James Carville: The Democratic Party needs someone who can talk definitively and clearly
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Rep. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, WH Budget Director Russel Vought and Dem. Sen. Mark Kelly - State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Rep. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, WH Budget Director Russel Vought and Dem. Sen. Mark Kelly State of the Union 46 mins Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin discusses the Epstein controversy with Jake Tapper and what it will take for the Trump administration to move on from the crisis. White House Budget Director Russ Vought tells Jake Tapper about plans for another recissions package and the tools the administration might use to achieve spending cuts. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly discusses what he has been hearing from voters at townhalls about Democratic favorability problems and whether the US bears any blame for the starvation crisis in Gaza. And the panel weighs in.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CNN host laughs at Republican senator as he fact-checks him on Epstein ‘sweetheart' deal
CNN's Jake Tapper repeatedly fact-checked a Republican senator on air Sunday as the lawmaker insisted that Democrats and Barack Obama's administration were at fault for a 'sweetheart' deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to escape his 2008 conviction on child sex charges virtually unscathed. Sen. Markwayne Mullin appeared on CNN's State of the Union and repeatedly claimed that a plea agreement to keep Epstein from being charged federally for child sex crimes was signed in 2009, under the Obama administration. But Epstein's plea agreement was drafted in 2007 and signed in 2008, when he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, before Obama was even president. 'It was 2008,' Tapper corrected him, chuckling. Tapper noted that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta, who went on become Donald Trump's secretary of labor during his first administration. 'It all took place in 2008,' Tapper said. Mullin then shot back, asking 'who was in office at the time?' — seemingly making the error of assuming that Obama was the president. Obama won the presidential election that year but was inaugurated in January 2009. 'In 2008, George W. Bush was the president,' Tapper said, as he was cut off by Mullin repeating his question. 'George W. Bush.' Mullin went on to insist that because the case was 'sealed in 2009' that Democrats were somehow involved. A clearly exasperated Tapper responded that 'the point is, the 'sweetheart deal', which was completed in 2008, was under the Bush administration.' The plea agreement inked between Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, was staggering in its leniency. Epstein was allowed to leave the prison facility for hours at a time for 'work release' to the headquarters of a nebulous enterprise called the 'Florida Science Foundation' he founded shortly before beginning his sentence and shut down when it concluded. Inside the prison, Epstein was allowed to maintain his own office, just as he'd done at Harvard University for years, while watching television and was watched by guards who wore suits and were partially on his payroll. Mullin and other Republicans closely aligned with the president are treading a careful line on the issue of the Epstein investigation. The Trump administration ignited a firestorm early in July when the Department of Justice and FBI announced that the agencies would not release any more documents related to the Epstein investigation despite having promised to do so. The agencies cited a refusal to release identifying information about victims and graphic sexual imagery involving children. Most glaringly, the agencies also declared in that early July announcement that a so-called 'client list' of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators had not been found. Having latched on to the issue long before Trump was elected to a second term, his MAGA base descended into chaos. Many of the president's 2024 supporters called the reversal a betrayal by the administration, while some questioned whether Trump himself was involved in a cover-up to protect himself or other powerful men named as Epstein's accomplices in the files. Some Democrats latched on to the issue at the same time, joining calls for transparency. Then, a pair of articles in The Wall Street Journal purported to outline Trump's own connections to the investigation. The newspaper reported the contents of a message allegedly penned by Trump to Epstein as part of a 50th birthday celebration in 2003, including allusions to a 'secret.' Trump firmly denied authoring the note, and sued the newspaper and its reporters in response. A second article from the WSJ days later reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump in May that he was mentioned in the Epstein investigation multiple times, thought it was not clear in what context The White House called that story 'fake' and has repeatedly insinuated that Democrats including Joe Biden tampered with the Epstein files in response. Being mentioned in the files does not mean wrongdoing, and hundreds of names are reportedly included. Republicans on Capitol Hill are caught in the middle. Some are joining on to a bipartisan effort led by Thomas Massie — a Republican who clashed with the president over the GOP budget reconciliation package earlier this year — and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to force the Justice Department to release the entirety of its document trove, with redactions for child sexual assault material and the names or identifying information of victims. Others more aligned with leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. But Johnson and others have been careful not to label the Epstein story a distraction, to the White House's annoyance. Johnson called the August recess early this past week, sending lawmakers home for the month to avoid a vote legislation from Massie and Khanna.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
