democracy21--2020-06-24--D21 Sends Letter to Representatives Urging Support for George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020

Enclosed for your information is a letter sent on June 24 , 2020 by Democracy 21 to Members of Congress urging their support for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 .
Find the full text of the letter below .
Democracy 21 strongly supports the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 .
The senseless , brutal killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis , and its aftermath , has become an inflection point for the country .
This has awakened the nation to the need to deal with systemic racism and racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not seen since the civil rights movement in the 1960s .
The massive protests in the country have been overwhelmingly peaceful .
These protests are the essence of citizens exercising their constitutional rights to free speech , to peaceably assemble , and to petition the government for redress .
And they have raised in stark terms the question of whether we as a people are going to begin doing something about centuries-old problems .
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 begins this process by addressing problems of police brutality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing , with concrete solutions .
Democracy 21 strongly urges you to vote for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 and to oppose any efforts to undermine the legislation .

Enclosed for your information is a letter sent on June 24, 2020 by Democracy 21 to Members of Congress urging their support for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020. Find the full text of the letter below.
–
June 24, 2020
Dear Representative,
Democracy 21 strongly supports the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
The senseless, brutal killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, and its aftermath, has become an inflection point for the country. This has awakened the nation to the need to deal with systemic racism and racial injustice in the country in ways we have not seen since the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
The massive protests in the country have been overwhelmingly peaceful. These protests are the essence of citizens exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress. And they have raised in stark terms the question of whether we as a people are going to begin doing something about centuries-old problems.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 begins this process by addressing problems of police brutality and misconduct, and racial bias in policing, with concrete solutions.
Democracy 21 strongly urges you to vote for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 and to oppose any efforts to undermine the legislation.
Sincerely,
Fred Wertheimer
President, Democracy 21
###


democracy21--2020-06-25--Restoring the Voting Rights Act, 7 Years After Shelby

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court ’ s 5 to 4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder , which gutted a core provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.The right of every eligible citizen to vote goes to the heart of our constitutional system of representative government .
It is the basis upon which the people rule in our democracy and have the right and power to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions .
The absence of the Voting Rights Act protections eliminated by the Supreme Court demands nationwide vigilance in the November elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color against discrimination .
The Shelby County decision eliminated an essential provision of the Voting Rights Act that prevented racial discrimination by requiring certain states and localities with a history of racial discrimination to get advance “ preclearance ” from the Justice Department to make changes in their voting laws .
Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in Shelby County challenged Chief Justice Roberts ’ view that the law was no longer needed to protect against racial discrimination in voting .
Justice Ginsburg said that this was a determination that Congress , not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that just seven years before , in 2006 , Congress reauthorized the law , with the House voting for the reauthorization by 390 to 33 and the Senate voting unanimously .
President George W. Bush in signing the reauthorization said the law was “ an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.
” Last December after extensive hearings that established racial discrimination in voting is still with us , the House passed H.R .
4 , the Voting Rights Advancement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were eliminated by the Shelby decision .
The bill , along with H.R .
1 , the For the People Act , constitutes a package of historic democracy reforms enacted by the House last year .
In a floor speech during debate on H.R .
4 , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that since the Shelby decision , at least 23 states enacted “ voter suppression laws , including voter purges , strict ID requirements , poll closures , voter intimidation , denying millions their voice by their vote.
” As he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has blocked Senate consideration of these bills .
Nevertheless , we are on the doorstep of enacting H.R .
4 and H.R .
1 in 2021 .
If the polls hold where they are today and Democrats win the presidency and control of the House and Senate , Congress will restore the Voting Rights Act next year and enact the unprecedented package of democracy reforms contained in H.R .
1 .

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a core provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.The right of every eligible citizen to vote goes to the heart of our constitutional system of representative government. It is the basis upon which the people rule in our democracy and have the right and power to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. The absence of the Voting Rights Act protections eliminated by the Supreme Court demands nationwide vigilance in the November elections to protect the votes of people of color against discrimination.
The Shelby County decision eliminated an essential provision of the Voting Rights Act that prevented racial discrimination by requiring certain states and localities with a history of racial discrimination to get advance “preclearance” from the Justice Department to make changes in their voting laws.
Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in Shelby County challenged Chief Justice Roberts’ view that the law was no longer needed to protect against racial discrimination in voting. Justice Ginsburg said that this was a determination that Congress, not the Supreme Court, should make and noted that just seven years before, in 2006, Congress reauthorized the law, with the House voting for the reauthorization by 390 to 33 and the Senate voting unanimously.
President George W. Bush in signing the reauthorization said the law was “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.”
Last December after extensive hearings that established racial discrimination in voting is still with us, the House passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, to restore voting rights protections that were eliminated by the Shelby decision. The bill, along with H.R. 1, the For the People Act, constitutes a package of historic democracy reforms enacted by the House last year.
In a floor speech during debate on H.R. 4, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that since the Shelby decision, at least 23 states enacted “voter suppression laws, including voter purges, strict ID requirements, poll closures, voter intimidation, denying millions their voice by their vote.”
As he has with innumerable House-passed bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has blocked Senate consideration of these bills. Nevertheless, we are on the doorstep of enacting H.R. 4 and H.R. 1 in 2021.
If the polls hold where they are today and Democrats win the presidency and control of the House and Senate, Congress will restore the Voting Rights Act next year and enact the unprecedented package of democracy reforms contained in H.R. 1.


democracy21--2020-06-26--House Passage of Statehood for District of Columbia is Great Victory for D.C. Citizens

House Passage of Statehood for District of Columbia is Great Victory for D.C. Citizens House passage today of statehood for the District of Columbia is a great victory for the citizens of D.C. Our nation was born out of the idea that taxation without representation was abhorrent to the people who lived in our country .
Today , centuries later , that abhorrent problem remains for the United States citizens who live in Washington , D.C. D.C. residents pay taxes to the federal government and fight and die in wars for our country .
They do so without the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can vote to represent their interests .
They do so without control of the D.C. laws that govern them and without control of the D.C. budget .
Furthermore , this denial of full citizenship in D.C. falls heavily on people of color who have been denied full and fair voting rights in our country for centuries .
Democracy 21 congratulates every Representative who voted today to give D.C. residents full citizenship .
We know the fight ahead in the Senate will be difficult .
We also know that the battle can and must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same voting rights in Congress that are available to the eligible voters of all fifty states .

House Passage of Statehood for District of Columbia is Great Victory for D.C. Citizens
Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer
House passage today of statehood for the District of Columbia is a great victory for the citizens of D.C.
Our nation was born out of the idea that taxation without representation was abhorrent to the people who lived in our country. Today, centuries later, that abhorrent problem remains for the United States citizens who live in Washington, D.C.
D.C. residents pay taxes to the federal government and fight and die in wars for our country. They do so without the ability to vote for representatives in Congress who can vote to represent their interests. They do so without control of the D.C. laws that govern them and without control of the D.C. budget.
Furthermore, this denial of full citizenship in D.C. falls heavily on people of color who have been denied full and fair voting rights in our country for centuries.
Democracy 21 congratulates every Representative who voted today to give D.C. residents full citizenship.
We know the fight ahead in the Senate will be difficult. We also know that the battle can and must be won to provide D.C. citizens the same voting rights in Congress that are available to the eligible voters of all fifty states.


democracy21--2020-07-02--Crunch Time on Vote By Mail

Crunch Time on Vote By Mail

“ The coming fight for the money to effectively administer the upcoming election is a battle that must be won if we are to prevent chaos in November.
” We are approaching crunch time on whether the states and the Postal Service will receive from Congress the essential money they need to effectively administer the massive increases in voting by mail expected this November .
The HEROES Act , passed by the House in May , provides $ 3.6 billion for the states to administer the 2020 elections and $ 25 billion for the Postal Service which is predicted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of September .
Throughout this Congress , Senate Majority Leader McConnell has prevented the states from receiving the adequate federal funding needed to manage the voting in November .
Meanwhile – surprise , surprise – President Trump ’ s consigliere , Attorney General William Barr , is now parroting Trump ’ s attacks on voting by mail , while providing no evidence to back up his spurious claims .
Trump is continuing his attacks , alleging that widespread voter fraud will occur in voting by mail in November , with no factual basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s false allegations are apparently designed both to suppress the November vote and to lay the groundwork for attacking the legitimacy of the presidential election results .
When Congress returns from its recess on July 20 , there will only be a couple of weeks to resolve the major differences in the relief bill in what will be a three-way negotiation between House Speaker Pelosi , Senate Majority Leader McConnell , and the White House .
Each has different priorities for the bill .
One top priority for Speaker Pelosi and Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money needed to conduct safe , secure , and fair elections in November .
Senate Republicans may be getting closer to providing a significant amount to support the states , although not the $ 3.6 billion in the HEROES Act .
As always , the wild card here is the erratic , irresponsible , narcissistic President and whether he will make an all-out effort to block the money .
The coming fight for the money to effectively administer the upcoming election is a battle that must be won if we are to prevent @ @ @ @

