Joaquin Phoenix in Joker. | Niko Tavernise / Courtesy of TIFF

DC is probably getting more “edgy” origin stories from Phillips.

The waves of controversy and debate surrounding Todd Phillips’s Joker may not die any time soon. The supervillain origin movie thumbed its nose at critics when it scored a record-breaking opening weekend at the box office in October and became the highest-grossing R-rated movie to date. Is it any wonder director Phillips is now eyeing a sequel?

Phillips deliberately eschewed the best-known versions of the Joker’s nebulous backstory and stripped his movie of as many traditional comic book-y elements as he could. But now, according to the Hollywood Reporter, he not only plans to make a Joker follow-up movie, he also intends to oversee multiple films in the same vein — to usher in a giant origin story overhaul for the DC cinematic universe.

Phillips reportedly is in talks to helm the sequel, with Joaquin Phoenix returning to play the title character and Scott Silver returning to co-write the screenplay with Phillips. But he also apparently wants to apply the same “what if Gotham, but grittier” galaxy brain take to the backstories of multiple other DC characters. None have been named, although Batman won’t be on his to-do list. Matthew Reeves already has a Dark Knight origin movie in the works for 2021, starring Robert Pattinson as the Batman himself.

Joker’s success at the box office illustrates an interesting paradox for the DC Comics fan. Many of them have been pointing out for years that “gritty” can get pretty boring pretty fast, and that a bleak tone doesn’t have to be the thing that defines the DC comic book universe against its often-sunnier Marvel counterpart. Yet even after DC’s then-Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns admitted in 2016 that the company had been leaning too heavily on gritty and dark as its brand, the company seemed to double down on pushing that brand as edgy and subversive with films like Suicide Squad and Justice League. And that’s not even touching the pervasive belief that somehow dark/edgy/subversive makes a storyline more serious and respectable than a hopeful or joyous one. (Martin Scorsese inadvertently dredged up that old genre-shaming trope again recently, but trust me, that trope is never buried very deep.)

Despite their complaints about DC’s grimdark brand, fans overwhelmingly voted for that brand with their massive Joker turnout. And that means the “what if dark thing, but darker” approach to the DC ’verse isn’t going to be going away any time soon. And if Phillips does get the ability to oversee brand-new origin stories for a wide swath of comic book characters — although, again, he seems to be so unfamiliar with comic books that he actually seems to think redoing a character’s backstory to make it less reliant on superhero tropes is new and interesting — then the controversy provoked by Joker’s polarizing approach to its titular villain may find its way into numerous DC films to come.

Still, even before Joker’s release, plenty of fans were speculating about what origin stories Phillips should direct next. So if you’re excited rather than preemptively exhausted by the impending Todd Phillips-DC Comics Cinematic Universe in our future, congratulations! You will literally never run out of characters who can have their backstories told as ever bleaker, ever more downtrodden tales full of ironic takes on man’s inhumanity to man.

As for me, well, I’ll be waiting for the Bong Joon-ho “Boxy Superhero” cinematic universe to bring us a happy end to this sordid cycle of grimdark beer-holding.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/35cS98m

President Trump reads from his notes as he talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on November 20, 2019. | Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images

Sondland, who gave $1 million to Trump’s campaign, just got the “coffee boy” treatment.

Last month, President Donald Trump described Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, as “a really good man and great American” in a tweet. Trump said that he didn’t intend to let Sondland testify before impeachment investigators about the administration’s shady dealings with Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Sondland testified. And Trump suddenly barely knows the guy.

Sondland delivered a bombshell opening statement in which he implicated everyone from Trump to Rudy Giuliani to Vice President Mike Pence to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a “quid pro quo.” He testified he believed White House officials wouldn’t allow a state visit and hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid would be withheld until Ukrainian officials delivered “a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.”

On Wednesday, Trump — who nominated Sondland for an ambassadorship after Sondland gave $1 million to his inaugural fund — said to reporters outside the White House, “I don’t know him very well.”

“I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. Seems like a nice guy though,” Trump said of Sondland. “He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates. Not me. Came in late.”

Trump then read a “response” to Sondland’s testimony that was handwritten on a sheet of paper and included the phrases, “I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO. TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.”

Trump’s comments were reminiscent of how he and his representatives have previously distanced themselves from associates as soon as the association became problematic. In October 2017, when campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos struck a plea deal for lying to the FBI and started cooperating, Trump downplayed him on Twitter as a “low level volunteer” who “few people knew.”

Meanwhile, other Trump associates characterized Papadopoulos as nothing more than a “coffee boy.”

Trump similarly distanced himself from his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, after Cohen implicated him in felonies in a federal court.

The handwritten notes Trump read to reporters on Wednesday indicates that he thinks his comment will be “the final word” about Sondland.

Sondland, for his part, primarily placed blame for the Ukraine fiasco on Giuliani, but said he viewed him as “expressing the desires of the president of the United States.” So even though he doesn’t want to, the president will now certainly face questions about what he knew regarding the quid pro quo and when he knew it.

Trump wasn’t alone in quickly trying to distance himself from Sondland. Vice President Mike Pence responded to his testimony in the same way.

---

The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2CZmwmr

Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union, arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, on November 20, 2019. | Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Sondland’s most quietly damning statement: A real investigation by Ukraine was not the goal.

Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s Wednesday House testimony was full of revelations. One of them is that President Donald Trump never seemed to ask Ukraine for an actual investigation of Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

All he wanted, according to Sondland, was a public announcement of an investigation. He wanted a show.

This striking evidence first surfaced during Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff’s questioning, in which Schiff presses Sondland on what exactly the quid-pro-quo exchange was between Trump and Zelensky. Sondland says that Zelensky would receive a White House meeting in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma, the company whose board Hunter Biden served on, as well as alleged Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

Sondland is clear: “He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” There was never an ask for an actual investigation, just an announcement:

SCHIFF: And in order to perform that official act [a meeting in the Oval Office], Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his reelection campaign, correct?

