Tough Choices, and Criticism, for Emily’s List as Democratic Women Flood Primaries

[ad_1]

“It becomes a kind of Catch-22,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “One of their criteria is the issue of viability, but without their endorsement, viability becomes very tough, because so many people use them as their barometer of, ‘Oh, does this woman have a chance?’”

Emily’s List has also faced criticism that it does not do enough to lift up women of color. Nina Turner, an African-American former state senator from Ohio who was endorsed by Emily’s List when she ran for secretary of state in 2014, said minorities may face higher hurdles than white women in raising money, because they are less likely to come from wealthy circles.

“I got the money late when I needed it early because they were judging my ability to fund-raise more than where I stood on the issues,” Ms. Turner said, adding, “I don’t think they take into consideration the hurdles that black and Hispanic women have to jump when you judge viability.”

Ms. Schriock said Emily’s List does recognize “the obstacles that are particularly in front of women of color.”

“Do we have to do more?” she asked. “Absolutely, as does the party.”

In the Georgia governor’s primary, race — and a chance to make history — was “a big piece,” but not the only consideration, in Emily’s List’s decision to endorse Ms. Abrams, who is African-American, Ms. Schriock said. Ms. Abrams, a former minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, has a national profile and a longstanding relationship with Emily’s List, which gave her its rising star award in 2014. If elected, she would become the nation’s first black female governor.

She has also outraised Ms. Evans, reporting nearly $3.3 million in campaign contributions, according to campaign filings in Georgia, compared with $2.6 million for Ms. Evans.

Some political analysts say that Ms. Evans might have broader appeal with white moderates and thus a better chance of winning a Georgia general election. Ms. Schriock disagrees. She says Emily’s List is counting on Ms. Abrams, who is favored to win the primary, to expand the Democratic electorate by pulling in black and Latino voters who might not otherwise go to the polls.

The Georgia WIN List, Georgia’s equivalent of Emily’s List, has remained neutral in the campaign.

“For us to have chosen between the two, it would have destroyed my organization,” said Melita Easters, the group’s chairwoman.

[ad_2]

Source link

Trump to Add Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Emmet Flood to Replace Ty Cobb

[ad_1]

It was not clear what prompted Mr. Flood to sign on. The president’s legal team for the special counsel investigation has been marked by turnover and uncertain strategy, complicated by a client liable to dismiss his lawyers’ advice. That factor prompted Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer on the case, John Dowd, to quit this year. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who is a longtime confidant of the president, has come on board pledging to negotiate an interview for the president with the special counsel.

Emerging as part of those negotiations, a set of questions from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, shows that he wanted to quiz Mr. Trump on an exhaustive array of subjects, including his contacts with Russia as well as his mind-set leading up to and during a number of acts that could construe an attempt to obstruct the inquiry itself.

Mr. Flood was part of a team of lawyers who represented Mr. Clinton during his impeachment proceedings. Though he did not have a high-profile role, Mr. Flood did attend the Senate’s deposition of Mr. Clinton’s lawyer and confidant, Vernon E. Jordan Jr.

He was also the lead lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office during George W. Bush’s second term in dealing with congressional investigations, including the examination of the Bush administration’s decision to dismiss seven United States attorneys. In private practice, Mr. Flood represented former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Mr. Cobb arrived at the White House last summer as some of Mr. Trump’s friends and advisers encouraged the president to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. Cobb feared that the special counsel was on the verge of issuing subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from White House aides, a move that could have locked the administration in a contentious court fight it was certain to lose. Instead, he repeatedly declared the White House to be in “full cooperation mode.”

He said publicly that the White House had no interest in firing Mr. Mueller, and told friends privately that he would not remain in the administration if Mr. Trump moved to fire the special counsel.

“There is not and will not be any consideration of terminating the special counsel, Bob Mueller,” Mr. Cobb said in an interview in October. “I think the path that he chose of trying to minimize conflict and maximize cooperation is one that benefits the country.”

Mr. Cobb’s hiring appeared to have a soothing effect on the president last year. He repeatedly assured Mr. Trump and the public that the Mueller investigation would end quickly — first by Thanksgiving, then by the start of the new year. Whether that was wishful thinking or an effort to calm an irascible president, Mr. Cobb’s prediction proved incorrect.

Continue reading the main story

Behind the scenes, as Mr. Cobb rushed to turn over records to Mr. Mueller, his relationship soured with the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, who thought Mr. Cobb should have more thoroughly reviewed documents and been willing to assert executive privilege. Mr. Cobb in turn thought that Mr. McGahn’s early response to the investigation had been too slow, bringing the White House to the verge of a subpoena.

Mr. Cobb, a longtime white-collar defense lawyer, was not a supporter of the Trump campaign and never viewed himself as part of that team. He has donated money to both Republicans and Democrats and supported Jeb Bush for president in the 2016 election.

He joked that he had “rocks in his head” as he took the job, and told friends that he expected to stay at the White House only as long as it took to turn over all the information to Mr. Mueller and arrange staff interviews with prosecutors. That job is nearly complete, with only Mr. Trump’s interview with prosecutors still being negotiated.

As for Mr. Flood, he has already had a whiff of the drama that follows Mr. Trump. Following a New York Times report in March that Mr. Trump was in discussions to hire Mr. Flood, the president attacked the article and one of the reporters who wrote it.

Continue reading the main story

[ad_2]

Source link