FRED WERTHEIMER’S WEEKLY NOTE | July 2, 2020
“The coming fight for the money to effectively administer the upcoming election is a battle that must be won if we are to prevent chaos in November.”
We are approaching crunch time on whether the states and the Postal Service will receive from Congress the essential money they need to effectively administer the massive increases in voting by mail expected this November.
The HEROES Act, passed by the House in May, provides $3.6 billion for the states to administer the 2020 elections and $25 billion for the Postal Service which is predicted to run out of money by the end of September. Throughout this Congress, Senate Majority Leader McConnell has prevented the states from receiving the adequate federal funding needed to manage the voting in November.
Meanwhile – surprise, surprise – President Trump’s consigliere, Attorney General William Barr, is now parroting Trump’s attacks on voting by mail, while providing no evidence to back up his spurious claims.
Trump is continuing his attacks, alleging that widespread voter fraud will occur in voting by mail in November, with no factual basis to support his wild ravings.
Trump’s false allegations are apparently designed both to suppress the November vote and to lay the groundwork for attacking the legitimacy of the presidential election results.
When Congress returns from its recess on July 20, there will only be a couple of weeks to resolve the major differences in the relief bill in what will be a three-way negotiation between House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and the White House. Each has different priorities for the bill.
One top priority for Speaker Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is obtaining the money needed to conduct safe, secure, and fair elections in November.
Senate Republicans may be getting closer to providing a significant amount to support the states, although not the $3.6 billion in the HEROES Act. As always, the wild card here is the erratic, irresponsible, narcissistic President and whether he will make an all-out effort to block the money.
The coming fight for the money to effectively administer the upcoming election is a battle that must be won if we are to prevent chaos in November.
###


democracy21--2020-07-09--D21 Files 7th DOJ Complaint Against AG Barr, Requests Investigation of US Attorney Berman’s Removal

Democracy 21 Files Seventh DOJ Complaint Against AG Barr for Failing to Comply with DOJ Norms , Standards and Rules Complaint Calls for Investigation by IG and OPR of Circumstances Surrounding Removal of SDNY US Attorney Berman Democracy 21 filed a today with the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice requesting an investigation into Attorney General William Barr ’ s conduct surrounding his removal of Geoffrey S. Berman , the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York .
According to the Democracy 21 complaint : The abnormal manner in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about whether he has complied with Justice Department norms , standards and practices .
This includes whether Attorney General Barr ’ s actions in removing Mr. Berman were taken to improperly suppress investigations reportedly underway in the Southern District involving President Trump ’ s associates and interests .
Given Mr. Barr ’ s record of bias in promoting and defending the personal , political interests of President Trump , and given the ongoing investigations that the Southern District of New York is conducting into the activities of President Trump ’ s associates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s removal of U.S. Attorney Berman raises serious red flags of impropriety that warrant close scrutiny by your offices .
This is the seventh Justice Department complaint filed by Democracy 21 against Attorney General Barr since April 2019 .
The previous complaints were filed on April 15 , May 7 , and October 1 , 2019 , and January 17 , February 27 , and June 11 , 2020 .
“ The seven complaints we have filed with the Justice Department document Attorney General Barr ’ s bias towards President Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and promote Trump ’ s personal political interests , ” according to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer .
“ Barr has acted more like Trump ’ s personal defense attorney than like the nation ’ s chief law enforcement officer responsible for carrying out the Justice Department ’ s stated mission ‘ to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans , ’ ” Wertheimer said .
The contradictions apparent in the events resulting in the removal of Mr. Berman raise public suspicions and concerns and point to the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first contradiction is that Attorney General Barr announced on June 20 that Mr. Berman had resigned , only to have Mr. Berman immediately contradict him by announcing that he had not resigned .
This raises the question of whether Mr. Barr knowingly misrepresented the situation in an attempt to force Mr. Berman out of office without having to fire him , or whether this was just a misunderstanding between the two men .
If Attorney General Barr publicly dissembled about the intentions of a duly appointed U.S. Attorney in these circumstances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Attorney General .
The second contradiction is that , on the following day , Mr. Barr announced that the President had fired Mr. Berman , only to have the President immediately contradict him , stating that “ I wasn ’ t involved ” in Mr. Berman ’ s removal and “ that ’ s all up to the attorney general .
.
.
” Either the President or the Attorney General publicly misrepresented who was responsible for the purported firing of Mr. Berman , and an investigation is needed to get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More generally , and more importantly , an investigation is needed to determine if Mr. Berman was removed from office in order to suppress ongoing investigations being conducted by the Southern District of New York relating to President Trump ’ s associates and interests .
As is well known , the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in the Southern District on New York prosecuted and convicted President Trump ’ s former personal attorney , Michael Cohen , for campaign finance violations associated with the payment of hush money to women who claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Prosecutors in the case referred to the President himself in court filings which said that Cohen had “ acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.
” It is widely believed that “ Individual 1 ” is President Trump .
The Southern District is also reportedly conducting an investigation into the activities of President Trump ’ s personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , for potential violations of the lobbying laws .
Further , the Southern District initiated prosecution of Halkbank , a Turkish-government owned bank , for violating sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security advisor John Bolton , President Trump personally promised Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan that he would take care of the case .
It is incumbent on your offices to thoroughly investigate whether Mr. Berman was ousted from his position as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York as retribution for prosecutions brought by that office or to interfere with ongoing investigations of President Trump ’ s interests and associates , such as Rudy Giuliani , being conducted by that office .
If any such retribution or interference were involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improper action by the Attorney General and a direct attack on the rule of law .
The circumstances involved here certainly warrant an investigation , given the abnormal , misleading , and inept efforts by Attorney General Barr to remove Mr. Berman from his position .
Your offices have an obligation to the Justice Department and to the American people to fulfill the responsibilities that you have been assigned and to tell truth to power .
The institutional integrity of the Justice Department is at stake in the matter set forth above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have raised in our previous six complaints to the Department about the Attorney General .
Democracy 21 strongly urges your offices to conduct a full investigation of the matters raised in this complaint and to take appropriate action to protect the integrity of the Justice Department and the interest of the American people in fair and impartial justice .

