washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--The Policies Democrats Need  to Unite the Party

This has happened to me a number of times recently .
I ’ m talking with Democratic operatives about the party ’ s frighteningly inadequate field of presidential contenders when somebody says , “ God , I wish Sherrod Brown were running !
” Everyone nods wistfully .
The Ohio senator ’ s decision last March not to jump into the fray , after testing the waters extensively , set up probably the biggest what-if in politics right now .
Had he chosen differently , it ’ s hard not to think he ’ d be a , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bona fides are as strong as Elizabeth Warren ’ s or Bernie Sanders ’ s—no one in Congress has a more pro-union record on , say , trade .
Yet he ’ s made a point of not endorsing positions that fire up the left but scare off most other voters , like Medicare for All and abolishing ICE .
With his raspy voice , disheveled hair , and basic human decency , he has as much appeal to the Working Stiff Vote as Joe Biden—but is ten years younger than the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart and knowledgeable on policy as Pete Buttegieg , but with a decades-long career in public office stretching from the Ohio legislature to the U.S. Senate .
And , sure , he ’ s another white male , but I know women who would vote for him just to get his amazing wife , the Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Connie Schultz , into the White House .
Whether Brown has the performance skills required to take on Donald Trump , I don ’ t know .
I saw him speak recently in Washington and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he would be the kind of candidate the party desperately needs but doesn ’ t have—a big-tent Democrat both left-liberals and moderates could comfortably unify around .
Another reason to wish he were in the race is that it would bring attention to his policy ideas .
In September , he introduced legislation that would allow individuals to get an advance of up to $ 500 on their Earned Income Tax Credit ( EITC ) , a federal benefit normally paid at tax time to low-income workers .
This might sound like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually a huge deal because it would be a simple , elegant way to save millions of families from the clutches of the payday-lending industry .
Payday loans are high on the long list of sick practical jokes America plays on the working poor .
Such folk typically have little or no savings—they literally live paycheck to paycheck .
So when they need quick cash—say , for car repairs or because their income unexpectedly drops ( think hourly wage earners who lose days of work because of a blizzard ) —they go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loans they receive come with effective interest rates ( counting fees ) of as much as 400 percent a year .
If they are unable to quickly pay them back—and many can ’ t—a $ 500 loan ( a typical amount ) can mushroom into a crushing debt the borrower may never be able to pay off .
Under Barack Obama , the federal government issued regulations requiring the industry to ensure that borrowers can pay back loans before handing over the cash advances , and the worst practices were beginning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the Trump administration gutted those regulations .
Other partial solutions are in the works .
A handful of banks and credit unions have begun to offer their low-wage customers small-dollar installment loans on better , but still pricey , terms .
Some companies are partnering with fintech start-ups to offer installment loans to their employees with interest rates as low as 10 percent , but only a limited number of firms are ever likely to offer such loans .
The genius of Brown ’ s idea is that EITC advances would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be available to virtually anyone who needs one .
It ’ s sort of like a “ public option ” that could put the whole payday-lending industry , if not out of business , at least in its place .
Alas , Brown isn ’ t running .
So we have to hope the other candidates adopt his proposals as their own .
In the same spirit , this issue of the Washington Monthly offers a number of policy ideas we think would benefit the current candidates politically and be great for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single best way to address the concerns that the majority of voters have about rising health care costs is neither Medicare for All—the plan that has hurt Elizabeth Warren in the polls—nor the build-on-Obamacare position of moderates like Joe Biden .
Rather , it is to impose Medicare prices on the whole health system .
And a group of national-security experts weighs in on Washington Monthly editor Daniel Block ’ s recent proposal to create a truly progressive trade deal between the United States and the European Union—one even a trade-deal skeptic like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth is that none of the current Democratic candidates for president has formulated the message they ’ ll need to bring the left and center of the Democratic Party together , lock up the nomination , and successfully challenge Trump .
But it ’ s not too late for one of them ( I ’ m looking at you , Amy Klobuchar ) to adopt some bold and unexpected new policy ideas and change the dynamics of the race .

This has happened to me a number of times recently. I’m talking with Democratic operatives about the party’s frighteningly inadequate field of presidential contenders when somebody says, “God, I wish Sherrod Brown were running!” Everyone nods wistfully.
The Ohio senator’s decision last March not to jump into the fray, after testing the waters extensively, set up probably the biggest what-if in politics right now. Had he chosen differently, it’s hard not to think he’d be a, if not the, top contender. His progressive bona fides are as strong as Elizabeth Warren’s or Bernie Sanders’s—no one in Congress has a more pro-union record on, say, trade. Yet he’s made a point of not endorsing positions that fire up the left but scare off most other voters, like Medicare for All and abolishing ICE. With his raspy voice, disheveled hair, and basic human decency, he has as much appeal to the Working Stiff Vote as Joe Biden—but is ten years younger than the former vice president. He’s as smart and knowledgeable on policy as Pete Buttegieg, but with a decades-long career in public office stretching from the Ohio legislature to the U.S. Senate. And, sure, he’s another white male, but I know women who would vote for him just to get his amazing wife, the Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Connie Schultz, into the White House.
Whether Brown has the performance skills required to take on Donald Trump, I don’t know. I saw him speak recently in Washington and wasn’t blown away. Still, he would be the kind of candidate the party desperately needs but doesn’t have—a big-tent Democrat both left-liberals and moderates could comfortably unify around.
Another reason to wish he were in the race is that it would bring attention to his policy ideas. In September, he introduced legislation that would allow individuals to get an advance of up to $500 on their Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal benefit normally paid at tax time to low-income workers. This might sound like a small thing. But it’s actually a huge deal because it would be a simple, elegant way to save millions of families from the clutches of the payday-lending industry.
Payday loans are high on the long list of sick practical jokes America plays on the working poor. Such folk typically have little or no savings—they literally live paycheck to paycheck. So when they need quick cash—say, for car repairs or because their income unexpectedly drops (think hourly wage earners who lose days of work because of a blizzard)—they go to their neighborhood payday lenders. But the loans they receive come with effective interest rates (counting fees) of as much as 400 percent a year. If they are unable to quickly pay them back—and many can’t—a $500 loan (a typical amount) can mushroom into a crushing debt the borrower may never be able to pay off.
