theintercept--2020-01-08--Imperial Oil, Canada’s Exxon Subsidiary, Ignored Its Own Climate Change Research for Decades, Archiv

Imperial Oil, Canada’s Exxon Subsidiary, Ignored Its Own Climate Change Research for Decades, Archive Shows

forest fires , crop failures , and disappearing glaciers : It has become undeniable that the planet is in the early stages of a climate crisis with dire implications .
As terrifying as it is , this unfolding disaster has not come as a surprise to everyone — especially not the people who have been profiting off fomenting the climate emergency .
It has come to light in recent years that major fossil fuel companies knew well in advance that their activities were gravely distorting the climate , even as they waged a relentless campaign to confuse public opinion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases are now making their way through the courts against Exxon Mobil and other companies accused of concealing the truth of a calamity now slowly enveloping the world .
Imperial Oil , Exxon ’ s Canadian subsidiary , is a household name in Canada thanks to its ubiquitous Esso gas stations .
Exxon owns 70 percent of the company , which is a major holder of reserves in the controversial Alberta oil sands .
Like its parent company , Imperial has been accused of climate denialism and efforts to stall meaningful regulation needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a 1998 article published in Imperial ’ s in-house magazine , former Imperial CEO Robert Peterson wrote that there is “ absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet is getting warmer or , if it is , on whether the warming is the result of man-made factors or natural variations in the climate.
” He added that “ carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient of life on this planet.
” Peterson ’ s paeans to the benefits of carbon dioxide notwithstanding , experts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that climate change was real , but also that Imperial ’ s activities were causing crippling harm to the environment .
That knowledge was recorded in company documents that were recently revealed to the public and reviewed by The Intercept .
documents shows that as far back as the 1960s , Imperial had begun hiring consultants to help them manage a future public backlash over its environmental record , as well as conducting surveillance on its public critics .
The documents also show that , as the company began to accept the implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting decisively to change its business model , it began considering how a melting Arctic might open up new business opportunities .
Even as the fossil fuel industry continued to fight against renewables in public and its CEO worked to confuse public opinion on this critical issue , in private Imperial ’ s experts recognized the urgency of switching to sustainable energy .
All of this took place decades ago , when the climate crisis was still largely avoidable and its deadly contours had yet to take shape .
The documents providing details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retrieved from an archive in Calgary ’ s Glenbow Museum by U.S.-based climate advocacy groups Desmog and the Climate Investigations Center .
Available since 2006 , the depth of the archive has never been fully examined , though previous reporting on documents from the Glenbow Museum revealed that Imperial made detailed plans for exploiting Arctic ice melt and that the company knew high carbon taxes would be required to stave off the effects of climate change decades ago — even as it worked to ensure that they would not be put in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 80s , Exxon , and by extension Imperial , were among the leading researchers in the world on climate change , ” said Keith Stewart , a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada and a lecturer at the University of Toronto .
“ They understood the science and understood the implications .
They had a choice to either change their business model or obfuscate the reality .
They chose to obfuscate .
Long after they had accepted that climate change was real , and even started building their installations differently to reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny the science that they knew to be true.
” That report , titled “ Air/Water Pollution in Canada : a Public Relations Assessment , ” outlined possible consequences for Imperial if the public continued to pressure the company over its environmental record .
The threats included “ difficult-to-change anti-oil industry attitudes ” and demands to switch to renewable energy .
“ Due to continuing exposure to stories in the mass media , the general public could easily be persuaded to support increased pollution regulation and legislation , ” the report warned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electric car , nuclear energy and other technology favouring competitive fuels.
” The report did not say that Imperial should do nothing in response to the devastating environmental consequences of its business , which had become clear as early as the 1960s .
As a “ responsible corporate citizen , ” Imperial would obviously aim to avoid harming Canada ’ s environment and the health of its people .
A public relations campaign aimed at pushing back against pressure on the company might serve as a means of buying time before more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report suggested .
Such a campaign could help “ keep public and legislative opinion in control so that increased pollution control measures affecting all corporate functions can proceed on an orderly , economic and reasonable basis.
” Despite going on the PR offensive , by the 1970s , Imperial was becoming yet more alarmed by the growing public criticism of its activities .
Its response to this perceived threat was typical of many powerful yet paranoid institutions : surveillance .
As public pressure mounted , Imperial began putting together dossiers on organizations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fossil fuel business .
A 1976 report titled “ Canadian Pressure Groups , ” prepared by the company ’ s public affairs department , offered detailed profiles of six Canadian NGOs alleged to have targeted the company over environmental or social issues .
Among the information they gathered was financial data about the operations of these organizations , along with physical addresses and information about their key spokespeople .
The document claimed to provide “ identification of national , provincial , pressure groups that are either directly or indirectly involved in energy-related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future study would look at “ recommendations for development of strategies to prevent/respond or adapt to the major pressure groups.
” As the environmental toll of its operations continued to build and public anger rose along with the damage , Imperial gradually began developing its own environmental research capacities .
By the early 1990s , the company ’ s in-house researchers had made some important findings : Not only was the Earth ’ s climate being dangerously heated up by the emission of greenhouse gases , but Imperial ’ s own operations were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existential threat .
As the astonishing scale of the climate crisis slowly came into focus , the company began gaming out possible responses .
Researchers at Imperial analyzed different ways of reducing the carbon footprint of energy production and gradually moving society as a whole toward renewables , including the possibility of underground capture and storage of carbon emissions , solar energy production , and electric vehicles .
Yet the company ’ s leadership remained fixated on ensuring that whatever was done shouldn ’ t be too much and , most important of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in government regulation of Imperial ’ s operations .
A 1990 document , “ Response to a Framework for Discussion on the Environment – The Green Plan : A National Challenge June 1990 , ” was published in the context of a high-level debate then taking place in Canada on developing a sustainable economy .
In the document , Imperial warned that stakeholders in government and private industry should be careful to not “ out-green each other.
” Any discussion of environmental controls must be carefully balanced with concerns about how regulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , the report emphasized , calling for approaches to climate change that “ rely as much as possible on the market means to provide economically appropriate information and incentives.
” As the planet warmed and the long decline of glaciers accelerated , the company was also evidently using its environmental research to scope out new business opportunities afforded by climate change .
“ The fate of sea ice in a warmed planet will largely determine how Imperial operates in the Arctic , ” said one document from 1991 , a report called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Capabilities to Global Warming Issues.
” Exxon , Imperial ’ s parent company , has had no qualms about capitalizing on the short-term economic opportunities offered by climate change either : The oil giant partnered on a new deal this October to use ice-breaking ships to transport liquified natural gas across the warming Arctic .
In the two decades since Robert Peterson , Imperial ’ s former CEO , insisted that pumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually good for the environment , Imperial Oil continued to ramp up its fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating results , the company increased its extraction of barrels per day from 375,000 to 383,000 between 2017 and 2018 .
Imperial ’ s current head , Rich Kruger , lauded the numbers , stating that Imperial has “ achieved petroleum product sales levels not seen in decades.
” Meanwhile , 2019 is projected to be the second-hottest year , following 2016 , worldwide since records have been kept .
