AOC and Pelosi to meet, address House Dem infighting between far left, moderates

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will meet Friday with far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an effort to stop the recent infighting between the Democratic Party's progressive and moderate blocs in the lower chamber of Congress.
The progressives have leveled almost constant criticism at the moderates, accusing them of helping the Trump administration, whether directly or indirectly. The moderates, in turn, have accused the far left of pushing for abrupt change that could place the party's current House majority at risk.
Pelosi, 79, a Californian who has served in the House for more than 30 years, told USA Today on Thursday that she’s “looking forward to” meeting with Ocasio-Cortez to air out the differences.
The 29-year-old freshman congresswoman from New York, meanwhile, tried to downplay their meeting.
“It’s nothing too climactic,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Just trying to make sure we have an open line of communication and get on the same page.”
The schism began with Ocasio-Cortez’s vote against a $4.6 billion border funding – aimed at improving the conditions of migrants – that the majority of her party approved.
Other freshman Democrats joined her in voting against, including Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib D-Mich., and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.
The vote clearly irked Pelosi, who then told the New York Times that “these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” adding “They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

“... these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world ... They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The comments further infuriated Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested that Pelosi is purposely targeting the progressive freshman group – dubbed “the Squad” – that is made up of women of color. The New York Democrat later had to do damage control and say Pelosi is “absolutely not” racist.
The official House Democratic Caucus Twitter account, meanwhile, slammed Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who criticized Rep. Sharice Davids, D-Kansas, for her votes on issues to do with the migrant crisis at the border.
“Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?” the now-deleted tweet read. “Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice.”
“She is a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue,” it added. “Keep Her Name Out Of Your Mouth.”
The meeting between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez also comes as the House will have to vote on a resolution to raise the debt limit until July 31, 2021.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin pressured the House to approve the resolution -- otherwise, the government may go over its borrowing limit since lawmakers will be leaving for the August recess.
According to the Wall Street Journal, while progressives didn’t come out against the resolution, Ocasio-Cortez went to Twitter to raise concerns about the deal.
“Notice how whenever we pursue large spending increases + tax cuts for corporations, contractors & the connected, it’s treated as business as usual,” she said.
“But the moment we consider investing similar in working class people (ex tuition-free college) they cry out it’s ‘unrealistic.’”

AOC supports the 'decolonization process' of Puerto Rico following governor's resignation

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., expressed support for the  "decolonization process" of Puerto Rico following the announced resignation of its embattled governor, Ricardo Rosselló.
In an Instagram livestream on Thursday night, Ocasio-Cortez took questions from her followers. The first asked how she felt about what's happening in Puerto Rico.
"First of all, I am so incredibly proud of everyone in Puerto Rico right now demanding accountability from their government," Ocasio-Cortez began.  "They were so relentlessly creative in their protest that they were able to get the governor to finally resign as well as some of his cabinet members."
Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, then suggested the island's independence from the United States.
"I'm really proud of everyone that's out there, but of course there's a lot of work to be done," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "This is just the beginning of a decolonization process, a process of self-determination where the people of Puerto Rico begin to start taking their own self-governance into their own hands."
She added, "So I'm really excited about the protest, I'm excited, I'm encouraged to hear about Ricardo Rosselló's resignation, but it's also just a first step. We have a long way to go."
Thousands of Puerto Ricans took to the streets after online chats from Rosselló and other top officials that mocked women, gays, political opponents, and victims of Hurricane Maria were leaked. Rosselló's administration is also being investigated for alleged corruption by Puerto Rico's Department of Justice.

Trump says Dems 'created this phony crime' with obstruction claims, in 'Hannity' interview

President Trump lashed out at Democrats following former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony on Capitol Hill, telling Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night the Democrats "created this phony crime" by accusing him of obstruction of justice.
"I didn't do it. They create a phony crime," Trump said during a live interview on "Hannity." "And then, they say, 'he obstructed.' They said there was no collusion but 'he obstructed,' and there has never been anything like this ever in this country."
When asked by lawmakers whether or not the findings of the nearly two-year-long Russia investigation truly exonerated the president, Mueller testified before two House committees on Wednesday afternoon, answering, "No."
Trump reiterated his desire to "investigate the investigators" over the origins of the Russia probe and said Attorney General William Barr would be "looking into it."
For his part, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said after the hearings: "Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts, we can proceed, and we face a time of great danger."
"This should never happen to another president of the United States again," Trump said. "This is an absolute catastrophe for our country. This was a fake witch hunt."
During his testimony, Mueller denied Trump's assertions that the investigation was a "witch hunt" and insinuated that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian aid to help them win the 2016 election.
Still, the former special prosecutor reiterated what was laid out in his report, saying, "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
"This was treason. This was high crimes. This was everything as bad a definition you want to come up with," Trump said of the investigation.

