Month: October 2019

Sen. Amy Klobuchar once supported a majority of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the federal judiciary. But this year, the Minnesota Democrat’s backing of them plummeted.

Klobuchar isn’t alone. Every senator running for president has voted far less often for Trump’s judges this year compared with the previous Congress.

Trump’s focus on the federal judiciary has put the issue front and center on the 2020 stage, giving senators vying for the Oval Office another opportunity to please the liberal grassroots and potentially push others in the caucus to resist the president and the GOP’s agenda.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have rejected every Trump judge since this Congress began. Klobuchar, who drew fire from progressives for previously supporting 64 percent of the Trump nominees, supported only 3 percent, according to data provided exclusively by the liberal judicial group Demand Justice.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California supported 6 percent of judges she voted on this Congress, compared with 51 percent previously; Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey voted for 49 percent of Trump’s nominees last Congress and 11 percent this year.

“You could ask me about each [nominee] and each one has something wrong with their record,” Gillibrand said. “They’re either unqualified or they have views that are so disproportionately outside the norm that I couldn’t support them.”

Of the 2020 candidates, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado voted for Trump judges the most, at 31 percent this Congress, but still down from 67 percent the previous Congress.

But it’s not just 2020 Democrats. Growing opposition to Trump judges is part of a broader trend within the Senate Democratic Caucus, according to Demand Justice’s data.

Democrats on average are voting far less often for Trump judges. That’s in part because of a pressure campaign from progressive groups like Demand Justice, as well as fewer deals between Republican and Democratic leaders to confirm whole batches of judges on voice votes. Democrats have also blamed the White House for their choice in nominees.

“Senator Warren holds every nominee to the high standard appropriate for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary,” said Ashley Woolheater, a spokesperson for Warren. “Unfortunately, this administration and Senate Republicans do not.”

Procedural changes are also a factor; Republicans partially discarded a long-standing policy that gave Democrats more say over home-state judicial nominees, leading to more partisan appointments. Both Gillibrand and Harris cited that as a key reason for their opposition to Trump judicial nominees. And with a recent rules change to speed up confirmations, Democrats have more opportunity to vote down partisan picks.

"This is pretty basic — every single Democratic Senator’s support for judicial nominees dropped significantly when the Republicans forced through a rule change to further limit debate on judicial nominees," said a Klobuchar spokesperson in a statement. "As ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Klobuchar led the fight against this raw Republican exercise of power and was particularly and fervently opposed."

Demand Justice tallied its data by calculating Democrats’ key procedural votes that advanced judicial nominees to a full vote, using public information. If a senator wasn’t present for the procedural vote, the group counted the final vote.

Democrats’ refusal to support Trump’s judges comes as the future of the federal judiciary has emerged as a key campaign issue. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have made confirming judicial nominees a top priority, with the president’s team hoping that confirming conservative judges galvanizes his base. Meanwhile, some Democratic presidential contenders are pledging to expand the Supreme Court in a bid to reverse its rightward shift and take back the high court seat that Republicans denied President Barack Obama.

“I think if you’re running for president in a Democratic primary and more and more progressives are raising concerns about what happens to the courts under Trump, it stands to reason that you’d take a more skeptical approach to Trump judges,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice.

Democrats’ consistent opposition to the White House’s judicial nominees typically doesn’t affect confirmation. The judges need only a majority to get confirmed and rarely lack support in the Republican-controlled Senate. But their opposition has prompted criticism from Republicans and conservative groups, who say Democrats are merely playing politics.

“They’ve lost their minds,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It’s just reflexive so I don’t think it’s any reflection on the nominees in particular. They’re just opposed to anything and everything the president is for.”

The topic of the federal judiciary even came up in the first Democratic debate in June. Booker pledged that he would appoint judges who would enforce antitrust law, while Julián Castro and Sanders vowed to nominate only judges who upheld Roe v. Wade. Sanders added that he believed that “constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts,” which he said “brings in new blood into the Supreme Court.”

Click Here: COLLINGWOOD MAGPIES 2019

Both conservative and liberal judicial groups are planning to capitalize on the issue during the 2020 campaign cycle. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network spent $1.1 million on national ad buys intended to pressure former Vice President Joe Biden and other 2020 candidates to release a list of who they would appoint to the Supreme Court, citing Trump’s decision to release a list during his 2016 campaign.

The liberal Alliance for Justice, meanwhile, has launched a recruitment effort to identify potential nominees. Demand Justice is preparing a list of qualifications of judicial nominees the group would like to see implemented, in addition to its “report cards” on the nominees.

“Our intention is not that any candidate will adopt the list as their own,” Fallon said. “Our point is to make a statement about the types of nominees that we think should be prioritized by the next Democratic president."

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the lawsuit he is co-leading with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey over the Trump administration’s plan to detain immigrant children indefinitely.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration over its plan to pull out of a decades-old court settlement that governs the care of migrant children in federal detention.

The federal government has abided by a court agreement known as the Flores settlement since 1997. It says migrant children should be detained in the least-restrictive setting possible and only for about 20 days. Last week, the Trump administration announced it will soon allow children detained with their families to be detained indefinitely.