Under Barack Obama, the federal government issued regulations requiring the industry to ensure that borrowers can pay back loans before handing over the cash advances, and the worst practices were beginning to fade. That was until last February, when the Trump administration gutted those regulations.
Other partial solutions are in the works. A handful of banks and credit unions have begun to offer their low-wage customers small-dollar installment loans on better, but still pricey, terms. Some companies are partnering with fintech start-ups to offer installment loans to their employees with interest rates as low as 10 percent, but only a limited number of firms are ever likely to offer such loans.
The genius of Brown’s idea is that EITC advances would come with basically no interest charges and be available to virtually anyone who needs one. It’s sort of like a “public option” that could put the whole payday-lending industry, if not out of business, at least in its place.
Alas, Brown isn’t running. So we have to hope the other candidates adopt his proposals as their own.
In the same spirit, this issue of the Washington Monthly offers a number of policy ideas we think would benefit the current candidates politically and be great for the country. Phillip Longman argues that the single best way to address the concerns that the majority of voters have about rising health care costs is neither Medicare for All—the plan that has hurt Elizabeth Warren in the polls—nor the build-on-Obamacare position of moderates like Joe Biden. Rather, it is to impose Medicare prices on the whole health system. And a group of national-security experts weighs in on Washington Monthly editor Daniel Block’s recent proposal to create a truly progressive trade deal between the United States and the European Union—one even a trade-deal skeptic like Brown might well support.
The alarming truth is that none of the current Democratic candidates for president has formulated the message they’ll need to bring the left and center of the Democratic Party together, lock up the nomination, and successfully challenge Trump. But it’s not too late for one of them (I’m looking at you, Amy Klobuchar) to adopt some bold and unexpected new policy ideas and change the dynamics of the race.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--How Funders Can Get Better at Getting Better

Shortly after I finished working as a White House speechwriter for Bill Clinton , I decided to join the philanthropic sector .
I was thoroughly burned out on politics .
I felt that 80 percent of my 80-hour weeks were consumed by partisan food fights .
I wanted a job that would give me a chance to create more light—that is , more helping , healing , and improving .
Twenty years later , I ’ m grateful I made the switch .
In a country with enormous and growing social and environmental challenges , we are very lucky to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help drive change—whether it ’ s in the form of better schools , improved health outcomes , a more informed civic discourse , or faster energy innovation .
And yet I ’ ve come to see that there ’ s plenty of waste in the philanthropic sector , too .
It usually doesn ’ t come from ideological battles .
Instead , it comes in the form of underperformance .
Governments receive constant feedback from constituents in the form of calls , emails , visits , polling , and votes .
For-profit companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways—from focus groups to surveys to sales .
Philanthropy , in contrast , has “ no built-in systemic forces to motivate continuous improvement , ” in the words of philanthropy giants Joel Fleishman and Tom Tierney .
Consider a recent unpublished regression analysis produced by the nonprofit Center for Effective Philanthropy .
Looking across tens of thousands of data points from 15 years of grantee surveys , CEP discovered that , on the whole , foundations are not improving in the eyes of their grantees .
CEP is the pioneer of a survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the survey is anonymous , grantees get a rare opportunity to speak truth to power .
They rate their funders on a wide range of measures , including how well the funder understands its grantees ’ work , how much value the funder adds beyond its checks , and how much influence the funder has on public policy .
When you look at foundations that have commissioned GPRs for the first time recently , the results look almost identical to those from first-time GPR users 15 years ago .
There ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data shows that one group of funders is making consistent improvements over time : those who survey their grantees repeatedly .
According to Ellie Buteau , CEP ’ s vice president of research , “ We see a strong and clear association between more positive grantee experiences and funders who receive regular feedback from their grantees.
” In other words , when donors listen , they become more effective .
Over time , these funders tend to receive higher ratings from their grantees on a variety of important relationship measures , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and their approachability when problems arise .
Many seem to be maintaining these improvements over time .
Best of all , in grantees ’ eyes , these funders are having more impact on organizations , communities , and fields .
When I met Blandin Foundation Vice President Wade Fauth this past May at the Center for Effective Philanthropy conference , it was clear to me that he was a rare bird .
He was a rural funder at a conference dominated by big-city foundations .
He was a lifelong Republican in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , he was willing—eager , really—to talk about his foundation ’ s missteps .
The Blandin Foundation has provided sorely needed resources to nonprofits serving the educational , health , and social-service needs of its rural community since the early 1940s .
However , many of those living in the foundation ’ s hometown of Grand Rapids , Minnesota , came to see it as an arrogant power broker .
“ When I joined the foundation in the early 2000s , there was such animosity against the foundation , ” Fauth explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans for a new power-generation facility , one resident got so angry with the way the foundation was pushing for coal that he got in Fauth ’ s face and shouted , “ You can have your damn money back !
” In 2005 , Blandin commissioned a GPR for the first time .
It scored near the bottom of its cohort on dozens of different measures .
“ I remember sitting with the board and reading the report , ” Fauth told me .
“ A board member .
.
.
got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing right at me .
‘ I want to know what you ’ re going to do about this !
’ ” Fauth started an annual gathering of grantees to improve communications , and he pulled together a kitchen cabinet made up of some of the region ’ s strongest nonprofit leaders .
He dramatically simplified grant processes .
He convinced the board to allow staff to approve medium-sized grants to speed up grant responses .
The foundation retained a capacity-building entity to help any grantee work on strategic planning , fund-raising , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need—without having to air any of its dirty laundry with Blandin .
And the foundation literally and figuratively opened its front door to the public , accepting applications from a wider variety of organizations and turning its office into a meeting space for any grantee or community member .
By the fourth GPR , the foundation rated above 75 percent of funders on the strength of its relationship with grantees .
In open-ended comments , many grantees shared examples of Blandin ’ s positive influence on their localities .
One reported that Blandin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations [ of any kind ] in the community.
” The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation , a multibillion-dollar institution fighting poverty and homelessness , experienced a similar trend .
Its first GPR revealed that grantees viewed the foundation as near the bottom of its cohort on influence and impact .
In response , the foundation added top leaders in its chosen fields .
Then it added staff in other capacities , such as communications .
