theintercept--2020-11-03--How Hunter Biden Stumped the Media

How Hunter Biden Stumped the Media

last-minute bid to turn his 2020 reelection campaign into a referendum on the corruption of his rival has foundered — the result of both his own impulsivity and a reaffirmation of the mainstream media ’ s agenda-setting role .
The media ’ s approach to the story marks a stark break from how it handled the news around Hillary Clinton ’ s emails in the final weeks of the presidential campaign four years ago — what New York Times media reporter Ben Smith described as a “ revenge of the gatekeepers , ” describing a “ reassertion of control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s treatment of Clinton ’ s emails and Hunter Biden ’ s laptop has driven Trump and his supporters to rage , and if Republicans regain control of federal investigative powers , or maintain control of the Senate , subpoenas of Hunter Biden or those around him will no doubt follow .
Unfair as Trump may believe the media has been when it comes to covering emails from Hunter Biden ’ s hard drive , Trump himself has undermined his own narrative about the Bidens every step of the way .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of truth into something tastier , he winds up burning it .
As vice president , Joe Biden did indeed threaten to withhold U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the top prosecutor was fired — he said so on tape — and it ’ s true that his son Hunter was collecting big checks from a Ukrainian gas firm despite no expertise in either Ukraine or natural gas .
But Trump went on to earn his own impeachment by himself threatening to withhold U.S. aid unless Ukraine delivered up a public investigation into Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign prop .
Trump even suggested CNN as the venue , but was thoroughly agnostic on whether an investigation was actually carried out .
He merely wanted the announcement , a public relations vehicle he could crash into the Biden campaign .
Trump and his agents had a real path to turning the Hunter Biden story into big news in the final month of the campaign but bungled it all the way through .
Each step forward was met with an awkward stumble , and each stumble would set the coverage back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been working on this fairly mundane overview of a story for several weeks , but each time it came close to being ready to publish , something screwy would pop up that would send it in a new direction and require a new round of updates — whether it was the emergence of a fake persona circulating elements of the narrative months ago ; Tucker Carlson announcing the only copies of “ damning ” documents were lost in transit ; or a key witness appearing at a presidential debate , showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them before they could be reviewed .
Ironically , even if Trump ’ s gambit had succeeded , it ’ s far from obvious that he would be in a better position politically .
GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned Trump and his campaign that the focus on Hunter Biden rather than the economy and Trump ’ s strengths was “ malpractice ” and not moving voters in his direction .
“ It is the worst campaign I ’ ve ever seen and I ’ ve been watching them since 1980 .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re on the wrong message .
They ’ ve got their heads up their asses , ” he said .
“ Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need to reach.
” Concluded Republican Sen. Ted Cruz : “ I don ’ t think it moves a single voter.
” on parallel tracks from the beginning : one legitimate , one ridiculous .
As Smith reported for the Times , Trump ’ s top campaign aides met in early October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michael Bender , sharing with him messages and documents related to Hunter Biden , along with a business partner , Tony Bobulinski , ready to authenticate them and go on the record .
That was the legitimate track , and a story in the Journal would no doubt have landed differently than the one in the New York Post .
But before the Journal published its story , Trump stepped on it by telling his aides the paper was working on an “ important piece ” that would shake up the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t appreciate , Smith later reported .
Meanwhile , Rudy Giuliani , who had been Trump ’ s bagman in Ukraine , scooped the Journal by handing what he said was Hunter Biden ’ s hard drive over to the New York Post .
The Post ended up publishing first , with a story on October 14 that it claimed was based on a “ smoking-gun email ” that implicated Joe Biden in his son ’ s corrupt endeavors .
The gun wasn ’ t quite smoking , but the Post did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vadym Pozharskiy , thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father .
If the meeting actually happened — Biden ’ s camp denied any meeting was on the schedule but didn ’ t deny that some informal meeting at an event may have occurred — it would undermine the Bidens ’ claim that Joe Biden ’ s work in government never intersected with his son ’ s business .
It would also be in line with what Hunter Biden is known to have done before .
In 2013 , Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Air Force 2 and arranged an informal handshake meeting between a Chinese businessperson and his father .
Was an informal meeting possible ?
Joe Biden ’ s schedule the evening he was alleged to have met with Pozharskiy involved a White House Greek Independence Day reception , which ran between 5 and 6 p.m. , and the Congressional Fire Services Institute gala later that evening .
If Pozharskiy attended the Greek reception , held at the White House , his name ought to appear in the visitor logs , but doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gala , however , was held at the Washington Hilton hotel , a much more accessible venue .
Bill Webb , executive director of CFSI , organized the gala and confirmed that Biden spoke there that evening .
“ He attended a reception with Delaware firefighters beforehand , as he has always done when he attended this event , ” Webb told The Intercept .
Afterward , and before his speech , he went backstage with staff and Secret Service agents .
He said that Hunter Biden did not ask him to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time .
“ I was not contacted by anybody to add names , ” Webb recalled , adding that Joe Biden left promptly after delivering his speech and accepting a ceremonial helmet .
Regardless , Facebook and Twitter took the extraordinary step of censoring the Post article , with Twitter claiming it fell under the company ’ s “ hacked materials ” policy , though there was no evidence then or now that the emails and other material had been obtained via hacking .
The Silicon Valley suppression ratcheted up conservative outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though it only reinstated the Post ’ s Twitter account more than two weeks later .
When the revelations failed to get significant coverage on non-Fox cable or in the mainstream press , that outrage ratcheted higher .
The conservative outlet Breitbart followed on October 16 with its own cache of Hunter Biden emails , this time from a different former business partner , Bevan Cooney .
Cooney , reporters with Breitbart say , gave the outlet access to his inbox from prison and permission to publish its newsworthy contents .
The correspondence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden and his partners were about the value they brought clients and investors : their access to the White House through Hunter Biden .
A series of 2015 emails showed a group of wealthy and connected Chinese investors securing a tour of the White House through the partners , and also showed some of the care Hunter Biden ’ s partners took not to openly discuss the nepotistic value their firm brought to investors and clients .
“ Couldn ’ t confirm this with Hunter on the line but we got him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese folks , ” wrote Devon Archer , another Hunter Biden business partner .
Both the Post and Breitbart continued publishing stories based on the various inboxes they had access to , yet there was little pickup outside the right-wing echo chamber — a stark contrast from 2016 when every new WikiLeaks release of emails generated a fresh news cycle .
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange , however , is now locked up and fighting extradition to the United States , and other news outlets , despite concerted efforts , were not given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept .
Rep. Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee , went on CNN to denounce the Post story .
“ We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin .
That ’ s been clear for well over a year now that they ’ ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son , ” Schiff told Wolf Blitzer .
“ Clearly , the origins of this whole smear are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only too happy to have Kremlin help and try to amplify it.
” That brought a statement from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe , who said the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence of Russian involvement .
Schiff responded that he never meant the Russians had planted that specific Post story but rather that the Kremlin had been smearing Joe and Hunter Biden for a long time .
Bobulinski , still anonymous and frustrated by the Journal ’ s slow pace and allegations that the story was part of a Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement October 22 , coming forward more than a week after the Post article had been published .
That evening , Bobulinski showed up as Trump ’ s guest for a staged event ahead of the presidential debate .
Shortly after the debate , the Journal news side finally published its article .
“ The [ Bobulinski-Hunter Biden ] venture—set up in 2017 after Mr. Biden left the vice presidency and before his presidential campaign—never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals , according to people familiar with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden , ” reported the Journal .
The notion that it was all part of a Trump circus was cemented .
On October 26 , the New York Times followed : “ There is no evidence in the records that [ Joe ] Biden was involved in or profited from the joint venture.
” Biden ’ s defense of both himself and his son has always been sweeping .
“ My son did nothing wrong , ” the former vice president has repeatedly said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Post and Breitbart show that , at a minimum , Hunter Biden ’ s value to overseas investors and clients was his perceived access to and leverage within the White House .
Joe Biden is one of the few people left on the planet willing to claim that Hunter Biden behaved ethically in accepting the Burisma money .
Chris Heinz , the stepson of former secretary of state John Kerry , ended his partnership with Hunter over the impropriety of it .
In 2015 , Amos Hochstein , the Obama administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ raised the matter ” with Biden , according to a 2019 report in the New Yorker .
“ Several former officials in the Obama Administration and at the State Department insisted that Hunter ’ s role at Burisma had no effect on his father ’ s policies in Ukraine , but said that , nevertheless , Hunter should not have taken the board seat , ” the New Yorker reported .
Joe Biden has said he has never discussed his son ’ s business with him , but Hunter Biden said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Dad said , ‘ I hope you know what you are doing , ’ and I said , ‘ I do , ’ ” Hunter Biden told the New Yorker .
Hunter Biden has since left the board , saying the decision to join was an unnecessary distraction and apologizing to his father .
“ I ’ m saying sorry to him , and he says , ‘ I ’ m the one who ’ s sorry , ’ and we have an ongoing debate about who should be more sorry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only true antidote to any of this is winning .
He says , ‘ Look , it ’ s going to go away.
’ There is truly a higher purpose here , and this will go away .
So can you survive the assault ?
” Biden ’ s refusal to condemn his son ’ s activities can be chalked up to fatherly love of a troubled son .
But the most relevant political question has always been whether Joe Biden took any action to benefit his son ’ s business interests or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said flatly that he has done neither .
Andrew Bates , a spokesperson for Biden , referred The Intercept to a statement previously provided to the New York Times : “ Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family , nor in any overseas business whatsoever.
” Bobulinski , however , said that while he has no evidence that Joe Biden ultimately profited from a deal with the firm CEFC China Energy — the deal ended up falling apart in the end either way — the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early-stage discussions .
Bobulinski decided to give a long interview to Fox News host Tucker Carlson to make the argument that he had never claimed that Joe Biden ultimately profited from the deal , but that he had showed a willingness to do so , which would undercut Biden ’ s blanket denials .
In that interview , which came a week before the election , Bobulinski said that he and Hunter Biden had met privately with Joe Biden and his brother James Biden on May 2 , 2017 , to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Carlson that he decided to come forward after Rep. Adam Schiff , the House intelligence committee chair , suggested the story was Russian disinformation — though that conflicts with the reporting that Bobulinski had already agreed to come forward to the Journal , but was frustrated by the paper ’ s reporting pace .
Bobulinski told Carlson he met with Joe Biden in Los Angeles , before the former VP was scheduled to speak at the Milken Institute ’ s 2017 Global Conference .
“ They were sort of wining and dining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden family to get me more engaged and want to take on the CEO role and develop Sinohawk both in the United States and around the world in partnership with CEFC , ” he said .
The Bidens have not denied that such a meeting took place , and Bobulinski has WhatsApp messages that corroborate his story .
According to messages Bobulinski has made public , Hunter Biden texted him on the afternoon of May 2 , 2017 : “ Dad not in now until 11-lets me I [ sic ] and Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s staying.
” Bobulinski said he met Jim and Hunter Biden at the hotel bar , and Joe Biden arrived later .
“ Hunter and his father and security came through the bar , and obviously I stood up out of respect to shake his hand and Hunter introduced me as , this is Tony , Dad , the individual I told you about that ’ s helping us with the business that we ’ re working on and the Chinese , ” Bobulinski said .
But the conversation did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said Bobulinski .
“ We didn ’ t go into too much detail on business , because prior to Joe showing up , Hunter and Jim had coached me , listen , we won ’ t go into too much detail here , so just a high-level discussion and meeting .
So it ’ s not like I was drilling down with Joe about cap tables and details.
” Bobulinski said he remembers the elder Biden telling him : “ My son and my brother trust you emphatically , so I trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That night , Bobulinski sent Jim Biden a message : “ Great to meet u and spend some time together , please thank Joe for his time , was great to talk thx Tony b.
” The next morning , Bobulinski said , he was taken backstage at the Milken conference to meet with Joe Biden again , and walked with him to his car .
“ Keep an eye on my son and brother and look out for my family , ” Biden told him , Bobulinski recalled .
On May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the venture , emailed Bobulinski laying out the distribution of shares of an upcoming firm being created by the partners , with 20 percent listed for Gilliar , 20 percent for Bobulinski , 20 percent for partner Rob Walker , 20 percent for Hunter Biden , 10 percent for Jim Biden , as well as “ 10 held by H for the big guy ?
” The “ big guy , ” Bobulinski said , was Joe Biden , who Hunter also referred to at times as “ my chairman.
” Mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Carlson interview , despite the fact that the new details he offered exist in tension with the Democratic nominee ’ s claims never to have considered joining his son in any business deal , and that Bobulinski ’ s account dovetails with previous reporting by the Times in December 2018 : In early 2017 , CEFC agreed to buy one-fifth of Cowen , a New York boutique investment banking firm , for about $ 100 million , though the deal never received approval in Washington and was abandoned .
By 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of CEFC ] had begun working on perhaps his most politically connected quarry yet : the family of Mr. Biden , the vice president .
An aide to Mr. Ye met the vice president ’ s second son , Hunter Biden , in Washington .
Mr. Ye then met privately with Hunter Biden at a hotel in Miami in May 2017 , according to people with direct knowledge of the meetings who were not authorized to speak publicly because the meetings were private .
Mr. Ye proposed a partnership to invest in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Gilliar , the partner who sent the May 13 email , has not specifically denied that the “ big guy ” referred to Biden but told the Wall Street Journal : “ I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure .
I am unaware of any involvement at any time of the former Vice President .
The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.
” The Journal said Gilliar did not respond to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was , nor did the other partner Rob Walker .
Importantly , a question mark follows Gilliar ’ s line about Hunter holding 10 for the big guy , opening the possibility that Gilliar was speculating and that neither Hunter Biden nor his father had proposed such an arrangement .
Indeed , on May 19 , Hunter sent a message to Bobulinski saying that “ both James ’ lawyers and my Chairman gave an emphatic NO.
” Those intent on believing Biden was indeed involved point to the crew ’ s desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On May 20 , according to a message released by Bobulinski , Gilliar had warned him : “ Don ’ t mention Joe being involved , it ’ s only when u are face to face , I know u know that but they are paranoid.
” Bobulinksi responded : “ OK they should be paranoid about things.
” Even though the deal didn ’ t happen and Joe Biden never profited , there are serious questions that Bobulinski ’ s interview raises about Biden ’ s involvement : Did Hunter invite him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bobulinski without filling Joe Biden in on much of anything ?
Or did Joe Biden knowingly consent to attend a meeting with Hunter ’ s business partners ?
new revelations in the coming days , but again , the wheels fell off the story .
On October 28 , last Wednesday , Carlson reported that the only copies of “ damning ” documents concerning Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter , had “ vanished ” en route to Carlson ’ s office while under the care of an unnamed private mail carrier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Thursday , the documents had been recovered , but he declined to air the contents , saying he had to more thoroughly review them and that Hunter Biden was a broken man , and there was no need to kick him while he was down .
That same day , NBC News reported that a fake intelligence firm had long been circulating elements of the Hunter Biden story that had recently surfaced .
With a suspect dossier coupled with the salacious contents of a laptop seized by the FBI , Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back into 2016 .
But in 2016 , there was no coronavirus pandemic , and he was running against Hillary Clinton , not Joe or Hunter Biden .
Had Trump and Giuliani gotten out of their own way and let the Journal run the initial story , the paper might have broken the news of Joe Biden ’ s meeting with Bobulinski , the CEO of the Hunter Biden firm putting together a deal with a Chinese oil tycoon .
It may have been the case that Biden didn ’ t know why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bobulinski , but whether and why he was at the meeting remains a legitimate line of journalistic inquiry , even if it isn ’ t the explosive story Trump thought it was .
Had the Journal rather than the Post broken the story , perhaps the media would have been more interested in its legitimate elements : that Joe may have had closer dealings with — or , at minimum , some meaningful knowledge of — Hunter ’ s business , at least after he left office , than he ’ s previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world we ’ re in , and the story of the news industry itself may ultimately be the most consequential , as the gatekeepers have reasserted themselves and a large portion of the electorate is losing faith in the media , an audience that the conservative media ecosystem is all too happy to serve .
Our own version of that story played out at The Intercept when co-founder Glenn Greenwald resigned , citing censorship of his take on the affair .
His editors , backed up by fellow The Intercept co-founder Jeremy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected that assertion .
“ Glenn has alleged that he was censored by the editors of The Intercept .
I do not agree with that characterization .
From my admittedly limited involvement ( at Glenn ’ s request ) with this specific article , it seemed to me that there was a reasonable path to publishing the piece .
Glenn clearly disagreed with that and decided to withdraw from that process , ” Scahill wrote .
“ From my perspective , the recent incident with the Biden article that was followed by Glenn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much broader conflict and difference of opinion.
” That ’ s my view , too , and it applies equally to the analysis of the broader media ’ s handling of the Hunter Biden story .
Despite the flaws of those pushing the story and the right-wing media ’ s exaggeration of its significance , there was a way the media could have handled it responsibly that didn ’ t mean 24/7 cable segments and splashing it across the front page — the Clinton treatment — but that also didn ’ t fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Greenwald , it ’ s all part of a much broader conflict , one that just so happened to be brought to a head by Hunter Biden and his hard drive .