SONDLAND: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.

SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.

Daniel Goldman, the attorney who did a good chunk of the questioning for the Democratic side, came back to this issues later in the hearing. Here’s the key point:

GOLDMAN: Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

SONDLAND: I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. … President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.

GOLDMAN: You never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations.

SONDLAND: I didn’t hear either way.

Sondland’s revelation rips away the last of the pretense that Trump cared about corruption in Ukraine. He wanted a televised announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden that could use to cast a pall on the Biden campaign, just as the email morass damaged Hillary Clinton in 2016. All he ever asked for was a sort of political show trial that would allow him to run the same playbook he ran against “Crooked Hillary.”

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/37sL9Gv

The Democratic primary debate, hosted by NBC News, was held at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida, on June 27, 2019. | Wilfredo Lee/AP

Sexual violence hasn’t been central to any of the debates so far.

Sexual misconduct hasn’t been a major issue in the Democratic debates so far this year, despite the prominence of the Me Too movement and the ongoing march of allegations against powerful men. Even a new allegation against President Trump, by prominent author and advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, wasn’t enough to jumpstart a major discussion on the topic.

But now the issue is coming to the fore — and not because of the president. Wednesday’s debate will be on MSNBC, whose parent network, NBC, has been accused of mishandling sexual assault allegations against Matt Lauer, and fostering a larger culture of covering up accusations against powerful men.

For weeks, advocates have been calling on the Democratic National Committee to cancel the debate for that reason, without any success. But on Tuesday, several Democratic candidates — Sens. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren — signed a letter calling on Comcast, which owns MSNBC and NBC, to launch an investigation.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

“We, the undersigned candidates, are very concerned about the message it would send to sexual assault survivors if our next debate is sponsored by MSNBC without clear commitments from Comcast, the parent company of NBC and MSNBC, to conduct an independent investigation into the toxic culture that enabled abusers and silenced survivors,” stated the letter, as reported by HuffPost.

“All Democratic presidential candidates should be pushing NBC to conduct an independent investigation, just as Booker, Harris, Sanders and Warren are calling for in the letter,” Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and executive director of UltraViolet Action, told Vox in a statement.

The letter brings the issue of sexual misconduct back into the presidential race at a time when it has, to some degree, fallen by the wayside. Despite calls from Me Too founder Tarana Burke and other advocates, the problems of sexual harassment and assault haven’t gotten a substantive discussion on the debate stage. And candidates have chosen not to bring up allegations that Joe Biden, one of the frontrunners in the race, behaved inappropriately with women, kissing or touching them in ways that made them uncomfortable.

Taking place in the midst of a public impeachment inquiry, Wednesday’s debate is likely to focus significantly on President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. But the letter is a reminder of what has been missing from debate discourse altogether. Not only does Trump face sexual misconduct allegations from more than 20 women, but Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court, accused men like journalist Mark Halperin are planning or executing comebacks, and even producer Harvey Weinstein — seen by many as the worst of the worst when it comes to men accused of harassment and assault — recently showed up at an event for young actors in New York.

Meanwhile, the systemic problems that enable sexual harassment and assault — from the tipped minimum wage to the country’s gender and racial pay gaps to a culture that values men’s words over women’s — still continue unabated. Democratic candidates have the opportunity to establish themselves as the leaders who can solve them, should they choose to take it.

NBC is accused of covering up sexual misconduct allegations against Matt Lauer and more

NBC has been facing increased criticism over its handling of sexual misconduct since the publication last month of Catch and Kill, a book by New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow that deals with allegations against Lauer as well as Weinstein.

Lauer was fired from his job as the host of NBC’s Today in November 2017, after executives said they received a complaint about “inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.” At the time, NBC News chief Andrew Lack said it was “the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he has been at NBC News.”

But in Catch and Kill, Farrow reports that there’s evidence NBC actually knew about allegations against Lauer long before he was fired. He writes that when he worked at the network, executives killed his story on the sexual assault and harassment allegations against Weinstein. One reason, according to Farrow’s reporting, may have been that Weinstein was threatening the network, saying he would reveal what he knew about Lauer if it went ahead with a story on him.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

NBC has denied that it was ever threatened by Weinstein, but the criticisms of the network go beyond Weinstein and Lauer. Other NBC executives and onscreen personalities, including Tom Brokaw and Mark Halperin, have been accused of sexual misconduct since Lauer’s firing, as Patrick Ryan notes at USA Today.

“The Matt Lauer story is bigger than one person,” Farrow told the newspaper. “This was a company that was concealing a lot of secrets, and there were allegations against multiple people in senior positions that were covered up.”

Because of criticisms like this, anti-sexual assault and harassment advocates have long been calling for more action by NBC. In October, the women’s group UltraViolet Action staged a rally at NBC headquarters in New York, calling on the network to fire president Noah Oppenheim and release survivors of misconduct at the company from nondisclosure agreements. The same month, the group called on the Democratic National Committee to cancel Wednesday’s debate.

“Donald Trump obviously has been credibly accused of harassment and abuse by literally dozens of women, and it’s our view that Democrats have to offer voters a clear and unquestionable difference,” Thomas told Vox at the time. “They can’t do that if they’re propping up and supporting companies that systemically covered up incidents of violence.”

Since then, NBC has said it will release employees from their nondisclosure agreements if they request such a release from the company. But critics say that requiring employees to ask permission to be released still imposes a burden on those who want to come forward, as Vox’s Alexia Fernández Campbell has reported.

Now, the four candidates, in a letter organized by UltraViolet, are urging the DNC to put pressure Comcast to launch an independent investigation.