This made a significant difference .
Hilton ’ s GPR results soared .
For example , Hilton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went from the bottom quarter in 2007 , to just above the 50th percentile in 2014 , and then to the 92nd percentile in 2017 .
One grantee commented in 2017 , “ The Hilton Foundation is .
.
.
a leader in the field of ending homelessness .
They have had a huge impact on the field and ensuring that evidence-based practices are utilized and embraced.
” Another reported , “ The foundation has been instrumental in shining a light on how systems of care and communities need to behave differently in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all desire.
” The Maine Health Access Foundation ( MeHAF ) had a different challenge on its hands .
The foundation , which focuses on expanding access to high-quality health care and improving the overall health of Mainers , was staffed from the start with people who had advanced degrees in public health , management , business , and law .
The problem was not a lack of rigor but the opposite .
When the foundation received its first survey data from CEP , it learned that its grant forms were way too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average to complete them ) , its response times were way too long , its support came with too many strings , and its grantees were in the dark on many aspects of the foundation ’ s approach .
Figuring out the right changes to make took years and several additional cycles of surveying and other forms of learning .
But between MeHAF ’ s second and third GPRs , the foundation reaped significant returns from doubling the size of its program staff .
“ We had more staff that could be out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and where there were gaps , ” said the foundation ’ s CEO , Barbara Leonard .
It also simplified the application process and began funding good ideas that didn ’ t fit into the foundation ’ s relatively narrow grant criteria .
These changes went over incredibly well with grantees .
“ I love that MeHAF keeps growing as a thought leader and innovator in the foundation world , ” one grantee reported .
“ MeHAF cares deeply about healthcare in Maine.
” CEP ’ s analysis did not—and could not—prove that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveying grantees repeatedly and making improvements .
Perhaps the repeaters would have made big leaps even if they had not commissioned any surveys .
But whether the link is causal or merely associative , there ’ s no question that the foundations that invest in listening to those who are closest to the problems they seek to solve—their grantees , their constituents , and other key stakeholders—are the ones most likely to learn , adapt , and improve over time .
Conducting one survey is a start .
Conducting two surveys is better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions from any sector , real learning seems to take place only when it ’ s part of a culture of continuous improvement .

Shortly after I finished working as a White House speechwriter for Bill Clinton, I decided to join the philanthropic sector. I was thoroughly burned out on politics. I felt that 80 percent of my 80-hour weeks were consumed by partisan food fights. I wanted a job that would give me a chance to create more light—that is, more helping, healing, and improving.
Twenty years later, I’m grateful I made the switch. In a country with enormous and growing social and environmental challenges, we are very lucky to have such a robust philanthropic sector to help drive change—whether it’s in the form of better schools, improved health outcomes, a more informed civic discourse, or faster energy innovation. And yet I’ve come to see that there’s plenty of waste in the philanthropic sector, too. It usually doesn’t come from ideological battles. Instead, it comes in the form of underperformance.
Governments receive constant feedback from constituents in the form of calls, emails, visits, polling, and votes. For-profit companies solicit feedback from their customers in many ways—from focus groups to surveys to sales. Philanthropy, in contrast, has “no built-in systemic forces to motivate continuous improvement,” in the words of philanthropy giants Joel Fleishman and Tom Tierney.
Consider a recent unpublished regression analysis produced by the nonprofit Center for Effective Philanthropy. Looking across tens of thousands of data points from 15 years of grantee surveys, CEP discovered that, on the whole, foundations are not improving in the eyes of their grantees.
CEP is the pioneer of a survey called the Grantee Perception Report. Because the survey is anonymous, grantees get a rare opportunity to speak truth to power. They rate their funders on a wide range of measures, including how well the funder understands its grantees’ work, how much value the funder adds beyond its checks, and how much influence the funder has on public policy. When you look at foundations that have commissioned GPRs for the first time recently, the results look almost identical to those from first-time GPR users 15 years ago. There’s no upward trend.
But CEP’s data shows that one group of funders is making consistent improvements over time: those who survey their grantees repeatedly. According to Ellie Buteau, CEP’s vice president of research, “We see a strong and clear association between more positive grantee experiences and funders who receive regular feedback from their grantees.” In other words, when donors listen, they become more effective.
Over time, these funders tend to receive higher ratings from their grantees on a variety of important relationship measures, including the clarity of their communications, their responsiveness, and their approachability when problems arise. Many seem to be maintaining these improvements over time. Best of all, in grantees’ eyes, these funders are having more impact on organizations, communities, and fields.
When I met Blandin Foundation Vice President Wade Fauth this past May at the Center for Effective Philanthropy conference, it was clear to me that he was a rare bird. He was a rural funder at a conference dominated by big-city foundations. He was a lifelong Republican in a field full of progressives. Rarest of all, he was willing—eager, really—to talk about his foundation’s missteps.
The Blandin Foundation has provided sorely needed resources to nonprofits serving the educational, health, and social-service needs of its rural community since the early 1940s. However, many of those living in the foundation’s hometown of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, came to see it as an arrogant power broker. “When I joined the foundation in the early 2000s, there was such animosity against the foundation,” Fauth explained. At a community meeting to discuss plans for a new power-generation facility, one resident got so angry with the way the foundation was pushing for coal that he got in Fauth’s face and shouted, “You can have your damn money back!”
In 2005, Blandin commissioned a GPR for the first time. It scored near the bottom of its cohort on dozens of different measures. “I remember sitting with the board and reading the report,” Fauth told me. “A board member . . . got up out of his seat and was pointing right at me. ‘I want to know what you’re going to do about this!’ ”
Fauth started an annual gathering of grantees to improve communications, and he pulled together a kitchen cabinet made up of some of the region’s strongest nonprofit leaders. He dramatically simplified grant processes. He convinced the board to allow staff to approve medium-sized grants to speed up grant responses. The foundation retained a capacity-building entity to help any grantee work on strategic planning, fund-raising, managing volunteers, or any other organizational need—without having to air any of its dirty laundry with Blandin. And the foundation literally and figuratively opened its front door to the public, accepting applications from a wider variety of organizations and turning its office into a meeting space for any grantee or community member.
