clinton in New Hampshire clearly aimed at unity. That doesn’t mean, however, that he is ready to formally exit the race. According to a campaign spokesman, Sanders remains a presidential candidate and is not dropping out of the race following his endorsement of Clinton. During the speech, Sanders was quick to remind the crowd that “we have begun a political revolution … and that revolution continues.”

For now, his political revolution has come up short. From the start of his campaign, Sanders called for a fundamental transformation in American political life so that the voices of average Americans would not be drowned out by wealthy elites and the gap between the rich and poor would not be nearly so vast. Yet Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly sided with Clinton’s pragmatic incrementalism over Sanders’s enthusiastic idealism. If the senator’s dream of revolution is ever to be achieved, it won’t happen with Sanders as the next president.

Nevertheless, Sanders vastly exceeded expectations. He convened massive rallies and filled stadiums to the point of overflowing, showing that stubborn insistence can register as charisma on the campaign trail. He did the unthinkable by raising millions of dollars and running a competitive presidential campaign while shunning super PACs. His fundraising strategy alone could serve as a powerful model for future candidates.

While Sanders worked to push the Democratic Party in a progressive direction, it remains to be seen how much of an lasting impact that effort will ultimately have. At the very least, his campaign demonstrated widespread enthusiasm for populism and an intense desire to reject the political status quo, particularly among a younger generation of voters who flocked to support the senator.

It is remarkable that a self-described democratic socialist managed to get so close to the White House in a country that so ardently proclaims its adoration for free markets. Sanders did not prove that embracing socialism is a winning proposition, but he showed that the label is not politically toxic either.

More broadly, the senator challenged Americans to rethink what it means to be radical, arguing that ideas often relegated to the fringe should be considered common sense. “Health care should be a right of all people, not a privilege,” Sanders declared in a speech intended to explain his vision of Democratic socialism in November of last year. “This is not a radical idea.”

It was a highly improbable rise. When he launched his White House bid, Sanders seemed to have been overlooked by the people who should have been his natural allies. Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, progressive groups that later endorsed Sanders, spent the weeks leading up to his presidential announcement trying to draft Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

Even Sanders publicly expressed doubt over whether he could achieve his aims. He promised to raise money through “small, individual contributions,” beforemusing aloud during a press conference “whether it is possible for any candidate, who is not a billionaire, or who is not beholden to the billionaire class, to be able to run successful campaigns.” Later in the campaign, Sanders told supporters that when he entered the race, his “greatest fear was that if we did not do well that it would be a setback not just for me, but for the ideas driving our campaign.”

Despite his concerns, Sanders succeeded in bringing attention to a progressive agenda during his presidential run, and Clinton ultimately embraced some of the ideas he championed. Following Sanders’s lead, Clinton came out in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an international trade deal supported by President Obama, and the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. In the past week, Clinton embraced ideas that Sanders has championed to expand access to health care and make higher education more affordable.

The senator also won concessions in the Democratic Party platform, a non-binding statement of priorities for the party. In the platform fight, Sanders supporters secured a litany of wins, including endorsement of progressive Wall Street reforms, and support for a $15 dollar minimum wage. Showing the limits of his influence, however, Sanders failed to convince Democrats to embrace trade deal opposition in the platform. It remains to be seen how much weight the platform, or Clinton’s policy promises, will carry. But pointing to concessions undoubtedly makes it easier for Sanders to justify an endorsement of Clinton.

His presidential bid may stand as the senator’s crowing political achievement. Sanders spoke of his surprise at how many people ultimately supported his campaign during an interview with C-SPAN. He recalled “driving to the location where we were going to go give a speech, and I saw a long, long line of people," saying that he “said to the guy next to us, ‘I wonder what's going on, they got a concert or something?’” It turned out the people were there to see him. Reflecting on his campaign, Sanders said: “Energy just flowed right into me, and I was able to [talk] to many thousands of people.”

At times, the revolution threatened to turn ugly. The campaign took aim at the Democratic National Committee last December, accusing the party of placing a “thumb on the scales in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Sandersdenounced DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and even endorsed her primary challenger. By choosing to remain in the race after it became clear he had no realistic path to the White House, Sanders also had to watch high-profile allies defect to Team Clinton, and see his supporters increasingly side with the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee.

Sanders has attempted to lay the groundwork for a lasting political movement, but there too the future is uncertain. He endorsed an array of congressional candidates as well as contenders vying for seats in state legislatures, though that effort has already encountered setbacks. His presidential run has given rise to a grassroots army of supporters looking for ways to carry on the fight. The question now is: how much success will Sanders and his followers have in building a movement that outlasts the campaign?