“The troubling reports about management’s role to cover up abuse demonstrate that Comcast should have and needs to do more to shift the work culture and pursue significant structural changes in order to prevent future harassment and abuse at NBC and MSNBC,” the letter reads. “It is critical that the Democratic National Committee make clear that they support survivors of sexual harassment and abuse by ensuring that Comcast and NBC News take steps to clean up the toxic culture that exists across their networks.”

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

In a statement to Vox, Thomas called on all Democratic candidates to push for an investigation at NBC. She also said the DNC should refuse to partner with NBC for future debates without an investigation, and that Comcast should donate the profits from the debate to “organizations committed to ending gender based violence and workplace sexual harassment.”

And, she added, “moderators should ask candidates thoughtful questions that reflect the seriousness of the problem.”

Sexual misconduct hasn’t gotten much attention on the debate stage

The problem of sexual misconduct, and the allegations of organizations looking the other way, go far beyond NBC. Just last week, for example, a former McDonald’s employee sued the fast food chain in a class-action suit alleging a “culture of sexual harassment” at the organization. And while some research suggests that the Me Too movement may have reduced the prevalence of unwanted sexual solicitation at work, experts say that the problem remains severe — especially for women of color and queer people, who can experience intersecting layers of harassment based on their identities, as Kaitlin Sullivan reports at NBC News.

Despite all this, the subject of sexual misconduct has largely taken a back seat to other issues on the debate stage.

The obvious way into a discussion would be President Trump , who has been accused of misconduct by more than 20 women — including author E. Jean Carroll and restaurant owner Summer Zervos, both of whom are suing him for defamation. And yet the Democrats’ criticisms of him have largely focused on other issues, including allegations that he obstructed justice and tried to get Ukrainian officials to investigate the Biden family.

Candidates have also avoided the issue of the allegations of unwelcome behavior by Biden. Lucy Flores, a former candidate for lieutenant governor of Nevada, wrote in an essay at The Cut that in 2014, Biden kissed her on the head and smelled her hair at a campaign event.

“He stopped treating me like a peer the moment he touched me,” Flores wrote. “Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful.”

After Flores came forward, several other women said that Biden had behaved with them in ways they felt were inappropriate. And Flores believes that Biden’s response to the allegations against him — he has addressed them, but has never offered an apology — should disqualify him as a candidate.

“We don’t have to settle for someone who refuses to acknowledge the wrongs that they have done in the past,” she told Vox in an interview earlier this year. “We’re certainly never going to have a perfect president or perfect elected official,” she added, but “I want someone who is willing to acknowledge when they have made mistakes.”

But Biden’s opponents have generally not emphasized those allegations. Even Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, considered a leader in fighting sexual assault and harassment, chose another tack when she challenged Biden directly on his past in a July debate — she focused on a 1981 op-ed in which Biden appeared to disparage parents who use daycare for their children.

Other Democratic candidates may feel that Biden’s history with women isn’t a winning issue with voters. But polling shows voters do care about sexual misconduct as a broader issue. A majority of Americans consistently support the Me Too movement — 52 percent, according to a September PerryUndem poll. The same poll found that many Americans want the government to take action on sexual misconduct allegations, with 60 percent of voters saying they support an investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, according to PerryUndem researchers, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Me Too movement, and the election of President Trump have made more Democrats and independents think about the power and control that white men have in America — and, in many, created a drive for change.

On Wednesday, Democrats will have the opportunity to address not just the sexual misconduct allegations at NBC, but the ongoing concerns many Americans have about how high-profile people abuse their status to harm those less powerful than them.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2O6Zxfy

Wayne Messam at the 2019 South Carolina Democratic Party State Convention. | Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Citing poor polling and his difficulty breaking through with voters, Messam said he is suspending his campaign.

Wayne Messam, the mayor of Miramar, Florida and an early — but almost entirely overlooked — entrant into the 2020 Democratic presidential race, has suspended his White House bid.

“I knew the odds were a steep hill to climb but I have always fought for what is right and will continue to break barriers never broken,” Messam wrote in a Medium post announcing his plans to suspend his campaign — perhaps indefinitely — Wednesday.

“Although the campaign goal of becoming President was not realized at this moment, I could not be more thankful for the many supporters including my family, friends and so many Americans I have had the awesome opportunity to meet on the campaign trail all over this nation,” he added.

Messam pitched himself as an experienced progressive who was nevertheless a political outsider, telling voters, “I do not believe that the best ideas come from Washington.” He championed many causes near to the hearts of Democrats, from gun reform to erasing student debt to ending the filibuster.

But he never caught on with voters, and failed to cultivate the sort of attention his fellow small town Mayor Pete Buttigieg has received. Despite his best efforts, Messam did not qualify for any of the televised presidential debates, did not have any cable network town halls, and never received more than 1 percent support in national polls.

Throughout his struggles in the polls, Messam remained optimistic, focusing his campaign on early primary states and often sharing inspirational messages, reminding his social media followers to “#BeGreat.”

That positivity was unfortunately not enough. A progressive who was not quite as far to the left as Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Messam was overshadowed by rivals with greater name recognition who occupied a similar policy lane, like Buttigieg.

Although he is no longer a candidate for president, he remains the top official in Miramar, Florida, and is still popular there — he was recently reelected by a wide margin.

Wayne Messam wanted to bring his gun reform advocacy and plans for education reform to the White House

Messam embraced most of the ideas championed by the Democratic primary’s progressives (although he did not support a version of Medicare-for-all that would do away with private insurance). He tried to stand out from his peers in three areas, however: gun control, student debt, and his emphasis on health and fitness.

The mayor is perhaps best known in his home state for collaborating with other local leaders in a lawsuit challenging a Florida law that penalized any official who tried to pass gun reform laws. That suit succeeded in July — a judge ruled the law unconstitutional. He hoped to bring this creative approach to gun reform to Washington, and said, “When I’m president, it will be the No. 1 priority for my administration to prevent mass shootings.”