President Donald Trump’s last-minute bid to turn his 2020 reelection campaign into a referendum on the corruption of his rival has foundered — the result of both his own impulsivity and a reaffirmation of the mainstream media’s agenda-setting role.
The media’s approach to the story marks a stark break from how it handled the news around Hillary Clinton’s emails in the final weeks of the presidential campaign four years ago — what New York Times media reporter Ben Smith described as a “revenge of the gatekeepers,” describing a “reassertion of control over information.”
The gap between the media’s treatment of Clinton’s emails and Hunter Biden’s laptop has driven Trump and his supporters to rage, and if Republicans regain control of federal investigative powers, or maintain control of the Senate, subpoenas of Hunter Biden or those around him will no doubt follow.
Trump merely wanted the announcement, the headline, a public relations vehicle he could crash into the Biden campaign.
Unfair as Trump may believe the media has been when it comes to covering emails from Hunter Biden’s hard drive, Trump himself has undermined his own narrative about the Bidens every step of the way. Each time Trump attempts to pop a kernel of truth into something tastier, he winds up burning it. As vice president, Joe Biden did indeed threaten to withhold U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the top prosecutor was fired — he said so on tape — and it’s true that his son Hunter was collecting big checks from a Ukrainian gas firm despite no expertise in either Ukraine or natural gas. But Trump went on to earn his own impeachment by himself threatening to withhold U.S. aid unless Ukraine delivered up a public investigation into Joe Biden that he could use as a campaign prop. Trump even suggested CNN as the venue, but was thoroughly agnostic on whether an investigation was actually carried out. He merely wanted the announcement, a public relations vehicle he could crash into the Biden campaign.
Trump and his agents had a real path to turning the Hunter Biden story into big news in the final month of the campaign but bungled it all the way through. Each step forward was met with an awkward stumble, and each stumble would set the coverage back.
To take one small example: I’ve been working on this fairly mundane overview of a story for several weeks, but each time it came close to being ready to publish, something screwy would pop up that would send it in a new direction and require a new round of updates — whether it was the emergence of a fake persona circulating elements of the narrative months ago; Tucker Carlson announcing the only copies of “damning” documents were lost in transit; or a key witness appearing at a presidential debate, showing the press his cellphones, then pocketing them before they could be reviewed.
Ironically, even if Trump’s gambit had succeeded, it’s far from obvious that he would be in a better position politically. GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned Trump and his campaign that the focus on Hunter Biden rather than the economy and Trump’s strengths was “malpractice” and not moving voters in his direction. “It is the worst campaign I’ve ever seen and I’ve been watching them since 1980. They’re on the wrong issues. They’re on the wrong message. They’ve got their heads up their asses,” he said. “Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need to reach.” Concluded Republican Sen. Ted Cruz: “I don’t think it moves a single voter.”
The story ran on parallel tracks from the beginning: one legitimate, one ridiculous. As Smith reported for the Times, Trump’s top campaign aides met in early October with a well-regarded Wall Street Journal reporter, Michael Bender, sharing with him messages and documents related to Hunter Biden, along with a business partner, Tony Bobulinski, ready to authenticate them and go on the record. That was the legitimate track, and a story in the Journal would no doubt have landed differently than the one in the New York Post.
But before the Journal published its story, Trump stepped on it by telling his aides the paper was working on an “important piece” that would shake up the campaign, which editors at the paper didn’t appreciate, Smith later reported.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, who had been Trump’s bagman in Ukraine, scooped the Journal by handing what he said was Hunter Biden’s hard drive over to the New York Post. The Post ended up publishing first, with a story on October 14 that it claimed was based on a “smoking-gun email” that implicated Joe Biden in his son’s corrupt endeavors.
The gun wasn’t quite smoking, but the Post did have an email from a Ukrainian businessperson, Vadym Pozharskiy, thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father. If the meeting actually happened — Biden’s camp denied any meeting was on the schedule but didn’t deny that some informal meeting at an event may have occurred — it would undermine the Bidens’ claim that Joe Biden’s work in government never intersected with his son’s business. It would also be in line with what Hunter Biden is known to have done before. In 2013, Hunter Biden flew with his father to China on Air Force 2 and arranged an informal handshake meeting between a Chinese businessperson and his father.
Was an informal meeting possible? Joe Biden’s schedule the evening he was alleged to have met with Pozharskiy involved a White House Greek Independence Day reception, which ran between 5 and 6 p.m., and the Congressional Fire Services Institute gala later that evening. If Pozharskiy attended the Greek reception, held at the White House, his name ought to appear in the visitor logs, but doesn’t. The Congressional Fire Services Institute gala, however, was held at the Washington Hilton hotel, a much more accessible venue. Bill Webb, executive director of CFSI, organized the gala and confirmed that Biden spoke there that evening. “He attended a reception with Delaware firefighters beforehand, as he has always done when he attended this event,” Webb told The Intercept. Afterward, and before his speech, he went backstage with staff and Secret Service agents. He said that Hunter Biden did not ask him to add any names to the guest list ahead of time. “I was not contacted by anybody to add names,” Webb recalled, adding that Joe Biden left promptly after delivering his speech and accepting a ceremonial helmet.
Regardless, Facebook and Twitter took the extraordinary step of censoring the Post article, with Twitter claiming it fell under the company’s “hacked materials” policy, though there was no evidence then or now that the emails and other material had been obtained via hacking. The Silicon Valley suppression ratcheted up conservative outrage, and Twitter eventually backed down, though it only reinstated the Post’s Twitter account more than two weeks later.
When the revelations failed to get significant coverage on non-Fox cable or in the mainstream press, that outrage ratcheted higher. The conservative outlet Breitbart followed on October 16 with its own cache of Hunter Biden emails, this time from a different former business partner, Bevan Cooney. Cooney, reporters with Breitbart say, gave the outlet access to his inbox from prison and permission to publish its newsworthy contents. The correspondence published by Breitbart showed just how explicit Hunter Biden and his partners were about the value they brought clients and investors: their access to the White House through Hunter Biden. A series of 2015 emails showed a group of wealthy and connected Chinese investors securing a tour of the White House through the partners, and also showed some of the care Hunter Biden’s partners took not to openly discuss the nepotistic value their firm brought to investors and clients. “Couldn’t confirm this with Hunter on the line but we got him his meeting at the WH Monday for the Chinese folks,” wrote Devon Archer, another Hunter Biden business partner.
Both the Post and Breitbart continued publishing stories based on the various inboxes they had access to, yet there was little pickup outside the right-wing echo chamber — a stark contrast from 2016 when every new WikiLeaks release of emails generated a fresh news cycle. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, however, is now locked up and fighting extradition to the United States, and other news outlets, despite concerted efforts, were not given access to the emails themselves. Bobulinski did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept.
Three phones that Tony Bobulinski, who says he is a former associate of Hunter Biden, displayed as he talks with reporters before the presidential debate on Oct. 22, 2020, in Nashville. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP
On October 16, Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, went on CNN to denounce the Post story. “We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son,” Schiff told Wolf Blitzer. “Clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin, and the president is only too happy to have Kremlin help and try to amplify it.”
That brought a statement from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who said the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence of Russian involvement. Schiff responded that he never meant the Russians had planted that specific Post story but rather that the Kremlin had been smearing Joe and Hunter Biden for a long time.
Bobulinski, still anonymous and frustrated by the Journal’s slow pace and allegations that the story was part of a Russian campaign, decided to issue a public statement October 22, coming forward more than a week after the Post article had been published.
That evening, Bobulinski showed up as Trump’s guest for a staged event ahead of the presidential debate. Shortly after the debate, the Journal news side finally published its article. “The [Bobulinski-Hunter Biden] venture—set up in 2017 after Mr. Biden left the vice presidency and before his presidential campaign—never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter. Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden,” reported the Journal. The notion that it was all part of a Trump circus was cemented. On October 26, the New York Times followed: “There is no evidence in the records that [Joe] Biden was involved in or profited from the joint venture.”
Biden’s defense of both himself and his son has always been sweeping. “My son did nothing wrong,” the former vice president has repeatedly said, though the emails and text messages published by the Post and Breitbart show that, at a minimum, Hunter Biden’s value to overseas investors and clients was his perceived access to and leverage within the White House.
Joe Biden is one of the few people left on the planet willing to claim that Hunter Biden behaved ethically in accepting the Burisma money. Chris Heinz, the stepson of former secretary of state John Kerry, ended his partnership with Hunter over the impropriety of it. In 2015, Amos Hochstein, the Obama administration’s special envoy for energy policy, “raised the matter” with Biden, according to a 2019 report in the New Yorker. “Several former officials in the Obama Administration and at the State Department insisted that Hunter’s role at Burisma had no effect on his father’s policies in Ukraine, but said that, nevertheless, Hunter should not have taken the board seat,” the New Yorker reported. Joe Biden has said he has never discussed his son’s business with him, but Hunter Biden said that there was one exception for Burisma. “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do,’” Hunter Biden told the New Yorker.