Democracy 21 Files Seventh DOJ Complaint Against AG Barr for Failing to Comply with DOJ Norms, Standards and Rules
Complaint Calls for Investigation by IG and OPR of Circumstances Surrounding Removal of SDNY US Attorney Berman
Democracy 21 filed a complaint today with the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice requesting an investigation into Attorney General William Barr’s conduct surrounding his removal of Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
According to the Democracy 21 complaint:
The abnormal manner in which the Attorney General handled this matter raises serious concerns about whether he has complied with Justice Department norms, standards and practices. This includes whether Attorney General Barr’s actions in removing Mr. Berman were taken to improperly suppress investigations reportedly underway in the Southern District involving President Trump’s associates and interests.
The complaint stated:
Given Mr. Barr’s record of bias in promoting and defending the personal, political interests of President Trump, and given the ongoing investigations that the Southern District of New York is conducting into the activities of President Trump’s associates and interests, Attorney General Barr’s removal of U.S. Attorney Berman raises serious red flags of impropriety that warrant close scrutiny by your offices.
This is the seventh Justice Department complaint filed by Democracy 21 against Attorney General Barr since April 2019. The previous complaints were filed on April 15, May 7, and October 1, 2019, and January 17, February 27, and June 11, 2020. “The seven complaints we have filed with the Justice Department document Attorney General Barr’s bias towards President Trump and his repeated misuse of his office to protect and promote Trump’s personal political interests,” according to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “Barr has acted more like Trump’s personal defense attorney than like the nation’s chief law enforcement officer responsible for carrying out the Justice Department’s stated mission ‘to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans,’” Wertheimer said. The Democracy 21 complaint stated:
The contradictions apparent in the events resulting in the removal of Mr. Berman raise public suspicions and concerns and point to the need for a full investigation of this matter. The first contradiction is that Attorney General Barr announced on June 20 that Mr. Berman had resigned, only to have Mr. Berman immediately contradict him by announcing that he had not resigned. This raises the question of whether Mr. Barr knowingly misrepresented the situation in an attempt to force Mr. Berman out of office without having to fire him, or whether this was just a misunderstanding between the two men. If Attorney General Barr publicly dissembled about the intentions of a duly appointed U.S. Attorney in these circumstances, that would clearly be improper action by the Attorney General. The second contradiction is that, on the following day, Mr. Barr announced that the President had fired Mr. Berman, only to have the President immediately contradict him, stating that “I wasn’t involved” in Mr. Berman’s removal and “that’s all up to the attorney general. . .” Either the President or the Attorney General publicly misrepresented who was responsible for the purported firing of Mr. Berman, and an investigation is needed to get to the bottom of the misrepresentation involved here.
The complaint stated:
More generally, and more importantly, an investigation is needed to determine if Mr. Berman was removed from office in order to suppress ongoing investigations being conducted by the Southern District of New York relating to President Trump’s associates and interests. As is well known, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District on New York prosecuted and convicted President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for campaign finance violations associated with the payment of hush money to women who claimed to have had sexual relations with President Trump. Prosecutors in the case referred to the President himself in court filings which said that Cohen had “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.” It is widely believed that “Individual 1” is President Trump. The Southern District is also reportedly conducting an investigation into the activities of President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, for potential violations of the lobbying laws. Further, the Southern District initiated prosecution of Halkbank, a Turkish-government owned bank, for violating sanctions against Iran. According to former Trump national security advisor John Bolton, President Trump personally promised Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan that he would take care of the case.
The complaint said:
It is incumbent on your offices to thoroughly investigate whether Mr. Berman was ousted from his position as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York as retribution for prosecutions brought by that office or to interfere with ongoing investigations of President Trump’s interests and associates, such as Rudy Giuliani, being conducted by that office. If any such retribution or interference were involved in this removal, it would constitute blatant improper action by the Attorney General and a direct attack on the rule of law. The circumstances involved here certainly warrant an investigation, given the abnormal, misleading, and inept efforts by Attorney General Barr to remove Mr. Berman from his position.
The complaint concluded:
Your offices have an obligation to the Justice Department and to the American people to fulfill the responsibilities that you have been assigned and to tell truth to power. The institutional integrity of the Justice Department is at stake in the matter set forth above, as it also is in the matters we have raised in our previous six complaints to the Department about the Attorney General. Democracy 21 strongly urges your offices to conduct a full investigation of the matters raised in this complaint and to take appropriate action to protect the integrity of the Justice Department and the interest of the American people in fair and impartial justice.
Read the full complaint here
###


democracy21--2020-07-09--The Lie That Could Haunt Trump in November

“ Trump ’ s lies in this case , combined with congressional Republican silence about his lies , may come back to haunt both Trump and Republican candidates in November.
” According to The Washington Post ’ s running tally , President Trump made 19,127 false or misleading claims in 1,226 days in office , as of June 1 .
He is averaging 22 such claims per day in 2020 .
Trump ’ s most repeated false claim over the course of his presidency ?
It ’ s his claim – made 334 times – that the U.S economy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known for some time that President Trump is an inveterate liar , or as the saying has long gone in my wife ’ s family , “ He lies when the truth will serve.
” What is truly inexplicable , however , is the deafening silence that comes from Republicans in Congress about Trump ’ s massive , unprecedented Presidential lying .
Rarely do you see a Republican Senator or Representative challenge Trump ’ s lies , no matter how serious his false claims are .
There are , of course , great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are played out regularly in Congress and the rhetoric can get heated and the arguments overreaching in these debates .
But when you have a President who lies to the American people on an almost daily basis , that ’ s a different matter .
Congressional Republicans have some responsibility to the American people to not simply stand silent when the President tells lie after lie after lie after lie .
By staying silent , congressional Republicans are allowing the lies to be turned into partisan political battles , rather than helping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Congressional Republicans are undermining the truth by silently tolerating the President ’ s lies .
Recently , Trump , without offering a shred of evidence , has been falsely claiming that there “ is tremendous evidence of fraud whenever you have mail-in ballots.
” There is no such thing .
It is another of Trump ’ s lies .
Ironically , Trump ’ s attacks on mail-in-voting are causing serious concerns in the GOP that that this will depress mail voting by Republicans for Republican candidates , including for Trump himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies in this case , combined with congressional Republican silence about his lies , may come back to haunt both Trump and Republican candidates in November .

FRED WERTHEIMER’S WEEKLY NOTE | July 9, 2020
“Trump’s lies in this case, combined with congressional Republican silence about his lies, may come back to haunt both Trump and Republican candidates in November.”
According to The Washington Post’s running tally, President Trump made 19,127 false or misleading claims in 1,226 days in office, as of June 1. He is averaging 22 such claims per day in 2020.
Trump’s most repeated false claim over the course of his presidency? It’s his claim – made 334 times – that the U.S economy is the best in history.
We have known for some time that President Trump is an inveterate liar, or as the saying has long gone in my wife’s family, “He lies when the truth will serve.”
What is truly inexplicable, however, is the deafening silence that comes from Republicans in Congress about Trump’s massive, unprecedented Presidential lying.
Rarely do you see a Republican Senator or Representative challenge Trump’s lies, no matter how serious his false claims are.
There are, of course, great policy differences between Democrats and Republicans that are played out regularly in Congress and the rhetoric can get heated and the arguments overreaching in these debates.
But when you have a President who lies to the American people on an almost daily basis, that’s a different matter.
Congressional Republicans have some responsibility to the American people to not simply stand silent when the President tells lie after lie after lie after lie.
By staying silent, congressional Republicans are allowing the lies to be turned into partisan political battles, rather than helping the American people learn where the truth is.
Congressional Republicans are undermining the truth by silently tolerating the President’s lies.
Recently, Trump, without offering a shred of evidence, has been falsely claiming that there “is tremendous evidence of fraud whenever you have mail-in ballots.”
There is no such thing. It is another of Trump’s lies.
Ironically, Trump’s attacks on mail-in-voting are causing serious concerns in the GOP that that this will depress mail voting by Republicans for Republican candidates, including for Trump himself.
In the end, Trump’s lies in this case, combined with congressional Republican silence about his lies, may come back to haunt both Trump and Republican candidates in November.
###


democracy21--2020-07-16--The Most Corrupt Administration In History

“ President Trump rode into office on a big lie that he was going to drain the Washington swamp .
If Vice President Biden sends him home in November , that will be the first and most important act to actually start draining the swamp in Washington.
” President Trump will go down in history with at least two first-place finishes as President : the worst President in the history of the country and the head of most corrupt Administration in our history .
The latter is a special achievement for a President who in the 2016 campaign never stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was going to drain the swamp in Washington .
This Trump mantra in 2016 also might contribute to a third first for the President : the biggest conman/liar in the history of the presidency .
There will no doubt be many other aberrational firsts for Trump .
Examples of corrupt practices in the Trump Administration occur on an almost weekly basis .
To give just one , in a report released yesterday , the Inspector General for HHS found that Seema Verma , the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channeled contracts worth millions of dollars to GOP-associated communications consultants in violation of federal contracting rules .
The IG found that “ CMS improperly administered the contracts and created improper employer-employee relationships between CMS and the contractors , ” On many fronts , the Trump Administration has turned over key departments and agencies to representatives of the industries they are supposed to regulate .
The President has given these representatives carte blanche to do whatever the industries want .
According to The New York Times , for example , there have been “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed , revoked , or otherwise rolled back under Mr. Trump .
More than 30 additional rollbacks are still in progress.
” It will take years to reverse the extraordinary damage that Trump has done to our country .
And it needs to start by cleaning up Washington , repairing our democracy , and freeing our representatives from the current iron grip of influence-seeking political money .
H.R .
1 , which passed the House last year , is historic anti-corruption , voting rights , and government ethics legislation that House Speaker Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order of business in the House in 2021 .
President Trump rode into office on a big lie that he was going to drain the Washington swamp .
If Vice President Biden sends him home in November , that will be the first and most important act to actually start draining the swamp in Washington .