Messam also had big ideas about tackling student debt — he outlined them in a long and very detailed white paper, but the crux of his plan was simple: like Elizabeth Warren, Messam proposed forgiving everyone’s student debt. Under his plan, federal loans would be forgiven and private loans would be paid by the federal government.

As a talented athlete who helped his college football team at Florida State University win a national championship as a star wide receiver, Messam made running a key part of his campaign: He can be seen dashing through sugar cane fields in his announcement video and would often post pictures of himself after runs with inspirational messages and captions about the importance of exercise.

He also encouraged voters to run with him, hosting “Run with Wayne” events on the campaign trail, during which he’d lead voters on five mile runs, then speak with them about his candidacy and platform as they all cooled down.

Beyond these issues, Messam embraced other progressive platforms: he hoped to prioritize fighting climate change, expand access to health care, provide a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, and protect abortion rights. He also advocated for ending the filibuster, and called for getting rid of the electoral college.

What will Messam do next?

Messam is a young, progressive politician who is popular with voters in Miramar; he was reelected mayor in 2019 with an astounding 86 percent of the vote. Given he was just reelected, Messam pledged to “continue to serve as mayor of our great city” in his Medium post. He also dismissed “rumors concerning my next steps in service” as unfounded.

Mayors in Miramar are elected every four years — and he could run again for that position. Overall, however, his options for serving a greater number of constituents, seem limited.

Should Democrats retake the White House, having control of the Senate will be key to advancing any of the sweeping changes championed by the party’s presidential candidates, including those pushed by the Miramar mayor before he suspend his campaign. But no senators from Florida are up for reelection in 2020. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and freshman Sen. Rick Scott (R) will face elections in 2022 and 2024, respectively, and Messam could challenge either, though that’s still several years off.

The mayor could also set his sights on the US House of Representatives. Miramar currently is represented by Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings, but Messam could challenge the longtime congressman from the left, or could take a page out of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Sestak’s book and primary Hastings on ethical grounds, given the allegations the congressman faces of sexual harassment and the loss of his judgeship due to corruption.

Whatever he does, he’ll do it with confidence — unflinching in his commitment to be the next president of the United States despite the polls, Messam’s decision to continue with his longshot campaign despite the challenges he faced can perhaps best be summed up in one of his tweets: “Doubt is the inability to believe that you possess the ability to succeed. Confidence is the inability to believe you’d fail.”

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2QCXguy

Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee, on November 20, 2019. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

A witness who was supposed to be good for Trump has damned him.

The opening statement from Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union, is one of the two most damning documents in the Ukraine scandal so far — at the level of the summary of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sondland’s testimony, which kicked off Wednesday’s impeachment hearings, lays out a clear timeline of President Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden. And it leaves absolutely no doubt as to what was going on.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland says. “The answer is yes.”

Sondland’s testimony also makes clear this was not some kind of rogue operation masterminded by Rudy Giuliani alone. He provides extensive documentation, including contemporary emails and text messages, showing that his own personal efforts in service of arranging the quid pro pro were authorized at the highest levels of the administration. On this point, Sondland does not mince his words:

Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

This is it. It’s the ballgame. Sondland’s testimony is the whole scandal in a nutshell: It makes clear that the president of the United States masterminded a conspiracy to use US foreign policy as a tool to cement his own hold on power.

Sondland’s story — and why it’s so damning

The timeline of the scandal as described in Sondland’s testimony begins on May 23, three days after President Zelensky’s inauguration. Sondland had attended the inauguration in his official capacity and, on May 23, met with the president to brief him on the new Ukrainian government as US policy.

The meeting, which included other US officials who worked on Ukraine, didn’t go as planned. Sondland and his team were attempting to arrange a meeting between Trump and Zelensky, which the latter badly wanted as a sign of his political strength. But Trump kept trying to force them to work with Rudy.

“President Trump directed us to ‘talk with Rudy.’ We understood that “talk with Rudy” meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer,” Sondland said. “We could abandon the efforts to schedule the White House phone call and White House visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest — or we could do as President Trump had directed and ‘talk with Rudy.’ We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us.”

Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Here, as in most of his testimony, Sondland presents himself as an innocent victim in all of this — pressured by the Trump administration to do shady things against his will. This is an obviously self-serving account of what happened, and, based on what other witnesses have said, a questionable one when it comes to issues that might implicate him personally in wrongdoing.

For example, Sondland claims that he did not know that the push to investigate Burisma was really about targeting the Biden “at the time” he was pushing for it, a claim that’s inconsistent with other testimony (He does admit that “today I know exactly what it means.”).

But the key issue here is not Sondland’s own culpability. It’s the president’s and the White House’s. And on that front, Sondland is relatively credible — he’s testifying against his own interest, as he’s still the US ambassador to the EU and thus serves at the pleasure of the president. What’s more, some of his testimony here is supported by email and text records.

So after meeting with Trump, Sondland’s testimony goes on to say, he began working with two other high-level US officials — Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and US Ambassador to Ukraine Kurt Volker — on coordinating the Trump-Zelensky meeting and other Ukraine issues. Perry and Volker were in charge of communicating directly with Giuliani, according to Sondland, but it becomes clear through these contacts that Giuliani is communicating the president’s desire for a meeting-for-investigations quid pro quo.

For example, in a July 10 White House meeting on Ukraine policy, Sondland testifies that “I recall mentioning the pre-requisite of investigations before any White House call or meeting.” On July 19, Sondland sends an email to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and other high-level officials in the Trump administration documenting his work in arranging a quid-pro-quo — White House meeting in exchange for the investigations Trump wanted:

I Talked to Zelensky just now… He is prepared to receive POTUS’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.

According to Sondland’s records, Mulvaney responded by saying “I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” This is confirmation that the top levels of the administration knew what was going on.

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said. “It was no secret.”