Hunter Biden has since left the board, saying the decision to join was an unnecessary distraction and apologizing to his father. “I’m saying sorry to him, and he says, ‘I’m the one who’s sorry,’ and we have an ongoing debate about who should be more sorry. And we both realize that the only true antidote to any of this is winning. He says, ‘Look, it’s going to go away.’ There is truly a higher purpose here, and this will go away. So can you survive the assault?”
Biden’s refusal to condemn his son’s activities can be chalked up to fatherly love of a troubled son. But the most relevant political question has always been whether Joe Biden took any action to benefit his son’s business interests or participated in any deals himself. Biden has said flatly that he has done neither. Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for Biden, referred The Intercept to a statement previously provided to the New York Times: “Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any overseas business whatsoever.” Bobulinski, however, said that while he has no evidence that Joe Biden ultimately profited from a deal with the firm CEFC China Energy — the deal ended up falling apart in the end either way — the former vice president was most certainly involved in the early-stage discussions.
Bobulinski decided to give a long interview to Fox News host Tucker Carlson to make the argument that he had never claimed that Joe Biden ultimately profited from the deal, but that he had showed a willingness to do so, which would undercut Biden’s blanket denials.
In that interview, which came a week before the election, Bobulinski said that he and Hunter Biden had met privately with Joe Biden and his brother James Biden on May 2, 2017, to discuss the potential deal with CEFC.
Bobulinski told Carlson that he decided to come forward after Rep. Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chair, suggested the story was Russian disinformation — though that conflicts with the reporting that Bobulinski had already agreed to come forward to the Journal, but was frustrated by the paper’s reporting pace.
Bobulinski told Carlson he met with Joe Biden in Los Angeles, before the former VP was scheduled to speak at the Milken Institute’s 2017 Global Conference. “They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me more engaged and want to take on the CEO role and develop Sinohawk both in the United States and around the world in partnership with CEFC,” he said.
The Bidens have not denied that such a meeting took place, and Bobulinski has WhatsApp messages that corroborate his story. According to messages Bobulinski has made public, Hunter Biden texted him on the afternoon of May 2, 2017: “Dad not in now until 11-lets me I [sic] and Jim meet at 10 at Beverly Hilton where he’s staying.”
Whether and why Joe Biden was at the meeting remains a legitimate line of journalistic inquiry, even if it isn’t the explosive story Trump thought it was.
Bobulinski said he met Jim and Hunter Biden at the hotel bar, and Joe Biden arrived later. “Hunter and his father and security came through the bar, and obviously I stood up out of respect to shake his hand and Hunter introduced me as, this is Tony, Dad, the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business that we’re working on and the Chinese,” Bobulinski said.
But the conversation did not delve into the deal in any detail, said Bobulinski. “We didn’t go into too much detail on business, because prior to Joe showing up, Hunter and Jim had coached me, listen, we won’t go into too much detail here, so just a high-level discussion and meeting. So it’s not like I was drilling down with Joe about cap tables and details.”
Bobulinski said he remembers the elder Biden telling him: “My son and my brother trust you emphatically, so I trust you. Good luck and work hard.”
That night, Bobulinski sent Jim Biden a message: “Great to meet u and spend some time together, please thank Joe for his time, was great to talk thx Tony b.”
The next morning, Bobulinski said, he was taken backstage at the Milken conference to meet with Joe Biden again, and walked with him to his car. “Keep an eye on my son and brother and look out for my family,” Biden told him, Bobulinski recalled.
On May 13, James Gilliar, a partner in the venture, emailed Bobulinski laying out the distribution of shares of an upcoming firm being created by the partners, with 20 percent listed for Gilliar, 20 percent for Bobulinski, 20 percent for partner Rob Walker, 20 percent for Hunter Biden, 10 percent for Jim Biden, as well as “10 held by H for the big guy?”
The “big guy,” Bobulinski said, was Joe Biden, who Hunter also referred to at times as “my chairman.”
Mainstream media outlets have almost completely ignored Bobulinski’s Carlson interview, despite the fact that the new details he offered exist in tension with the Democratic nominee’s claims never to have considered joining his son in any business deal, and that Bobulinski’s account dovetails with previous reporting by the Times in December 2018:
In early 2017, CEFC agreed to buy one-fifth of Cowen, a New York boutique investment banking firm, for about $100 million, though the deal never received approval in Washington and was abandoned. By 2015, Mr. Ye [Jianming, chair of CEFC] had begun working on perhaps his most politically connected quarry yet: the family of Mr. Biden, the vice president. An aide to Mr. Ye met the vice president’s second son, Hunter Biden, in Washington. Mr. Ye then met privately with Hunter Biden at a hotel in Miami in May 2017, according to people with direct knowledge of the meetings who were not authorized to speak publicly because the meetings were private. Mr. Ye proposed a partnership to invest in American infrastructure and energy deals, the people said.
Gilliar, the partner who sent the May 13 email, has not specifically denied that the “big guy” referred to Biden but told the Wall Street Journal: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at any time of the former Vice President. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”
The Journal said Gilliar did not respond to the question of who “the big guy” was, nor did the other partner Rob Walker. Importantly, a question mark follows Gilliar’s line about Hunter holding 10 for the big guy, opening the possibility that Gilliar was speculating and that neither Hunter Biden nor his father had proposed such an arrangement.
Indeed, on May 19, Hunter sent a message to Bobulinski saying that “both James’ lawyers and my Chairman gave an emphatic NO.”
May 19, 2017, Hunter Biden makes reference to "my Chairman gave an emphatic no" — a source familiar tells #FoxNews when Hunter talks about his Chairman, he is referring to his father Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/jxd0YdTU3T — Mike Emanuel ?? (@MikeEmanuelFox) October 22, 2020
Those intent on believing Biden was indeed involved point to the crew’s desire to keep discussion of it offline. On May 20, according to a message released by Bobulinski, Gilliar had warned him: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.”
Bobulinksi responded: “OK they should be paranoid about things.”
Even though the deal didn’t happen and Joe Biden never profited, there are serious questions that Bobulinski’s interview raises about Biden’s involvement: Did Hunter invite him there to make himself look impressive to Bobulinski without filling Joe Biden in on much of anything? Or did Joe Biden knowingly consent to attend a meeting with Hunter’s business partners?
Carlson promised new revelations in the coming days, but again, the wheels fell off the story. On October 28, last Wednesday, Carlson reported that the only copies of “damning” documents concerning Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had “vanished” en route to Carlson’s office while under the care of an unnamed private mail carrier that turned out to be UPS. On Thursday, the documents had been recovered, but he declined to air the contents, saying he had to more thoroughly review them and that Hunter Biden was a broken man, and there was no need to kick him while he was down. That same day, NBC News reported that a fake intelligence firm had long been circulating elements of the Hunter Biden story that had recently surfaced.
With a suspect dossier coupled with the salacious contents of a laptop seized by the FBI, Trump had performed his latest feat in transmogrifying 2020 back into 2016. But in 2016, there was no coronavirus pandemic, and he was running against Hillary Clinton, not Joe or Hunter Biden.
Had Trump and Giuliani gotten out of their own way and let the Journal run the initial story, the paper might have broken the news of Joe Biden’s meeting with Bobulinski, the CEO of the Hunter Biden firm putting together a deal with a Chinese oil tycoon. It may have been the case that Biden didn’t know why his son wanted him to meet with Bobulinski, but whether and why he was at the meeting remains a legitimate line of journalistic inquiry, even if it isn’t the explosive story Trump thought it was. Had the Journal rather than the Post broken the story, perhaps the media would have been more interested in its legitimate elements: that Joe may have had closer dealings with — or, at minimum, some meaningful knowledge of — Hunter’s business, at least after he left office, than he’s previously claimed. But that isn’t the world we’re in, and the story of the news industry itself may ultimately be the most consequential, as the gatekeepers have reasserted themselves and a large portion of the electorate is losing faith in the media, an audience that the conservative media ecosystem is all too happy to serve.
The story of the news industry itself may ultimately be the most consequential, as the gatekeepers have reasserted themselves and a large portion of the electorate is losing faith in the media.
Our own version of that story played out at The Intercept when co-founder Glenn Greenwald resigned, citing censorship of his take on the affair. His editors, backed up by fellow The Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill in a statement published Sunday, rejected that assertion. “Glenn has alleged that he was censored by the editors of The Intercept. I do not agree with that characterization. From my admittedly limited involvement (at Glenn’s request) with this specific article, it seemed to me that there was a reasonable path to publishing the piece. Glenn clearly disagreed with that and decided to withdraw from that process,” Scahill wrote. “From my perspective, the recent incident with the Biden article that was followed by Glenn’s resignation was part of a much broader conflict and difference of opinion.”
That’s my view, too, and it applies equally to the analysis of the broader media’s handling of the Hunter Biden story. Despite the flaws of those pushing the story and the right-wing media’s exaggeration of its significance, there was a way the media could have handled it responsibly that didn’t mean 24/7 cable segments and splashing it across the front page — the Clinton treatment — but that also didn’t fuel outrage over a “blackout.” As with Greenwald, it’s all part of a much broader conflict, one that just so happened to be brought to a head by Hunter Biden and his hard drive.