The documents on Imperial ’ s past activities suggest that the company long ago recognized the seriousness of the harm it was causing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue of climate change .
Despite this knowledge , its leaders doubled down on the same damaging activities , rather than switching to a business model they knew would be necessary to avert catastrophe .
In response to The Intercept ’ s request for comment on the archive materials , a company spokesperson said the archive documents “ reflect the conversations that were happening at the time regarding the evolving science of climate change and the public policy discussions to curb emissions.
” “ At Imperial we have the same concerns as people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed energy while reducing GHG emissions .
As noted on our website , we support the Paris Agreement as an important framework for addressing the risks of climate change and we support an economy-wide price on carbon dioxide emissions , ” the spokesperson added .
“ The company is committed to taking action on climate change by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions intensity and by supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs.
” Experts who have followed Imperial ’ s activities over the years have noted how its rhetoric has tended to modify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In the early 1990s , Imperial had to shift their behavior to accommodate high-level discussions then happening in Canada on environmental policy , ” said Kert Davies , the founder and director of Climate Investigations Center .
“ But by 1998 , when that political scrutiny had eased a bit , they started going the other way and claiming that CO2 is not even a pollutant — that it ’ s good .
As environmental activism and the threat of regulation has increased in recent years , you can now see Imperial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s , where they ’ re saying that climate change is serious but also hedging by saying we should not do anything too extreme and also think about the economy.
” “ Over the decades , ” Davies added , “ they have been adept at finding ways to delay , deny , and deflect any serious discussion about climate policy .
”

Record droughts, raging forest fires, crop failures, and disappearing glaciers: It has become undeniable that the planet is in the early stages of a climate crisis with dire implications. As terrifying as it is, this unfolding disaster has not come as a surprise to everyone — especially not the people who have been profiting off fomenting the climate emergency.
It has come to light in recent years that major fossil fuel companies knew well in advance that their activities were gravely distorting the climate, even as they waged a relentless campaign to confuse public opinion and prevent regulatory action. A flood of cases are now making their way through the courts against Exxon Mobil and other companies accused of concealing the truth of a calamity now slowly enveloping the world.
Imperial Oil, Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, is a household name in Canada thanks to its ubiquitous Esso gas stations. Exxon owns 70 percent of the company, which is a major holder of reserves in the controversial Alberta oil sands. Like its parent company, Imperial has been accused of climate denialism and efforts to stall meaningful regulation needed to prevent today’s crisis. In a 1998 article published in Imperial’s in-house magazine, former Imperial CEO Robert Peterson wrote that there is “absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet is getting warmer or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-made factors or natural variations in the climate.” He added that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient of life on this planet.”
Peterson’s paeans to the benefits of carbon dioxide notwithstanding, experts at his company knew with confidence not only that climate change was real, but also that Imperial’s activities were causing crippling harm to the environment. That knowledge was recorded in company documents that were recently revealed to the public and reviewed by The Intercept.
A portion of a report titled, “Canadian pressure groups, Part I, by Public Affairs Dept. Toronto, Imperial Oil Limited, May 1976.”
The cache of documents shows that as far back as the 1960s, Imperial had begun hiring consultants to help them manage a future public backlash over its environmental record, as well as conducting surveillance on its public critics. The documents also show that, as the company began to accept the implications of a warming planet, instead of acting decisively to change its business model, it began considering how a melting Arctic might open up new business opportunities.
Even as the fossil fuel industry continued to fight against renewables in public and its CEO worked to confuse public opinion on this critical issue, in private Imperial’s experts recognized the urgency of switching to sustainable energy.
All of this took place decades ago, when the climate crisis was still largely avoidable and its deadly contours had yet to take shape.
The documents providing details on Imperial’s historical activities were retrieved from an archive in Calgary’s Glenbow Museum by U.S.-based climate advocacy groups Desmog and the Climate Investigations Center. Available since 2006, the depth of the archive has never been fully examined, though previous reporting on documents from the Glenbow Museum revealed that Imperial made detailed plans for exploiting Arctic ice melt and that the company knew high carbon taxes would be required to stave off the effects of climate change decades ago — even as it worked to ensure that they would not be put in place.
“Throughout the ’70s and ’80s, Exxon, and by extension Imperial, were among the leading researchers in the world on climate change,” said Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada and a lecturer at the University of Toronto. “They understood the science and understood the implications. They had a choice to either change their business model or obfuscate the reality. They chose to obfuscate. Long after they had accepted that climate change was real, and even started building their installations differently to reflect that, the company continued to publicly deny the science that they knew to be true.”
Photo: Harold Barkley/Toronto Star via Getty Images
The documents provide a disturbing insight into how Imperial grappled with the obvious environmental impact of its operations over the past several decades.
“Air pollution is an area highly charged with emotion and one characterized by a lack of data and rational guidelines,” noted a 1967 report prepared by a consultant for Imperial and marked as “confidential.” The report added that public opinion in the United States on the subject was “out of control.”
“Air pollution is an area highly charged with emotion and one characterized by a lack of data and rational guidelines.”
That report, titled “Air/Water Pollution in Canada: a Public Relations Assessment,” outlined possible consequences for Imperial if the public continued to pressure the company over its environmental record. The threats included “difficult-to-change anti-oil industry attitudes” and demands to switch to renewable energy. “Due to continuing exposure to stories in the mass media, the general public could easily be persuaded to support increased pollution regulation and legislation,” the report warned. “It could be encouraged to support the electric car, nuclear energy and other technology favouring competitive fuels.”
The report did not say that Imperial should do nothing in response to the devastating environmental consequences of its business, which had become clear as early as the 1960s. As a “responsible corporate citizen,” Imperial would obviously aim to avoid harming Canada’s environment and the health of its people. A public relations campaign aimed at pushing back against pressure on the company might serve as a means of buying time before more substantive steps could be taken, the report suggested. Such a campaign could help “keep public and legislative opinion in control so that increased pollution control measures affecting all corporate functions can proceed on an orderly, economic and reasonable basis.”
Despite going on the PR offensive, by the 1970s, Imperial was becoming yet more alarmed by the growing public criticism of its activities. Its response to this perceived threat was typical of many powerful yet paranoid institutions: surveillance.
As public pressure mounted, Imperial began putting together dossiers on organizations that it accused of “politicization” of the fossil fuel business. A 1976 report titled “Canadian Pressure Groups,” prepared by the company’s public affairs department, offered detailed profiles of six Canadian NGOs alleged to have targeted the company over environmental or social issues. Among the information they gathered was financial data about the operations of these organizations, along with physical addresses and information about their key spokespeople.
The document claimed to provide “identification of national, provincial, pressure groups that are either directly or indirectly involved in energy-related activities,” while indicating that a future study would look at “recommendations for development of strategies to prevent/respond or adapt to the major pressure groups.”
As the environmental toll of its operations continued to build and public anger rose along with the damage, Imperial gradually began developing its own environmental research capacities. By the early 1990s, the company’s in-house researchers had made some important findings: Not only was the Earth’s climate being dangerously heated up by the emission of greenhouse gases, but Imperial’s own operations were also playing a role in this potentially existential threat.