FRED WERTHEIMER’S WEEKLY NOTE | July 16, 2020
“President Trump rode into office on a big lie that he was going to drain the Washington swamp. If Vice President Biden sends him home in November, that will be the first and most important act to actually start draining the swamp in Washington.”
President Trump will go down in history with at least two first-place finishes as President: the worst President in the history of the country and the head of most corrupt Administration in our history.
The latter is a special achievement for a President who in the 2016 campaign never stopped claiming, falsely of course, that he was going to drain the swamp in Washington. This Trump mantra in 2016 also might contribute to a third first for the President: the biggest conman/liar in the history of the presidency. There will no doubt be many other aberrational firsts for Trump.
Examples of corrupt practices in the Trump Administration occur on an almost weekly basis.
To give just one, in a report released yesterday, the Inspector General for HHS found that Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), had improperly channeled contracts worth millions of dollars to GOP-associated communications consultants in violation of federal contracting rules. The IG found that “CMS improperly administered the contracts and created improper employer-employee relationships between CMS and the contractors,”
On many fronts, the Trump Administration has turned over key departments and agencies to representatives of the industries they are supposed to regulate.
The President has given these representatives carte blanche to do whatever the industries want. According to The New York Times, for example, there have been “nearly 70 environmental rules and regulations officially reversed, revoked, or otherwise rolled back under Mr. Trump. More than 30 additional rollbacks are still in progress.”
It will take years to reverse the extraordinary damage that Trump has done to our country.
And it needs to start by cleaning up Washington, repairing our democracy, and freeing our representatives from the current iron grip of influence-seeking political money.
H.R. 1, which passed the House last year, is historic anti-corruption, voting rights, and government ethics legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said will be the first order of business in the House in 2021.
President Trump rode into office on a big lie that he was going to drain the Washington swamp. If Vice President Biden sends him home in November, that will be the first and most important act to actually start draining the swamp in Washington.
###


democracy21--2020-07-23--D21 Calls on Senate Intel Committee to Investigate Possible Russian Influence over Senate HSC Invest

D21 Calls on Senate Intel Committee to Investigate Possible Russian Influence over Senate HSC Investigation of Biden

Democracy 21 Calls on Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate Possible Russian Influence on Senate Homeland Security Committee Investigation of Biden and his Son Democracy 21 sent a letter to the Acting Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee today calling on them to immediately investigate possible Russian disinformation influence in the Senate Homeland Security Committee investigation of Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son .
According to published reports , there is possible intelligence information that Russian agents may be seeking to corrupt the Senate and its oversight process by funneling disinformation to the Senate Homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to smear presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and influence the 2020 presidential election .
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson is leading a Committee investigation into matters involving Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son .
It is this investigation that is the subject of the possible Russian disinformation efforts .
By raising the specter that the Senate Homeland Security Committee is being used as a vehicle to disseminate Russian disinformation , these reports directly threaten the institutional integrity and the security of the Senate and its committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation being led by Senator Ron Johnson is suspicious in the first place , ” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer .
“ The investigation reeks of political scheming , since Senator Johnson is publicly investigating presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son right in the middle of the 2020 presidential election .
Additionally , the presumed report from this suspect investigation of former Vice President Biden and his son is expected to be released in the closing weeks of the presidential race , ” Wertheimer said .
“ But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact being manipulated by Russia-sponsored disinformation to help re-elect President Trump , the American people need to know this quickly .
The integrity and security of the 2020 presidential election and of the Senate is at stake .
The Senate Intelligence Committee must move immediately to get to the bottom of this , ” Wertheimer said .
With the presidential election less than four months away , it is essential for the Intelligence Committee to quickly determine and report to the public if Russia is using the Senate and its Homeland Security Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Otherwise , we could face a repeat of what happened in 2016 when Russia interfered in the presidential election without public knowledge of its activities until after the fact .
In a bipartisan report earlier this year , your Committee unanimously found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election .
In February 2020 , intelligence officials reportedly informed House lawmakers that Russia is repeating its efforts and attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to try to get President Trump re-elected .
Under these circumstances , it is entirely plausible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to influence the coming presidential election by providing disinformation to the Senate Homeland Security Committee in an effort to steer that Committee ’ s investigation into smearing Vice President Biden and his family .
The Intelligence Committee has an obligation to determine if Russia or Russian agents have launched an attack on the Senate , either directly or through its agents , and if so , to defend the institution .
The Committee should determine if agents of Russia are using the Senate Homeland Security Committee to discredit and politically harm Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 presidential election .
There should be no doubt that this is a serious matter .
If the allegations are correct , this amounts to a direct attack on the Senate by a hostile foreign government .
Needless to say , if Russian agents are successful in manipulating a Senate committee to disseminate disinformation in order to affect U.S. elections , there would be incalculable damage done to the Senate as an institution and more broadly to American democracy .
This matter warrants the prompt attention of the Intelligence Committee , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the upcoming national elections against foreign attack .
Democracy 21 calls on the Intelligence Committee to undertake an immediate investigation of whether Russia or Russian agents are funneling disinformation to the Senate Homeland Security Committee which could affect the presidential election .
If such activity is occuring , the Intelligence Committee must immediately , and before the election , take all steps necessary to expose any efforts of Russia to influence the 2020 election and undermine our democracy .

Democracy 21 Calls on Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate Possible Russian Influence on Senate Homeland Security Committee Investigation of Biden and his Son
Democracy 21 sent a letter to the Acting Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee today calling on them to immediately investigate possible Russian disinformation influence in the Senate Homeland Security Committee investigation of Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son.
The letter stated:
According to published reports, there is possible intelligence information that Russian agents may be seeking to corrupt the Senate and its oversight process by funneling disinformation to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in an effort to smear presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and influence the 2020 presidential election. Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson is leading a Committee investigation into matters involving Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. It is this investigation that is the subject of the possible Russian disinformation efforts. By raising the specter that the Senate Homeland Security Committee is being used as a vehicle to disseminate Russian disinformation, these reports directly threaten the institutional integrity and the security of the Senate and its committee process.
“The Homeland Security Committee investigation being led by Senator Ron Johnson is suspicious in the first place,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
“The investigation reeks of political scheming, since Senator Johnson is publicly investigating presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son right in the middle of the 2020 presidential election. Additionally, the presumed report from this suspect investigation of former Vice President Biden and his son is expected to be released in the closing weeks of the presidential race,” Wertheimer said.
“But if Senator Johnson and the Committee are in fact being manipulated by Russia-sponsored disinformation to help re-elect President Trump, the American people need to know this quickly. The integrity and security of the 2020 presidential election and of the Senate is at stake. The Senate Intelligence Committee must move immediately to get to the bottom of this,” Wertheimer said.
The letter noted:
With the presidential election less than four months away, it is essential for the Intelligence Committee to quickly determine and report to the public if Russia is using the Senate and its Homeland Security Committee to influence the 2020 presidential election. Otherwise, we could face a repeat of what happened in 2016 when Russia interfered in the presidential election without public knowledge of its activities until after the fact.
The letter continued:
In a bipartisan report earlier this year, your Committee unanimously found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. In February 2020, intelligence officials reportedly informed House lawmakers that Russia is repeating its efforts and attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to try to get President Trump re-elected. Under these circumstances, it is entirely plausible that Russian agents may be using the Senate to influence the coming presidential election by providing disinformation to the Senate Homeland Security Committee in an effort to steer that Committee’s investigation into smearing Vice President Biden and his family.
The letter stated:
The Intelligence Committee has an obligation to determine if Russia or Russian agents have launched an attack on the Senate, either directly or through its agents, and if so, to defend the institution. The Committee should determine if agents of Russia are using the Senate Homeland Security Committee to discredit and politically harm Vice President Biden in the period immediately prior to the 2020 presidential election. There should be no doubt that this is a serious matter. If the allegations are correct, this amounts to a direct attack on the Senate by a hostile foreign government. Needless to say, if Russian agents are successful in manipulating a Senate committee to disseminate disinformation in order to affect U.S. elections, there would be incalculable damage done to the Senate as an institution and more broadly to American democracy. This matter warrants the prompt attention of the Intelligence Committee, both to defend the Senate and to protect the upcoming national elections against foreign attack.
The letter concluded:
Democracy 21 calls on the Intelligence Committee to undertake an immediate investigation of whether Russia or Russian agents are funneling disinformation to the Senate Homeland Security Committee which could affect the presidential election. If such activity is occuring, the Intelligence Committee must immediately, and before the election, take all steps necessary to expose any efforts of Russia to influence the 2020 election and undermine our democracy.
Read the full letter here.
###