Now they tell us: Story says Mueller was hands off, short on stamina

Maybe we now know the real reason that Bob Mueller was so reluctant to testify.
With even liberal commentators conceding that Mueller was a shaky witness during two House hearings, questions are swirling about his mental acuity and his ability to handle the job of special counsel.
Let me say at the outset that I have great respect for Mueller as a decorated Vietnam War veteran and an FBI director so widely admired that Barack Obama asked the George W. Bush appointee to serve a second term.
Let me also say that the hearings shouldn’t be graded only on optics, although they were, like most hearings, designed as political theater. But even on substance, Mueller offered almost nothing that was new, and for all the media hype, that was very much by design.
Still, Mueller’s struggles on the Hill were a real head-scratcher, especially for those who have worked with him.
The New York Times reported on the front page yesterday that, as the prosecutor in charge of a two-year investigation of President Trump and Russian interference, he was not the Mueller of old:
“Soon after the special counsel’s office opened in 2017, some aides noticed that Robert S. Mueller III kept noticeably shorter hours than he had as F.B.I. director, when he showed up at the bureau daily at 6 a.m. and often worked nights.
He seemed to cede substantial responsibility to his top deputies, including Aaron Zebley, who managed day-to-day operations and often reported on the investigation’s progress up the chain in the Justice Department. As negotiations with President Trump’s lawyers about interviewing him dragged on, for example, Mr. Mueller took part less and less, according to people familiar with how the office worked.
That hands-off style was on display on Wednesday when Mr. Mueller testified for about seven hours before two House committees. Once famous for his laserlike focus, Mr. Mueller, who will turn 75 next month, seemed hesitant about the facts in his own 448-page report. He struggled at one point to come up with the word ‘conspiracy.’”
Mueller, who asked for questions to be repeated more than a dozen times, even botched one about which president appointed him as a top prosecutor in 1986.
So if Times reporters (and presumably other reporters) knew that Mueller was a hands-off leader with dwindling stamina who increasingly relied on his deputies, how did that remain such a closely guarded secret?
I don’t want to cast aspersions on journalists who have doggedly covered the investigation, but the temptation not to jeopardize their access, and the possibility of future leaks, must have been considerable. Now that Mueller is no longer special counsel, and his shortcomings were so glaringly on public display, it’s “safe” to publish the story.
David Axelrod, who knows him from his time in the Obama White House, tweeted: “This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years. And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.”
Now I don’t think it’s fair to expect Mueller to know every detail of a sprawling investigation or every sentence in the report. He was under tremendous pressure not to get anything wrong, and self-imposed pressure not to break any new ground.
And I don’t think it’s fair for commentators to speculate or insinuate that he might have some kind of medical condition.
But in describing his “painful” testimony, the Times said Mueller’s “halting delivery stood out all the more given his towering reputation for a command of facts and physical stamina — the stuff of lore among his former aides and colleagues. Nonetheless, he was unmistakably shaky.”
And the paper reported that calendars show one of the top prosecutors, Andrew Weissman, met infrequently with Mueller, except for a daily 5 p.m. staff meeting. But the calendars say his aide Zebley was the team leader at these meetings 111 times.
As for the fallout, the Washington Post’s Dan Balz said Mueller was supposed to be the Democrats’ savior but the hearings “probably shattered those illusions once and for all. If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.”
Some liberals, such as pro-impeachment Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, were candid about what happened. He said the hearings were “a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it.”
But some MSNBC opinion hosts seized on a few words here or there, as if Mueller hadn’t said in his report four months ago that the report didn’t “exonerate” Trump.
When Mueller told House Intel chairman Adam Schiff that knowingly accepting foreign help in a presidential campaign is “a crime in certain circumstances,” that’s hardly the same as saying the Trump team was guilty of such a crime, which his report did not find.
Another sound bite popular at MSNBC was this brief exchange with Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, who said the reason "you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”
“That is correct,” Mueller said.
Despite the fact that Mueller started the second hearing by saying he had to “correct” something—“We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime”—some at the cable network seemed to place more weight on the first answer.
What the bobbled response also showed was a witness who was not quite up to the task, something we’re now learning was an open secret in at least some Washington circles.

House Democrat Majority Cartoons

House panel delays Kellyanne Conway contempt vote amid White House talks

The House Oversight Committee announced Wednesday that it had postponed a vote on whether to recommend that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be held in contempt of Congress, as talks continued with the Trump administration.
“I am postponing the Committee’s vote as I work with the White House to try to reach an accommodation,” panel Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in a statement. “Ms. Conway violated the law numerous times and must be held accountable.”
The vote was supposed to take place Thursday and recommend that the House find Conway to be in contempt of Congress “for her refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued” by the committee, The Washington Post reported.
The move stems from Conway’s failure to appear July 15 to testify after a government watchdog found that she violated the Hatch Act, a law banning federal government employees from engaging in certain political activities, despite the committee’s subpoena.
The Office of the Special Counsel, which is separate from the office with a similar name previously run by Robert Mueller, said in a scathing report in June that Conway violated the Hatch Act by “disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media,” and recommended she be fired.
A White House attorney sent a letter to Cummings advising him that Conway won’t appear before the panel, prompting calls to hold her in contempt of Congress.
Conway told Fox News that she was “taking one for the team” and insisted that as a presidential adviser she shouldn’t be forced to testify.
“I’d be happy to testify. I have nothing to hide. I’ve done nothing wrong,” Conway added. “I would love to go testify, but I’m taking one for the team here because there’s a longstanding tradition to claim immunity and not have people like me testify.”