Sondland was not on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, where Trump makes it clear that the investigations he’s demanding target the Bidens. But on July 26, Sondland had a call with Trump that several officials have testified involved a discussion of investigating Biden. Sondland’s testimony does not dispute their memories directly, though he denies saying anything about Biden afterwards and hilariously suggests the call was about the rapper A$AP Rocky (who at the time was detained in Sweden):

Other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It is true that the President speaks loudly at times. I think we primarily discussed A$AP Rocky. It is true that the President likes to use colorful language…Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the President’s concerns.

In early August, Sondland spoke directly with Giuliani for what he claims was the first time. He recalls Giuliani specifically singling out investigations into Burisma as well as a conspiracy theory surrounding alleged Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election centering on a mythical DNC server.

“Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into corruption issues,” Sondland says. “Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two topics of importance to the President.”

The Ukrainians were fully aware of this. Volker cites an August 10 text from Andriy Yermak, a high-ranking aide to Zelensky as proof. In that message, Yermak commits to holding a press conference — a key demand of Giuliani and Trump’s — that would announce investigations into “Burisma and election meddling”

The next day, Sondland informed the State Department of the conversation with Yermak in an email addressed to Pompeo. The email clearly indicates that he was acting pursuant to the president’s desire, saying that the arrangement “will hopefully make the boss happy:”

Mike – Kurt and I negotiated a statement from [Zelensky] to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation. Ze plans to have a big presser on the openness subject (including specifics) next week.

“Again,” he testified, “everything was in the loop”

On August 22, he sent another email to Pompeo saying that they should “ask Zelensky to look him [Trump] in the eye” and inform him that Ukraine is ready to “move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US.” Sondland says that this would hopefully “break the logjam.”

Pompeo agrees, writing back simply: “Yes.”

The meeting wasn’t the only issue raised in Sondland’s testimony. He also discusses the White House suspension of US aid, which Sondland suggests also became part of the overall quid-pro-quo.

“By the end of the August, my belief was that if Ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention to fight corruption, specifically addressing Burisma and 2016 server, then the hold on military aid would be lifted,” he says.

On September 1, Zelensky met with Vice President Mike Pompeo. During this meeting, Sondland testifies that he told Yermak — Zelensky’s aide — that there was a clear quid-pro-quo arrangement on aid:

“I told Mr. Yermak that I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” he says. “I believed that the public statement we had been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal. I really regret that the Ukrainians were placed in that predicament, but I do not regret doing what I could to try to break the logjam and to solve the problem.”

That’s it: There were two quid-pro-quos in place, one for the meeting and another for the resumption of security aid. Sondland personally conveyed these arrangements to the Ukrainians, and has a paper trail linking his work to the president’s behavior.

Susan Walsh/AP

That’s not to say Sondland’s testimony is complete. He does not address the full extent of his private conversations with Trump, which testimony from other witnesses suggest make the investigation about Bidens quite early. He says comparatively little about the first week of September, in which the aid was still suspended and pressure on Ukraine was mounting. It’s clear Sondland is still covering for himself and, on some level, he may even be covering for the president.

But what he presents, incomplete as it is, is still damning. The Trump administration engaged in a conspiracy — and left a paper trail. They did it.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2Xy2V6u

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, on Nov. 20, 2019. | Andrew Harnik/AP

Sondland’s testimony was devastating for the secretary of state.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was more centrally involved in the Ukraine scheme than originally known — confirming the plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and Democrats made its way to the very top of the Trump administration’s foreign policy team.

That stunning revelation came during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing in the opening testimony of Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union. It was known that Pompeo was aware of the plan — for example, he was on the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — but the extent of his knowledge of the quid pro quo is new and damning.

Sondland outlined three specific instances in which Pompeo was made aware of the Ukraine scheme, and one where he directed US diplomats to engage with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Which means Pompeo wasn’t just an innocent bystander, blissfully unaware of what was going on — he was actively involved.

All this time there has been talk of two policies toward Ukraine: a traditional one led by US officials and an irregular one led by Giuliani. But after Sondland’s testimony, it’s pretty clear Pompeo played a role in both.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Pompeo was aware of the Ukraine quid pro quo

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland rhetorically asked the House Intelligence Committee. “The answer is yes,” adding later, “Everyone was in the loop.”

Pompeo is clearly included in “everyone” based on four specific instances the ambassador detailed in his opening testimony.

The first example is a July 19 email received by the secretary of state and other top officials, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

“I Talked to Zelensky just now … He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone,’” Sondland wrote. “He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.”

In other words, Sondland informed Ukraine’s president that he needed to commit to investigate the Bidens and Democrats during a future call with Trump. If Zelensky had complied, the quid pro quo plan would’ve nearly been complete — and Pompeo was aware.

Second, Sondland also revealed an email sent on August 11 to Ulrich Brechbuhl, a top adviser to Pompeo, and Lisa Kenna, the top diplomat’s executive secretary.

With the subject line “Ukraine,” Sondland wrote: “Mike – [former special Ukraine envoy] Kurt [Volker] and I negotiated a statement from Ze[lensky] to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation. Ze plans to have a big presser on the openness subject (including specifics) next week.”

“Gordon, I’ll pass to S,” Kenna replied, using the State Department’s abbreviation for the secretary of state. “Thank you.”

That’s big. As secretary of state, Pompeo surely knew how important it was for Zelensky to have a meeting with Trump to show America has Ukraine’s back as it fights off Russia’s invasion. Yet Sondland’s email made it clear that such a meeting was conditioned on Kyiv agreeing to open investigations into the Bidens and Democrats. It’s unclear, though, how Pompeo responded.

Third, Sondland detailed an August 22 email that he sent directly to Pompeo and copied Kenna about planning for a Trump-Zelensky meeting in Warsaw.

“Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for Potus to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place ([in] mid-Sept[ember), that Ze[lensky] should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US,” Sondland wrote. “Hopefully, that will break the logjam.”

Per Sondland, Pompeo simply replied, “Yes.”