theintercept--2020-11-03--Gianforte Win in Montana Will Have Stark Consequences for Workers’ Rights

the nation ’ s only competitive governor ’ s race this election will likely have stark consequences for Montana residents .
Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte pulled off a victory in a competitive race against Democratic Lt. Gov .
Mike Cooney , with 51.4 percent of the vote on Tuesday night to Cooney ’ s 44.9 percent .
Gianforte , who as of 2018 was the richest member of the House , gained fame in his 2017 campaign for Congress when he shoved a reporter covering his campaign .
Republicans currently control the state legislature and are expected to retain control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that the state GOP is planning a comprehensive assault on workers ’ rights as well as to end limits on campaign contributions , to abolish the state ’ s campaign finance regulation board , to mandate ultrasounds prior to abortions , and to freeze state spending .
“ Montana has had 16 years of Democrat Governor ’ s vetoes that have stiffed our business environment , inhibited growth , and frustrated Montanan ’ s liberties , ” the document , entitled “ Montana House Top Priorities , ” reads .
“ Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ input into this draft blueprint for the 2021 session .
It is an evolving draft that provides options for the House Republican Caucus.
” The internal Republican memo , which was first obtained by MTN News , contains over 60 legislative priorities .
Gianforte has been campaigning on vague promises to improve schools , lower taxes , and reduce regulations .
“ Greg believes our education dollars should go to our classrooms , students and teachers , not eaten up by bureaucracy , ” his website reads .
Likewise , Gianforte ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” pledges increased teacher pay .
By contrast , the document shows that state Republicans are planning a large expansion of so-called school choice , including tax credits to attend private and parochial schools as well as tuition grants coming from public education dollars .
The proposed freezing of state spending and property tax cuts means that there would be little left for teacher pay increases .
The document pledges that Republicans will weaken or repeal outright Montana ’ s unique protections for worker rights .
The state is the only one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at-will means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that isn ’ t illegal .
Montana specially requires employers to have a valid cause to terminate an employee after a probationary period , typically six months from date of hire .
The document pledges either to eliminate the requirement or to increase the probationary period to 12 months .
In election law , the GOP draft pledges to expand voter ID rules ; end same-day voter registration ; to eliminate the office of the Commissioner of Political Practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ; and create closed primaries where only voters affiliated with a given political party can vote .
The latter is critical to a goal , set by corporate interests , to rid the state of moderate Republicans who vote against their agenda , which was detailed in the 2018 documentary “ Dark Money.
” ( “ Dark Money ” was co-funded by Topic Studios , which is part of First Look Media , along with The Intercept . )
The Montana House GOP also pledges in the document to end dues collection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative priority for Charles Koch .
While the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME removed mandatory payments to unions for the cost of representation , so-called paycheck deception would hamper unions by forcing them to collect dues themselves instead of allowing employees to deduct it from their paycheck .
Koch Industries has donated $ 500,000 this cycle to the Republican Governors Association , which is spending at least $ 8 million to elect Gianforte .
Similar legislation has passed in Missouri and Iowa , and resulted in significant union member drop-off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevailing wage rules for state construction projects , which would be a major blow to building trade unions in the state .
The Democrat , Lt. Gov .
Mike Cooney , previously served three terms as Montana ’ s elected secretary of state .
While Gianforte outspent Cooney $ 6.4 million to $ 2 million , the Democratic Governors Association and other pro-Cooney outside groups outspent pro-Gianforte groups $ 11 million to $ 8.25 million .
“ We want to hit the ground running , ” state Rep. Derek Skees , who helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
“ We want to capitalize on having a Republican governor .
… We have a lot of work to do , and a lot of us are focused on getting it done .
”

