Bid to block Bernie Sanders? DNC adopts rule change, wants only avowed Democrats to run

The Democratic National Committee adopted a new rule Friday aimed at preventing non-Democrats, such as independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, from seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, reports said.
The rule change, adopted at a DNC meeting in Providence, R.I., requires all candidates for the party’s nomination to “run and serve” as Democrats, Yahoo News reported.
Some supporters of Sanders -- who caucuses with the Democrats despite declining to declare a party affiliation -- say the move was motivated by “spite” after Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money during the Democratic primaries in 2016.
But a source told Yahoo News it was actually part of a push to limit the power of so-called superdelegates -- which, ironically, has long been a goal of Sanders.'
Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, ultimately lost the nomination to Clinton when superdelegates from states he won chose not to vote for him at the party's 2016 convention in Philadelphia.
DNC Chairman Tom Perez on Tuesday floated a proposal to eliminate superdelegates on a presidential primary’s first voting ballot, the Washington Post reported. Party leaders would vote only if the contest required a second ballot.
“You had superdelegates voting for Hillary Clinton in states that I won pretty handsomely,” Sanders told Post this week. “And now there is agreement among Tom Perez and our people, and a lot of the Clinton people, to say we should reduce the number of superdelegates.”
Still, the rule change left some Sanders supporters puzzled as to why Democrats would want to make their party less inclusive.
“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016,” Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 campaign, told Yahoo News. “It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party. I, just for the life of me, don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite.”

"I just for the life of me don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite.”

A photo of a printout of the rule change was shared Friday in a Twitter message posted by DNC member Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
“At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the printout says. "Each candidate must then affirm in writing that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”
But Sanders may be protected from the change thanks to a resolution passed in his home state, by which he is considered a Democrat, “for all purposes and [is] entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level,” Politico reported.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton clashed in a heated presidential primary.  (Associated Press)

DNC members will meet in August for a final vote on the proposal to eliminate superdelegates, Yahoo News reported.

State-level Dems funneled $84M to Clinton's campaign, lawsuit alleges

As many as 40 state-level Democratic parties may have been involved in a scheme to funnel as much as $84 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, a campaign finance lawyer contends.
Dan Backer, an attorney based in Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a plan was in place to circumvent campaign contribution limits set by the federal government, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
“You had individuals giving $300,000,” Backer told the newspaper Friday. “They’re not doing it because they care about Nevada’s or Arkansas’ state party. They’re doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton.”

“You had individuals giving $300,000. They’re not doing it because they care about Nevada’s or Arkansas’ state party. They’re doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton.”

Nevada’s Democratic Party may become the latest pulled into a federal lawsuit that Backer has filed, the paper reported. Backer represents the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-Donald Trump political action committee that initially lodged a complaint in December with the Federal Election Commission, the report says.
Backer told the paper he filed his lawsuit because the FEC failed to meet a deadline for taking action.
He said the Hillary Victory Fund reported transferring more than $1.7 million to the Nevada Democratic Party between December 2015 and November 2016. But the party reported receiving only $146,200, which it transferred to the DNC.
The remaining $1.6 million was sent by the Hillary Victory Fund to the Nevada party and received by the DNC and never appeared on the Nevada party’s reports, Backer contends.
But Nevada's Democratic Party disputed Backer's claims.
“This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans’ disastrous agenda,” Helen Kalla, a spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party, told the Review Journal.

“This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans’ disastrous agenda.”
- Helen Kalla, spokeswoman, Nevada Democratic Party

In Idaho, Democrats allegedly contributed $1.6 million to the plan in a series of 13 transactions, the Idaho Statesman reported.
But local party officials might have been unaware of how the money was being handled, the paper reported.
It is "reasonably possible the Idaho State Democratic Party had no prior knowledge of, or control over, these transfers because they were handled entirely by HVF, the DNC, HFA, [Hillary Victory Fund, Democratic National Committee, Hillary for America] and/or their treasurers," states the 101-page complaint that Backer’s group filed in December, the Statesman reported.
The Idaho Democratic Party did not respond to the newspaper’s request for a comment.
In Delaware, the state Democratic Party received $2.4 million from the Hillary Victory Fund over 11 transactions, then transferred roughly the same amount to the DNC, WXDE-FM radio reported.
The handling of cash in Delaware “doesn’t pass the sniff test,” Backer told the station.

Stupid Liberal Cartoons

Trump should consider pardoning ex-CIA boss Petraeus, senator says

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and other Republicans walk to a closed-door GOP meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Dec. 18, 2013.  (Associated Press)

After recently granting a pardon and considering at least two more, President Donald Trump should also consider pardoning former CIA director and U.S. Army general David Petraeus, a U.S. senator said.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, made the suggestion Thursday morning during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, the Washington Examiner reported.
While in the Army, Petraeus oversaw coalition forces during the Iraq War before moving to the CIA under the Obama administration.
But his time at the CIA was short-lived. A 2012 FBI investigation unearthed emails between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he was having an affair.
Petraeus pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge of handling classified information, which he gave to Broadwell in eight notebooks.
"I think Gen. Petraeus is an incredible patriot, and helped guide our country during a very difficult time in Iraq and basically pulled a rabbit out of a hat there. But he made a terrible mistake," Cornyn said on Hewitt’s show. "What I respect about Gen. Petraeus is he admitted it candidly and publicly, and took responsibility for it. You don’t see that much in Washington.”