The states, led by California and Massachusetts, argue that the government is already failing to provide detained children with safe and sanitary conditions. (Earlier this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that detained children should receive adequate food, clean water and basic hygiene.) Their suit also says the government plan will have a negative long-term impact on the detained children if they are held indefinitely.

“This new Trump rule callously puts at risk the safety and well-being of children,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “No child deserves to be left in conditions inappropriate and harmful for their age. We’re taking the Trump Administration to court to protect children from the irreparable harm caused by unlawful and unnecessary detention.”

The states also say the administration’s plan will result in an expansion of family detention centers that are not licensed by the states. The administration says it will set its own standards for care — in effect, licensing itself.

“With this rule, the Trump Administration is paving the way for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to imprison innocent children for indefinite periods of time and is attempting to take away the ability of states to stop them,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.

Becerra and Healey are Democrats.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Volunteers clear an alley strewn with trash near Fulton Avenue in Baltimore on Aug. 5. Another group was in the city Thursday doing similar cleanup.

Volunteer sanitation crews from Florida and New York descended on Baltimore on Thursday to help remove trash and other debris from a city that President Trump has referred to as an “infested mess” and a place that “no human being would want to live.”

The cleanup squad’s arrival comes weeks after a presidential tweetstorm and a feud with one of the most high-profile African Americans in Congress. That back-and-forth also cast a spotlight on the grime and blight that has plagued some sections of Baltimore for years.

In an interview with the The Baltimore Sun, John Rourke, a retired Army veteran, said he was shocked by the litter he saw in news footage of Baltimore. He told the paper he was called to do something about it.

“It looked worse than Iraq, and I was there for a year. It was worse than Mosul,” Rourke told the Sun reporter. “You can’t get out of a bad situation if you don’t have people to help. Government money can only do so much.”

According to his LinkedIn page, Rourke is the CEO of All American Sanitation, a business based in Jupiter, Fla.

He also told the Sun that his motivation for making the trek from Florida to Maryland’s most populous city was not political.

“I’m a garbageman, and there’s a garbage problem. That’s a problem that we can fix,” he told the Sun.

Thursday’s cleanup comes on the heels of another effort that was inspired by Trump’s tweets. Earlier this month, a Northern Virginia conservative activist Scott Presler created a social media campaign to beautify Baltimore.

He tweeted on Aug. 5: “Imagine if we picked up trash in every city across America.” The tweet was accompanied with a video showing volunteers cleaning up an alleyway in West Baltimore. He said more than 170 volunteered picked up “12 tons of trash.”

NPR could not independently verify that amount.

A day later, Presler tweeted at Trump, saying that a local woman named Louise, wanted him to thank the president for “bringing attention to Baltimore.”

Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys

Ashley Van Stone, who works on environmental policies to prevent trash pollution at Trash Free Maryland, told NPR, the recent politicization of Baltimore’s litter problems is not all negative.

“Any help that is provided to help Baltimore City of the trash that’s polluting these neighborhoods is beneficial, because that garbage shouldn’t be there and it needs to be removed,” Van Stone said.

She adds there needs to be a sustained solution and that periodic cleanup efforts will not solve the broader problem.

She points to issues of food insecurity in many Baltimore neighborhoods and says some areas of the city are not equipped to “capture” what might be a disproportionate amount of food packaging waste.

“It’s not just an environmental issue,” Van Stone said. “It’s looking at the social challenges and the economic challenges of a community [that] are contributing to our broader waste problems.”

There is also an issue of illegal dumping in Baltimore.

According to a report by the city’s Department of Public Works from December, officials called it a “persistent issue” with an estimated 10,000 tons of waste being dumped in the city annually.

The national attention on Baltimore began on July 27 with a presidential tweetstorm and subsequent comments by Trump from the White House, which played out over the subsequent days.

In those tweets, Trump referred to Cummings as a “brutal bully” and said his district, which includes a large section of Baltimore city, was “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.” Trump also suggested, without providing evidence, that federal funds going to the district were being stolen by local officials.

These statements were found by many to be racist.

At least one person in the Trump administration, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, defended the president’s remarks when he likened Baltimore’s economic woes to someone with cancer.

Cummings, whose district is majority black, is the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. In that role, he has led congressional investigations into the administration’s treatment of migrants in detention centers along the Southern border.

In emotional remarks delivered last week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Cummings urged the president to visit his Baltimore district.

“You know what, I want President Trump to come to my district,” the Maryland Democrat said. “God, I want him to come, so bad.”

Trump has said he will visit Baltimore “at the right time.”

Bernie Sanders — who swore off big-money fundraisers and criticized Hillary Clinton’s fundraising as “obscene” during the 2016 campaign — is changing his approach as the scramble for Democratic campaign cash heats up.

The Vermont senator has decided to hold in-person fundraising events where donors of all means will be invited and the media will be allowed. He has also hired a fundraiser to oversee the effort, a position he did not have in his 2016 bid.