By the fourth GPR, the foundation rated above 75 percent of funders on the strength of its relationship with grantees. In open-ended comments, many grantees shared examples of Blandin’s positive influence on their localities. One reported that Blandin “is one of the most important organizations [of any kind] in the community.”
The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, a multibillion-dollar institution fighting poverty and homelessness, experienced a similar trend. Its first GPR revealed that grantees viewed the foundation as near the bottom of its cohort on influence and impact. In response, the foundation added top leaders in its chosen fields. Then it added staff in other capacities, such as communications. This made a significant difference. Hilton’s GPR results soared.
For example, Hilton’s ratings for impact on their field went from the bottom quarter in 2007, to just above the 50th percentile in 2014, and then to the 92nd percentile in 2017. One grantee commented in 2017, “The Hilton Foundation is . . . a leader in the field of ending homelessness. They have had a huge impact on the field and ensuring that evidence-based practices are utilized and embraced.” Another reported, “The foundation has been instrumental in shining a light on how systems of care and communities need to behave differently in order to achieve the better outcomes we all desire.”
The Maine Health Access Foundation (MeHAF) had a different challenge on its hands. The foundation, which focuses on expanding access to high-quality health care and improving the overall health of Mainers, was staffed from the start with people who had advanced degrees in public health, management, business, and law. The problem was not a lack of rigor but the opposite.
When the foundation received its first survey data from CEP, it learned that its grant forms were way too complicated (it took 80 hours on average to complete them), its response times were way too long, its support came with too many strings, and its grantees were in the dark on many aspects of the foundation’s approach. Figuring out the right changes to make took years and several additional cycles of surveying and other forms of learning.
But between MeHAF’s second and third GPRs, the foundation reaped significant returns from doubling the size of its program staff. “We had more staff that could be out in Maine learning about what was happening and where there were gaps,” said the foundation’s CEO, Barbara Leonard. It also simplified the application process and began funding good ideas that didn’t fit into the foundation’s relatively narrow grant criteria. These changes went over incredibly well with grantees. “I love that MeHAF keeps growing as a thought leader and innovator in the foundation world,” one grantee reported. “MeHAF cares deeply about healthcare in Maine.”
CEP’s analysis did not—and could not—prove that there’s a causal link between surveying grantees repeatedly and making improvements. Perhaps the repeaters would have made big leaps even if they had not commissioned any surveys. But whether the link is causal or merely associative, there’s no question that the foundations that invest in listening to those who are closest to the problems they seek to solve—their grantees, their constituents, and other key stakeholders—are the ones most likely to learn, adapt, and improve over time.
Conducting one survey is a start. Conducting two surveys is better. But, as with the best institutions from any sector, real learning seems to take place only when it’s part of a culture of continuous improvement.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-14--Jake Tapper Fails to Tell the Truth About Disinformation Campaigns

Jake Tapper has shown himself to be one of the more responsible journalists when it comes to prioritizing the truth over balance in his reporting .
For example , here is his response to Republicans who have suggested that Democrats were mourning the death of Soleimani .
Recently Tapper made an important point about how disinformation campaigns don ’ t always originate with foreign adversaries .
As I have already noted , it wasn ’ t just Russia that launched a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton in order to influence the 2016 election .
Peter Schweizer , with an assist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the former secretary of state that was demonstrably false .
But I have to take issue with how Tapper framed his concern .
Notice the examples he gave of people who spread knowingly false information .
They included : • Bob Salera , Deputy Communications Director for the National Republican Congressional Committee , who tweeted a doctored video of a Biden speech , referring to the former vice president as a “ white nationalist.
” • Tony Shaffer , a member of Trump ’ s 2020 advisory board , who tweeted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to be intoxicated .
• Donald Trump , who tweeted a video of Rep. Ilhan Omar dancing , along with the lie that it was filmed on 9/11 .
• The White House press secretary , who tweeted a doctored video of a Trump press conference , suggesting that a reporter had rough-housed a staff member .
It strikes me that all four of those examples have one important thing in common : they came from Republicans .
Yet , during his commentary , Tapper blames this kind of disinformation on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends by cautioning us not to lose sight of “ what Americans are doing to each other.
” In an apparent nod to balance , he failed to tell the truth , which is that we shouldn ’ t lose sight of what Republicans are doing to our political discourse .
I believe that this is an example of how ingrained the whole idea of bothsiderism has become for almost everyone in the mainstream media .
It runs so deep that even Jake Tapper feels the need to hedge his bets when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation campaigns .
Republicans will continue to exploit that opening as long as journalists fail to hold them accountable .

Jake Tapper has shown himself to be one of the more responsible journalists when it comes to prioritizing the truth over balance in his reporting. For example, here is his response to Republicans who have suggested that Democrats were mourning the death of Soleimani.
Recently Tapper made an important point about how disinformation campaigns don’t always originate with foreign adversaries.
As I have already noted, it wasn’t just Russia that launched a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton in order to influence the 2016 election. Peter Schweizer, with an assist from mainstream media, spread a smear against the former secretary of state that was demonstrably false.
But I have to take issue with how Tapper framed his concern. Notice the examples he gave of people who spread knowingly false information. They included:
Bob Salera, Deputy Communications Director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who tweeted a doctored video of a Biden speech, referring to the former vice president as a “white nationalist.” Tony Shaffer, a member of Trump’s 2020 advisory board, who tweeted a doctored video that makes Speaker Nancy Pelosi appear to be intoxicated. Donald Trump, who tweeted a video of Rep. Ilhan Omar dancing, along with the lie that it was filmed on 9/11. The White House press secretary, who tweeted a doctored video of a Trump press conference, suggesting that a reporter had rough-housed a staff member.
It strikes me that all four of those examples have one important thing in common: they came from Republicans. Yet, during his commentary, Tapper blames this kind of disinformation on “folks in the political world” and ends by cautioning us not to lose sight of “what Americans are doing to each other.” In an apparent nod to balance, he failed to tell the truth, which is that we shouldn’t lose sight of what Republicans are doing to our political discourse.
I believe that this is an example of how ingrained the whole idea of bothsiderism has become for almost everyone in the mainstream media. It runs so deep that even Jake Tapper feels the need to hedge his bets when it comes to naming the source of domestic disinformation campaigns. Republicans will continue to exploit that opening as long as journalists fail to hold them accountable.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-14--Are Democrats Trying to Self-Destruct?