"I think Gen. Petraeus is an incredible patriot, and helped guide our country during a very difficult time in Iraq ... But he made a terrible mistake. What I respect about Gen. Petraeus is he admitted it candidly and publicly, and took responsibility for it."

President Trump had once considered Petraeus to be his secretary of state. But that title ultimately went to Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon-Mobil CEO who has since resigned.
The prospect of pardoning Petraeus comes shortly after Trump pardoned conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions in the 2012 Senate race.
Trump is also reportedly considering pardons for TV personality Martha Stewart and former Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, Politico reported.
The president also recently commuted the sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, 62, who had served more than 20 years of a life sentence without parole for a nonviolent drug offense, the report said.

Seattle cracks down on renters, free speech – and common sense. Good luck trying to rent an apartment

The Seattle City Council seems to think the right to speak is a privilege it can grant or withhold at its pleasure. It has slapped a year-long ban on the use of certain housing websites that allow renters to place bids on advertised rental housing, while it reviews the sites.
Officials say they fear the sites might violate local housing laws or inflate housing costs, so the City Council wants to study the sites while forbidding their use in the meantime. While city leaders try to figure things out, landlords are barred from posting ads on the sites, and renters can’t even do a simple search for Seattle housing on the sites.
This is a clear restriction of speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Pacific Legal Foundation, representing a website called Rentberry and a small-time landlord, recently filed a lawsuit to raise this claim.

The City Council will likely try to portray the website ban as modest and temporary, as if it is just pressing the “pause” button. But in fact, the City Council has resurrected a frightening government power – the power to censor speech until the government has decided to approve it.
In First Amendment parlance, a law that forces speakers to receive government approval in advance of speaking (including publishing) is called a prior restraint – the most insidious form of government speech restriction.
In 17th century England, for instance, anyone who wanted to publish a book or a pamphlet had to get the government’s permission from the royal Stationers’ Company. John Milton famously broke that rule in 1643 by publishing a pamphlet without asking for permission that called for the legalization of divorce.
When scandalized officials called for the pamphlet to be censored and burned, Milton published another unapproved pamphlet called the “Areopagitica,” one of the greatest defenses of free speech ever written. Milton conceded that cultivating virtue was vital, “yet God commits the managing so great a trust, without particular Law or prescription, wholly to the demeanour of every grown man.”
In other words, we’re all adults here – we’re just as wise or virtuous as the clucking politicians who would censor us for our own good.
Our own Supreme Court has long frowned on prior restraints, and the prior restraints it has struck down share much in common with the website ban.
In one case, an anti-Semitic tabloid lambasted a public official, who then sued to have the tabloid declared a “public nuisance.” The trial court issued a temporary restraining order to bar the tabloid from publishing until the court decided whether it was a nuisance or not.
And in the famous Pentagon Papers case, the government sought to put a temporary halt on publishing secret Defense Department documents because the publication might endanger national interests.
In both these cases, the government wanted to place a temporary hold on speech while it determined whether the speech was harmful. The Supreme Court’s position was firm – government couldn’t just hold speech hostage “predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result.”
The Seattle City Council dallies with the same unconstitutional pattern here; it wants to place a hold on use of websites – based on nothing but speculation and suspicion that these sites might be bad.
We’ve been here before.

The government’s behavior toward Milton or the Pentagon Papers may seem more oppressive than requiring pre-approval for a commercial website. But we enter dangerous territory when we let government decide what speech is worthy of protection and what speech isn’t.
Certainly, Milton’s controversial pamphlet advocating legal divorce carries more gravity than a landlord posting an ad for a townhouse in Seattle. But speech is speech. And no one needs the government’s permission to speak.
The message behind this website ban – whether the Seattle City Council realizes it or not – is that the Council members believe people are not free to speak until the City Council says they can.
This is a distressing revival of ghosts that we long ago thought vanquished. The City Council’s conceit might be cured by a healthy dose of modesty. And perhaps a lesson in constitutional history.
Ethan Blevins is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates nationwide to achieve court victories enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty.

US plan to release alleged American ISIS fighter in Syria draws ACLU legal challenge

A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa June 29, 2014  (Reuters)

The Trump administration’s plan to release a suspected American ISIS fighter caught in Syria back to Syria is facing a legal challenge from a civil rights group that decried the move as the “death sentence.”