Sanders has made clear he does not want to see Donald Trump in the White House. “The major task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly,” Sanders told supporters in June. Denouncing Trump as a divisive candidate, Sanders warned: “After centuries of racism, sexism, and discrimination of all forms in our country, we do not need a major party candidate who makes bigotry the cornerstone of his campaign.”

Whatever Sanders turns his attention to after the presidential election, the effort may be more difficult, in part, because it is likely to provide less visibility than his presidential run. The spotlight of a national election will fade away, and Sanders may find it comparatively dull and disappointing to return to the corridors of Capitol Hill. He will return with an elevated political profile, if nothing else. Whether he can translate that influence into lasting political and legislative gains is another matter.

]]>

What the U.S. Can Learn from Protest and Political Organizing in Nordic Countries

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:47:59 -0400

Liberals in the United States wistfully regard Scandinavia as a kind of social utopia, while conservatives denounce it as a socialist state where government overreach is ubiquitous. Yet across the political spectrum, Americans believe it would be impossible to adopt the Nordic model.

That’s the starting point for Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got it Right—and How We Can, Too, a new book from George Lakey, a former Eugene M. Lang visiting professor for issues of social change at Swarthmore College. Lakey, however, rejects that premise, arguing instead that Americans can adapt the Nordic model to fit the United States, reducing the wealth gap and improving the quality of life for all Americans as a result.

There are limitations to attempts to compare the United States with Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland—the four countries with Viking ancestry that the book focuses on. The United States is far larger than each of those countries, to say nothing of cultural, demographic and political differences. Life in Nordic countries is not always idyllic, either. While Nordic nations consistently rank among countries with the highest quality of life, they are not immune to anti-immigrant and authoritarian political impulses.

Lakey acknowledges the challenge of comparison and notes that the Nordic way is not a panacea. Nevertheless, he believes that Americans have much to learn from Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. In particular, he argues that Americans can draw lessons from the success that Nordic citizens have had in bringing about economic and social change by making demands on their government through political protest. A transcript of our conversation, edited for clarity and length, appears below.

Foran: What myths do you think Americans hold about the Nordic countries?

Lakey: A lot of people mistakenly believe that the countries with Viking ancestry—Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland—have always had the high standard of living that they do today. That’s not the case, and people don’t realize what it took to create the kind of society we see today in each of these countries.

A century ago, the economic elite ran each of those countries. There was the pretense of democracy, but it was always the decisions of economic elites that carried the day. There was poverty and a lack of empowerment of the people. The change that came about in the Nordic countries so that they eventually moved to an economic model where there was less of a wealth gap, and better quality of life, came about after everyday people made demands on their governments to change.

The 1 percent may occupy state power, but when the majority of the country stands up in opposition to the 1 percent, they can make the country ungovernable. That’s what happened in Nordic countries, and that’s what opened up the political space in which they could build an economic model that far outperforms the economic model of the United States.

Foran: Do you think it’s detrimental from an American perspective to be unaware of that history?

Lakey: Yes, absolutely. If we think that the Nordic model has always existed in the way we think of it today, then it starts to seem like something that’s totally unique to those countries that can’t be replicated in any way. That belief can become immobilizing.

Foran: You make a distinction between the power of voting and the power of protest and mass mobilization of people. Can you talk about the distinction?

Lakey: In the Nordic countries, people first created popular movements that used direct-action tactics like strikes, boycotts, and demonstrations. They also built movement infrastructure, like co-ops and study circles. As these movements gained momentum, they led to the creation of political parties that were controlled by the movements and represented the movements in parliament. In that way, politicians were accountable to the people.

That’s entirely different from what we have in the U.S. with the Democratic Party, for example, where the party is not really accountable to anyone except the economic elite. Today, the U.S. also has low voter participation compared with the Nordics. The path they took—building powerful grassroots movements that then control the politicians who represent them, might help us achieve the degree of democracy that they enjoy.

Foran: Do you think there are culturally rooted ideals about individualism as opposed to collectivism that are different in the U.S. and Nordic countries that make it difficult for Americans to organize political movements?

Lakey: Well, each culture brings assets and liabilities to the challenge of creating a real democracy, and that means that movement building in the U.S. will look different sometimes from what it looks like in Nordic countries.

One advantage that people have in the Nordic countries—in terms of organizing around demands—is they speak the language of interests without apology. They understand that individuals and groups have interests and there are circumstances where it makes sense for people to work together toward a common goal, because it’s in their collective interest to do so.