Sondland was worried that nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine was purposefully held up, but he didn’t know why. His hope was that a brief Trump-Zelensky chat might lead the president to release the funds, and it seemed that Pompeo agreed. Trump, however, didn’t go to Warsaw and sent Vice President Mike Pence in his stead.

Finally, Sondland noted that “[e]ven as late as September 24, Secretary Pompeo was directing Kurt Volker to speak with Rudy Giuliani. In a WhatsApp message, Kurt Volker told me in part: ‘Spoke w Rudy per guidance from S.’” Remember that “S” is the State Department’s single-letter abbreviation for the secretary of state.

Which means that Pompeo knew how central Giuliani was to the scheme, and encouraged Sondland — and perhaps others — to coordinate with the president’s personal lawyer on Ukraine policy.

Put together, there’s just no way Pompeo can feign ignorance when it comes to the administration’s true aim toward Ukraine. He was not only made aware if it, but in at least one instance directed a specific action — the outreach to Giuliani.

This is all potentially damaging for his future political aspirations, and it may further embroil Pompeo in a crisis he’s tried hard to stay away from. At this point it wouldn’t be surprising — or unwarranted — for House Democrats to ask Pompeo to testify based on Sondland’s testimony.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2rdKpV2

Ariana Grande, Bon Iver, and Lana Del Rey round out the pack.

For some music aficionados, the Grammy Awards are the most important event of the year. Good news for them: The road to January 26, 2020, and the 62nd rendition of the annual ceremony has begun as the nominees have officially been announced.

Leading the pack is Lizzo, with eight nominations. The flutist-rapper-singer-dancer extraordinaire is up for some of the biggest Grammys, including Album of the Year, Song of the Year, and Record of the Year. Lizzo’s nominations — her first — are a fitting capper to an impressive year for the artist, whose songs “Truth Hurts” and “Juice” ruled the charts in 2019.

Also earning their first Grammy nominations are 17-year-old pop wunderkind Billie Eilish and 20-year-old genre-blending rapper Lil Nas X, who follow closely behind Lizzo in the overall field with six nominations each. Next comes the more seasoned Grammy nominee Ariana Grande with five nominations, including her first-ever nod in the Album of the Year category for the revelatory thank u, next, led by the single “7 rings.”

A surprise big category squeaker — there’s always one! — is Lil Nas X, whose remix of “Old Town Road” featuring Billy Ray Cyrus became an inescapable earworm this year. The hit country-trap single broke Billboard chart records and spawned numerous remixes, so its Record of the Year nomination is expected and deserved, as is Lil Nas X’s Best New Artist nod. But his Album of the Year nomination for his debut EP, 7 — which features two versions of “Old Town Road” and five other comparatively scant tracks — has left us scratching our heads.

Also up for Album of the Year are works by a trio of artists who transcended indie tastemakers’ playlists to find mainstream success: i,i by Bon Iver, who previously won Best New Artist (after the release of Bon Iver, Bon Iver in 2014); Father of the Bride by Vampire Weekend, marking the band’s first-ever Grammy nod in one of the award’s top three categories; and Norman Fucking Rockwell! by Lana Del Rey, who has been nominated for multiple Grammys in the past, but never Album of the Year.

A notable omission is Lover by Taylor Swift, which was well-received as both a maturation and return to country-pop form for the singer. Although the title track and “You Need to Calm Down” received individual nominations, the full album did not. It’s possible that Swift cut it too close to the Grammys’ window of eligibility to garner much notice from voters for the full-length LP. Lover was released on August 23, just ahead of the Grammys’ cutoff on August 31.

Below, we’ve listed all the nominees in the Grammys’ four major categories, which recognize artists across all genres.

Visit the Grammys’ website for the full roster of nominees in all 84 categories.

Album of the Year

(This award is given to an entire album and all of its songs.)

• thank u, next — Ariana Grande
• WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO? — Billie Eilish
• i,i — Bon Iver
• I Used to Know Her — H.E.R.
• Norman Fucking Rockwell! — Lana Del Rey
• 7 EP — Lil Nas X
• Cuz I Love You — Lizzo
• Father of the Bride — Vampire Weekend

Song of the Year

(This award goes to the songwriters of a song.)

• “Always Remember Us This Way” — Natalie Hemby, Lady Gaga, Hillary Lindsey, and Lori McKenna, songwriters (Lady Gaga)
• “Bad Guy” — Billie Eilish O’Connell and Finneas O’Connell, songwriters (Billie Eilish)
• “Bring My Flowers Now” — Brandi Carlile, Phil Hanseroth, Tim Hanseroth, and Tanya Tucker, songwriters (Tanya Tucker)
• “Hard Place” — Ruby Amanfu, Sam Ashworth, D. Arcelious Harris. H.E.R., and Rodney Jerkins, songwriters (H.E.R.)
• “Lover” — Taylor Swift, songwriter (Taylor Swift)
• “Norman Fucking Rockwell” — Jack Antonoff and Lana Del Rey, songwriters (Lana Del Rey)
• “Someone You Loved” — Tom Barnes, Lewis Capaldi, Pere Kelleher, Benjamin Kohn, and Sam Roman, songwriters (Lewis Capaldi)
• “Truth Hurts” — Steven Cheung, Eric Frederic, Melissa Jefferson, and Jesse Saint John, songwriters (Lizzo)

Record of the Year

(This award goes to the overall production of a single song and is awarded to the artist who records it.)

• “Hey, Ma” — Bon Iver
• “Bad Guy” — Billie Eilish
• “7 Rings” — Ariana Grande
• “Hard Place” — H.E.R.
• “Talk” — Khalid
• “Old Town Road” — Lil Nas X featuring Billy Ray Cyrus
• “Truth Hurts” — Lizzo
• “Sunflower” — Post Malone & Swae Lee

Best New Artist

(This award is given to artists who have released their breakthrough recording during the Grammy eligibility period — October 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019, in this case — not to artists who made their first recording during that time.)