democracy21--2020-07-23--Trump’s Brazen Authoritarianism in Plain Sight

“ We will not allow Trump ’ s brazen authoritarianism , which is now in plain sight , to undermine our democratic norms and steal the election.
” President Trump is now moving into full authoritarian mode as he deploys a federal police force to engage in paramiltary actions in cities around the country .
The takeoff point for this has been Portland , Oregon , where unnamed , unmarked federal forces wearing military camouflage are taking actions that are far beyond their stated authority and purpose for being in the city .
This culminated yesterday in the tear gassing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The blatant political purpose of these actions can be seen in the fact that Trump is sending his troops into cities with Democratic Mayors and that he describes as controlled by “ the radical left.
” There are two clear political objectives behind Trump ’ s ultra vires actions .
First , he is creating a false “ law and order ” issue with strong overtones of racism in an effort to boost his weak election polling numbers and his large job disapproval ratings .
His false narrative also serves to divert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
Trump ’ s approach to dealing with the pandemic and his refusal to establish a national strategy for fighting it has resulted in far more coronavirus cases and deaths than ever would have occurred if our country had responded competently .
Second , Trump is setting the stage for potentially using his paramilitary forces to influence the 2020 presidential election by interfering with the election process , with the vote counting , with final state decisions , and possibly by refusing to leave office if he loses the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country and our constitutional system of government .
The American people will decide this at the polls in November .
We will be ready for any move that Trump makes to try to steal the election .
We will not allow Trump ’ s brazen authoritarianism , which is now in plain sight , to undermine our democratic norms and steal the election .

FRED WERTHEIMER’S WEEKLY NOTE | July 23, 2020
“We will not allow Trump’s brazen authoritarianism, which is now in plain sight, to undermine our democratic norms and steal the election.”
President Trump is now moving into full authoritarian mode as he deploys a federal police force to engage in paramiltary actions in cities around the country.
The takeoff point for this has been Portland, Oregon, where unnamed, unmarked federal forces wearing military camouflage are taking actions that are far beyond their stated authority and purpose for being in the city. This culminated yesterday in the tear gassing of Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler.
The blatant political purpose of these actions can be seen in the fact that Trump is sending his troops into cities with Democratic Mayors and that he describes as controlled by “the radical left.”
There are two clear political objectives behind Trump’s ultra vires actions.
First, he is creating a false “law and order” issue with strong overtones of racism in an effort to boost his weak election polling numbers and his large job disapproval ratings.
His false narrative also serves to divert attention from his miserable performance on the coronavirus pandemic. Trump’s approach to dealing with the pandemic and his refusal to establish a national strategy for fighting it has resulted in far more coronavirus cases and deaths than ever would have occurred if our country had responded competently.
Second, Trump is setting the stage for potentially using his paramilitary forces to influence the 2020 presidential election by interfering with the election process, with the vote counting, with final state decisions, and possibly by refusing to leave office if he loses the election.
This has become a fundamental test for our country and our constitutional system of government. The American people will decide this at the polls in November. We will be ready for any move that Trump makes to try to steal the election.
We will not allow Trump’s brazen authoritarianism, which is now in plain sight, to undermine our democratic norms and steal the election.
###


democracy21--2020-07-28--Wertheimer op-ed in NBC Think: William Barr is a disgrace to his office. It’s time America understan

Wertheimer op-ed in NBC Think: William Barr is a disgrace to his office. It’s time America understands why

Enclosed for your information is an op-ed by Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer entitled , “ Trump crony Barr ’ s 2020 House testimony is a big opportunity for Democrats , ” which was published here in NBC Think on July 28 , 2020 .
According to the piece : Barr appears to be planning , in the closing weeks of the election , to release the results of an investigation he launched into the origins of the Mueller investigation and possibly bring criminal indictments — a move that reeks of political opportunism , is wildly inappropriate in its timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s re-election by damaging the presumptive Democratic nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden .
To help his president , Barr has shown no allegiance to his oath of office , the Justice Department , the nation , the rule of law or the American people he is supposed to serve .
Barr has also repeatedly failed to comply with the rules and standards of the Justice Department he heads .
Read the full piece below or here .
The attorney general ’ s tenure has been a disaster for the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from office , the better off the nation will be .
As Attorney General William Barr testifies Tuesday morning before the House Judiciary Committee , he will no doubt face harsh questioning from his critics in the Democratic Party on a number of apparent transgressions .
Such criticism is fair , particularly as Barr has spent the past two years on a mission to destroy the Mueller investigation to help President Donald Trump get re-elected .
Indeed , ever since Barr took over as attorney general on Feb. 14 , 2019 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to Trump .
Barr appears to be planning , in the closing weeks of the election , to release the results of an investigation he launched into the origins of the Mueller investigation and possibly bring criminal indictments — a move that reeks of political opportunism , is wildly inappropriate in its timing and is obviously intended to boost Trump ’ s re-election by damaging the presumptive Democratic nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden .
To help his president , Barr has shown no allegiance to his oath of office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law or the American people he is supposed to serve .
Barr has also repeatedly failed to comply with the rules and standards of the Justice Department he heads .
These failures are the basis of seven complaints that I filed on behalf of Democracy 21 against Barr with the Justice Department ’ s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility .
They charge Barr with improperly using his office to protect , promote and advance Trump ’ s personal political interests .
( They were filed on April 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , and Jan. 17 , Feb. 27 , June 11 , and July 9 , 2020 . )
Others are engaged in Barr ’ s effort to support Trump , such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson , R-Wis .
They are leading dubious Senate investigations certain to help Trump ’ s re-election effort .
But Barr is the chief architect .
He has taken three pivotal steps to achieve his ends .
Two are widely known — but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred on June 8 , 2018 , when , as a sort of sophisticated job application for attorney general , private citizen Barr sent a 19-page memo to the Justice Department slamming Mueller ’ s Russia investigation .
Barr did this even though , as he admitted , he was “ in the dark about many facts.
” ( Not the only time that Barr has made serious allegations while stating he does not know the relevant facts . )
In this memo , Barr accuses Mueller of having a “ fatally misconceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump ’ s potential obstruction of justice .
Barr wrote of Mueller ’ s obstruction theory : “ If credited by the department , it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the presidency and to the administration of law within the executive branch.
” Barr concluded that if Mueller ’ s theory was accepted , the implications would be “ astounding.
” That job application in disguise worked .
Barr got his post .
Once he took control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views about the Mueller investigation became the frame for his campaign to dismantle it .
A second pivotal step — though little noticed — was on Feb. 5 , when Barr issued a memorandum to Justice Department officials setting down election-year rules for conducting politically related investigations and prosecutions .
In this memo , Barr made fundamental changes to longstanding department policy .
These changes allow Barr to issue a report on a criminal investigation or bring criminal indictments in late summer or fall to help Trump get re-elected .
Previously , Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking actions in an election year that might affect voting results .
Past attorneys general have laid out these rules in almost identical memos : in March 2008 by Attorney General Michael Mukasey , a Republican appointee , and in March 2012 by Attorney General Eric Holder and April 2016 by Attorney General Loretta Lynch , both Democratic appointees .
All these memos state that “ politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.
” There is a clear purpose for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department from being misused to affect an election .
Barr , however , seems to have other ideas .
His Feb. 5 memo shrinks the scope of the noninterference rules , making it easier to disregard any possible election-related consequences if Barr decides to release a report on existing criminal investigations or bring criminal indictments .
Furthermore , the attorney general seems to believe he has essentially unrestrained power and can ignore even this narrower set of restrictions .
For example , Barr asserted , in a radio interview , that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies because they are only “ prudential ” — they call for him to make a “ judgment in each individual case.
” This interpretation , however , has no basis in either the language of Barr ’ s memo or previous Justice Department memos .
Barr claimed in the interview that he is free to issue indictments this year related to the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation .
Any such indictments are likely to target Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence officials and benefit Trump ’ s re-election effort — given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russia investigation .
Barr ’ s moves are anything but innocent .
To fully understand what he is up to here , you need to look to Barr ’ s third pivotal step in his obsessive quest to destroy the Mueller investigation .
On May 13 , 2019 , Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut to investigate the origins of the 2016 Justice Department investigation into Russian election interference .
This was highly unusual , because the department ’ s nonpartisan inspector general was already conducting a similar investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Mueller ’ s investigation was a “ hoax ” and a “ witch hunt.
” In December , the inspector general issued a 434-page report that concluded that the Mueller investigation had a legitimate purpose and that there was no evidence of bias against Trump .
This sharply contradicted Trump ’ s repeated attacks on the Russia probe .
Barr immediately challenged the inspector general ’ s findings .
In another highly unusual action , Barr flatly contradicted his own inspector general , claiming that the Russia investigation had been opened “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my view , were insufficient to justify the steps taken .
It is also clear that , from its inception , the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.
” Durham also challenged the report , insisting that based on the evidence he had gathered so far — in what has become a criminal investigation — he did not agree with some of the conclusions .
This also was highly irregular .
Department rules typically prohibit prosecutors from commenting publicly on ongoing criminal investigations .
If Durham ’ s parallel investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration officials during the Russia investigation , the attorney general is widely expected to take action .
He could , for example , release the findings of Durham ’ s criminal investigation or perhaps file criminal indictments in a desperate attempt to help Trump win .
These actions would not be prohibited under Barr ’ s new Justice Department election-year policies .
If this occurs , the attorney general would have blatantly violated what had been longstanding Justice Department policy .
Barr would also be guilty of flagrantly abusing his office to assist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
Trump is also likely to use any of Barr ’ s actions to try to smear Biden in the closing weeks of the campaign .
In a recent Washington Post opinion piece , Mueller wrote that his Russia investigation “ identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — [ Roger ] Stone among them.
” Mueller wrote that the investigation established that “ the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome .
It also established that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.
” It was a powerful rebuttal from a man of few words .
Because in the end , history will not permit Barr — or anyone else — to turn the Mueller investigation into a “ hoax ” or a “ witch hunt.
” Barr ’ s tenure as attorney general has been a disaster for the American people .
He has grossly abused his office and repeatedly violated the rules and standards of the Justice Department .
The sooner he is gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation will be .
Fred Wertheimer is president of Democracy 21 , a nonpartisan , nonprofit organization that works to strengthen U.S. democracy and empower citizens in the political process .

