The nation is now split cleanly in half over impeaching Donald Trump, with a Civiqs poll showing 46% supporting and 46% opposing, DailyKos noted (6/10).
Support has been on the upswing since the end of the Mueller investigation, when poll respondents were against impeachment, 51% to 41%, and Democratic support for impeachment, always high, was 81% in the poll taken 5/16-6/8. Republicans, of course, are dead set against it, as 92% were opposed. So the real reason for that shift is independents.
And when did independents break toward impeachment? When Republican Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) broke with his party and called for Trump’s impeachment.
The day Amash called for impeachment, independents opposed impeachment by a 52-39 margin. About two weeks later, the numbers had swung a net -10 points to just 47-44.
“Inevitably, someone will say, ‘Correlation doesn’t equal causation!’ and that is certainly true,” Markos Moulitsas, publisher of DailyKos, wrote. “But if you say that, take a look at the news around that time and come up with an alternate theory for that dramatic rise in support for impeachment among independents (and only independents!).
“Amash’s surprising (and so far unique) stance for a federally elected Republican has earned him a great deal of praise and scorn, depending on where you stand on the criminal Trump enterprise. But it seems pretty clear that it had an outsized impact on how the public views impeachment.”
For his trouble, Amash has been rebuked by members of the conservative “Freedom Caucus,” which Amash helped found in 2015, and Amash quit the caucus (6/10).
TRUMP LAGS IN ‘BATTLEGROUND’ STATES. Donald Trump remains unpopular and apparently vulnerable in seven battleground states that he carried in the 2016 Electoral College, a Morning Consult running survey showed (6/4). In surveys conducted through 5/31, in Iowa, Trump showed 42% approval and 54% disapproval, a net decrease of 21 points since he took office in January 2017. In Michigan, Trump showed 42% approval and 54% disapproval, a net decrease of 20 points since he took office. In Pennsylvania, Trump showed 45% approval and 52% disapproval, a net decrease of 17 points. In Wisconsin, Trump showed 42% approval and 55% disapproval, a net decrease of 19 points. Trump also showed net disapproval in Ohio, where he showed 46% approval and 50% disapproval, a net decrease of 18 points. In North Carolina, Trump showed 46% approval and 50% disapproval, a net decrease of 22 points. Florida is deadlocked at 48% approval vs. 48% disapproval, a net decrease of 22 points. In Arizona, Trump showed 45% approval and 51% disapproval, a net decrease of 26 points. Trump showed a narrow net approval in Texas, with 49% approval vs. 46% disapproval, but that’s still a decrease of 17 points since he became president, which isn’t good news for a Republican.
None of the states that voted for Hillary Clinton now show a net approval of Trump.
IOWA POLL POINTS TO DEMOCRATIC TOP TIER. The field of Democratic presidential candidates is starting to settle into tiers: Joe Biden leads the pack, and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg are in close competition for second place, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom/CNN Iowa Poll shows (6/8).
“We’re starting to see the people who are planning to caucus start to solidify,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of the Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “There’s a lot more commitment than we normally see this early. And some of these candidates who’ve been under the radar start to surface and compete with Joe Biden.”
Selzer & Co., widely seen as producing the best and most reliable polling in the Hawkeye State, last surveyed Iowa Democrats in March, and for most of the field, there’s been quite a bit of movement over the last three months:
Joe Biden: 24% (down from 27% in March)
Bernie Sanders: 16% (down from 25%)
Elizabeth Warren: 15% (up from 9%)
Pete Buttigieg: 14% (up from 1%)
Kamala Harris: 7% (unchanged)
Everyone else was at 2% support or lower.
So, as the race enters a new phase, what can we take away from these results? A few things stood out for Steve Benen of MaddowBlog (6/10):
• Biden is the frontrunner, but not a dominant one: The former vice president can’t feel too discouraged by a poll showing him ahead of his next closest competitor by eight points, but there are some signs of trouble. His overall standing has slipped; his favorability ratings among Iowa Dems has dropped; and the poll found less enthusiasm among Biden backers than some of the other top contenders.