The moves, described by campaign sources to POLITICO, amount to an acknowledgment by Sanders that his online-only approach to raising money was leaving significant amounts of money on the table. That cash could be decisive in a primary with nearly two dozen candidates competing fiercely for money: Sanders’ top rival, Democratic front-runner Joe Biden, is raking in huge sums from major Democratic donors in the early weeks of the race with a slew of fundraisers.

The altered strategy is a sign that Sanders is running a different kind of campaign in 2020, shedding some of his resistance to a side of politics he’s instinctively repelled by.

Still, this is far from a full embrace of big money by the candidate who loved to boast that his average donation in 2016 was $27. His campaign has dubbed the events he plans to hold “grassroots fundraisers.” They’re expected to have a relatively low ticket price, but larger donors will be able to attend and could potentially get face time with the candidate.

The Sanders campaign did not answer further questions about the events, such as how much tickets would typically cost.

“These open-press events are opportunities for engaging with our supporters on the ground and grassroots organizing,” said Arianna Jones, Sanders’ communications director. “Anything supporters decide to give beyond the ticket price, while appreciated, is up to them.”

Running the campaign’s new fundraising arm will be Malea Stenzel Gilligan, the former senior director of governance for the National Wildlife Federation and past executive director of the progressive political organization VoteVets. Her title on the campaign is director of development. The campaign did not say how many additional finance hires, if any, it plans to make.

Gilligan will be charged with growing Sanders’ presence among donors from an online-only operation that powered his 2016 bid into a somewhat more traditional fundraising apparatus that includes face-to-face events. Sanders raised $238 million in 2016, while organizing few fundraisers — a feat that set him apart from Clinton, whose long ties to the Democratic establishment raised her millions of dollars but became a political liability.

Sanders raked in $18 million during the first three months of this year, more than any other declared candidate at the time. But the massive size of the 2020 field is breeding intense competition for campaign dollars big and small, making it necessary for all the candidates, even a fundraising star like Sanders, to try everything, said Taryn Rosenkranz, founder and CEO of the digital firm New Blue Interactive.

“Fundraising and in-person events are how people get to know you better,” said Rosenkranz. “With a crowded field like this, candidates are going to have to do both digital and in-person fundraising: People want to know you, they want to meet you. It’s an additional thrill for them.”

The Sanders campaign appears to be trying to both collect money in new ways, and push its online donors for more cash as it tries to keep up in the escalating 2020 money war. Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, said in a recent email to small-dollar donors that the average contribution so far this month was only $16 — not the typical $27 — and pushed them to give more.

"Our average contribution has been steadily in decline," he wrote, encouraging supporters to chip in an extra $10. "Here’s why this is a hurdle for our campaign: For each $2,800 max-out check one of our opponents receives from a wealthy campaign contributor, we must receive 175 donations to keep up."

As they vie to engage voters thirsty for campaign finance reform — while still raising large sums of money — candidates are providing more transparency around their fundraisers. They’re experimenting with everything from live-streaming otherwise private parties to holding “grassroots” events, which the Sanders campaign is now embracing.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced in February she was swearing off closed-door fundraisers, but left open the possibility of in-person events with fees. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttegieg also holds such fundraisers with a lower ticket price in addition to big-donor events. It’s an approach that Barack Obama used at the start of his 2008 run, as he tried to convert the energy at his in-person events into fundraising success by asking crowds to donate money.

“It’s a smart way to have some face time with people and feel like you’re getting something out of it,” said Ami Copeland, deputy national finance director for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Sanders will continue his pledge to reject money from corporations, pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street. But there are other unanswered questions about how Sanders is structuring his new fundraising approach, like whether bigger donors might get extra attention from Sanders or his staff, or other added perks. Earlier this year, Warren also vowed to not give wealthy donors any special access to her during the primary.

Copeland said there’s no reason to think Sanders will start selling access to Wall Street types, "but does someone who gives $250 or $2,000 — do they get anything different from someone who gets $25?” Copeland said. “Who knows, maybe they’ll get a free pint of Ben & Jerry’s or something.”

While most candidates have a dedicated finance team to help them court donors and throw fundraisers, Sanders rejected having such a staff in 2016. He held a small number of fundraising events, including a concert headlined by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a meet-and-greet at a Chicago theater.

At the time, a handful of wealthy progressive donors eager to support Sanders complained he was stiff-arming them, and some in the Sanders campaign pushed him to hire a finance director. He never did.

“We left millions on the table,” said one 2016 Sanders aide.

Sanders had relatively few well-heeled backers compared with Clinton, but a handful of Hollywood and business donors did give him money. He collected $5,400 from television host Bill Maher; $5,000 from actor Shia LaBeouf; $5,000 from Jake Burton Carpenter, founder of Burton snowboard company; $2,700 from studio executive David Geffen; $2,700 from actress Susan Sarandon; and $2,700 from Bay Area attorney and Democratic donor Guy Saperstein.

“I would be happy to do something for Bernie,” Saperstein said in a recent interview. “I‘m going to support both [Sanders and Warren] as much as I can and we’ll see which one does better in the initial primaries.”