An unidentified man, who holds a dual Saudi-U.S. citizenship, has been held in Iraq by the U.S. military for about nine months. The U.S. government’s attempt to transfer the American into Iraq or Saudi Arabia failed in April after a U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the release. Last month, a federal appeals court panel upheld the ruling.

The Pentagon is now seeking to release the detained American near where he was captured by Syrian Democratic Forces and turned over to the U.S. military, according to a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis was named in the ACLU's lawsuit against the Pentagon's plan to release the American citizen in Syria.  (AP)

“Upon his release, the Petitioner will be given $4,210 in cash, the same amount he had in his possession when was captured,” the Pentagon official, Mark Mitchell, said in the documents, Politico reported.
“He will also be provided a new cellular phone (in its original sealed packaging), which he can activate and use if he desires to do so. He will be provided sufficient food and water to last for several days,” he added.
The official said the planned release is considered to be “safe” and that it complied with “traditional military practice.”
But the plan is facing a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the unnamed man. The group opposes his release into Syria and sued Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Department of Defense.

The Trump administration has effectively admitted it has no reason to detain our client and he doesn’t pose a threat. But instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of a road in a war-torn country without protection or identification.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 7, 2018

“Instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of the road in a war-torn country without any assurances of protection and no identification,” Jonathan Hafetz, an ACLU attorney, said in a statement on Wednesday.
“The Trump administration has effectively admitted it has no reason to detain our client and he doesn’t pose a threat. But instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of a road in a war-torn country without protection or identification,” the group added.
The release of the man into the war-ravaged country should happen this week, but the ACLU lawsuit is expected to delay the action. The alleged ISIS fighter reportedly declined the two release options – either be in a town or near an Internally Displaced Person camp.
The unnamed man denies he went to Syria to fight for ISIS and says he wanted to document the violence there.

James A. Wolfe, former Senate Intel panel security director, indicted for allegedly lying to FBI

Justice Department announces that a former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee has been indicted and accused of making false statements to FBI agents while they were investigating leaks of classified information.
A former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee -- who was in charge of maintaining all classified information from the Executive Office to the panel -- was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to FBI agents looking into possible leaks to reporters, the Justice Department announced Thursday night.
James A. Wolfe, 58, served as the panel's security director for 29 years, according to the feds.
Wolfe lied to the FBI in December 2017 about contacts he had with three reporters, the indictment read. He also allegedly lied about giving two reporters non-public information about committee matters.

The New York Times revealed federal investigators had seized years' worth of email and phone records relating to reporter Ali Watkins.

Earlier Thursday, the New York Times revealed that federal investigators had seized years' worth of email and phone records relating to one of its reporters, Ali Watkins. She previously had a three-year romantic relationship with Wolfe, the Times reported, adding that the records covered a period of time before she joined the paper.
Wolfe allegedly admitted to FBI agents in 2017 that he lied to them about his relationship with a reporter identified in court papers as "REPORTER #2" after he was shown photos of the two of them together. But he maintained that he did not share any classified information or news leads.
Wolfe is not charged with disclosing classified information.
Wolfe was allegedly in contact with "REPORTER #2" and exchanged tens of thousands of electronic communications and often daily phone calls. He would also meet at the reporter’s apartment, court papers alleged.
Wolfe had extensive contact with reporters about "MALE-1," who was reportedly identified as Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser.
Wolfe received classified information about "MALE-1" on the same day he exchanged 82 text messages with "REPORTER #2," according to the indictment. A few weeks later, "REPORTER #2" published an online article that revealed the identity of "MALE-1."
On April 3, 2017, Watkins’ byline appeared on a BuzzFeed article that revealed that Page had met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2013.
Wolfe allegedly called "REPORTER #2" nearly a half-hour after the story went live and had a phone conversation for about seven minutes.
In December 2017, Wolfe allegedly messaged "REPORTER #2."
“I’ve watched your career take off even before you ever had a career in journalism. ... I always tried to give you as much Information (sic) that I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else. ... I always enjoyed the way that you would pursue a story,like nobody else was doing in my hal1way (sic). I felt like I was part of your excitement and was always very supportive of your career and the tenacity that you exhibited to chase down a good story," the message read, according to the indictment.
Watkins worked previously for BuzzFeed, Politico and McClatchy.
The Wall Street Journal, citing an unnamed source, reported that Watkins disclosed the relationship when she joined The Times.
Mark MacDougall, Watkins’ attorney, said: "It's always disconcerting when a journalist's telephone records are obtained by the Justice Department — through a grand jury subpoena or other legal process. Whether it was really necessary here will depend on the nature of the investigation and the scope of any charges."
It is alleged that Wolfe used several means to contact reporters, including Signal and WhatsApp. He also met “clandestinely in person,” in secluded areas of the Hart Senate Office Building, the indictment charges.
Wolfe is expected to make his first court appearance Friday. It wasn't immediately clear if he had a lawyer. Each false statement count is punishable by up to five years in prison, though if convicted, Wolfe would almost certainly face only a fraction of that time.

Samantha Bee Cartoons