• Sanders is moving in the wrong direction: In March, the Vermont independent was competing with Biden for the top of the heap; in June, the senator is practically tied for second place.
• Warren is moving in the right direction: Aside from the Massachusetts Democrat’s obvious poll bounce from March, the Des Moines Register/Mediacom/CNN Iowa Poll also asked respondents to name their second choice and candidates that local voters are “actively considering.” Given the way the Iowa caucuses work, these are important metrics.
And when all three metrics were combined, Warren reached 61% – tying Biden at the top of the heap.
Buttigieg doesn’t appear to be a fluke: No other Democrat gained more in this poll than the South Bend mayor. In March, he barely registered; now he’s practically tied for second place. There’s a top tier in Iowa, and at this point, Buttigieg is in it.
• Beto has some work to do: In December, Selzer & Co. conducted its first poll of Iowa Dems, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, fresh off his strong showing in Texas’ U.S. Senate race, was in third place at the time with 11% support. In March, he slipped to 5%. In this new poll, he’s at 2%.
• Booker’s silver lining: This isn’t a good poll for Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who was at 3% in March, and who’s at 1% in the latest results. That said, the New Jersey senator had high favorability numbers, and he was named as a second choice by 6% of respondents, which is the highest of any candidate outside the top tier. That’s a foundation Booker may be able to build on.
• Debates: For what it’s worth, this poll counts among those determining who qualifies for the upcoming round of debates, so for candidates still hoping to make the cut, the results were about more than bragging rights. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), for example, needed to get at least 1% in this poll to meet the minimum threshold, but he fell short, as did Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC), and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-HO).
For those keeping track, the Iowa caucuses – the first nominating contest, which will very likely help winnow the field – will be held on Monday, Feb. 3.
SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR MAJOR ATTACK ON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW. The Supreme Court announced that it would hear Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, which seeks to undercut one of the country’s oldest civil rights laws, Ian Millhiser reported at ThinkProgress (6/10).
Given the court’s Republican majority, this case is likely to end badly for civil rights plaintiffs. Though it is an open question whether the court will make a surgical cut against a particular anti-discrimination law or go so far as to nuke a major prong of American anti-discrimination litigation.
Comcast involves a cable company that allegedly refused to carry a black-owned television studio’s networks in violation of a post-Civil War statute barring race discrimination in contracts.
Companies are rarely monoliths, and when a company takes an adverse action against a person of color (or another company owned by people of color) they often have a variety of reasons. Some executives, for example, may be driven by racist motives, while others may act for legitimate business reasons. For this reason, the law permits what are known as “mixed-motive” suits, which allow civil rights plaintiffs to prevail in some cases where they face discrimination for a combination of both legitimate and illegal reasons.
The Comcast case asks the Supreme Court to hold that claims under the Reconstruction-era ban on contract discrimination must show “but-for causation.” That is, for a plaintiff to prevail, they must show that, in the absence of racist motivations, they would have been treated differently. That is often very difficult to prove, as it essentially requires plaintiffs to prove that events would have been different had everyone been living in an alternative reality.
Under current law, if a plaintiff shows that the defendant had mixed motives, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that they would have made the same decisions in the absence of invidious motives. If the defendant cannot meet this burden of proof, they may be held liable for their actions.
Even before the Supreme Court took a hard right turn under President Donald Trump, its Republican majority was very hostile to mixed-motive suits. Indeed, the court already eliminated these suits in age discrimination cases and in cases alleging retaliation against people who allege employment discrimination. So it is exceedingly likely that there will be five votes to eliminate them under the Reconstruction era law.
The open question at hand is whether the Supreme Court will also eliminate mixed-motive suits in all civil rights contexts. Should it do so, it would touch off a legal earthquake that would leave many victims of discrimination without relief.
This would also be entirely consistent with the Roberts Court’s dismissive attitude towards allegations of race discrimination.
KUSHNER CO. GOT $90M FROM ANONYMOUS OFFSHORE INVESTORS IN 2017. A real estate company in which presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner retains partial ownership, Cadre, took in $90 million in foreign money from “an opaque offshore vehicle,” The Guardian reported (6/10).