The results of the nation’s only competitive governor’s race this election will likely have stark consequences for Montana residents. Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte pulled off a victory in a competitive race against Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney, with 51.4 percent of the vote on Tuesday night to Cooney’s 44.9 percent. Gianforte, who as of 2018 was the richest member of the House, gained fame in his 2017 campaign for Congress when he shoved a reporter covering his campaign.
Republicans currently control the state legislature and are expected to retain control after the elections. A leaked document shows that the state GOP is planning a comprehensive assault on workers’ rights as well as to end limits on campaign contributions, to abolish the state’s campaign finance regulation board, to mandate ultrasounds prior to abortions, and to freeze state spending.
“Montana has had 16 years of Democrat Governor’s vetoes that have stiffed our business environment, inhibited growth, and frustrated Montanan’s liberties,” the document, entitled “Montana House Top Priorities,” reads. “Many Republicans from across the state have given input into this draft blueprint for the 2021 session. It is an evolving draft that provides options for the House Republican Caucus.” The internal Republican memo, which was first obtained by the Montana Post and subsequently reported by MTN News, contains over 60 legislative priorities.
Gianforte has been campaigning on vague promises to improve schools, lower taxes, and reduce regulations. “Greg believes our education dollars should go to our classrooms, students and teachers, not eaten up by bureaucracy,” his website reads. Likewise, Gianforte’s slightly more detailed “Montana Comeback Plan” pledges increased teacher pay.
By contrast, the document shows that state Republicans are planning a large expansion of so-called school choice, including tax credits to attend private and parochial schools as well as tuition grants coming from public education dollars. The proposed freezing of state spending and property tax cuts means that there would be little left for teacher pay increases.
The document pledges that Republicans will weaken or repeal outright Montana’s unique protections for worker rights. The state is the only one in the nation without default at-will employment; at-will means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that isn’t illegal. Montana specially requires employers to have a valid cause to terminate an employee after a probationary period, typically six months from date of hire. The document pledges either to eliminate the requirement or to increase the probationary period to 12 months.
In election law, the GOP draft pledges to expand voter ID rules; end same-day voter registration; to eliminate the office of the Commissioner of Political Practices, who regulates campaign finances in the state; and create closed primaries where only voters affiliated with a given political party can vote. The latter is critical to a goal, set by corporate interests, to rid the state of moderate Republicans who vote against their agenda, which was detailed in the 2018 documentary “Dark Money.” (“Dark Money” was co-funded by Topic Studios, which is part of First Look Media, along with The Intercept.)
The Montana House GOP also pledges in the document to end dues collection for public sector unions, a top legislative priority for Charles Koch. While the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME removed mandatory payments to unions for the cost of representation, so-called paycheck deception would hamper unions by forcing them to collect dues themselves instead of allowing employees to deduct it from their paycheck. Koch Industries has donated $500,000 this cycle to the Republican Governors Association, which is spending at least $8 million to elect Gianforte. Similar legislation has passed in Missouri and Iowa, and resulted in significant union member drop-off. The document also pledges to end prevailing wage rules for state construction projects, which would be a major blow to building trade unions in the state.
The Democrat, Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney, previously served three terms as Montana’s elected secretary of state. While Gianforte outspent Cooney $6.4 million to $2 million, the Democratic Governors Association and other pro-Cooney outside groups outspent pro-Gianforte groups $11 million to $8.25 million.
“We want to hit the ground running,” state Rep. Derek Skees, who helped to create the document, told MTN News. “We want to capitalize on having a Republican governor. … We have a lot of work to do, and a lot of us are focused on getting it done.”
Update: November 9, 2020
This story has been updated to include that the memo was first reported by The Montana Post.


theintercept--2020-11-03--Julie Oliver, Campaigning on Medicare for All, Loses Texas House Race