Click Here: Real bape hoodie

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is conducting multiple investigations into issues that he and others say could be impeachable offenses for President Trump.

Updated at 5:30 p.m. ET

Signaling a widening gap between Democratic leadership and the House Judiciary Committee, the panel will vote this week on whether to install new procedures for its impeachment inquiry and illustrate its intensifying efforts in the probe.

The move — which will culminate in a vote before the committee on Thursday — will allow staff to question witnesses for extended periods and let the panel accept evidence behind closed doors to further protect sources, among other changes.

It also shows the growing divide between progressives pushing for impeachment and moderate Democrats in the House and their leadership, which is largely opposed to any formal action now. Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s public comments supporting the panel’s investigation, privately she has told members that the issue is a loser without strong public sentiment.

On Monday, Pelosi downplayed the move, saying the committee’s investigation has been ongoing for “a very long time,” and expressed support. She also said other legislation is a top priority, such as approving new gun restrictions.

“We are legislating. We’re investigating as we have been, and we are litigating. We are taking our information to court,” Pelosi said. “That’s the path that we are on, and that’s the path we’ll continue to be on.”

Pelosi said she wasn’t familiar with comments by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y, that the panel was in the midst of formal impeachment proceedings. However, she said that the committee has her support and that it is executing the party’s demands.

“It’s not a question of signing off on what they have done. It’s a question of what we are doing, that they are implementing, and that’s a logical thing for a committee to establish a procedure,” she said.

Earlier Monday, a Pelosi aide also reiterated that the speaker supported Nadler’s investigation and resolution. Also earlier, a Democrat on the committee said she was in support and defended the procedures move.

“I think Speaker Pelosi respects Chairman Nadler’s work in the committee, and I think … for her, the most important thing is for us to have the strongest hand possible against this president, and the American public to have the whole truth,” Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a member of the panel, told CNN on Monday. “So this is just another procedural vote as we continue to intensify our investigation.”

The procedures change has precedent from previous impeachment probes and will more clearly define where the committee stands on its investigation, Democratic committee aides said in a call with reporters Monday.

It also tees up a busy fall season for the panel, which could issue articles of impeachment by year’s end, according to Nadler and committee aides.

Among the plans, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is slated to appear before the committee on Tuesday, Sept. 17. Rob Porter, the former White House staff secretary, and Rick Dearborn, a former White House deputy chief of staff, were subpoenaed to appear before the same hearing.

Nadler said in a statement Monday that Trump went to great lengths to obstruct former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which resulted in 37 criminal indictments and seven guilty pleas. It also revealed 10 possible instances in which Trump obstructed justice, Nadler said.

There are additional questions of violations of the emoluments clauses of the Constitution, Nadler added.

“No one is above the law. The unprecedented corruption, coverup, and crimes by the President are under investigation by the Committee as we determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment or other Article 1 remedies,” Nadler said in a statement. “The adoption of these additional procedures is the next step in that process and will help ensure our impeachment hearings are informative to Congress and the public, while providing the President with the ability to respond to evidence presented against him. We will not allow Trump’s continued obstruction to stop us from delivering the truth to the American people.”

Committee members learned the news of the plan in a Friday afternoon phone call. By Monday morning, the committee had released a resolution detailing the new procedures for the Thursday vote.

The resolution says the panel will allow Nadler to designate which hearings are linked to the impeachment probe and allow committee counsel to question witnesses for an additional hour, with 30 minutes divided between Republicans and Democrats. That goes beyond the five minutes allotted to each lawmaker Monday.

In addition, the panel will be able to accept evidence in closed meetings, and Trump’s team can respond in writing to evidence and testimony presented to the committee.

“The committee has taken the next step in its investigation of whether to approve articles of impeachment against President Trump,” said a Democratic aide to the committee during Monday’s call. “It was a busy recess for us. … It’s going to be a busy fall.”

For example, there could be hearings covering “startling” new evidence regarding potential violations of the emoluments clause that prohibits self-enrichment, such as a move by Trump to host next year’s G-7 summit at his Doral, Fla., resort and Vice President Pence’s recent stay at a Trump resort in Ireland, committee aides said.

The developments come on the heels of a majority of House Democrats publicly announcing support for an impeachment inquiry, according to NPR’s impeachment tracker, which marks a milestone that was reached during last month’s recess.

“The committee has intensified its investigation,” a Democratic committee aide said. “The Mueller hearings were an important inflection point, and this is the next step in the process.”

There haven’t been any formal votes on launching an inquiry or hearings on articles of impeachment, but many Democrats on the panel insist that the committee’s investigations amounted to forward movement on the issue — something many are frustrated hasn’t happened sooner.

Some Democrats have accused Nadler of contributing to confusion surrounding the inquiry, with the panel telling the courts in filings that it was in the midst of an impeachment inquiry while telling a different story publicly.

During the August recess, Nadler told CNN that the committee was in the midst of formal impeachment proceedings and could vote out articles of impeachment to the House floor by year’s end.