Enclosed for your information is an op-ed by Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer entitled, “Trump crony Barr’s 2020 House testimony is a big opportunity for Democrats,” which was published here in NBC Think on July 28, 2020.
According to the piece:
Barr appears to be planning, in the closing weeks of the election, to release the results of an investigation he launched into the origins of the Mueller investigation and possibly bring criminal indictments — a move that reeks of political opportunism, is wildly inappropriate in its timing and is obviously intended to boost Trump’s re-election by damaging the presumptive Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden. To help his president, Barr has shown no allegiance to his oath of office, the Justice Department, the nation, the rule of law or the American people he is supposed to serve. Barr has also repeatedly failed to comply with the rules and standards of the Justice Department he heads.
The piece concluded:
[I]n the end, history will not permit Barr — or anyone else — to turn the Mueller investigation into a “hoax” or a “witch hunt.” Barr’s tenure as attorney general has been a disaster for the American people. He has grossly abused his office and repeatedly violated the rules and standards of the Justice Department. The sooner he is gone from office, the better off the nation will be.
Read the full piece below or here.
Trump crony Barr’s 2020 House testimony is a big opportunity for Democrats
The attorney general’s tenure has been a disaster for the American people. The sooner he is gone from office, the better off the nation will be.
Fred Wertheimer | July 28, 2020 | NBC Think
As Attorney General William Barr testifies Tuesday morning before the House Judiciary Committee, he will no doubt face harsh questioning from his critics in the Democratic Party on a number of apparent transgressions. Such criticism is fair, particularly as Barr has spent the past two years on a mission to destroy the Mueller investigation to help President Donald Trump get re-elected.
Indeed, ever since Barr took over as attorney general on Feb. 14, 2019, he has repeatedly demonstrated that his only allegiance is to Trump.
Barr appears to be planning, in the closing weeks of the election, to release the results of an investigation he launched into the origins of the Mueller investigation and possibly bring criminal indictments — a move that reeks of political opportunism, is wildly inappropriate in its timing and is obviously intended to boost Trump’s re-election by damaging the presumptive Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.
To help his president, Barr has shown no allegiance to his oath of office, the Justice Department, the nation, the rule of law or the American people he is supposed to serve. Barr has also repeatedly failed to comply with the rules and standards of the Justice Department he heads.
These failures are the basis of seven complaints that I filed on behalf of Democracy 21 against Barr with the Justice Department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility. They charge Barr with improperly using his office to protect, promote and advance Trump’s personal political interests. (They were filed on April 15, May 7 and Oct. 1, 2019, and Jan. 17, Feb. 27, June 11, and July 9, 2020.)
Others are engaged in Barr’s effort to support Trump, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis. They are leading dubious Senate investigations certain to help Trump’s re-election effort.
But Barr is the chief architect.
He has taken three pivotal steps to achieve his ends. Two are widely known — but the third has barely registered.
The first occurred on June 8, 2018, when, as a sort of sophisticated job application for attorney general, private citizen Barr sent a 19-page memo to the Justice Department slamming Mueller’s Russia investigation. Barr did this even though, as he admitted, he was “in the dark about many facts.” (Not the only time that Barr has made serious allegations while stating he does not know the relevant facts.)
In this memo, Barr accuses Mueller of having a “fatally misconceived” and “unsupportable” legal theory about Trump’s potential obstruction of justice. Barr wrote of Mueller’s obstruction theory: “If credited by the department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the presidency and to the administration of law within the executive branch.”
Barr concluded that if Mueller’s theory was accepted, the implications would be “astounding.”
That job application in disguise worked. Barr got his post. Once he took control of the department, Barr’s preconceived apocalyptic views about the Mueller investigation became the frame for his campaign to dismantle it.
A second pivotal step — though little noticed — was on Feb. 5, when Barr issued a memorandum to Justice Department officials setting down election-year rules for conducting politically related investigations and prosecutions. In this memo, Barr made fundamental changes to longstanding department policy. These changes allow Barr to issue a report on a criminal investigation or bring criminal indictments in late summer or fall to help Trump get re-elected.
Previously, Justice Department rules had long prevented it from taking actions in an election year that might affect voting results. Past attorneys general have laid out these rules in almost identical memos: in March 2008 by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a Republican appointee, and in March 2012 by Attorney General Eric Holder and April 2016 by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, both Democratic appointees.
All these memos state that “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.” There is a clear purpose for this: to prevent the powers of the Justice Department from being misused to affect an election.
Barr, however, seems to have other ideas. His Feb. 5 memo shrinks the scope of the noninterference rules, making it easier to disregard any possible election-related consequences if Barr decides to release a report on existing criminal investigations or bring criminal indictments.
Furthermore, the attorney general seems to believe he has essentially unrestrained power and can ignore even this narrower set of restrictions.
For example, Barr asserted, in a radio interview, that he can ignore the department’s election-year policies because they are only “prudential” — they call for him to make a “judgment in each individual case.” This interpretation, however, has no basis in either the language of Barr’s memo or previous Justice Department memos.
Barr claimed in the interview that he is free to issue indictments this year related to the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation. Any such indictments are likely to target Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence officials and benefit Trump’s re-election effort — given the president’s nonstop attacks on the Russia investigation.
Barr’s moves are anything but innocent. To fully understand what he is up to here, you need to look to Barr’s third pivotal step in his obsessive quest to destroy the Mueller investigation.
On May 13, 2019, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut to investigate the origins of the 2016 Justice Department investigation into Russian election interference. This was highly unusual, because the department’s nonpartisan inspector general was already conducting a similar investigation. Of course, Trump had long claimed that Mueller’s investigation was a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.”
In December, the inspector general issued a 434-page report that concluded that the Mueller investigation had a legitimate purpose and that there was no evidence of bias against Trump. This sharply contradicted Trump’s repeated attacks on the Russia probe.
Barr immediately challenged the inspector general’s findings. In another highly unusual action, Barr flatly contradicted his own inspector general, claiming that the Russia investigation had been opened “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.”
Durham also challenged the report, insisting that based on the evidence he had gathered so far — in what has become a criminal investigation — he did not agree with some of the conclusions. This also was highly irregular. Department rules typically prohibit prosecutors from commenting publicly on ongoing criminal investigations.
If Durham’s parallel investigation finds improper or criminal conduct by Obama administration officials during the Russia investigation, the attorney general is widely expected to take action. He could, for example, release the findings of Durham’s criminal investigation or perhaps file criminal indictments in a desperate attempt to help Trump win.
These actions would not be prohibited under Barr’s new Justice Department election-year policies.
If this occurs, the attorney general would have blatantly violated what had been longstanding Justice Department policy. Barr would also be guilty of flagrantly abusing his office to assist Trump’s campaign just weeks before the election.
Trump is also likely to use any of Barr’s actions to try to smear Biden in the closing weeks of the campaign. In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, Mueller wrote that his Russia investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — [Roger] Stone among them.”
Mueller wrote that the investigation established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the [Trump] campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
It was a powerful rebuttal from a man of few words. Because in the end, history will not permit Barr — or anyone else — to turn the Mueller investigation into a “hoax” or a “witch hunt.”
Barr’s tenure as attorney general has been a disaster for the American people. He has grossly abused his office and repeatedly violated the rules and standards of the Justice Department. The sooner he is gone from office, the better off the nation will be.
Fred Wertheimer is president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to strengthen U.S. democracy and empower citizens in the political process.
###


democracy21--2020-07-29--U.S. Attorney Investigating “Unmaskings,” Discussed on Hill Yesterday, Has Blatant Conflict of Inter