• Billie Eilish
• Black Pumas
• Lil Nas X
• Maggie Rogers
• Rosalia
• Tank and the Bangas
• Yola

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2O37J0A

Most of the remaining 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have put out comprehensive visions to combat climate change. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Tactics include taxing carbon, prosecuting polluters, space mirrors, and trillions of dollars in investment.

The field of Democratic 2020 presidential contenders has narrowed, but there will still be 10 on stage Wednesday night for the fifth official televised debate in Atlanta, Georgia.

A recent poll, first reported by Emily Atkin at HEATED, showed that 71 percent of Democratic voters in Georgia want candidates to talk about climate change and that 70 percent think the federal government should be doing more to address it. The question is how much it will come up, and whether it will lead to a meaningful discussion.

Given what we’ve seen in the other debates — a few scattered and shallow questions on climate, or none whatsoever — it’s unlikely that the issue will get much attention Wednesday. In September, MSNBC and CNN devoted several hours of airtime to town halls with candidates to discuss how to cope with rising sea levels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the serial interview format meant that candidates couldn’t challenge each other directly as they would during a debate.

Yet even as climate has been sidelined in the debates, the presidential candidates have been cranking out comprehensive strategies for dealing with it.

These plans show just how important the issue is in the 2020 race and how much the discussion has evolved in a short amount of time. No Democrat who has eyes on the White House can come to the table without a credible plan to limit greenhouse gases, adapt to rising seas, and to ensure a just transition toward a clean economy.

Much of the credit for this surge in attention goes to activists from groups like the Sunrise Movement. With their signature climate policy framework, the Green New Deal, Sunrise set the agenda for the climate discussion among candidates earlier this year.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee also deserves much credit. Though he’s now out of the race, his campaign’s singular focus on climate change set the policy benchmark against which other candidates are being compared. Fellow presidential contenders praised his agenda, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren has hired some of his staffers.

As for the remaining candidates’ plans, most agree that climate change demands a policy response to zero out the country’s emissions. Where they differ is in how they want to get there, how they will draw on sources like nuclear power, how much federal government investment they need, and the political levers they’ll use to enact their visions.

Here is how 2020 Democratic presidential candidates intend to fight climate change

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): With Inslee out of the race, Sanders’s plan to combat climate change has become the yardstick for judging the other proposals on the table.

He has adopted the Green New Deal branding for his own proposal, which has the largest price tag in the field of 2020 presidential climate ambitions: $16.3 trillion. The money, according to Sanders, will come from sources including income taxes from 20 million new jobs, taxes on fossil fuels, defense budget savings from no longer protecting oil shipping, and selling power via federal power marketing authorities.

That money would then be spent on measures like a climate resilience fund, deploying renewable energy, building a high-voltage direct current network, and supporting the United Nations Green Climate Fund.

The plan also calls for zeroing out emissions from transportation and power generation by 2030. Sanders also takes the most aggressive line against the fossil fuel industry. In addition to raising taxes on the industry and pursuing civil litigation, Sanders wants criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters like Exxon Mobil.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Fighting corruption and the influence of money in politics has been the central theme of Warren’s campaign for the White House. But rather than putting out one central climate change agenda, she has incorporated it into her proposals for public lands, the military, trade, US manufacturing, and climate risk disclosure. She also borrowed Inslee’s vision for reaching 100 percent clean energy.

“When I first started thinking about how to describe what I will fight for when I run for president, I decided I wasn’t going to do one climate plan,” she said during the CNN climate town hall. “I decided I was going to try to look at climate in every part of the plans I’m working on.”

By framing climate change as an issue of economics, public resources, and national security instead of just as an environmental issue, Warren is laying out a climate case for the general election, not just the primary. It would keep climate change as a front-burner issue, even in the event of a recession or an international conflict, while perhaps drawing in voters who don’t see climate change as a top-tier concern.

Andrew Yang: The entrepreneur is an unconventional candidate compared to the slate of current and former public officials running for the White House. So it isn’t too surprising that he has a unique approach to climate change.

In addition to his signature proposal of a $1,000 per month “Freedom Dividend,” Yang has put out a long, technology-centered climate agenda that pursues energy sources like thorium-based nuclear energy. He aims to power the US completely by renewable energy by 2035 (it’s unclear if nuclear, a clean but not renewable energy source, would be used toward that goal). The proposal also calls for research into some of the more controversial climate change mitigation approaches like geoengineering. This can include mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away or spraying particles into the air to cool the planet.

But unlike some of the other candidates, Yang is frank that there will be unavoidable consequences from climate change and that people will have to move as a result. His plan allocates $40 billion in grants for people in coastal areas to move inland, $30 billion for infrastructure like seawalls, and $25 billion for disaster planning. It’s bleak, but arguably prudent.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA): During her time as California’s attorney general, Harris launched an investigation into oil giant Exxon Mobil to see whether the company lied to investors and to the public about what it knew about climate change.

She is leaning on this experience prosecuting polluters in her plan to fight climate change. Her $10 trillion plan includes many of the conventional provisions like public and private investment in projects such as job training, repairing water infrastructure, and switching to clean energy. But it also includes expanded access to the legal system for people to hold greenhouse gas emitters accountable.

“Access to the courts is fundamental for Americans to hold polluters accountable,” her climate plan reads. “By statutorily reinforcing standing for those harmed by pollution and strengthening counsel-access provisions, we can protect access to the courts for citizens seeking restitution for environmental and climate-related damages.”

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: The youngest candidate in the race, the 37-year-old says he has a personal stake in the low-carbon future. “Because when we’re talking about whether we hit this target of 2050, decarbonizing the economy,” he said during the CNN town hall. “Lord willing I plan to be here. I would be in my 60s.”