Click Here: Maori All Blacks Store

For pro-impeachment House Democrats, the rules changes are a procedural and symbolic step in the panel’s efforts to show progress despite the fact that its investigations have yielded little new evidence implicating the president.

Outside advocacy groups hoped, to no avail, that the summer recess would increase public pressure on undecided members and top Democratic leaders to advance impeachment.

The debate about what exactly the committee is doing also highlights the growing divide among House Democrats. Pelosi highlighted her concerns in an Aug. 23 caucus call.

“The public isn’t there on impeachment. It’s your voice and constituency, but give me the leverage I need to make sure that we’re ready and it is as strong as it can be,” Pelosi said. “The equities we have to weigh are our responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution and to be unifying and not dividing. But if and when we act, people will know he gave us no choice. If he cannot respect the Constitution, we’ll have to deal with that. It’s about patriotism, not partisanship.”

NPR’s Tim Mak contributed to this story.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke to POLITICO Monday as part of a series of interviews with Democrats seeking to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020.

Click Here: Crystal Palace Shop

[More Coverage: de Blasio on fried Twinkies, the ‘corruption of Rome’ | de Blasio says Bernie would have won in 2016]

Here are key excerpts from the hour-long conversation:

On how Democrats can win

"I think the reality is at this point when the Democratic Party is identified as the party of working people, when it has a clear, progressive, populist economic message, it is not only, from my point of view, philosophically, morally the right place to be, it is also the way to win elections. I think the 2016 election is the, unfortunately, the object lesson for the wrong way to do it. Because I think the party’s message and values were very unclear to a lot of American voters, thus many people stayed home, many Democrats stayed home."

On endorsing Hillary Clinton

"Personally, I believed that she would be a very effective leader and that the ideas she put forward, she would have some real understanding of how to put into action. I also — as is clear from WikiLeaks — have pleaded with the Hillary campaign at the highest levels to address the sense of unfairness that people feel. To come out with a bolder economic vision. And honestly, that was a futile endeavor. So, I don’t think it was wrong to say that she was a candidate that I admired, respected, thought could do a good job. But I think that the entire party failed to present a vision and a message that could win that election."

On whether he thinks Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump

"In my heart, yes, I do. I think, you know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think when we look at it now, that was a moment where there was such desire for change. We were in the process, as Democrats, of losing a lot of our folks again, either to Trump or … many more to stay at home. And we had to excite them. And I think in retrospect, he offered a vision that could have done that."

On why Sanders supporters should vote for him

"I think the world of Bernie, but I would say, I’m someone who has put these ideas into action, consistently and effectively, to a really tough environment. And I’m someone who can build the kind of coalition we’re going to need to win. So, I think there’s a governmental argument and a political argument. The governmental argument is — and I respect every legislator, I once upon a time was a local legislator, respect them all — but being an executive is just a different thing. Against some real opposition, we achieved a series of things in New York, whether you’re talking about pre-K for all, our massive affordable housing program or things like a rent freeze, which we had the power to do. It’s never been done before. Legal services to stop evictions and lower evictions by landlords. And obviously everything on policing: ending stop and frisk, which at the time was highly controversial. Showing that the city was actually getting safer, we got rid of the punitive type of policing. Doing that as executive is a different reality of what a legislator does.

…And then politically, there’s literally no place more diverse on earth. The only way I won to begin with was building an extraordinarily diverse coalition. You know, I ran for mayor against a very diverse field. The reason I won was I was able to win not just substantial support but majorities in communities represented by other candidates because I had a message that cut across a whole lot of demographic realities and that people can unite around. We’re going to need that as Democrats again."

On working with Republicans

"Look, I’ve negotiated with all sorts of forces to get things done, which is why we’re able to get things done, including our state legislature, including what was for years a state Senate Republican majority. We got things done like pre-K for all, despite having a state Senate Republican majority, and we have to work with them to get it done.

I think what is really happening now is the solutions are more about political change than they are about negotiation. If you look at how dug in the Republicans are in the House and the Senate, maybe on some issues there will be some common ground in some areas for negotiation. But on many levels, only political change is going to move them, including political impact from their grassroots up. And I think that’s an area — bluntly — Democrats have not done a particularly good job at. I think the model of the presidency, once upon a time, was much more going out and educating people, moving them, moving hearts and minds, changing the way people think about issues. That is a template that worked for Democrats in sort of the glory days of the Democratic Party. And I think we have to go back to that because there’s lots of working people in America who are truly fed up with the status quo."

On his gun-control position

"I think background checks, I think banning assault weapons, and I think, you know, from my point of view…you can protect the Second Amendment and still put a series of protections in place…It’s about a handful of senators and making their lives a lot tougher. Which right now, and I’ve been open about this, the Democratic Party, understandably, is fixated on Trump, but it’s too fixated on Trump. Understandably, it wants to pursue impeachment, but sometimes to the exclusion — at least to the public eye — of other issues.

Here’s a moment where we should lean in deeply to the gun-safety issue, particularly in those states where those key Senate elections are happening. And I feel very strongly — I think there’s a lot of historical precedent for it — you’re going to have some senators who are not going to be able to withstand that."