U.S. Attorney Investigating “Unmaskings,” Discussed on Hill Yesterday, Has Blatant Conflict of Interest

U.S. Attorney Chosen by Barr to Investigate “ Unmaskings ” Has Blatant Conflict of Interest U.S. Attorney John Bash , Discussed In House Judiciary Committee Hearing Yesterday , Is Part Of Barr ’ s Partisan Effort To Help Re-Elect Trump At yesterday ’ s House Judiciary Committee hearing , Attorney General William Barr testified that he had assigned Texas U.S. Attorney John F. Bash to specifically investigate “ unmaskings ” in the Obama Administration .
In response to a question from Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) , Barr stated that he appointed Bash to look into “ the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business.
” According to earlier reports , Bash was appointed “ to scrutinize Obama-era officials who sought to identify anonymized names in government documents that turned out to be people connected to then-President-elect Trump.
” “ Democracy 21 filed a complaint at the Justice Department in June against Barr and Bash that challenges Bash ’ s blatant conflict of interest in conducting this investigation , ” according to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer .
“ Bash , a former Special Assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump , is the last person who should have been given this assignment , which reeks of a pure partisan effort by Barr to help re-elect Trump , ” Wertheimer said .
“ Barr never should have made this appointment , and Bash should have immediately recused himself from accepting this obvious political assignment , ” Wertheimer said .
Democracy 21 filed a complaint on June 11 , 2020 with the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department challenging Bash ’ s appointment .
According to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney for the Western District of Texas .
He was nominated by President Trump and sworn into that position on December 11 , 2017 .
Prior to his appointment , Bash served in the White House as Special Assistant to President Trump and Associate White House Counsel .
An individual who has worked as a Trump Special Assistant and White House Counsel has no public credibility to head a criminal investigation about the “ unmasking ” of Michael Flynn by Obama Administration officials .
President Trump has been attacking the “ unmasking ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertions about “ Obamagate , ” which appears to be nothing more than a label created for the purpose of damaging his presidential opponent , Joe Biden , who served as Vice President in the Obama Administration .
It is plainly inappropriate to name a former Special Assistant and Associate White House Counsel to Trump to conduct this politicized investigation , all the more so just months before a presidential election in which Trump is a candidate .
The full complaint can be found here .

U.S. Attorney Chosen by Barr to Investigate “Unmaskings” Has Blatant Conflict of Interest
U.S. Attorney John Bash, Discussed In House Judiciary Committee Hearing Yesterday, Is Part Of Barr’s Partisan Effort To Help Re-Elect Trump
At yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General William Barr testified that he had assigned Texas U.S. Attorney John F. Bash to specifically investigate “unmaskings” in the Obama Administration.
In response to a question from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Barr stated that he appointed Bash to look into “the high number of unmaskings, and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business.”
According to earlier reports, Bash was appointed “to scrutinize Obama-era officials who sought to identify anonymized names in government documents that turned out to be people connected to then-President-elect Trump.”
“Democracy 21 filed a complaint at the Justice Department in June against Barr and Bash that challenges Bash’s blatant conflict of interest in conducting this investigation,” according to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
“Bash, a former Special Assistant to and Associate White House Counsel for President Trump, is the last person who should have been given this assignment, which reeks of a pure partisan effort by Barr to help re-elect Trump,” Wertheimer said.
“Barr never should have made this appointment, and Bash should have immediately recused himself from accepting this obvious political assignment,” Wertheimer said.
Democracy 21 filed a complaint on June 11, 2020 with the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department challenging Bash’s appointment.
According to the complaint:
John Bash is the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. He was nominated by President Trump and sworn into that position on December 11, 2017. Prior to his appointment, Bash served in the White House as Special Assistant to President Trump and Associate White House Counsel. An individual who has worked as a Trump Special Assistant and White House Counsel has no public credibility to head a criminal investigation about the “unmasking” of Michael Flynn by Obama Administration officials. President Trump has been attacking the “unmasking” as part of his undefined and unexplained assertions about “Obamagate,” which appears to be nothing more than a label created for the purpose of damaging his presidential opponent, Joe Biden, who served as Vice President in the Obama Administration. It is plainly inappropriate to name a former Special Assistant and Associate White House Counsel to Trump to conduct this politicized investigation, all the more so just months before a presidential election in which Trump is a candidate.
The full complaint can be found here.
###


democracy21--2020-08-06--Wertheimer Open Letter to US Attorney Durham Calling on Him to Comply with DOJ Policy on Not Influen

Wertheimer Open Letter to US Attorney Durham Calling on Him to Comply with DOJ Policy on Not Influencing Elections

In Open Letter , Democracy 21 President Calls on U.S. Attorney John Durham to Comply with DOJ Policy and Not Issue Report or Bring Indictments at this Late Stage of Presidential Election Enclosed for your information is an open letter that Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer sent to U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham .
The letter was published by Just Security on August 6 , 2020 .
U.S. Attorney Durham was appointed by Attorney General William Barr to review the origins of the 2016 Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned into a criminal investigation of the Justice Department ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s efforts to undermine our democracy.
” The need for your appointment was hard to understand at the time it was made , since the Justice Department ’ s independent Inspector General was already conducting a similar investigation that began in March 2018 into the same issues .
On December 9 , 2019 , the Inspector General issued his report and concluded that the 2016 Russia investigation had had a legitimate purpose and that there was no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the investigation had been initiated or undertaken .
Longstanding Department policies issued by the past three Attorneys General who served during an election year make plain that Department actions should not be taken in an election year that could influence or affect an election .
George J. Terwilliger III , who served as deputy attorney general under Attorney General William Barr in the administration of President George H.W .
Bush , said in 2016 , “ There ’ s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy and not to issue any report , or bring any indictments , resulting from your investigation in these closing weeks of the 2020 presidential election .
Any public action by the Justice Department in this pre-election period that is associated with your investigation – which by its very nature involves actions taken during the Obama-Biden Administration – is bound to be used by President Trump for partisan political purposes to promote his re-election effort against Vice President Biden .
“ U.S Attorney Durham ’ s professional reputation and personal integrity is squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Wertheimer .
“ Mr .
Durham should not throw away his integrity , built over a long , successful career in law enforcement , and violate Justice Department policy by joining with Attorney General Barr if Barr undertakes a blatantly partisan effort to use the results of Durham ’ s investigation to help re-elect President Trump , ” Wertheimer said .
“ If Barr goes forward with a report on Durham ’ s investigation or brings criminal indictments based on the investigation at this late stage of the presidential election , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a gross abuse of his office , ” Wertheimer said .
“ Mr .
Durham owes it to the country and to himself to prevent any such effort by Barr and to promptly , publicly disassociate himself from any such effort , if Barr acts to influence the presidential election.
” According to the letter : In testifying during his Senate confirmation hearings , Mr. Barr was asked whether there are “ policies in place that try to insulate the investigations and the decisions of the Department of Justice and FBI from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said yes and explained that the party in power has “ their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country , and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.
” But that is precisely what would occur here if a report is issued on your investigation of the Russia investigation or if indictments are brought at this critical stage of the presidential election .
You should not permit your long and distinguished career in the Justice Department to be permanently tainted , or your personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would plainly be an effort to use your investigation to influence or affect the 2020 presidential election .
There is no ambiguity about the mandate that “ politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.
” There is no ambiguity about the fact that this policy was established to protect the integrity of the Justice Department and the integrity of our elections .
There is no ambiguity about the fact that the release of your investigative work in this pre-election period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to comply with the Department ’ s longstanding policy to ensure that the findings of your investigation are not used to affect or influence the 2020 presidential election .
In the event that decisions about issuing a report or bringing criminal indictments are made at higher levels of the Justice Department , you should promptly withdraw your name and publicly disassociate yourself from such actions .
It would abandon your own professional duty and responsibility in this matter to allow superiors to direct you to take actions that contravene a Departmental policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department and of the electoral process .
Nor should you defer to any implausibly narrow or strained interpretations of the policy that might be made by the Attorney General or others .
I strongly urge you not to participate in , and to disassociate yourself from , any announcement , report release , issuance of indictments , or other public statements or actions prior to the 2020 presidential election relating to the criminal investigation you have been conducting into the origins of the Justice Department ’ s investigation of Russian interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related matters in which you are directly involved .
Read the full letter at Just Security .