As the astonishing scale of the climate crisis slowly came into focus, the company began gaming out possible responses. Researchers at Imperial analyzed different ways of reducing the carbon footprint of energy production and gradually moving society as a whole toward renewables, including the possibility of underground capture and storage of carbon emissions, solar energy production, and electric vehicles.
Yet the company’s leadership remained fixated on ensuring that whatever was done shouldn’t be too much and, most important of all, that it shouldn’t result in government regulation of Imperial’s operations. A 1990 document, “Response to a Framework for Discussion on the Environment – The Green Plan: A National Challenge June 1990,” was published in the context of a high-level debate then taking place in Canada on developing a sustainable economy. In the document, Imperial warned that stakeholders in government and private industry should be careful to not “out-green each other.” Any discussion of environmental controls must be carefully balanced with concerns about how regulating the oil industry might harm the Canadian economy, the report emphasized, calling for approaches to climate change that “rely as much as possible on the market means to provide economically appropriate information and incentives.”
A rig at Norman Wells on Jan. 31, 1981. The oil field is located beneath the MacKenzie River and ownership is shared by Imperial Oil Ltd. and Canadian taxpayers. Photo: Doug Griffin/Toronto Star via Getty Images
An assessment prepared by Imperial and published the following year conceded, “The simplest way to reduce CO2 emissions from energy is to substitute natural gas, nuclear and hydropower for coal.” The report recognized that “a carbon tax causes the most direct impact on CO2 since the tax is in proportion to the emissions.” Despite these admissions, Imperial continued low-balling estimates on what such a tax should look like, as reports by HuffPost and Bloomberg recently noted.
“The fate of sea ice in a warmed planet will largely determine how Imperial operates in the Arctic.”
As the planet warmed and the long decline of glaciers accelerated, the company was also evidently using its environmental research to scope out new business opportunities afforded by climate change. “The fate of sea ice in a warmed planet will largely determine how Imperial operates in the Arctic,” said one document from 1991, a report called “The Application of Imperial’s Research Capabilities to Global Warming Issues.” Exxon, Imperial’s parent company, has had no qualms about capitalizing on the short-term economic opportunities offered by climate change either: The oil giant partnered on a new deal this October to use ice-breaking ships to transport liquified natural gas across the warming Arctic.
In the two decades since Robert Peterson, Imperial’s former CEO, insisted that pumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually good for the environment, Imperial Oil continued to ramp up its fossil fuel production. According to its latest operating results, the company increased its extraction of barrels per day from 375,000 to 383,000 between 2017 and 2018. Imperial’s current head, Rich Kruger, lauded the numbers, stating that Imperial has “achieved petroleum product sales levels not seen in decades.” Meanwhile, 2019 is projected to be the second-hottest year, following 2016, worldwide since records have been kept.
The documents on Imperial’s past activities suggest that the company long ago recognized the seriousness of the harm it was causing to the environment, including on the issue of climate change. Despite this knowledge, its leaders doubled down on the same damaging activities, rather than switching to a business model they knew would be necessary to avert catastrophe.
Photo: Galit Rodan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
In response to The Intercept’s request for comment on the archive materials, a company spokesperson said the archive documents “reflect the conversations that were happening at the time regarding the evolving science of climate change and the public policy discussions to curb emissions.”
“At Imperial we have the same concerns as people everywhere – to provide the world with needed energy while reducing GHG emissions. As noted on our website, we support the Paris Agreement as an important framework for addressing the risks of climate change and we support an economy-wide price on carbon dioxide emissions,” the spokesperson added. “The company is committed to taking action on climate change by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions intensity and by supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs.”
Experts who have followed Imperial’s activities over the years have noted how its rhetoric has tended to modify itself in response to public pressure.
“In the early 1990s, Imperial had to shift their behavior to accommodate high-level discussions then happening in Canada on environmental policy,” said Kert Davies, the founder and director of Climate Investigations Center. “But by 1998, when that political scrutiny had eased a bit, they started going the other way and claiming that CO2 is not even a pollutant — that it’s good. As environmental activism and the threat of regulation has increased in recent years, you can now see Imperial taking a stance closer to the early 1990s, where they’re saying that climate change is serious but also hedging by saying we should not do anything too extreme and also think about the economy.”
“Over the decades,” Davies added, “they have been adept at finding ways to delay, deny, and deflect any serious discussion about climate policy.”


theintercept--2020-01-09--Trump Administration Failed to Convince Members of Congress Its Assassination of Suleimani Was Justi

Trump Administration Failed to Convince Members of Congress Its Assassination of Suleimani Was Justified

“ As the questions began to get tough , they walked out , ” Schumer said .
“ I ’ ve asked for a commitment that they all come back within a week ; we have not gotten that commitment.
” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that 97 senators attended the briefing , and 15 got to ask questions .
“ There were so many important questions that they did not answer , ” said Schumer of Wednesday ’ s briefers , Defense Secretary Mark Esper , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , CIA director Gina Haspel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .
“ We did not get information inside that briefing that there was a specific , imminent threat that we were halting through the operation conducted last Thursday night , ” Sen. Chris Murphy , D-Conn. , told reporters .
“ And I can say I was surprised and saddened to not have that information before us , I think it is likely because it doesn ’ t exist.
” Following classified briefings in the House and Senate , members of Congress said the Trump administration had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani had averted an “ imminent threat ” to Americans in the Middle East .
This was the Trump administration ’ s first briefing to all members of Congress on the operation , which was carried out last Thursday .
It comes after Iran retaliated Tuesday night by firing ballistic missiles at an Iraqi military base , which houses some U.S. military personnel .
President Donald Trump announced in remarks Wednesday morning that no Americans or Iraqis had been killed in the Iranian strike .
The Pentagon suspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to news reports .
The claim that the assassination was in response to a forthcoming “ imminent threat ” to American troops or diplomats in the region has been central to forming the Trump administration ’ s legal justification for the operation .
After the operation last week , Pompeo told CNN that Suleimani was plotting an action that would put “ dozens if not hundreds of America lives at risk.
” Esper told reporters this week that it was “ more fair to say ” that the threat was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , away .
But when asked for details this week about what the imminent threat was , Pompeo sidestepped the question by referring to a previous December 27 rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq that killed an American contractor .
Reactions from Democrats in the House were similarly critical of the lack of evidence Trump apparently had before ordering the assassination .
“ Every time we were told , ‘ Absolutely , there was an imminent threat you should just see the information , it ’ s really imminent.
’ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Rep. Mark Pocan , D-Wis. , at a news conference following the House briefing .
“ Over and over and over the question was asked .
And nothing more was given to us about this.
” Following the House briefing , Rep. Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , said Trump “ had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack , and we say that coming from a classified briefing .
Where again , there was no raw evidence presented that there was an imminent threat.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war powers resolution that would direct Trump to terminate any hostilities by U.S. armed forces against Iran , unless Congress authorizes them .
Even some Republican senators , most prominently Utah Republican Mike Lee , said they were open to a war powers resolution after the briefing , which Lee found infuriating in its lack of specifics .
“ I walked into the briefing undecided ; I walked out decided , ” said Lee .
“ Specifically because of what happened in that briefing.
” Fox News cut away from Lee as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ probably the worst [ briefing ] I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the U.S. Senate.