On Obama’s legacy

"Affordable Care Act, clearly the biggest achievement and a stunning achievement. And I understand he sacrificed intensely to get to it, and I appreciate that he was extraordinarily persistent. I think a lesser leader would have given up. And it’s had a tremendously positive impact on tens of millions of Americans, and it has been one of the most important steps in addressing income inequality in decades. We gotta go a lot farther. But I think we have to acknowledge that extraordinary achievement.

In terms of what was missed, two things to me come out as lessons. And I can understand, again, what he was up against. But the first is to front-load labor legislation in the event that — whether it’s me or anyone else — there’s a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate. Achieving fundamental change on labor is essential.

…The second lesson, which is not just from the Obama years, I think it’s several decades, is to refocus on the state legislatures. Because what we have learned is that the presidency does not exist in a vacuum, if you will. It’s not just about what the president does with their executive powers or what they do with the Congress. We saw it in the Obama years, we saw it in the Clinton years. We lost ground in state legislatures, and we paid for it intensely, because even when federal action could be taken, in many ways it was undercut at the state level."

On Ronald Reagan’s impact

"I think Reagan was a singular figure, much though I disagree with him profoundly, I will give him, you know, tremendous sense of how to use that bully pulpit. And he did spark foundational change. You know, from my point of view, in the wrong direction. But it was foundational. You have to give him that. And I think there is something objective about that fact that, I don’t like what he did, but it had a much bigger impact than just what he did in his eight years. He sort of laid the foundation for something bigger."

On racism in the Trump era

"That’s been produced by Trump. It just has been. There’s a deep wellspring of racism in America. It’s always been that way. But Trump has tapped into it, normalized it, enhanced it, uplifted it in a way that has now led to pure violence. And I do think leadership matters. I think leadership is calling for unity and respect. People hear that and feel it. Leadership’s dividing us, and they pick up on that too.

…I’m in the school of this party that says: ‘There are some Trump voters who are never going to want to hear from me or anyone else who believes in a multicultural society. And there are other Trump voters who voted out of economic frustration and anger at the status quo, who I think can be brought back into our coalition. But only if they hear a message that’s about their lives.’ I believe if you say to a lot of those folks, ‘We’re going to tax the wealthy who created so much of this status quo. We’re going to do things that actually reach your family, like higher wages, better benefits, better health care, pre-K for children.’ Things like that matter to a lot of those voters, matter to voters across the spectrum. And if you make very clear that you’re not working on behalf of the establishment, that’s what a lot of them want to hear, including they want to hear that you’re pro labor."

On NAFTA

"I want to remind people, look at those states where Democrats lost. Two glaring characteristics: a lot of union members who drifted away from the Democratic Party and those were the states that NAFTA, in particular, hit hard, the loss of manufacturing jobs. I am stridently anti-NAFTA. I’m saying our party should run the other way from the new NAFTA, have nothing to do with it. Change the entire nature of how we go about trade."

On hate speech on social media

"I’m not listening for (Trump’s) moral guidance on what social media companies should do. But I think it’s right to say we’re in a situation that we’ve never experienced before in human history, where information is flowing in ways that of course must be kept free, but with realities that are creating, you know, real social dislocations that we have to address. And the portrayal of violence is a real issue. I don’t know how to change that, I honestly don’t. I think it’s a lot clearer how to address hate speech, for example, if you’re one of the companies that is trying to set standards. I think there’s — you can actually have some objective standards and relevant content to stand for. And I think violent videos is a tougher, a tougher venue."

On why he didn’t endorse some New York progressives

"I’m very, very comfortable as a member of the progressive wing of this party pushing progressive ideas and trying to change the party as a whole. I look at individual races, and some I think it makes sense to get involved in. And some, I don’t. And also, when you’re a mayor of a city, it adds a whole other element. I don’t just go at it as someone with an ideological view, I have to think about a lot of other factors.

But to me, I think the Queen’s DA race is a great example of this. The debate already created the outcome in the sense that, you know, for a while we didn’t know who it would be. On one level, it was clear whoever it was going to be was going to have to make a series of changes because the conversation had already and the election process had already taken it that way."

On Joe Biden

"I don’t have a relationship with Joe Biden, I haven’t worked with him in the past…I think a whole lot of swing voters right now are so appalled by Trump that they would be very open to a Democrat, whether that Democrat is more progressive or more moderate. But what I fear with Biden is…I’m not hearing an inspirational vision of change. I’m hearing something that sounds like the status quo most of the time.

"And I want to know that any leader can give a persuasive argument that they can make change. So, you can mouth the words, people see through that pretty quickly. How do you prove it? Again, what I bring to the table is, I said I was gonna do a whole set of things in New York. I did them. They constitute real change. I’m offering a very consistent vision from that experience for the country, showing how I want to take what I did in the nation’s largest city and expand it out to the country. You don’t find people saying about me, ‘Oh, you know, he doesn’t believe those things or he’s never done them or he’s just come up with it now because it’s convenient.’ The problem for Biden is, how is he going to convince people that he is going to break this American status quo that a huge percentage of voters don’t want to continue?"