, who campaigned heavily on Medicare for All and hoped to flip a suburban Austin district blue , fell about 14 percentage points short as of Tuesday night , with 94 percent of results counted .
Texas ’ s 25th Congressional District was once a Democratic stronghold , but after a contentious Republican-led redistricting process in 2011 , Roger Williams won it in 2013 and has won reelection handily ever since .
Oliver , an attorney with two decades of experience in health care finance , mounted a challenge against Williams in 2018 but came up 8.7 points short .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 by 14.8 points , so Oliver saw the glass half full , especially as suburbs generally have been trending in Democrats ’ favor .
Texas was called for Trump shortly after midnight on Election Day , with the president leading Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by about 6 points , with 93 percent of results counted .
“ Thousands of people chipped in whatever they could afford to this campaign , because they recognize our healthcare system is broken and ensuring that every American has healthcare is a moral and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement Tuesday night .
“ Gerrymandering sucks .
And Texas deserves better.
” Oliver virtually never stopped campaigning after the 2018 election and had hoped that sustained dedicated effort would put her over the edge .
She campaigned on some of her formative personal experiences , like losing her health insurance at 18 , just two months after her daughter was born .
Her son also has preexisting conditions , and when Williams voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 , Oliver said she felt she had to jump in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal , Medicare for All , and an end to mass incarceration .
She beat a DSA-backed candidate running to her left in the primary , and was backed by progressive leaders like Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , and groups like the Sunrise Movement , the Working Families Party , and Indivisible .
The DCCC also added Oliver ’ s race onto its “ red-to-blue ” list at the end of the summer , based on promising internal poll numbers and Oliver ’ s impressive fundraising .
In August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Oliver raised more than $ 250,000 and outraised Williams by 235 percent in the second quarter of the year .
Williams , however , was a well-funded candidate .
He owns a car dealership , and was the ninth-richest member of the House in 2018 .
Williams serves on the powerful House Financial Services Committee and has aligned himself closely with Trump , voting with the president over 94 percent of the time .
When Trump declared a state of emergency to seize funding for his border wall last year , Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement that Trump had “ no option ” but to do so .
Texas has the fastest-growing population in the United States , and the influx of new residents is rapidly changing the state ’ s demographics .
In 2018 , for example , for every one white person who moved to Texas , nearly nine Hispanics arrived .
Voting patterns are also changing : Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s near-successful challenge to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz was the closest Senate race in the state in four decades .
This cycle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobilize his massive campaign list to help elect other Democrats .
In addition to demographic trends that could have boded well for Oliver , Texas Monthly reported that three of the four Texas counties that added the most new voters since 2018 fall partially within Texas ’ s 25th Congressional District .
Oliver had banked on momentum from Biden ’ s run and broader Democratic organizing throughout the state .
Biden endorsed her last month , saying , “ She ’ s overcome poverty , homelessness and raised a son with a preexisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her community , fighting for affordable health care , housing , education , and good jobs in the clean economy .
I ’ m proud to endorse Julie because we need leaders like her fighting for working families in Congress.
” Still , Oliver had run against an incumbent in a gerrymandered district , and turnout was higher for Republicans than it was during the midterms .
The Cook Political Report had projected the race as “ likely Republican , ” although an internal DCCC poll from July had found Oliver behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 43 percent .

Julie Oliver , who campaigned heavily on Medicare for All and hoped to flip a suburban Austin district blue, fell about 14 percentage points short as of Tuesday night, with 94 percent of results counted. Texas’s 25th Congressional District was once a Democratic stronghold, but after a contentious Republican-led redistricting process in 2011, Roger Williams won it in 2013 and has won reelection handily ever since.
Oliver, an attorney with two decades of experience in health care finance, mounted a challenge against Williams in 2018 but came up 8.7 points short. But Donald Trump had won the district in 2016 by 14.8 points, so Oliver saw the glass half full, especially as suburbs generally have been trending in Democrats’ favor. Texas was called for Trump shortly after midnight on Election Day, with the president leading Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by about 6 points, with 93 percent of results counted.
“Thousands of people chipped in whatever they could afford to this campaign, because they recognize our healthcare system is broken and ensuring that every American has healthcare is a moral and economic necessity,” Oliver said in a statement Tuesday night. “Gerrymandering sucks. And Texas deserves better.”
Keep showing up for one another. To the thousands of people that stepped up for this campaign, I love you and I'm proud of you. Learn from tonight, take what you can from the hard lessons, and keep fighting. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. See y'all down the road. pic.twitter.com/vhYonrlZqA — Julie Oliver (@JulieOliverTX) November 4, 2020
Oliver virtually never stopped campaigning after the 2018 election and had hoped that sustained dedicated effort would put her over the edge. She campaigned on some of her formative personal experiences, like losing her health insurance at 18, just two months after her daughter was born. Her son also has preexisting conditions, and when Williams voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, Oliver said she felt she had to jump in the race.
Oliver ran on a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and an end to mass incarceration. She beat a DSA-backed candidate running to her left in the primary, and was backed by progressive leaders like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and groups like the Sunrise Movement, the Working Families Party, and Indivisible. The DCCC also added Oliver’s race onto its “red-to-blue” list at the end of the summer, based on promising internal poll numbers and Oliver’s impressive fundraising. In August, despite not accepting any PAC money, Oliver raised more than $250,000 and outraised Williams by 235 percent in the second quarter of the year.
Williams, however, was a well-funded candidate. He owns a car dealership, and was the ninth-richest member of the House in 2018. Williams serves on the powerful House Financial Services Committee and has aligned himself closely with Trump, voting with the president over 94 percent of the time. When Trump declared a state of emergency to seize funding for his border wall last year, Williams defended the move, insisting in a statement that Trump had “no option” but to do so.
Texas has the fastest-growing population in the United States, and the influx of new residents is rapidly changing the state’s demographics. In 2018, for example, for every one white person who moved to Texas, nearly nine Hispanics arrived. Voting patterns are also changing: Beto O’Rourke’s near-successful challenge to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz was the closest Senate race in the state in four decades. This cycle, O’Rourke has been working to mobilize his massive campaign list to help elect other Democrats.
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
In addition to demographic trends that could have boded well for Oliver, Texas Monthly reported that three of the four Texas counties that added the most new voters since 2018 fall partially within Texas’s 25th Congressional District. Oliver had banked on momentum from Biden’s run and broader Democratic organizing throughout the state. Biden endorsed her last month, saying, “She’s overcome poverty, homelessness and raised a son with a preexisting condition. She’s a champion for her community, fighting for affordable health care, housing, education, and good jobs in the clean economy. I’m proud to endorse Julie because we need leaders like her fighting for working families in Congress.”
Still, Oliver had run against an incumbent in a gerrymandered district, and turnout was higher for Republicans than it was during the midterms. The Cook Political Report had projected the race as “likely Republican,” although an internal DCCC poll from July had found Oliver behind by just 2 points — 45 percent to 43 percent.


theintercept--2020-11-03--Kara Eastman Loses Omaha House Race, but Joe Biden Picks Up Electoral College Vote

social worker and nonprofit leader , lost her second attempt to unseat Republican Rep. Don Bacon in a district Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden carried .
Nebraska ’ s 2nd Congressional District , which covers the Omaha metro area , has its own Electoral College vote , which Biden picked up .
Bacon beat Eastman by just 2 percentage points two years ago .
This time , she lost by just under 4 points .
Eastman got 23,600 more votes than she did last cycle , but it wasn ’ t enough to unseat Bacon , who got an additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee backed Brad Ashford in the primary ; Ashford is a conservative Democrat with a record as an anti-choice state legislator .
After Eastman defeated Ashford in the primary , the DCCC spent relatively little on the general election , backing Eastman with just $ 300,000 toward her race .
This time around , though , the DCCC made substantial investments in Eastman , spending at least $ 2.5 million to elect her .
Eastman made a point this year to go after Bacon for his vote to repeal the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away protections from individuals with preexisting conditions .
Bacon claims he now supports the Affordable Care Act .
“ I am here to fix the system and make it better , ” he claimed in a debate last month .
Bacon , in turn , has tried to paint Eastman as a radical for supporting Medicare for All .
Eastman says she began to see the need for major health care reform after her mother was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 , and her doctor prescribed her a $ 2,500 pill she couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a competitive fundraiser throughout the election , raising $ 3.6 million , next to Bacon ’ s $ 3.4 million .
In addition to the DCCC ’ s support , progressive groups had hoped to help Eastman win the seat with some final-stretch spending .
Justice Democrats launched a $ 350,000 independent expenditure to help elect her , and funded ads across digital platforms , broadcast , and TV in the district .
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Rebellion PAC also teamed up to launch a six-figure independent expenditure , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which spent six figures .
Indivisible , which endorsed Eastman in 2018 , did not endorse this cycle but did send mail on her behalf , and donated $ 5,000 to her campaign .
The Working Families Party endorsed Eastman in October , and spent on ads in concert with MoveOn and Justice Democrats .
Still , Bacon had a money edge overall .
A number of super PACs , including the American Bankers Association , spent more than $ 5 million to defend Bacon , and according to the Center for Responsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastman groups .
This year , Eastman beat Ann Ashford — Brad Ashford ’ s wife — in the Democratic primary .
Earlier this month , Brad Ashford announced he would be endorsing Bacon , a blow to Democrats .
While Ashford praised the incumbent ’ s spirit of bipartisanship , Bacon has voted with Trump more than 92 percent of the time .
Ann Ashford did not make an endorsement .
Biden endorsed Eastman in September , in one of his first rounds of congressional endorsements .
Most polling showed a tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district , and Biden won it while Trump won the state ’ s remaining districts and four Electoral College votes .
A poll released in early October by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC showed Biden had support from 53 percent of likely voters in the district , compared with 42 percent for Trump .
The Cook Political Report ranked the race as a “ Republican toss-up .
”