” “ What we were told over and over and over again was , ‘ Look , this action was necessary , this was a bad guy , we had to do it , and we can ’ t have division , we can ’ t have dissension within our ranks , within our government , or it sends the wrong signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that ’ s completely wrong , ” Lee told reporters .
Hawkish members of the Republican Party stood by the reasoning presented by the Trump administration .
Speaking to reporters afterward , Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , cited a “ string of intelligence that shows there was ‘ near-term planning ’ at a different level than what we have seen in the past.
” “ Combined with recent in events , just in the last couple months , an increase not just in the volume of attacks but in the lethality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , combined with that string of intelligence , combined with the fact that he was traveling across the region , all of it put together combined with the fact they had just tried to storm our embassy , you put all of that together and you reach the reasonable conclusion that something really bad could happen in the near term , and if we don ’ t act now , dozens if not hundreds of Americans could die , ” Rubio said .
Members of Congress also said that the briefers invoked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force Resolution as the legal basis for the strike .
The resolution , originally passed 17 years ago , was meant to sanction military force against Saddam Hussein ’ s government , and the text of it only authorizes force to defend “ against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
” Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif. , told reporters following the briefing that it was unacceptable for the 2002 AUMF to serve as the legal basis for the strike against Suleimani .
“ First of all , probably less than 25 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2002 , ” Lee said .
“ Which means they have not had the opportunity to voice their opinion or cast their vote for any authorizations to use military force for their constituents .
”

Following classified briefings in the House and Senate, members of Congress said the Trump administration had failed to present evidence that the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani had averted an “imminent threat” to Americans in the Middle East.
“We did not get information inside that briefing that there was a specific, imminent threat that we were halting through the operation conducted last Thursday night,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters. “And I can say I was surprised and saddened to not have that information before us, I think it is likely because it doesn’t exist.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that 97 senators attended the briefing, and 15 got to ask questions. “There were so many important questions that they did not answer,” said Schumer of Wednesday’s briefers, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA director Gina Haspel, and Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“As the questions began to get tough, they walked out,” Schumer said. “I’ve asked for a commitment that they all come back within a week; we have not gotten that commitment.”
This was the Trump administration’s first briefing to all members of Congress on the operation, which was carried out last Thursday. It comes after Iran retaliated Tuesday night by firing ballistic missiles at an Iraqi military base, which houses some U.S. military personnel. President Donald Trump announced in remarks Wednesday morning that no Americans or Iraqis had been killed in the Iranian strike. The Pentagon suspects that the Iranians intentionally avoided killing people, according to news reports.
The claim that the assassination was in response to a forthcoming “imminent threat” to American troops or diplomats in the region has been central to forming the Trump administration’s legal justification for the operation.
After the operation last week, Pompeo told CNN that Suleimani was plotting an action that would put “dozens if not hundreds of America lives at risk.” Esper told reporters this week that it was “more fair to say” that the threat was “days,” as opposed to weeks, away. But when asked for details this week about what the imminent threat was, Pompeo sidestepped the question by referring to a previous December 27 rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq that killed an American contractor.
Reactions from Democrats in the House were similarly critical of the lack of evidence Trump apparently had before ordering the assassination.
“Every time we were told, ‘Absolutely, there was an imminent threat you should just see the information, it’s really imminent.’ And nothing was shown to us,” said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., at a news conference following the House briefing. “Over and over and over the question was asked. And nothing more was given to us about this.”
Following the House briefing, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said Trump “had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack, and we say that coming from a classified briefing. Where again, there was no raw evidence presented that there was an imminent threat.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Wednesday that the House will vote on a war powers resolution that would direct Trump to terminate any hostilities by U.S. armed forces against Iran, unless Congress authorizes them.
Even some Republican senators, most prominently Utah Republican Mike Lee, said they were open to a war powers resolution after the briefing, which Lee found infuriating in its lack of specifics. “I walked into the briefing undecided; I walked out decided,” said Lee. “Specifically because of what happened in that briefing.”
Fox News cut away from Lee as he told reporters that the briefing was “probably the worst [briefing] I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the U.S. Senate.”
“What we were told over and over and over again was, ‘Look, this action was necessary, this was a bad guy, we had to do it, and we can’t have division, we can’t have dissension within our ranks, within our government, or it sends the wrong signal to the Iranians,’ and I think that’s completely wrong,” Lee told reporters.
Hawkish members of the Republican Party stood by the reasoning presented by the Trump administration. Speaking to reporters afterward, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., cited a “string of intelligence that shows there was ‘near-term planning’ at a different level than what we have seen in the past.”
“Combined with recent in events, just in the last couple months, an increase not just in the volume of attacks but in the lethality of the weapons they chose to use, combined with that string of intelligence, combined with the fact that he was traveling across the region, all of it put together combined with the fact they had just tried to storm our embassy, you put all of that together and you reach the reasonable conclusion that something really bad could happen in the near term, and if we don’t act now, dozens if not hundreds of Americans could die,” Rubio said.
Members of Congress also said that the briefers invoked the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Resolution as the legal basis for the strike. The resolution, originally passed 17 years ago, was meant to sanction military force against Saddam Hussein’s government, and the text of it only authorizes force to defend “against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., told reporters following the briefing that it was unacceptable for the 2002 AUMF to serve as the legal basis for the strike against Suleimani. “First of all, probably less than 25 percent of members of Congress here today were here in 2002,” Lee said. “Which means they have not had the opportunity to voice their opinion or cast their vote for any authorizations to use military force for their constituents.”


theintercept--2020-01-08--Mike Bloomberg Says He’s Immune to Corporate Influence. His Campaign Is Managed by Lobbyists.

whose pitch to Democratic voters is that he remains untouched by special interests , has invited a team of special-influence peddlers to manage his campaign .
The technology and media executive , and former New York City mayor has made ethics a central part of his message , claiming that his decision to rely only on his own $ 53 billion fortune to finance his campaign makes him uniquely incorruptible .
But in his bid for the presidency , Bloomberg has retained a circle of staff and advisers who have a long history of working as consultants and lobbyists for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before joining the campaign , was retained by Purdue Pharma , makers of OxyContin , to combat widespread criticism that the company had fueled the opioid addiction crisis .
Mitch Stewart , the campaign ’ s senior adviser on campaign strategy , runs a firm called 270 Strategies , which has provided lobbying and consulting work for a number of corporate clients , including the Coalition for Investor Choice , a group seeking carve-outs from financial regulations passed under the Obama administration .
Stewart ’ s firm previously courted controversy when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership .
Campaign manager Kevin Sheekey previously helped lead lobbying strategies for Bloomberg LP , the business founded by the candidate .
Sheekey , for instance , developed a broad coalition effort in Washington , D.C. , to influence regulators overseeing the NBC-Comcast merger to ensure favorable treatment for Bloomberg ’ s financial news television program .
Bradley Tusk , an adviser to Bloomberg ’ s campaign and his former mayoral campaign manager , previously worked as a lobbyist for Uber , helping the ride-hailing company beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He later worked to win passage of laws in seven states designed to exempt gig-economy workers from labor rights such as minimum wage and the right to organize a union .
