Sean Maloney on Principles & Values

Endorsed National Dems' "Front line incumbent retention" target.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has added nine candidates to its "Red to Blue" list, a designation singling out strong campaigns in open or Republican-held districts. The list now includes two categories: targeted districts and "emerging" districts which may be targeted later.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is funding two programs [mostly via PAC-funded TV advertising] in the 2014 cycle: "Red-to-Blue" in Republican-held districts, and "Frontline" to defend Democratic-held districts.

Press Release from DCCCDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel named 26 of his colleagues to the Frontline program, a committee program designed to protect their most vulnerable incumbents. "We call this program Frontline for a reason--these Members are on the vanguard of protecting and expanding the middle class," Israel said in a written statement. "While the 2014 campaign will be dominated by a strong offense taking on the Tea Party Republican Congress, our success begins with our Members," added Israel, a Democrat from New York. "These battle-tested men and women have proven time and again that they can win because no one better reflects the values of their districts."

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn. will spearhead the program as its chairman. He's a Frontline alumnus as recently as the 2012 cycle. Otherwise, the list includes several freshman members and Blue Dog Democrats:

Religious freedom means no religious registry.

Congressional Summary: Notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien's religion or lack of religious beliefs.

Argument Opposed: [Countable.us]: "The U.S. should reserve the right to ban immigrants based on religion. The government may need to enact such a ban in response to a future acts of terror, which could save American lives."

Argument In Favor: [Cato Institute, Dec. 8, 2016]: Donald Trump proposed prohibiting all Muslim immigration; then specified "suspending immigration from nations tied to Islamic terror." He said, "People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East," but that he would "stop that dead, cold flat," during his first day in office. However, under current law, it is illegal to discriminate against immigrants based on their national origin. For almost a decade, Congress debated creating an immigration system free from discrimination by nationality, country of birth, or country of residence. President-elect Trump, however, now proposes to discriminate unlawfully against certain foreign nationals on the basis of the same protected grounds without any legislation from Congress.

Question Trump on Emoluments clause.

Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:

• When the Trump Organization receives income from a government agency, how is that income segregated & reported?
• How does the Trump Organization determine if income is derived from foreign governments?
• Trump promised to "donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the US Treasury." Has the Trump Organization created a mechanism to make such payments?
• What is the estimated value of the 38 Chinese trademarks recently awarded to the Trump Organization? And the reported 157 pending trademark applications in 36 countries?

Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.

FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.

Impeachment is remedy for personal interests over country.

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to "do us a favor though" and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Although President Trump's scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President's Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to "get over it."

President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President's reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today. However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment. Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President's misconduct warrants that remedy.