Kara Eastman, a social worker and nonprofit leader, lost her second attempt to unseat Republican Rep. Don Bacon in a district Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden carried. Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which covers the Omaha metro area, has its own Electoral College vote, which Biden picked up.
Bacon beat Eastman by just 2 percentage points two years ago. This time, she lost by 4.8 points. Eastman got about 25,400 more votes than she did last cycle, but it wasn’t enough to unseat Bacon, who got an additional 30,700 votes.
I want to thank you all for your support. We did not get the result we were hoping for. I want to thank Scott and Sabina, my team, the elected officials who supported me, and the voters of Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District who stood by me. pic.twitter.com/WAHIpgrQ7l — Kara Eastman (@_karaeastman) November 4, 2020
In 2018, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee backed Brad Ashford in the primary; Ashford is a conservative Democrat with a record as an anti-choice state legislator. After Eastman defeated Ashford in the primary, the DCCC spent relatively little on the general election, backing Eastman with just $300,000 toward her race. This time around, though, the DCCC made substantial investments in Eastman, spending at least $2.5 million to elect her.
Eastman made a point this year to go after Bacon for his vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and to take away protections from individuals with preexisting conditions. Bacon claims he now supports the Affordable Care Act. “I am here to fix the system and make it better,” he claimed in a debate last month. Bacon, in turn, has tried to paint Eastman as a radical for supporting Medicare for All. Eastman says she began to see the need for major health care reform after her mother was diagnosed with cancer in 2016, and her doctor prescribed her a $2,500 pill she couldn’t afford to get.
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
Eastman was a competitive fundraiser throughout the election, raising $3.6 million, next to Bacon’s $3.4 million. In addition to the DCCC’s support, progressive groups had hoped to help Eastman win the seat with some final-stretch spending. Justice Democrats launched a $350,000 independent expenditure to help elect her, and funded ads across digital platforms, broadcast, and TV in the district. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Rebellion PAC also teamed up to launch a six-figure independent expenditure, as did the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, which spent six figures.
Indivisible, which endorsed Eastman in 2018, did not endorse this cycle but did send mail on her behalf, and donated $5,000 to her campaign. The Working Families Party endorsed Eastman in October, and spent on ads in concert with MoveOn and Justice Democrats.
Still, Bacon had a money edge overall. A number of super PACs, including the American Bankers Association, spent more than $5 million to defend Bacon, and according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outside groups backing Bacon outspent Eastman groups.
This year, Eastman beat Ann Ashford — Brad Ashford’s wife — in the Democratic primary. Earlier this month, Brad Ashford announced he would be endorsing Bacon, a blow to Democrats. While Ashford praised the incumbent’s spirit of bipartisanship, Bacon has voted with Trump more than 92 percent of the time. Ann Ashford did not make an endorsement.
Biden endorsed Eastman in September, in one of his first rounds of congressional endorsements. Most polling showed a tight race between Biden and Trump in the district, and Biden won it while Trump won the state’s remaining districts and four Electoral College votes. A poll released in early October by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC showed Biden had support from 53 percent of likely voters in the district, compared with 42 percent for Trump. The Cook Political Report ranked the race as a “Republican toss-up.”
Update: Nov. 9, 2020
This article has been updated with the final results of the race.


theintercept--2020-11-03--Mike Siegel’s Ambitious Progressive Platform Falls Short in Deep-Red Texas

a progressive-populist civil rights attorney who hoped to flip the solidly red Houston-area district in Texas , came in 25,000 votes short as of Tuesday night .
Siegel had been hoping to unseat Rep. Michael McCaul , a wealthy Republican congressman who helped author President Donald Trump ’ s “ Muslim ban ” policy .
Siegel came within 4.3 percentage points of defeating McCaul during his first run for Congress in 2018 , outperforming the expectations of many political observers .
This cycle , he failed to match his 2018 performance , coming in almost 7 points behind McCaul on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s results , we showed that deep in the heart of Texas , a progressive movement is rising , ” Siegel said in a statement .
“ It has been an honor to work with the diverse coalition that powered our campaign and helped mobilize over 178,000 Texans to the polls in support of our vision for change.
” The Bernie Sanders-backed Democrat reported raising more than $ 1 million in the third quarter and has earned support from national progressive groups , local labor unions , and even the Democratic Congressional Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas ’ s 10th Congressional District since 2005 and is the fourth richest member of Congress , raised $ 870,000 and had about $ 1.1 million cash on hand .
( He did not contribute to his own campaign . )
McCaul draws part of his $ 113 million wealth through “ alleged predatory landlord practices ” that hurt small businesses mostly owned by people of color , the American Prospect revealed .
Demographic changes across the state have created a much more competitive political landscape , starting last cycle when the shifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to announce retirement .
As Texas drifts more Democratic , Siegel was one of several other candidates , like Candace Valenzuela and Julie Oliver , who hoped to flip a historically red district while running on a more ambitious platform than the one that Democrats usually run in these races .
The 42-year-old civil rights attorney , who began his career teaching third grade as a Teach for America corps member , has represented labor unions , immigrant families , and low-income renters .
Siegel supports Medicare for All , a Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure “ housing for all ” and strengthen the organized labor movement .
Throughout the campaign , Siegel had been attacked as a “ socialist ” from the right .
The son of activists , Siegel ran as a Democrat and not a socialist , but has said he is a “ proud red diaper baby.
” Internal polling from Siegel ’ s campaign had found the two candidates heading into the final stretch of the race statistically tied .
To fend off Siegel ’ s challenge , McCaul launched a million-dollar-plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , leading with an attack against his Democratic opponent .
The Congressional Leadership Fund , a Super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the House , also threw in more than $ 144,000 into the race , according to Open Secrets .
In the attack ad , which features an anti-Black Lives Matter cop , McCaul ’ s campaign went after Siegel for supporting criminal justice reform policies like defunding the police and ending contracts for private prisons .
“ It ’ s extreme , it ’ s dangerous , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Republican Constable Joe Trimm Jr. says in the 30-second ad .
“ Take it from me , Mike Siegel is a threat to your family.
” Siegel immediately called on McCaul to take down the ad , The Intercept previously reported , saying that the ad “ and McCaul ’ s choice to platform a public , certifiable racist is very dangerous.
” Though Siegel zeroed in on health care and environmental issues , he also focused on criminal justice reform and racial justice issues .
He hammered McCaul on his history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in putting together the Muslim ban policy that Trump first promised as a candidate in 2015 to his efforts to ramp up America ’ s disastrous war on drugs .
Notably , McCaul was deeply complicit in the biggest law enforcement scandal in Texas history , as a deputy attorney general under Attorney General John Cornyn , who won reelection as the Senate ’ s No .
2 Republican on Tuesday .
In 1999 , more than 10 percent of the Black population of Tulia , Texas , was handcuffed and arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of television crews and wrongfully charged with dealing cocaine .
Many of them served years in prison for a crime it is now widely understood they did not commit .
Forty-six people , almost all of them Black , were arrested on fabricated drug charges that were entirely based on the testimony of one police officer .
“ As the state ’ s leading prosecutors , Cornyn and McCaul had unique latitude in opening an investigation , taking over the case , and overturning the convictions in Tulia , ” the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentionally delayed action and sat on the sidelines for years.
” Siegel has criticized the Republican lawmaker for delaying justice for these innocent individuals , while they were “ languishing in prison , facing severe personal , economic , and family costs.
” Now , 20 years later , Siegel said , he “ is still propping up white supremacists .
”