Tusk Strategies , his consulting firm , is currently registered to represent the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York , the powerful police union ; internet payday loan provider MoneyLion ; and Bird Rides , among other clients .
Many of the recently hired staff to Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign have previously worked as business lobbyists or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tapped to run local campaign operations in Georgia , Arizona , Maine , Pennsylvania , Colorado , and Mississippi .
Reached for comment , the campaign pointed to campaign finance reforms supported by the former mayor and noted that Tusk is not directly employed by the campaign .
“ Mike ’ s record of independence and standing up to special interests couldn ’ t be more clear , ” wrote Julie Wood , a spokesperson for the Bloomberg campaign , in a statement to The Intercept .
“ He ’ s never taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t now.
” In a blitz of campaign advertisements unprecedented in scale , the Bloomberg campaign has touted the former New York City mayor as above outside influence .
“ Mike Bloomberg has never taken a dime from special interests because as New York ’ s three-term mayor , he ’ s always worked for the people ’ s interest , ” says the narrator of one recent advertisement .
“ He won ’ t be accepting a single donation during this campaign .
Not one .
Because the only people he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters.
” Bloomberg ’ s campaign has also delivered the message repeatedly to reporters .
“ He has never taken a political contribution in his life .
He is not about to start , ” Howard Wolfson , a senior Bloomberg strategist , told the Associated Press in November .
“ He can not be bought.
” How Bloomberg ’ s loyalists may influence his administration is unclear .
As mayor , Bloomberg was known not only for rewarding his campaign consultants with six-figure bonuses , but also with plum positions within government @

Mike Bloomberg, whose pitch to Democratic voters is that he remains untouched by special interests, has invited a team of special-influence peddlers to manage his campaign.
The technology and media executive, and former New York City mayor has made ethics a central part of his message, claiming that his decision to rely only on his own $53 billion fortune to finance his campaign makes him uniquely incorruptible. But in his bid for the presidency, Bloomberg has retained a circle of staff and advisers who have a long history of working as consultants and lobbyists for corporate interests.
Bloomberg spokesperson Stu Loeser, before joining the campaign, was retained by Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, to combat widespread criticism that the company had fueled the opioid addiction crisis. Mitch Stewart, the campaign’s senior adviser on campaign strategy, runs a firm called 270 Strategies, which has provided lobbying and consulting work for a number of corporate clients, including the Coalition for Investor Choice, a group seeking carve-outs from financial regulations passed under the Obama administration. Stewart’s firm previously courted controversy when it created an anonymously funded group to lobby Democrats in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Campaign manager Kevin Sheekey previously helped lead lobbying strategies for Bloomberg LP, the business founded by the candidate. Sheekey, for instance, developed a broad coalition effort in Washington, D.C., to influence regulators overseeing the NBC-Comcast merger to ensure favorable treatment for Bloomberg’s financial news television program.
Bradley Tusk, an adviser to Bloomberg’s campaign and his former mayoral campaign manager, previously worked as a lobbyist for Uber, helping the ride-hailing company beat back New York limits on for-hire vehicles. He later worked to win passage of laws in seven states designed to exempt gig-economy workers from labor rights such as minimum wage and the right to organize a union. Tusk Strategies, his consulting firm, is currently registered to represent the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, the powerful police union; internet payday loan provider MoneyLion; and Bird Rides, among other clients.
Many of the recently hired staff to Bloomberg’s presidential campaign have previously worked as business lobbyists or government affairs officials, including political staff tapped to run local campaign operations in Georgia, Arizona, Maine, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Mississippi.
Reached for comment, the campaign pointed to campaign finance reforms supported by the former mayor and noted that Tusk is not directly employed by the campaign.
“Mike’s record of independence and standing up to special interests couldn’t be more clear,” wrote Julie Wood, a spokesperson for the Bloomberg campaign, in a statement to The Intercept. “He’s never taken a dime in campaign contributions and won’t now.”
In a blitz of campaign advertisements unprecedented in scale, the Bloomberg campaign has touted the former New York City mayor as above outside influence.
“Mike Bloomberg has never taken a dime from special interests because as New York’s three-term mayor, he’s always worked for the people’s interest,” says the narrator of one recent advertisement. “He won’t be accepting a single donation during this campaign. Not one. Because the only people he intends to owe anything to are the voters.”
Bloomberg’s campaign has also delivered the message repeatedly to reporters. “He has never taken a political contribution in his life. He is not about to start,” Howard Wolfson, a senior Bloomberg strategist, told the Associated Press in November. “He cannot be bought.”
How Bloomberg’s loyalists may influence his administration is unclear. As mayor, Bloomberg was known not only for rewarding his campaign consultants with six-figure bonuses, but also with plum positions within government.


theintercept--2020-01-09--Progressive Coalition Makes Case for Both Candidates Going Deep Into the Democratic Primary

debates , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make a formidable team , deflecting attacks and amplifying criticisms of the more business-as-usual candidates .
Off the stage , they avoid publicly disparaging each other , and their campaign staffers , with some notable exceptions , tend to do the same .
Much has been made of this informal “ non-aggression pact ” between the pair , but as the Iowa caucus on February 3 approaches , some activists are beginning to ask how long this ( relative ) peace can last .
Two progressive candidates may be better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not be at the voting booth — where Sanders and Warren will inevitably split the electorate ’ s share of left-wing Democrats , preventing either from emerging as a dominant frontrunner .
“ We can not sit on the sidelines as we watch this primary play out and allow a neoliberal be elected , ” said Ana María Archila , co-president of Center for Popular Democracy , explaining CPD ’ s endorsement of Sanders in December .
“ If we stay divided , the corporate Democrats will pick the nominee.
” Nathan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazine and a Sanders supporter who has repeatedly made the case for harsher criticism of Warren , made a similar point : “ Bernie represents a historic opportunity that must not be missed .
If people sit on the fence for it , Biden may very well win this primary.
” The same fear has inspired another group of progressive leaders to adopt a different tack , however .
Democracy for America , the grassroots progressive group founded by Howard Dean in 2004 and which endorsed Sanders in 2016 , told The Intercept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first set of primaries .
The goal , instead , is to make sure one of the two wins .
“ We see two extremely powerful and talented candidates that are both running excellent campaigns , ” DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said .
Chamberlain pointed to the overlap in the two candidate ’ s goals on health care , a Green New Deal , and taxing the wealthy .
Instead of picking sides , Chamberlain and DFA are planning to launch a coalition united by the shared goal of “ defeating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and electing a progressive president — that is , either Sanders or Warren .
It ’ s not a dual endorsement — DFA says they may endorse one or the other candidate down the line — but rather , the coalition will serve as a space where left activists and organizations can work together to maximize the number of delegates captured by Sanders and Warren ( collectively ) and simultaneously continue building the goodwill and solidarity that will be necessary when progressive voters do eventually have to unite behind a single candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make unity possible down the line , ” said David Segal , co-founder of the group Demand Progress and a former Rhode Island state representative , “ but it ’ s also to plant a flag in the ground and say to the media and the Democratic establishment : We plan to win .
If Warren and Sanders together have a democratic mandate come convention , one of them is going to be president .