Are Democrats Trying to Self-Destruct?

We ’ ve all heard the term “ raging liberal.
” Derogatory in nature , the term refers to passionate , vocal left-wing Democrats .
But it ’ s time to add a new moniker to the political lexicon : “ Angry moderate.
” After 19 years serving as a government lawyer at the Departments of Justice and the Treasury , I fall squarely into this camp .
My two decades in Washington have taught me that progress comes slowly .
It comes in increments .
It comes through the politics of the possible .
And while my level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the raging liberal , I believe that the sanest approach Democrats can take in this election is to scrap any purity tests for its candidates .
To repair the damage President Donald Trump has wrought on the country and our democratic institutions , one thing must happen above all else : a Democrat must win the White House .
Yet the most progressive wing of the party has been creating undue hurdles for Democrats to successfully oust Trump .
It ’ s like watching a train wreck about to happen .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidates have elected to implement .
To be sure , some self-imposed campaign finance restrictions are reasonable and consistent with Democratic values .
Indeed , here ’ s the good news : None of the 2020 hopefuls are taking corporate PAC money this year .
But some other self-imposed restrictions have become burdensome and unnecessary tests of progressive purity .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have foregone large dollar closed fundraisers throughout the primary , which is true to their brands and pleases devoted supporters .
Warren , like Sanders , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from fossil fuel and pharmaceutical company donors , likewise true to brand .
Both Sanders and Warren have relied on a high volume of small-dollar grass-roots donations and have rejected big dollar , limited-access campaign fundraisers .
Thus far , that has been immensely successful for their campaigns .
They have shown the tremendous power of small , online contributions .
And Warren ’ s admirable selfie-lines set the standard for candidate accessibility .
Their commendable approach should be the model going forward .
But for 2020 , the Sanders and Warren approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind their respective backs .
This model remains in test mode .
Democratic voters and activists as a whole are not yet fully “ trained ” on the new way of operating and supporting candidates .
Warren has pledged to reject large-dollar fundraisers through the general election if she becomes the nominee .
That level of purity is where the red flag goes up .
Simply put , Democrats can not afford to bring a cheese knife to a gun fight .
Big dollars will be necessary to win in 2020 .
Between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his side , and having foreign dollars pour into his coffers , Trump will have the edge—financial and otherwise—over the eventual Democrat nominee .
With the stakes higher than ever before , now is not the time to say “ no ” to money just because it ’ s coming from very wealthy , high-net-worth individuals .
Large donations from rich people who want to defeat Trump should be welcomed .
In fact , there ’ s no reason a candidate shouldn ’ t collect big checks in a fancy home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can get to save the country from a lawless and reckless president .
No one is suggesting that Democrats allow big donors to replace and out-influence the broader voting public , or the grassroots activists who flock to rallies .
Nor should Democrats accept donations from shady special interests or become beholden to big corporations .
But they also shouldn ’ t kiss much needed funds goodbye .
Conventional fundraisers can and should continue , at least through 2020 , to serve as supplementary vehicles for accumulating the funds necessary to beat Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats regain the White House and the majority in both houses of Congress , we can revisit the notion of discouraging big-dollar wine cave fundraisers .
No doubt , it is difficult to convince elected officials to get rid of a system that helps them politically .
That will become a necessary priority , but it has to be put on hold .
In other words , liberal activists and thought leaders will need to ramp up pressure on campaign finance reform once Democrats take back control of Washington .
Donations are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Demanding nothing less than Medicare for All , after the herculean effort it took to pass the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) , is not conducive to securing a White House win .
A November 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows the public option approach continues to be more viable than Medicare-for-All .
Democrats can agree that we want all Americans to have health care .
But pushing for a highly unrealistic legislative jujitsu—with a heart-attack inducing price tag—in a highly competitive general election isn ’ t worth the risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist , anti-Semitic , misogynistic , and incurious president .
A more modest health care reform proposal , such as Phillip Longman ’ s idea of Medicare Prices for All , could cause dramatic improvements without alienating much-needed voters .
Add to that a number of democracy reforms to prevent the GOP from holding the country hostage through minority rule , and Democrats will have a winning message palatable to most Americans .
As of this writing , recent Iowa polling shows that Sanders and Warren are overtaking Biden and Pete Buttigieg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ideals of Sanders and Warren .
But when Democrats latch onto the extreme , such as with donor purity or unrealistic domestic policy proposals , they box themselves in .
At a time when Democrats need to be practical , they are at risk of self-destruction .
Democrats , independents , and open-minded Republicans , who will be watching Tuesday night ’ s debate closely , are collectively holding their breath to see whom the party chooses as its nominee .
The first indication will come in less than a month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until then , remember : it doesn ’ t matter whether you think of yourself more as a “ raging liberal ” or an “ angry moderate.
” It doesn ’ t matter whether you consider yourself more of a Bernie guy or a Biden girl .
This election is about nothing less than saving democracy .
The pain you feel today will be just a fraction of what you will feel if Democrats lose in 2020 because the left allowed purity tests to come at the expense of beating Trump .

We’ve all heard the term “raging liberal.” Derogatory in nature, the term refers to passionate, vocal left-wing Democrats. But it’s time to add a new moniker to the political lexicon: “Angry moderate.”
After 19 years serving as a government lawyer at the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, I fall squarely into this camp. My two decades in Washington have taught me that progress comes slowly. It comes in increments. It comes through the politics of the possible. And while my level of anger may very well match that of the raging liberal, I believe that the sanest approach Democrats can take in this election is to scrap any purity tests for its candidates.
To repair the damage President Donald Trump has wrought on the country and our democratic institutions, one thing must happen above all else: a Democrat must win the White House. Yet the most progressive wing of the party has been creating undue hurdles for Democrats to successfully oust Trump. It’s like watching a train wreck about to happen.
The first obstacle: certain self-imposed donor restrictions that the candidates have elected to implement. To be sure, some self-imposed campaign finance restrictions are reasonable and consistent with Democratic values. Indeed, here’s the good news: None of the 2020 hopefuls are taking corporate PAC money this year.