On the other hand, the ability of Nordic individuals to join together to pursue their interests doesn’t diminish their individuality. The transparency of the process promotes the common good, since they understand that without the enhancement of the common good, individuals lose.

Foran: What about other limitations in comparing the United States and Nordic countries. For example, the U.S. has a history of racial disparity and discrimination. How does that make comparisons difficult?

Lakey: Racism is of course a reality in the Nordic countries—but it’s not the same as the U.S. legacy of having had a substantial part of your country holding slaves and having enslavement as an institution, legal and real. That continues to be an enormous burden for the United States and makes it difficult to forge the kind of national coalitions and broad movements that are necessary to set things right.

On the other hand, our vision for what we can achieve decades down the road can benefit from the inheritance of racial diversity we have in our country. There are any number of Nordic people who envy the kind of richness of cultural and racial diversity that we have here in the United States.

Currently, we are in a period where we are seeing a new civil-rights movement in the United States. Black Lives Matter is one expression of that. The movement we see now is far more likely to approach economic justice and racial justice as intertwined, so that bodes well and is one example of movement building in the U.S.

Foran: I also want to talk about immigration. In the U.S. presidential election, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, particularly on the Republican side. There has been anti-immigrant backlash in Nordic countries as well. What do you think we can take away from that?

Lakey: There has certainly been a Nordic struggle with xenophobia. The reality is that wherever there is a white settlement in the world, there’s racism, and wherever nationalism exists, there will be some xenophobia. In recent decades, the four countries have opened to more immigration—Sweden has accepted the highest number per capita of refugees from the Middle East of any country in Europe.

This naturally generates backlash, including Islamophobia. The advantage the Nordics have over the U.S., however, is that their economic model reduces the insecurity that fuels pushback and assures the newcomers maximum possible opportunity to integrate into the country and add to the talents and skills that strengthen already robust economies. Equality isn’t just an ideal. It is a pragmatic economic advantage.

Foran: Are there examples of mistakes that Nordic countries have made that could be as instructive for the U.S. as their successes?

Lakey: Well, Iceland’s 2008 economic collapse is an instructive example. Iceland became a basket case after the financial crisis that arrived in the wake of deregulation. Some people regarded it as a failed state. After the collapse, people took to the streets in protest, and backed by a people’s movement, Icelanders brought down the previous government that had been careless and installed a new government. In the wake of the crisis, Iceland seized major banks rather than bailing them out, and the government ultimately put the country on a path to economic recovery that was far quicker than what we have seen in the U.S.

Foran: There has been a lot of talk about political movements and protest in the context of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. What do you think is the most effective way to channel the energy inspired by that campaign so it doesn’t dissipate? What do you think would squander that enthusiasm?

Lakey: The best thing for Sanders supporters to do would be to focus their energy on direct-action campaigns aimed at achieving specific policy goals. So, for example, if Sanders supporters took the goal of free higher education and turned that into a direct-action national campaign that protesters were willing to go to jail for, that would be a more effective way of achieving that goal than even getting Sanders elected to the presidency. Sanders in the Oval Office wouldn’t be able to get anything done with the current Congress, whereas with a direct-action pressure campaign, there is a better chance of actually getting something like free higher education or Medicare for all accomplished.

The biggest mistake that supporters of Bernie Sanders could make would be if they were to say, “Well let’s go back to the Democratic Party and contest for power within the party.” That’s a losing proposition. The party cannot be changed from within, it needs to be held accountable from the outside.

Foran: What about the idea that to achieve change, you need to exert pressure from inside the political structure as well as from the outside. Don’t you think that both are needed?

Lakey: When the Democratic Party sees that an externally driven campaign is growing and growing, eventually people within the party will change their policy to accommodate that. That’s what happened with the civil-rights movement. The federal government couldn’t have cared less about the civil-rights movement until the movement grew in power and influence to the point where, to maintain their own credibility, the Democratic Party had to modify its position on civil rights.

We don’t need to attempt to organize Democrats to play the inside game or attempt to become part of that inside game. Elected officials will do that on their own so as not to alienate their base, so long as there is enough pressure from the outside. The question is where the control and the initiative come from. If the control is outside the Democratic Party with an independent initiative, then it will be in the interest of the Democrats to change their position to accommodate that as long as the pressure is strong enough.

Foran: What about Sanders himself? How do you think he can be effective in achieving the goals he has outlined during his campaign?