That ’ s not negotiable.
” Another priority for the initiative will be to ensure the delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If no candidate enters the nominating convention with a majority of delegates , there will be an opportunity for delegates to shift from one candidate to another .
“ We want Bernie delegates who are ready to support Warren as their second choice , ” Chamberlain said .
“ And we have to have Warren supporters who are ready to go to Bernie at an open convention.
” Once chosen , Chamberlain and Segal envision meet-ups for Sanders and Warren delegates to get to know each other and ( hopefully ) recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa , DFA and its partners plan to educate voters about strategic caucusing to maximize the two candidates ’ delegate haul .
Steve Cobble , a progressive activist who was delegate director for Jesse Jackson ’ s 1988 campaign , explained how this works .
“ If you ’ re a Warren supporter and she doesn ’ t meet the 15 percent threshold to be viable in your caucus site , ” Cobble said , “ you need to move over to Bernie on your second ballot.
” In 2008 , Cobble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell his supporters to back Barack Obama on their second ballot — a decision that likely netted the future president a few extra delegates in his tight nominating contest with Hillary Clinton .
For DFA , the unity approach arises out of strategic and organizational necessity .
“ Together , Warren and Sanders are supported by a supermajority of our members , ” Chamberlain said .
But those members are , for the moment , split about 50-50 between the two .
The Working Families Party , which endorsed Warren in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its membership .
The ensuring dispute over its endorsement process — which involved balancing the input of grassroots members and a board of elected chapter leaders — ignited hostilities between Warren and Sanders supporters and damaged the WFP ’ s credibility with some activists .
DFA may be hoping to avoid the same outcome .
WFP communications director Joe Dinkin expressed sympathy for the unity message .
“ We ’ re with Warren , but both Warren and Sanders are giants of the progressive movement , ” Dinkin said , “ and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that movement and bringing new people into the fold .
Half a dozen candidates are crowding the pro-corporate lane of the Democratic primary .
It ’ s chaos .
Progressives are lucky to have two strong , viable , and popular candidates in the race that are fighting to make America work for the many , not just the few.
” When WFP endorsed Warren , they had hoped to inspire other groups to enter the fray .
But the strong backlash may have discouraged more early endorsements .
For the most part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race as well .
But waiting until an obvious frontrunner emerges to invest resources into the race risks allowing a moderate like Biden to consolidate his power uncontested .
That risk is what inspired Archila and CPD to endorse Sanders .
“ We have a short window to make candidates of the left seem viable , ” Archila said , “ and to the extent that organizations representing workers and poor people and people of color sit it out , it ’ s going to hurt us.
” Like WFP ’ s Dinkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and insisted CPD ’ s endorsement is not intended to “ disparage ” Warren .
As she sees it , the choice between staying neutral and going nuclear is a false choice — and a destructive one .
“ I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences , when we have so many goals in common , ” she said .
For the time being , Archila agrees with DFA that having both candidates in the race is good for the movement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and Warren to stay on the debate stage for as long as possible so they can continue to define the contours of the conversation and together paint a picture of the country that is in deep contrast with Trump ’ s exclusionary , racist vision of America , ” she said .
Unlike journalists , activists , and Twitter warriors , she said , many voters are just tuning in to the primary .
When they turn on their TVs , she wants them to see two candidates making the case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and guaranteed housing .
Otherwise , she fears the left ’ s ideas will be “ marginalized ” on a stage full of centrists .
And indeed , the only place where real hostility between the Sanders and Warren camps appears to exist is online .
“ We did a lot of phone calls , meetings , and process to arrive at our endorsement , ” Archila said , “ and at no point did our people go ‘ The other candidate is horrendous !
’ ” Rather , she says , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we heard was , ‘ They both speak to us !
How exciting !
’ ” Other progressives see a similar trend .
“ There are way more people than it might seem who feel good about both candidates , ” said DFA communications director Neil Sroka .
“ That ’ s the silent majority among progressives.
” The unity coalition aims to maintain and cultivate that goodwill .
Warren supporters are unlikely to enthusiastically join a Sanders campaign perceived as hostile to their candidate , and vice versa .
Without cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squad and mutual destruction .
In an email message to DFA members in December , Chamberlain warned that if supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders “ wage war on each other … [ it ] will take both of them down.
” The point , Chamberlain told me , was this : “ Let ’ s save our firepower for the corporate wing.
” The effort also aims to address an obstacle that is a problem for Sanders in particular .
The party power brokers have made no secret that they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders nomination , which means that if he comes to the convention under a majority , and doesn ’ t have Warren delegates to lift him over the top , the party brass will unify around a different candidate .
In the spring of 1988 , when it briefly looked like Jackson may have been able to arrive at the convention as the delegate leader , party bosses began putting together their own “ Stop Jesse ” plan that involved nominating Mario Cuomo on the convention floor .
In 1976 , Jimmy Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 percent of the delegates , but was able to claim the nomination .
Forty percent might have been enough for Carter , but it wouldn ’ t have been for Jackson , and it won ’ t be for Sanders .
Robinson , of Current Affairs , agreed that it ’ s important to avoid creating “ so much animosity between the two camps that it becomes impossible to unify the left.
” However , he sees a problem with being too coy about our differences .
“ Bernie might not want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should certainly draw contrasts , ” Robinson said , but he should be more willing to explain why he ’ s the better candidate .
And as for Bernie supporters like him , “ I think it ’ s important to actually criticize things about Warren ’ s record and politics and her whole method.
” Bernie needs to take a more commanding lead over Biden and , Robinson said , “ The obvious way to do that is to take those people whose first choice is Warren and second choice is Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sanders is better off continuing to go after Biden voters .
“ Bernie ’ s recent tactic of drawing a more explicit contrast with Biden makes sense because Biden ’ s support is relatively soft — very few of his voters are enthusiastic about him — and in terms of raw numbers , it ’ s where the greatest number of second-choice Bernie supporters lie.
” Meanwhile , Segal explained , hitting Biden serves the cause of unity .
“ The progressives who make up pluralities of the Sanders and Warren bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
It ’ s a signal that they are all on the same team.
” In other words , there are fewer votes to be had in attacking Warren , and it risks polarizing the more committed base of her supporters .
“ There is no coherent strategic rationale for the campaigns to attack each other , ” Segal said .
in horserace coverage of the primary that Warren and Sanders are competing for the same voters ; if one rises in the polls , the other drops .
But that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sanders supporters pick Warren as their second choice , but 29 percent pick Joe Biden and another 9 percent pick Andrew Yang .
Similarly , 32 percent of Warren voters pick Sanders as their second choice , but 22 percent pick Biden and 11 percent pick Pete Buttigieg .
If Warren dropped out tomorrow , Bernie would gain some voters , but so would his moderate competitors .
For instance , with Sanders polling at 20 percent and Warren at 14 in the Real Clear Politics average , Sanders would pick up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , while Biden , who is at 30 percent , would pick up 3 and Buttigieg 2 , the rest dispersed .
Yes , Bernie gains , but Biden continues his climb toward 50 percent .
Meanwhile , without Warren in the race , as Buttigieg fades , his supporters , who trend older and whiter , would be more likely to drift to Biden than Sanders , meaning that Biden would continue to pull away , unless Sanders could find a way to reverse that dynamic .