Portland mayor distances self from Antifa violence in his city: 'I wasn't even here'

Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler seemed to shun responsibility for allowing Antifa to freely roam the streets and commit violence in the city, insisting he always orders the police to “enforce the law.”
Wheeler, who’s been in office since January 2017, has been under fire for the rise of Antifa in his city, particularly after a June 29 protest that led to the violent assault of conservative journalist Andy Ngo.

Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler. (Facebook)

“The game plan we've been using up to this point is no longer effective,” Wheeler told Oregon's FOX 12 about the violence on the streets.

“The game plan we've been using up to this point is no longer effective.”
— Ted Wheeler, Portland, Ore., mayor

Ngo was seen being kicked and doused with a milkshake during a clash between Antifa and members of the conservative group Proud Boys during the protest. As a result of the attack, Ngo said he suffered a brain hemorrhage.
Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner released a statement following the violent protest, blaming Wheeler for lack of enforcement and saying the mayor must “remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action.”
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, meanwhile, called for a federal investigation into Wheeler and his actions that may have allowed “domestic terrorists” to attack on Americans on the streets.
But Wheeler, who also serves as police commissioner as part of the mayor’s office, denies he was responsible for lack of policing at the protest.
“I thought it was beneath a United States senator,” Wheeler told the outlet. “The truth is, I wasn't even here. I wasn't even in the United States. I was with my family in Ecuador on a wildlife tour.”
“One of the things I would like the public to know, is there is a unified incident command center that's engaged during these demonstrations,” he continued. “There is an incident commander, certainly the police chief.”

“The truth is, I wasn't even here. I wasn't even in the United States. I was with my family in Ecuador on a wildlife tour.”
— Ted Wheeler

He added: “I have never made a tactical decision and I most certainly did not on June 29th.”
Wheeler also claims that he never told Portland police not to enforce certain laws, on the contrary, he claims he explicitly asked to curb violence during protests.
“Enforce the law, don't let people commit acts of violence, don't let people shut down regional transit,” Wheeler said were among the directives. “Keep the city active and moving. Don't let people get onto the highways and do anything stupid.”

Jon Summers: Mueller hearings cannot be the last word. Dems must continue to investigate Trump

Wednesday, during his testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Mueller made major headlines following this interaction with Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican:
Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes"
Buck: "You believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes"
Mueller has been clear and consistent about two things since releasing his report.
First, his investigation did not exonerate President Trump, despite his claims.
Second, he never considered prosecuting the president because of the Justice Department’s controversial policy stating a sitting president cannot be indicted. But, as Mueller testified on Wednesday, Trump could very well be prosecuted once he leaves office.
There’s no doubt that is something Trump and his legal advisers have had in mind all this time.
The longer Trump is in office, the better his chances are of staying out of prison, and if he is reelected, he could very well go untouched.
The statute of limitations for federal obstruction of justice is five years from the time the crime was committed. If President Trump is re-elected in 2020, his second term would conclude well after the statute of limitations has run out. If he loses, however, he could be in a world of hurt.
So, while every president is motivated to win reelection, for Trump the stakes are higher. Maybe that’s why he is working so hard, raising more than $100 million and peddling $15 straws with his name on them. Trump knows what he did and knows he can only be held accountable if he loses next year.

Imagine for a moment if this president was a Democrat, Republicans would be the first to call for investigations.

While he tells us America’s future is on the line, maybe what he’s really worried about is his own freedom – and he’s doing everything he can to salvage it.
For Trump, it has always been about looking out for Number One. He’s ramping up his message of fear and hatred, telling members of congress, whom the people elected, to go back to where they came from (three out of four of them were born in America) and attacking law enforcement including Mueller and the FBI, intelligence officials and judges, the very people sworn to protect our citizenry and our democracy.
He’s behaving this way because he knows fear and division drive his base, and he needs them more than ever because he has lost moderate Democrats and the majority of independent voters.
While any potential remaining legal action will have to wait, Congress must not. As Mueller said in the press conference he held in May, it is Congress’ job to investigate and take action, if necessary, against a sitting president.
So, as much as Republican hacks will continue to whine, kick, and scream, Congress must continue to investigate Trump’s actions during the 2016 campaign.
Imagine for a moment if this president was a Democrat, Republicans would be the first to call for investigations.
Opening an impeachment inquiry is the best way for the American people to get the facts they need to decide for themselves whether to remove the president from office (we know the Republican Senate will not) in 2020.
Frankly, the president and his allies in Congress should welcome any effort that could potentially clear his name. But they oppose it because they know they facts, and those facts are not in the president’s favor.
I believe in the American people and, unlike our president, I believe in the American system of justice.
The 2020 election will not only determine the future of our nation and whether we want four more years of a failing reality show, the outcome and the actions that follow will answer the question burning in the minds of many Americans: Is the president of the United States above the law?