[AMV] #1003 Manchin Sinematic Universe

quote:

The Department of Homeland Security notified the agency's inspector general in late February that Wolf''s and Cuccinelli's texts were lost in a "reset" of their government phones when they left their jobs in January 2021 in preparation for the new Biden administration, according to an internal record obtained by the Project on Government Oversight and shared with The Washington Post.

The office of the department's undersecretary of management also told the government watchdog that the text messages for its boss, undersecretary Randolph "Tex" Alles, the former Secret Service director, were also no longer available due to a previously planned phone reset.

The office of Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari did not press the department leadership at that time to explain why they did not preserve these records, nor seek ways to recover the lost data, according to the four people briefed on the watchdog's actions. Cuffari also failed to alert Congress to the potential destruction of government records.

quote:

The telephone and text communications of Wolf and Cuccinelli in the days leading up to Jan. 6 could have shed considerable light on Trump's actions and plans. In the weeks before the attack on the Capitol, Trump had been pressuring both men to help him claim the 2020 election results were rigged and even to seize voting machines in key swing states to try to "re-run" the election.

"It is extremely troubling that the issue of deleted text messages related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol is not limited to the Secret Service, but also includes Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, who were running DHS at the time," House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson said in a statement.

"It appears the DHS Inspector General has known about these deleted texts for months but failed to notify Congress," Thompson said. "If the Inspector General had informed Congress, we may have been able to get better records from Senior administration officials regarding one of the most tragic days in our democracy's history."

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 01:10 schreef Frikandelbroodje het volgende:

[..]
Dit lijkt me ook wel goed voor Nederland.

quote:

Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries

Political groups and nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns across five states’ Republican primaries to boost the profile of far-right candidates in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland.

Democrats strategy is rooted in the belief that these candidates — many of whom spread unfounded claims that the 2020 presidential race was stolen from former President Donald Trump — will be easier to defeat in a general election.

Democratic spending has helped secure Republican nominations for candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

In Maryland, Democrats are spending on a Republican gubernatorial primary that is still ongoing and is viewed as a tossup. But in California and Colorado, Democrats spent money elevating the profile of candidates who did not advance to the general election.

Democratic spending helps Republican candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania

In Illinois, Democratic incumbent Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association dropped $35 million on ads attempting to influence Illinois’ Republican gubernatorial primary – more than any office is believed to have ever spent to meddle in another party’s primary – putting Illinois’ gubernatorial race on track to be the most expensive non-presidential election in United States history.

Ads purchased by Pritzker allies attacked the more moderate Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin in the Republican primary and drew attention to the more far-right candidate, state Sen. Darren Bailey. Pritzker’s ad buy for the primaries was more than triple what Bailey had raised for his own campaign.

Bailey, who was endorsed by Trump, rose to prominence in Illinois politics when he co-sponsored a bill that proposed allowing rural Illinois to separate from Chicago and form a “New Illinois” state. After a 2019 state legislative session over a bill guaranteeing Illinois residents abortion rights – which Bailey vehemently opposed – he criticized a fellow lawmaker for having “the gall to bring up the separation of church and state.” Painted on the door of his campaign bus is the Bible verse Ephesians 6:10-19, which calls for followers to wear God’s armor in a battle against “evil rulers.”

Bailey won the nomination with 55.2% of the vote. Although Irvin was leading Bailey in polls as late as May, he came in second with only 18.6% of the vote.

Since winning the nomination, Bailey, a staunch gun rights activist, has already found himself embroiled in controversy after he stated “let’s move on” in a Facebook livestream hours after the Highland Park parade shooting.

In Pennsylvania’s race for governor, Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Attorney General Josh Shapiro dropped $840,000 on TV ads highlighting the stances of Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Sen. Doug Mastriano — more than double what Mastriano spent on his own ad buys.

Shapiro’s ads call Mastriano, whose campaign bused rally-goers to the Capitol the day of the Jan. 6 riots and has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee, one of “Trump’s strongest supporters” and highlight his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“I’m going to have to send him a thank you card,” Mastriano told a local news outlet after seeing Shapiro’s ads.