According to Morning Consult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most Buttigieg supporters , at 27 percent , followed by Warren at 20 and Sanders at 12 percent .
So if both Warren and Sanders stay in the race , the left rises if Buttigieg falls .
If only Sanders is in the race when Buttigieg begs off , Sanders would fall significantly relative to Biden .
Robinson argued that such logic only meant that Sanders supporters should hope that Buttigieg stays in as long as possible , not that Warren staying in is good ( “ It mainly makes me want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robinson quipped ) .
But if Sanders , Biden , and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways , it ’ s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates .
Getting to 2,000 delegates — the majority needed — will be difficult for any single candidate , said Larry Cohen , former president of the Communications Workers of America and current chair of Our Revolution , the nonprofit political organization founded by Sanders after his 2016 presidential run .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Cohen said .
Given the power and money behind the establishment wing of the party , Cohen sees unity as the only path to victory for the left .
“ The math to 2,000 , unless Biden totally melts , is tortured .
It ’ s not there .
Nobody is getting 2,000.
” Having both Sanders and Warren in the race turning out their respective bases and winning delegates may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention .
For Cohen , who personally supports Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to organized labor in 2016 , a unity message is not just about singing “ kumbaya ” and getting along : “ It ’ s not just that we need progressive unity ; that ’ s a nice idea .
But this is more than a nice idea .
I think there ’ s a very good chance those delegates will have to stick together .
Not just on other issues , like the platform , but to nominate the president.
” How would that work ?
Well , as Cohen sees it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second ballot at the convention .
Even if every Sanders delegate moves to Warren or vice versa , the corporate wing will have a chance to consolidate around one candidate , now with the help of an additional 750 nonelected delegates ( aka super delegates ) .
In other words , progressives could enter the convention with a majority of elected delegates and leave with Joe Biden as the nominee .
“ It would be insane for Warren and Sanders supporters to allow that to happen , ” said Cohen .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the convention — the old fashioned way : “ One of them drops out , and they make a deal.
” Just not yet .

On stage at debates, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make a formidable team, deflecting attacks and amplifying criticisms of the more business-as-usual candidates. Off the stage, they avoid publicly disparaging each other, and their campaign staffers, with some notable exceptions, tend to do the same. Much has been made of this informal “non-aggression pact” between the pair, but as the Iowa caucus on February 3 approaches, some activists are beginning to ask how long this (relative) peace can last. Two progressive candidates may be better than one on debate night, but it might not be at the voting booth — where Sanders and Warren will inevitably split the electorate’s share of left-wing Democrats, preventing either from emerging as a dominant frontrunner.
“We cannot sit on the sidelines as we watch this primary play out and allow a neoliberal be elected,” said Ana María Archila, co-president of Center for Popular Democracy Action, explaining CPDA’s endorsement of Sanders in December. “If we stay divided, the corporate Democrats will pick the nominee.” Nathan J. Robinson, editor of Current Affairs magazine and a Sanders supporter who has repeatedly made the case for harsher criticism of Warren, made a similar point: “Bernie represents a historic opportunity that must not be missed. If people sit on the fence for it, Biden may very well win this primary.”
The same fear has inspired another group of progressive leaders to adopt a different tack, however. Democracy for America, the grassroots progressive group founded by Howard Dean in 2004 and which endorsed Sanders in 2016, told The Intercept they will decline to endorse before the first set of primaries. The goal, instead, is to make sure one of the two wins. “We see two extremely powerful and talented candidates that are both running excellent campaigns,” DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said. Chamberlain pointed to the overlap in the two candidate’s goals on health care, a Green New Deal, and taxing the wealthy. Instead of picking sides, Chamberlain and DFA are planning to launch a coalition united by the shared goal of “defeating the corporate wing of the Democratic Party” and electing a progressive president — that is, either Sanders or Warren.
It’s not a dual endorsement — DFA says they may endorse one or the other candidate down the line — but rather, the coalition will serve as a space where left activists and organizations can work together to maximize the number of delegates captured by Sanders and Warren (collectively) and simultaneously continue building the goodwill and solidarity that will be necessary when progressive voters do eventually have to unite behind a single candidate.
“The purpose of this coalition is to make unity possible down the line,” said David Segal, a progressive strategist and former Rhode Island state representative, “but it’s also to plant a flag in the ground and say to the media and the Democratic establishment: We plan to win. If Warren and Sanders together have a democratic mandate come convention, one of them is going to be president. That’s not negotiable.”
Another priority for the initiative will be to ensure the delegates recruited to represent the candidates are unity-minded. If no candidate enters the nominating convention with a majority of delegates, there will be an opportunity for delegates to shift from one candidate to another. “We want Bernie delegates who are ready to support Warren as their second choice,” Chamberlain said. “And we have to have Warren supporters who are ready to go to Bernie at an open convention.” Once chosen, Chamberlain and Segal envision meet-ups for Sanders and Warren delegates to get to know each other and (hopefully) recognize their common goals.
Having both Sanders and Warren in the race winning delegates, some argue, may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention.
On the ground in Iowa, DFA and its partners plan to educate voters about strategic caucusing to maximize the two candidates’ delegate haul. Steve Cobble, a progressive activist who was delegate director for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 campaign, explained how this works. “If you’re a Warren supporter and she doesn’t meet the 15 percent threshold to be viable in your caucus site,” Cobble said, “you need to move over to Bernie on your second ballot.” In 2008, Cobble was responsible for convincing candidate Dennis Kucinich to tell his supporters to back Barack Obama on their second ballot — a decision that likely netted the future president a few extra delegates in his tight nominating contest with Hillary Clinton.
For DFA, the unity approach arises out of strategic and organizational necessity. “Together, Warren and Sanders are supported by a supermajority of our members,” Chamberlain said. But those members are, for the moment, split about 50-50 between the two. The Working Families Party, which endorsed Warren in September, faced backlash from Sanders supporters among its membership. The ensuing dispute over its endorsement process — which involved balancing the input of grassroots members and a board of elected chapter leaders — ignited hostilities between Warren and Sanders supporters and damaged the WFP’s credibility with some activists. DFA may be hoping to avoid the same outcome.
WFP communications director Joe Dinkin expressed sympathy for the unity message. “We’re with Warren, but both Warren and Sanders are giants of the progressive movement,” Dinkin said, “and they’re both building the strength of that movement and bringing new people into the fold. Half a dozen candidates are crowding the pro-corporate lane of the Democratic primary. It’s chaos. Progressives are lucky to have two strong, viable, and popular candidates in the race that are fighting to make America work for the many, not just the few.”
When WFP endorsed Warren, they had hoped to inspire other groups to enter the fray. But the strong backlash may have discouraged more early endorsements. For the most part, unions have stayed out of the race as well. But waiting until an obvious frontrunner emerges to invest resources into the race risks allowing a moderate like Biden to consolidate his power uncontested.
“I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences, when we have so many goals in common,” Archila said.