On whether Kamala Harris is a moderate

"Honestly, don’t know her well enough. And, you know, I’ve seen her say different things that I’m not clear ultimately what her vision is. So, I struggle to give you a clear definition. Some people I think, are very easily defined. I don’t know exactly in her case."

On the value of debates

"Debates are one of those, you know, they’re the ultimate comparison shopping…I think in the case of Biden — again, this is not me being a pundit, this is me being a candidate, saying this — he had two chances to help people see a vision that might actually be motivating, and I don’t think he did that in either case.

…We have to have this debate to sort it out. And it’s going to be decided by the voters in the primaries. But it’s also like this is — to use the sports analogy — this is the preseason. Like, if you are not ready for the much tougher stuff up ahead, you know, if you can’t do it at this level, you’re not going to do it later on. So, for him, he’s going to be asked these tough questions, increasingly. If he can’t answer them, then how is he going to be the nominee?"

On making the next debate

"I don’t know what people took from that debate yet. But there’s a lot of time on the clock. And the standards are very straightforward, and my job is to hit those standards by August 27.

…I’m not going to do hypotheticals, my job right now is to get there."

On Medicare for All

"You know, I use a bad example, but I think it illustrates the point. I say bad example because it’s not an issue example in the same way. But I think it’s a wonderful example of social change: How did this become a country that embraces overwhelmingly marriage equality? If you remember that trajectory, and you look at the historical days, it is breathtaking how fast it went from not even civil union laws being acceptable politically to a lot of folks, through a few states starting to make change and a leader starting to speak out, and the way it moved, with, I think, a lot of help from the media and a lot of help from the cultural center.

But opinion is formed through these debates. And I think it’s fair to say this is the most energetic argument you’ve seen for universal health care in the history of this party. Because it’s not just being made by one Bernie Sanders up against the mega frontrunner, Hillary. It’s now being made by a lot of us. And it’s a fair fight for the first time. And I think it’s part of how you get the transformation."

On what white America doesn’t understand about being a minority

"I think it was the end of 2014, when I felt it was very important to speak to my city about the changes we would make, even though people were in tremendous amount of pain of that moment because of what happened to Eric Garner and what was happening with the legal process as well. And I surfaced this reality in my own family, having a conversation with Dante about how he had to comport himself and deal with the realities … and there was controversy at that moment.

…But there was a whole lot of people who also felt it was a conversation that had to be had because millions and millions of Americans had a conversation with their kid. And it was somehow missed by the majority culture that that was a reality. And by the way, majority culture, if the shoe was on the other foot, they’d be having that conversation with their kids. So it was time to surface it."

On making that case to white voters

"I would argue that that process of explaining to people, for example, imagine the others punish you on the other foot. You bring up your child, you put all your love and support into your child, and your child is stopped by a police officer regularly or followed in the store. Or if your child, you know, if a police officer came up to your child, that you’d have to worry about what might happen next because of a whole lot of history? I think a lot of people actually could get that.

We’re not saying, we’re not calling anyone a racist who hasn’t proven that they’re racist, right? But we’re saying there’s racism pervading our society, and we’ve got to surface it. And you have that conversation enough times, it changes things."

On Mayor Pete Buttigieg

"I don’t think there’s any comparison, two different people. He started very early. I started very late. You know, he developed a substantial fundraising base. Again, my message is not going to be one that appeals to wealthy donors. It’s just not.

Q: "And that’s something Buttigieg is doing?"

A: "Well, he’s getting a ton of wealthy donors, isn’t he? I mean, look, I made a decision. And this has been evolving for years now for me, I think I originally experienced the more traditional politics. And my philosophy was always thoroughly progressive, but I thought sort of, ‘Oh, this is the way politics works. And you gotta deal with these realities.’ And I think more and more, we’re all being liberated from that. And the approach I’m taking, the message I have, it’s not everyone it’s going to attract … and someone with a more moderate message will.

So I just don’t, I don’t get lost in that comparison. You know, I think the things I’m talking about are the things that the majority of the Democratic Party wants and what the country needs. I’ve got to find a way to get the message out one way or another and break through. Other people have done it before. I’ve got to find a way as well."

Q: "You do have wealthy people donating to your campaign though."

A: "Sure. But there’s a difference between a message that is going to attract large numbers of wealthy donors, which some other folks have, and what I’m saying, which obviously is going to disqualify a lot of them. And I assure you it has."

On grassroots fundraising

"The only way that someone like me ultimately gets there is with an overwhelmingly grassroots campaign. I think there’s practical realities of, if you’re getting started and you don’t have that kind of apparatus, of course, you’re going to have to put some resources together, but the way of the future for me and for others like me is to overwhelmingly go in that direction."

Q: "Do you think at that point that means weaning off money from real estate?"

A: "We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, but I think that is the way of the future."