Mastriano won his primary with 43.8% of the vote, beating out the more moderate second place vote-getter, former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta by more than 23 percentage points. Mastriano, if elected in November, would have the power to appoint Pennsylvania’s next secretary of state, a crucial office that would oversee how Pennsylvania’s federal elections are managed and certified.

“For weeks before the primary election, both public and private polling indicated that Doug Mastriano was poised to become the Republican nominee,” Will Simons, a spokesman for the Shapiro campaign, told OpenSecrets. “The contrast in this race could not be more clear – and that’s why our campaign was prepared to start the general election early and make sure Pennsylvanians knew Mastriano’s real record.”

Trump, who won Pennsylvania in 2016’s presidential election and lost the state by only 1 percentage point in 2020, endorsed Mastriano’s run for governor.

Democratic efforts prove unsuccessful in California, Colorado

In California and Colorado, Democrats spent millions of dollars in several Republican primaries in order to try and elevate more radical right wing candidates. In these instances, though, Democratic efforts did not succeed.

In California’s 22nd Congressional District, a toss-up district in the Central Valley, Democrats spent over $110,000 on political ads to elevate election-denier Chris Mathys over his opponent Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), one of few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in January 2021.

“David Valadao claims he’s Republican ― yet, David Valadao voted to impeach President Trump,” states the narrator in the ad paid for by House Majority PAC, a super PAC aligned with House Democratic leadership and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“We have never communicated with the Pelosi-linked SuperPAC and had no involvement in their campaign against Congressman Valadao,” Mathys told OpenSecrets by email.

Despite House Majority PAC’s efforts, Valado won 25.6% of the vote in the June 8 primary and Mathys won 23.1% of the vote. Valadao will go on to face the Democratic nominee, state Assemblymember Rudy Salas in November.

In Colorado, a similar story has unfolded – albeit with significantly more funding. The Colorado Sun reported that Democrats spent nearly $7 million to elevate more far-right Republican candidates running for governor, U.S. Senate and to represent the 8th Congressional District – about $4 million more than Republicans spent on their own primaries.

Democratic-aligned PACs and nonprofits spent just over $4 million on this type of ad to attempt to elevate candidate Ron Hanks’ conservative credentials over his more moderate opponent Joe O’Dea in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race. Hanks previously voiced his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump and was one of several lawmakers who attended the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the U.S. Capitol riot. Despite these ads, O’Dea beat Hanks in the primary, winning by 9 percentage points.

In the state’s gubernatorial primary, Democratic-aligned PAC Colorado Information Network and liberal nonprofit ProgressNow Colorado dropped almost $2 million to bolster the profile of former Parker Mayor Greg Lopez over his opponent Heidi Ganahl. Lopez, similar to other candidates on the Democrats’ funding list, believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. Ganahl defeated Lopez at the ballot box, with results showing Ganahl ahead of Lopez by almost 7 percentage points.

Lastly, in the Republican primary for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, House Majority PAC and other Democratic-aligned PACs dropped nearly $300,000 on TV and digital ads that boosted the profile of Lori Saine, a candidate who championed herself as “the most conservative candidate in the race.” These ads were not enough to topple the more moderate frontrunner state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Saine finished third in the primary.

Upcoming Maryland gubernatorial primary the next target of Democratic spending

In Maryland’s upcoming gubernatorial primary, a similar strategy of Democratic meddling has occurred. The Democratic Governors Association’s DGA Action super PAC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on airtime in July targeting the Baltimore TV market to air ads featuring Trump-endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox. Cox helped bus constituents to the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, and in a since-deleted tweet called former Vice President Mike Pence a traitor for certifying 2020 presidential election results.

The ad calls Cox “Trump’s hand picked candidate” and states that Cox will “protect the 2nd amendment at all costs.” Like other ads Democrats have run in other Republican primaries, although the ad is framed like an attack ad on Cox, the ad raises awareness about Cox generally, and could additionally energize Republican primary voters who agree with Cox’s stances even though they do not align with the views of Maryland’s general electorate.