That risk is what inspired Archila and CPDA to endorse Sanders. “We have a short window to make candidates of the left seem viable,” Archila said, “and to the extent that organizations representing workers and poor people and people of color sit it out, it’s going to hurt us.” Like WFP’s Dinkin, however, she praised both candidates and insisted CPDA’s endorsement is not intended to “disparage” Warren. As she sees it, the choice between staying neutral and going nuclear is a false choice — and a destructive one. “I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences, when we have so many goals in common,” she said.
For the time being, Archila agrees with DFA that having both candidates in the race is good for the movement. “What we need is for both Sanders and Warren to stay on the debate stage for as long as possible so they can continue to define the contours of the conversation and together paint a picture of the country that is in deep contrast with Trump’s exclusionary, racist vision of America,” she said. Unlike journalists, activists, and Twitter warriors, she said, many voters are just tuning in to the primary. When they turn on their TVs, she wants them to see two candidates making the case for Medicare for All, ending deportation, and guaranteed housing. Otherwise, she fears the left’s ideas will be “marginalized” on a stage full of centrists.
And indeed, the only place where real hostility between the Sanders and Warren camps appears to exist is online. “We did a lot of phone calls, meetings, and process to arrive at our endorsement,” Archila said, “and at no point did our people go ‘The other candidate is horrendous!’” Rather, she says, most were very enthusiastic about Warren. “What we heard was, ‘They both speak to us! How exciting!’”
Other progressives see a similar trend. “There are way more people than it might seem who feel good about both candidates,” said DFA communications director Neil Sroka. “That’s the silent majority among progressives.” The unity coalition aims to maintain and cultivate that goodwill. Warren supporters are unlikely to enthusiastically join a Sanders campaign perceived as hostile to their candidate, and vice versa. Without cooperation, progressive leaders fear a circular firing squad and mutual destruction. In an email message to DFA members in December, Chamberlain warned that if supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders “wage war on each other … [it] will take both of them down.” The point, Chamberlain told me, was this: “Let’s save our firepower for the corporate wing.”
The effort also aims to address an obstacle that is a problem for Sanders in particular. The party power brokers have made no secret that they will do all they can to stop a Sanders nomination, which means that if he comes to the convention under a majority, and doesn’t have Warren delegates to lift him over the top, the party brass will unify around a different candidate. In the spring of 1988, when it briefly looked like Jackson may have been able to arrive at the convention as the delegate leader, party bosses began putting together their own “Stop Jesse” plan that involved nominating Mario Cuomo on the convention floor. In 1976, Jimmy Carter came into a divided convention with roughly 40 percent of the delegates, but was able to claim the nomination. Forty percent might have been enough for Carter, but it wouldn’t have been for Jackson, and it won’t be for Sanders.
“In the Jackson ’88 campaign, we operated on the theory that a delegate who was not explicitly for Jesse would end up supporting his last remaining opponent,” said Cobble. “Bernie could possibly avoid that scenario with the help of other progressive Warren delegates.”
Robinson, of Current Affairs, agreed that it’s important to avoid creating “so much animosity between the two camps that it becomes impossible to unify the left.” However, he sees a problem with being too coy about our differences. “Bernie might not want to criticize Warren directly, but he should certainly draw contrasts,” Robinson said, and he should be more willing to explain why he’s the better candidate. And as for Bernie supporters like him, “I think it’s important to actually criticize things about Warren’s record and politics and her whole method.” Bernie needs to take a more commanding lead over Biden and, Robinson said, “The obvious way to do that is to take those people whose first choice is Warren and second choice is Bernie and flip them.”
David Segal maintains that Sanders is better off continuing to go after Biden voters. “Bernie’s recent tactic of drawing a more explicit contrast with Biden makes sense because Biden’s support is relatively soft — very few of his voters are enthusiastic about him — and in terms of raw numbers, it’s where the greatest number of second-choice Bernie supporters lie.” Meanwhile, Segal explained, hitting Biden serves the cause of unity. “The progressives who make up pluralities of the Sanders and Warren bases are generally unified in their critique of Biden. It’s a signal that they are all on the same team.” In other words, there are fewer votes to be had in attacking Warren, and it risks polarizing the more committed base of her supporters.
“There is no coherent strategic rationale for the campaigns to attack each other,” Segal said.
It’s often assumed in horserace coverage of the primary that Warren and Sanders are competing for the same voters; if one rises in the polls, the other drops. But that’s only partially true. Thirty-one percent of Sanders supporters pick Warren as their second choice, but 29 percent pick Joe Biden and another 9 percent pick Andrew Yang. Similarly, 32 percent of Warren voters pick Sanders as their second choice, but 22 percent pick Biden and 11 percent pick Pete Buttigieg. If Warren dropped out tomorrow, Bernie would gain some voters, but so would his moderate competitors. For instance, with Sanders polling at 20 percent and Warren at 14 in the Real Clear Politics average, Sanders would pick up about 5 percentage points if Warren dropped out, while Biden, who is at 30 percent, would pick up 3 and Buttigieg 2, the rest dispersed. Yes, Bernie gains, but Biden continues his climb toward 50 percent.
Meanwhile, without Warren in the race, as Buttigieg fades, his supporters, who trend older and whiter, would be more likely to drift to Biden than Sanders, meaning that Biden would continue to pull away, unless Sanders could find a way to reverse that dynamic. According to Morning Consult, Biden is the second choice of the most Buttigieg supporters, at 27 percent, followed by Warren at 20 and Sanders at 12 percent. So if both Warren and Sanders stay in the race, the left rises if Buttigieg falls. If only Sanders is in the race when Buttigieg begs off, Sanders would fall significantly relative to Biden.
If Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways, it’s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates.
Robinson argued that such logic only meant that Sanders supporters should hope that Buttigieg stays in as long as possible, not that Warren staying in is good (“It mainly makes me want to donate to Mayor Pete,” Robinson quipped). But if Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways, it’s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates. Getting to 2,000 delegates — the majority needed — will be difficult for any single candidate, said Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and current chair of Our Revolution, the nonprofit political organization founded by Sanders after his 2016 presidential run.
“It’s a Venn diagram. Not a circle,” Cohen said. Given the power and money behind the establishment wing of the party, Cohen sees unity as the only path to victory for the left. “The math to 2,000, unless Biden totally melts, is tortured. It’s not there. Nobody is getting 2,000.” Having both Sanders and Warren in the race turning out their respective bases and winning delegates may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention.
For Cohen, who personally supports Sanders and served as the campaign’s liaison to organized labor in 2016, a unity message is not just about singing “kumbaya” and getting along: “It’s not just that we need progressive unity; that’s a nice idea. But this is more than a nice idea. I think there’s a very good chance those delegates will have to stick together. Not just on other issues, like the platform, but to nominate the president.”
How would that work? Well, as Cohen sees it, they can’t wait for a second ballot at the convention. Even if every Sanders delegate moves to Warren or vice versa, the corporate wing will have a chance to consolidate around one candidate, now with the help of an additional 750 nonelected delegates (aka super delegates). In other words, progressives could enter the convention with a majority of elected delegates and leave with Joe Biden as the nominee. “It would be insane for Warren and Sanders supporters to allow that to happen,” said Cohen. Instead, consolidation has to come before the convention — the old fashioned way: “One of them drops out, and they make a deal.” Just not yet.