That money reportedly started flowing to Cadre once Trump named Kushner as a top White House advisor taking on the role of an international envoy for the US. The money was funneled through a Goldman Sachs account in the Cayman Islands, which allow corporations to shield their identities.
Kushner conveniently left Cadre out of his initial ethics disclosure and added the company later, claiming the omission was just an oversight, Kerry Eleveld noted at DailyKos (6/10). But when he joined the White House, he also resigned from the company’s board and cut down his stake in the company to below 25%. Sounds like the company was on his mind until it slipped while he was filling out his ethics disclosure. His holding is now valued at up to $50 million, according to his financial disclosure documents.
“Can’t imagine why foreign officials immediately identified Kushner as a target for influence,” Kerry Eleveld noted at DailyKos (6/10). Though the entities contributing money to the Cayman account are unknown, The Guardian reports that one funding source is another offshore account while other sources originated in Saudi Arabia.
TRUMP PUSHES 20 YEARS IN PRISON FOR PIPELINE PROTESTERS. The Trump administration is seeking to dramatically escalate federal penalties for pipeline protesters. Under newly proposed changes, pipeline protesters could face up to 20 years in prison for disrupting the construction of oil and gas infrastructure. The move echoes similarly harsh penalties for anti-pipeline activists being adopted in several states, E.A. Crunded reported at ThinkProgress (6/13).
Updates proposed to the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) released (6/3) would make interrupting pipeline construction or damaging existing pipelines a federal crime.
According to the proposed PHMSA updates, first reported by Politico, “vandalism, tampering with, or impeding, disrupting or inhibiting the operation of” pipelines would be met with fines or potentially many years in jail. Under current law, damaging existing pipelines can lead to up to 20 years jail time, but those “under construction” are now a consideration as well along with “disruption” to pipelines.
Other components of the PHMSA updates include changing the threshold for damages incurred by a pipeline accident before an operator is required to report a problem; the proposal would double the $100,000 threshold currently in place.
Activists have relied on pipeline protests as a successful protest tactic used to protect vulnerable communities, including indigenous tribes and low-income people of color who often suffer the consequences of fossil fuel impacts. Many also see protest as critical to addressing climate change, an approach that has met with legal success.
During the Obama administration, pipeline opponents scored major wins, including the blocking of the Dakota Access pipeline following outcry from indigenous communities and allies. But President Donald Trump has sought to erode those gains, pushing for pipeline expansion and overruling pushback from impacted communities.
In April, Trump signed executive orders clearing the way for oil and gas pipelines to be built more quickly. Those orders target the power of states controlled by pipeline opponents, like New York, that have long exercised their ability to limit fossil fuel infrastructure. Meanwhile, pipeline-friendly states (which are mostly controlled by Republicans) are ramping up their efforts targeting protesters.
In May, the Texas legislature passed a bill making it a felony for protesters to disrupt pipeline construction. The bill, supported by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), would make “impairing or interrupting” a pipeline punishable by up to two years in prison. And if this took place during construction it would be considered a third-degree felony punishable by to up to a decade of prison time in the state — the country’s leading oil and gas producer.
Texas isn’t alone in cracking down on pipeline protesters. Louisiana, South Dakota, Pennsylvania and other energy-rich states have similarly sought harsh penalties for pipeline opponents, who they accuse of hindering safety and the economy. In addition to targeting protesters on the scene of anti-pipeline demonstrations, some lawmakers have also proposed targeting supporters of those protests even when they are not physically present.
TEXAS KEEPS LOW RANKING IN MATERNAL HEALTH. The Texas Legislature adjourned (5/27) without expanding Medicaid to cover mothers for a year after giving birth. The Texas Senate failed to take up the maternal health coverage bill that was recommended by the state's Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force. The Senate did not even refer the bill to a committee after it passed the House, despite the state having the nation's worst uninsured rate for women of childbearing age — with often devastating consequences for moms and babies — and the nation's worst uninsured rate for adults and children.
Medicaid in Texas, which covers more than half the births in the state, phases mothers out of coverage two months after they’ve given birth. Among 382 Texas women who died within a year of giving birth between 2012 and 2015, more than half died after that two-month mark.