“Given Cox’s front-runner status and radical MAGA stances, we are starting the general election early and wasting no time to hold him accountable,” Sam Newton, a spokesman for the DGA, said in a statement.

According to most recent polling numbers, Cox and his more moderate opponent, former Secretary of the Maryland Department of Commerce Kelly Schulz, are locked in a statistical tie. Maryland’s primary is Tuesday, July 19.

Long-term consequences for Democratic strategy loom

Funding more radical Republican candidates that Democrats think will be easier competition in the general election is not an entirely new strategy. Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2019, used the strategy with success in her bid for re-election in 2012. In the last two weeks of her campaign, McCaskill spent $1.7 million on ads that boosted radical tea party candidate Todd Akin in his primary election – more than Akin had spent on his candidacy in his entire campaign.

The gamble paid off: Akin won the Republican nomination with 36% of the vote. Akin then lost the general election to McCaskill.

Despite her victory, McCaskill warns that Democrats’ attempts to recreate her success should be approached with caution.

“There certainly are risks, and it’s certainly different today than it was a decade ago,” McCaskill told NPR. “When Todd Akin said what I expected him to say, something that was off the wall in the general election, unlike today, the Republican leadership all came together and rejected him … I’m not sure you could count on Republican leaders to stand up and reject a candidate that said things that were abhorrent to most voters.”

McCaskill’s warnings evoke lessons from the 2016 presidential election. While Democrats did not spend money on advertisements in the same manner as these Republican primaries, then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign attempted to “elevate” Trump’s Republican primary bid through an intentional media campaign in hopes he would be an easier opponent in the general election. Trump went on to win the general election and became the 45th president of the United States.

Democratic efforts to elevate more radical Republican candidates comes with an inherent risk that if those candidates win the general election, Democrats will have played a direct role in getting them elected.

Some Democratic Party operatives have criticized the strategy.

“I think it’s very dangerous and potentially very risky to elevate people who are hostile to democracy,” Democratic political strategist Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post. “Either this is a crisis moment or it isn’t. And if it is — which it is — you don’t play cute in a crisis.”

Even if candidates like Bailey and Mastriano do not go on to win their general election, there is an additional concern that by helping them secure a victory in their respective primaries, Democrats have helped to legitimize and normalize their political platforms, which otherwise would have been viewed as fringe.

As Thomas Devore, the Republican nominee for the Illinois attorney general race and an ally of gubernatorial nominee Bailey, told the New York Times, “Whether or not Darren and I win the general election, if we can at least get control within our own party, I think long-term we have an opportunity to be successful.”

July 26, 2022: This article has been updated to list Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Bron

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 13:59 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
Dit blijft een hele opvallende en ook hele risicovolle strategie, men moet nu immers elke kandidaat ook uiteindelijk verslaan en of dat gaat gebeuren valt te betwijfelen. Dus dan help je eigenlijk de meest radicale tegenstanders aan politieke macht. Ik vraag mij af of het vanuit dat oogpunt niet beter was om juist de meer gematigde kandidaat te steunen.
[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 14:22 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]
Ik vraag me zelfs af of het sowieso zinvol is om geld te besteden aan andermans primaries. Besteed het aan het optimaal ondersteunen en begeleiden van je eigen kandidaten zou ik zeggen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 05:19 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Zo verrassend:

[ twitter ]
[..]
[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:23 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Sneu volk:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:23 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Sneu volk:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:23 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Sneu volk:

[ twitter ]

quote:

While not all Republican senators who voted against the bill talked publicly about why they did so, Republican Senator Toomey said on the Senate floor that he voted against the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending.

"My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill," Toomey said. "This budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans' issue that has to do with burn pits, that it's not even in the House version of this bill."