But some other self-imposed restrictions have become burdensome and unnecessary tests of progressive purity. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have foregone large dollar closed fundraisers throughout the primary, which is true to their brands and pleases devoted supporters. Warren, like Sanders, has also rejected Super PAC money and funds from fossil fuel and pharmaceutical company donors, likewise true to brand. Both Sanders and Warren have relied on a high volume of small-dollar grass-roots donations and have rejected big dollar, limited-access campaign fundraisers. Thus far, that has been immensely successful for their campaigns. They have shown the tremendous power of small, online contributions. And Warren’s admirable selfie-lines set the standard for candidate accessibility. Their commendable approach should be the model going forward.
But for 2020, the Sanders and Warren approach may be tantamount to tying an arm behind their respective backs. This model remains in test mode. Democratic voters and activists as a whole are not yet fully “trained” on the new way of operating and supporting candidates. Warren has pledged to reject large-dollar fundraisers through the general election if she becomes the nominee. That level of purity is where the red flag goes up.
Simply put, Democrats cannot afford to bring a cheese knife to a gun fight. Big dollars will be necessary to win in 2020. Between being the incumbent, having Russian bots on his side, and having foreign dollars pour into his coffers, Trump will have the edge—financial and otherwise—over the eventual Democrat nominee.
With the stakes higher than ever before, now is not the time to say “no” to money just because it’s coming from very wealthy, high-net-worth individuals. Large donations from rich people who want to defeat Trump should be welcomed. In fact, there’s no reason a candidate shouldn’t collect big checks in a fancy home. Democrats need all the legitimate help they can get to save the country from a lawless and reckless president.
No one is suggesting that Democrats allow big donors to replace and out-influence the broader voting public, or the grassroots activists who flock to rallies. Nor should Democrats accept donations from shady special interests or become beholden to big corporations. But they also shouldn’t kiss much needed funds goodbye. Conventional fundraisers can and should continue, at least through 2020, to serve as supplementary vehicles for accumulating the funds necessary to beat Trump and the GOP machine. Once the Democrats regain the White House and the majority in both houses of Congress, we can revisit the notion of discouraging big-dollar wine cave fundraisers.
No doubt, it is difficult to convince elected officials to get rid of a system that helps them politically. That will become a necessary priority, but it has to be put on hold. In other words, liberal activists and thought leaders will need to ramp up pressure on campaign finance reform once Democrats take back control of Washington.
Donations are not the only area where progressives are self-defeating. Demanding nothing less than Medicare for All, after the herculean effort it took to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is not conducive to securing a White House win. A November 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows the public option approach continues to be more viable than Medicare-for-All.
Democrats can agree that we want all Americans to have health care. But pushing for a highly unrealistic legislative jujitsu—with a heart-attack inducing price tag—in a highly competitive general election isn’t worth the risk of four more years of a dangerous, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and incurious president.
A more modest health care reform proposal, such as Phillip Longman’s idea of Medicare Prices for All, could cause dramatic improvements without alienating much-needed voters. Add to that a number of democracy reforms to prevent the GOP from holding the country hostage through minority rule, and Democrats will have a winning message palatable to most Americans.
As of this writing, recent Iowa polling shows that Sanders and Warren are overtaking Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Undoubtedly, many Americans are energized by the ideals of Sanders and Warren. But when Democrats latch onto the extreme, such as with donor purity or unrealistic domestic policy proposals, they box themselves in. At a time when Democrats need to be practical, they are at risk of self-destruction.
Democrats, independents, and open-minded Republicans, who will be watching Tuesday night’s debate closely, are collectively holding their breath to see whom the party chooses as its nominee. The first indication will come in less than a month, when Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus.
Until then, remember: it doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself more as a “raging liberal” or an “angry moderate.” It doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself more of a Bernie guy or a Biden girl. This election is about nothing less than saving democracy. The pain you feel today will be just a fraction of what you will feel if Democrats lose in 2020 because the left allowed purity tests to come at the expense of beating Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--A Just Impeachment Trial Must Include Witness Testimony

It ’ s true what people say : impeachment is an inherently political process that doesn ’ t mirror a judicial trial .
But that doesn ’ t mean that impeachment is a valid electoral strategy for a political party .
A president should not be charged with impeachable offenses as part of some scheme to win or retain legislative seats .
Similarly , a president should not be acquitted of impeachable offenses for reasons of political self-preservation .
To drive home this point , the Constitution says : “ The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
” Essentially , the senators ( who serve as the jurors in an impeachment trial ) are told to swear to deliver impartial , nonpartisan justice .
Using this standard in our present circumstances can get a little tricky .
What if , for example , a politician or an entire political party brazenly and unapologetically refuses to do impartial justice ?
Does that free up the other side to highlight this fact for their political benefit ?
While Senate Majority Leader [ Mitch ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive .
[ Chuck ] Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump .
Democrats argue the half-dozen at-risk GOP senators will need some daylight between them and Trump to get reelected .
And if they vote against Schumer ’ s motions to hear new evidence and witness testimony , they ’ ll be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and boosting Schumer ’ s odds of becoming majority leader .
If the argument is framed this way , it ’ s not a great look for Chuck Schumer .
What I don ’ t understand , however , is why the story is being presented this way and why there is not more pushback from the Democratic side .
After all , what ’ s under discussion here is not a bunch of poison amendments intended solely to cause the other side political pain and embarrassment .
Schumer ’ s motions will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it means to have a fair trial and do impartial justice .
There ’ s no reason why he would refrain from offering these motions simply to avoid causing political pain to his opponents .
What the Democrats should be arguing is that they are asking for evidence that is important to establishing the guilt or innocence of the president , as well as what the proportional or appropriate response should be from the Senate .
What they should not be emphasizing is this : What Senator Bob Menendez and Minority Leader Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some Republican senators , but it isn ’ t what they should be emphasizing .
When they fall into this trap , it makes Senator Lindsey Graham look almost credible : The most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection in 2020 is Doug Jones of Alabama , and he gets the message correct : I don ’ t think vulnerable Republican senators need the benefit of being warned about the potential fallout of signing off on a sham trial .
As a pressure technique to convince them to do the right thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes them look like they ’ re afraid and caving in to Democratic demands .
As for helping to bring more public pressure on these senators , it ’ s not helpful to make it look like the point here is to win seats in the next election .