On politicians using wealthy people as aspirational figures

"It’s a lie. You know, very few people can get there. And it’s kind of an American mythology that was charming once, but now it’s been weaponized to, you know, tell people, ‘Stay where you are, and maybe someday you’ll get there,’ when it’s an overt lie. And it supports the further empowerment of those who are winning. So, I know it’s unsettling for some, for sure

…If folks felt the economy was working for them, they felt like they actually had decent prospects, you never would have seen a Donald Trump. He said, ‘I’m going to disrupt everything,’ and people wanted it to be disrupted. Why aren’t we saying we’re going to disrupt everything? Because we need to."

Liverpool striker Divock Origi won’t rule out the possibility of rejoining Genk in the future but that a return is “far from on the agenda”.

The Belgium striker could be in line for a second successive start for the Reds in his native Belgium on Wednesday; that despite Mohamed Salah being available again to Jurgen Klopp, but with the possibility of the Egyptian being held back for Sunday’s showdown with Tottenham.

Having started his career with Genk, the match against his boyhood club will present Origi with a rare opportunity to face his former side – a fact made all the more special given his father also played for the Jupiler Pro League side.

Ahead of the match, Het Nieuwsblad (via Sport Witness) asked Origi if he’d one day return to the club he first left in 2010 with a short hop across the border to play for Lille in Ligue 1.

And the striker insisted he was ruling nothing out, despite being content with his lot at Liverpool right now.

Responding to the question of whether he’d consider playing for Genk again, Origi said: “I’ve received that question many times, you never know. Genk is my favourite club in Belgium and my father has played there. But a return is far from on the agenda.”

Origi also revealed that Klopp was very quick to question him about Genk once it was confirmed Liverpool would be in the same Champions League group.

“Yes [Klopp knows I played at Genk], because when the Champions League draw was held, we were on the training ground,”  Origi explained.

“The names of our opponents were confirmed and the coach immediately asked me some questions about Genk.”

Liverpool sit third in Group E going into Wednesday’s clash in Belgium but could claim top spot with a positive result.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has reportedly resisted an opportunity to sell the club but would entertain offers over £3bn for the club.

A mega-rich Middle East consortium proposed a potential takeover offer but it was shrugged off by the Russian, according to The Telegraph, via The Sun.

There have been rumours that the billionaire businessman was looking to sell since the UK tightened its regulations on visas for wealthy foreign nationals.

Abramovich is now rarely seen at Stamford Bridge and has put plans to develop the stadium on hold, sparking rumours he is losing interest in the West London club.

It is claimed that Abramovich has been approached by a number of potential buyers including Sir Jim Ratcliffe – once Britain’s richest man.

Sources close to Abramovich insist it is “not for sale” but The Telegraph report also claims that the Russian would consider entertaining offers if he receives a bid in the region of £3bn.

 

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Paul Merson says Manchester City are “not going to win the Champions League” playing with “two holding midfielders in defence,” and he reckons Liverpool are still the “team to beat”.

Raheem Sterling struck three times in the space of just 11 second-half minutes as City, who trailed early in the match, ran out 5-1 winners in the Group C clash at the Etihad Stadium on Tuesday.

The Citizens are favourites to win the Champions League despite Liverpool, the holders, currently leading Pep Guardiola’s men by six points in the Premier League.

However, Merson thinks that City will have to get Aymeric Laporte back fit if they are to challenge for the trophy.

“City are a very good team, but they are not going to win the Champions League, playing against the best teams in Europe, with two holding midfielders in defence,” Merson told Sky Sports.

“They need Aymeric Laporte back. I thought Juventus would be one of the dangers, but I watched them the other night and they are not going to win it.

“When Bayern Munich rinsed Tottenham the other week, I didn’t think they were the team to beat. I didn’t think that at all if I’m being honest. I thought they looked quite open.

“I still think Liverpool are the team to beat. They lost in the final two seasons ago and then won it last season. Who’s got better form than that?

“They hardly ever lose at home, if ever. No one wants to go and play at Anfield. I still think Liverpool will be there or thereabouts come the end of the competition.”

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Leicester City boss Brendan Rodgers claims Hamza Choudhury’s tackle on Liverpool forward Mohamed Salah “wasn’t even a bad tackle”.

The 22-year-old was hit with a torrent of racist abuse following a tackle that injured Salah during the Foxes’ 2-1 defeat at Anfield earlier in October.

Jurgen Klopp was fuming after the match, calling the challenge by Choudhury “dangerous as hell”.

But Rodgers has defended Choudhury and called the Liverpool reaction to the tackle “over the top”.

“The reaction to Hamza was right over the top for me,” Rodgers said. “The boy went in to make a tackle.

“Mo Salah is a world-class player but you can tackle him. It wasn’t even a bad tackle.

“You have to ensure they stay aggressive because that is their game, without overstepping the line.

“If you look at the team we play in an aggressive but sporting way.

“Young Hamza is one of those lads that play on the limit and is fighting for his career.

“His strength is recovering the ball and retrieving the ball, which he is very good at, and he is learning other aspects of his game.

“The only way is constant work and talking with him.”