ARCTIC DEATH SPIRAL SPEEDS UP SIXFOLD, DRIVING COASTAL PERMAFROST COLLAPSE. Drone surveys have revealed erosion of coastal permafrost in the Arctic — up to 3 feet a day. Researchers reported (6/7) that the recent rate of erosion is six times higher than the historical rate, Joe Romm reported at ThinkProgress (6/10).
Meanwhile, the Arctic just saw the hottest May on record, with temperatures in northwest Russia hitting a remarkable 84 degrees Fahrenheit. Global warming is driving Arctic sea ice to near-record lows, which in turn is driving ever-worsening summer heat waves in the southern United States, according to another new study.
In the first study, a team led by University of Edinburgh scientists flew drone-mounted cameras over a section of permafrost coastline in the Canadian Arctic.
They found that during a 40-day period in the summer of 2017, the coast had retreated a remarkable 47 feet — with daily rates of collapse sometimes exceeding 3 feet.
“Big chunks of soil and ground break off the coastline every day, then fall into the waves and get eaten away,” co-author Dr. Isla Myers-Smith, a University of Edinburgh geoscientist, explained.
This rate of erosion was more than six times greater than the historical average experienced in the previous half century.
The most dangerous climate feedback loop is speeding up
The permafrost, or tundra, is soil that stays below freezing (32 degrees Fahrenheit) for at least two years. Thawing permafrost is a dangerous amplifying feedback loop for global warming because the global permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere does today .
As the permafrost melts, it releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane, and as the coastline disintegrates and erodes, more and more permafrost will be exposed to the warming air and water.
This means, as the planet continues to warm, more permafrost will erode and melt, releasing even more greenhouse gases in a continuous feedback loop.
A 2017 study found the Alaskan tundra is warming so quickly it had become a net emitter of CO2 ahead of schedule. That study was the first to report a major portion of the Arctic had already become a net source of heat-trapping emissions.
As the Arctic warms, the ice retreats — and the recent record Arctic temperatures have led to the second lowest amount of sea ice on record for June (after 2016).
Such ice loss is a key reason climate models have long predicted that human-caused warming would be at least twice as fast in the Arctic as elsewhere. When highly reflective sea ice melts due to higher temperatures, it is replaced by the dark blue sea which absorbs more solar energy, leading to more melting.
A study released (5/17) in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that loss of Arctic sea ice is making extreme heat waves more likely. The study concludes that “low summer sea ice in Hudson Bay is statistically linked to an increased frequency of summer US heat waves,” especially in the US Southeast and southern Plains.
The study also finds that the melting sea ice is weakening the jet stream. A weaker jet stream causes summer weather systems to stall, leading to longer and stronger heat waves — and other extreme events, as recent studies have reported.
Back in December, the annual Arctic Report Card from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) noted that “Growing atmospheric warmth in the Arctic results in a sluggish and unusually wavy jet-stream that coincided with abnormal weather events in both the Arctic and mid-latitudes.”
What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. Unless we start cutting carbon pollution sharply and rapidly, we can expect Arctic temperatures to soar in the coming decades, bringing ever worsening extreme weather to this country.
ICE HAS NO IDEA HOW MANY VETERANS IT HAS DEPORTED, WATCHDOG REPORT FINDS. How many veterans has Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested and deported after they put their lives on the line in service of the US? The agency has no clue. No, seriously, it has no idea exactly how many have been deported over the past five years because it hasn’t kept track of it, Gabe Ortiz noted at DailyKos (6/10).
“Because ICE does not maintain complete electronic data on potentially removable veterans it encounters, ICE does not know exactly how many veterans have been placed in removal proceedings or removed,” the Government Accountability Office said in a new report. ICE has policies in place that it’s supposed to follow then it decides to take patriotic action to arrest a military veteran, but the GAO found these were not being followed either.
“When ICE agents and officers learn they have encountered a potentially removable veteran, ICE policies require them to take additional steps to proceed with the case,” the report continues. That includes “a 2015 directive [requiring] ICE to give elevated status to cases surrounding individuals with veteran status,” the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs tweeted. But, “GAO found that ICE did not consistently follow its policies involving veterans who were placed in removal proceedings from fiscal years 2013 through 2018.”