So , yes , you can never take the politics out of impeachment , but you can still get the politics all wrong .
The goal here is to remove a president who is seeking foreign assistance in his reelection bid and politicizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Getting witness testimony at the trial is an absolute prerequisite for that happening if there is any possibility of it happening at all .
The best argument for witnesses is that they ’ re required to get to the full truth .
The American people agree with this , so why not stick to those talking points rather than talking about the political benefit that will come if Republicans refuse to do what the American people want ?

It’s true what people say: impeachment is an inherently political process that doesn’t mirror a judicial trial. But that doesn’t mean that impeachment is a valid electoral strategy for a political party. A president should not be charged with impeachable offenses as part of some scheme to win or retain legislative seats. Similarly, a president should not be acquitted of impeachable offenses for reasons of political self-preservation. To drive home this point, the Constitution says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Essentially, the senators (who serve as the jurors in an impeachment trial) are told to swear to deliver impartial, nonpartisan justice.
Using this standard in our present circumstances can get a little tricky. What if, for example, a politician or an entire political party brazenly and unapologetically refuses to do impartial justice? Does that free up the other side to highlight this fact for their political benefit?
While Senate Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive. [Chuck] Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump. Democrats argue the half-dozen at-risk GOP senators will need some daylight between them and Trump to get reelected. And if they vote against Schumer’s motions to hear new evidence and witness testimony, they’ll be seen as Trump sycophants — undermining their bids and boosting Schumer’s odds of becoming majority leader.
If the argument is framed this way, it’s not a great look for Chuck Schumer. What I don’t understand, however, is why the story is being presented this way and why there is not more pushback from the Democratic side.
After all, what’s under discussion here is not a bunch of poison amendments intended solely to cause the other side political pain and embarrassment. Schumer’s motions will get right to the heart of what it means to have a fair trial and do impartial justice. There’s no reason why he would refrain from offering these motions simply to avoid causing political pain to his opponents.
What the Democrats should be arguing is that they are asking for evidence that is important to establishing the guilt or innocence of the president, as well as what the proportional or appropriate response should be from the Senate. What they should not be emphasizing is this:
“If the Republicans ram through process that ultimately leads to no witnesses, I think they do it at their own peril,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a former chairman of the party’s campaign arm. “Some of these members: They have an audience of one. But I think they forgot that there’s a broader audience that they’re going to have to face at election time.”
Or this:
Support for obtaining new documents at the trial is “even stronger than we thought, with large numbers of Republicans supporting it,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “And when you go against what the American people feel strongly about, on an issue they’re paying attention to, it’s not a good idea.”
What Senator Bob Menendez and Minority Leader Schumer are saying is possibly good political advice for some Republican senators, but it isn’t what they should be emphasizing. When they fall into this trap, it makes Senator Lindsey Graham look almost credible:
“Everybody believes Sen. Schumer’s going to play a game with impeachment to try and get back the Senate,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is also up for reelection. “He wakes up every day trying to be the majority leader.”
The most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection in 2020 is Doug Jones of Alabama, and he gets the message correct:
“It’s a popular issue across America. I’ve not heard any blowback from it. Why wouldn’t someone want to hear from witnesses with firsthand information?” asked Doug Jones of Alabama, the most vulnerable Democratic senator facing reelection. He said not a single constituent “has said that’s an unreasonable position.”
I don’t think vulnerable Republican senators need the benefit of being warned about the potential fallout of signing off on a sham trial. As a pressure technique to convince them to do the right thing, it’s probably counterproductive because it makes them look like they’re afraid and caving in to Democratic demands. As for helping to bring more public pressure on these senators, it’s not helpful to make it look like the point here is to win seats in the next election.
So, yes, you can never take the politics out of impeachment, but you can still get the politics all wrong. The goal here is to remove a president who is seeking foreign assistance in his reelection bid and politicizing our foreign aid in the process. Getting witness testimony at the trial is an absolute prerequisite for that happening if there is any possibility of it happening at all. The best argument for witnesses is that they’re required to get to the full truth. The American people agree with this, so why not stick to those talking points rather than talking about the political benefit that will come if Republicans refuse to do what the American people want?


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--Hillary Clinton Has Been Exonerated… Again

During the 2016 election , it wasn ’ t just Russia that launched a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton in order to influence the election .
Homegrown conspiracy theorists made their own contributions that allowed Trump to spread the meme about “ Corrupt Hillary.
” The Berkman Klein Center at Harvard documented those efforts and the complicity of mainstream media last spring with a report titled , “ Partisanship , Propaganda and Disinformation : Online Media and the 2016 Presidential Election.
” One of the most revealing aspects of their investigation came from this chart showing what the media covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What we see is that , when it came to Donald Trump , the media focused on the issues he was talking about ( primarily immigration ) .
But with Hillary Clinton , it was all about supposed “ scandals.
” While it is true that the former secretary of state ’ s emails garnered the most attention thanks to James Comey , the Berkman Klein Center devoted an entire section of their report to an exposé titled , “ Dynamics of Network Propaganda : Clinton Foundation Case Study.
” They documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s book , Clinton Cash , were legitimated , not just by right-wing media , but by the New York Times and later by major outlets like the Associated Press and the Washington Post .
Even after Trump won the election , he and his enablers in right-wing media wouldn ’ t let the story go .
In an obvious attempt to win the president ’ s favor after recusing himself from the Russia investigation , former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into the allegations about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post , Huber found nothing .
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results , and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything .
John Huber , the U.S. attorney in Utah , was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look intoconcerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during Clinton ’ s time as secretary of state , when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One .
As a part of his review , Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation , people familiar with the matter said .
Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing .
To anyone who has actually looked into the allegations , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more to the story that comes later in the Post article .
They state that Huber had reached this conclusion and ended his investigation by the time Mueller filed his report , which occurred last spring .
So we have now gone at least nine months with no word on Clinton ’ s exoneration from the Justice Department .
Perhaps that is because it wouldn ’ t simply be the conspiracy theorists who would have to eat a little crow .
Back in November 2017 , when Sessions appointed Huber under pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Baker contacted several former attorneys general to ask them what they would do in similar circumstances .
William Barr was the only one who responded ( emphasis mine ) .