Lakey: The best way for him to increase his influence would be to choose an issue that he has advocated for in his campaign, and work to advocate for that, and support the grassroots organizing that springs up to work toward the same goal. He won’t be able to achieve his goals—for example, something like Medicare for all—as a senator by staying within the usual legislative means. I also don’t think he should try to be the leader of any grassroots movement, but he can still play an important role. As a senator, he has a highly visible platform that he can use to broadcast and amplify grassroots agitation in support of policy change.

]]>

Clinton Takes the Capital

Clare Foran, The Atlantic — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:54:17 -0400

Hillary Clinton has emerged the winner of the Washington, D.C., primary. Though Clinton had already effectively clinched the Democratic nomination, winning the D.C. primary must nevertheless be a sweet victory. The win is a high note for her campaign as the primary season draws to a close. In the days and weeks to come, Clinton will undoubtedly ratchet up her attacks on Donald Trump as the general election begins in earnest.

The Clinton win also denies Bernie Sanders one last chance for victory in the final primary of the Democratic presidential race. For now, Sanders remains stubbornly in the race, despite the fact that any path he might have had to the White House effectively evaporated long ago. The Democratic rivals met on Tuesday evening, and despite his lingering presence, the senator no longer appears to pose much of a threat to Democratic unity. Above all else, Sanders seems intent on putting his own stamp on the party’s agenda and the electoral process in the run-up to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Later this week, Sanders is poised to lay out the path forward. Sanders will speak to supporters on Thursday evening in “a live, online video message” from Burlington, Vermont. What exactly Sanders hopes to achieve has increasingly come into focus. The senator laid out a series of demands in a press conference on Tuesday, calling for the “Democratic National Convention to approve a progressive platform, the most progressive platform ever passed by the Democratic Party.” He asked for reforms to the presidential nominating process, including the elimination of superdelegates, a group of influential party elites who can decide to support whichever candidate they choose.

Perhaps the most contentious change Sanders called for was new party leadership, a demand that takes aim at the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The request isn’t surprising given that Sanders has already decided to support her primary challenger, but the repeated emphasis shows that he’s far from ready to give up the fight. Additionally, the senator declined to endorse Clinton at his Tuesday press conference.

It remains to be seen how much negotiating power Sanders actually has with the Democratic Party. For now, however, it is makes sense for him to pursue reforms to the electoral process as well as concessions in the party platform. The platform serves as a blueprint for what the party stands for and hopes to achieve. If Sanders can make it look more like his own agenda, that success could create a foundation for Democrats to enact legislative changes along the same lines. Ultimately, however, the platform is nonbinding and stands as a highly imperfect tool for achieving change. That’s undoubtedly one reason why Sanders is simultaneously pursuing procedural reforms, even if those kinds of changes may seem less sweeping. If Sanders is successful in winning changes to the nominating process, that could help him keep his supporters engaged in the political process beyond the presidential election. Many of the senator’s supporters believe that the system has been rigged against Sanders throughout the primary, and if nothing is done to reform the process, they may be less likely to remain engaged in the political process.

The list of demands laid out by Sanders shouldn’t be viewed as comprehensive. He himself emphasized, “Those are just a few of the changes that I think have got to take place and that we will be fighting for in the weeks and months to come.” But it is notable that he did not mention reforms to the caucus system, a primary contest that tends to lead to lower voter turnout but has consistently benefited the senator’s campaign.

Ahead of his meeting with Clinton on Tuesday, The New York Times reported that “he would try to get assurances from Mrs. Clinton that she will fight for many of his campaign policy proposals, including a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage, a jobs program tied to repairing the country’s infrastructure, and tuition-free public colleges and universities.” Efforts by Sanders and Clinton supporters to draft the party platform are already underway.

As the fight continues, it no longer seems like Democratic unity is in serious jeopardy. After Clinton claimed victory as the first woman to become the presumptive nominee of a major political party in the United States, high-ranking Democrats moved swiftly to close ranks. President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clinton in quick succession.

Significantly, Sanders pledged to work with Clinton to make sure Democrats win the White House. “I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and create a government, which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent,” Sanders said after a meeting with the president last week. Crucially, Sanders thanked the president and vice president for “impartiality,” a stand likely to make it easier for his supporters to eventually back Clinton if he drops out.

In yet another sign that Democrats are increasingly coming back together, Sanders reportedly received several standing ovations from Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill earlier on Tuesday. Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, indicated to Politico his belief that Sanders will help Democratic candidates running for Senate. While some Democrats might prefer that he exit the race, his colleagues in the Senate seem to be taking care not to apply too much pressure. “The time table’s up to him,” Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, told The Washington Post. “I’m giving no advice, nor judging him, for how he decides.”

]]>