In Open Letter, Democracy 21 President Calls on U.S. Attorney John Durham to Comply with DOJ Policy and Not Issue Report or Bring Indictments at this Late Stage of Presidential Election
Enclosed for your information is an open letter that Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer sent to U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham. The letter was published by Just Security here on August 6, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Durham was appointed by Attorney General William Barr to review the origins of the 2016 Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. According to the letter, “this review turned into a criminal investigation of the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to undermine our democracy.”
The letter noted:
The need for your appointment was hard to understand at the time it was made, since the Justice Department’s independent Inspector General was already conducting a similar investigation that began in March 2018 into the same issues. On December 9, 2019, the Inspector General issued his report and concluded that the 2016 Russia investigation had had a legitimate purpose and that there was no evidence of political bias against President Trump in how the investigation had been initiated or undertaken.
The letter continued:
Longstanding Department policies issued by the past three Attorneys General who served during an election year make plain that Department actions should not be taken in an election year that could influence or affect an election. George J. Terwilliger III, who served as deputy attorney general under Attorney General William Barr in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, said in 2016, “There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election.” I strongly urge you to follow this policy and not to issue any report, or bring any indictments, resulting from your investigation in these closing weeks of the 2020 presidential election. Any public action by the Justice Department in this pre-election period that is associated with your investigation – which by its very nature involves actions taken during the Obama-Biden Administration – is bound to be used by President Trump for partisan political purposes to promote his re-election effort against Vice President Biden.
“U.S Attorney Durham’s professional reputation and personal integrity is squarely on the line here,” according to Wertheimer.
“Mr. Durham should not throw away his integrity, built over a long, successful career in law enforcement, and violate Justice Department policy by joining with Attorney General Barr if Barr undertakes a blatantly partisan effort to use the results of Durham’s investigation to help re-elect President Trump,” Wertheimer said.
“If Barr goes forward with a report on Durham’s investigation or brings criminal indictments based on the investigation at this late stage of the presidential election, it will violate longstanding Justice Department policy and be a gross abuse of his office,” Wertheimer said. “Mr. Durham owes it to the country and to himself to prevent any such effort by Barr and to promptly, publicly disassociate himself from any such effort, if Barr acts to influence the presidential election.”
The letter stated:
Any public release of your report in the current closing stage of the presidential election, or any indictments issued during this period as a result of your investigation, clearly will become a major campaign issue and will have political consequences. The longstanding Department policy to avoid such politicization of the Department’s work compels you to prevent this from happening.
The letter said:
If your investigation is not complete, you should not complete it until after the election. If the report is complete, you should publicly oppose any release of your report before the election. The same holds true regarding any indictment made in the closing weeks of the election.
According to the letter:
In testifying during his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Barr was asked whether there are “policies in place that try to insulate the investigations and the decisions of the Department of Justice and FBI from getting involved in elections?” Barr said yes and explained that the party in power has “their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.” But that is precisely what would occur here if a report is issued on your investigation of the Russia investigation or if indictments are brought at this critical stage of the presidential election. You should not permit your long and distinguished career in the Justice Department to be permanently tainted, or your personal integrity to be irreparably impugned, by what would plainly be an effort to use your investigation to influence or affect the 2020 presidential election.
The letter noted:
There is no ambiguity about the mandate that “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.” There is no ambiguity about the fact that this policy was established to protect the integrity of the Justice Department and the integrity of our elections. There is no ambiguity about the fact that the release of your investigative work in this pre-election period would violate this policy.
The letter concluded:
I urge you to comply with the Department’s longstanding policy to ensure that the findings of your investigation are not used to affect or influence the 2020 presidential election. In the event that decisions about issuing a report or bringing criminal indictments are made at higher levels of the Justice Department, you should promptly withdraw your name and publicly disassociate yourself from such actions. It would abandon your own professional duty and responsibility in this matter to allow superiors to direct you to take actions that contravene a Departmental policy designed to protect the integrity of both the Justice Department and of the electoral process. Nor should you defer to any implausibly narrow or strained interpretations of the policy that might be made by the Attorney General or others. I strongly urge you not to participate in, and to disassociate yourself from, any announcement, report release, issuance of indictments, or other public statements or actions prior to the 2020 presidential election relating to the criminal investigation you have been conducting into the origins of the Justice Department’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election or any other related matters in which you are directly involved.
Read the full letter here at Just Security.
###


democracy21--2020-08-06--Wertheimer Statement on the 55th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important documents in American history .
It stripped away the artificial barriers erected to prevent African Americans and other people of color from exercising their sacred right to vote .
The right to vote is at the heart of our system of representative government and ingrains in our democracy the fundamental principle that “ Here the people rule.
” As we celebrate the 55th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act , we should think of the American heroes who paved the way for this historic step toward greater racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should think on this day of the late Representative John Lewis , a true American icon and hero for the ages .
The story of John Lewis ’ s courage , tenacity , integrity , strength of character , persistence , and lifelong devotion to ensuring the vote for all Americans is a story that will be told for generations to come .
His guiding principle that we should never give up and never give in is a lesson for all who pursue change .
From 1965 to its reauthorization in 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embodiment of bipartisanship .
The House passed the bill in 2006 by 390-to-33 .
The Senate passed the bill 98-to-0 .
President George W. Bush signed the bill into law .
The Supreme Court ’ s shameful 5-4 decision in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder , however , gutted core provisions of the Voting Rights Act .
In the wake of that decision , the previous overwhelming bipartisan support for the Act is now caught up in the same partisan divisions that pervade many other issues in Congress .
Last December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore and revitalize the Voting Rights Act , without Republican support .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has blocked the Senate from voting on the legislation , and his obstructionist tactics must and will be overcome , if not in this Congress then in the Congress to follow in 2021 .
Senator McConnell will not be allowed to stand in the Senate door to block racial justice any more than Governor George Wallace was allowed to stand in the schoolhouse door to block racial progress in 1963 .
In the words of John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and never give in until the Voting Rights Advancement Act is the law of the land .

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important documents in American history. It stripped away the artificial barriers erected to prevent African Americans and other people of color from exercising their sacred right to vote.
The right to vote is at the heart of our system of representative government and ingrains in our democracy the fundamental principle that “Here the people rule.”
As we celebrate the 55th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we should think of the American heroes who paved the way for this historic step toward greater racial justice and equality. In particular, we should think on this day of the late Representative John Lewis, a true American icon and hero for the ages.
The story of John Lewis’s courage, tenacity, integrity, strength of character, persistence, and lifelong devotion to ensuring the vote for all Americans is a story that will be told for generations to come. His guiding principle that we should never give up and never give in is a lesson for all who pursue change.
From 1965 to its reauthorization in 2006, the Voting Rights Act was the embodiment of bipartisanship. The House passed the bill in 2006 by 390-to-33. The Senate passed the bill 98-to-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.
The Supreme Court’s shameful 5-4 decision in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, however, gutted core provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In the wake of that decision, the previous overwhelming bipartisan support for the Act is now caught up in the same partisan divisions that pervade many other issues in Congress.
Last December, the House passed H.R. 4 to restore and revitalize the Voting Rights Act, without Republican support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has blocked the Senate from voting on the legislation, and his obstructionist tactics must and will be overcome, if not in this Congress then in the Congress to follow in 2021.
Senator McConnell will not be allowed to stand in the Senate door to block racial justice any more than Governor George Wallace was allowed to stand in the schoolhouse door to block racial progress in 1963.
In the words of John Lewis, advocates will never give up and never give in until the Voting Rights Advancement Act is the law of the land.
###