Bron

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:52 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Misschien moet je je verdiepen in hoe de hele wetsvoorstel in elkaar stak. Dat ging uiteindelijk niet alleen over het helpen van veteranen met brandwonden. Het valt wel op hoe makkelijk mensen voor dat soort narratieven vallen. Ik zag op Twitter ook al een andere variant, namelijk dat Republikeinen zouden weigeren veteranen met kanker te helpen.
[..]
Meer uitleg (vanaf 1:24) en een tegenvoorstel:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:57 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Mss moet je je zelf er eens in verdiepen. De vorige keer dat Toomey stemde had hij totaal geen probleem met dat 'budget issue' waar hij nu ineens mee komt:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 18:16 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Een emotioneel betoog van een comedian op CNN voegt niets toe. Ik ben eerder benieuwd of er tussentijds nog bepaalde dingen zijn gewijzigd in het voorstel. Dat zie je natuurlijk wel vaker.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:52 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Misschien moet je je verdiepen in hoe de hele wetsvoorstel in elkaar stak. Dat ging uiteindelijk niet alleen over het helpen van veteranen met brandwonden. Het valt wel op hoe makkelijk mensen voor dat soort narratieven vallen. Ik zag op Twitter ook al een andere variant, namelijk dat Republikeinen zouden weigeren veteranen met kanker te helpen.
[..]
Meer uitleg (vanaf 1:24) en een tegenvoorstel:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:52 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Misschien moet je je verdiepen in hoe de hele wetsvoorstel in elkaar stak. Dat ging uiteindelijk niet alleen over het helpen van veteranen met brandwonden. Het valt wel op hoe makkelijk mensen voor dat soort narratieven vallen. Ik zag op Twitter ook al een andere variant, namelijk dat Republikeinen zouden weigeren veteranen met kanker te helpen.
[..]
Meer uitleg (vanaf 1:24) en een tegenvoorstel:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 17:52 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Misschien moet je je verdiepen in hoe de hele wetsvoorstel in elkaar stak. Dat ging uiteindelijk niet alleen over het helpen van veteranen met brandwonden. Het valt wel op hoe makkelijk mensen voor dat soort narratieven vallen. Ik zag op Twitter ook al een andere variant, namelijk dat Republikeinen zouden weigeren veteranen met kanker te helpen.
[..]
Meer uitleg (vanaf 1:24) en een tegenvoorstel:

[ twitter ]

quote:

The Senate passed a bill to help sick veterans. Then 25 Republicans reversed course (NPR)

Veterans and their loved ones gathered in Washington, D.C., on Thursday for what was supposed to be a long-awaited celebration.

The Senate finally was poised to pass a bill that would provide health care and benefits for millions of veterans injured by exposure to toxins, from Agent Orange in Vietnam to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, in a surprise move, 25 Republican senators blocked the measure on Wednesday — even though they had voted in favor of it just one month earlier.

Known as the PACT Act, the bill no longer would force generations of veterans to prove that their illness was caused by toxic exposures suffered in the military in order to get VA coverage. It had been hailed as the largest expansion of care in VA history, and was expected to cost $280 billion over a decade.

Activists had spent a dozen years campaigning for such an expansion — a period during which they lost many of their own, including Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson, for whom the bill is named. He served near a burn pit during his deployments to Kosovo and Iraq with the Ohio National Guard, and died of a rare cancer in 2020.

The bill — like many issues related to veterans' health — had amassed deep bipartisan support, and easily passed the Senate by an 84-14 vote in June. But a technical error required another vote, and this time, more than two dozen Republicans switched sides. The final tally was 55-42 (with three senators abstaining), falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Veterans groups, family members, longtime advocate Jon Stewart and several Democratic lawmakers gathered outside the U.S. Capitol after the vote on Thursday to voice their outrage.

"They lived up to their oath! These people thought they could finally breathe," Stewart said. "You think their trouble ends because the Pact Act passes? All that means is they don't have to decide between their cancer drugs and their house."

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the chair of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, accused Senate Republicans of turning their backs on veterans and their families, in what he called an unacceptable "slap in the face" to service members.