By that time , the claims that Hillary Clinton , as secretary of state , had engaged in pay-for-play with the family ’ s foundation—and specifically the so-called “ uranium deal ” —had been completely debunked .
But the man who would become Trump ’ s next attorney general was still peddling the conspiracy theory .
He is now hiding the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Rubin wrote , “ Hillary Clinton is the most exonerated politician ever.
” By my count , she has been cleared of four major attempts to smear her reputation : ( 1 ) Whitewater , ( 2 ) Benghazi , ( 3 ) emails , and ( 4 ) the Clinton Foundation .
Regardless of what anyone thinks of her politics , the collusion between her opponents and mainstream media to defame her have been relentless , with little to no accountability for the lies .
Beyond getting the story wrong so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who colluded to be held accountable because we are now witnessing the same group of people spread conspiracy theories about other Democrats .
Peter Schweizer is the one who initiated the whole Biden/Burisma lie in his book , Secret Empires .
Just in case Biden isn ’ t the Democratic nominee , he is about to publish a book this month titled , Profiles in Corruption , that will attempt to smear the rest of the 2020 presidential candidates .
Keep in mind that Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is funded by the Mercer family .
He is also senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News .
Jane Mayer summarizes what we learned about the Bannon-Schweizer method of collusion from Joshua Green ’ s book , Devil ’ s Bargain .
While the Washington Post got the scoop on the fact that the Huber investigation produced nothing , neither the New York Times nor the Associated Press has produced their own story about Clinton ’ s exoneration ( the NYT published an article by Reuters that was solely based on the Post article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those outlets produced the most explosive stories that promoted the pay-for-play insinuations .
It is time for those mainstream media outlets to broadcast that Hillary Clinton has once again been exonerated of the false charges cooked up by her political opponents .
Not only does she deserve to have her name cleared , we all need to know that the Bannon-Schweizer method of collusion isn ’ t going to influence the 2020 election the way it did in 2016 .

During the 2016 election, it wasn’t just Russia that launched a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton in order to influence the election. Homegrown conspiracy theorists made their own contributions that allowed Trump to spread the meme about “Corrupt Hillary.”
The Berkman Klein Center at Harvard documented those efforts and the complicity of mainstream media last spring with a report titled, “Partisanship, Propaganda and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 Presidential Election.” One of the most revealing aspects of their investigation came from this chart showing what the media covered in the run-up to the 2016 election.
What we see is that, when it came to Donald Trump, the media focused on the issues he was talking about (primarily immigration). But with Hillary Clinton, it was all about supposed “scandals.”
While it is true that the former secretary of state’s emails garnered the most attention thanks to James Comey, the Berkman Klein Center devoted an entire section of their report to an exposé titled, “Dynamics of Network Propaganda: Clinton Foundation Case Study.” They documented how the false allegations in Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, were legitimated, not just by right-wing media, but by the New York Times and later by major outlets like the Associated Press and the Washington Post.
Even after Trump won the election, he and his enablers in right-wing media wouldn’t let the story go. In an obvious attempt to win the president’s favor after recusing himself from the Russia investigation, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into the allegations about the Clinton Foundation.
According to the Washington Post, Huber found nothing.
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything. John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look intoconcerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One. As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing.
To anyone who has actually looked into the allegations, that comes as no surprise. But there is more to the story that comes later in the Post article. They state that Huber had reached this conclusion and ended his investigation by the time Mueller filed his report, which occurred last spring. So we have now gone at least nine months with no word on Clinton’s exoneration from the Justice Department. Perhaps that is because it wouldn’t simply be the conspiracy theorists who would have to eat a little crow.
Back in November 2017, when Sessions appointed Huber under pressure from the president to investigate Clinton, Peter Baker contacted several former attorneys general to ask them what they would do in similar circumstances. William Barr was the only one who responded (emphasis mine).
“There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” said William P. Barr, who ran the Justice Department under President George Bush. “Although an investigation shouldn’t be launched just because a president wants it, the ultimate question is whether the matter warrants investigation.” Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he said.
By that time, the claims that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, had engaged in pay-for-play with the family’s foundation—and specifically the so-called “uranium deal”—had been completely debunked. But the man who would become Trump’s next attorney general was still peddling the conspiracy theory. He is now hiding the fact that Clinton has been exonerated.
As Jennifer Rubin wrote, “Hillary Clinton is the most exonerated politician ever.” By my count, she has been cleared of four major attempts to smear her reputation: (1) Whitewater, (2) Benghazi, (3) emails, and (4) the Clinton Foundation. Regardless of what anyone thinks of her politics, the collusion between her opponents and mainstream media to defame her have been relentless, with little to no accountability for the lies.
Beyond getting the story wrong so many times, it is important for those who colluded to be held accountable because we are now witnessing the same group of people spread conspiracy theories about other Democrats. Peter Schweizer is the one who initiated the whole Biden/Burisma lie in his book, Secret Empires. Just in case Biden isn’t the Democratic nominee, he is about to publish a book this month titled, Profiles in Corruption, that will attempt to smear the rest of the 2020 presidential candidates.
Keep in mind that Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, which was founded by Steve Bannon and is funded by the Mercer family. He is also senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News. Jane Mayer summarizes what we learned about the Bannon-Schweizer method of collusion from Joshua Green’s book, Devil’s Bargain.
Bannon designed the [Government Accountability Institute] as a means of transmitting partisan dirt-digging to the mainstream media. He realized that, though mainstream reporters were suspicious of partisan opinion, they were open to damning facts about public figures, regardless of the sourcing. He set out, with Schweizer, to produce material that would generate mainstream coverage, and right-wing outrage.
While the Washington Post got the scoop on the fact that the Huber investigation produced nothing, neither the New York Times nor the Associated Press has produced their own story about Clinton’s exoneration (the NYT published an article by Reuters that was solely based on the Post article). That is especially troubling given that those outlets produced the most explosive stories that promoted the pay-for-play insinuations.
It is time for those mainstream media outlets to broadcast that Hillary Clinton has once again been exonerated of the false charges cooked up by her political opponents. Not only does she deserve to have her name cleared, we all need to know that the Bannon-Schweizer method of collusion isn’t going to influence the 2020 election the way it did in 2016.