Mike Siegel, a progressive-populist civil rights attorney who hoped to flip the solidly red Houston-area district in Texas, came in 25,000 votes short as of Tuesday night. Siegel had been hoping to unseat Rep. Michael McCaul, a wealthy Republican congressman who helped author President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” policy.
Siegel came within 4.3 percentage points of defeating McCaul during his first run for Congress in 2018, outperforming the expectations of many political observers. This cycle, he failed to match his 2018 performance, coming in almost 7 points behind McCaul on Tuesday.
“Regardless of tonight’s results, we showed that deep in the heart of Texas, a progressive movement is rising,” Siegel said in a statement. “It has been an honor to work with the diverse coalition that powered our campaign and helped mobilize over 178,000 Texans to the polls in support of our vision for change.”
The Bernie Sanders-backed Democrat reported raising more than $1 million in the third quarter and has earned support from national progressive groups, local labor unions, and even the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. McCaul, who has represented Texas’s 10th Congressional District since 2005 and is the fourth richest member of Congress, raised $870,000 and had about $1.1 million cash on hand. (He did not contribute to his own campaign.) McCaul draws part of his $113 million wealth through “alleged predatory landlord practices” that hurt small businesses mostly owned by people of color, the American Prospect revealed.
Demographic changes across the state have created a much more competitive political landscape, starting last cycle when the shifts eventually pushed six GOP members of Congress to announce retirement. As Texas drifts more Democratic, Siegel was one of several other candidates, like Candace Valenzuela and Julie Oliver, who hoped to flip a historically red district while running on a more ambitious platform than the one that Democrats usually run in these races.
The 42-year-old civil rights attorney, who began his career teaching third grade as a Teach for America corps member, has represented labor unions, immigrant families, and low-income renters. Siegel supports Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and a range of policies to ensure “housing for all” and strengthen the organized labor movement. Throughout the campaign, Siegel had been attacked as a “socialist” from the right. The son of activists, Siegel ran as a Democrat and not a socialist, but has said he is a “proud red diaper baby.”
Internal polling from Siegel’s campaign had found the two candidates heading into the final stretch of the race statistically tied. To fend off Siegel’s challenge, McCaul launched a million-dollar-plus TV and digital ad buy early last month, leading with an attack against his Democratic opponent. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the House, also threw in more than $144,000 into the race, according to Open Secrets.
In the attack ad, which features an anti-Black Lives Matter cop, McCaul’s campaign went after Siegel for supporting criminal justice reform policies like defunding the police and ending contracts for private prisons. “It’s extreme, it’s dangerous, and it’s all true,” Waller County Republican Constable Joe Trimm Jr. says in the 30-second ad. “Take it from me, Mike Siegel is a threat to your family.”
Siegel immediately called on McCaul to take down the ad, The Intercept previously reported, saying that the ad “and McCaul’s choice to platform a public, certifiable racist is very dangerous.”
Though Siegel zeroed in on health care and environmental issues, he also focused on criminal justice reform and racial justice issues. He hammered McCaul on his history of pushing racist policies, from his role in putting together the Muslim ban policy that Trump first promised as a candidate in 2015 to his efforts to ramp up America’s disastrous war on drugs. Notably, McCaul was deeply complicit in the biggest law enforcement scandal in Texas history, as a deputy attorney general under Attorney General John Cornyn, who won reelection as the Senate’s No. 2 Republican on Tuesday.
In 1999, more than 10 percent of the Black population of Tulia, Texas, was handcuffed and arrested, pulled out of their homes in front of television crews and wrongfully charged with dealing cocaine. Many of them served years in prison for a crime it is now widely understood they did not commit. Forty-six people, almost all of them Black, were arrested on fabricated drug charges that were entirely based on the testimony of one police officer.
“As the state’s leading prosecutors, Cornyn and McCaul had unique latitude in opening an investigation, taking over the case, and overturning the convictions in Tulia,” the Texas Signal wrote. “Instead, they intentionally delayed action and sat on the sidelines for years.”
Siegel has criticized the Republican lawmaker for delaying justice for these innocent individuals, while they were “languishing in prison, facing severe personal, economic, and family costs.” Now, 20 years later, Siegel said, he “is still propping up white supremacists.”


theintercept--2020-11-03--J.D. Scholten, a Progressive Who Almost Unseated Steve King, Concedes in Iowa Race

the progressive populist who nearly defeated Steve King two years ago in Iowa ’ s ruby-red 4th Congressional District , conceded to Republican state Sen. Randy Feenstra .
As of Tuesday night , Scholten came in almost 30 points behind his opponent , who unseated King , a nine-term incumbent and white nationalist who had been censured by his colleagues in the House and stripped of his committee assignments , in the primary .
After King ’ s loss , analysts like the Cook Political Report downgraded the district from “ tilt Republican ” to “ solid Republican.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which encouraged Scholten to run against King a second time , to deprioritize the race .
“ Building trust takes time and standing up to the status quo and establishment is no easy feat , ” Scholten said on Tuesday night in a statement .
Scholten had been laser-focused on the issues that led to his unexpected success in 2018 : Working toward universal health care , breaking up corporate monopolies , and enacting campaign finance reform .
He continued to dramatically outraise his opponent through mostly small-dollar donations .
He raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Federal Election Commission filings , compared with Feenstra ’ s $ 456,869 .
And a recent poll from Monmouth University had previously found Scholten closing the gap , with his GOP opponent , who ’ s backed by President Donald Trump , holding a 48 percent to 42 percent lead among registered voters .
Scholten also ran an entirely grassroots campaign that prioritized meeting and listening to voters , wrapping up a 374-town tour ( that adhered to social distancing guidelines ) across the sprawling rural district in late October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether .
The state senator , who has corporate donors and is just as anti-immigrant and pro-Trump as King is , hadn ’ t made as many public appearances as Scholten and only debated him once .
Trump won the district by about 27 points in 2016 .
In July , Scholten officially rejected the possibility of receiving any help from the DCCC , as The Intercept previously reported , saying that he doesn ’ t need their support to win and that he will continue to run the campaign his way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects who I am and my vision for this district , ” Scholten said in a statement announcing the decision .
“ We won ’ t be beholden to special interests or the DCCC ; instead , we ’ re reaching out to folks across the political spectrum to earn votes.
” As a first-time candidate , Scholten came within 3 percentage points of beating King and built a remarkable base of support in the process .
He outperformed nearly 40 percent of the candidates in the DCCC ’ s “ Red-to-Blue ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a promising chance to flip .
He almost didn ’ t run for the seat again , at one point openly weighing a run for the Senate seat currently held by Joni Ernst .
But DCCC head Rep. Cheri Bustos “ begged ” him to run against King a second time , he said , and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer helped clear the field for Theresa Greenfield , who ’ s now the Democratic Senate nominee .
“ The way the DCCC ’ s system is , candidates like me , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Scholten said over the summer .
“ If I could self-fund , they ’ d be all over me .
I mean , the organizing and just the grassroots organization , we created something that ’ s so authentic and so organic that I don ’ t think they know how to deal with something like that .
We need more working-class people in D.C. , and their system is not made for that .
”

J.D. Scholten, the progressive populist who nearly defeated Steve King two years ago in Iowa’s ruby-red 4th Congressional District, conceded to Republican state Sen. Randy Feenstra. As of Tuesday night, Scholten came in almost 30 points behind his opponent, who unseated King, a nine-term incumbent and white nationalist who had been censured by his colleagues in the House and stripped of his committee assignments, in the primary.
After King’s loss, analysts like the Cook Political Report downgraded the district from “tilt Republican” to “solid Republican.” This also led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which encouraged Scholten to run against King a second time, to deprioritize the race.
“Building trust takes time and standing up to the status quo and establishment is no easy feat,” Scholten said on Tuesday night in a statement.
Scholten had been laser-focused on the issues that led to his unexpected success in 2018: Working toward universal health care, breaking up corporate monopolies, and enacting campaign finance reform. He continued to dramatically outraise his opponent through mostly small-dollar donations. He raised $815,637 in the third quarter alone, according to Federal Election Commission filings, compared with Feenstra’s $456,869. And a recent poll from Monmouth University had previously found Scholten closing the gap, with his GOP opponent, who’s backed by President Donald Trump, holding a 48 percent to 42 percent lead among registered voters.
Scholten also ran an entirely grassroots campaign that prioritized meeting and listening to voters, wrapping up a 374-town tour (that adhered to social distancing guidelines) across the sprawling rural district in late October. Feenstra, meanwhile, avoided voters altogether. The state senator, who has corporate donors and is just as anti-immigrant and pro-Trump as King is, hadn’t made as many public appearances as Scholten and only debated him once. Trump won the district by about 27 points in 2016.
In July, Scholten officially rejected the possibility of receiving any help from the DCCC, as The Intercept previously reported, saying that he doesn’t need their support to win and that he will continue to run the campaign his way. “We have an authentic campaign that reflects who I am and my vision for this district,” Scholten said in a statement announcing the decision. “We won’t be beholden to special interests or the DCCC; instead, we’re reaching out to folks across the political spectrum to earn votes.”
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
As a first-time candidate, Scholten came within 3 percentage points of beating King and built a remarkable base of support in the process. He outperformed nearly 40 percent of the candidates in the DCCC’s “Red-to-Blue” program, which targets seats that have a promising chance to flip. He almost didn’t run for the seat again, at one point openly weighing a run for the Senate seat currently held by Joni Ernst. But DCCC head Rep. Cheri Bustos “begged” him to run against King a second time, he said, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer helped clear the field for Theresa Greenfield, who’s now the Democratic Senate nominee.
“The way the DCCC’s system is, candidates like me, they don’t really care much about,” Scholten said over the summer. “If I could self-fund, they’d be all over me. I mean, the organizing and just the grassroots organization, we created something that’s so authentic and so organic that I don’t think they know how to deal with something like that. We need more working-class people in D.C., and their system is not made for that.”