"My colleagues can make up all sorts of excuses as to why they decided to change their vote for this bill, but the bottom line is, veterans will suffer and die as a result on behalf of these excuses, and that's why we've got to pass this bill," he said.

Who changed their votes — and why

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) has been leading opposition to the bill, and voted against it both times.

In remarks on the Senate floor, he decried it as a "budgetary gimmick" that would create $400 billion in unrelated spending by moving it from the discretionary to mandatory category. His office has said his proposed technical fix wouldn't reduce any spending on veterans or limit the expansion of care.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said that he supports the substance of the bill, but not the "accounting gimmick," and accused Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of trying to block Toomey's amendment.

But those same spending concerns didn't seem to pose an initial concern for the more than two dozen Republicans who voted for it last month only to abruptly change their stance. They are: Sens. John Barrasso, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, Mike Braun, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Mitch McConnell, Rob Portman, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Dan Sullivan and Todd Young. Sens. Additionally, Sens. Steve Daines and Roger Wicker voted against the bill after not voting in June.

"Every single one has pictures with veterans on their Facebook pages, on their websites," said Susan Zeier, Heath Robinson's mother-in-law, outside the Capitol as her 9-year-old granddaughter wept nearby. "Well, screw that, they don't support veterans. If you won't vote on this bill, you do not support veterans."

Some of those senators are veterans themselves.

"Promises were made and promises were broken," said Kristina Keenan of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Sens. Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan are veterans, and they are delaying healthcare for some of the men and women that they served with."

Ernst's office said her opposition was due to the budget issue, while the others did not respond to NPR's request for comment.

Some Democratic lawmakers have offered alternative explanations for their colleagues' sudden switch, noting that it comes just after they reached an agreement of their own on a separate reconciliation bill.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a statement that the "charitable explanation" is that Republicans simply changed their minds, with the alternative being that they "are mad that Democrats are on the verge of passing climate change legislation and have decided to take out their anger on vulnerable veterans."

"Either way, this is not a good day for veterans in this country," he added.

Speaking at Thursday's press conference, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) called the situation "the worst form of overt politicization I've literally ever seen" and urged people to make sure those 25 senators understand that "they have just sentenced veterans to death because they will not have the healthcare they have earned."

"We had strong bipartisan support for this bill. And at the 11th hour, Sen. Toomey decides that he wants to rewrite the bill," she said. "How he convinced 25 of his colleagues to change their vote, I have no idea. What the hell? How does this happen? How do you change your mind right when you're about to make a law that's gonna save lives? It makes no sense. It's an outrage and there has to be accountability."

What veterans advocates are saying, and what happens next

Veterans groups and activists are slamming Senate Republicans for blocking the measure, and have pledged to keep lobbying for it.

Many took to the podium at Thursday's press conference to demand accountability and further action, calling on lawmakers not to leave for August recess until they can pass the bill.

Schumer has said he would schedule another procedural vote for Monday.

Bob Carey of the veterans' service organization Independence Fund urged senators to stay overnight and into the weekend if needed, even offering to bring coffee, donuts and barbecue if it would help get the job done quickly.

"People tell us, 'we can get this passed in September, or during lame duck,'" he said at the podium. "When you have cancer, when you're sick, a month, two months is a lifetime, both figuratively and possibly literally. We've got to pass this now."

Tom Porter, the executive vice president for government affairs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, noted that many of the 25 senators issued press releases touting their earlier votes in support of veterans, only to turn their backs on them.

Stewart, the former talk show host who's become a high-profile veterans advocate, lambasted the Republican senators in a furious, expletive-laden speech.

Stewart noted at one point that the lawmakers being addressed were likely indoors enjoying air conditioning, ignoring the veterans — at least one of whom was wearing an oxygen tube — braving the scorching heat for over an hour to try to make their point.

He also slammed Toomey's characterization of the bill's spending provision as a "slush fund," saying that the U.S. has much bigger funds — without guardrails — in support of its defense budget and overseas military operations.

"You don't support the troops," he said. "You support the war machine."