This negligence goes far beyond affecting immigrant service members. Late last year, ICE tried to deport a US-born Marine veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, after an off-duty Michigan police captain turned federal immigration officials on him. Lance corporal and tank crewman Jilmar Ramos-Gomez was carrying his passport and a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license, yet ICE kept him detained for three days.
The American Civil Liberties Union has estimated that perhaps 200 veterans have been deported after serving their country. “The GAO found ICE placed at least 250 veterans in deportation procedures over the last five years, based on available data,” NBC News reported. “But, the authors noted, the actual number could be much higher, because the agency does not properly track veterans in its systems.”
So what’s this out-of-control agency’s excuse for the report’s findings? “Officials with Homeland Security Investigations, a law enforcement arm of ICE, told the GAO that they had not been adhering to the two policies, ‘because they were unaware of the policies prior to [the] review,’” NBC News continued. “Our government is failing our immigrant veterans—men and women who have dutifully served our nation,” said US Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA). “The GAO report reveals obvious instances of mismanagement and policy noncompliance that have led to numerous veteran deportations.”
ABORTION BAN POISED TO TAKE EFFECT IN ALABAMA, WHERE RAPISTS CAN SUE FOR CUSTODY. If Alabama’s abortion ban goes into effect, women who’ve become pregnant as a result of rape or incest will be forced to remain pregnant. And once they have children, their rapists can pursue custody under state law, Laura Clawson noted at DailyKos (6/10).
A rapist seeking custody is not some outlandish scenario. “Many rapists commit assaults as a way to dominate and control,” Lisae Jordan, director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, told the Washington Post. “Seeking custody is just a continuation of that desire to dominate.”
In Alabama, for instance, Jessica Stallings is fighting her uncle for custody of her two sons. She had been pregnant by him four times before she was 18, with one son dying of an incest-related condition. Her uncle—Lenion Richard Barnett Jr.—is fighting for custody after a recent drug arrest that happened while Stallings’s son was in the car. “I understand the father’s rights, but in this case—and we all know him around here—he’s not fit to parent,” said a representative of the DeKalb County sheriff’s office, but so far that hasn’t stopped a judge from giving Barnett visitation time and it hasn’t stopped his crusade to exercise parental rights over children conceived when he raped his niece.
“Alabama and Minnesota are the only two states that don’t terminate parental rights for rapists, though policies vary across the states that do have such laws, ranging from states that demand a criminal rape conviction before parental rights are terminated to ones that more reasonably call for “clear and convincing evidence” of rape. But while Minnesota should get its act together and say you don’t get parental rights by raping someone, Alabama is the state that’s telling women they both have to carry and birth their rapists’ babies and then co-parent with their rapists. In case you needed any more evidence that what’s going on here is contempt and disgust for women, not some deep-seated concern for life and dignity,” Clawson concluded.
TRUMP-VOTING TRUCKERS TURN ON PREZ AFTER THEIR TAXES JUMP $8,000. After Trump recently called his economy “the best ever,” MSNBC’s Morgan Radford spoke with a group of truckers who disagreed (6/5). Several of the truckers were Trump voters who don’t expect to vote for the president again.
“Do you feel like this administration is listening to you as truckers?” Radford asked.
“No, ma’am,” one trucker replied.
“No, they’re not listening! Not at all!” another driver insisted.
The group also revealed that all of their taxes went up after Republicans cut taxes mostly for the wealthy.
“All of you?” Radford said. “So most of you saw your taxes increase? The reason, something called a per diem. In the past, truckers could deduct things like food and daily expenses from their taxable income. Now with Trump’s new tax bill, they no longer can.”
One trucker with a young family at home told Radford, when they took the per diem out, that made an $8,000 difference.
“You said you also believed that the president would help truckers,” Radford observed. “Do you think he’s doing a good job?”
“No, I don’t,” the trucker replied. “There’s nothing that he’s doing to help us out out here in any way possible. None.”
From The Progressive Populist, July 1-15, 2019
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652