His suite of strategies to address climate change take pains to address impacts across all parts of the country, not just the coasts. He calls for equitable disaster relief funding, national extreme weather insurance, climate-smart agriculture, and regional hubs to increase resilience to local climate-related risks.

The plan would cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion and create instruments to limit greenhouse gases like a clean energy bank, tax credits for carbon capture, a transition fund for workers who might see their jobs disappear. The proposal also calls for a carbon tax with revenues distributed back to low- and middle-income Americans as a rebate.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): The Minnesota senator has published a climate agenda to “mobilize the heartland and leave no one behind.” Her plan begins with executive actions to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, restore the Clean Power Plan, and sign legislation to reach net zero emissions by 2050. She estimated the cost of her proposal to be between $2 and $3 trillion, funded in large part by pricing carbon emissions.

Her tactics include a $1 trillion infrastructure package to modernize the power grid with union labor, retrofit buildings for energy efficiency, and implement new zoning policies with federal housing grants.

Klobuchar was skeptical about some of the elements of the Green New Deal, like reducing air travel, but she ultimately cosponsored the resolution. She also says that she will not ban fracking and is open to carbon capture for fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): Booker has long framed environmental issues, including climate change, as social justice concerns. The transition toward clean energy needs to address the needs and grievances of marginalized communities.

His plans invests $3 trillion over ten years with the aim of reaching zero-carbon electricity production by 2030 and making the US economy carbon neutral by 2045. Booker wants to end fossil fuel development on public lands. He is also in favor of nuclear energy. “Right now nuclear is more than 50% of our non-carbon causing energy,” Booker said. “People who think that we can get there without nuclear being part of the blend just aren’t looking at the facts.”

He also said that rejoining the Paris agreement isn’t enough and that the United States needs to take a more aggressive leadership role on climate change on the international stage. Though he’s a vegan, Booker said that he isn’t coming for anyone’s burgers, but says that US food production could be restructured in a way that’s more sustainable and more just for the farmers themselves.

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden has the distinction of introducing the first climate change bill in the Senate, way back in 1986.

His climate proposal is roughly in line with those from other candidates, pegged to the 2050 deadline. The mechanisms for hitting the target include changes to the US tax code; job training and other equity provisions for those most impacted by climate change and the shift away from fossil fuels; and diplomatic pressure on other countries to reduce their emissions.

The agenda calls for $1.7 trillion in federal spending over the next decade on these policies. Biden has also pledged to refuse fossil fuel funding, backed the Green New Deal, and supported holding a climate change debate. And in the first primary debate in June, Biden highlighted his commitment to electrifying the US vehicle fleet. “I would immediately insist that we in fact build 500,000 recharging stations throughout the United States of America, working with governors, mayors and others, so that we can go to a full electric vehicle future by the year 2020 — by the year 2030,” he said.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI): Representing an island state threatened by sea level rise, she has frequently brought up the importance of tackling climate change during her time in office and on the campaign trail.

In 2017, Gabbard introduced one of the most aggressive bills to fight climate change, the OFF Fossil Fuels Act, which aims to move the entire US economy to 100 percent clean energy by 2035.

“We have to address the seriousness of this threat and stop treating it like a political football,” she said during a campaign stop. “We can and must do so by recognizing that the effects of climate change are threatening people in communities all across the country, whether you’re in a Republican state or a Democratic state.”

However, Gabbard has been more circumspect about the Green New Deal. She did not cosponsor the resolution and said was concerned about the “vagueness of the language,” but later said that she supports that carbon neutrality goals of the proposal. She also said she is reluctant to support nuclear energy without a permanent solution for nuclear waste.

Tom Steyer: The billionaire venture capitalist, who has qualified for the October debate, has already poured millions of dollars of his own money into an impeachment ad campaign and started his own climate nonprofit, NextGen America. His plan to combat climate change centers on justice, for marginalized communities and globally.

“The United States must recognize both our historic responsibility for producing the bulk of planet-heating pollution and the great opportunity to lead the world by responding to this crisis,” his plan read.

It calls for $2 trillion in federal investment over 10 years and net-zero emissions by 2045. That money would be spent on programs including $250 billion on community climate bonds and creating a civilian climate corps. The proposal also calls for a cabinet-level position to coordinate a national climate change response effort.

Candidates that are still in the race but failed to qualify for the debate

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO): The Colorado senator has laid out not just an agenda but an “enforceable timeline” for climate action. Building on the net-zero by 2050 goal, Bennet wants to have a global climate summit in his first 100 days to set even more ambitious goals. (He does not explain what the summit will accomplish that dozens of similar summits haven’t.)

He also calls for the creation of a climate bank to drive private sector financing of clean energy and climate resilience projects, to the tune of $10 trillion in the US and around the world. For utility customers, Bennet wants to establish the option of buying clean electricity.

However, Bennet’s record on climate change might be tougher for environmental activists to support. He has backed natural gas as a “bridge fuel” and supported new pipelines. On the campaign trail, he has been circumspect about the Green New Deal, declining to support or criticize it outright. However, he has pledged not to take fossil fuel money or funding from corporate PACs.

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro: The fundamental injustice of climate change is that the people who contributed least to the problem stand to suffer the most. That’s why Castro is framing climate change as an issue of civil rights.

His proposal calls for $10 trillion over 10 years for clean energy and resilience to get to net-zero emissions by 2045. It also calls for new laws to combat environmental discrimination, more civil litigation from the Environmental Protection Agency, and direct the federal government to proactively protect low-income communities and communities of color from pollution.

Castro has also called for creating a new classification for refugees fleeing climate-related disasters. More than 140 million may be displaced as a result of climate change by 2050 according to the World Bank, and Castro wants to create a mechanism to help people before a disaster strikes.

---

Correction: An earlier version of the story misstated when Joe Biden first introduced his climate bill and when his campaign began publicly discussing a climate agenda.

from Vox – All https://ift.tt/2LqbVX1